So let me get this straight, John Hanks.  Because the media “froze out” Kucinich and tells you the contest is between Giuliani and Hillary, you are going to vote for Hillary?  What, are you so plugged into the propaganda network that you have to be told by the media who to vote for?

Hello!  This is the primary.  You are a citizen.  It is your civic responsibility to learn where each candidate stands on issues that truly matter to you.  Regardless of what the media tells you, the only poll that counts is the one in which you cast your vote.  Citizenship mandates that “you” decide who you should vote for.  If you permit the media to make the choice for you, if you allow the media to tell you that you must chose candidate A or B and ignore C, D, E & F, you abandon citizenship and become nothing more than a consumer.

Why, if, as you say, “Hillary will keep us in a Zionist war forever,” would you vote for that woman when you have a candidate like Kucinich who would restore sanity? 

I’m sorry John.  While I have always found your posts on Truthdig to be sincere, this one makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever--except to reflect the confused thinking which helps to explain why polls show that so many Americans appear ready to permit the media to force another general election Hobson’s choice between two lesser evils rather than a true choice that allows the vast majority of the electorate--the middle and working classes--to vote on a candidate (Kucinich) who truly represents their interests.

CY, a really good book demonstrating how the Clintons betrayed American labor by joining with Reagan/Bush in ramming NAFTA & the WTO down our throats is Jeff Faux, “The Global Class War.”

GB, the points you make are all solid.  Unfortunately, they have about a much chance of registering with Doug Chalmers as they would with a turnip.

I would direct your attention to comment #105184 by reclusiveprogressive:  “This debate between Mr. Canning and Mr. Chalmers is hillarious.  Mr. Canning articulates very specific, legitimate points about what sets Kucinich apart from the pack of monotone corporate hyenas and what makes Hill the Number One Shill such an awful choice, and Mr. Chalmers responds with incoherent generalizations and non sequitors.  It’s like watching a chimpanzee trying to shout down the zoologist.”

Unfortunately, given the nature of the American propaganda network, aka, the corporate media and the fact that the majority of Americans rely upon that media as their primary source of information, it is difficult for zoologists to be heard above the din of the chimps’ noise machines.

105776 by Conservative Yankee on 10/09 at 8:07 am: “...Need more?  I’ve got Gygabites of this stuff....”

No doubt, CY. As it is, you’re living in the past. Hillary has at least been open-minded enough to change with the times and to improve, progress and move on!

Rage - Please provide some of your sources of information that provide proof of Hillary’s evil intent. I have been impressed with her intelligence and ability to speak fluently, all of which is in stark contrast to CWB. I may have been fooled by her apparent abilities. Any credible information dicrediting my perception of her will be helpful.

#105234 by John Hanks on 10/06 at 4:05 pm: “...For what it’s worth, Bush feels free to advise Hillary on political and foreign policy matters.  They both represent Israel and America’s Zionist interests....”

It actually indicates that the Neocons are no longer in control and everyone else has accepted that there will be a Democrats president and that she will be a woman. You guys have simply misinterpreted what has already been a shift in power to yours and everybody’s benefit as far as getting back on the road to progress is concerned:-

“...Gates is to appoint John Hamre, a former official in President Bill Clinton’s administration, to chair the Defense Policy Board once led by Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative advocate of the invasion of Iraq. The board’s job will be to prepare for the transition to a new administration in 2008, according to a Pentagon spokesman......

Hamre, who was Bill Clinton’s deputy defence secretary in the 1990s, has been highly critical of the conduct of the war on terror. In The Washington Post last year he wrote: “The policies that led to Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, secret renditions and warrantless wiretaps have undermined America’s towering moral authority....”

#105194 by Conservative Yankee on 10/06 at 10:59 am: “...Answer me this; What do we have in return for what we gave up? ......and what did we get in return?
A military build up in China
A loss of our traditional trading partners
A vastly diminished manufacturing sector
and a rapidly vanishing “middle-class....”

Ha ha, poor CY. You didn’t “give up” anything, you “lost it”, sucker. The only ace left is 300 million population (mouthes to feed) and a still fairly strong economy.

But, there is no “military build up in China” - its a fantasy to scare you just like the illusory “war on terror”. They have their problems too and one of them is 1.3 billion mouthes to feed so “employment” in the army is as good an excuse there as in the US. The other one, in case you haven’t noticed, is that they have borders with some 14 neighboring countries including Russia and India as well as Japan (the old enemy) and Taiwan (the renegade province) off the coast.

There is no such thing as “traditional trading partners” if you can’t keep up, CY. The rust-belt came into being because of a lack of forward planning or investment. The investors and manufacturers eventually voted with their feet and went to Asia (mainly China). Now you have clothes you can afford and more economical vehicles on the roads. But you still want to complain.

When the $US falls to some more survivable level, investment will slowly return to the US and new factories will be built and manufacturing will grow again. By then, the USA will have learned something fundamental about a level playing field and the effects of globalization. Funding a large military around the world will have to come to an end along wihth the attached egotism.

Too bad about the middle class, eh. Old universities like Harvard talk superficially about “Veritas” - Truth - but do little to support it in fact. Truth is the essential core value which has vanished from this land and its a winner-takes-all game currently being won by the good ol’ boys behind the scenes. They take their holidays in other countries and they have their mansions. Frankly, my dear, they don’t give a damn!!!

That they will mostly end up like old civil war Southern mansions and estates “gone with the wind” is another thing. Change is coming. They cannot see this - or don’t want to. Its up to ordinary people now. The “pink wave” is the only new movement going anywhere positive. So far, you haven’t come up with anything any better in the least, uhh.

Thanks reclusiveprogressive.  I can’t ever remember receiving a compliment that was quite so hillarious.

This debate between Mr. Canning and Mr. Chalmers is hilarious.  Mr. Canning articulates very specific, legitimate points about what sets Kucinich apart from the pack of monotone corporate hyenas and what makes Hill the Number One Shill such an awful choice, and Mr. Chalmers responds with incoherent generalizations and non sequiturs.  It’s like watching a chimpanzee trying to shout down the zoologist.

Doug, a repeal of NAFTA & the WTO, a return to ecologically responsible, bilateral trade agreements that respect worker’s rights, an end to the war in Iraq, drastic cut backs in the tribute we pay to the military-industrial complex and war profiteers like Halliburton and Blackwater, single-payer health care, a restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, meaningful media reform which reverses the damage done by the give-away of the public airwaves to corporate America by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and which is a prerequisite to meaningful campaign finance reform would all be “on-the-table” in a Kucinich presidency.  None of these will be “on-the-table” during a Clinton presidency.

You don’t believe these things are feasible because you have swallowed the line spoon fed to you by the propaganda network, aka corporate media.  So long as Americans, like yourself, vote for someone based solely on whom the media tells you “can” win as opposed to where candidates stand on substantive issues that truly matter, we will continue to experience what Noam Chomsky aptly refers to as a “democracy deficit"--the gap between where the vast majority of voters stand on those issues and the policies of their so-called “representatives” in government.  Until we close that deficit, the bad government we get will be the bad government we deserve.

Several weeks ago, I reviewed the results of an intriguing blind Democratic poll that was posted on the Kucinich web site.  The poll was conducted so that candidate positions were set forth, but their names were withheld.  One candidate received a whopping 58%--Dennis Kucinich.  Obama was a distant second. There is your “democracy deficit.”

#105168 by Ernest Canning on 10/06 at 8:18 am: “...Chalmers ignores Mr. Kucinich’s call for a repeal of NAFTA & the WTO and the fact that Mr. Kucinich calls for a single-payer healthcare system...”

Believe it or not, Ernesto, but there is a “pink highway” out there already. Its not about who is who’s ‘her’ but what you will get in the end. Lobbying and campaign funding by corporationbs still hasn’t gone a way and there is much to deal with - when a government that is brave enough is eventually (if ever) elected.

As much as I agree about the problems and issues of the US health care system, repeal of or withdrawing from NAFTA & the WTO is a fantasy. When the $US falls to where it belongs, the “bottom-feeders” will be right there along with it. The US must soon - very soon - face up to its costs of foreign wars and foreign debt.

It will be breaking for most (not the GOP’s good ol’ boys, uh) and you will find out what the reasons were that made the “big wheel” era gave way to the “new deal” in the 1930’s. We have had “greed is good” and the “war on terror” but now everyone must pay the piper for those tunes. There is still the impact of global warming and climate change to be borne as well.

The result is that the USA may well be stuck with a common market with Canda, Mexico and the rest all the way to Panama. Where do you think the uS gets its cheap labor from now anyway? The WTO and the IMF will eventually be surpassed by the SCO (Shanghai group) so what the hell, eh. The face of the economic and financial world is changing. You’d better run to catch up.

Doug Chalmers’ lastest post typifies the empty platitude driven support for the Clintons.  She’s her “own person"--whatever in the Hell that means.

Mr. Chalmers ignores the fact that it was the Clintons who betrayed American labor by joining with Reagan/Bush in ramming NAFTA & the WTO through on the fast track--devices that permitted America’s economic elite to then betray the entire nation by outsourcing our manufacturing base in an endless search for the $2/day laborer while the remnants of American labor are increasingly Wal-Mart-ized.  He ignores the fact that Hillary is a former member of the Wal-Mart Board of Directors; that, thanks to NAFTA & the WTO, Wal-Mart, which did not have a single store outside the US in 1991, became the world’s largest corporation and a threat to middle-class aspirations of workers everywhere.  He ignores the fact that Hillary is the second largest recipient of health care insurance lobby dollars--second only to George W. Bush and that her so-called “universal coverage” plan is but a subsidy scheme for the healthcare insurance industry.  He ignores Hillary’s vote to authorize Bush to take us to war in Iraq, her statement that if she is elected, combat forces will still be in Iraq in 2013 and that she recently voted for Kyle-Lieberman--a vote that opens the door to an attack on Iran.

Mr. Chalmers also ignores the substantive positions of Dennis Kucinich--his detailed plan for ending the war in Iraq, withdrawing all troops and contractors, replacing them with international, Arabic-speaking peacekeepers under the aegis of the UN, returning Iraq’s economy and its oil to its rightful owners--the Iraqi people.  Chalmers ignores Mr. Kucinich’s call for a repeal of NAFTA & the WTO and the fact that Mr. Kucinich calls for a single-payer healthcare system which eliminates for-profit insurers and HMOs which are responsible for 31% of the healthcare costs in this country, regulation of the out-of-control pharmaceutical industry which charges Americans four times what it charges Canadians for the same prescription medications.

Rather than come up with a cogent argument as to how a vote for Hillary will better serve our interests than a vote for Kucinich, Mr. Chalmers tells us that what he really holds against the Ohio Congressman is that Mr. Kucinich was “bagging” on Hillary, which he suggests caused his “credentials to slip.”

Tell me, Mr. Chalmers, would Mr. Kucinich’s “credentials” have risen if he chose to ignore the fact that Hillary represents the ruling elite?  Would you have prefered a Dennis Kucinich if he were prepared to betray American labor, just like your heroes, the Clintons?  How does comparing where these candidates stand on issues that truly matter make one a “cannabalistic bottom feeder?”

#105063 by William Ries on 10/05 at 6:55 pm: “… This woman befriends the rich, the elitist corporate rats, lining their deep pockets exporting jobs while the working class struggles and desintegrates.  So quit feeding the media frenzy with bullcrap editorials about “the first woman” .....America needs Dennis K., a shark with teeth....”

I’m sorry to disappoint the Kucinich fans but one little ol’shark in amongst all those corcodiles and other cannabalistic bottom-feeders is not going to last. You are allowing your own NAIVETY to lead you by the nose into a blind trap.

In fact, ever since Kucinich started personally bagging Hillary - on a Truthdig interview! a few months ago - his credentials have started to slip.

Niether is criticizing Bill Clinton any kind of genuine complaint against Hillary. She has more to complain of about him than any of us. After all, she had to wear the scandal of Bill fucking Monica under the dining room table.

No, Hillary has re-made herself as her own person and has dedicated herself to her career as a presidential candidate. And, she has had some political experience of her own over the past several years to justify that.

What went before gave her the opportunity of a front-row seat view of the corrupt world of political patronage and cronyism. She knows where not to put her foot when manouvering . At least, you can appreciate that instead of blindly shouting your half-thought-through opinions, all of you.

Barbara D, if you go to the Kucinich web site, I am sure they can get you that bumper sticker.

Alas, Ellen, the real America despises Hillary.  This woman befriends the rich, the elitist corporate rats, lining their deep pockets exporting jobs while the working class struggles and desintegrates.  So quit feeding the media frenzy with bullcrap editorials about “the first woman”.

America needs Dennis K., a shark with teeth.

“As Hillary Runs for the White House, Consider Bill’s Refusal to Explore Bush I Scandals”

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

“Would President Hillary Clinton sweep Bush White House scandals under the rug like her husband did? A look back at Bill’s refusal to go into geopolitical scandals that had implicated George H.W. Bush in gross abuses of power and arguably criminal acts.”

Read more: http://www.alternet.org/stories/64345/

“Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq,” is required reading on the issue of how an elected Hillary Clinton may treat the eight years of crime and scandal from the second Bush presidency.”

“The excerpt opens with a scene early in the second year of Bill Clinton’s presidency with him explaining to White House guests why he didn’t pursue geopolitical scandals that had implicated George H.W. Bush in gross abuses of power and arguably criminal acts.”

“President Clinton made clear he saw historical truth as less important than his hopes for Republican cooperation on his domestic agenda. But this willingness to sweep major scandals under the rug left the White House back door ajar for a restoration of the Bush Family dynasty a half dozen years later—with disastrous consequences for the American Republic.”

***
Likewise, would history have played out different had Ford not pardoned Nixon? Perhaps had Nixon been tried and served time, those crazy’s who developed under Nixon’s influence might have thought twice before they pursued political careers using deception, violence and covert actions to gain and maintain control.

On second thought, probably not. Critical to sound leadership is the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Using a knowledge of the difference to create an illusion to allow free movement to do wrong, does not indicate a conscience. Rather it indicates a complete lack of conscience. Without a conscience, there is no guilt. And without a sense of guilt there is no need to make amends. And when there is no need, beyond hiding the reality of the deceit, there is no limit to the potential evil acts of destruction. We live with that reality today. We have completely AMORAL people making life and death decisions every day.

Shouldn’t we be sick of it by now?

Shouldn’t we want to find a way to put an end to it right now?

Consider this. As we approach the next election some 40 million potential new voters could be eligible to vote. The thing that makes these potential voters unique is the only names they can recall as “president” in their entire lifetime is Bush and Clinton.

Little wonder so many think they’re all crooked. Little wonder they believe no matter what they think or do, it makes no difference. Certainly no surprise that a lot of them probably wont bother to vote! And if they do, name recognition might be the only thing they vote for!

But it’s not to late! Talk to the young people around you. You will be surprised to find out how many questions they have. How sincerely they want to understand. Even the ones surrounded by conservatives, and totally stuck in that rut will listen and ask, if you approach them right.

KUCINICH
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/09/kucinich-to- force-impeachment-vote-on.html
September 27, 2007

Hillary is not a turd because she’s a woman. She’s a turd because there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between her and George Bush. True feminists would be much, much better off supporting Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

Why would any Democrat vote for a candidate (male or female) who says we will still have troops in Iraq in 2013, who voted for Kyle-Lieberman, which will open the door to an invasion of Iran, whose spouse betrayed American labor by joining with Reagan/Bush in ramming NAFTA & the WTO down our throats--devices by which America’s wealthy elites have betrayed this nation by outsourcing our manufacturing base in search of the $2/day laborer as what is left of American labor has been increasingly Wal-Mart-ized?  Is gender so important that we ignore that Hillary was a former member of the Wal-Mart board of directors--a company which is the greatest threat to middle class aspirations everywhere?  Is gender so important that we ignore that Hillary is the second largest recipient of healthcare insurance lobby money--second only to George Bush?  Does it matter to any Democrats that Hillary’s sham “universal health care” proposal amounts to a subsidy scheme for the health care insurance industry?

The fact that Hillary has such a commanding lead is a function of the degree to which the corporate media, acting as a propaganda network, successfully separates candidates from where they stand on issues that truly matter.  An interresting blind poll was recently conducted.  It listed candidate positions on “issues” but did not list their names.  It produced a startling result.  One candidate received 58% of the vote--Dennis Kucinich.  Barack Obama was a distant second.

Until the American electorate learns to shut off their television sets, to turn to alternative media for information, to ignore name recognition, gender and whom the media tells us are the “viable” candidates; until Americans cease acting as passive consumers and become active citizens, taking the time to learn where candidates truly stand on issues of substance, the government we get will be the government we deserve.

The trouble is that most of you guys are SEXIST!!! You don’t appreciate what you have with Hillary Clinton. While most of the candidates merely spout “I’m a great guy”, she really puts herself into the job.

Then again, how many of you are really Republicans anway - just whining about losing...!?!?

HILLARY JUST ANOTHER CFR MEMBER,IF YOU WANT OPEN BORDERS AND THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION,SHE’S YOUR GAL.
TO LEARN MORE GOOGLE ANY CANDIDATE FROM EITHER PARTY.
(CANDIDATES NAME AND CFR) THIS WORKS FOR ME.

RUDY’S FIRST WIFE WAS HIS COUSIN ................................................RUDY’ S FIRST WIFE WAS HIS COUSIN...................................................RU DY’S FIRST WIFE WAS HIS COUSIN....................................................R UDY’S FIRST WIFE WAS HIS COUSIN............GET THE MESSAGE REPUKES ?????????

I am totally amazzed how fast the US public learns. In the past 2-elections we voted for one of the dumbest presidents in our history. GWB’S election was bought with Corporate money. Bush is as anti-labor/pro-war as it is possible to get. In this short time it appears that most of the previous commenters are now ready to vote for someone who is not accepting lobbyist money and is pro-labor. I expect to see all of you that are now condemming Hilary to openly endorse John Edwards. Or what really is your message?

My two cents.  Hillary is just what the republikans wanted.  They are supportive of her nomination because they know here in the red south that even a blue dog democrat would rather have the likes of Rudy than HRC.  She’s anti gun.  Anti union.  And too damn wishy washy.  No one can pin her down on any issue, she just wriggles out of answering, beats around the bush.  No pun.  Honest.  Someone give me one good reason to vote for her.  I can think of 50 not to. Hmm?

Horrible article.  What is Goodman smoking?  She seems to think that the mere fact of Hillary Clinton’s gender is sufficient to merit her the White House gig.  Nevermind that she’s a Republican in sheep’s clothing.  And a feminist?  Is Goodman kidding?  If Hillary’s a feminist, then Bush cares about the health of poor children.  Apparently, in Goodman’s rosy world anyone of the female gender qualifies as a feminist.  You’d be hard pressed to find a more absurdly sweeping generalization.  Has she not bothered to scrutinize Hillary’s corporate-friendly positions on the relevant issues, her horrible judgment in going to war and continuing to fund it?

Wake up, Ms. Goodman!  Hillary IS the insider.  It’s not just media spin.  Try doing some actual research.  Look at the contributions she’s gotten from the health insurance industry alone.  The woman is all about the status quo.

Dennis Kucinich ‘08!

I don’t understand how one could be happy with Hillary, unless you’re a conservative. With Hillary, you’ll get nothing but incremental action on the great issues of the day. Hillary is a vote for the status-quo.