I'm waiting till after the South Carolina primary.

I just voted early. I was assured by some really nice blue haired old ladies that "voting with the box" was much more secure than a paper ballot. However, I did manage confuse those in the room when I asked what server the ethernet connection went to. No one could answer what "that white wire connected to". We settled on wire because no one in the room had heard of ethernet or cat5.

We're idiots for letting idiots in charge. Again, take your camera.

We need a President who will act from convictions, not political calculations, and talk straight with us. Barack Obama will stand up for all Americans, working with Democrats, Independents, and Republicans to deliver soultions to the problems we face.

I'm voting for Obama as soon as the election commission processes my registration form... seems they are a little overwhelmed by new registrations. I moved to Knoxville from upstate NY a year ago, so I had to register in Tennessee. The election commission said it would be done by Feb 5th, and that I could vote early if it was processed before Jan 31st.

As far as the local primary I think the only thing I can vote for is County Clerk since there are no Democrats running for County Commission in the 5th district. I'll be voting for Amy Vandergriff for Clerk.

Amy Henley-Vandergriff will streamline the county clerk office and refocus it on serving the community first.

For more info on Barack Obama check out http://tn.barackobama.com or call the Obama Tennessee HQ (615-250-7838). The Knoxville Obama campaign can be reached by emailing Michael Moore (michael.obamatn@gmail.com)

For more info on Amy Henley-Vandergriff check out http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/13/amy-henley-vandergriff/

For those who are interested:

(link...)

-----------------------------------------
Fighting for Reform and Representation, Fourth District
Steve Drevik, Commission Seat 4-B
(link...)

I'm done..I've voted

I voted for Sam McKenzie in the 1st district democratic primary.

KUB claims transportation costs are the reason. But common sense says transportation costs of almost $1.00 per therm is nothing more than gouging.

I don't have a dog in that fight since I live where I have to tank propane, but shouldn't the proximity of the Colonial Pipeline off Middlebrook Pike cause natural gas transportation costs to be somewhat lower than in other parts of the country?

I thought that was one of the reasons Knoxville area gasoline prices were not as terrible as in some places.

Wearybottom Associates

give Edward Klein's book a chance. His credentials appear to be impeccable.

A little research might be in order before you go recommending this book.

The Truth About Hillary is being published by Sentinel, a two-year-old conservative imprint of the Penguin Putnam publishing house. According to The Washington Times, sales materials produced by the publisher claim: "Just as the Swift Boat Veterans convinced millions of voters that John Kerry lacked the character to be president, Klein's book will influence everyone who is sizing up the character of Hillary Clinton." Similarly, the New York Post reported on April 12 that Sentinel spokesperson Will Weisser "said he hoped that The Truth About Hillary would do to Clinton what the Swift Boat Veterans bestseller did to Kerry. 'That would be our fondest wish,' he said, before adding, 'We're just trying to sell books. It will be up to the voters to read the book and decide for themselves about Senator Clinton. We're not out to get anyone, per se."

And...

The Truth About Hillary author Edward Klein reportedly has a personal dislike of the Clintons; the New York Post reported in December that an "insider said Klein doesn't care for the Clintons, and he is digging up some new dirt on them."

That dislike may have motivated Klein to rely on the notoriously unreliable Dick Morris, who said on Hannity & Colmes that he was interviewed for the book. Morris's comments about Clinton should, of course, be taken with a shaker of salt; not only has he repeatedly made false and misleading claims about her, he also acknowledged that he'll do anything to defeat her.

What next? Should we listen to Chris Matthews every night before we "make up our minds?"

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

The only thing I do know for sure is that any of the Democratic candidates for president would be better than any of the Republican candidates. Bush clones are the last thing this country needs, and the Republicans all seem to be in that mode, except for the ones who never had a chance anyway.

In my opinion:

Huckabee is probably a nice guy, but he obviously has no respect for the seperation of Church and State and that is one principle which I believe most of our individual freedoms rely on.

Guiliani is a tyrannical ego-maniac who will only increase fear and spending for "protective measures", which I also see as a danger to privacy and freedom.

Mitt Romney is a corporate robot. He would put the "bottom line" before human beings every time. Romney hasn't much of what I consider "soul". He wants everything to be compartmentalized and clean and as uniform and standard as a Henry Ford car or McDonald's drive-in.

Ron Paul can't be considered because he let his organization publish detestable racist remarks, then claimed he had no idea what his organization was publishing at the time. Who would want a president who hasn't a clue what his underlings are up to?

John McCain used to have my respect, but his reason and compassion seems to have disappeared as he now sings GW's praises loud and clear every chance he gets and the poor fool actually think the war was a good idea.

On the Democratic side we have Hillary (and her charismatic and able consort Bill). They have done some good for minorities and Hillary's attempt to bring health care to everyone way back when was a noble effort, but the Clintons are highly polished, often ruthless Washington politicos with obvious ties to many special interests. The Lewinsky affair proved Bill is a fool and Hillary a confusing role model for women. She stood by her man--or was she just being a smart politician who knew divorcing Bill would ruin her ambitions?

If you have no desire to change the direction of our country and to improve its image world wide, if you want someone who knows "the game" and how to play it well, then then I'd go for Hillary, but if you're looking for a person who desires and is able to restore American ideals and bring real hope and change then the Clintons (and yes, there is no way to get only ONE Clinton in the White House) can't seem like a good choice.

Edwards is a one issue candidate. He will have his chance to prove helping the working class is truly his "life's work". He doesn't need to be in the White House to do that. Jimmy Carter vowed to fight poverty and he has gone on to prove that he meant it. Edwards can do the same, but he just doesn't have what it takes to get the whole country behind him. And if he tells the same mill story one more time or the dead girl because of the insurance company story, I think I'll scream.

The others had some good ideas. Richardson especially. Kucinich in some cases, but when you put all the candidates together only one seems to have it all. For me, it is BARACK OBAMA.

Can he lead? Yes, indeed! He already is.

Obama has risen up from the grassroots base of America to lead the way away from war. He has changed the tone of the debate to the point where the edgy Clinton attack-model looks cheap and tawdry, and he has inspired millions to renew their belief in things like equality, dignity, and American ideals. Barack Obama is very intelligent and quite capable of creating an adminisitration that operates on reason rather than ambition. He is also a symbol of a new America, one that is not color and race divided, one that is tolerant of people's religious beliefs, one that is not based on fear, but compassion.

In the 2nd District, I'm all for Amy Broyles. She is a tireless community worker with a good grasp of local politics. I'll vote for her because she has put her feet and her mind behind her advertised intentions to be a good councilwoman. Every neighborhood meeting you go to, there's Amy. She asks questions. She knows how to listen. She's a fantastic organizer. Environmentally, economically and neighborhood-wise, I really admire her.

I don't know a whole lot about Piper. Over the course of the last year, I've only met her once or twice at community meetings. She seems nice, but nothing stands out, and some of her campaign tactics or those of her supporters are questionable. Trash mailings in her name recently arrived in a lot of mailboxes in our district. This has hurt her campaign. Piper also has HUGE signs posted everywhere. I guess she needs to boost her name recognition or she has money to burn on advertising. Amy doesn't have to adsvertise who she is as much because so many people in the District know her name. They know they can call her about problems. They know she will answer questionas professionally and honestly. They know she is very involved in every aspect of our community.

Who will win? We just don't know, but as a person who still belivves that we must use our power to vote or lose it entirely and someone who believes that grassroot's movements and citizen particpation can bring about change, I'm always fascinated by elections.

This one has not been disappointing. I think it has been very exciting and energizing.

Andy, "stupid"? Name calling so soon? It doesn't take much to get under your skin, huh? What's your agenda? Fighting, arguing and belittling? When you call somebody stupid does that make you feel superior? You get off on putting people down?

Don't tell me you've never heard the expression, "It's the economy, stupid." I was using what's called in the parlance of our times a "paraphrase" - for the humor-impaired, I was making a mocking reference to Carville's old Clinton campaign saw.

Have you not heard that expression? Do you not follow politics? I mean, I may have mistakenly assumed that you did, seeing as how you were kinda, y'know, talking about them and all. My bad.

"I know you not at all"? You're flattering yourself.

Well, unless you're using a pseudonym, I don't know a Joseph Addante. You're not registered here. So how could you know me? Come clean, or I'll just have to assume I've earned myself a troll. (Rough guess via Google... are you a podiatrist? I've got this nagging case of plantar fasciitis...)

At the end of your post you wrote "there is no such thing as Objective Journalism".

Yep. I did. It's a quote from Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 by the late Hunter S. Thompson. See, thing is, I do actually read. And yeah - everyone brings a bias to their reportage. Some just have an agenda about it.

More HST:

We've come to a point where every four years this national fever rises up — this hunger for the Saviour, the White Knight, the Man on Horseback — and whoever wins becomes so immensely powerful, like Nixon is now, that when you vote for President today you're talking about giving a man dictatorial power for four years. I think it might be better to have the President sort of like the King of England — or the Queen — and have the real business of the presidency conducted by... a City Manager-type, a Prime Minister, somebody who's directly answerable to Congress, rather than a person who moves all his friends into the White House and does whatever he wants for four years. The whole framework of the presidency is getting out of hand. It's come to the point where you almost can't run unless you can cause people to salivate and whip each other with big sticks. You almost have to be a rock star to get the kind of fever you need to survive in American politics.

Keen observer, that guy.

That's something, "I don't watch Fox Noise", you don't practice.

So now I have to make excuses for my decisions based on the feedback of some random sock puppet on the Internets? Ooooh. I'm positively trembling in my shame.

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.