CY:

At the risk of sounding unhumble, I would hazard a guess that in my 50 years on this planet, I have spent a great deal more time living peace and fighting for it than you have.  Since my teens, my life has been founded on the principles of Gandhi, King and the “real” Jesus (i.e., love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, charity, selflessness, service, justice, truth).

I DO know how peace is attained (not “obtained").  And I have lived over 35 years - consistently - working to achieve and attain it.  How much active protesting have you done?  And I don’t simply mean attending a rally and carrying a placard.  Have you worked for peace-based organizations?  Have you engaged in non-violent civil disobedience actions and been subject to law enforcement violence, arrested, fingerprinted, etc.?  I have done so not just a couple of times, but numerous times.

If I call someone’s comments “right-wing clap-trap,” that is my opinion, to which I am entitled.  It is not epithetic (like much of what cyrena engages in), and is based on the fact that it echoes what I have heard from the right wing for many years.

I have also found - from both observation and experience - that too many people (but obviously not all), including many people here, do NOT “do the homework” or the research, but tend to opine from FEELINGS rather than FACTS, regurgitate what they have seen or heard in the media or from others who have similarly unresearched opinions, and/or do in fact echo right-wing rhetoric.

This does not mean that I believe that my opinions are any more “valid” AS OPINIONS; but I can tell you with a certainty that they are more thoroughly researched and supportable than alot of what I see and hear here.

So please don’t lecture me about “peace,” and how it is attained.  My entire life has been devoted to it, I was using the word before it became “fashionable,” and I continue to work toward it on all levels.

Peace.  (Yes, peace.)

CY:

You said, “Mortgage melt-down, exiting jobs, and a faltering economy have people up here “returning to their religious roots” That bodes ill for the Democrats in the upcoming contests.”

I’m not sure about that.  The so-called Religious Right is highly fractionalized now, which is why they have not coalesced around one candidate - not even Huckabee.  (And Huckabee is as likely to be the GOP nominee as I am to marry Cyrena...LOL).

In fact, it is clear that whether McCain or Romney is the GOP nominee, a large part of the Religious Right is either going to vote independent or not vote at all.  And this, of course, would siphon away votes from the GOP candidate - which would HELP the Dem candidate.

Peace.

Dave:

Nice to see you on another board.

While CY certainly has a point with regard to general politics, you nevertheless have your history correct.  Black were given the vote long before women.  And though it is true that there were pervasive attempts (mostly successful) to prevent them from exercising that right for quite some time, it still says something that women had to wait another 50 years for it.

As well, while CY is also correct about the prison system (and, though he doesn’t mention it, the entire justice system) re minorities - and in no way dismissing the historical violence against blacks (slavery, lynchings, etc.) - it is also true that, in current times, women are FAR more prone to be the victims of violence than blacks, whether that violence is direct (domestic violence, rape, etc.) or indirect (pornography, etc.).  Despite the gains of both blacks and women over the past century, misogyny is a far more endemic problem than racism.

In that regard, you might be interested in the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15herbert.ht ml?_r=1&sq=herbert&oref=slogin&scp=11&pagew anted=print

Peace.

You are right. I have been asleep when Hillary and Obama said they are against the war.

The real question is: why are you STILL listening to polls, when they have so often been wrong?

No GOP candidate can win if they continue to support the war.  Period.  70% of the American public wants an end to it now.  Indeed, although the economy, immgration and other issues are finally surfacing and being discussed, the public is still angry enough about the war that Congress’ popular support is even lower than that of Bush himself.

Add to this that the GOP candidates are still trying to sell supply-side economics (or worse), and the chance of any GOP candidate beating any Dem candidate is fairly slim.

Peace.

The only candidate that wins against all the Republicans in the polls, by margins too large for Diebold to overcome, is Edwards. For the first time in 47 years a Hillary/Obama will have me choosing between sitting home, writing in Kucinich, or voting a third party.

Ellen,
With the nightmare of Bush and neocons still with us, I am deathly afraid that another neocon could beat Hillary alone. Our country can’t stand any more of the neocon menace and anymore of the Iraq fiasco—either or both can bring us down.

Now Hillary and Obama might protect us against the neocon menace.

Fighting plutocracy under them would be easier than with a neocon in the White House.

Ostrogoth:

Me: “You may be supporting Kucinich, but your anti-Hillary rhetoric is from the GOP playbook.”

You: “The Republicans are anti-Hillary because they’re against assertive females. I’m anti-Hillary because she’s a posturing, cynical hypocrite and a war criminal.”

All politicans posture (including your noble Mr. Kucinich).  “Cynical hypocrite” assume cynicism.  I’ll accept “hypocrite” (on occasion).  “War criminal?” More hyperbole.  I wonder why you never include Obama when you make these kinds of accusation, since, despite his early stand against the war, he has voted identically with Hillary on all but one appropriations bill.

Me: “Actually, they have both set a deadline of ~16 months (end of 2009).  They even stated this during the debate the other night.”

You: “Who cares what they said during a debate? They continue to approve funding, sans deadlines, in the Senate.”

Then why do you believe what ANYONE - including Mr. Kucinich - says during a debates?  As for “sans deadlines,” that is not correct.  Hillary (and Obama) voted Yes on the appropriations bill that set a deadline; when Bush vetoed this, they refused to vote Yes on the revision, which deleted the deadline.

Me: “...the appropriations bills, since those are the ONLY bills that “support” the troops?”

You: “The appropriations bills don’t “support” the troops, they put our troops in harm’s way and force our troops to participate in war crimes. The invasion of Iraq was a war crime under Principle VI as set out by the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal, i.e.: “...[p]lanning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties...”

So you believe in not providing the troops with the most proper, safest vehicles, materiel etc. they can have at least UNTIL they are withdrawn?  Because that is part of what the appropriations bills are about.

You: “The subsequent U.S. terrorism, mass torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, the intentional destruction of Iraqi culture, and the intentional displacement of approximately four million Iraqis are all on-going, derivative, war crimes. Those who continue to fund the war are as responsible for those crimes as those who authorized the war. Hillary is a war criminal, and an unrepentant war criminal to boot, because she also recently authorized war crimes against Iran with her yes vote on the AIPAC resolution, which at any time could make her an accomplice in the murder of millions of innocent civilians.”

Once again, I wonder why you pick solely on Hillary when Obama and Edwards are equally guilty here re continuing the Iraq War.  As well, there is an “NV” vote for Obama on the Iran resolution, meaning he either couldn’t be bothered to vote on it, or he sat there and refused to take a solid stand.  In addition, all three (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) gave heavily pro-Israel speeches at AIPAC, with Obama actually giving the most pandering one of all.

You: “I consider myself a progressive on most issues. But on most important votes, Hillary comes down on the side of the bad guys.”

Re coming down “on the side of the bad guys,” if you are talking solely about votes on the Iraq War, then you are correct.  However, if you look at her entire voting record - on all issues - you will find that your accusation does not hold up.

Peace.

“You may be supporting Kucinich, but your anti-Hillary rhetoric is from the GOP playbook.”

The Republicans are anti-Hillary because they’re against assertive females. I’m anti-Hillary because she’s a posturing, cynical hypocrite and a war criminal.

“Actually, they have both set a deadline of ~16 months (end of 2009).  They even stated this during the debate the other night.”

Who cares what they said during a debate? They continue to approve funding, sans deadlines, in the Senate.

“...the appropriations bills, since those are the ONLY bills that “support” the troops?”

The appropriations bills don’t “support” the troops, they put our troops in harm’s way and force our troops to participate in war crimes. The invasion of Iraq was a war crime under Principle VI as set out by the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal, i.e.: “...[p]lanning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties...”

The subsequent U.S. terrorism, mass torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, the intentional destruction of Iraqi culture, and the intentional displacement of approximately four million Iraqis are all on-going, derivative, war crimes. Those who continue to fund the war are as responsible for those crimes as those who authorized the war. Hillary is a war criminal, and an unrepentant war criminal to boot, because she also recently authorized war crimes against Iran with her yes vote on the AIPAC resolution, which at any time could make her an accomplice in the murder of millions of innocent civilians.

I consider myself a progressive on most issues. But on most important votes, Hillary comes down on the side of the bad guys.

The idea that collaborating war criminals can become the darlings of the “progressives” sickens me to no end.

They are in the pocket of the Israeli lobby, so I guess that makes it okay.

Not to me. 

Rah rah for the senators who have destroyed our constitution, allowed naked high treason after treason, and given a green light for Bush regime war crimes around the globe. 

-Infinitely sickened

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

Ostrogoth:
(Part 1)

Ostrogoth:

Me: “Your right-wing zeal is showing.”

You: “Haha, silly me. All this time supporting Kucinich, I thought real progressives were left-wingers, now it turns out Kucinich and his supporters are right-wing zealots. Guess I need to do my homework, like you said.”

You may be supporting Kucinich, but your anti-Hillary rhetoric is from the GOP playbook.

Me: “Re AIPAC, every candidate has ‘pandered’ to them...So this is a wash.”

You: “Kucinich hasn’t pandered to them as much, so it’s not a wash.”

“...as much?” NOW who’s trying to weasel?  LOL.

Me: “Clinton, Obama and Edwards all have similar plans for withdrawal.”

You: “No. Clinton and Obama refuse to set a deadline for withdrawal. Yes, they plan to leave troops there, not to fight terrorism, which the US is using against the Iraqi people, but to ensure that Iraq never regains control of its own oil.”

Actually, they have both set a deadline of ~16 months (end of 2009).  They even stated this during the debate the other night.

Me: “...nor is she (or Obama or Edwards) particularly happy about the “rape and plunder” there, which is why they want to remove all combat troops post haste.”

Yuou: “Neiter Clinton nor Obama want to remove all combat troops post haste. They continue to fund the rape and plunder. And Hillary has always parroted the neocons’ doublespeak about “fighting terrorism” in Iraq.”

As noted, 16 months is about as post haste as is viable.  Re “fighting terrorism,” we can all wonder exactly what that means.  My point was that Clinton, Obama and Edwards have similar overall positions.

Me: “But NOT voting for those bills was seen as the equivalent of ‘not supporting the troops,’ so they were truly ‘damned if they did and damned if they didn’t.’”

You: “No. A fair number of Senators have voted to support our troops instead of keeping them in Iraq. Exactly how are they damned if they voted to cut off funding?”

Exactly how has ANY Senator “voted” to “support our troops” without voting on the appropriations bills, since those are the ONLY bills that “support” the troops?  And as noted, BECAUSE this is the case, voting AGAINST those bills is seen by many (and not just right-wing conservatives) as NOT “supporting the troops.”

“And if Hilarious is really so liberal, why does she care so much what the neo-cons think?”

As noted, since it is NOT just neocons who think that way, she (and Obama, who voted identically to Hillary on all but one appropriations bill) care what a great many Americans think.

Ostrogoth
Part 2

Me: “...the resolution naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group does NOT have language similar to that of the Iraq resolution that Bush could use to actually invade Iran...”

You: “Congress authorized Bush to use force to combat terrorism. That’s why AIPAC wanted the most important branch of the Iranian armed forces labeled a terrorist organization. HRC has cynically tried to argue that declaring another country’s armed forces a terrorist organization is not authorization to attack that country. Maybe in Wonderland it isn’t.”

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is NOT Iran’s main military force; like the Saudi National Guard (which protects the Saudi royal family), it is more like a “National Guard.” Thus, no one has declared Iran’s main armed forces a terrorist organization.  As well, I repeat that, having read the bill, I did not see similar language to that which the original “Iraq War” resolution had, and which Bush cynically used to start the war.

You: “Please ask yourself where Hillary and Obama get all their money to finance their lying TV ads. You think they defray all their lavish spending with cash they raise from concerned citizens?  Think again.”

This is a separate issue, and one with more nuances than you are allowing for.  This is not to say that lobbyists, PACs, “Big” this and that do not contribute the lion’s share of most political campaign coffers.

“While we’re at it, we can add Hillary’s yes vote on the Patriot Act, which basically suspended our constitutional rights in the name of protecting our freedom, to the list of her progressive credentials.”

Actually, this is a far more complicated issue than you suggest.  The Patriot Act was presented to Congress one month after 9/11.  It was presented on a Friday, with the expectation that a vote would be taken on Monday.  This gave the 600 or so members of Congress only 48 hours to read the Act.  As well, there were only about 200 copies printed, so members would have to share copies.  Needless to say, this was Bush’s outrageous way of forcing the issue.

Then, when Congress showed up on Monday to vote, the version that was put before them was about 35% different from the one that SOME of them had TIME to read.  So they were basically between a rock and a hard place: like the appropriations bills to “support the troops,” Congress knew that if they voted against the Act – only a month or so after 9/11 – they would be seen as “soft” on terrorism.  That is why so many otherwise reliable centrist, liberal and even progressive Congressional reps voted for the Act.

“If Hillary’s a liberal or a progressive, then I must be a right-wing zealot like you say.”

Again, Hillary is “liberal” and “progressive” compared to most of her colleagues.  And as noted, it is your anti-Hillary rhetoric that sounds right-wing to me.

Peace.

“Your right-wing zeal is showing.”

Haha, silly me. All this time supporting Kucinich, I thought real progressives were left-wingers, now it turns out Kucinich and his supporters are right-wing zealots. Guess I need to do my homework, like you said.

“Re AIPAC, every candidate has ‘pandered’ to them...So this is a wash.”

Kucinich hasn’t pandered to them as much, so it’s not a wash. Btw, why put “pandered” in quotation marks? Is there a better word?

“Clinton, Obama and Edwards all have similar plans for withdrawal.”

No. Clinton and Obama refuse to set a deadline for withdrawal. Yes, they plan to leave troops there, not to fight terrorism, which the US is using against the Iraqi people, but to ensure that Iraq never regains control of its own oil.

“...nor is she (or Obama or Edwards) particularly happy about the “rape and plunder” there, which is why they want to remove all combat troops post haste.”

Neither Clinton nor Obama want to remove all combat troops post haste. They continue to fund the rape and plunder. And Hillary has always parroted the neocons’ doublespeak about “fighting terrorism” in Iraq.

“And since I know you are going to bring it up, yes, Hillary voted for most of the appropriations bills for continuing funding for the war.”

You’re right for once.

“But NOT voting for those bills was seen as the equivalent of ‘not supporting the troops,’ so they were truly ‘damned if they did and damned if they didn’t.’”

No. A fair number of Senators have voted to support our troops instead of keeping them in Iraq. Exactly how are they damned if they voted to cut off funding? Maybe in the minds of right-wing (oops, left-wing to you) zealots like Bill O’Really they’re damned. And if Hilarious is really so liberal, why does she care so much what the neo-cons think?

“...the resolution naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group does NOT have language similar to that of the Iraq resolution that Bush could use to actually invade Iran...”

Congress authorized Bush to use force to combat terrorism. That’s why AIPAC wanted the most important branch of the Iranian armed forces labeled a terrorist organization. HRC has cynically tried to argue that delcaring another country’s armed forces a terrorist organization is not authorization to attack that country. Maybe in Wonderland it isn’t.

“Please do some actual homework before you make statements that are either insupportable or blatant right-wing clap-trap.”

This time I followed your advice and did five minutes of actual homework before making statements that are either insupportable or blatant right-wing clap-trap.

Please ask yourself where Hillary and Obama get all their money to finance their lying TV ads. You think they defray all their lavish spending with cash they raise from concerned citizens? Think again.

While we’re at it, we can add Hillary’s yes vote on the Patriot Act, which basically suspended our constitutional rights in the name of protecting our freedom, to the list of her progressive credentials.

If Hillary’s a liberal or a progressive, then I must be a right-wing zealot like you say. Thanks for the heads-up.

Ostrogoth:

Your right-wing zeal is showing.  You seem to like to regurgitate the canards of neocon talk-show hosts and the like.

Re AIPAC, every candidate has “pandered” to them, including Obama and Edwards (to say nothing of the GOP candidates).  So this is a wash.

Re “open-ended colonial occupation of Iraq,” this is simply ridiculous.  Clinton, Obama and Edwards all have similar plans for withdrawal (though Edwards believes he can do so quicker) and for leaving troops either in Iraq or nearby (Edwards says Kuwait) in order to protect the embassay and American interest, fight terrorism and, in the case of Clinton, protect the Kurds in the north.  This does not equal “open-ended colonial occupation.”

Re “HRC enthusiastically supported the rape and plunder of Iraq,” you sound like Bill O’Reilly.  She did no such thing.  Yes, she voted for the resolution that Bush used cynically to start the war.  But that does make her “enthusiastic” about it, nor is she (or Obama or Edwards) particularly happy about the “rape and plunder” there, which is why they want to remove all combat troops post haste.

And since I know you are going to bring it up, yes, Hillary voted for most of the appropriations bills for continuing funding for the war.  But so did Obama (although he registered a couple of “NV” votes, meaning he was absent or refused to take a stand).  But NOT voting for those bills was seen as the equivalent of “not supporting the troops,” so they were truly “damned if they did and damned if they didn’t.”

As for the resolution “authorizing war on Iran,” it would help if you actually took the time to read the bills themselves.  Unlike the resolution that Bush used to start the war in iraq, the resolution naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group does NOT have language similar to that of the Iraq resolution that Bush could use to actually invade Iran the way he did Iraq.

Please do some actual homework before you make statements that are either insupportable or blatant right-wing clap-trap.

Peace.

“Hillary and Obama are two of the MOST liberal, even progressive, Senators.”

Which Hillary and Obama are you talking about? The Hillary and Obama I know both oppose single-payer health insurance, oppose impeachment, pander to AIPAC and all the other mega-lobbies to finance their deceptive PR, and support an open-ended colonial occupation of Iraq. HRC enthusiastically supported the rape and plunder of Iraq, with its consequent and on-going torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Now she has the audacity to argue that she was tricked into it by the White House wanker. Only a few months ago she got duped again, poor little thing, this time into voting yes on the AIPAC resolution authorizing war on Iran. Golly gee. I guess some girls just can’t say no. The Iran resolution may yet get millions of innocent people murdered, but hey, everybody makes mistakes.

For the sake of truth in advertising, a more accurate label for Hillary would be a liberal, even progressive, corporate whore and war criminal.

It’s not exactly my “dream ticket”. Mine would be Kucinich-Obama. Clinton-Obama, however, is not a dream, but a good practical bet in this concrete political situation. Throw in Edwards for AG, and you have what looks to me like the most progressive administration we can realistically hope for.

Although I also do not think that Obama would settle for second place, this would indeed be a dream ticket, as it would essentially guarantee 16 years of progressive, or at least non-conservative, leadership, since Hillary could serve 8 years and Obama could serve 8 years after her.

N.B. Setting aside your personal prejudices against Hillary, according to many of the most respected gauges - the Almanac of American Politics, Americans for Democratic Action, Progressive Punch, the League of Conservation Voters, ACLU, NARAL, National Journal, among others - Hillary and Obama are two of the MOST liberal, even progressive, Senators.  As well, the American Conservative Union ranks them both at the bottom of their scale (Hillary got a 9 out of 100, Obama an 8, with lower numbers meaning less conservative) and the NRA gave them both an “F” (for failing to support NRA bills).]

As well, despite their recent unhelpful bickering, they are actually fairly close on most of the major issues, so Obama would be able to support Hillary’s positions and decisions in large measure.  He would also get “on the job” experience as an active VP, and would be 8 years older and wiser when he does become president.

The only thing they do NOT do for each other on the same ticket is bring in different geographical demographics.  Most presidential candidates choose a running mate who will help bring in a particular geographical demographic where they themselves are weaker.  Since both are from big northern states and cities, they do not help each other this way.

However, I agree that the sheer historicity of this ticket, and the combination of Obama’s inspirational message and Clinton’s pragmatic wonkishness would be more than enough to be a slam-dunk against ANY Republican ticket.

Peace.

There is a ticket I will not vote for. I could see an Edwards-Obama ticket but I think Jim Webb or John Conyers would make a better veep for Edwards.

Ellen Goodman thinks HRC and Obama would be a dream ticket. Sounds more like a match made in hell to me. As much as I disrespect Obama for his endless tap-dancing around all the issues that matter, I might be able to bring myself to vote for him in the hope of saving the last remnants of our constitutional government from Republican mad dogs. But if he beds down with Hilarious, the unreconstructed war criminal and prevaricating triangulator, all bets are off. Unless, of course, Obama gets to be on top.