Obama is not 'the Change"

Obama is not "the change". Obama has received more corporate money than any other candidate except Hillary Clinton. He is also second to Clinton in money received from the health industry. As Michael Moore wrote this morning: "...[Obama] tell me why you are now the second largest recipient of health industry payola after Hillary. You now take more money from the people committed to stopping universal health care than any of the Republican candidates." It is no wonder he refuses to call for mandatory universal health care (which I can't really be universal if its not mandatory--I still don't understand why pundits keep calling it universal). If the wealthy don't have to buy into it, they won't and without their money it won't work. It is wonderful that a black man has won in an all white state. It is monumental for our country, but Obama, unfortunately, has yet to speak strongly against racism. He has not taken a strong stand on the Jena Six case (see : http://www.alternet.org/democracy/72713/ for more on Obama and race). Also, when most progressives were backing the anti-war candicacy of Ned Lamont against the hawk Lieberman, Obama was giving money to Lieberman. He said publicly that he did not know if he would have voted against the war if he was in the Senate at the time of the vote. He continues to vote to fund the war. How's that for your anti-war candiate. For more reasons why Obama does not represent real change in Washington please see:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=14612

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/3/91942/42408/515/429670

For those who want real change, please vote Edwards. Kucinich fans--I used to be one of you--Kucinch lost my support when he asked his supporters to chose Obama as second choice in Iowa. For a more complete and eloquent argument to abandon Kucinich (and Obama) see Normon Solomon's article: http://www.alternet.org/election08/72560/