This is what I heard from a friend, Michael Bugg, a very concerned political thinker from Western Kentucky, regarding my endorsements for president. He gave me permission to post it, and I think it is worth posting. Mark

Mark,

I used the link and read your endorsement and I agree that those two would be the preferable choices of the remaining candidates. I've always thought that Hillary was too willing to satisfy Big Business, and I've said for years that Bill was the best REPUBLICAN president we've ever had!

You are right about the likelihood of change produced by the various candidates. The neo-cons and the corporate owned news media want Hillary to be the nominee instead of EDWARDS, the candidate who most likely represented CHANGE, and the Democrat who had and still HAS the best chance of winning in November.
For the life of me I cannot comprehend why Democratic voters are hell bent on nominating either of the two who have the least certainty to win in November instead of Edwards!

The neo-cons WANT either Hillary or Barak because they see those two as the most vulnerable to their standard "smear and fear" tactics. Edwards was the least vulnerable to that, and as far as I'm concerned he and Kerry actually won in 2004 but were cheated out of it again, so he has proven he can win in less favorable conditions than we have now. His only major negative was that he was a successful lawyer who lived in a 28,000 sq foot house and he got a $400 hair cut instead of going to a local barber.

The e-mail smear campaign is already in full swing against Barak and Hillary, not to mention that a lot of Democrats, and not just southern Democrats, WON'T vote for a black man for president, especially one with an Islamic sounding name. And obviously as the primaries have shown, a lot of Democrats don't want to vote for a woman, and this woman in particular! They will either vote for a white Republican, or not vote at all. Low turn-out helps Republicans usually, especially if they nominate someone who does not excite their voters.

By the same token I have a better chance of winning than Cynthia McKinney has, and I like her as well. If Hillary is the nominee, and manages to win, they see her as the Democrat least likely to actually change anything or ask the kind of questions Cynthia would ask. Cynthia has already proven she will rock the boat!

It's kind of funny to me, and I intended to write this to NPR this morning, that the Republicans are embracing McCain after the way Bush's people smeared him in 2000, and I think that publicly bashing him for being "too liberal" is a ploy to dupe swing voters into voting for him. According to his voting record he is anything but liberal, or progressive, or centrist, or truly conservative. He is a war loving SELFATIVE (self righteous, self-serving, self-centered, self-aggrandizing, and selfish -- a word I coined in 2000) like the rest of them!

Some people see McCain as the next Bob Dole, but I say that is far from certain if either Hillary or Barak are the nominee, unless the economy is much worse in October than it is now. Never underestimate the ability of the American people to be swayed by nonsense! Like before the Iraq "war" for instance.

One last observation. It is amusing to me that the news media, including NPR, is gobbling up and reporting the data from all the polls and exit polls so far without question. But recall how quickly they ignored that data in 2000 and again in 2004 when people used it to complain that the elections had been stolen!

Feel free to post this on your blog.

Later... Michael Bugg