Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 1, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


China and Its Challenges




The Underground Girls of Kabul


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Obama, Clinton and the War

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jan 29, 2008
Obama and Kennedys
AP photo / Charles Rex Arbogast

Change they, apparently, can believe in:  Sen. Edward, Caroline and Rep. Patrick Kennedy get behind Sen. Barack Obama’s cause on Sunday.

By Robert Scheer

It should mean a great deal to progressives that in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination Sen. Ted Kennedy favors Sen. Barack Obama over two other colleagues he has worked with in the Senate. No one in the history of that institution has been a more consistent and effective fighter than Kennedy for an enlightened agenda, be it civil rights and liberty, gender equality, labor and immigrant justice, environmental protection, educational opportunity or opposing military adventures.

Kennedy was a rare sane voice among the Democrats in strongly opposing the Iraq war, and it is no small tribute when he states: “We know the record of Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth.”

But that is precisely the truth that Sen. Hillary Clinton has shamelessly sought to obscure. Her supporters have accepted Clinton’s refusal to repudiate her vote to authorize the war, an ignominious moment she shares with other Democrats, including presidential candidate John Edwards, who at least has made a point of regretting it. It was a vote that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, 3,940 U.S. service members—five more on Monday—and a debt in the trillions of dollars that will prevent the funding of needed domestic programs that Clinton claims to support. And it doesn’t end with Iraq. Clinton has been equally hawkish toward Iran and, in a Margaret Thatcher-like moment, even attacked Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden.

Clinton’s apologists include Gloria Steinem and too many other feminists, who should know better than to betray the women’s movement’s commitment to peace in favor of simplistic gender politics. It is disturbing, not because they conclude that Clinton is the best candidate, but because they refuse to challenge their candidate to be better. Does it not matter that Clinton’s key foreign policy advisers are drawn heavily from the ranks of the neoliberals, who cheered as loudly for President Bush’s war as did the neoconservatives? Are they not concerned that Richard Holbrooke, who exploited his experience and access to secret information during the Clinton presidency to back Bush’s Iraq invasion, is a likely contender for secretary of state should she win?

Sandy Berger, a key Clinton adviser, played a major role in convincing Kennedy’s congressman son, Patrick, to vote for the war authorization against what the younger Kennedy said was the advice of his father and his own better instincts. According to a Knight Ridder report at the time, “Patrick Kennedy said the most persuasive arguments for attacking Iraq came from members of the Clinton White House,” including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who is often described as the foreign policy expert closest to Hillary. Patrick J. Kennedy refuses to be burned twice and now supports Obama.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Yes, if Hillary Clinton is the candidate, she probably will be better than the Republican alternative and, as Ted Kennedy made clear, deserving of our support. But isn’t it troubling that she can’t hold a candle to Sen. John McCain when it comes to fighting Pentagon waste or pushing for campaign-finance reform to curtail the power of lobbyists? Isn’t it disturbing that Sen. Clinton has received more money than any other candidate of either party from the big defense contractors, according to a report on the Huffington Post? Why have the war profiteers given her twice the campaign contributions that they sent to McCain, if not for the expectation that she is on their side of the taxpayer rip-off that has seen the military budget rise to an all-time high? It’s for the same reason that the bankers, Wall Street traders and other swindlers who produced our economic meltdown fund Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has made “experience” key to her claim to the presidency and tells us she will do the right thing from “day one.” The reality is that her extra four years in the U.S. Senate hardly provides better experience than Obama’s eight years in the Illinois state Senate battling for progress with the nation’s most hard-boiled politicians. And if she lays claim to her husband’s presidency, then she must also take responsibility for caving in to big media with the Telecommunications Act, selling out to the banks with the Financial Services Modernization Act, and killing the federal welfare program—a political gambit that deeply wounded millions of women and children. Her political career began with the Senate and she hit the ground running, but, as her craven support for Bush after 9/11 shows, it was in the wrong direction.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



TAGS:


Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Again, a Sudden Shift in the Campaign Winds

Next item: Western Civilization: An Idea Whose Time Has Come



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, February 8, 2008 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

No, I have not forgotten the continuous punishment inflicted upon the Iraqi people during the Clinton years. I just try to not be too redundant. All of this can be found on my comments in The Huffington post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/thebeerdoctor

Report this

By joseph, February 8, 2008 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let us not forget that in the Clinton era Iraq was subject to draconian import restrictions of food & medicines.  Many Iraqy children suffered & died from from these Clinton / Albright policies. Ms. Albright was quite the feminist as she referred to these horrific results as just unfortunate casualties in a larger war.

Do we also forget that Clinton/Albright policies included numerous daily flights over Iraq, for years. Shouldn’t the information gleaned from these flights along with her inside foreign policy knowledge add some clairity in Hillary’s vote?

Did she know of the pre-war distortions of Bush/Chenny/Powell??

For some reason the Clinton’s wanted this war.

The Clinton’s have caused too much pain in the world. It’s time to turn the page and shed some light on this not so glorious Clinton Presidency.

Great article!

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, February 7, 2008 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

Thank you for your comments about the homeless and also about some of the positive legislative work performed by Mrs. Clinton. Although, as you are probably aware, I am not a great fan of the Clintons, it is good to be reminded that when it comes to the motives of human beings, it is not so simple as just right or wrong. In that sense I guess I should not be surprised that Mrs. Clinton is a calculating person with her own agenda. Is not that what a politician does? Again thank you.

“And the dealer tries to sell you that it is all black and white,
thank God it is not that simple in my secret life.”
Leonard Cohen

Report this

By Maani, February 7, 2008 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

MMC:

“I am glad that Hillary supports the veterans of war she has helped to start.”  As noted, her concern and actions long predate the Iraq war.

That aside, I agree with your comments whole-heartedly.  Indeed, I’m not sure you caught it, but when I “revealed” myself as a minister, I noted that my primary ministry is outreach to and advocacy for the homeless, both in general and, more specifically, in my area.  So I have also seen first-hand the degrading and dehumanizing effect that it has, both on vets and non-vets.  And I work with both.

Yet I would go even further than your comments and say that, as a general matter, homelessness is arguably the single most unnecessary and correctable immorality in our country.  And it is not just about money (though that is certainly an issue).  It is about ignorance.  And I mean that in the most literal definition of the word: i.e., the act of ignoring.  I see people walk by the homeless as if they do not exist; the level of denial in our society as a whole is truly repugnant where homelessness is concerned.  Some of my homeless charges tell me that a simple “hello” - i.e., an acknowledgement of their existence - can make their day even if they do not make a dime.  Yet how many people - otherwise intelligent, even caring and politically “savvy” people - do this?  From my experience, FAR too few.

Yes, we certainly need to “throw money at it” in a major way.  But what is more important is not just acknowledging that the PROBLEM exists, but that the PEOPLE - AS INDIVIDUALS - exist.  And where our vets are concerned, I would agree there is added layer of moral responsibility.

And yes, it WOULD be better “if we were not creating another generation of homeless vets.”  It would be even BETTER if those who argue that “housing is a right” were heeded by our local, state and federal governments: there is no reason why ANY person should have to live in a box.  Period.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, February 7, 2008 at 8:58 am Link to this comment

MMC:

Re “I am…”  Thank you sincerely for answering my queries about your military past.  It was very instructive, and I get a much better sense of who you are, and why you feel as you do.

Before I answer your queries, I do have one of my own.  While I accept your extreme disdain for Hillary based largely on her vote to give Bush the authority to use force in Iraq, I am wondering why all her good work on behalf of vets does not balance that out even a little.  And note that her work on behalf of vets goes back to at least 1993, if not before.

As I noted, as First Lady she was the initial driving force behind investigations into what became known as Gulf War Syndrome.  She fought tirelessly for vets in this regard, even helping draft and push through legislation giving them additional medical benefits.  And note that this was a SERIOUSLY unpopular position to take, given that everyone from the Pentagon to the Republicans in Congress tried to shut her up and shut her down because they did not want to face recriminations for the Gulf War.

As well, in her first term as U.S. Senator from NYS, she not only fought against Bush’s budgetary cuts to V.A. hospitals, but co-sponsored a rider to the bill which would have INCREASED funding for them.

In early 2007, as the result of the DoD refusing to pay a soldier a promised $50,000 bonus for re-upping for a fourth tour because he had his legs blown off two months into the tour and thus “did not complete his contract,” Hillary not only personally helped this soldier get HIS bonus, but introduced legislation that would prevent the DoD from ever attempting that kind of shenanigans again.

These are just three of a number of ways in which Hillary has worked for vets for over 15 years, both long prior to her tenure as a Senator (and thus her vote for the Iraq resolution) and during.

Indeed, my roommate was in NH canvassing for Hillary for six days prior to the primary.  One of the groups sharing the office was the VFW, who had vets and active duty members from all over the country - young, old, black, white, hispanic, male, female.  My roommate asked them why they were supporting Hillary.  One of them replied, “Because she is oine of the few members of Congress who gives a damn about vets.”  Another, an active duty office, actually said he was seriously concerned about ANY other candidate getting elected: “None of the ones in the race right now have shown all that much concern for us.  Not even McCain.”  When asked about Obama, one old-timer sneered and said, “That f—-er?”  He actually sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee, but hasn’t done s—- for us.  In fact, he has the worst attendance record on the committee.  Don’t even know why he’s there.”

Admittedly, these are only three responses from among hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of vets.  But they had no reason to lie; they were asked a straightforward question and gave a straightforward answer.

Again, I accept that nothing “excuses” Hillary’s vote on the Iraq war resolution.  But certainly it says something positive that she has worked on behalf of vets for over 15 years, and that they apparently recognize that.

I will answer your queries in my next post.  And I promise to provide as substantive an answer as I can.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, February 7, 2008 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

Leefeller:

I’m not sure what you are getting at here.  If you put your concerns in the form of specific questions, I would be more than happy to respond to you.

Peace.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 7, 2008 at 7:20 am Link to this comment

Mani you have been confused on many things, calling your self an evangelical left wing pastor is the ice breaker, and could be the start of your confusion.  Christian’s supporting war takes the cake.  Hypocrisy of Christians does not bother me it seems prevalent and expected, but what is confusing   “What happened to turning all four cheeks”?

Report this

By Maani, February 6, 2008 at 10:36 pm Link to this comment

MMC:

I’m confused.  You are a vet.  You were in the Marines.  Did you fight in a war?  If so, which one?

And if you did, did you only recently become opposed to war?  If so, do you regret the killing YOU did for the masters who called the shots for whatever war you fought in?

I know those sound like combative questions, but I’m sincerely interested in knowing.

Peace.

Report this

By antispin, February 6, 2008 at 10:04 pm Link to this comment

The American electorate is not quite as bad as the MSM and all other manners of alphabet soup would have you believe. 

But yeah, particularly worrisome are all these writers out looking for work - the DIA is no doubt having them spin new yarns: look for “The Flail of the Lord” at you local multiplex: “Jason the leader of an elite team of Blackwater mercenaries is nearly capitated by Mahmood when suddenly a Predator drone appears on the horizon…”

What was the drivel on NPR today?  Some “Madood” in the “ungoverned” areas of Pakistan Afghanistan border is the new evil mastermind behind assassination and Tube bombings, etc?  Give me a break.  Can’t the Alpha people be a little more subtle?  And the CIA…er, NYT guy who wrote “The Commission” is now saying Iran was behind 9/11?!  Don’t make me chortle my guts out.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, February 6, 2008 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment

All this pontificating about this stupid unholy war. It is hard for those opposed to all of this to understand the legion of people who think violence is a perfectly reasonable response to almost any problem. Why else would you call someone who kills another a hero? The flail of the Lord, the Christian Army, doing battle with the demon… the only thing new about this is how easily so many accept such banal drivel without question. So there is worry about the American body politic? I guess that is more important than the thousands of Iraq families killed.
Recently Ronald Reagan’s ghost has been conjured up by our elite front runner politicians. That very same movie actor President who said America did not lose Vietnam, it just wasn’t given permission to win.

Report this

By Franz Keifer, February 6, 2008 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

mrtibbs or Mr. Tibbs,

Interesting thoughts. I take it you have an anti-Kennedy jones? While watching the president’s State of the Union address I was wondering why Barack was all but sitting on Senator Kennedy’s lap. I would prefer a candidate without those ties but I fear Hillary would have perched gladly on that same knee if she had received the endorsement.

Fifty years of scandal and Kennedy continues to be the torch bearer for the Democratic Party? Barack preaches change and this alliance does nothing to convince me he is sincere. Yes, who is John Edwards backing? There’s an endorsement to be vying for. It is a shame that Edwards is out of the race.

Report this

By Maani, February 6, 2008 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment

For those with a sincere interest in the war and its potential aftermath, you might find the following two articles quite interesting.  The first is fairly brief; the second is somewhat longer.  Both are excellent.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200801/partisan-retreat

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200801/goldberg-mideast

Peace.

Report this

By M. J. Kopechne, February 6, 2008 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ms Kopechne showed poor judgment being with a group of married men that night. No single men were present. No wives of the married men were present. Things that make you go hmmmmmm? I’ll say. Was she duped into attending such a soirée? Perhaps. Was she duped into remaining there into the wee hours when all prospective drivers had reached the saturation point of their respective livers? Perhaps.

Poor judgment or not, she did not deserve her fate. We on the other hand know a good bit about the cad-like nature of the man. Beyond that, we know that Ted was a “C” student at the Milton Academy and was only admitted to Harvard as a “legacy”. While at Harvard, he was expelled twice for cheating and after a brief military stint in Europe (not Korea, thanks dad!) he was allowed to return. Cheating and being allowed to return to Harvard sounds a bit strange, don’t you think? Cited for reckless driving 4 times while attending law school at the U of Virginia and yet never had his license revoked. There was an infamous incident in 1987 where he was interrupted mid-coitus with a female lobbyist on the floor of a restaurant. The list of trespasses, drunken and sober, is seemingly endless and is mostly ignored on the grounds that this is a member of the “American royal family”.

I find Uncle Ted’s quote from the era of the Watergate scandal to be the pièce de résistance of his tumultuous career. Ted said the following from the senate floor: “Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?”

Wow, that definitely left a mark. Who could argue with his very clear vision of our world? Not I. I pose to all who read this post one question. If you were in Ted’s shoes for any one of his faux pas, would you have been treated in kind?

He is a serial abuser of our system and common decency. No amount of good works or liberal legislation takes that away. This is a grown man that insists on being a spoiled child. Knowing this we have presidential candidates sidling up to him for support with the expectations that his endorsement will endear them to the populace. If such nonsense were the premise of a television show I dare say you would change the channel. Yet, Ted goes on.

Enjoy the fleas “unregistered commenter JNagarya”. By the way Ted shows no guts simply by our knowing his name, he shows plenty for having the audacity to show himself in public. You, “unregistered commenter JNagarya”, show yourself to be gutless for not calling him on it. My smearing the name “Kopechne” is laughable. If you do just a modicum of research into that incident you will understand why I say that. Nothing did more to smear the name than associating it with Ted Kennedy’s. What is smearing her name compared with what happened to her person? Glug!!! I don’t want politicians to be moral, I want them to be equal under the law.

Oh, you wanted my name. Call me “unregistered commenter mrtibbs”.

Report this

By JNagarya, February 6, 2008 at 12:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You’re obviously an ass with about as much “sensitivity” to Kopechne as you accuse Ted Kennedy of hiaving.

Now, jerk, show us you EVIDENCE for the string of UNevidenced assumptions/smears you assert in the following:

“By M.J. Kopechne, February 5 at 6:58 am #

“(Unregistered commenter)

“Re: Re: Bill WTF pal
“No sh*t! And he ain’t swimming either, glug!

“Not fond of the idiom: “If you lie down with dogs, you’ll rise with fleas.” are you Mike Mid-City? Perhaps you’ve never heard it before. Uncle Ted has spent his entire political career trying to prove he was not the self-centered, cowardly bastard that allowed his date to drown. Any other American would have had to do the same from behind bars and I don’t mean on a Hyannis bar stool.”

You know as little about Ted Kennedy as you know about reality.

And have less guts than he: We know his name; you haven’t the maturity to give yours.  Instead you smear even Kopechne with your vulgarity.

All of which wholly negates your liar’s pretense to being moral, as over against Kennedy.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, February 5, 2008 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment

Or Super fat Tuesday, a conjuction of events of pre-lentian frivolity and pick your leader, most likely the anti christ.

Report this

By M.J. Kopechne, February 5, 2008 at 7:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No sh*t! And he ain’t swimming either, glug!

Not fond of the idiom: “If you lie down with dogs, you’ll rise with fleas.” are you Mike Mid-City? Perhaps you’ve never heard it before. Uncle Ted has spent his entire political career trying to prove he was not the self-centered, cowardly bastard that allowed his date to drown. Any other American would have had to do the same from behind bars and I don’t mean on a Hyannis bar stool.

Who is Edwards supporting? Why don’t we know that? The two numbskulls left in the race should be courting him rather than “fat bastard”.

Report this

By antispin, February 4, 2008 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment

That’s revealing.  Here’s the roll call (we miss you Paul Wellstone):

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs—-24
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs—-75
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Report this

By jackpine savage, February 4, 2008 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment

Here’s a link for you Truthdiggers:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/02/6802/

It is well worth the read, unless you’ve managed to convince yourself that Sen Clinton is a woman of peace. (actually its probably more important for you folks, but you probably won’t read it)

Report this

By M.J. Kopechne, February 4, 2008 at 6:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Glug, glug, glug, girgle, help me Ted,
sploosh, spirtle, glug, if only you were as…glug, good looking as…glug, Bobby, sploosh, glug, and could swim like… cough, Jack, glug, glug!!!

Report this

By Dollar Bill, February 4, 2008 at 8:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have three words for Uncle Ted’s being an effective fighter for “gender equality”, Mary Jo Kopechne.

Report this

By Dollar Bill, February 4, 2008 at 8:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Three words on Uncle Ted’s enlightenment, Mary Jo Kopechne.

Report this

By yours truly, February 3, 2008 at 6:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It Isn’t Who We Put In The White House

“What then?”

“It’s whether or not our next president ends the Iraq war plus turning things around here at home.”

“And why is this so?”

“Either we end the Iraq war or it’ll be the end of us.”

Report this

By Maani, February 3, 2008 at 4:52 pm Link to this comment

MMC:

Thank you for explaining what Obama was saying re the Sermon on the Mount.  You are completely on point.

Doug:

I will not repeat what MMC said, except to say that it was YOU who obviously did not understand what Obama was saying.  Nor do I see how he “ridiculed the very ‘higher truth’” of Christianity.  Apparently, you do not KNOW what the “higher truths” of Christianity are.

For one, FORGIVENESS is among the HIGHEST truths of Christianity (along with love, compassion, humility and charity (of spirit)).  Yet not even MMC seems to understand this, since he has harped obsessively on Hillary’ original vote for the resolution, showing not one iota of forgiveness.

Forgiving does not mean “condoning.”  Jesus forgave the adultress (“He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone”), but did NOT condone her behavior (“Go, and sin no more.”).  Indeed, Jesus forgave even those who murdered Him (“Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.”)

True, Jesus did not support violent conflict of any type (“Put away thy sword; for he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.”)  Indeed, He not only chastised his disciple for cutting off the centurion’s ear, but RESTORED the ear - despite the fact that the centurion was basically taking Him to His death.

Based on His life and ministry of love and peace, Jesus would certainly not have supported the war, pre-emptive or otherwise.  But neither would He judge Hillary, Obama or anyone else for their votes - certainly not in the unforgiving manner of MMC and others here.  Rather, He would forgive Hillary, Obama et al for their weakness, calculation, even cynicism, and look for them to learn from their mistake, move beyond it, and make better decisions the next time.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, February 3, 2008 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment

RTI:

Actually, you might be right about all but NAFTA. According to Carl Bernstein (no Hillary lover he), Hillary was dead set AGAINST NAFTA and argued with Bill about it numerous times, quite angrily.  She warned him particularly about the loss of American jobs.  But since he was president, she did not feel comfortable challenging him publicly.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, February 3, 2008 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller:

“If Obama did not vote to pay for the war, you would be yelling and screaming that Obama does not support the troops.”

Who is the “you” in this sentence?  It certainly is not me, nor, I’m guessing, most people on these boards.  The more accurate statement would be “If Obama did not vote to pay for the war, lots of people, including the right, would be yelling and screaming…”

But (and God forgive me, I am about to agree with MMC…LOL) does this justify a non-principled, wrong vote?

Peace.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 3, 2008 at 10:38 am Link to this comment

Who are you referring to Mike? My comment was tounge in cheek, this is the logic of the imbeciles supporting Hillary the war monger.

Since I have qualified myself as a moron, might qualify by saying an imbecile is a stupid moron.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 3, 2008 at 8:48 am Link to this comment

Lets see, your troops are fighting in a war you do not believe, so you make sure they do not get the funding they need to stay alive? Since you send they some money to survive, you are for the war. 

If Obama did not vote to pay for the war, you would be yelling and screaming that Obama does not support the troops. 

All facts speak the truth, Obama did not vote to go to war, once in it he supported the troops. 

One weakness of both candidates is they have not said enough against the war.  On the other hand they may have and the media is not getting letting us hear it.
Special interests control the news, so we have to work to find out what is really happening.

Report this
racetoinfinity's avatar

By racetoinfinity, February 3, 2008 at 2:54 am Link to this comment

You wrote:

“And if she lays claim to her husband’s presidency, then she must also take responsibility for caving in to big media with the Telecommunications Act, selling out to the banks with the Financial Services Modernization Act, and killing the federal welfare program—a political gambit that deeply wounded millions of women and children.”

And - don’t forget -  pushing through with fellow neoliberal Bob “Citibank” Rubin NAFTA,  WTO, bad China trade policy.  Reaganomics continued with Bill C.

Report this

By dihey, February 2, 2008 at 3:03 pm Link to this comment

According to the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Campbell vs Clinton, when Congress approves funding for a specific war, even in the absence of a Congressional Declaration of War, that funding is equivalent to a Declaration of War. I am puzzled why the Clinton campaign does not mention this law of our land. After all, the Clinton in Campbell vs. Clinton was then President Bill Clinton. Whatever the reason may be, Senator Obama has on several occasions legally declared war on Iraq by voting for the funding of that war. He has not only been one of the paymasters for the war, he has thereby approved the conduct of the war for the duration of the appropriation. He cannot wash his hands in feigned innocence. He is co-responsible for Iraq from the time of his first vote but like an irresponsible child he refuses to admit his responsibility. Former President Clinton is absolutely correct. Senator Obama’s anti-war story is a fairy tale from the moment he entered the U.S. Senate.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 2, 2008 at 10:17 am Link to this comment

Hillary or Obama?  Experience among a bunch of imbecile’s, would be a qualifier for the king or queen of the imbecile’s.  Since our politicians are a gaggle of imbecile’s, Hillary is the more experienced so we should agree, as far as imbecile’s go, Hillary is the best choice.

Having fun, but the truth is in the pudding, we have a government run, controlled and paid off by special interests.  Mark Twain ran for president using his humor to describe what he saw in government at the time, about 1907.

If you read the following paragraph it rings true today.

“My invariable practice in war has been to bring out of every fight two-thirds more men than when I went in. This seems to me to be Napoleonic in its grandeur. My financial views are of the most decided character, but they are not likely, perhaps, to increase my popularity with the advocates of inflation. I do not insist upon the special supremacy of rag money or hard money. The great fundamental principle of my life is to take any kind I can get.”

Mark Twain

Business in Washington.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 2, 2008 at 9:44 am Link to this comment

Why do you think I called him Chompers?

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, February 2, 2008 at 7:18 am Link to this comment

Thank you for your information concerning the Opera browser. The funny thing is, the only reason I had to change browsers was because the Mozilla Firefox Start came up in German! Worked to fix the blasted thing all day, even at one point switched to a complete open source operating system (Ubuntu) and even the pre-installed Firefox there came up in German. Eventually, about 8 hours later, that stopped. But when I tried to reinstall Firefox in Windows, it would only stay on the Add-on page, never going to the home page.
I have thought about this quite a bit. Was this the result of the cables cut in southweat Asia a couple of days ago. Or was this some kind of viral attack, not at Mozilla, but rather Google itself?
Anyway, I still use firefox… via opera. Again thank you.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 2, 2008 at 6:53 am Link to this comment

#By kath cantarella, January 31: “Doug, chill out…. bag him without making stuff up…. Go read his autobiography…”

You’re starting to make me sick….

#By Maani, January 31: “Obama “anti-religious, anti-Christian?” I think not.  Here is an excerpt from his speech to the Sojourners conference…...” -  Quote BO: ”...if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.  Imagine Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address without reference to ‘the judgments of the Lord,’ or King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech without reference to ‘all of God’s children.’...”

Sorry, Maani, you’ve missed the point. Obama’s playing you all both ways with his words. First, he says sneeringly that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is “...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>)

Then he comes up with some spiel about MLK and Lincoln and you just rush to believe it even though the two statements are quite opposite and don’t genuinely withstand scrutiny. Obviously, none of you are able to deduce anything as regards his methodology or his strategy.

He has ridiculed the very “higher truth” which supposedly inspired Christianity but you only see what you want to believe. BO is moving the nation to embrace a common destiny which is being carried out through his kind of Pied Piper play-acting. You are all so easily sucked into The Ring, uhh.

As I said, you can add that to “I don’t oppose all wars” and “the crucible of the sword” to make your own conclusions about how intrinsically evil this person really is. He doesn’t care what you belive in as long as you vote for him. He himself has no belief other than in himself and “I wanna be president”.

Also, as I said, you are very weak as an evangelical minister, Maani. Incompetent, even…...

Report this

By Expat, February 2, 2008 at 5:18 am Link to this comment

^ and our country is crumbling at our feet.  Our infrastructure is disintegrating, our economy is shot, jobs are disappearing, education is wont, and the health of our citizens goes down the drain.  All we can see is black, white, woman, man, repub, dem.  This should be a serious clue as to just how far we have fallen.  Get behind the one of vision; at some point we have to crawl out of this crater of negativity and fight to get our country back from the bankrupt despots who have led us with the ring they put in our noses.  Are you worthy of a free and just society?

Report this

By cyrena, February 2, 2008 at 2:48 am Link to this comment

Beerdoctor,

This thing with the log-in happened to me as well, when I changed browsers. (which is how I wound up with a new ID temporarily). I’m trying to remember now, how I finally fixed it.

Try this. Go to the home page at Truthdig from your Opera browser, just by putting in the standard address.

(like, don’t do it from your email, like as a response to a post). Then, you should be able to click on at the top, to either sign-in, or sign-out of truthdig. If you can ‘log-in’ then log in with your username and password. That should do it. If it shows that you are already ‘logged-in’ then log out, and then log in again, using your registered name and password. And, make sure you’re doing all of this with your Opera browser.

I think there is also an option that you can select to keep you ‘logged in’ and that makes it easier as well.

Try that, since I think that’s how I finally resolved the same problem that I was having, after I changed to the mozilla firefox browser. That IE thing is a pain in the ass.

Hope that works.

Report this

By Don Fahrney, February 2, 2008 at 12:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You got it all wrong. Why isn’t he a white man with a black father. Hey, we always know who our mother is but no proof who the father is, but that begs the question. Obama is a white man with a black father, how can it be any different.

Report this

By Don Fahrney, February 2, 2008 at 12:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You got it all wrong. Why isn’t he a white man with a black father. Hey, we always know who our mother is but no proof who the father is, but that begs the question. Obama is a white man with a black father, how can it be any different.

Report this

By papeehara, February 1, 2008 at 9:32 pm Link to this comment

THE REAL AUDACITY OF HOPE WILL BE WHEN OBAMA DONATES THE 32 MILLION TO THE POOR THAT HE IS BLEEDING OVER RATHER THAN HELPING THE FAT CAT CORPORATE TYPES GET RICHER.

Report this

By Maani, February 1, 2008 at 3:17 pm Link to this comment

H.M.:

Now THAT is a superb assessment!  Thank you for your thoughts.  I agree 100%.

Peace.

Report this

By thebeerdoctor, February 1, 2008 at 11:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“And the killers still run the country, and they count their money with their blood stained hands,
but lately I’ve been thinking that it’s time we took
a stand.”
Eliot Murphy

Note to truthdig: Although I am a registered member, your log in would not allow me in. Is this because I am using the Opera browser? Please make note.

Report this
A Khokar's avatar

By A Khokar, February 1, 2008 at 10:04 am Link to this comment

Bush and Cheney are guilty of numerous impeachable offences for repeatedly violating the Constitution and transgression of national and international law; as well as nonsensical war against Iraq, which has resulted in killing of some 4000 Americans and savagely butchering of 600,000 innocent Iraqis. This has been done without the declaration of war from American Congress as well as; it is in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international laws. The reckless disregard for life and property in foreign lands and constitutional law has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

The conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced the image of United States to a historic low, in the eyes of people around the world.

But have we really tried to peep behind the closed doors of White House and found the real forces at work; which tends these figures like Bush and Cheney to remain on their toes all the time. This may our hypocritical face not to reveal the truth; that it is, in fact the policy of ‘American Adventurism’ at its play; a complex of deep seeded policies and the mind set of US; of securing US hegemony in the world; that is what which should matter us the most and a point of contention for all of us.

The divisive policies implied in execution through deception and fallacy by US is awful. The dismantling of sovereign states and to bring the havoc in the lives of millions and millions of defence less destitute people; to dislodge them and wipe them off from the face of earth; just in pursuance of US rapacious greed of her hegemonic hold in foreign lands are the crimes against humanity? American adventurism is strife; a matter of concern; a fearsome agenda concerning the future of the humanity on this planet.

Anarchy, mayhem in the house of adversaries and media manipulation to upkeep the climate of fear of terror, in our own society are the orders of the day. The evidence of government sponsored terror and how they use the fear of terror to control own society is found bursting out at the seams. This horrific climate is keeping the world in its grips, which can easily be visualised to stay for many more decades to come. 

We find that US top political parties; Conservative as well as Democrats; all are in full agreement in pursuing this common dream of their hegemonic aspiration in the world.

Today it is Bush and Cheney’s team and tomorrow we will have another set of figures; may they are Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton and their teams; we will find them pursing the same evil policies?

* The killers they don’t change; only they change their faces and flags.
*What a strenuous journey that we tread; even the milestones and traversed spans; all travel with us.

——————————————-
Love for all, Hatred for none

Report this

By Sodium, February 1, 2008 at 6:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Since the Declaration of Independence,US has been
ruled by Christian Anglo-Saxons.

I am a white American citizen,but I love to see the Executive Branch being made as follows:

President:A Muslim American.
Vice-President:A Jewish American,as long as that double
crossing Joe Lieberman is excluded.
(Note:the above two positions can be reversed according to the wishes of the people)
Secretary of Defense:A Hindu American.
Secretary of State:A Buddhist American.

This way,we may overcome the power of the Military
Congressional Industrial Complex and have a peaceful
world for a change.Enough greed and enough of the
Anglo-Saxons craps.

Report this

By Honolulu Mike, February 1, 2008 at 4:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As NY’s newly elected junior senator what would the chances of Hillary Clinton’s reelection have been had she voted against the authorization for use of force in Iraq? And why was it up to her to lead the charge against the authorization? Why doesn’t anyone ask McCain if he would vote for the authorization knowing what we know now.

In the upcoming election when it is likely the Dem. nominee will be facing super-hawk McCain, it is very true that a female candidate (or a black former hippie candidate for that matter) cannot look weak on defense & national security issues—especially if the dirty bomb scenario plays out right before the election next Nov.

I’m back to my original thinking that a Clinton / Obama ticket is the way to go this year. Barak will be in early 50s 8 years from now, and should be able to help the Dems. hold the White House for another 8 years. For an interesting view from a Civil Rights organization about Obama’s credentials and credibiltiy on racial justice issues, visit the http://www.fair.org website and download the podcast of this week’s program.

I’m losing patinece with lefties and the Clinton bashers who deliberately forget the fact that the Republicans gave Clinton’s admin. hell from day one because they felt he had no right to deprive GB I of his God given right to a second term. From the “don’t ask don’t tell” trap, to the oppostion to Clinton’s cabinet appointments (remember Lani Guinear?)to the humiliating way they shot down the Clinton healthcare reform effort the punishment was merciless, and few Dems. rushted to the Clinton’s defense. After the Repub. take over of control of Congress 2 years into Clinton’s term it was all downhill. They and did everything possible to deny Clinton a second 4 years. When he was victorious, becoming the first Dem. president to win a second term since FDR, the the VRRC began looking frantically for a way to block him from achieving anything of major importance in his second term, and of course the Lewinsky “bimbo-gate” impeachment coup fit the bill perfectly.

Hillary will have no reelection obsession, I predict, having already made history by becoming the first female President. She will feel compelled to make few of the Faustian compromises Bill Clinton was forced into; and with a supportive Barak Obama as her VP, I think we could be looking at one of the greatest presidental administrations in generations.

Report this

By cyrena, February 1, 2008 at 1:30 am Link to this comment

Seeing as how the ‘button’ for the nukes is far more ‘involved’ than the voting button on the Senate floor, I don’t have a problem.

Actually, there are ‘codes’ and a complicated protocal involved in ‘pulling the nuclear switch’ or even giving the order. It has to come from more than just the president, which is probably the only thing that has saved us so far. (Imagine the drunken shrub lurching around anywhere near the activation point)?

As for the wrong voting buttons, based on your example, none of us should ever allow a single vote cast in Florida to be considered for ANYTHING other than toilet paper.

Report this

By kath cantarella, January 31, 2008 at 11:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama, though he may not be your choice, is a good candidate. Even the Republicans will find it hard to bag him without making stuff up.

Go read his autobiography ‘Dreams From My Father’. (The man is an excellent writer, too. He’s so good he’s starting to make me sick…)

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 31, 2008 at 10:52 pm Link to this comment

I get “page not found” when I click it.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 31, 2008 at 8:15 pm Link to this comment

Do not know if you guys heard his wife, but Obama is married to one great lady.  She was just on Cspan and made a great speech.

Followed Mid Mike City and donated to the hope for change cause, Obama, it feels good. 

Feel the spark in the air.

Report this

By Maani, January 31, 2008 at 8:11 pm Link to this comment

JR:

ROFLMAO!  That’s as good as anything Borowitz has come up with so far…

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, January 31, 2008 at 8:10 pm Link to this comment

Andy:

Though you are likely to encounter much negative response to this (particularly suggestions that somehow voting records don’t matter all that much), thank you SO much for this.  I have been saying this since day 1, and have either been ignored, ridiculed or dismissed.

Bless you.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, January 31, 2008 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“Actually, I’ve even gone beyond the ‘complete idiot’ indication, but I’ve been trying to clean up my act.”

Jeez.  I hope you’re not doing this on MY account…LOL.  (No, really, I’m (hopefully) laughing WITH you…)

Peace.  (Truly!)

Report this

By cyrena, January 31, 2008 at 7:21 pm Link to this comment

Tony, I keep trying to tell you this. (about him being a dunce). I don’t know why you persecute yourself by even looking at anything he posts, or trying to respond logically.

The thing about Obama being a Muslim has been around for over a year. I started getting it via the standard right-wing trash machine, cheap propaganda e-mail, at least that long ago, and from people that I knew. (they didn’t know any better, and that’s how that stuff starts to circulate).

It was so ridiculous, claiming that he was only recently converted to Christianity, (I wouldn’t care whether he was or not) and that he had attended a madressa in Indonesia, (pre-school maybe?) and that he was gonna convert the U.S. to Islam.

Right, a black kid born to a white mother in Hawaii, raised in Kansas, (of all places) who began the guts of his career as a civil rights lawyer doing grass roots work in the black communities of the southside of Chicago. PUHLEESE….

Now, like I mentioned, this has been floating around the Internet, (the Muslim story) for a long time. If Chalmers is only just getting around to it, it just proves how desperate he is. (not that we hadn’t already figured that out).

Still Tony, I’m glad you were able to get it from him directly, and make your own deductions…the dunce corner.

I don’t think it’s gonna make any difference on his end, but it’s always good to keep him exposed for the dunce that he is. (kindly word – dunce- and far more ‘diplomatic’ than I) smile

Actually, I’ve even gone beyond the ‘complete idiot’ indication, but I’ve been trying to clean up my act.

Besides, at this point, who could have missed it?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 31, 2008 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

Your opinion may be correct, only the election will tell, but I believe women, many women do not like Hillary for many different reasons. 

I will vote for Obama, he offers something that most of those left running do not, hope and change.  Tuesday will be an indicator. Bigots will vote for the KKK on the Republican ticket.

Hillary is the first choice of the special interests, where does Obama fit in the grand scheme of things?

Report this

By antispin, January 31, 2008 at 5:22 pm Link to this comment

I agree with Mr. Scheer’s sentiments up to this one: “Yes, if Hillary Clinton is the candidate, she probably will be better than the Republican alternative and, as Ted Kennedy made clear, deserving of our support.”

I don’t think I can hold me nose hard enough.  Yes McCain and Romney are bloody awful, but at least people know that.  Some people seem to think that HRC is some kind of children’s advocate, or something.  She’s more of an advocate for child labor.  She’s a freakin’ Corporate lawyer, fer cripes’ sake!  She was raised Republican, married a Republican (Alan Greenspan ought to know http://www.newshounds.us/2007/09/18/alan_greenspan_bill_clinton_was_the_best_republican_president_weve_had_in_a_while.php) and has war-mongering Republican types on her staff (see child muderer Madeleine Albright’s 60 Minutes http://youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8 .)

Now that Kucinich is out, I have no place to go.

Winter time is coming
All the sky is grey
Summer birds aren’t singing
Since you went away

Since you’ve been gone, end of the season
Winter is here, close of play
I get no kicks walking down Saville Row
There’s no more chicks left where the green grass grows and I know that
Winter is here, end of the season
My reason’s gone, close of play
I just can’t mix in all the clubs I know
Now Labour’s in, I have no place to go

You’re on a yacht near an island in Greece
Though you are hot, forget me not
I will keep waiting until your return
Now you are gone, end of the season
Winter will come any day
Back in the scrum on a wet afternoon
Down in the mud, dreaming of flowers in June
End of the season
End of the season

Report this

By jerry reyes, January 31, 2008 at 5:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As an Illinois State Senator, it’s been reported that Obama pushed the wrong button on at least 6 different occasions when voting for some important bills. He acknowowledged the mistake, apologised on the floor of the Senate that his intent was to vote the other way. Now tell me , can I trust this guy to push the right button in case of a nuclear emergency?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 31, 2008 at 4:39 pm Link to this comment

Re Douglas Chalmers, January 31 at 11:35 am #

I just watched that UTube link, and I can’t believe what a dunce you are. I saw that Obama speech when it happened and of course I agreed with every word of it. That video was made by somebody so illiterate he can’t even spell “believe”. This rumor the right wing is spreading about Obama being a Muslim is so stupid that only a complete boob could give it any credit. From now on, that’s the department I’m putting you in.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 31, 2008 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment

Re Douglas Chalmers, January 31 at 11:35 am #
The fact is Obama’s anti-religous anti-Christian speech in which he refers to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount which he derides 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 You can add that to “I don’t oppose all wars”
——————————————————————————-
Chalmers,

So what’s “evil” about that? “Anti-Christian”, yet? My God, Chalmers, now you sound like a closet Limbaugh dittohead. Do you oppose all wars? I don’t. Does that make me evil? All Obama meant was that if the Sermon on the Mount is taken literally, we wouldn’t have an army or a defense department at all. Maybe that would be the best thing, but it’s obviously not a viable political position.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 31, 2008 at 4:03 pm Link to this comment

Hillary is no “fighter”. On the contrary, she is an obedient, docile corporate Democrat.

Report this

By Fade, January 31, 2008 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why I won’t for Obama:

Barack Obama wants a U.N. Security Council resolution on the Gaza Strip to mention rocket attacks on Israel.

The Democratic presidential candidate in a letter sent Tuesday to Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, urged the United States not to allow the resolution to pass unless it notes the rocket salvos.

The Security Council is in emergency session this week considering Israel’s blockade of Gaza.

“All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families,” wrote Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, in his letter to Khalilzad. “However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this. Gaza is governed by Hamas, which is a terrorist organization sworn to Israel’s destruction, and Israeli civilians are being bombarded on an almost daily basis.”

971 Palestinian children killed by the ISRAEL GOVERNMENT in official operations are less important than 6 israeli citizens killed by palestinian individuals.

This is change?

Report this

By Andy, January 31, 2008 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Here via Fact Check are the VOTING recordS Obama and Clinton compared.

First via Talking Points Memo:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/03/compare_and_contrast_hillary_obama_and_liebermans_votes_on_iraq.php

Second on Clinton website:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/pdf/20080115_votes.pdf

Once you compare you will see there is NOT a dime’s worth of difference in their VOTING records.
Follow the votes not the rhetoric.

Report this

By johndoraemi, January 31, 2008 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Ron Paul says he agrees with practically everything the John Birch Society stands for.  BOTH are far-right-wing lunatic fringe.  Paul is more of the same Bush*tonomics.”

Can you approach these issues any more shallowly?

Paul will end the war.  No other candidate will even express the possibility of doing so.

Paul will scale back the empire, and will close those 700+ military bases (if he isn’t assassinated). 

Paul will cut waste and corporate welfare, overhaul the federal government (which has more than $2.3 Trillion unaccounted for at last announcement in 2001).

Paul will END THE DRUG WAR and release all non-violent drug related prisoners.

Paul will do a hell of a lot to impose fiscal responsibility and cut down on an insane global empire of mass murder with impunity.

You should be so lucky as to have Paul in.  Maybe a few “right-wing” “fringe” ideas would do you good, so long as you’re casting your approval for FASCISTS.

If this is the “left” in this country, we are doomed.  They offer nothing but FASCISM, ENDLESS WAR, ECONOMIC COLLAPSE, IMPERIALISM, DICTATORIAL DISDAIN FOR THE LAW, UNACCOUNTABLE ACCUMULATING POWER.

Dime’s worth of difference?

Report this

By Maani, January 31, 2008 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment

Alex:

You said, “They tried to appeal to her intellectual side by asking “If you knew then what you know now, would you still vote for the war?”

Actually, that is EXACTLY what Hillary said when the brouhaha about her vote became front page news; that “If she knew then what she knows now, she would not have voted for it.”  Thus, while she has refused to “apologize” for her vote, she has qualified that with exactly the words you use.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, January 31, 2008 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

Doug:

Obama “anti-religious, anti-Christian?”  I think not.  Here is an excerpt from his speech to the Sojourners conference in Washington, D.C. in June 2006:

“If we truly hope to speak to people where they’re at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that’s relevant to their own - we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.  Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends…More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms.  Some of the problem is rhetorical - if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.  Imagine Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address without reference to ‘the judgments of the Lord,’ or King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech without reference to ‘all of God’s children.’  Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.”

This does not sound particularly anti-religious or anti-Christian to me.

Peace.

Report this

By Hammo, January 31, 2008 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

As Scheer notes, Obama seems to many as a better candidate than Hillary Clinton, for several reasons.

Whether we like it or not, one of the major challenges facing Obama is the fact that his dad was black and Obama is so-called “mixed-race.” If this can be dealt with in Americans’ minds, we will make significant progress.

Food for thought in the article ...

“Mixed-ethnicity Americans face challenges”

AmericanChronicle.com
January 31, 2008

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/50835

Report this

By Edmond S. Sibel, January 31, 2008 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Iowa and South Carolina are any indicators, I don’t think this election will be decided by old white men.  I have a large family that largely vote for Bush the first time.  Now, my 83 year old father is the only one left who supports the Republicans.  Add to that my 3 nephews and neices now of voting age who will vote Democratic.  If, (a big IF) there is fair and transparent elections here for a change, they will never hold a majority again.

Report this

By frank67, January 31, 2008 at 2:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Republicans are in so much trouble that Powell,s and Loy’s dog Asta could defeat them!

Report this

By benL, January 31, 2008 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

I find it troubling to read anyone say Obama is just as electable as Hillary.

You seem to ignore the fact that while Obama has gained the respect of numerous members of both parties as well as indepents, the Clintons are among the most hated people in America.

If John McCain is the republican nominee, Hillary is assured to lose in a landslide! Why in the world would any independent or undecided voter choose Hillary, when John McCain beats her claim of experience, and comes off as more personable, and less divisive.

On the other hand, can you imagine the result of an Obama v. McCain general election? McCain, while he has the supposed “experience”, is a dull speaker, uninspiring, and old. Obama would look like a greek god next to the frail McCain. Not to mention the boost that any democrat will get in the general election given the job Bush has done.

Age, not race, will be the biggest demographic divide for Obama to overcome in the general election. In both Iowa and South Carolina, the only demographic Obama lost was the age group.

And even if race does play a factor in the general election unlike it has in any democratic primary so far (except possibly Nevada with the Latinos), Obama is assured to regain the votes he loses among racists through the independents and first time voters who have come out in masses in these first four primaries.

Report this

By Alex, January 31, 2008 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Many will not remember that “Code Pink”, a pro-woman, anti-war group hounded Clinton at speeches and listening sessions in 2005-6 trying to get her to admit she made a mistake in voting for armed conflict in Iraq.  They were trying to appeal to her feminine side, by saying that women don’t start wars.  They tried to appeal to her intellectual side by asking “If you knew then what you know now, would you still vote for the war?”  Her answer that she will continue to vote for the interests of her constituency (implying 9-11), was as vague and condecending then, as it is clear that she plans to vote for wars in the future now (no matter what her handlers tell her to say).  To say she had to be overly tough because she’s a woman is only an excuse.  She wouldn’t admit to making a mistake then, she won’t admit to it now, because she is not the peace-oriented woman that many feminists would like her to be.  The sooner the feminists realize that all women are not peace-oriented, the sooner the Dems will choose the more peace oriented candidate on the ballot.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 31, 2008 at 12:35 pm Link to this comment

#Re: Fact or Fiction Hey guys - #By Mike Mid-City, January 31: “Until we get money out of the temple of government, it (the government) is a consort to money.  This is pretty much the definition of fascist government according to F.D.R. Having corporations able to influence elections gets us Blackwater…..  When did we as a people start to allow these folks…  Our Armed Forces are not combat ready.  We have spent the last 30 years building up the most expensive, debt generating, military in history.  What do we have to show for it…”

#By thebeerdoctor, January 31: “Peace is not an option, it is the only answer…. Report this…”

The fact is Obama’s anti-religous anti-Christian speech in which he refers to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount which he derides 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 You can add that to “I don’t oppose all wars” and “the crucible of the sword” to make your own conclusions about how intrinsically evil this person really is.

Support the troops? In what, Mike Mid-City? Yet another never-ending war??? Yes, Obama WIll give you one, uhh!

Report this

By dj, January 31, 2008 at 12:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There is no strength or commitment in saying you are against a war when you have no role in making it possible or not possible then repeatedly voting to continue it when you do have a role.  The word for this, what Sen. Obama has done, is hypocrisy.

Report this

By felicity, January 31, 2008 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

Marian Wright Edelman? Hillary’s as advertised ‘soul mate’ is strangely silent these days. One of Hillary’s feel-good-about-me-I-care-about-children plugs could certainly use the endorsement of Edelman, the black woman who founded the Children’s Defense Fund. Surely Hillary hasn’t dumped her, so maybe she has dumped Hillary?  Curious.

Report this

By Robin Stelling, January 31, 2008 at 11:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama made a great speech against the war. But he didn’t have to vote so we don’t know how he would have voted. In 2001 he was praising Rumsfeld as a decent Bush nominee for Sec of War….

Many senators voted for the Iraq resolution including Obama supporter Durbin. I’m sure one reason Hillary voted for it is because, as has been proven, women are held to a completely different standard, and she wanted to look tough.

Founding members of the OUT OF IRAQ CAUCUS Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, Charlie Rangel and John Lewis are supporting Hillary.

I want a fighter like Hillary in the White House. The real fairytale is that the Republicans are going to play nice because BO wants them to. Get REAL!!

Report this

By SamSnedegar, January 31, 2008 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

But, nobody is gonna assassinate Hillary if she makes it. They haven’t bothered Dick or George.

the people who would do the assassination would be the same ones who run Dicky and Georgie; the assassination would result in minor chaos while someone decided what to do, and of course Georgie would remain in the white house as long as “necessary” to straighten things out——maybe for ten or twelve years. You may not have read the Clancy novel where Jack Ryan became President, but it is my understanding that if the president-elect dies before his swearing in, then you start over, you don’t go through the regular succession because there will be none—-the cabinet can’t be named until after the swearing in. In the old days when veeps were voted in separately and might even be of the opposite party, I suspect the veep would succeed a dead prez, inaugurated or not, but since the people did not really VOTE for the veep at all, only for a “ticket,” I believe the modern version says that you gin up a special election.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 31, 2008 at 10:37 am Link to this comment

Oh, yes they will, if the corporate-controlled media wants them to. Which I think it does, this time. Besides, after all, women are a majority of the electorate, and in spite of everything, even Bush II, the idea of gender equality has continued to make progress.

Report this

By SamSnedegar, January 31, 2008 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

“...If this is true, why were they voting for Hillary and Obama and NOT for Edwards.  Clearly, people will vote for the both of them…”

You tell me; only thing I can come up with is that we have yet another Dimocrap circular firing squad. I didn’t say that DEMOCRATS wouldn’t vote for these unelectable souls; I said the people won’t ELECT them President.

Let’s try it another way: people voted for Bush, and he is a moron. There is no way that a sane and sensible voting electorate ever would have put the moron in office, BUT THEY DID. And I say to you again that the electorate in toto might elect a DOG or in fact DID elect a MONKEY, but it won’t elect a woman or a black.

There is only one option: Hillary can register millions of women who have never before registered or voted and thus with them win the election. There are not enough unregistered blacks to do the same for Obama. He can win primary elections where the black vote will put him over the top, but even if EVERY single (and married) negro in America registered AND VOTED, the result would be the same: no negro is going to be president of the USA, not Jesse, not Al, not Moseley-Braun, not Keyes, not anyone. You don’t need the “Tom Bradley” effect to see this happen; the only reason Bradley got as far as he did was because Californians are stupid and didn’t realize he was black until he was running for Governor—-how stupid are Californians? they elected Raygun governor TWICE, and have elected the terminator twice; that ought to tell you that they are BONE stupid. More Californians knew who Liz Taylor was than knew who LYNDON JOHNSON was, and he was President AT THE TIME. The only US Senator’s name they EVER knew was John Warner.

I never said that no one would VOTE FOR a woman or a black; I said they will not ELECT them POTUS.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 31, 2008 at 10:11 am Link to this comment

The corporate ruling class is not monolithic. During the Bush years the oil companies and the defense contractors got the bit in their teeth and ran away with the government. They made huge profits for themselves but destabilized the world and harmed the economy in ways that adversely affected other corporate interests within the ruling class. These other interests, represented by the Democratic Leadership Council,  were happy with the job Bill Clinton was doing, and are now asserting themselves to restore Clinton-style corporate democracy in place of Bush fascism. In Hillary Clinton they have a nice, obedient successor that they can count on.

However, these more moderate corporate forces (like their Zionist lackeys) are afraid of Barack Obama. He has seemingly said all the right things, and yet, somehow, there is a lingering fear that he might be loose cannon. He has not been around long enough to be thoroughly compromised. Their lingering fear is my lingering hope.

Report this

By Bill Blackolive, January 31, 2008 at 9:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Right, ok, so what, goddamnit, Scheer, do you still fear to look at patriotsquestion9/ll?  Therein you may find a thousand people whose names you know, or say other than some firemen and actual witnesses.  Go there to use your gray matter, or drown in shit lake.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 31, 2008 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

Women are not a “minority”. They are a majority of the electorate. From here on, being a woman is going to be an advantage in an election, not a disadvantage. It may be enough to put Hillary in this time. The identification of many women with Hillary because of gender is very strong, enough to overcome any other policy considerations.

Report this

By Maani, January 31, 2008 at 9:28 am Link to this comment

Kath:

Actually, from a purely cold historical perspective, Osama is the product of our support of the mahujadeen against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  The invasion was the result not of thirst for oil, but a reaction to the Islamic revolution in Iran that threw out the Shah in February 1979 and the fact that Russia had provided billions of dollars to Afghanistan in both arms and aid; given that 20% of Russia’s southern population was Muslim, they feared that the Afghan Muslims would “recruit” them, using Russia’s own aid against them.

The U.S. (and particularly the CIA) backed the mahujadeen against the Russians in the 10-year war there.  OBL was one of the mahujadeen leaders at the time, and had become all but a direct CIA operative by the time the war ended.  As a related aside, we cna also be blamed for the creation of the Taliban, since we did not “follow up” in Afghanistan after our withdrawal, and this led directly to the creation of the Taliban.

Peace.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 31, 2008 at 9:24 am Link to this comment

Our corporate overlords are throwing out Bush and the Neocons and installing Clinton. She is a nice obedient corporate Democrat they can count on. They are afraid of Obama. McCain is a sacrificial lamb. He doesn’t have a chance.

Report this

By Louise, January 31, 2008 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

Mike Mid-City, January 30 at 10:28 pm

“Well you can make sure that the duty owed to the men and women of our armed forces is kept.” 

“They were owed and are owed a duty for a plan to relieve them from a continuing cycle of round robin in a combat zone.  The troops in the volunteer forces were never intended to be a prolonged army of occupation in a country that is undergoing a civil war while being shelled, bombed and invaded by a third country.”

“This nation started to go off the rails when the Senate passed the Authorization on Iraq.”

“Then they never levied a tax to pay for it.”

“Never enacted a draft to support the troops.”

“Never stepped up to the plate on oversight.”

“Now we are told that impeachment is off the table.”

“What we need is real change in this country, you can’t get it with the same old crowd.  BushClintonBushClinton acted to get us into this ethical mess of dead troops shortchanged on the duties owed them.”

“Support the troops, vote for Barack Obama.”

***

Thanks Mike, true words of wisdom!

Most of the candidates, along with most of the media have turned their backs on the real horror being perpetuated by our government. Illegal wars of conquest!

“Its the economy stupid” worked so well for Clinton the first time around ... why not now?

Why not? Because it denies reality!

We need to demand Clinton(s) grasp reality. It’s the economy because IT’S THE WAR STUPID!

Yes, the economy is a real mess. But at what point in history, following republican control, was the economy NOT a real mess? That is the republican way. The republican legacy. The republican reality!

The real monster standing behind the smiling faces is the war! How would the economy be faring had current leadership not been spending $9 billion every month to keep the war going. How can they get away with this? How can the American people be so ignorant? This should not be about whether or not a woman would mean change. Gender alone does not equate smarts, anymore than race does. We’ve had a gender change in the House of Representatives. What’s changed?

NOTHING!

We know if McCain is elected we will see more war. At least he’s been honest enough to admit it! Actually brag about it. So where does Clinton stand on the war?

Never mind what he said she said he said. WHERE DOES CLINTON STAND ON THE WAR TODAY? And what does she really know about the history that brought us here. And what will she really do to turn the course of history?

***

“We know the record of Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth.”

***

All the rest of this sexist/race hyperbole doesn’t mean squat! Hillary may promise change, but her consistent support of the war, added to her voting to authorize it in the first place tells me she is far more concerned with maintaining the status quo. AKA power and wealth for the few. Death and poverty for the many!

Time to throw the money changers out of the temple!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, January 31, 2008 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

“The problem with democrats now is that neither of their candidates is ELECTABLE. You can tut tut with “race card” and “gender card” all you like, but the voters are the ones who are going to play those cards (as they have already), and when the voters are done, they are not going to elect a woman president, let alone a black man. Poor Edwards said it to you over and over, and you never heard him, but HE was the only chance the dimocraps had to gain the presidency, and he was told that the dimocraps DON’T WANT the presidency because they prefer to choose between unelectable women and unelectable blacks.”

SamSnedeggar:

If this is true, why were they voting for Hillary and Obama and NOT for Edwards.  Clearly, people will vote for the both of them.  My experience with republicans has been that an awful lot of them won’t vote for a woman or anyone of ethnicity.

Of course, that raises questions about republicans and their agenda but I don’t think it’s that “pressing” of an issue to democrats.  I also know quasi-republicans (around here EVERYONE is republican, or so they say) who would/will vote for Obama because they like his persona.

I live in a racist, biased area.  So I will agree that there are those who will only vote for a white male.  A lot of them also vote republican NO MATTER WHAT.  These particular votes weren’t “up for grabs” anyway, so I don’t see them having that great of an impact.

Report this

By Maani, January 31, 2008 at 9:15 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

I am beginning to wonder about your sanity.

“Again I must ask…what are you talking about Maani? Do you even know? What does the article say about Hillary flip-flopping, or political positioning, or Obama either for that matter?”

I was not responding to the article.  I was responding to BD’s comment that “A novice by any standards, he knew enough to realize that had he voted against the funding of the war, there would be a howl from all kinds of jingoistic nincompoops, who would claim Obama Does Not Support The Troops. And what if he had voted against continual funding? Would that have stopped the war? No, he would be relegated to that noble but lonely outpost occupied by Dennis Kucinich and Dr. Ron Paul.”

This clearly indicates that it is “okay” for OBAMA to vote a certain way in order to avoid the accusation that he “does not support the troops” or that voting against the bills would not “have stopped the war.”

“It’s the same old smear stuff. Hillary did this, then Barack did it too, and he didn’t get in trouble…wah, wah, wah…”

Since when is posting factual information “smear?” Since when is providing an alternative viewpoint “smear?”  Since when is offering the missing side of a one-sided comment “smear?”

“And, what’s funny? I don’t see a damn thing funny about any of this.”

Are you brain-dead?  Have you never heard the phrase “It’s funny that…?”  It is simply a figure of speech.  It doesn’t mean I find it funny.  What on God’s earth is wrong with you?

“I wonder how many votes you’ve already lost for Hillary, from the people who read this blog? I mean, anybody who might have been undecided before reading the stuff from you, would now be likely to support or vote for ANYBODY OTHER than Hillary Clinton.”

Actually, even were that true (and there is simply no way you can support that statement), I can assure you that, in the “bricks and mortar” world, I have brought many fence-sitters over to Hillary’s side, and even given some Obama supporters serious food for thought (though I can’t say whether they later switched camps).

Peace.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 31, 2008 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

You’re kidding, right? What’s McCain’s message? Better hunker down for 100 years of war with Islam? You think that’s going to sell in the general election?  What has McCain got to offer? He’s an old soldier and all he knows is war. You never hear one word about negotiations from him. He is legendary for knowing nothing about the economy. I think Romney would be a much more dangerous candidate. I hope the Republicans put up McCain. He will have less of a chance than Bob Dole in 96.

Report this

By Maani, January 31, 2008 at 9:02 am Link to this comment

Tony:

Contrary to Cyrena’s continued pathological assertions of my “spinning, “smearing” and “propaganda,” I fail to see how simply posting an item falls into any of those categories.  I posted what I did just as you posted what you did. I did not make any “editorial” comment on it (other than the word “pandering,” which, as many have noted, applies to ALL the candidates), so I don’t see how Cyrena can accuse me of “spinning” it.

As for “smearing” Obama or anyone who endorses him, again, other than a pathological need to attack me, Cyrena’s accusation is absurd.  My providing info re these people is not “smearing,” it is…providing info - especially when that info is supportable. And since many people may be unaware of that info, it actually serves as a “balance” to whatever ONE-SIDED info has initially been provided.  This does not equate with “smear.”  In fact, given the one-sidedness not only of the MSM but also of much of the alternative press (like LieDig), it would seem to be a service to provide the “other side” of things.

Since Cyrena seems to be obsessed with me - and given her repeated requests for my reasons why I am supporting Hillary over Obama - I will provide what is admittedly a quick and incomplete answer:

I am supporting Hillary because her positions on all the major issues are either virtually identical to Obama’s (Iraq, Iran, Israel, environment, civil rights/liberties et al) or better than his (health care, economy, veterans affairs et al), BUT (i) she has a full term more in the Senate, including a reputation for being able to “reach across the aisle” in a bi-partisan way to get things done, (ii) she has established relationships with many world leaders, which relationships Obama would first have to create in a particularly precipitous time, (iii) although she did not learn to be president “by osmosis,” her eight years in the White House DO count for something in terms of knowledge and experience, and (iv) she has a far greater grasp of the totality of the global geopolitic than Obama does, as evidenced by many things she has said that have not been matched by similar comments by Obama. [N.B.  I am NOT suggesting he does not HAVE this knowledge or understanding, only that he hasn’t expressed it - and it is getting pretty late in the game to start expressing it now.]

Again, that is “quick and incomplete,” but it is a beginning to the answer that Cyrena and others have been seeking from me.

Peace.

Report this

By jackpine savage, January 31, 2008 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

Excellent post, Leefeller!

Maybe its time that all of us morons who value commonsense should form a new political party.  It is about the only political party i can imagine myself joining.

Report this

By Expat, January 31, 2008 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

Leefeller,
Yes, I’m a moron too.  Good post and right on;  I fear we’re done in, finished, sold to the lowest bidder, because we bought the company line, lock stock and barrel.  Generally speaking we get the thing we deserve.

Report this

By Larry A. Woody, January 31, 2008 at 7:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The truth is none of these candidates will get us out of the mess we are in. Has anyone out there stopped using their credit cards? NO and neither has the government. As for Iraq, It is what it is and the troops are not coming home any time soon regardless of who is in office. If Hillary gets in, every single republican in congress will stop her from doing anything but scratch her head. If McCain gets in, we will be attacking Iran and whoever his VP is will become President. If Romney gets in, he could fix the economy but what’s he going to do about out of control consumer spending? If Obama gets in there is a chance he could get some things done because some peole in congress might be inspired, so I say we get Obama in office and then have him appoint Romney to fix the economy and McCain to fix the war and Edwards to fix health care, and Huckabee to eliminate the IRS and Paul as an advisor to them all. Hillary can go home and try to fix her own life because it’s a mess.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 31, 2008 at 7:30 am Link to this comment

Hillary was in a position to vote against the war, she did not, Obama voiced his opinion to vote against the war, he was not in a position to vote at the time. 

Since I without all the experience Hillary has and never being in office, was against the war from the very beginning, seems any Moron with the an ounce of common sense could see the hand writing on the wall.  In this case I will join the Morons.  As a Vietnam vet I knew the bull shit flowing from Washington was just that.  So why, experienced Hillary with all he vision did she not,  see the same thing?  Maybe she did not want to, she voted with the mob, her ability to make decisions does not impress me.

Obama saw the handwriting on the wall as I did, after Vietnam Bush should have been castrated for sending our resources to a bogus war, and Hillary was apart of it.  Why would she believe anything the Vietnam evader would say?  Doing a little homework would have been nice, supporting impeachment would have been a start.  Hillary never made it out of the gate in my book. 

Vote Obama, maybe things will be a little different.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, January 31, 2008 at 6:41 am Link to this comment

Peace is not an option, it is the only answer.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, January 31, 2008 at 6:39 am Link to this comment

Your comments are unfortunate. I suspect you are an unfortunate person. I hope you find the help you need.

Report this

By kath cantarella, January 31, 2008 at 3:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

‘But, nobody is gonna assassinate Hillary if she makes it. They haven’t bothered Dick or George.

Nobody will even IMPEACH those bastards..’


Good point. You go girl!

Report this

By kath cantarella, January 31, 2008 at 2:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

who wrote:

‘[Osama] just didn’t like the way the US used, abused, and disrespected the people of the entire region, and he was certainly pissed off about the US support of Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians.’

I don’t believe that. He used that as an excuse, that’s all. The US and Israel should not be giving people like that excuses.

Report this

By cyrena, January 31, 2008 at 2:23 am Link to this comment

•  Poor Edwards said it to you over and over, and you never heard him, but HE was the only chance the dimocraps had to gain the presidency, and he was told that the dimocraps DON’T WANT the presidency because they prefer to choose between unelectable women and unelectable blacks.

SamSnedeggar,

I was listening to Edwards, and I would have been fine with him. But, I disagree that the American people, (at least the ‘we the people’ part of us) are not willing to elected a person of color, or a woman. I’ve been skeptical myself, on the idea of a black man becoming president, and it still may be impossible, even among ‘we the people’, despite the fact that I think a newer (and let’s face it now – DESPERATE) population is willing to try just about anything, to get us out of the on-going crash and burn. Still, it’s the same ‘MOB’ that has kept the current evil empire in place, that would prevent Obama from taking office. And, much as I hate to think of it, he would certainly be a target for many, if that were even to happen.

I don’t think there’s that same problem for Hillary though. I certainly don’t want her, even though I believe that ‘we the people’ would be fine with a woman president, as long as it was a qualified woman. She’s not. BUT, the current gangsters would actually be OK with her. At least that’s what I think. Her agenda is no different. So, if they let her in, it wouldn’t really be all that bad for them. She’s not gonna change anything. So, what’s the biggie? Matter of fact, they’ll be able to say that they elected a female for the job, and show just how ‘liberal’ they are, even though it won’t be any different than if they were still running things.

So, McCain, or Hillary; either way… the Dems lose. Now THAT I have to agree with.

But, nobody is gonna assassinate Hillary if she makes it. They haven’t bothered Dick or George.

Nobody will even IMPEACH those bastards..

Report this

By cyrena, January 31, 2008 at 2:09 am Link to this comment

•  “I think it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that the fraudulent Iraq war was partly Osama’s fault, because without the climate of fear he created in the US, it may not have been allowed to happen.”

Kath…

PLEASE!! Partly Osama’s fault about the fraudulent Iraq war? What are you smokin’ girl?

Now I’ll admit that the US CREATED Osama, but HE didn’t create the climate of fear in the US anymore than he carried out 9/11. He didn’t you know. He was a two-bit terrorist, run out of his own homeland Kingdom, and pissed off about US hegemony in the Middle East. He didn’t care about the oil, since he wouldn’t have minded selling it. He just didn’t like the way the US used, abused, and disrespected the people of the entire region, and he was certainly pissed off about the US support of Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians.

But, he didn’t have ANYTHING to do with the fraudulent war in Iraq. No doubt he was delighted when the U.S. attacked Iraq, since he’d been wanting to do the same to Saddam for ages himself, and it was just another ridiculous delusion on his part. His advisors assured him that he was crazy, since he had maybe 100 fighters, and Saddam (at least at the time) had the 4th most powerful military on the globe. Of course that changed after 8 years of war with Iran, and several attacks from the US.

Anyway, Osama didn’t cause any climate of fear here. Dick Bush and his neoconners created the climate of fear here, by attacking us on 9/11, and blaming it on Osama. By now, Osama is a myth (dead) that the bushies are still using, to terrify the world. Can you imagine what might happen if the rest of the world (including Americans) discovered that Osama was never anything more than the Wizard of Arabia, and that he’s long since been gone?

The neoconners didn’t just elevate Osama, they’ve actually ‘created’ al-Qaeda, from a band of disorganized terrorists into a bunch more franchises of them. I doubt there’s anybody left from the original group, and they don’t appear to have a ‘home office/branch’. Rumor puts them in the hinterlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but it’s been nearly 7 flippin’ years, and they still haven’t ‘located’ them. Maybe because they don’t want to? Must be some pretty shabby GPS units. They can track me to anyplace as long as I have my passport with me. I refuse to believe that the CIA can capture and disappear thousands of perfect strangers from across the globe, and they can’t find a tall skinny Arab in a turban, dragging a dialysis machine around with him. Nope….Osama is a myth, and he’s only worthwhile as long as they can pretend like he still exists.

Without that very well constructed ‘climate of fear’ the gangsters wouldn’t have been able to hijack our country and our government, or start wars and neo-colonization in the Middle East. Still, Osama didn’t have anything to do with any of that.

Report this

By kath cantarella, January 31, 2008 at 12:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dole… she’s yet another hawk. They nest in current US politics, i guess. As soon as those planes hit the WTC we all knew that was gonna happen. I think it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that the fraudulent Iraq war was partly Osama’s fault, because without the climate of fear he created in the US, it may not have been allowed to happen.

And Osama, let’s be honest, is the fault of the oil-thirsty. And that means all of us, all over the world: we gave him our money.

Report this

By kath cantarella, January 31, 2008 at 12:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And if the Republicans really want to beat them they should give the nomination to Senator Elizabeth Dole, who beat McCain in a former primary.

Report this

By SamSnedegar, January 31, 2008 at 12:04 am Link to this comment

at least McCain is honest enough to admit that we will be in Iraq for a hundred years unless the world throws us out as it did Hitler from France and Poland.

The problem with democrats now is that neither of their candidates is ELECTABLE. You can tut tut with “race card” and “gender card” all you like, but the voters are the ones who are going to play those cards (as they have already), and when the voters are done, they are not going to elect a woman president, let alone a black man. Poor Edwards said it to you over and over, and you never heard him, but HE was the only chance the dimocraps had to gain the presidency, and he was told that the dimocraps DON’T WANT the presidency because they prefer to choose between unelectable women and unelectable blacks.

Not that EITHER candidate, female or brown-skinned, would ever be allowed to live long enough to take the oath of office should one of them run and win the electoral college vote, something not guaranteed even should one of them win the popular vote in some states such as Florida whose legislature is still poised to deliver its electoral votes to the republican white male candidate rather than any democrat.

But the beat goes on, even as democrats have once more snatched defeat from the jaws of certain victory by presenting the voters with not one, but TWO unelectable candidates to run against a has been cancer ridden McCain whose posture on the war ought to scare the pants off of men and women alike, but apparently does not.

Have another glass of kool aid, dimocraps.

Report this

By kath cantarella, January 30, 2008 at 11:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

go easier on the feminists, they are justifiably oversensitive after millenia of condoned racism against women.

I wish Obama was a woman. The only chick who can apparently get near the Presidency is someone who has apparently sold her soul to the establishment’s money.

Typical.

Report this

By cyrena, January 30, 2008 at 11:52 pm Link to this comment

Again I must ask…what are you talking about Maani? Do you even know? What does the article say about Hillary flip-flopping, or political positioning, or Obama either for that matter?

Nothing, ZERO, ZILCH. She hasn’t ‘flip-flopped”. What flip-flop? She’s always been a gun-ho war monger, and she still is.

What else? What was the point of repeating the same smear that you’ve made a jillion times before, even when it has no relevance to the topic at hand.

It’s the same old smear stuff. Hillary did this, then Barack did it too, and he didn’t get in trouble…wah, wah, wah….

And, what’s funny? I don’t see a damn thing funny about any of this.

And, we don’t CARE if you trust Obama, or if you vote for him. Seriously. I don’t think anybody gives a shit who you support or vote for.

Now I’m not running, and I can’t speak for anyone who is. BUT, if I WAS running, I would definitely NOT want your support!!

I wonder how many votes you’ve already lost for Hillary, from the people who read this blog? I mean, anybody who might have been undecided before reading the stuff from you, would now be likely to support or vote for ANYBODY OTHER than Hillary Clinton.

Geeze…

Please…whatever you do, don’t start flip-flopping on us now. We don’t need ‘your’ kind of ‘support’ for Obama.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook