Hillary Clinton and the Woman Thing
I can’t help asking women I know what they think about Hillary Clinton. Here is the historic, first viable woman candidate for President of the United States, and yet . . . ho-hum. I listened to a group of accomplished women of about the same age as Hillary argue about her candidacy the other night. A fellow Wellesley alumna (she graduated before the Presidential candidate and didn’t know her) said she can’t stand Hillary’s overbearing, dorm-monitor persona. A businesswoman laughed at the style criticisms—”Is that really important?”–and said she’d vote for Clinton because she’s “really, really smart.” And a filmmaker and an art curator both said they thought Hillary was OK.
All in all, enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton is not that high among women I know–certainly no match for the outright hatred for her that has been brewing for more than a decade on the right.
Lakshmi Chaudhry describes it in the July 2 cover story of The Nation as a “feminist problem.” She corrects Anna Quindlen, who wrote in Newsweek that “Senator Clinton has a woman problem.” In fact, Chaudhry observes, Clinton polls the highest of all the candidates among likely women voters in the Democratic primary, and gets 21 points more among independent women than independent men. The criticisms of Hillary she quotes are mainly from progressives, like Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin and Bitch magazine’s Lisa Jervis.
Quindlen is right, too, though. “When we imagined a woman President, we imagined a new day,” she writes. Instead, in Hillary we have a professional pol. Ultimately, Quindlen puts a good spin on it: Maybe “likeability” is overrated, she writes, and suggests we look where electing the candidate we’d rather have a beer with has gotten us.
But for progressives, as Chaudhry observes, the problem goes beyond matters of style. Hillary is a centrist, who rubs progressives the wrong way—most of all on the war. Back in 1992, when she was running with Bill as a new kind of first lady–an accomplished professional, a humane liberal, a board member of the Children’s Defense Fund—enthusiasm was a lot higher on the left. But dropping progressive ties (along with old friends like Marian Wright Edelman and Lani Guinier) has been part of the Clintons’ career trajectory.
Actually, I would say, the problem with Hillary is the same as the problem with other recent Democratic frontrunners. She is the establishment candidate, with neither the fire nor the freshness of the “fringe” candidates who are not afraid to stand for something. Watching the line-up of primary contenders speak to the base in Wisconsin in 2004 was a lesson in the diminishing returns of Democratic Party politics. Russ Feingold, David Obey, Tammy Baldwin–the whole progressive delegation from Bob La Follette’s home state—spoke passionately against the war, the Patriot Act, and the excesses of the Bush Administration. So did the least-likely Presidential candidates–Kucinich, Sharpton, and, of course, Howard Dean. At the very end came John Kerry, whose best stab at an applause line was a pitch to “fully fund No Child Left Behind.” His eventual running mate, Edwards, who sat on the same intelligence committee in the Senate as Feingold, did not yet oppose the Iraq War (though Feingold was already outraged by the dog-and-pony show he’d seen from the Administration on that committee).
Now, four years later, the rest of the country has come around to the “fringe” view that the war in Iraq was a sham and a disaster, the attack on American civil liberties a serious concern. And we have Hillary, where Kerry once stood, splitting the difference on these urgent matters. It’s the same thing she did as Senator: co-sponsoring legislation criminalizing flag-burning while opposing the flag-burning amendment, dodging discussion of the Iraq War when it mattered most, while bravely taking a stand against violence in video games.
The triangulation strategy that made her husband famous–and maddening–is evident in Clinton’s many conservative legislative efforts–working with Sam Brownback and Joe Lieberman to boost her stock with social conservatives, talking tough about military spending and the need to confront Iran.
Still, watching the Democratic debate, I wondered about the “woman thing.” I didn’t share the feeling that Hillary Clinton won the debate. But I’ve heard it enough times since then, and seen the bump in her poll numbers, to understand she accomplished her mission. Could a woman win a Presidential election in this country and be personally appealing and progressive enough to excite people like me? Any woman who is going to hold her own against those big male egos in our bizarre political culture is likely to come off as cold and overbearing. If she were warmer, she would no doubt be criticized as soft. If she were not so pro-military, we’d have to endure all the questions about whether a woman could find the strength to drop bombs on America’s enemies. Remember, during the Reagan years, when you heard people argue that a woman couldn’t be President because she would not be able to bring herself to “push the button” and start a nuclear war?
No one suggests that Hillary wouldn’t push the button.
You could say that’s evidence of how far women have come . . . I guess.
Ruth Conniff covers national politics for The Progressive and is a voice of The Progressive on many TV and radio programs.
© 2007 The Progressive
What I wrote on “the Progressive”:
What I find really infuriating is these professional progressive journalists who make the case, state the evidence and then waffle in their conclusions like the mere fact of Clinton’s gender gives them pause to doubt. Instead of rightfully being outraged that their “sisterhood” would be exploited so cynically for votes, they seek to justify Clinton’s triangulating strategy as necessary to win. If that is the price, what exactly is won if the progressive agenda is so compromised that any hope for future momentum is reversed? Since when does feminism become about emulating the worst characteristics of male bluster and blind macho blundering throughout the world? The point of promoting a woman is NOT simply a matter of plumbing, but so that a desperately needed alternative approach can be successfully employed in problem solving, cooperation and diplomacy. And there have historically been women capable of just that. To suggest that everything is a matter of gender would be like claiming that any African-American will serve the best interests of African-Americans even if it is Clarance Thomas or Condoleeza Rice being servile to the man.
True, I don’t care for Clinton’s character-(whereas Elizabeth Edwards, for example, strikes me as a class act), but I also don’t like the lack of values and the centrist politics of the Clintons. As progressives, that should be the fundamental issue.
It is always so evident, the hugh dichotomy between sincere progressives and the tepid journalists who seem to not mix out of their social millieu much. Read what the writers on these blogs say–Do you see any praise for the Clintons?
I’m mostly against Hillary because of the whole “centrist” mainstream, willing to attack Iran thing. How does that get denigrated in importance because of this “woman thing”? But I am way to sick of discussing that angle though it’s the one that matters.
The likeability thing is supposed to be obviously irrelevant. Maybe that’s why progressives keep losing. Remember all those Iowans who became convinced (by the MSM) that the “responsible” thing to do was to nominate Kerry and they should quit worrying about who they “liked”? Then once they did that what did the media do for the next several months? Why, they made everlasting fun of what a dull stiff guy Kerry is. You don’t think they’ll do the “dorm monitor persona” jokes?
I grant you, likeability isn’t everything. I get tired of all the jokes about Kucinich’s size, even by the 5′6″ Jon Stewart. But it’s not irrelevant, and it’s why I lean to Edwards over Kucinich; not because size matters to me (I am 5′1″ myself), but because I live in the much maligned real world. People dislike Hillary; viscerally in fact. The oddity is how much she is viscerally disliked by both the left and the right. It must mean something, and it shouldn’t be ignored.
According to Ruth… “All in all, enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton is not that high among women I know”
Considering Hillary’s abetting of the horrible crimes of the neocons, I would say anything above the desire to lock her up in a jail cell is high enthusiasm. This article is stealthily supportive of Hill and basically full of sexist drivel.
the powerbrokers of this country have known since the days of thatcher that a woman can play ball w/the “best” of the men. but ass backwards umuricuns can still be manipulated over the “woman” issue, esp. w/hilary, who so many on the right, for god only knows why, have such a visceral hatred for. various strands of the MSM are willing to play this up, and make personality issues central (likeability and nonsense like that). and people like chris matthews gloat and consider it a success that hilary is willing to nuke iran!
that anybody is willing to do what it takes on a psychological level to become a top-tier prez. candidate makes them automatically a suspect human being. the pressure, the humiliation, the fund raising & sycophancy before rich & poor alike, the catering to a vicious and fickle media, etc., etc. what kind of human being do you have to be to put yourself thru that?
ANYONE, Billary included, able to “push the button” to start a nuclear war pushs my buttons OFF (and unfortunately EVERYONE else’s with the world in a grave, were she “successful”). BAN Billary and ALL future bombo eruptions!
It’s called gender stereotyping; for people who honestly thought that people were somehow more progressive, kind, or conscious because of a certain gender, Hillary proves their prejudices wrong; which isn’t entirely a bad thing.
Will any progressives vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination? It doesn’t seem likely. Will we abandon the corporate Democrat Party or are we gluttons for punishment?
http://www.gp.org/
Hillary is a calculating pol. She has ridden to power on the coatails of her husband Bill. She apparently will forgive his girlfriends past and present if he will continue to raise money for her campaign.
I’m all for a woman president, but surely we can do better than this.
Damn it! WRONG! HILLARY IS NOT A CENTRIST. 70 plus percent of the people want us OUT IF IRAQ NOW. That’s the centrist position. Clinton has already declared she favors PERMANENT OCCUPATION. That is NOT a centrist position.
We have got to start taking back the languange that befits our true status in political thought, not bend to the whim of the corporatist media who will continue to marginalize us no matter what our numbers.
using the logic of voting for clinton based on gender or intellgence, then i should vote for ann coulter. we have a real opportunty to leap frog the gender issue and start electing people based on how they feel about issues and values. examples…killing is wrong, no excepction! lying is wrong, exceptions! on and and on…….
Hold on here! You say Hillary is a woman? She could have fooled me. I thought she was mutant, cross gender, neocon type creature. She wants to rock your world! (with atomic bombs)
Hillary is just Bush sober and in drag
“You could say that’s evidence of how far women have come . . . I guess.” Come on Ruth. Push the button. Say it. Don’t sit on that fence. We need the wood. Say Hillary the candidate has nothing to do with gender. Just like being a whore doesn’t have anything to do with gender. Say Hillary is a product of a system that equally rapes all those who choose to participate. Say anyone who is willing to be manipulated, as long as they were born in America, can be a politician. Say Paris Hilton and Hillary are both distractions. Say the real problem is political whores. Politicians who will trade their integrity for some kind of physical, or mental, gratification. Say the problem is not Hillary. Hillary is just a scab on the sore that is our political system. The problem is that system that allows people like Hillary to exist. And after you say all that you better start looking for a new job. I hope you find that challenging.
Hoa binh
VERN: Thank you for making your case, and I completely agree with it (and you).
The sick part is that we could get stuck with this awful lady as our next President just because a lot of women are so stupid as to vote for President based on the fact that Hillary is a woman. That’s logic that ranks right down there with voting for Dubya because he seems like a good guy to drink a beer with.
RE: CLINTON ON IRAQ. DEFINING ISSUE. PERIOD.
canuckchuck June 27th, 2007 2:08 pm
“Hillary is just Bush sober and in drag”
UnCommon June 27th, 2007 11:21 am
“Considering Hillary’s abetting of the horrible crimes of the neocons, I would say anything above the desire to lock her up in a jail cell is high enthusiasm.”
1. Laugh and bitter laugh respectively.
2. Almost - in a desperate, knife-edge voting district situation, I could almost overlook all the other DLC right wing stuff. But not Iraq. Defining issue.
siouxrose, I missed you on yeaterday’s comments. A hearty welcome back!!!
A very good blog Vern.
Tell me does it truly make a difference if our president should be male or female? I would love the see John Edwards and or his wife running for the office. I seriously would prefer Imus or his wife in the White House instead of Cheney and his assistant GWB.
Again, siouxrose, welcome home we need your imput. Oh oh, here comes the veggie Zen.
COMarc, I have some comments for you.
1. “A lot of women” are not stupid.
2. I am a feminist from way back, as are many of my friends, and none of us want to vote for Hilary. We want to impeach Bush/Cheney, first of all, and we want humanists and feminists in government, no matter which gender they are.
3. In case you’re still wondering, Hilary is NOT a feminist. She is a presidential candidate who happens to be female, and hopes that this fact alone will catapult her into the White House. She is wrong. When it comes to politics and policy, Hilary uses the patriarchal model: More war, less public services, always suck up to the ones in power, no matter how hateful their agenda. Help for our communities (with women and children at the poverty level) would receive no help from Hilary.
Thank you, Vern, for bringing back into the conversation, principles vs. electability.
Oh, God, if we all stood for principles instead of compromising for “electablity,”
we’d win!! Enough strategy, I’m ready for some change. I’m voting for Dennis Kucinich, he’s the only candidate in whom I can put my trust.
siouxrose, I edited the veggie Zen comment out, but it didn’t erase. I was not reffering to you at all. It was another blogger.
When I think about Bush, I know he’s tall, but I have always thought him “small.” When I think of Kuchinich, I know he’s small, yet I always think “tall.” Funny how our minds put people in the proper perspective.
As for Hillary - if I could believe the ‘08 election is going to be allowed to happen, I’d like to see a woman finally become president. About time women were given a chance to prove their worth in America as they have in other countries for centuries. They’ve been proving their grit in this war our unelected “small” president took us into right along side the men from the beginning.
But I’m for Richardson, so “President Clinton II” is a moot point. I think a Richardson/Kuchinich ticket would be an unbeatable team.
I cannot and will not vote for Hillary if she is the Dem candidate. She is in favor of Nuking Iran, permanent occupation of Iraq, and takes her money from those to whom she will owe big favors. She is the type of politician who will bow to those to whom she owes.
I do not have much money, but Kucinich is still my candidate. He is the only one for whom I can vote in this present climate of insanity. He is a big man who stands up for what he believes. I respect and admire him very much.
Clinton is the status quo canidate all polished up & ready for mass appeal, courtesy of the DNC. 10 or 20 years ago we could afford to vote in a flavor of the month candidate.Not so in this day & age. This election is a bellweather moment in our history, and it was both parties flavors of the month that got us here. We can’t afford another mass appeal presidency. They aren’t leaders. Knowing of Wesley Clark’s background, if he,or someone of similar qualifications(man or woman)isn’t the next president the United States, we will be in deep trouble.
I you really are woman running for the presidency, Hillary, take off the pants, put on a skirt and let everyone see your FAT LEGS. Can’t blame Bill for his indiscretions.
I agree, I’m a woman and I just don’t think she`will make a very good president.Every time some one askes her a question she always avoides it.And besides everyone knows she’s just riding on her husband coattails.Because if her last name wasn’t Clinton no-one would care.
Evelyn, I got a chuckle out of the veggie Zen comment. I think a lot of us have figured out that Siouxrose rubs Ron the wrong way in a big way. Between the two I know which one I’d rather have a conversation with - Siouxrose!!
Dismissing Hillary as a mere rider on Bill’s coattails is an over-simplification. Sure being Bill’s partner helps, but it’s not why she’s out front. (W is the best example of a “legacy” president, as he had nothing to recommend him other than family ties, and you see where that got us.) Commenting on her legs or her outfits plays right into Karl Rove’s hand - we progressives should be above that. Hillary is a bright woman, her own woman, who can think for herself and establish her own credentials and positions.
And her own positions are calculated, planned, nuanced, and right of center. She’s corporate indentured, opportunistic (in a bad way - flag-burning amendment, anyone?), self-centered, and does not espouse progressive points of view on many, many issues. These are the reasons we should not be supporting her or voting for her. If a vote for a Democrat is selling out to the lesser of two evils, as many of you here believe, a vote for Hillary is a vote for the DC corporate-kowtowing status quo. (Although I do harbor a guilty fantasy of my moaning Republican friends quaking as Hillary exercises the unitary executive powers established by Bush/Cheney, but those two aren’t planning on holding the 2008 elections anyway…)
” who are not afraid to stand for something”
This is the core of the problem. Everything else you can say about her is just commentary. It is at the point now that even if she took up progressive positions on most things, I couldn’t believe that she actually believes them enough to stick with them.
“A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live.” - Martin Luther King
It boggles the mind to think that there is any principle that Hillary is willing to even go to the mat for much less willing to die for.
If progressive politics carried any weight, Dennis Kucinich would be leading in the polls. I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton if she were running against the worst Repug. (Take your pick.) The campaign for presidency is for the gullible (i.e., the majority). What any of these birds will do when they get elected remains a mystery until they take office. If there were two candidates, equally appealing, one of each gender, I (a man) would vote for the woman. Why? Just to finally set the precedent, and give women a leg up in this sorry society.
I might be getting a big laugh from some of these comments, if it weren’t for the fact that the next election is serious business.
Funny thing…if you look at Hillary’s votes in the Senate, she’s rated as Moderate Liberal Populist by one research group.
Also, if you look at the totality of her votes in the Senate, she is not “right of center” — anything but!
No wonder we’re in the fix, we’re in — lots of people deal in petty hatred and name-calling.
P.S. I don’t know of ANY woman who would vote for Hillary just because she’s a woman. What an insult!
I understand that candidates have to be cautious about what they say because it can be misinterpreted. However, what they say matters and H.C. is a warmonger and unfit to be president, however much I would like to see a TRUE woman as president, a person who cares about people, the earth, peace, and morality. Not that some men don’t but I have found that the best doctors are women and I suspect so would be the best presidents.
Bottom line-if you vote for a third party candidate, you elect Rudy, John or Fred. Period. We’ve done this, people. I agree that everyone gets to fall in love during the primary, but once that vote is cast (and we ALL should vote in that primary!) you’ve got to get behind the person that we all picked, right or wrong. Do all of you really want four more years of this madness? How about one or two more justices from the Supreme Court that will make a permanent right-wing agenda possible? Wake up. This is not about who you personally want to have a beer with. NONE of us are going to get that opportunity, but we will have to live with the consequences of this election for a long time. Feeling good about ass-kicking Hillary out of the race is for the primary. Once that is over, you need to consider the future. A centrist is better than a neocon that will bankrupt this country and completely destroy our influence abroad, not to mention get us into a war with Iran that we will lose. I don’t believe for a minute that Hillary will drop the bomb on one of the biggest oil fields in the known universe. In case you haven’t been paying attention, oil is getting very scarce and valuable. We will no doubt put out feelers the minute a Dem is in the White House to Tehran and solve this diplomatically. Remember, Cosovo was handled by Bill and the U.N., and even though I will not be putting a summer home there any time soon, at least we didn’t have all of the world hating our guts over our involvement there. I do seem to remember the GOP railing about our involvement to anyone who would listen. No nation building, don’t you know. They are ALL pols, the age of the elder statesman is dead. The custom fit all of us want is being demanded in an off-the-rack world. If we wait for a perfect female candidate that makes everyone happy, one thing is for sure: When it happens, all of us will have been dead for a hundred years (apologies to Bill Maher for that joke cover). Kerry didn’t win the primary in Ohio - he won it all over the U.S. I voted for him, and a lot of you voted for him. To those who didn’t, our apologies. But sitting out the dance because you don’t like your dance partner is suicide, for all of us. At this point, I’d like merely to disagree with some of Hillary’s stands and policies when she is in the White House, instead of watching all of my rights go the way of the dodo bird, and seeing a few crazy old rich guys give my money away to all of their friends while a major city drowns and dies. I don’t care if you have to hold your nose and pull the lever with the other. Your personal liberal stances on issues cannot allow you to turn this country over to another neocon for the next four years. Slap on a happy face if she is the nominee, vote, and then go home and open a good bottle of wine to toast a Dem return. Beats having to drown our sorrows in that same booze when Rudy, or John, or Fred is declared the winner, and this nightmare goes on.
Evelyn Smith: You are a man with heart, and that’s becoming too rare a thing. Thank you kindly. I also much appreciated your comment on another posting today that spoke of the power of woman/women. Thank you for touching my heart.
RE: Clinton “just riding on…coattails”
Shorty C June 27th, 2007 5:44 pm
“everyone knows she’s just riding on her husband coattails.”
Shrug. Who here would care - if she had a progressive bone in her body.
Marikken: Thank you also for your kind words. I believe a forum of this nature should welcome the unique contributions of diverse minds, and attacking a person for their beliefs is UGLY in any forum. It is inexcusable and hardly qualifies for progressive content or behavior.
RE: WHY VOTING THIRD PARTY WON’T HURT A DEMOCRAT
andrewsac June 27th, 2007 8:39 pm
“Bottom line-if you vote for a third party candidate, you elect Rudy, John or Fred. Period.”
Wrong. Except in extemely close state races - which can be judged at the time - voting third party won’t hurt a Democrat. There simply aren’t that many outright progressives. Vote third party in a state where the right leads, you establish a minority to the left of the numerically fewer Democrats; vote third party in a state where the Democrats have an at all significant advantage, you establish that a part of the electorate stands to left of the Democrat. And that means a) The ‘voice’ of the left is preserved - Democrats can’t simply claim the electorate supports them and therefore they can’t go left; and b) Democrats understand that if they do adopt more left positions, there is a reserve of voters prepared to support them in place of a right flank they may (or may not) lose.
Florida? The Democrats flubbed that by sticking too far right (Gore picked up votes when he inched left), and Gore won the vote anyway - only the count was interrupted.
America will not elect a progressive to the White House. Hillary knows this. But a ticket of Clinton/Obama would satisfy many people, progressives and centrists plus disgruntled conservatives. A transitional President, one who knows the ropes, is needed to begin to undo the GWB miasma. Meanwhile, Obama would be getting the “Washington training” that he currently lacks. Booma: you have 8 to 16 years of Democratic rule. That is the best you can expect. THINK, America. Hold your nose if you have to, but take this best-case scenario. The rest of the world, which currently holds America in such low esteem, would approve as well. Perhaps Amerika would go back to being America once again.
Major parties choking democracy, grass-roots efforts
By DAVID LARSON
IOWA VIEW
June 7, 2007
Perhaps the most striking facet of American electoral democracy’s looming demise is that the patient’s likely mourners are far outnumbered by the unknowing, the uncaring and even the elated.
One imagines the outcries: “Democracy isn’t dying! Republicans and Democrats are campaigning, debating and advertising! Pundits endlessly sift those parties’ fortunes! Why, democracy is thriving!”
To which the aware may reply, “Thank you for making our argument.” A system that enshrines two fundamentally similar “opponents,” while barring its doors to citizens’ independent and third-party electoral efforts is at best a sort of artificial “Stepford Democracy,” and at worst, a dying one.
- At their 2004 national convention, leading Democrats plotted nationwide strategy to frustrate independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader’s ballot access (by extension, also denying millions of Nader supporters’ constitutional rights to electoral voice). A last-minute Iowa Democrat scheme at strangling open democracy failed, and Nader was placed onto this state’s ballot.
- South Dakota legislators this year passed HB1156, making it illegal for non-state residents to circulate nominating and initiative petitions, reports Ballot Access News. (It is common for alternative campaigns to rely upon traveling petitioners.) Signed into law by the Republican governor, the measure also outlaws the practice of paying petition-gatherers per signature.
- On May 11, Montana’s Democrat governor signed into law SB96, Ballot Access News reported. It criminalizes non-state residents’ initiative petition circulating, as well as outlawing per-signature payments.
In the past, major parties sought only to manipulate the democratic system to exclude outsider challengers to what amounts to a rigged “duopoly.” But that was then, and this is now. Today, even before rank-and-file citizens can pass judgment on major-party candidates through caucuses and primaries, party heads and advertiser-supported media are making pre-emptive determinations - citizens be damned.
- The chair of the Michigan Republican Party announced plans to seek to bar candidate Ron Paul from future Republican candidate debates. The Associated Press reported that Saul Anuzis intended to circulate among RNC members a petition to that effect. Anuzis has reportedly dropped his ambition in the face of citizen opposition. (For its part, Fox News had originally hoped to bar Paul from the first Republican debate.)
- Antiwar.com recently reported that CNN, New Hampshire’s WMUR-TV and the Union-Leader hoped to exclude Democrat Mike Gravel from the New Hampshire candidate debate. As with the Michigan anti-democratic scheme, public outcry prompted chastened political censors to back down.
In a May 2 op-ed for the Independent Progressive, Michael Richardson, who was Nader’s national ballot access coordinator in 2004, chronicled the anti-democratic depths to which Democrats have eagerly leapt.
“The Democrats are tightening the financial noose around Ralph Nader for his failed bid to obtain ballot access in Pennsylvania during his 2004 presidential campaign,” Richardson wrote. “Nader had been deprived a place on the ballot after extensive litigation, brought by the Democrats, and was later assessed a hefty $89,821 penalty by the Pennsylvania courts to be paid to the Democrats for court-related costs…
“The obvious chilling effect on independents and minor-party candidates is not lost on Carl Romanelli, the 2006 Green Party would-be candidate for U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania. Romanelli, too, has been hit by the Democrats with a huge bill for their costs in removing him from the ballot and has been ordered to pay $89,668.”
Richardson predicted legislators in other states would pursue passage of similarly punitive election legislation, hoping to intimidate independent and third-party hopefuls from ballot quests.
Throughout American history, it has been citizen efforts independent of established interests that have spurred progress. The anti-slavery, women’s suffrage, civil-rights and trade-unionist movements began at the grass roots.
Today, the antiwar, gay-rights, environmental and animal-rights causes are championed by independents and third parties, as is the integrity of the democratic process.
Relying upon Republicans and Democrats to promote honest and open, genuinely competitive democracy makes no more sense than going to Burger King for a pan pizza.
DAVID LARSON is a Waterloo writer. He was the Iowa Green Party’s media coordinator until 2004 and Iowa coordinator for Nader/Camejo 2004.
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070607/OPINION01/706070361/1035/OPINION
If elected, Hilary will use the matriarchal model of killing, war, and big business. She is a woman; not Bush in drag. Some women have always supported war, beaten their children, supported right wing policies, enforced social classes and otherwise done everything wrong in the world alongside those individual males who did these things.
I enjoy the articles, links, & news found on this website, but this is probably the last time I’ll waste any substantial amount of my time on the discussions of its readers. Most of you so-called progressives are supposedly pining for a “humanist” woman or a “true progressive” to vote for as president, but view “Billary” as the scum of the Beltway, underserving of your support under any circumstances. You blindly dismiss her achievements, political skills, and sheer powers of endurance, saying “[S]urely we can do better than this….” Well, you may need to wait another century or so for that chance–in the meantime, your obstinacy enables your disgraced and disgraceful nation’s leaders to continue plundering and sewing the seeds of destruction for future generations. Richardson and Kucinich a dream ticket? Give me a break! How about Richardson as Secretary of State, and Kucinich as Secretary of HUD? In a Hillary Clinton administration, why not?
The Clintons denied the Republicans the presidency for 8 years and survived what most would now agree was truly a vast, right wing cabal bent on bringing the Democrat adminitration to its knees. If it had not been for “progressives” like Nader, Al Gore would have been “leader of the Free World” when the 9/11 catastrophe changed the face of the political landscape. Had Gore carried Florida, the Supreme Court’s “Betrayal of America” (Vincent Bugliosi’s words) would not have been possible. I grieve when I think how different the history of our nation and world would have been with Al Gore as president on September 11, 2001.
Please, Commondreamers, I implore you and your ilk — refrain from lending aid and comfort to those intent on sabotaging the good Senator’s chances of being the first woman and former First Lady to be become Commander in Chief, and wielder of the bully pulpit. Work for Obama if you choose, and then gracefully accept his ascendency to the Vice-Presidency, though it will mean the loss of an Illinois Senate seat that has never been a particularly “safe” one. With a Democrat majority in both houses, and having made history simply by virtue of her election alone, President Hillary Clinton will be uniquely unfettered by the obsession to ensure election to a second term. I predict history will be made: a Moon Program / Marshall plan type initiative on global warming will be launched; restoration of civil liberties and rehabilitation of our voting system will be a top priority; appointment of appropriate judges and justices will be assured (Supreme Court for Lani Guinier?); world leadership and cooperation through participation in a re-invigorated United Nations could become a reality. And finally, the beginning of the end of the destructive Blue / Red State divide could be at hand– Bill Clinton could become not simply an ambassador to the world, but a builder of bridges among the estranged Americas.
Come on Commondreamers — give Hillary a chance. You’ve really got very little to lose, and a maybe a new world to gain. Let’s show the planet that unlike France, we can elect a woman chief executive — a woman who has pledged to end the war she would have been powerless to prevent, even if it had made sense to destroy her political career trying to do so. Admit it my fellow “progressives”: this is a war that none of us who has not been daily protesting in the streets for the past 5 years, or enduring a series of hunger strikes, can truly avoid responsibility for.
After reading, re-reading and thinking about every single comment written here, I’ve personally determined, that andrewsac and micki’s comments made a great deal of sense to me. That of course is my opinion. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, whether I like it or not, I will support her and vote for her in the general election.
Not one single candidate has everything I or almost all of us may totally like or agree with. I like special K, I like John Edwards and I like the Repug, Paul Thomson. But as this prior blog of kokuaguy urges, I will support whomever wins the primary on the Democratic ticket.
Take the time to scroll back and read the blogs, realy think with an honest, open mind of what anddrewsac and micki have written. If we fail to band together and support a candidate who can win, we will surely be screwed again and it could last for a lot more than eight more years. What is the truth of Clinton’s voting record a a US Senator? The facts, the truth?
My main issue is peace and ending the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t care about political parties. Hillary doesn’t work for peace and apparently favors permanent occupation of Iraq, so I don’t think I can vote for her under any circumstances. I could vote for Edwards or Kucinich if either of them won the nomination. If Hillary or Barack win, oh well– I’ll have to vote for a third party peace candidate. I’m not alone in that sentiment and the sooner the Democratic Leadership figures out people like me aren’t bluffing and we won’t “come around” in November and that we mean it when we say we DEMAND peace, the more likely it is that the Dem Leaders will put forward a nominee that we can all get behind– a real peace candidate. I am sick and tired of being taken for granted. If we’re going to have continuing occupation and war– and the Dems don’t give us a decent choice– then let the reality of war weigh heavily on the Republicans and don’t muddy the water by making the war a truly bipartisan effort.
scottstlouis June 27th, 2007 5:26 pm
“Clinton is the status quo canidate all polished up & ready for mass appeal, courtesy of the DNC. 10 or 20 years ago we could afford to vote in a flavor of the month candidate.Not so in this day & age. This election is a bellweather moment in our history, and it was both parties flavors of the month that got us here. We can’t afford another mass appeal presidency.”
Actually the bellweather election was 15 years ago, and we failed miserably.
Lobo Gris
kokuaguy June 28th, 2007 2:11 am
“If it had not been for “progressives” like Nader, Al Gore would have been “leader of the Free World” when the 9/11 catastrophe changed the face of the political landscape. Had Gore carried Florida, the Supreme Court’s “Betrayal of America” (Vincent Bugliosi’s words) would not have been possible. I grieve when I think how different the history of our nation and world would have been with Al Gore as president on September 11, 2001.”
Nader had nothing to do with it. The Repubs cheated in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. The constant begging by the Dems and the Repubs to vote for us because we are less repugnant than the other party is what has truly gotten us where we are today. If everyone truly voted their conscience rather than voting for who is “most likely to win” or voting “to keep the other guy out” we would have some decent politicians in office and the country would look much different, for the better.
If the Dems or the Repubs either one are so great why are 42% of all voters registered as Independents? As opposed to 33% Democrats and 25% Republicans. Seems to me that if either one of the two major parties had a record and a message that resonated with the voters that a plurality would be registered with them.
Why is a Congress that was just handed to the Democrats after just having been run by the Republicans since 1994 have a 14% approval rating?
Lobo Gris
This centrist boilerplate demanding that the progressives capitulate infuriates me. What ever will be the incentive to change if we can be totally discounted while they court voters still held captive by Right-wing propaganda? You know what the price for that is? No overriding message or meaning–everything is about positioning to pander to any succesfully manufactured conventional wisdom. That means any NeoCon message will do. If we are talking about the issues–the justification reverts back to the lesser of evils, but the positions of the candidates are identical where it matters the most. Pulling that old boogie man of the Supreme Court is a farce since the Democrats gave the thumbs up right down the line, always claiming they had to save the fight for tomorrow.
Don’t be a sucker to fall for the same scam they pull out every 4 years, anticipating holding voters hostage while in the intervening space and time they either prove themselves unspeakably incompetent or criminally complicit. Don’t get ensnared into trusting partisan contests when they are all dancing to the same tune. The vast disconnect–the cognitive dissonance between condemning the Right for banging the war drums on Iraq, for example, and then being blind to the fact that the Democrats are trying to drum louder, is unspeakably vile in it’s fundamental denial of reality. The same goes for Clinton wanting to end the war when she is ON RECORD stating that she would leave troops in Iraq.
Are you out of your mind? Are you blind? Do you think we are?
What is it going to take??
You can forget it. The line in the sand is drawn. Enough is enough. That lie is just about as lame as the trumped up war on terror. Don’t even think of peddling that cheap song and dance about giving Hillary a chance or waxing romatic about the Clintons. She has had more than enough chances and based on her positions on the issues, doesn’t deserve another one and he is baggage from impeachment to alliances with the Bush crime family.
We won’t be fooled again.
All you ladies and gentlemen who habitually engage in politico-philosophical discussions on CommonDreas, I got news for you. Your president for 08 has already been chosen by the powers that be who will be using the electronic voting machines that leave no paper trail, but you’ll probably go through the motions of voting as you have always done. I will explain why, and if you can reasonably prove me wrong, I will quit posting forever.
Ladies and gentlemen, in the 2000 election contest, you had in the right corner a Republican contender called George Duyya Bush, a man with a clean slate whom the electorate preferred to drink bear with.
In the left corner you had the Democratic contender Gore who kissed and hugged his wife on live camera, probably as a gesture to show you that he’s not unfaithful like Bill Clinton and that he loves his wife.
In spite of all that Bush still lost the popular vote, and had to resort to the Supreme Court to get chosen. And since this whole Mafia are all together and there is no difference, Gore was told to concede.
Now 4 years later, in the 2004 elections, the clean slate is no longer there and is replaced with some dirty slate, and some of those who preferred to drink bear with George probably had a second thought. Would you not think that Bush was worse off this second time around? You bet, but Bush won the “election” by topping his Democratic contender by 3,000,000 more votes! Impossible? Not if they use those voting machines.
Perhaps we should use our energies to talk about replacing those machines. It would be much more productive and will go a long way to make honest elections.
The problem with the Democratic Party is the pathetic candidates they field like Clinton. Clinton is a centrist of the worst order of magnitude advocating continued US presence in Iraq that will remain indefinately, nuclear weapons use against Iran, and one of the worst environmental policy initiatives on the table. Remember Bubba the self described “environmentalist” who did nothing in eight years as president to initiate sustainable and renewable energy sources. Did nothing to curtail the auto industry to increase CAFE standards. Did nothing to advance leadership on the issue as evidenced by his own life choices while driving his SUV’s, purchasing a mansion in NY, and holding a carbon debt that only George Bush and friends could be proud of.
I will never vote for this corporate slut, ever!
Hilary Rodham Klanton, emphasis on the Klan, isn’t at all a centerist, but way over to the right. Dennis J Kucinich is a centerist, as he’s a liberal or progressive, but not a socialist like Bernie Sanders, who is a left winger. Liberals are the vital center, and the vital center is beginning to take hold and hold, and that’s a damn good thing.
Hillary Clinton was interviewed recently by Walter Shapiro for salon.com — on the question of permanent bases in Iraq, this is how she answered:
Six months into a Hillary Clinton administration, about how many U.S. military personnel do you envision being in Iraq to handle what you’ve referred to in the past as “vital national security interests” — from helping the Kurds to preventing Iran from crossing the border?
I cannot give you a figure because I will not become president until January 2009 and there is no way to predict what will occur between now and then. I have said repeatedly that I am committed to taking our combat troops out of the midst of this sectarian civil war. And there may well be vital national security interests that require a continuing presence, although I do not support permanent bases or a permanent occupation. When I’m elected — and between the time that I am elected and the time I become president — I will focus to a great extent (and nearly to the exclusion of a lot of other important matters) on being ready to make those decisions once I become president.
But it is just impossible to make any kind of credible predictions at this point. I am still hoping that the president will decide to follow the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations and begin to alter the makeup and mission of our force before he leaves office. I think it is his responsibility to do that. So that’s my principal emphasis during this time — to try to persuade or require him to take the steps that I would have to do initially if he has not.
On withdrawing troops from Iraq Walter Shapiro asked Hillary Clinton this — followed by her answer.
WALTER SHAPIRO: Following up on that: Do you think that the Democratic primary voters — the people you talk to every day who are so palpably eager to end this war — need to understand that there are certain national security roles that the U.S. would have to continue to play in Iraq, even after we take out the combat troops?
HILLARY CLINTON: I have a lot of confidence in the electorate both in the primary and the general election. I think voters are hungry for people who will explain to them the complexities of the problems we face, the difficult challenges we will inherit.
So for me, in my discussions, of course, we would all like to turn the clock back. We would certainly like to begin withdrawing troops as soon as we can. It is complicated and dangerous to withdraw troops. That’s one of the reasons why a few weeks ago I wrote to Secretary [of Defense] Gates asking that he ensure that there is a serious planning process under way right now — not just the usual contingency plans on the shelf, but operational planning — to begin to be prepared to withdraw troops.
Our troops and their equipment will be extremely vulnerable. There are only two ways to get them out. One [is] through the north through Turkey — and you recall that Turkey did not allow us to move troops through their country [at the start of the war]. So therefore, we will have to go south. And long convoys are vulnerable; they are the principal battlefield where our soldiers are wounded and killed by the explosive devices used against them.
So I talk a lot about the complexity of the decisions that we have to be aware of in our country — that I will have to face as president. And that’s why I am trying to push this president to begin to prepare us. Because if we are to start tomorrow to begin ordering our troops both out of combat, which we can do, and have them move back to the bases we have established there [it takes preparation]. But if we are going to begin to move them and their equipment out of Iraq, that is something that I will be very concerned about because of the dangers that will accompany that kind of withdrawal.
“Vital National security Interests”
What do you suppose they are?
‘…if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military…“It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”’
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?ex=1331611200&en=5fb2367e2a644bc2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Clinton also indicates withdrawing would be logistically difficult, but when bringing the troops in, that doesn’t seem to be a difficulty they complain about. When the US withdraws, that is when the Iraqis will pave their way out.
Don’t even think of trying to spin it.
How many “Progressives” (here, HuffPost, etc.?) truly want to come to terms with the part they play in the much detested “culture wars” that have dominated politics in this nation for so long? The extreme positions and personal attacks on this comment page are not that different than what you’d find on Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Fox, etc.
As a nation, we’ve lost our populist center. We’ve become “atomized” and detached from the implications politics have on the “Everyman” (i.e. ALL American citizens). It’s all consumer politics now and narcissistically focused on “My Vote” and what and whom “I” want.
Read these comments for those who feel the general electorate is too “dumb” to know better (and in Nader-like fashion, requires the elite leadership of a Progressive Vanguard Party) or dwell for just a minute on the political “savvy” that lies behind comments that criticize (a la Ann Coulter) Hillary Clinton’s legs?
Where in all these comments is the concern for the fact that if a Republican is elected (and PLEASE don’t think it a remote possibility!) it will cement the Neo-Con agenda for decades to come and have a more or less permanently destructive impact on: the poor, the uninsured, the unemployed, our industries, our children’s education, the Middle East, our status in the world, our planet, the 3rd world cultures that will suffer for it … the list goes on and on.
Centrist is on these pages considered to be a terrible thing yet centrist is what most Americans are and what a democracy ultimately demands of us. It’s called political compromise and essential to a working democracy. Ideology, right or left, is too inflexible and hence too dangerous to dominate a democracy. (As we’ve learned)
You’d think that after 7 years of extremist ideology in our political arena, there’d be some degree of suspicion of the destructive, anti-democratic effects of any form of hard line politics. Yet “Progressives” writing in here seem blithely unaware of the fact that being the “flip side” of neo-cons is in a democracy is an equally dangerous thing. What’s more it’s really unappealing to Americans in the main.
Our is a pluralistic and constantly evolving democracy, in a dynamic demographically shifting world. No one set of ideological solutions apply.
I am on the same page as kokuaguy, andrewsac and micki and I have some suggestions (humbly offered) for the rest of you:
o Americans are not stupid and don’t need right or left leaning elites to lead them.
o States can be more progressive (or neo-conservative) than the whole nation because they have less diverse constituencies (uh, called states) to manage.
o 3rd party candidates DO make a difference. Bush and the Courts could never have stolen the 2000 and 2004 elections if the races were not close (51/49) and they wouldn’t have been close without Nader.
o Feminists and Progressives are living some kind of 60’s pipe dream if they don’t like Hillary because she doesn’t fit their image of the First Female President. (It’s kind of sexist isn’t it?)
o It DOES make a difference who wins.
I am voting for a Democrat and if that’s Hillary I will campaign for her too. Why? Because it’s not about me. It’s about the greatest good for the greatest number. And that good is achieved by blasting the neo-con agenda out. I will actively work against any third party candidate that risks tossing this back to a right wing Supreme Court or crooked voting machine or other rat tactics of the Right.
Iraq? We’re embedded there for decades. You can stick your head in the desert sand all you want, but extrication will take a long, long time. What’s more, it will require negotiation with and concessions to many strange bedfellows indeed (Hey isn’t that called triangulation!?) Bush started a God-damned wildfire over there. We’re stuck with it. It won’t be easy to put out. The hideous thing about these imperial wars is how easy they are to start and hard they are to get out of. Look at 20th century history for ample proof.
Iran? If it rattles a saber, why wouldn’t we rattle right back? It’s the nuclear game that has been played and refined over decades. It’s called MAD. Now the once called 3rd worlds wants to play. Every candidate has said they would threaten nuclear force. But it is a game. (Is Obama a “war monger”? Edwards? Why Hillary especially?) Does anyone really believe Democrats (in control) would not pursue diplomacy with Iran? (After Bush’s Dances with Death?)
I think Hillary gets a raw deal. She’s held not to a higher standard but a different one. And it is a woman thing. No question. Read Tom Hitt’s brilliant piece in Mother Jones (You won’t like it). Sexists look for any reason to detest her (Fat Legs? Are you fricking serious?) Feminists look for someone to fulfill their ideological fantasies of what a Feminist Nation would be, without concern that a large majority of Americans does not share this dream. It’s all a kind of perverse bias.
In the end, I like kokuaguy, am disheartened by the commentary on these sites. It reflects a very narcissistic, elitist and dare I say, bourgeois sensibility. The left has been pretty (petty) bourgeois since the 60’s when it surrendered the middle and working classes to the Republicans. We should be working on getting them back. Ironically we are, for the first time in decades, in a real position to do so.
Instead we eat our own, long for some inspiring, charismatic “savior” and risk surrendering the nation once again to the cagier, better organized right wing.
If this doesn’t really bother you, if you call yourself Progressive or Liberal and can honestly say you’d vote against Hillary (IF she is the candidate) than we can only assume you won’t be TRULY (personally) effected by the outcome of a Republican presidency in ’08. Now that’s what I mean by bourgeois.
As they said in the 60’s, if you are not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
Frankly stated, it’s just not about you.
Walt, well said!
Walt - very well stated. About a week ago I commented, less eloquently, about the progressive mindset and how no one is, or ever will be, good enough for us. Nader, eg, looks great as long as he’s not president - as soon as he made his first compromise or lost his first budget battle, we’d turn on him as a traitor and go looking for a new savior. Progressives should be more understanding, more inclusive, less selfish, fighters for the common good - it ISN’T just about us.
Wow, walt, great post. I agree with you. But that’s because I’m older and wiser than when I used to put a black bandana over my face and make my own cocktails.
There are too many people on here and elsewhere that ascribe to the ‘let it all blow up and we’ll reclaim the ashes’ mentality - wanting it to get much, much worse so some sort of TRULY revolutionary change occurs.
Then, really, they might as well try living the life of an Iraqi right about now. It’s certainly much, much worse there and if they can muster enough people with intact bodies and a cohesive plan, maybe they’ll reclaim the ashes. But the remaining Iraqis seem to be all too involved with hating their occupiers, surviving their countrymen and staying fed. The same thing could happen here - don’t imagine it couldn’t - if we keep plunging down into the primordial muck.
Unfortunately, some people want to see it happen. I have a kid - I don’t want to see it happen.
Well Walt, it isn’t just about you either, and who the hell are you to decide what is in the greatest good for the greatest number? Does Clinton reflect the consensus of the majority on Iraq- number 1 issue concerning Americans? No. Does she represent American voters preferences on healthcare? No. What major policies or issues does she present or champion that are in the greatest interest of the most people? Flag-burning? Violence in videogames? She has offered squat. All of her positions are political calcuation and her instincts aren’t even sharp or insightful. Her proclamations are shallow platitudes, always maneuvering around the important issues, always seeking to exploit some pop culture cult following. Always seeking to pander to the power brokers, lobbying interests, corporate media moguls, powerful campaign backers with an agenda, AIPAC dictates on US foreign policy– who most definitely DO NOT represent the greatest good for the greatest number. Triangulating strategy has moved the political landscape by borrowing on NeoCon policy–it is THEY who not only redefined the center according to their own framework–but they shifted it to the Right.
And understand this: We are not the minority. We are not some marginalized radical fringe. Our views reflect the majority. Most of the people in this country want out of Iraq and want decent healthcare not the insurance companies’ treasure trove for turning an obscene profit at the expense of human suffering.
We hear this shit all the time, that we are far Left nutjobs from the MSM - when WE REPRESENT the majority. It is Hillary that is out of sync, who does NOT speak to or for the populist center- and for you to suggest that she in any way represents a progressive agenda that represnts the greatest good for the greatest number is just downright dishonest.
WE ARE THE CENTER.
So, I am sick of the astroturf and the efforts of partisan operatives to dictate what is best based on their own party allegiances, or to suggest that Progressives are disdainful while taking license to bash progressives like Nader.
I see the wolf is at the door.
SAILA You are 100% correct!!! __ Electronic voting machines are the key. The ones with the best computer hackers will win.
Hi Vern. I’m a progressive person and a registered independent. I admire Ralph Nader and Special K and many others who hold our rights and the Constitution foremost in mind. I wish K could have registerd as an independent, he doesn’t go that route, because he would be another Ralph Nader with little power except his for his just opinions and voice.
I have read all of the comments again and am on the same page as WALT and those he mentions. They make a great deal of sense and are not blasting us progressives, heck, they’re progressives.
I also do not have any problems with Clinton’s answers to the Iraq issue. I believe everyone should take another critical look at her exact words, her voting record, and remember, when she and her husband Bill left the White House, he may have packed a new necktie, but he left us with a hefty surplus in the budget and we did not owe our butts and our kids futures to China.
I’ll support the Democratic ticket, whoever wins, hope it is Special K or John Edwards, but if not, Hillary or Oboma will have to suit me. Third party? Sorry, for the present, they;re climbing a greased pole, mainly because there is not a viable winner who has surfaced there. That’s reality.
Valt,
You suggested that if Nader had not entered the race, the vote count would not have been close, suggesting that Democrats would have won the presidency. If I’m correct in guessing what you meant, I like to point out that in the cases of people with voting habits like mine, the vote count would not have been any different.
You see, under the present circumstances I will never vote for either of the two parties. People with voting habits like mine, i.e. not casting a vote for either party could not have affected the election outcome.
Now if an independent candidate is also running, I may consider casting my vote for him, even if I knew he had no chance to win. By casting my vote for whom I believe in, at least I have been true to myself. How can I possibly vote for one of the major parties when I know both are phony? Yah, Democrats are just a MITE better on domestic policy. OK, one day I may cast just a MITE of my vote for them.
Last I watched a feature-length documentary about the human side to the magic of making music. MUSIC FROM THE INSIDE OUT, by filmmaker, Daniel Anker — he spent five years with members of the Philadelphia Orchestra in making this film.
Why am I mentioning this here? Because as I was watching it, it occurred to me that the individual in an orchestra, as in many groups, plays a very important role, but it is teamwork that provides a spectacular performance — it is working together that assures positive results. If an individual in an orchestra should try to “teach the others a lesson” or “play it my way” because he has a beef with the conductor, or the first violinist, the whole group — the common good of the orchestra — would suffer.
The same applies to participating in a democracy. Go ahead and teach us all a lesson by voting for a third-party candidate who has no chance of winning.
If you were playing in an orchestra, you’d be thrown out on your ass. But, boy! You’d have the satisfaction of knowing you’re true to yourself.
Saila and Micki, Wow, you both know how to express your opinions in a decent and profound manner.
Saila, I usually agree with your opinions and I percieve you are a very good person who has a good sense of humor and one who displays a high degree of honesty and common sense.
On this issue at hand, I favor the opinions of Micki, who displays the same good qualities that you do. In this case, her primary argument is, “we stand firmly together, or we fall___ alone”. It’s difficult to honestly argue that point.
I hate to be wrong, or admit that I am. I’m human, like all the rest of us here. I am not about to say you are wrong on this issue, Saila, I’m saying you may be, and perhaps you, and many others who share our opoinion on this most important issue, all of whom we need to stand together, may agree and think it over.
This next presidential election is perhaps the most important of any in our nation’s history and if another GWB wins, we all lose. And please don’t tell me, that any of the Democrat candidates are “just like GWB”. It’s just not true. Some are better choices than the others, the better ones may not win the primary. Hope they do, but if not, Let’s stand together and vote for the one who does win the primary, even if we don’t agree with every sngle thing they have said.
A good thoutful debate isn’t it?
Love this discussion, am half through the remarks but had to jump to the bottom to make two points: Regarding the gender thing:
1) The planet, for thousands of years, except in about 5% of its collective history, has been ruled by men. And look at the mess we continually find ourselves in.
2) Hillary’s gender has nothing to do with why I don’t like her and won’t vote for her. She’s one of the boys, a possible leader who would continue to frack up the planet. Everytime she opens her mouth she sounds just like John Kerry.
jbs said:
“using the logic of voting for clinton based on gender or intellgence, then i should vote for ann coulter”
Hurray, well put, and I’d add Margret Thatcher, Madeline Albright, Janet Reno, and Condi RIce as well. Can we put to rest once and for all the stupid notion that certain genders or races are “better” because they have suffered oppression, or raise children, do “caretaking” or whatever? Identity politics is killing rational discourse on the left every bit of as much as fundamentalist Christianity killed rational discourse on the right. Can we have the enlightenment and radical rationalism back, PLEASE?
To the Dimocrap supporters Evelyn Smith and Kokoaguy I offer this little experiment:
1. Google “Dick Cheney” Iran “all options on the table”
2. Now google “Hilary Clinton” Iran “all options on the table”
Try the same thing with NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, WIPO, etc.
The Dimocraps need to know loud and clear that they will not recieve votes from the anti-war activist left as long as they endorse war mongering positions and corporate globalization, period, end of story.
As Mike Gravel said when Obamam said that exact same crap “these people frighten me.” Well me too Mike, and I’ll write in Mickey Mouse before I vote for a war mongering corporate globalist like any of the “electable” Dims or any Ripoffagain other than possibly Ron Paul. So mainstream Dimocrap supporters take your snake oil somewhere else few people here are buying.
p.s. Evelyn what did Clinton I leaves us?
Answer clear cut forests in the Pacific Northwest, the end of “welfare as we know it”, the patriot act precursor known as the effective death penalty act, 1 million dead Iraqis under the sanctions (even more than disgusting war criminal Bush), an illegal and immoral war against Serbia that he started without consulting Congress (sound familiar?), more non violent offenders in the prisons, Waco, NAFTA, the WTO, and that’s just off the top of my head.
Yes times were good… For upper middle class yuppies. We can and must do better than that, have we really forgotten so soon that the Clinton years were every bit as bad as the disgusting Bush years for everyone outside of the 20% or so of upper middle class professionals and the very rich globalist corporate elite? And yes I can back up all the things I mentioned in the second paragraph, care to try to refute it, taps foot I’m waiting.
Hi Crow, You are right! If Clinton wins the primary, guess I’ll vote for good ol JulEEano, that would be much better.
I would vote for Ralph Nader or any other independent if they had a snow balls chance in hell of winning.
You know Crow, I do believe when Bill Clinton was our president, the congress and senate were fully controlled by the Republicans. That very important issue is seldom spoken of and that issue had a great deal to do with most of the stupidity you mentioned ocurred when Clinton was in office and what he left us with.
Yep, it was all Bills fault and of course, he had to listen to Hillary. Right! Yep, it was Bill and Hillary, that did it. Everyone knows, if one lives in a shit house, they smell like shit.
walt June 28th, 2007 10:45 am
“o 3rd party candidates DO make a difference. Bush and the Courts could never have stolen the 2000 and 2004 elections if the races were not close (51/49) and they wouldn’t have been close without Nader.”
And if Gore had won his own home state of Tennesee he would have been President. Kind of says something when a presidential candidate can’t carry his own home state.
Lobo Gris
Yeah Lobo Gris, and John Edwards didn’t win his home state, and Jesus Christ was scorned in his hometown. Did Nader win his home state, he win any state? If Special K had run as an independent, he would have a shot, probably a good one.
Hi Crow, I do not fit into the catagory of the upper class elite, and I do want the same things most of the bloggers here wish for. WE are not likely to get it, if we don’t pull together. Like a Viking war ship, we’d better pull together when the time comes for the final votes or we all lose.
Al Gore did make a big mistake in Tennessee in 2000 — that mistake was to underestimate the power and influence of the NRA and he also underestimated the reach and influence when the reichwing of the Republican Party pulls out all the stops to work against you — using lies, innuendo, rumor, and fear to whip up the sheeple.
Bush won Tennessee with the help of the NRA and Karl Rove’s propaganda machine. Plus it didn’t help that President Clinton had recently vetoed the (so-called) partial birth abortion legislation, which worked the sheeple up into a double-froth.
Bush won Tennessee because the “good citizen” voters from the Volunteer State voluntarily allowed themselves to be led my the nose by special interests and Karl Rove.
Regarding Ron Paul:
He may be against GWB’s illegal War of Choice on Iraq, but other than that he is a me-me-me, no tax, kill all the social programs, let-me-do-what-I-want-to-do, no regulations on industry, selfish, it’s all about me libertarian.
If you think Ron Paul is the answer to the United States’ woes, you are woefully misinformed.
One issue voters present real problems, IMO.
At least Ron Paul would END the war, the Patriot Act, and most likely the CIA, FBI, and the war on drugs as well, unlike the ball less corporate toady Dimocraps. Is he perfect as a pro corporate, anti choice Republican, to me as a radical direct action (arrested in the Redwoods and for Food Not Bombs) decentralist lefty? Of course not, but perhaps I consider him to be a “lesser of two evils” as someone who genuinely wants to shrink the empire. If you Dimocrap supporters play with the fire of “lesser of two evils” don’t be surprised when you get burned sometimes.
The thing that absolutely terrifies me is that upper middle class primarily white women well sell out anti-war anti-globaliztion activists over the “single issue” of pro-choice and vote for a corporate Dimocrap based solely on that issue. Yes single issue politics is a problem it’s precisely my big picture view of the damage caused by supporting wars and corporate globalization that calls me to reject mainstream Dimocraps. Did you Dimocrap supprters try the google test I suggested above? No? I didn’t think so…
Evelyn if we “pull together” to vote for Hilary no progressive thing will happen either I assure you. It will be all about a bigger military, more secret prisons, a bigger CIA, more threats against Iran, and more CAFTA, NAFTA, WTO type trade agreements that drive down wages here in the U.S. while leading to a downward spiral of wages around the world as well as a downward spiral of environmental quality. Is that a progressive agenda as a whole on big picture issues like the economy and ecology, no it isn’t. Tiny upward nudges in the minimum wage, “pro choice,” and “stem cell research” to me do not balance out the bad qualities of Hilary’s pro corporate pro war stance. Did you know Hilary was a “Goldwater Girl” and that she was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart?
If you read the recently released CIA “family jewels” documents you’ll see the U.S. government has been assassinating foreign leaders on behalf of multinational corporation for 60 years now under both Dimocraps and Ripoffagains. At least a Ron Paul Libertarian Ripoffagian might decide the CIA is “unconstitutional” and shrink or end it unlike an inside the beltway corporate Dimocrap.
It’s really, really, really sad to me that overall Pat Buchanan has a more progressive agenda than any electable Dimocrap as someone against globilization and imperial war.
Crow, I do not believe I said we should vote for Hillary, I’m voting for John Edwards or K in the primary, I’m saying I’ll support the winner of the primary. We will have two “viable” choices then, either a Democrat, or a Repubican. I’ll go Demo this time and don’t care if a Imus-Robin Williams ticket runs and gets in. In fact I wish they would.
If it’s Hillary? I will not vote for a Republican next time, even if it’s Thompson.
Evelyn why drink either the D or R koolaid? Why not organize a Martin Luther King style march on Washington? The system has failed us utterly and completely if you don’t believe me ask any person in the third world about how wonderful life was under Clinton after the WTO passed, or any factory worker in Akron Ohio for that matter. To think D or R is our only choice is to show an utter lack of imagination that must surely make our very radical founding fathers spin in their graves. Remember Jefferson said that the tree of Liberty ought to be watered with the blood of patriots EVERY 20 years.
p.s you said I will not vote for a Republican NEXT time? Does that mean you voted for Bush at some point? If you did I am shocked that you feel qualified to offer political commentary at all here. When I was 18 and wet behind the ears I knew better than to ever vote for a mainstream Ripoffagain. Note Ron Paul is NOT a mainstream Ripoffagain as a former Libertarian he is closer to an anarchist than a Bushie and have more than a little sympathy for anarchists who want to end the U.S. state.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events
Don’t make assumptions Crow, I’ve voted for a good Republican once, Me! I switched to Independent several years ago, when Bush viciously attacked McCain. I never voted for either of the shrubs. Not that it is really anyones business. but don’t make assumptions, this was a friendly and interesting debate. Don’t turn it into a shit fight.
So what if Hillary Clinton was on Wal-mart’s board?
She sat on the board from 1986-92. While she was on Wal-mart’s board she was passionate about issues relating to the company’s record: lack of women in management and their overall treatment and sustainability.
It is true that she didn’t go to bat to unionize Wal-mart — as the only woman and the ONLY pro-union person on the board, she knew that none of the couple of dozen anti-union men on the board would budge. She knew how to picks her battles. She knew that if she took a strong pro-union stand on unions on THAT board, it would lessen her position on other issues.
Hillary also worked diligently on environmental issues while on the Wal-mart board — she convinced Sam Walton to form an environmental advisory group. Under her aegis, the advisory group drew up numerous plans, including consumers would bring in used motor oil and batteries for recycling, suppliers would reduce the size of their packaging, and Wal-mart would build more eco-friendly stores with energy-saving features.
Wal-mart management put some of the programs into place and they even opened an “eco-store” in Kansas in 1993, using skylights for lighting and wooden beams from forests that had not been clear cut, for example.
But, alas, after Sam Walton died and Hillary quit the board, much of the progress came to a standstill.
You can’t blame that on Hillary Clinton (unless you’re just a plain old unvarnished Hillary-hater).
Evelyn, Crow is looking for a fight.
Ignore Crow.
We know that facts are much better ammunition than emotion and accusations.
What other issues you mean like all the other ones she’s too busy triangulating to fight that make the Dims into pale carbon copies of the Ripoffagains? If I wanted to vote for Ripoffagain I’d vote the real one who actually came up with the ideas in the first place and at least had some initiative not the me too follower. As far as I am concerned Dick Morris and the Clintons ruined the Dems as a party of the working people and the environment. They took a calculated risk when they tacked hard right in 1996 and promised to make the election about “v-chips and school uniforms,” do you remember that? Their calculated risk is that lefties would bail and I did and I voted for Nader that year a vote I am proud of to this day.
P/S CROW You ASSUME I voted for
Bush, because I wrote “this time”. You are shocked!! Then you blithly state, you favor some Republicans. That does not shock me. I like Fred Thompson, but I’ll support a democrat in the next election.
You then attack my right to write here at Common Dreams. Go to the archives CROW and look up what I’ve written about this administration and other subject matter.
I am also fully aware of the third party system. I walked and worked for Ralph Nader and voted for him. I stated there is no “viable” third party candidate at this in our history and if Nader does run again I will not support him, because he cannot win and I won’t waste a vote for some silly inner self satisfaction. The Clinton administration was severly hampered, by a fully controlled Republican house and senate.
And don’t bother to attempt to preach to me Crow, you picked an approriate code name. I’m a retired, disabled vet, who shed his blood in Vietnam. Oh, Evelyn is my code name, I’m a 71 year old married male. I will not make assumptions about you Crow, I will say how you are coming across. You are coming across as a closet, right wing, Republican, who has snunk into this website, to annoy and create friction among the people who are attempting to join and fight this deplorable current administration. That’s what I see in your writing Crow. Whenever anyone here unjustly attacks another member with a sanctimonious attitude, makes assumptions and attacks others opinions in a childish manner, that is how they come across to me. I Can’t and won’t speak for anyone else.
Just stay on your high horse Crow and take your negative attitude and assumptions and ride off spreading your wisdom. I’m impressed! I’m also sorry to feel the need, to defend myself to anyone in this manner.
But I never start this type of discourse, and I don’t take any crap from anybody, on paper or in person. Thank you Crow for showing us all where you are comig from. ___Kem Patrick.
How many kids did you kill in Vietnam soldier boy?
You are damn right I am looking for a fight because Dimocraps who allow the conservative right to pull the country ever closer to fascism disgust me. And I’ve got plenty of facts the ones you didn’t answer above now I will give them with links:
1. Clear-cutting the Pacific Northwest or the Northwest forest plan this was Clinton’s initiative and did not come from the Republican COngress:
“April 1994 President Clinton’s Northwest Forest Plan is adopted, leaving 30 percent of the remaining old-growth unprotected while at the same time calling for the agencies to protect species associated with old growth. The plan requires that agencies survey for certain species prior to logging and other ground disturbing activities, and provide buffers for those species where they are found. For six species, including the red tree vole and five salamanders, surveys must be conducted for timber sales that are implemented in 1997 or later. For 71 additional species, surveys must be conducted for timber sales that are implemented in 1999 or later.
July 1995 President Clinton signs the Rescissions Act “salvage rider” which prohibits citizen appeals of timber sales covered by the Northwest Forest Plan until January 1997.”
http://www.oregonwild.org/oregon_forests/old_growth_protection/northwest_forest_plan
2. Noam Chomsky said the war on Serbia was a war crime, this was again Clinton’s idea and he in fact try to go around the COngress entirely in fighting this illegal and immoral war:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200005–.htm
“Clinton adopted a Nixonian view of presidential power. From the threatened invasion of Haiti in 1994 to the cluster-bomb humanitarianism of the war on Serbia in 1999, Clinton treated the constitutional command that Congress alone can declare war with less respect than the Imperial Presidents that preceded him. President Reagan’s attack on Grenada and President Bush’s invasion of Panama were undeclared wars, but they had the constitutional fig leaf of the need for surprise. Clinton’s conduct has been more brazen.
With 1994’s Haiti intervention, Clinton stood ready to launch a 20,000-troop invasion, while asserting that he did not need congressional authorization to do so. In Serbia, the air war from March to June 1999 represented the largest commitment of American military personnel and materiel since the Persian Gulf War.
Nonetheless, Clinton refused to go to Congress for a declaration of war. Indeed, administration officials would not admit that the bombing campaign over Serbia was a war. White House spokesman Joe Lockhart made that clear in an April 1999 exchange with a reporter:
Q: Is the President ready to call this a low-grade war?
Lockhart: No. Next question.
Q: Why not?
Lockhart: Because we view it as a conflict.
Q: How can you say that it’s not war?
Lockhart: Because it doesn’t meet the definition as we define it.
Apparently, it depends on what your definition of “war” is.
And then there were the attacks known as the “Wag the Dog” bombings. The first came in the August 1998 missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan, three days after Clinton’s grand jury testimony and in the midst of a media firestorm over his televised non-apology for the Lewinsky affair. The administration has refused to release the evidence it claims to have relied on for its assertions that the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant made nerve gas and that its owner was linked to terrorist Osama Bin Laden.”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4395
Gee sounds just like Dubya going into Iraq just as illegal and disgusting.
3. Effective death penalty act that Clinton was Very supportive of as in these remarks:
“At the signing of the Anti-Terrorism Act, President Clinton remarked:
From now on, we can quickly expel foreigners who dare to come to America and support terrorist activities. From now on, American prosecutors can wield new tools and expanded penalties against those who terrorize Americans at home and abroad. From now on, we can stop terrorists from raising money in the United States to pay for their horrible crimes. From now on, criminals sentenced to death for their vicious crimes will no longer be able to use endless appeals to delay their sentences, and families of victims will no longer have to endure years of anguish and suffering.”
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/LegislatingRepression.html
Note that this act also violated Habeas Corpus and that Clinton made no attempt to veto it:
“The AEDPA had a tremendous impact on the law of habeas corpus in the federal courts. One provision of the AEDPA, limits the power of federal judges to grant relief unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was (1) contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. While critics have charged that this limitation effectively forecloses the power of federal courts to remedy unjust convictions, federal judges have found ways to grant relief to prisoners in habeas cases despite the limitation. After all, some interpretations of federal law can be not merely incorrect but actually unreasonable, thereby allowing federal courts to grant relief under the first prong of AEDPA’s limitation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996
There are the ugly facts that the Clintons are every bit as evil as the Retugagains so get to refuting or retract your charge that I resorted to mere emotionalism.
Micki: Today is the first time I have seen one of your blogs. You do write well and you make your points in a manner that is easy to commprehend, with grace and style. You are also well informed on this issue and I suspect you may be on many others.
I missed your suggestion while I was writing in defense. Crow did not say that I voted for Bush, he wrote his comments with the impliction that I did and then went on___ well, you read it.
I am glad that you are here, it helps to give varied opinions and also helps us to think about very serious issues. Thank You. Kem Patrick
Ahhhhh Crow. Have you ever sough treatment in a mental health facility? Your writing gives you away.
No Crow, I have never killed anyone, flew transports. But I buried two of my sons, so I’ intimently familiar with the anguish and forever lasting pain of death.
Crow, I don’t like this and will never, ever reply to you again. Take care of yuorself, we only get one brain.
Micki if Wal-Mart in the early 90s is your idea of the solution to environmental problems we are all in big trouble, or didn’t you watch your boy Gore’s movie, I did. I also fought to save the Redwoods in California in 2004 including climbing up 150 feet in trees with rock climbing equipment and getting arrested locking down to a logging company gate. We are going to need a LOT more than corporate greenwashing to survive the triple onslaught of depleted resources, global warming, and peak oil. Corporate Dimocraps who are beholden to polluting multinational corporation are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Who is resorting to ad hominem attacks and not providing facts, as you accused me of above? Every single point I have made has been backed up with an authoritative source now unlike your ramblings “Evelyn.” I rest my case and strongly suggest you read some Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn before you pull the lever for a corporate funded Dimocrap.
Hillary Schmillary.. First she’s on the left, then on the right, then back to the left. What she needs to do is get centered and find herself.
Hillary will prove to be no better nor worse than what we have now. I just wish we could unearth a Margaret Thatcher type. I haven’t read anything that has come out of Hillary’s loud mouth all these years that is original and I question her knowledge and understanding of the Middle Eastern thought processes. She is smart, pushy, and will be able to tackle her opponents without faltering, but a sholar or a person with a vision or one who understands the average American plight, no. Seems like if she wanted to do something for America, she might consider using her millions to help the underprivileged. Just what she expects to accomplish as President is the question.
#
Evelyn Smith June 28th, 2007 6:23 pm
“Yeah Lobo Gris, and John Edwards didn’t win his home state, and Jesus Christ was scorned in his hometown. Did Nader win his home state, he win any state? If Special K had run as an independent, he would have a shot, probably a good one.”
First of all I don’t know who Special K is unless you are trying to elect a box of cereal.
Second, I was replying to walt june who was blaming Nader for Gore not being president, supposedly because he siphoned off votes. Ignoring the fact that the real reason Gore lost was not because Nader siphoned off votes but because the Repubs cheated in Florida.
Third, a candidate that can’t carry his own home state in a presidential election does have a problem with their record or their campaign. As for John Edwards and Ralph Nader not carrying their home states, they aren’t president either, point made. As for Jesus there isn’t any record in the bible that I know of, of him running for public office.
Lobo Gris
A look back in time, from the New York Times,
Feb. 20-26: Regrets on Both Sides; Long in Works, Timber Plan Still Leaves Axes Grinding
By TIMOTHY EGAN
Published: February 27, 1994
There’s no way to tell how many trees were felled to print the 1,600-page document containing the Clinton Administration’s plan for the forests of the Pacific Northwest. But the blueprint, delivered last week in the form of an environmental impact statement, would drastically reduce the number of trees that could ever be cut from 24 million acres of public land in Washington, Oregon and California.
Environmentalists say it may be too late, with only about 5 million acres of old-growth forest left. Still, the new strategy is a big departure: Logging levels will be only about 20 percent of what they were in the peak years of the 1980’s, with the emphasis now on protecting nature. The timber industry would like Congress to override the plan, a move that Congressional leaders say is unlikely after months of hearings and debate. TIMOTHY EGAN
LoboGris: I was merely refering to the old adage, that people are often not accepted on their home ground, be it politicans or preachers. I was not critizing all of your opinions. Sorry it came across to you that way. I read all of your blogs and respect your opinions and suggestions, but not necessarily every thought or comment. Just thought it would be fun to join in the debate.
For Example, Abe Lincoln was not well thought of by the majority in his home community, that didn’t mean he was a loser.
Here’s another look at Clinton’s disastrous Northwest forest plan from some non MSM sources:
http://zena.secureforum.com/znet/ZMag/articles/tokar2.htm
http://mvh.sr.unh.edu/mvhinvestigations/old_growth_forests.htm
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~survival/rider.html
Hint the New York Times is very pro corporate growth and features globalist anti environmentalist writers like Thomas Friedman. When it comes to saving the planet the NYTs is about as “balanced” as Fox, gotta please those stock traders on Wall St. ya know.
When I was an activist in Humboldt county trying to save the ancient Redwoods the opinion of the activists out there was universally negative towards the CLintons and the NWFP. If you saw the clear cuts you’d understand:
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&tab=wi&hl=en&q=clear%20cut
Clear cuts from Clinton policies don’t impress me one whit more than clear cuts from Bush’s immoral and disgusting policies.
Evelyn Smith June 28th, 2007 11:52 pm
“LoboGris: I was merely refering to the old adage, that people are often not accepted on their home ground, be it politicans or preachers. I was not critizing all of your opinions. Sorry it came across to you that way.”
I didn’t take any serious offense. Blogs are one of the worlds great inventions but they are hard to communicate on, for everyone I think, myself included. It’s amazing how much of our communication is visual as w