More About This Website


"Give me your tired, your poor

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore

Send these, the homeless, tempest-toss'd to me

I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door."

Hundreds of Oregon Corporations Escape the Minimum Tax


Half of the US Is Broke


The myth of the Christian country


“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

FDR, 2nd Inaugural Address, Jan 20, 1937


Middle East friendship chart


Corporations enriching shareholders


Facts not fiction on universal gun background checks



"Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere"

Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

Martin Luther King, Jr.

The GOP - Not One of US.

Wall Street, our new criminal class...       

   Business in the USA is sitting on $2 trillion dollars refusing to invest their own funds in expanding and hiring workers.  

   When one adds to this the reserves that banks, equity firms and hedge funds have - the picture is clear - "capitalism in the USA is on strike." 

   The engine of our economy - the spirit of entrepreneurship is not in evidence today.  So much for business being dynamic and risk taking. 

   They hire K- Street lobbyists and their ilk at the state level because they are averse to risk taking - pleading for tax breaks, tax credits and endless loopholes. 

   The "business of business" in America today is not about job creation, it's about wealth hoarding and redistribution from the middle class to the top 1%. 

   So for those who claim government doesn't create jobs, my response is that business doesn't either until given "corporate welfare" by government.  The fact is that the private and public sector are highly integrated, something the anti-tax, anti-government Tea Party types don't understand. 

   Job creation requires public/private partnerships but the benefits of such collaboration should go to the 99% not just the 1%.  





  • A Middle East View      

Rami G. Khouri

  • RealClearPolitics:


  • Jim Hightower:

  • Robert Reich:

Robert Reich

  • Thomas Friedman: 

Friedman Column

  • Nicholas Kristof: 

Kristof Column

Oregon's Motto: 

She flies with her own wings! 

Hard Times in Oregon: 


The Oregon story - the rich get richer, the poor and middle class lose ground.  Check this front page Oregonian article out. 

Oregon wage gap widens

Homelessness in Oregon - a call to action

Chuck Currie The crisis of homelessness


      Oregon's coming 34th out of 41 states in the Obama "Race to the Top" illustrates the failure of leadership from Governor Kitzhaber and his predecessors as they have built an educational bridge to nowhere called high stakes testing.

   Instead of being in a race to the top we seem to be dumpster diving to the bottom despite doing education reform since 1991.  Insanity is termed doing the same thing over and over again.  When can we put a fork in this stupidity? 

   To confuse matters more the Oregonian's editorial board has pontificated that this was a lost opportunity to get federal funding for innovation.  How firing principals and teachers equals innovation is a mystery to me.   

   The way to reform schools is to reduce class sizes, to encourage teacher collaboration and to support their continued education.  High stakes testing and performance based assessment of teachers are NOT the answer!    

   If you want students to succeed you first have to resolve the issues they confront before they come to school.  Children who face poverty, hunger, homelessness, health care issues and family instability require wrap around services for them and their families, 24/7.   

   Every child needs a safe home of their own and parents who know how to be good parents.   

There is only one way to address this impending crisis.  Schools must have a stable source of funding. Until that happens - we will limp from crisis to crisis.   




    Why does the richest nation in the world have the moral blight of homeless people?

Invisible People


    Connecting the dots between homelessness & hunger in Oregon and Washington County: 


•    The faces of the homeless are families with children, single men and women, vets, and many who are impaired. It is estimated that in Washington County up to 56% of homelessness occurs to families.


•    Hunger is highest among single mother households (10%) and poor families (15%) as well as renters, unemployed workers and minority households. 

     In Washington County, Oregon's "economic engine," the divide between the affluent and the working poor continues.  We have a 19,000 unit gap in affordable low income rental housing.  County political and business leaders are indifferent to this crisis...   
















































RAD Lines

See my FACEBOOK @ Russ


  • He lost by 2.9 million votes...

  • He's a con artist...

  • He's a pathological liar... 

  • He's a failed business man...

  • He's a fascist... 


Trump & The Mob


Trump's role models are Vladmir Putin and Benito Mussolini.  He has contempt for our checks and balances system.  He wants to "rule" not govern like a strong man, a despot.  He will shredd the Constitution anytime he feels the urge to do so and like all despots he only listens to his inner circle.  And he is paranoid and narcissistic. 


Hundreds of Oregon Corporations Escape the Minimum Tax


Half of the US Is Broke


The myth of the Christian country


Housing Needs in Oregon 




"There are men who believe that democracy... is limited or measured by a kind of mystical and artificial fate [and that] tyranny and slavery have become the surging wave of the future..." 

FDR, 3rd Inaugural Address, Jan 20, 1940

  • "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

  • Miguel de Cervantes, from The Duke - "I accuse you of being an idealist, a bad poet and an honest man."  Cervantes' response - "Guilty as charged, I have never had the courage to believe in nothing."   from Man of La Mancha  

Professor Kingfield, from the Paper Chase

   "I'm not a teacher: only a fellow traveler of whom you asked the way. I pointed ahead – ahead of myself as well as you." 

- George Bernard Shaw



From the Left Wing:

Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman - The New York Times

Democracy Now

The Daily Kos

Blue Oregon


"Children are made readers on the laps of their parents." 

- Emilie Buchwald 


    "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." 

- Justice John Paul Stevens, Bush v. Gore, 2001

    The state of our union - check out the map, it's a reality check for those who can't figure out why people are so ticked off... 



"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war"

- John Adams

"Loyalty to country always.  Loyalty to government when it deserves it."  

- Mark Twain  

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”  

- George Santayana 

"The love of one's country is a natural thing.  But why should love stop at the border?" 

- Pablo Casals

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned; the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." 

- William Butler Yeats  


"You see things; and you say, 'Why?' 

But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?"  

- George Bernard Shaw, "Back to Methuselah" (1921) 

"...the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society...  The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government..."  

- James Madison, Federalist Papers #11 

"Why … should we have government? Why not each individual take to himself the whole fruit of his labor, without having any of it taxed away?”   

The legitimate object of government, is to do for the people whatever they need to have done, but which they can not do, at all, or can not do, so well, for themselves – in their separate and individual capacities … There are many such things … roads, bridges and the like; providing for the helpless young and afflicted; common schools … the criminal and civil [justice] departments."    

- Abraham Lincoln 

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society  

- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. 

"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates, but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole..." 

- Edmund Burke  

“It is a maxim among these lawyers that whatever hath been done before may legally be done again, and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind.  These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities, to justify the most iniquitous opinions.”  

- Jonathan Swift 

A RAD rhetorical question - Were Madison & Marx "Marxists"?  


"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments."   

- James Madison



















































    RAD:  One of my professor friends would probably accuse me of piling on Hillary in my recent blogging.  It's a fair charge, I am piling on as a counter offensive against Team Clinton's using a host of surrogates from Slick Willie to Gloria Steinem to pile on Barack Obama slyly using the race and gender cards against Obama.
    This is a critical time of the evolving political season.  Barack and Hillary are 1 for 1 as a result of the Iowa/New Hampshire split decision, Michigan doesn't count.  The Nevada caucus this week and South Carolina primary on January 26 will be critical in establishing who the the PR big mo going into Superduper Tuesday.
    On February 26th twenty-two states will vote including delegate rich states like California, New Jersey, New York and Illinois. RAD assumes that Hillary will take her home state, NY and Barack will take his home state Illinois.  So that puts California and New Jersey in the spotlight.  So a lot is on the line. 
    As the chic upper class feminist elite led by Steinem line up for Hillary, it's time working class and minority women in the country ask themselves if Hillary's gender is the trump card for women many might assume.  Ironically, college educated women in Iowa and New Hampshire have divided their votes between Barack and Hillary given the edge to Barack in Iowa and New Hampshire while working class women have been more supportive of Hillary.
    So the demographics not of race or gender are in play so much in this contest despite all the media attention on these low hanging fruit - but class seems to be a driving wedge issue.  The following excerpts from an article by Robert Scheer is helpful for deconstructing the symbolism vs. the reality of Hillary Clinton's candidacy.  But just for the record, if Hillary is the nominee and she must be considered the front runner thus far RAD will vote for her in '08.
    But let examine some of the 35 years of history she wraps herself into so adroitly to answer the old Mondale question - "where's the beef?"  RAD is not favoring Obama out of some retro idealism based on his race.  Hillary doesn't deserve a misty eyed gender pass either.  As I've said before, her record of failing at health care reform, being wrong on Iraq and being a corporate liberal does not impress me. 
    As a lightening rod because of her personal biography as First Lady - she can try to run away from that legacy but she can't hide from it.  Barack by contrast appears to me to be a unifier across all demographic lines without Hillary's personal and political baggage.  Barack combines the eloquence of JFK and MLK with the authenticity Hillary cannot match.  While Hillary would lead, she would also divide.
    Barack in an insightful article by Larissa MacFarquhar for The New Yorker (June 1, 2007) entitled "The Conciliator" is described despite his liberal voting record as "deeply conservative" given his respect for tradition and skeptical about radically changing the world.  He doesn't come on like an effete liberal snob.  His instincts are conciliation and bi-partisanship not flame throwing sound bites that John Edwards invokes on the stump.
    As a child of the '60s Hillary comes off like a know it all taking a final exam in college - showing off her brainiac skills.  Barack by contrast is low key - he's often slow to respond with one-liners.  He's temperamentally a listener unlike the ideologue Hillary (my own failing all too often).  As Barack has said - "...we have to apply judgment and a sense of proportion to how change happens - to promote our ideals and our values with some sense of humility..."1
    These excerpts from an article by Robert Scheer, Play the Class Card, from The Nation online which suggest that Hillary Clinton's stewardship is more problematic than her stump speeches suggest: 
    "As long as Hillary Clinton, and now Gloria Steinem, has chosen to play the women's card against the race card, let me throw in a third one: the class card. Clinton claimed in the New Hampshire primary debate that she is the unmistakable agent for change because she is a woman and her election as President would send a strong signal of a new day aborning to America and the rest of the world..."
    "Steinem put a finer point on the argument in her New York Times commentary [on] New Hampshire's primary election day, arguing that women get wonderfully more "radical" as they age, and therefore older women are more inclined to vote for Clinton, Steinem's preferred candidate, as opposed to Barack Obama, whom younger women went for in Iowa. Maybe those younger women were more worried about how to pay off college loans or swelling mortgage obligations than gender identity."
    "What is radical about voting for a corporate lawyer who, in defense of her Arkansas savings and loan shenanigans, once said you can't be a lawyer without working for banks?  Steinem boasts of Clinton's "unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House" without referencing the Clinton White House's giveaways to corporate America at the expense of poor and working Americans, the majority of them being women..." 
    "I am not trying to play the class card here by claiming that because Obama grew up black and middle-class he will therefore inevitably be that rare politician who remembers where he or she came from. Bill Clinton, who came from a poor family, disproved the notion about remembering. To his everlasting shame as President, Clinton supported and signed welfare legislation that shredded the federal safety net for the poor from which he personally had benefited..."
     "[Clinton] faithfully served big corporate interests by signing off on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the Financial Services Modernization Act, which, as a gift to the banks, insurance companies and stockbrokers, reversed consumer protection legislation from the New Deal era. Thanks to Bill Clinton, those pirates were allowed to merge into the largest conglomerates the world has ever witnessed and, adding insult to injury, to "data-mine," thus sharing your most intimate financial and health information."
    RAD:  That conglomerated and unregulated power of the banking interests has now brought us to the brink of a recession with the sub-prime loand debacle placing 1-2 million American families on the foreclosure list.  Is that Hillary's legacy too?  RAD thinks so.  After all she was the first person and the last person Bill talked to each day for 8 years in the West Wing. 
    "Bill Clinton's next biggest concession to the fat cats was the Telecommunications Act, which ended what was left of public control of the airwaves and permits mega-media corporations to grow even bigger. No wonder Rupert Murdock and Hillary Clinton now get on so famously..." 
    "Yes, Bill Clinton was a very good President compared to what came immediately before and after, and his wife has many strong points in her favor, not the least of which is her wonkish intelligence. What I object to is the notion that the perspective of gender or race trumps that of economic class in considering the traumas of this nation..."
    "John Edwards deserves credit for putting this issue of the growing division of American society front and center, and certainly Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has related his politics to growing up in abysmal poverty. As Kucinich has pointed out, a permanent war economy in which more than half of federal discretionary funds go to the military leaves no room for needed social programs..."  
    "Yes, it is important for the health of our democracy to break barriers that have held back a majority of our citizens, and for that reason it would certainly be an advance to have a black or female President. But that alone is not enough to justify a vote. What we need far more than a change in appearance is one of perspective. Otherwise, Condoleezza Rice would make the ideal candidate." 



novick_logo.jpg    US Senate candidate Steve Novick's newly released campaign commercial with 3 tall guys pretending to be him and then the real Steve pops up at the end, all 4'9" of him, is hilarious and makes his candidacy for the "little guy" spot on.  I've seen Steve work in Salem over the years for the little guy taking on Bill Sizemore among others.  He's the real deal whereas his opponent Jeff Merkley is just another drab Salem politician full of ambition but not much else.
    Merkley has had a colorless career in the House since 1998 which is probably why he's speaker.  The drones get rewarded in Salem not the folks who shake things up.  Merkley says all the right things but when push comes to shove he's a Kulongoski-lite Dem who has punted on major tax reform, like ridding ourselves of the kicker, stopping the drug lobby from killing children's health care in the session, then on the referral last November. 
    Merkley's resume is impressive.  So is Steve's.  But I want a fighter back in the US Senate like Wayne Morse not simply another pol who will bide his time as he works his way to the top of the ladder.  Steve Novick reminds me a lot of John Edwards minus the Robert Reford looks.  His website includes this note:  "Perhaps his greatest success  [as a lawyer] was serving as lead counsel on the notorious toxic waste cleanup at Love Canal . In 1995, Steve and his team secured a $129 million settlement from Occidential Chemical to cover the cleanup." 
    Both Jeff and Steve have their roots in Douglas County, just like RAD.  Both are Ivy League grads.  RAD won't hold that against them not everyone will favor a Whitman or a U of Minnesota.  Check out their websites.  I'm voting for Novick for the US Senate in May.  He's "the little engine that could" beat Smith because he's a fighter not just another ambitious pol who can read the polls that 2008 is going to be a Democratic year.  Finally I want the race to be decided not by who can raise a $1 million dollar warchest, but by which has courage!  Go Steve! 




    On scoring debater points, Hillary Clinton clearly won the Vegas debate by sounding presidential, hitting a home run with the president as manager answer and trapping Barack by the question would he support her in opposing permanent bases in Iraq - forgetting that was HER position only months ago.
    However, on substance, I thought John Edwards was the best of the three.  His I'm for the little guy rhetoric is compelling given the sub-prime loan scandal.  It's too bad he bailed on the McCall Forum last spring.  The topic of "Reclaiming the American Dream" was perfect for him. 
    Clinton and Edwards lost an authenticity as Brooks and Shields said last night on The NewsHour.  While Barack acknowledged his shortcoming of not being a good paper shuffler, Hillary and Edwards came up with soppy non-answers on what are your weaknesses. 
    But worse than that is Hillary's getting off on how the economy is hurting folks these days.  Well her claimed experience factor includes the co-presidency with Bill which saw the economy run up to historical levels only to come down as he was leaving office. 
    And what did Billary preside over along with the help of Newt Gingrich often with the Dems opposition - NAFTA, the WTO and deregulation of the economy - the very things that have cost American workers their jobs, put their children at risk to lead based toys from China and a banking system that created the sub-prime loan scandal. 
    Hillary wants to enact a 60 day moratorium on home foreclosures!  Wow - that will really help the working poor who bought the farm of the American Dream on margins.  So Hillary your economic stimulus package is a little late.  New York is the center of the financial world.  Why didn't your figure this out a long time ago? 
    So, the price of your "experience" has added up to a failed health care scheme; your support of the war; your belief in globalism without restraints or an even playing field; and the end of welfare as we knew it.  Your crocodile tears don't persuade me that your experience quotient is reason to rent you the West Wing again!
    Yes, Hillary probably would be a good CEO but the USA doesn't need another control freak Nixonian-like president who talks like a progressive but governs like a Reagan lite. And we don't need another president who suffers from TAP syndrome - terminal arrogance of power syndrome.
    For those working class Democrats who voted for Hillary in Iowa and New Hamsphire, you need to ask yourself an important question.  Why are you voting for Hillary whose mentor husband sold you down the river with Newt's help by outsourcing your jobs to India, Mexico and China, while Bush lite has outsourced your sons and daughters in the military to Iraq and Afghanistan - in both cases with Hillary's blessing?
    If you can't find it in your heart to vote for Barack, at least have the common sense to vote your "class" interests and vote for John Edwards who has spent a lifetime as a trial lawyer defending hard working people who played by the rules only to be screwed by corporate America.  It's time working people in the USA took their blinders off and realized who their political allies really are!
    Bill and Hillary Clinton say they feel your pain, but they don't govern in your interests.  Slick Willy used a slightly benign version of Reagan's trickle down economics tilted towards middle class tax cuts but primarily targeted to the yuppies on the east and west coasts only to see it all crash after his party was over in 2000.  It's time for the traditional base of the Democratic party to wake up and smell the roses.
    Your brothers and sisters in Illinois, eulogised by Studs Terkel, got the message in 2004 electing Barack Obama.  It's time lunch bucket Ds learned the hard lessons from Reagan's betayal of your interests and the Clinton false pandering to your interests.  It's time for the working class of the USA to quit being distracted by wedge issues of race and gender and to embrace a candidate who like FDR can unite the party, not energize the opposition party.  
    PS:  Bill Clinton's verbal thrashing of a reporter in Vegas yesterday denying Hillary's campaign had anything to do with the NEA lawsuit to stop casino workers caucusing on job sites was over the top.  "SLICK" - LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE... 



    The public spat between Team Clinton and Team Obama over Hillary's comment that "it took a president" - LBJ to realize Martin Luther King's dream simply won't go away.
    Today's op ed in the Oregonian by Joe Califano, special assistant on domestic policy in the Johnson administration, adds important details from an insider to history.
    Unfortunately, Califano in correcting the record begins the column with Slick Willie's "fairy tale" barb thrown at Barack. Well Joe is one of those DC insiders John Edwards pummels and lives in NY,NY.
    But title of his commentary says it all - "For civil rights, it took a partnership." If you read the column you'll see the partnership between LBJ and MLK, Jr. was written in often tragic blood, sweat and tears.
    The problem with Hillary Clinton's version of history is that she implies LBJ did it all on his own. Her candidacy is premised on the concept of the president as hero. In doing so Hillary is mythologizing history and marginalizing other's sacrifice because she wants to cast herself as a modern day Joan of Arc.
    If you buy Hillary's covert message then you believe the great person view of history. WW II was a confrontation between men in white hats, FDR and Churchill versus men in black hats, Hitler and Mussolini. The trouble is that it leaves out our "evil" ally Uncle Joe Stalin and the other axis of evil - the militarists of Japan.
    But even this factoid doesn't tell the story. WW II was won by what Tom Brokaw has called the Greatest Generation. But Brokaw's American centric view obscures the more complex reality that the battle in WW II was carried out on the home fronts and war fronts not just in the USA but also in Britain, France and far away Philippines.
    So what does this trip down memory lane teach us? Is Hillary Clinton a closet racist? No. Is Bill Clinton a closet racist? No. However, do the Clinton twist words to attack their enemies and/or cover their triangulating tracks? To steal  Groucho's line - "You bet your life."
    And the Clinton's do it so well. Any objective person of this sorry spectacle would have to agree that Team Clinton has won the PR war over an often ham handed Team Obama. Even in last night's Vegas debate while Barack took the fall for his side, Hillary spun her way out of admitting personal culpability. 
    But there was a singular moment in the debate when each candidate was asked do your opponents at this table have what it takes to be a good president? Barack and John said yes. Hillary said that's for the American people to decide. That's Clinton hubris in action!
    History is a messy dialectic fought in the halls of the academy, in the centers of political and economic power AND on the streets where average everyday people risk it all in war and peace to do the right thing, often making the ultimate sacrifice.
    The real heroes of the Civil Rights Movement are people most of us have never heard of - what in biblical circles are called the saving remnant. My dad once suggested to me their are two types of people - the doers who often work in obscurity and the ones who get the credit.
    When you look at Hillary and Barack - who is the doer, who is the one who craves the credit? The answer to that question will probably tell you a lot about their personality as well as what kind of president they will likely be.
    Do you want someone guided by John Dean's term "blind ambition" or somebody whose ego doesn't need constant stroking?
    When I watch Hillary on the campaign trail I see a candidate who needs constant reassurance, when I see Barack Obama I see a person who can admit a mistake and learn from it.
    At the end of the day who is the adult here? And we haven't even gotten to the GOP guys yet.
    PS:   Team Clinton has the NEA (teacher union which supports Clinton) challenging the Nevada caucus rules which allow casinos to hold at large caucus meetings to accommodate the service workers in this industry whose union has endorsed Obama.
    This is a despicable ploy which disadvantages the working poor, among them Latino and women service workers.  You'd expect this of the GOP tricksters, but not the Friends of Billary.  I guess not all working poor, Latinos and women are equal in the Queen's world after all.
    God forbid one calls this playing the class/race/gender card - oh no that would be a fairytale, right Slick?  RAD - LOL... 



204px-John_F._Kennedy_White_House_color_photo_portrait.jpg    Much has been said about comparing Barack Obama to JFK.  Those who favor Obama see the connection the soaring rhetoric of each.  Some have wondered if JFK speech guru Ted Sorensen (in his 80s) is ghost writing for Obama.
    Obama detractors including Hillary Clinton suggest that Barack, unlike JFK, is not ready to hit the ground running if elected - "he's not seasoned enough."  Before one goes too far in either line of comparison, a little historical perspective is warranted.
    Some suggest that Barack Obama should have waited his turn to run for president citing JFK's 14 year career in the House (1947-1953) and Senate (1953-1961) compared to Obama's 4-year career as of the end of 2008.  This dismisses Obama's 10-year legislative career in Illinois. 
    However JFK skeptics derided JFK, as they now do Obama, as callow and ill versed in substantive issues.  JFK was well known to be a dilettante with no substantial track record in his Senate career.  He was simply bidding his time for a presidential run.
    JFK was known more for his womanizing but under the "don't ask, don't tell" journalistic rule of thumb at the time - the public was not clued in the JFK's penchant for women other than Jackie. 
     JFK was living out the dream of his father Joseph Kennedy, also known for his infidelity, that one of his sons would be president.  The anointed son was war hero Joe Kennedy Jr. who died in WW II. So Jack stepped into the breach.
    Barack has been a journeyman but serious Senator noted for his willingness to collaborate on issues like lobby reform.  By contrast JFK's spotty voting record suggests his "experience" was problematic at best. 
    JFK voted the Civil Rights Act of 1957 but he voted for the "Jury Trial Amendment" to that act which effectively rendered the Act toothless because convictions for violations could not be obtained.
    JFK's less than courageous civil rights vote would later be forgotten because of a politically well timed call to Coretta Scott King when MLK, Jr. was jailed in Montgomery, Alabama during the 1960 presidential campaign, a ploy urged on by brother Robert, Jack's campaign manager and widely considered the Darth Vadar of the team. 
    Staunch segregationists such as senators James Eastland and John McClellan and Mississippi Governor James Coleman were early supporters of Kennedy's presidential campaign.[11]1
    It's also noteworthy that the Kennedy clan was close to the right wing anti-commie GOP US Senator from Wisconsin "Gunner" Joseph McCarthy.  When it came to censoring McCarthy neither JFK nor RFK were profiles in courage.
    JFK tossed his hat in the ring in 1956 running against Adlai Stevenson as a trial run for 1960, declining to be a VP candidate with the two-time loser to IKE.  So, pro-Hillary talk show hosts like Portland's Thom Hartmann should do their homework before mouthing off about the JFK/Obama comparison! 
    So much for the "experience" factor.  As Nixon said, "watch what we do, not what we say."     
    PS:  Just for the record on the "experience" factor:  Hillary loves to cite her 35 years of experience.  Well if one wants to peg one's appeal based on "life" experience then Barack can make a similar claim having been a community organizer, a civil rights lawyer and law professor.
    Of course JFK was a war hero.  Neither Hillary nor Barack can match that.  But there is a comparison here - between JFK and Hillary.  JFK was a "can do" cold warrior and we all know that Hillary voted "pro war" in 2002. 
    Hillary's legislative career began in 2000, she's in her 8th year in office.  Barack Obama is serving his 14th year of legislative experience, the same as JFK's. So who's got the most experience - Hillary or Barack?
    Its very simple math, folks.