Jackpine,

Seems like you’ve just told my own story in the telling of yours. Seriously….same stuff.

And, not to brag on each other or anything like that, but I think it makes you a hero. Courage and integrity MEAN something.

It’s always so much more difficult to NOT just ‘go along”. Look what happens when we refuse to just ‘go along’?

But in the end, doesn’t it feel good? That’s how I learned the real meaning of the truth being able to set us free.

Go ahead…vote Obama. He knows the deal.

It believe (in my heart, mind and soul) and I wouldn’t say this otherwise, just because it would be just as easy to remain silent, or not take a stand, and I know opens me up for all sorts of ridicule, but I can take it. I’ve been through worse.

So, let me say that even with my own perfectly legitimate (and even healthy) does of cynicism, I don’t believe this to be a choice between the lesser of evils, unless you really do ‘opt out’. That would be the choice of the lesser of the evils…opting out.

And, you haven’t gone though all of that other stuff, (the lost and declined jobs) to ‘opt out’ now.

Vote Obama. Let’s get this stuff fixed.

By Maani, February 2: “Please go to the link after reading this post…. for the past year or more, I have been predicting that the “police state” would begin in NYC…”

Actually, they had something like that in West Germany (FRG) through to the 80’s after the Munich massacre during the 1972 Summer Olympics. There were police armed with light machine guns and dogs patrolling for years after at public transport terminals and wherever there were Israeli organizations like at trade fairs, consuls, etc.

There have also been police with dogs and armed with light machine guns patrolling airports in many countries since and especially with aircraft hijackings and bomb threats. I know its not nice in a country where you are used to nothing more than a police car patrol. In many countries, once, the police weren’t even armed.

About “living on pins and needles”, though, you should get a budget, Maani, and feed yourself before you feed your dog, uhh, ha ha!

All:

Sorry to interrupt the debate.  This is URGENT news.  I kid you not.  Please go to the link after reading this post.

For the past year or more, I have been predicting that the “police state” would begin in NYC, where there has been various “testing” going on towards that end for some time, vis-à-vis law enforcement seeing just how far they could go, and how much they could get away with: increased police drills, random bag checks on the subways, limiting of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, etc.

The police state has finally arrived.  This is not a drill.  This is the real thing.  And you can be absolutely certain that it will not stop with NYC.  Other cities will follow suit, all in the name of “safety and security.”  Note that this was NOT a response to any specific threat, or even a perceived threat.  It was done for absolutely NO reason, other than to take a giant step forward toward totalitarianism.

We can continue to debate the merits or lack thereof of Hillary, Obama, McCain et al.  Meanwhile, this will spread, and the consequences will be dramatic.  And if you think I am overreacting, simply remember when I posted this when this comes to YOUR city or town.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/nyregion/02machin egun.html?scp=1&sq=baker&st=nyt

Peace.  (Becoming increasingly distant…)

Test.

Doug:

I knew you would eventually come back around to liking me again (LOL).  And, of course, I have been living on pins and needles about that until now (LOL).

Peace.

JS:

I’m not sure I ever directly suggested that you were an Obama supporter; if I did, then that was an incorrect assumption on my part, and I apologize.

And while you are certainly entitled to your views, and I will not comment on most of those expressed above, I quibble with one thing you said re Hillary’s vote for the Iraq resolution:

“Which is it, with “conviction” or “misled”?”

I do not believe these two are mutually exclusive. She could well have voted with “conviction,” yet been “misled” as to how Bush would ultimately use the resolution.  I’m not sure why you see these as “opposing” possibilities.

Peace.

Most agree that Obama and Hillary are more alike than different. 

No one proposes a single-payer system who is still in the race because they know that they will be defeated by lobbyists from medical, insurance, drug companies.  I wanted a single-payer system, but Hillary was more verbal about chipping away at the drug, insurance, health care industry in its zeal to put profits before people.

Both of these people want to provide affirmative action to illegal immigrants—people who aren’t even citizens of this country!  I deplored Obama wanting to give Mexico’s citizens drivers licenses, education and health care benefits and his refusal to acknowledge that corporations flooding the job market with cheap labor has affected the livelihoods of many poor black people.  But he made a deal with Teddy Kennedy, so there you go.  Regarding Nafta, I think Mexico bears some responsibility for its own citizens and its involvement in those policies.  Slavery and racism destroyed many blacks, too, but we don’t provide affirmative action to them, and they are citizens.

Both of these people continue to fund the Iraq War and neither have worked hard to pressure Bush to reverse his stance.

Thank you, Gramma.

You have a large, warm heart and a deep, sincere soul….You are far from finished and farther yet from unable to forgive… you are now a tiny light within the dark night,; you are not alone….There is more….what more will be revealed to you…I promise.

This is coming to you from one with empathy based on direct experience….Your own tears will wash away more mud; your Spirit is so very alive….Your courage for thoughtful honesty is a great gift which resides at the core of any antidote for evil….We strive on….

Gramma

I was never misled by this fiasco.  I knew it was going to turn out badly from the get go; a little bit of horse sense would have told anyone that.

I lost a job because i wouldn’t just “go along” and keep my mouth shut. (and as i’ve said elsewhere declined another job) My 60’s “radical” liberal parents did not speak to me for more than a year because i refused to just “go along”.  I wrote letters.  I protested.  I lost friends and found some familial relations forever soured, because i would not just “go along”.

I have friends who been in these wars, and i had a friend who never came back.  I have friends and family currently deployed or soon deploying.  And i know some folks who’ve made it home, though some of their limbs did not.

I cannot, and i will not, forgive any person with the power to say “no” and be heard who did not do that.  I cannot even forgive myself for being unable to stop it.

Maybe it was just one vote for some of you, but for me it was much more than that.  And for millions of people, Americans and Iraqis, it was a matter of life and death. 

I refuse to split any more hairs over the destruction of nations and a generation.  I refuse to spin and counterpin with the lives of others to make a political point.  And because it has become obvious that one must choose sides in this debate between the lesser of two evils, i am opting out.  All i see is evil.

After the end of the debate, after Mr. Obama’s michrophone had been removed, I noticed that the next thing Mr. Obama did was to walk over to his chair and turn it back around so that it was facing neatly toward the table he had been sitting at…..a revealing gesture on multidimensional levels….....

a gesture of dignity and breeding,
a gesture of proletarian grace…..
a gesture of consciousness and responsibility,
a gesture worthy of imitation for any age group or demographic,
a gesture for your thoughtful consideration, Friends….

Hillary, has not shown anything in the area of leadership.  A Lacky is not a leader, Hillary has shown she is one of the good old boys and very good at it too.

Obama made the statement that Lobbies need to be taken from the halls of congress, and I strongly agree.  Our government is being manipulated by special interests and with Hillary as president, lobbies will continue unabated without missing a beat. We the people do not have a chance gaining the ear of our government as long as this continues.  This is the experience she offers?

If Obama can rid and exterminate the lobby rats running the halls of Washington, lobbies I will be surprised if he succeeds, though has offered and he may try.  Opposed to Hillary who is arm and arm with the lobbies, has she even mentioned any problems with our current system?  Her experience is a handicap, for she is so deeply entwined she cannot change.

Obama, does not have this so called experience, which to me means he is not tainted to the bone so deeply by the corruption apparent in politics today. Hence a possibility for change.  We have not had a President for sometime who was a person of their word, Obama may just be that president. 

Any new ideas, or changes even hope, come from Obama, not Hillary.

First, the naivety of Mr. Chalmers and Maani is a wondrous thing to behold.  They automatically assume that if someone does not agree with Sen. Clinton then they must be a supporter of Sen Obama.  Even if that person has repeatedly stated that they do NOT support Obama.

I have, many times, read Sen Clinton’s speech.  I have also noted that it contradicts her long held story that she was misled.  Which is it, with “conviction” or “misled”?  And the fact remains that 23 other Senators had the conviction to vote against the AUF; they were not misled.  Moreover, international law prohibits members of the UN from attacking each other without reason.  So explain to me how voting for the AUF is in any way a support of international law. 

I have not grown use to semi-slavery; in fact, i left our cozy little slave state for the better part of the Bush administration.  And i turned down my dream job as a foreign service officer so as to not participate in perpetuating the high crimes and misdemeanors of this administration.

I want every Senator who voted in favor of the AUF out of office.  And i do not support Sen Obama because i see very little difference between him and Sen Clinton, just as i see very little difference between the two parties.

Finally, my argument was not, originally, about her AUF vote, but about her response to the question about the Levin amendment.  She said that she doesn’t think that any president should be constrained by the UN, ever.  She avoided most direct questions during that debate, but answered that one honestly.  If her vote had been a matter of political positioning, she could have vote for the AUF and for Levin (the latter being a “safe” vote because she knew it wouldn’t pass).  She voted her heart, that’s what became clear to me during the debate.

So, Mr. Chalmers, i’ve read your thoughts on globalization…please explain how you reconcile those feelings with support for Sen Clinton?  Her previous presidency pushed globalization further than any other. 

I watch politics, i comment on politics, but i am not so naive as to believe any of these people.  And aside from 00 and 04, i have always voted third party.  I will be returning to that tradition, regardless of who the nominee is because i have no use for being in a state of semi-slavery to the major political parties.

By Maani + Presto, February 1: You said, “I think anyone who comments on Senator Clinton’s Iraq vote should be responsible enough to actually read, quite carefully, the speech she made in 2002 just before the vote.  Many commenters on this subject obviously have not done so.” - “...I agree.  Here is the speech in its entirety: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.ht 

Maani, you surprise me! At last you have tumbled out of your dream-like state and found something useful to go on with - and even in the right direction, amazingly enough, ha ha.

Mike Mid-City who is himself a foul-mouthed sleazebag whenever it suits him could hardly criticize Hillary as   “lack(ing) the moral standing to be President of the United States of America”  but that is exactly what he does despite his own demonstrated lack of morality.

‘jackpine savage’ naively states that “if there’s a Democratic president with the same imperial foreign policy it doesn’t really matter”   as though he has grown so used to semi-slavery under the Bush administration that he is unable to even imagine what freedom is like or that it could even be possible.

You are all so utterly weak and, as a result, you are so disparaging of the very people who would help you and you seem to wish to turn to some fanciful Pied Piper playing his tune of hypocritical rhetoric as you usually do…....

I said some time ago in another topic that the USA should have left Saddam for the people of Iraq to deal with instead of another invasion. Perhaps we can now discuss the fact with respect to the person in the US senate who also came to such comnclusions in 2002 - NOT Barack Obama but Hillary Clinton:-

*Quote Hillary Clinton:  “Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform. This view has appeal to some….....

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make—any vote that may lead to war should be hard—but I cast it with conviction….... My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose—all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world…”

Hillary offers nothing new to the table, except the same pablum we now have in the Whitehouse. Going to war for oil is not a reason to go to war, infact there should be very few reasons to go to war, except to protect our homeland. 

Hillary has made her choice with all the experience so touted by her supporters, the simple fact that she is married to a draft dodger and the Iraq war was started by a Vietnam evader should be some indication of what kind of experience she has to offer.

Not the kind of experience I want as my president, the past is gone and change is in the air, Obama offers something that Hillary does not. Hope.  Hillary offers static just status quo, her experience is code for same.

Change is in the air, something new and hope is offered by Obama. 

Mid Mike City as I are Vietnam a Veteran’s oppose war, why cannot Hillary supporters accept the fact that war is not acceptable. How can anyone who calls themselves a Christian support war? They would better serve the title hypocrite. 

If you support Hillary you support the war, it is simple as that.

Presto:

You said, “I think anyone who comments on Senator Clinton’s Iraq vote should be responsible enough to actually read, quite carefully, the speech she made in 2002 just before the vote.  Many commenters on this subject obviously have not done so.”

I agree.  Here is the speech in its entirety:

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Jackpine:

You say, “Yes, he vetoed the [2008 National Defense Authorization Act] once.  He signed the new one into law on Monday and it did include a signing statement that negated the provision that bars funding for permanent bases…”

Two comments here.  While I thank you for the correction and updated info, it actually undermines your original comment that “Sounding the alarm on permanent bases?...She might have “sounded the alarm” before the fire burnt down the house.”

Clearly, since Bush only signed the law Monday, and Hillary has been talking about it since the second debate over a month ago (and actually longer), she obviously WAS “sounding the alarm before the house burnt down.”

Second, re “As this Congress has not stood up to a single signing statement. I will consider any “sounding of the alarm” to be nothing but hot air,” it is not quite that simple.  In fact, it is extremely difficult to do.  So much so, that Senator Arlen Specter found need to introduce the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006 in order to: “Instruct all state and federal courts to ignore presidential signing statements. (“No State or Federal court shall rely on or defer to a presidential signing statement as a source of authority.”) and Instruct the Supreme Court to allow the U.S. Senate or U.S. House of Representatives to file suit in order to determine the constitutionality of signing statements.”

However, this bill, introduced in July 2006 (i.e., prior to the mid-term elections) died in Committee in the Republican-held Senate.

Peace.

Well let’s start with the fact that i am not a supporter of Sen Obama, so maybe i’m the wrong person to answer your question.

I would prefer that they all vote to stop funding the war, but once the war has begun under proper authorization it is rather hard to just stop funding it.  I’ve never put Sen Clinton on the hook for her votes to continue funding the war.  And while i’ve never agreed with her initial authorization vote, i’ve been (mostly) willing to chalk that up to a mistake.  Granted, 23 other Senators weren’t “misled” about what it would mean, but whatever.  She has played that “misled” card until last night when she said that she made a “reasoned decision”.  So which is it?  Was she misled or was she for it?

I have always assumed that Sen Obama probably would have voted for the authorization too; i’m too much of a cynic to think otherwise.

But her comment last night on the Levin amendment was beyond the pall.  If she was positioning, it seems that the smart, strategic politician would have voted ‘yes’ on Levin AND ‘yes’ on the war…knowing that the Levin amendment would fail.  She was clear last night that she doesn’t believe that any US president should be constrained when the president wants to go to war.

I thought she won that debate.  But in that one, clear and concise agreement with the fundamental aspect of the Bush doctrine, she lost me forever.  I was willing to accept her as the nominee until last night.  But i will be damned if i’m going to vote for someone who believes that the President of the United States can invade any country any time, just because they feel like it.

There’s no “peace” in that…

Maani,

Yes, he vetoed the bill once.  He signed the new one into law on Monday and it did include a signing statement that negated the provision that bars funding for permanent bases.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/29/signing-statement-iraq/

As this Congress has not stood up to a single signing statement. I will consider any “sounding of the alarm” to be nothing but hot air.

Aegrus:

Are you certain you were watching the same debate that I was?  Because, as usual, we saw things 180 dergees apart.

What I saw was Obama still talking more in generalities than Hillary, who was far more specific on every single issue (though he was certainly more detailed last night than he has been thus far).

I also heard him make a statement which belied a potentially autocratic streak: that the health care hearings “would be” broadcast on C-SPAN - as if the president has unilateral control over what C-SPAN broadcasts!  If Hillary had not gently (yes, gently) noted that Congress would have to approve this, people would have walked away assuming that he was making a statement of FACT rather than a statement of INTENT.

As well, your “spin” on some of Hillary’s statements and responses are at best cynical and at worst malicious.

To suggest that her (best of the evening) line that “It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it looks like we might need another to clean up after this one” is somehow directly connected to “taking advantage of her husband’s legacy” is absurd; it simply shows that you have no sense of humor at all.

Re her health care system allowing “big-pharma and the insurance companies to exist and rape your bank account,” I did not hear anything of the sort.  I heard her state quite clearly that it would be the Congressional health plan (arguably the best in the country), made affordable to ALL through bringing down the price, capping premiums and adding subsidies.  Or were you getting another beer when she said that?

Re immigration, she was NOT contradicting what Obama said - that blaming immigration for OVERALL job loss was scapegoating - but that there ARE in fact cases in which illegal immigration IS responsible for job loss.  This is hardly “fear-mongering.”

As for her vote for the initial Iraq resolution, I repeat my comment to Jackpine Savage below:

“I am STILL waiting for someone to explain to me how Obama made “the difficult, but the right vote” when he finally got to the Senate and continually supported funding the war.  Why was that any less “positioning” than Hillary’s original vote for the resolution?  Why does Obama remain “off the hook” for his votes, while Hillary continues to be lambasted for hers?”

ec kostrubala’s assessments of the debate (below) are about as on-target as anything I have read anywhere.  I highly recommend them.

Peace.

JS:

“He already wrote the signing statement that went with 2008 National Defense Authorization Act.”

That is incorrect.  Bush VETOED that bill, despite it passing both houses of Congress.  No signing statement was attached.

As well, it might interest you to know that both Hillary and Obama had “NV” votes on the bill.  Ted Kennedy voted “Yes” on it.

Peace.

JS:

Re “Sometimes the role of a politician in a republic is to make the difficult, but right vote and then explain to his/her constituents why it was the right vote.”

I am STILL waiting for someone to explain to me how Obama made “the difficult, but the right vote” when he finally got to the Senate and continually supported funding the war.  Why was that any less “positioning” than Hillary’s original vote for the resolution?  Why does Obama remain “off the hook” for his votes, while Hillary continues to be lambasted for hers?

WHY HAS NOT A SINGLE OBAMA SUPPORTER HERE BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION WITH A CLEAR, HONEST ANSWER IN WELL OVER A MONTH OF MY ASKING IT?

Peace.

Susan:

Reagan DETESTED Bush, but accepted him as his running mate for purely political reasons.

And while I agree that a Clinton-Obama ticket is unlikely (an Obama-Clinton ticket being out of the question), stranger things have happened in politics.

Peace.

Right on the money. It’s an accountability issue Hillary cannot withstand. If she gets the nomination, all the DLC Dems will get snooty and arrogant, while the rest of America loses hope.

The democratic candidate will be president, and if it is Hillary she’ll do fine. We Americans still have a choice between Clinton and Obama, though. The statement you made is at the core of truth, and is a reason to vote Obama.

Let’s stop this ridiculousness. The debate last night was much more calm than many of us had expected. Hillary Clinton and Wolf still made their best attempts to disparage Obama.

Blitzer made several statements of Barack taking “swipes” at Hillary when it is very clear Obama was taking the high road all night long while Hillary Clinton double-talked on important issues and made the most subtle snipes at Barack that she could make.

Really, Hillary is an acceptable candidate, but how people can not see Obama is the better of the two is beyond me. Obama is the best person to lead us in these times of turmoil. Stop regression and move forward!

Hillary:

1)Discussed how she didn’t want to take advantage of her husband’s legacy, then went to praise the great years of Clintonian administration and said, “It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it looks like we might need another to clean up after this one.” Outrageous double-speak!

2)Refuses to state how she will mandate her “Universal Health Care” system. It’s not single-payer, people! Her system will allow big-pharma and the insurance companies to exist and rape your bank account.

3)Made the statement about illegal immigrants taking African American jobs in response to Obama’s honest discussion about blaming immigrants being a scapegoat. Let’s not forget that it was NAFTA (relic from the CLINTON YEARS!) which enabled the great influx of illegal immigrants by destroying Latin America’s work force! Fear monger much, Hill?

4)Changed her official stance, again, about her vote to invade Iraq. Now she denies knowing her vote would enable the Iraq war! How much spin can she make?

Please, folks, I know logic will take over eventually. It is apparent right now how Obama is not only better than Hillary on the issuees, but is a much more ethical leader. Make the right decision NOW because Barack Obama WILL be the next president of the United States of America!

Sounding the alarm on permanent bases?  He already wrote the signing statement that went with 2008 National Defense Authorization Act.  Its already a law with the usual caveat.  She might have “sounded the alarm” before the fire burnt down the house.

And she defends her decision on voting for Kyle-Lieberman which classifies part of the Iranian military as terrorist.  Such a classification allows for US military action against a sovereign nation under the Bush Doctrine of “fighting terrorism”.

No, there won’t be an “invasion” of Iran with her as president because there aren’t enough troops for anyone to invade Iran.  There will be airstrikes killing civilians.

I don’t want a Republican president either, but if there’s a Democratic president with the same imperial foreign policy it doesn’t really matter.

Would you care to refute that her statement regarding the UN and the US president is in fundamental agreement with the Bush Doctrine?

And the country is already bankrupt and without any moral standing.

Hillary Clinton will not invade Iran, as all thinking Americans know she won’t.  Her focus is on every day Americans and their needs, in restoring respect for America and the Presidency in the eyes of the world.  Indeed she is currently sounding the alarm about the Republican President’s attempts to establish permanent military basis in Iraq. It is the Republican President who hints at invasion of Iran.  War, war, war - that’s all one hears out of the Republican President. He can talk about war instead of the needs of every day Americans. 

Not Hillary Clinton.  She will end this invasion.  There will be no invasion of Iran with her as President.  I have every reason to think that if a Republican is elected President, that Republican President will send troops into Iran within two years, further bankrupting our country, ruining our economy, disgracing America before the world as a tyrant who refuses to control itself.

ec kostrubala
political Independant

Hillary Clinton will not invade Iran, as all thinking Americans know she won’t.  Her focus is on every day Americans and their needs, in restoring respect for America and the Presidency in the eyes of the world.  Indeed she is currently sounding the alarm about the Republican President’s attempts to establish permanent military basis in Iraq. It is the Republican President who hints at invasion of Iran.  War, war, war - that’s all one hears out of the Republican President. He can talk about war instead of the needs of every day Americans. 

Not Hillary Clinton.  She will end this invasion.  There will be no invasion of Iran with her as President.  I have every reason to think that if a Republican is elected President, that Republican President will send troops into Iran within two years, further bankrupting our country, ruining our economy, disgracing America before the world as a tyrant who refuses to control itself.

ec kostrubala
political Independant

Sen Clinton has never said that she made the wrong decision about her vote for the war.  Not only has she defended her vote, but last night she changed her story from “i was duped” to “i made a reasoned decision”.

Yes, she is an elected representative charged with executing the will of the people.  But this is not a democracy, it is a republic.  Sometimes the role of a politician in a republic is to make the difficult, but right vote and then explain to his/her constituents why it was the right vote.

Not a few Senators voted against that war, and all of them knew what their vote meant.  Last night she defended her vote to destroy a country (perhaps two countries if you include this one), and one of her reasons was because she was afraid of Saddam’s ego getting too big.  Shortly thereafter she explained that she voted against the Levin amendment because she wholeheartedly supports the oversized ego of any American president.

You are probably right, she will probably be the next president of the United States.  How high will you hold your head when she attacks Iran because she’s the president and she can do whatever she wants to do?

Hillary Clinton did a very good job in last night’s debate.  She avoided every mistake she made during the South Carolina one (which I detailed here - http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20080122_firework s_in_south_carolina/ ).

This time, she focused on issues, not pot shots.  Her opening statement was issue based.  Barack’s was merely a stump speech.  Hillary Clinton answered the questions put to her, provided details of her policies when appropriate, kept her composure and facial expressions positive when in repose, refused CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer’s persistent baiting tactics with poise and grace, resisted the temptation to take a swipe at Barack after he took a swipe at her.  Very well done, Senator Clinton!

On the matter of the Iraq invasion, I do not fault Hillary Clinton for her vote at that time.  She made her decision based on the information the Republican Bush Administration provided to the American people.  Colin Powell, a man I respect, went to the United Nations and told the world that Iraq most definitely had weapons of mass destruction.  The President and Vice President insisted on the same.  New York City was reeling from the attack against them.  Senator Clinton, of New York, did what she thought was in the best interest of her State and her country, based on the information provided to her from the intelligence community and the Oval Office. 

When Hillary Clinton learned the truth, she changed her position, as did most thinking Americans, including the people of New York.  She had been duped, just as Colin Powell and most in the Senate had been, by the Republican President and Vice President of USA.  Barack was not in the Senate at that time, so he cast no vote then.  But after coming to the Senate, he voted in support of this invasion too, with each vote to continue its funding.  Now, both of them have pleged to end this invasion if they are elected President.  That is the issue now, since the Republicans show no desire to end this invasion in the foreseable future. 

Hillary Clinton is sincere in her deep concern for our country.  She has been all her adult life.  I am confident that if she is elected President, which I hope she will be, she will champion the cause of every day Americans, rather than of greed based, lust for unseemly profits on the backs of the people, industry and big business.  And I will again be able to hold up my head as an American once Senator Hillary Clinton becomes this nation’s President.

ec kostrubala
political Independant

bent, I would gladly have voted for John Edwards over the remining two. I would love to have voted for Kucinich. I would probably vote for Richardson and maybe even Dodd. The fact that Obama is a fine insprational speaker with a non-engish name and an African appearance does NOT equate with change on more than the most superficial of levels. I have yet to see how he offers anything significantly different than Clinton on issues ranging from national health care to peace to the environment. My problem is that if we must have an imperial corporate hack as President, I would just as soon have a repug so that at least we have a movement to fight for vital issues. Having a Dim, constantly under attack, unless significantly better only serves to cripple any movement for peace and justice. It fosters illusions and does us all more harm than good. I’ve seen it before.

Some anonymous sage once said:

Who would you rather have some one that claims having 30 years of experience as an “elevator operator” or someone who not only knows how to operate an elevator but also is able to climb stairs?

A friend quoted a passage from a book by a friend of Hiilary’s Bill with a quote attributed to Bill that, “Hillary has kissed her fair share of a woman’s anatomy a part that Bill was accused by many of doing indiscriminately.

So in essence the issue is down to fundamentals.

I’d be interested to know what you are looking for in a democratic candidate this election season if you are not pleased by any of them.

Despite the Biden and Dodd leaving the race, only two weeks ago there was a mix of candidates that encompassed every aspect of qualities I can imagine.

Bill Richardson has held numerous cabinet positions, been a successful governor and a successful ambassador. John Edwards is a charismatic speaker with a clear cut mission unlike many candidates we have seen before. Hillary, well she’s a women with a lot of name recognition, and her supposed 35 years experience are debatable. And finally, Barack Obama, regardless of your opinion of his views, is surely the most charismatic speaker we have seen in a long time. Not to mention an extremely thoughtful man with a vision, whether you like it or not, that is unique and original.

What are you looking for if these four don’t suit your interests?

I thought that Obama did a terrible job, on the whole.  It is obvious that he’s not a very good sound-bite debater.  So i’ve been surprised at how many polls/pundits called him the winner.

When Clinton sat there talking about how she made a ‘reasoned decision’ on the Iraq vote, you could see the light bulb going off above Obama’s head.  He’s looking at her and his shoulders perk up.  She has stated on more than one occasion that she made that vote based on not having enough time to research it and think it through.  He gave her a free pass…sucker.

For a long time, i’ve figured that she’ll win the nomination, and like a stupid sucker i’ll go vote against the Republicans by casting my ballot for her.  All that changed last night.

When asked about why she voted against the Levin amendment, “Number one, the Levin amendment, in my view, gave the Security Council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I don’t believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is our president.”

I will never say that the US should give up its sovereign right to defend itself.  But what i heard was a candidate who is on board with this “unitary executive” theory.  I heard a candidate who clearly believes in the imperial prerogative of the president.

Mark my words, if she is president not one facet of the constitutional subversion practiced by the Bush administration will change.  She doesn’t believe that Bush’s form of “governing” is wrong, she wants it for herself.  Clean up after, my ass…

I hate to say this, i really, really, really hate to say this.  But i am officially in the camp of, “I will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances or for any reason.”  She is an evil, warmongering, imperialist.  She voted for that war because she wanted it.  She cares nothing for the dead, the wounded, and the suffering.

Any fool who votes for her deserves whatever they get.

PS: Maani, i don’t think you want to tangle with me on this.  You cannot twist this in any way that will make it understandable or ok.  You go ahead and vote for the “NWO”, that’s your decision.  I don’t care.

Something we know about Hillary, we will get the same thing we had with Bill, except the BJ will be done to the American People, carried over from bush. 
Hillary shows the same qualities of admitting errors of her decisions, like the lying bush, so we can expect from Hillary no change except four more years of Clinton’s. 

Hillary seems to be pro war, what is that all about? 

Let’s face it, the states that already voted in the primaries, with the guidance of the media have selected or final slate for us, our choices are limited to two and Obama is my choice for hope and change. 

Now for Obmaal to be able to make some changes will depend on the American People, Congress and the Senate both need a High Colonic .  Obama has stated the problem of the lobby running our government and needs to be changed.  What is wrong with that?

Hillary is lobby run herself, so why vote for her?

Go Obama

I would have liked to congratulate Truthdig on running an unbiased story on Clinton/Obama for once but I cannot. With the last paragraph (25% of the article), the nameless author has again degraded the presidential campaign and the issue of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by presuming that some trite quip is in any way “a trump card”.

Falsely assuming then that that was “a crucial round” or that it even “went to the Illinois senator”, we sadly and belatedly come to the real issue. That is the intentional coverup of Obama’s pro-war anti-Christian duplicitous rhetoric of the past six years with the lie that ” ...I want to end the mindset that got us into the war in the first place”, uhh.

Thus “I do not oppose all wars” has somehow become “I don’t want to just end the war” and the “crucible of the sword” and willingly shedding other peoples’ blood is supposedly going to lead to a new dawn of peace. Pity that neither Obama or the Truthdig author attempted to reconcile BO’s most awful reference to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount which he derided as “...a passage that is so radical that it is doubtful whether our own Defense Department would survive its application” !!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPUe6T8RVXs

There is no way I can vote for either of these candidates. Hillery Clinton and her husband are prime examples of the worst corporatist corrupt politics and a vote for her is out of the question. Obama is not much better and I FEAR that if he is elected, he will be rotten and there will be NO progressive opposition because of his dark complexion. Many of us will not want to criticize him not only because he (like Hillery) will be attacked by the right but because as the first “Black President” we will want to avoid the appearance of racism or alienation of our fellow activists of color. This also applies to Clinton as the first Female President but to a lesser degree.

We are caught in a no-win situation and I will either vote for an alternative candidate or not vote at all. McCain will not be measurably worse than Clinton or Obama but we will at least still have a movement.