Rating the Presidential Candidates on Iraq, Another Agonizing Year Ahead

While most peace activists are evaluating the Democrats, I would rank Rudolph Giuliani as the most dangerous of all the presidential candidates in a long while, because his Iraq and Iran policies are the work of the most hawkish neo-conservatives who promoted the Iraq quagmire and now want to bomb Iran as soon as possible. Though far better than Giuliani, Sen. Joseph Biden is the worst Democratic candidate because of his demand that partition be imposed on Iraq. The front-running Democrat, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is so ambiguous on Iraq that she risks losing the general election by driving enough of the progressive vote to inevitable third party candidates.

Giuliani is advised by a network of neo-con hawks led by Norman Podhoretz who call for a Cold War-type struggle against “Islamofascism”, the immediate bombing of Iran [Commentary, June 2007], the right to assassinate the leaders of Iran and North Korea, and the assumption that all American Muslims are suspect. [NY Times]. They are a well-organized machine with millions of dollars available to attack MoveOn and bankroll campus campaigns against the new foreign enemy of Islamofascism, which they believe can and must be militarily defeated.

Principled Democrats with single-digit support at present should be considered as strong voices against the war, and possible contributors to a long-term progressive movement, but not as likely nominees. Among them, Biden, who could become secretary of state under a Democratic president, takes the most dangerous position, favoring a de-facto breakup or partitioning of Iraq, with each religious group policing its own areas. That would mean forced migration for millions of Iraqis from their homes in Shi’a-dominated Basra, for example, to Sunni-dominated Anbar province. Sen. Chris Dodd, while taking a strong position against the confirmation of Bush’s nominee for attorney general, has been murky in his anti-war views during the campaign. While supporting a 12-18 month pullout, he also wants American troops redeployed away from major Iraqi cities to the border regions and to Kurdistan, Kuwait, Qatar, and Afghanistan. [speech Oct. 12, 2006]

Bill Richardson, another candidate for a future cabinet position, takes the cleanest position of all on Iraq, promising to remove all American troops within one year while launching diplomatic efforts towards regional stability. And of course, Dennis Kucinich is an anchor for the anti-war community.

Among the current front-runners, John Edwards takes the strongest anti-war position, calling for an immediate troop withdrawal of 40-50,000 US troops, a withdrawal of remaining troops in 12-18 months, and diplomatic peace initiatives. Edwards’ position includes a significant loophole, however, for “sufficient” US troops to remain in the region to prevent a terrorist haven or ethnic genocide. Edwards also is on record favoring the intensifying of training for Iraqi security forces. [NYT, Feb. 26, 2007]

Sen. Barack Obama’s position has somewhat improved with its latest nuances. He favors a steady withdrawal taking 16 months. [NYT, Nov. 2]. Backing away from open-ended support of American trainers in the midst of a dirty sectarian war, Obama says he would support trainers only if the Baghdad regime commits to political reconciliation and reforms its sectarian police, an almost impossible scenario to imagine. Further, Obama would not allow American trainers to be placed “in harm’s way.” But he also favors an unspecified number of American troops in the region able to conduct “counter-terrorism” or return in the “short term” to Iraq in the event of genocide against civilians. Obama seems trapped between his tendency to build a “new center” and the need to sharpen his differences over Iraq with Hillary Clinton.

Obama correctly links a withdrawal plan with motivating other countries to engage in regional stabilization: “Once it’s clear that we’re not intending to stay there for 10 years or 20 years, all these parties have an interest in figuring out how do we adjust in a way that stabilizes the situation.” And Obama has toughened his stand against escalating the conflict to Iran. Instead he would engage in “aggressive personal diplomacy” including a promise to end bush’s policy of regime change in exchange for Iranian cooperation in regional stability.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee at this point, remains the most indecipherable of the candidates on Iraq. On the one hand, she pledges “to end the war” and has voted against the Bush surge and in favor of a March 2008 withdrawal deadline for combat troops. She has suggested, but not insisted on, cutting off funding for Iraqi security forces and private contractors unless reforms by the Iraqi government are guaranteed. [NYT, Feb. 26, 2007] On the other hand, she most clearly favors leaving a large number of Americans, a “scaled down force”, in Iraq indefinitely to fight al-Qaeda, train the Iraqi army, and resist Iranian encroachment. [NYT, Nov. 2, 2007]. She cast an unsettling hawkish vote to define the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, which may have reflected her positioning for the November election, and has telegraphed a message that Iraq is “right in the heart of the oil region…[and] directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of the region, to Israel’s interests.” [NYT, Mar. 15, 2007]

Clearly, anti-war opinion in the early primary states will be a major factor determining the candidates’ positioning. Edwards has put pressure on Obama and Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire, and Obama puts pressure on Clinton across the board. But Clinton already is trending towards her general election platform against another “vast right-wing conspiracy.” In the short-term, she wants to be positioned as sufficiently anti-war and leave Edwards and Obama appearing more “extreme”, which may be a misreading of public opinion. The other Democratic candidates will seek to appear more anti-war than Clinton because the issue is their only way to gain traction with the multitudes of anti-war voters in the primaries. Clinton depends on rallying Democrats and independents to her side by contrasting herself with Giuliani, Mitt Romney or John McCain. Whether that approach can prevail, or seem too frustratingly evasive, remains to be seen in the long campaign ahead.

If Clinton gains the nomination on an Iraq platform that disappoints enough independents and Obama or Edwards supporters, a two-percent space will open for Ralph Nader and/or Cynthia McKinney to possibly make the difference in the November election. Recent polls show Clinton in a virtual dead heat with Giuliani among independent voters who otherwise lean Democratic. If she refuses to take a more forthright stand on Iraq, she may try returning to her domestic strength by arguing that unlimited and wasteful Republican spending on Iraq will prevent her from achieving national health care, a priority issue for a majority of Americans where Giuliani is clearly on the wrong side. As president, she could describe her slow troop withdrawals as a peace dividend, a transfer of resources from war to health care for veterans and all Americans.

Or worst case, her appearance of wobbling on Iraq/Iran could reinforce a voter perception of such principled and unpredictable opportunism that the Democrats could lose a close election once again.

Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [Akashic, 2007]. He has not endorsed any candidate for president. He is a national board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and the editorial board of the Nation magazine.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

30 Comments so far

kawika November 6th, 2007 12:52 pm

Tom,
How can you write an article entitled ‘Rating the Presidential Candidates on Iraq’, and fail to talk at all about the Republicans, aside from Giuliani? If you cared about the issue of ending the war, rather than getting a Democrat (any Democrat) in office, you would have mentioned Ron Paul (R), who raised over $4 million yesterday from online donors fed up with the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc., not to mention the War on the Constitution.
Why did you forget to mention Mr. Paul? Maybe because he scares the living daylights out of you and your ‘progressive’ agenda?
You, my friend, are what we call a partisan hack.

andersdl November 6th, 2007 1:09 pm

I share your concern kawika, however, unless neocon control of the Republican Party is diluted SOON, only the most hawkish, fundamentalist candidates will stand a chance at getting the Republican nomination.

Hayden’s evaluation of Democrats has concluded that from a risk management standpoint Edwards, Kucinich and Richardson are the only candidates that anybody seriously concerned about ending the Iraq occupation should consider.

McDee November 6th, 2007 1:17 pm

Tom Hayden views every issue through the lens of “how does this help/hurt the Democrats?”
I’m no Ron Paul supporter but I sure agree with kawicka that Hayden is a partisan hack.

RichM November 6th, 2007 1:37 pm

Let’s do a thought experiment. Assume for a moment that the election becomes Giuliani v Hillary, and that Hillary loses — among other things, because Giuliani is able to rightly portray her as a two-faced fence-straddler. Assume further that by some miracle, Bush leaves office without attacking Iran.

What do you envision for the next 4 years? When Rudy goes after Iran, how does Sen. Clinton comport herself in the Senate? Does she stand up courageously in opposition to President Giuliani’s moves towards war? Or does she stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the president, generally supporting his attempts to “protect the American people” — though occasionally carping about his tactics?

The question answers itself. She will be about as much “opposition” to Rudy as she (or Pelosi, or any Democrat) has been to Bush.

Bill BRG November 6th, 2007 1:53 pm

Yo, Kawika,

Don’t laud Paul too much. He’s good on Iraq and foreign interventionism. On some of the aspects of American militarism he’s good.

He mentionns nothing about arms trade.

He says nothing on his website under “Issues” about energy policy, global warming or resource depletion. Which are going to be the leading causes of political, economic, military and social conflict in the next few decades (at least). With Texas having as much coastline as it does, you’d think it might be a concern. Can you say hurricanes, Ron Paul?

He says scant little about protecting the environment. Ignorance is not okay- it’s a dereliction of responsibility of government. See common welfare. When the coastlines and hurricane/tornado areas of this country are going to be adversely affected by climate change and global warming, it’s a matter of national security that even the Pentagon has stark projections about.

Check Ron Paul’s website- First,he’s against the International Criminal Court. Second, he’s anti-abortion. He says nothing about universal health coverage. He’s a proponent of home schooling. NRA guy.

He talks about enforced border and is agaisnt NAFTA, but he doesn’t connect the harm done to Mexicans with it!

Libertarians, are an improvement over Neocons but they carry a whole lotta baggage. Then include Paul’s nativism.

Paul is attracting a lot of the people that John Anderson did in 1980. People who don’t pay attention to politics, then hear a couple of things they like. Ron Paul talks about freedom a great deal, but desn’t seem interested in informing the public about several of the most important issues to confront this country.

Am I glad Ron Paul’s running? Yes, because he’s against us being in Iraq and empire.

But Dennis Kucinich represents policies across the board that would make this a country I could be proud of.

5280 November 6th, 2007 2:17 pm

…more of the same from this guy. Hack, hack, hack! Ha!

Ron Paul or Ralph.

Winning ANY national election is not a priority for any democrat, stealing your money however, is.

Paul from Texas November 6th, 2007 2:59 pm

BillBRG: Ron Paul is gaining and Kucinich is losing. I would take either man as President, but only one of them is a serious threat to the status quo.

The biggest problem, IMHO, is that the ideas of the progressive Left are too scattered and lacking in focus. ‘Global warming this, Corporate America that’. There is no loud voice shouting in unison to end authoritarian and imperial government. In the Ron Paul Revolution, there IS such focus.

After New Hampshire, Paul will be a front-runner in the top tier.

jcephrie November 6th, 2007 3:43 pm

No mention of Gravel. SHAME ON YOU. I don’t get it. Why is he ignored? Please somebody tell me. I’m starting to think “progressives” are as blind and ignorant as everyone else. They just follow the Kucinich or Nader of the time and ignore anyone else. Gravel is anti war. He fucking filibustered the draft and got the pentagon papers into the congressional record. He laid out a plan for the democrats to pull the troops out of Iraq. They dropped the ball. Your censorship is just as bad IF NOT WORSE than GE’s. Don’t give me the bull about Gravel not standing a chance, if he doesn’t then neither does Kucinich.

Dr. Zimmerman Robert November 6th, 2007 3:48 pm

Clinton is Bush in women’s clothes.

ABC

Anybody But Clinton

speakthetruth November 6th, 2007 5:04 pm

Gravel, Kucinich, or Paul. For me, sanity, integrity, peace, and liberty trump other issues. I believe some issues can also be taken care of at the State level. The hope is for something anti-Police State, anti-Empire (Amen).

At this stage, Paul’s momentum & trajectory look promising.

adamhewitt99 November 6th, 2007 5:11 pm

Do you people even know who Tom Hayden is? Describing this man as a partisan hack is ridiculously off base. Port Huron Statement? anyone? And Ron Paul? really? You know, i kind of think public education and abortion rights are pretty important, also social security and medicare are pretty alright too.. Next time you try and sing the praises of Ron Paul, try to realize that there are other issues out there besides the war. Look up “libertarian” Why is Gravel ignored? Because, while he might have an idea about the war, there are other issues, not to mention the fact that he’s a crazy bankrupt old man who hasn’t done anything since the 1970’s. Simply being anti-war does not make a candidate or a great man, suggesting so is ignorance at its finest. The reason Kucinich is far and away a better candidate than either of these men is because he has other issues, he’s more than anti-war, he’s the whole progressive package.

Euarto Gullible November 6th, 2007 5:25 pm

Common Dreams may be a great site with progressive news, but they have definately alligned themselves with an agenda, and that means giving Kucinich a monopoly on the anti-war coverage. Before the invasion of Iraq, Ron Paul was the only Republican vocally opposed. This site acknowledged Ron Paul as a “progressive” then with multiple news items, but now has distanced itself from him because it seems to dislike his other Libertarian aspects. While I have really appreciated the exclusive pieces on CD about Israel, I think that this website has narrowed its diversity of viewpoints in recent times, and that’s not fair to readers. Ron Paul’s absence from this site astounds me, considering that over half the articles here are against the war. I hope the CD realizes that in order to stop the wars, ALL anti-war voices must be acknowledged. Isn’t that our “Common Dream?” Ron Paul has done a tremendous service to this country for calling propaganda what it is on television, before thousands of viewers and challenging business as usual. And he hasn’t been preaching to the choir. He’s telling the people who need to hear it most. Republicans who have been misled by the Neocons. When articles like this are linked here that make no mention of Paul, I suspect that CD is going out of its way to avoid publishing pieces favorable toward Ron Paul because they’re afraid of sending Kucinich supporters to the other side. While that’s fine, it’s leaving a great deal of the talk about Ron Paul to be left to the message boards, and that’s not fair to the anti-war community who frequents and donates to this site.

jcephrie November 6th, 2007 5:32 pm

The national initiative and the tax are the only places Kucinich and Gravel appear to differ. Maybe Gravel wouldn’t try to set up a department for peace, but he does advocate a peace volunteer program with the reward of paid college. Gravel has a more aggressive plan for saving the environment. Your ignorance of Mike Gravel’s policies indicates to me you are too quick to judge adamhewitt99.

Additionally I’ve never heard Kucinich directly mention the military industrial complex or how the war on drugs is racist and has failed.

We need people like Kucinich in the Congress where the power is supposed to be.

Also this article was on the antiwar stances of the candidates which is why I focussed on that particular issue.

Mordechai Shiblikov November 6th, 2007 5:36 pm

Because he is a Libertarian, Ron Paul is the only real conservative among the Republican candidates. He has no chance of securing the nomination because he has no interest in presiding over an empire. QED. Hillary Clinton, should Democrats be stupid enough to nominate her, will be easily defeated. When the Republican controlled Joseph Goebbels Sturmabteilung Propaganda Machine gets done with her she’ll look like a cross between Madeline Murray O’Hare and Sweeney Todd. The Democrats best chance is to get Albert Gore to run with Virginia senator James Webb. They can easily defeat the sweaty and priapic Giuliani or that Cosmic Empty Suit, Romney. That probably won’t happen either. So what we’ll probably wind up with is the political equivalent of a Michael Bay movie. And we will remain in Iraq for the forseeable and bloody future. The times we are living through prove once again how totally and absurdly irrational human beings are. QED!

jcephrie November 6th, 2007 5:52 pm

I’ve never heard Kucinich say Military Industrial Complex or that the War on Drugs is a failed and racist policy. I’ve been looking.

Hank Fur November 6th, 2007 7:08 pm

While Tom Hayden and Robert Sheer are snug in the pockets of the Democratic Party, many of us will be looking for a way out of here. Both Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney have expressed an interest in running if Hillary is the nomination. There are a couple of Dems to support (Kucinich, Gravel) but we all know what that’s about, right? Keep ‘em in the corral with a tasty looking carrot dangling before their eyes, prance out all your distracting stalking horses (remember Dean?).

I just can’t believe people like Hayden and Robert Sheer are peddling this kind of bs.

Tom, John Edwards is the best anti-war candidate? Have you forgotten? He voted for the war on Iraqis (before he was against it, of course). Here’s the explanation:

Edwards sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and was privy to secret information on Iraq’s military capability. Also on that committee was Senator Durbin who voted against the war resolution. Being sworn to secrecy, Edwards had no way of knowing that his complicity would come back to haunt him. He pretended to think Iraq had WMDs so he could vote for it. Sen. Durbin’s comments about the Senate debate to go to war on Iraq:

“So, in my frustration I sat here on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq and thinking the American people are being misled. They are not being told the truth. That’s why I joined twenty-two members of my colleagues in voting no. I did not feel at the time that the American people knew the real facts.”

And indeed, they didn’t. But Edwards did know the “real facts” and voted for war anyway. So, Tom, if this the best the Dems can do then it’s all the more reason to bail from the Dems now. Edwards deliberately promoted a war that has killed millions of people - and he KNEW AT THE TIME it was based on lies. Who cares if Edwards aplogized (certainly not the dead and maimed). He was promised a chance at the presidency! Of course he’d have to “apologize.” He’s a smart man. He knew the war would be irretrievable once it started. Mission accomplished.

I have pledged never to vote for a traitor or someone who lies for political advancement.

I trust that Ralph Nader and others with the same commitment and love for the world’s people. I don’t trust someone who voted for a war that killed millions when he knew it was based on lies. I don’t trust the judgment of anyone who proposes to support and vote for that person either. (That means Tom Hayden and Robert Sheer for two).

Robert Sheer and Tom Hayden, what happened to you? Why would you advocate supporting murderers? Is this what getting older means? I want nothing to do with it if that’s the case.

jmill2k November 6th, 2007 9:09 pm

Dear Tom,

With Kawiki and others, I agree that you’re being a bit exclusive by leaving out candidates who might be good for the country. You could do well to be more inclusive, especially because it is, by my watch, still 2007, and for Heaven’s sake, the Big Beautiful Woman with helmet, spear, and breastplates is still in her dressing room!

Putting candidates aside for the moment and ignoring the Deciders in the Washington box altogether, remember this: The Citizens are the ones who actually have all the answers; The Citizens have within themselves all the brilliant solutions to all the complicated problems, and the critical question, on which our country’s survival depends, is whether or not these Citizens have the courage to wise up, rise up, and demand that the ball be returned to their court.

Tom, you never know, there may be some unknown out there, still in the acorn mode, who’s always been considered something of a nut anyway, who will appear on the scene, who will demand more of the Citizens than will all the other candidates, who will thereby be elected, and who will, approximately one nano-second after finishing his inaugural address, hand that ball to those Citizens.

Stranger things have happened.

j.miller,

AlexLawyer November 6th, 2007 10:03 pm

Trying to fathom Hillary’s position is like reading tea leaves. Her speeches are pastiches of cliches, platitudes, equivocations and prevarications. It’s intended to be a political Rohrschach test, where everyone sees or hears whatever he or she wants. Bill did much the same thing, albeit with considerably more charm.

O roe November 6th, 2007 10:48 pm

Although Mr. Hayden only mentioned Giuliani as the token GOP candidate, he was one of the most outspoken anti-Vietnam activist’s in history, Chicago Seven, SDS and on and on.
He is older, he is also a staunch Democrat, so if you somehow expected him to opine about each and every person running, because each and every one of us may or may not have had our Presidential hopeful mentioned, remember alot of what we hope to achieve by activism through resistance, Tom Hayden damn well co-authored that book.

peaceman November 6th, 2007 11:37 pm

Tom, What’s going on, brother? With your record and lifelong commitment to non-violence and human rights, plus your progressive environmental stand, you should have given a thunderous round of support for Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

I spoke to you at the Green Festival in San Francisco last November about how quickly we could withdraw every one of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

You have an admirable resume, Tom. Don’t be a ‘die-hard’ Democrat. Our country needs Kucinich and Gravel.

thePublicPundit November 6th, 2007 11:57 pm

Come on Tom, you’re waaay smarter than this oversimplified tripe your hammering out. If it’s a third party you that you fear, then that explains, for a number of reasons why you fail to mention Dennis Kucinich. Perhaps not viable in the Machiavellian sense, but in the spirit of a true revolutionary sense, Dennis would be the only candidate that should be considered.

Why so mum on Kucinich? It’s like Hitchens not reacting to the support by the US of Turkey vs the PKK. Come on!

Kernel November 7th, 2007 12:16 am

Kucinich is not perfect, but considering all angles, he is the progressives best chance for change, which we have to have. Now, all we lack is a cause to galvanize voters into action the way the “values” right wing of Repubs and the NRA seem to be so proficient at doing. The Repubs have those issues locked up and also the “Protect the American People” blather. Obviously, it will take something like health care for all of our citizens to get people riled up enough to go vote. We need to see pictures of children sick and dying with no medical treatment to counter the ones of aborted fetuses, etc. If the progressives cannot get on the same page the way the Repubs have done and play hardball they may lose again.

Laurence November 7th, 2007 2:08 am

The only progressive thoughts I have anymore are found in Ron Paul’s message of “liberty and peace, and the prosperity they bring”…

… “Hope for America… in a sound dollar, the rule of law, and the U.S. Constitution.”

We have to unite around something worthwhile if we want a sovereign government beholden to the people at all.

And for myself… I can’t see any other presidential candidate in this race who makes a better case for a smaller government and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Both major political parties’ top-tier candidates today are financed by corporatist or elitist (communitarianist) interests determined to rule us through fear, sleight-of-hand, or outright oppression, let’s face it.

The few controlling the many… by coercion or force. Preying on our common neuroses. Intimidating us through fear.

To listen to their standard-bearers is to be led down a rabbit hole of false assumptions, false beliefs… and everything that matters little… to individualist thinkers… who crave freedom… and common sense… a whole lot more… than being constantly deceived by top-down collectivist groupthink… involuntary contracts which we are forced to obey… or authoritarian constructs… designed to enslave us to other people’s points of view.

On the one hand, we’re presented Tweedledum; on the other, Tweedledee - misguided communitarians, foolish opportunists… or devious traitors, all.

All of them in favor of more government favoring one side against the other.

If we don’t start thinking for ourselves, they win - and we, the people lose. Dogmatic and dualistic thinking keeps us divided; united, we stand, and divided we fall.

Very sad. Haven’t you and I built some resistance to such nonsensical sloganeering?

If we’re not permitted to own our own minds, and own our own bodies, what have we left, but tyranny?

Think about it. Who else in the whole wide world is more of an expert about living your life… and pursuing your uncommon dreams… than you?

The revolution is on - don’t ignore it, my progressive friends. Politics of the Left and the Right both tend to keep us off-centered and off our game.

We don’t need to consider straw man arguments from supposed experts… opinion makers… or thought leaders… when our laws are being rewritten every day… without us even knowing about it.

Search “communitarianism” and “communitarian law” if you don’t want to be left out in the cold.

An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Winnetou November 7th, 2007 5:05 am

kawika

You are the one who is a partisan hack. Why are you still talking about the Republicans. They are dead and not coming back. Just kick them out and start with a clean slate.
Republicans are disgusting and that is not because I do not ‘favour their team’. It’s just because they messed up. ‘Your team’ has messed up and has to live with the consequences.

newageartist November 7th, 2007 7:13 am

Tom Hayden,
What ever happened to you? I remember the radical, anti-establishment Tom Hayden of the ’60’s. But this??? How did the corporate party entice you into their lair? Your writings could be those of any other corporate controlled party hack. An article like this is so like the back-stabbing corporatists in the Democratic Party that it jumps out and smacks you across the face before you even get to the last paragraph where once again we hear the same old fear factor of a third choice being the spoiler for a Democrat! And to think you only give Dennis Kucinich one sentence in this entire article. Where has the old Tom gone??

starofthesea November 7th, 2007 5:42 pm

newageartist—All too many gave up most of their dreams as too unrealistic and took up the banner of pragmatism. It’s the same reason that MoveOn disapoints me, and why even the most progessive voices are all too often afraid to back a dark horse (loser) like Dennis Kucinich. I refuse to give up my dreams for a better world, no matter how many times I get slapped down. Dreams provide much warmer companionship on the journey that cold hard pragmatism and that little speck of respect that so many on the left crave and sell out for. Guess they actually believe they have credibility if they don’t appear too idealistic. Ah well, every society needs its artists and dreamers, right?

Mark Abram November 7th, 2007 6:53 pm

Tom Hayden is a long-committed, hard-campaigning progressive activist, and an astute political analyst as this essay shows.

The one thing I would disagree with is the claim that Biden is the most dangerous of the Democratic candidates. He is probably the most egregious asshole, but he is more dangerous on Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he greased the way for the Iraq invasion back in 2002, and can do considerable harm today, than he is on the campaign trail, where he appears as a buffoon with little money and no popular support.

jsc November 7th, 2007 9:57 pm

Since there’s no chance of Gary Hart coming out of retirement Ron Paul is the best available. I, too, like his message of peace and fiscal responsibility. It’s time for the pendulum to swing back.

I think Progressives should elect enough congressmen and women that Dennis Kucinich would be elected Speaker. Somehow, that seems a better fit. They should also cut a deal with Paul to assure protection of welfare while we all try to chop away at the warfare. Whatever anyone might want the federal government to do, we all have to face the fact that the gov’t is bankrupt. We are spending nearly $400 billion a year on INTEREST on our debt which continues to spiral out of control.

Ron Paul is the only one addressing this. Read/see his interview with Judy Woodruff on The News Hour.
www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/paul_10-12/html

I understand the concerns about abortion and the environment and share them, but abortion is on its way back to the states anyway. I don’t believe abortion will be legal in the coming police state. Stopping corporate subsidies is the first step in giving inventors & entrepreneurs the ability to compete. Ron Paul has suggested offering large financial “prizes” to people who invent new technologies. A.G. Bell and T. Edison did not work for the government. Whatever we may think the gov’t should “do”, this gov’t, no matter who’s in charge, is just out of control and broke.

foolchild0 November 8th, 2007 6:52 am

Yeah, I’ve got to chime in here. The glaring exclusion of Mike Gravel is inexcusable, and I applaud the people who have pointed it out before me.

Why does the entire progressive community want to pretend he doesn’t exist? If you want to disagree with him, fine, do it, but what’s with the constant cold shoulder or name-calling? He’s just a “bankrupt old man”? Wasn’t Kucinich sleeping on Shirley MacClaine’s couch at one point?

And why isn’t everyone furious that he’s about to be excluded from his second straight debate since confronting Hillary Clinton about her vote on the Iranian Republican Guard resolution? And the fact that Kucinich chose not to mention Gravel’s absence at the last debate sent up some warning flags with me, as well as the convenient fact that suddenly the Cheney impeachment is coming up just as the primaries heat up. I’m beginning to feel that Representative Kucinich is not as separate from politics as usual as he appears.

And I also take issue with people saying Kucinich and Gravel differ only on the National Initiative and the Fair Tax. Their Health Care plans are also quite different. But I think the biggest difference is that Mike Gravel really is against Big Government- he wants decentralization, making the citizens more responsible for the workings of the government, with several built-in organic mechanisms (health care vouchers, the sales tax) to ensure it works, while Kucinich advocates that idealistic pseudo-socialist vision of a strong, benign central government regulating everything with a smile. And that’s what I think makes Gravel such an untapped resource- his approach could really play to more conservative Americans, whereas Kucinich is a very traditional liberal who isn’t going to win over many converts, and will inspire a HUGE backlash from the right. Gravel, on the other hand, seems like he has ideas that could transcend right-left politics. That is why he has my support, and why I am saddened that his message has fallen on such deaf ears, and that those ears belong to the people who one would think have been waiting for something like him to come along for quite some time.

Gravel 2008!
www.gravel2008.us

kjgp25171 November 10th, 2007 2:05 am

Thom,

You do a disservice to write Bill Bichardson off as only a potential secretary in a new administration. He is clearly the most experienced and respected candidate to address all of the potential disasters we face in the foreign policy arena. Remember where Howard Dean was 4 years ago.

Here his a link to read Bill’s position on our new torture attorney general.

www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-bill-richardson/a-devastating-failure_b_71969.html

kawika November 6th, 2007 12:52 pm

Tom,
How can you write an article entitled ‘Rating the Presidential Candidates on Iraq’, and fail to talk at all about the Republicans, aside from Giuliani? If you cared about the issue of ending the war, rather than getting a Democrat (any Democrat) in office, you would have mentioned Ron Paul (R), who raised over $4 million yesterday from online donors fed up with the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc., not to mention the War on the Constitution.
Why did you forget to mention Mr. Paul? Maybe because he scares the living daylights out of you and your ‘progressive’ agenda?
You, my friend, are what we call a partisan hack.
andersdl November 6th, 2007 1:09 pm

I share your concern kawika, however, unless neocon control of the Republican Party is diluted SOON, only the most hawkish, fundamentalist candidates will stand a chance at getting the Republican nomination.

Hayden’s evaluation of Democrats has concluded that from a risk management standpoint Edwards, Kucinich and Richardson are the only candidates that anybody seriously concerned about ending the Iraq occupation should consider.
McDee November 6th, 2007 1:17 pm

Tom Hayden views every issue through the lens of “how does this help/hurt the Democrats?”
I’m no Ron Paul supporter but I sure agree with kawicka that Hayden is a partisan hack.
RichM November 6th, 2007 1:37 pm

Let’s do a thought experiment. Assume for a moment that the election becomes Giuliani v Hillary, and that Hillary loses — among other things, because Giuliani is able to rightly portray her as a two-faced fence-straddler. Assume further that by some miracle, Bush leaves office without attacking Iran.

What do you envision for the next 4 years? When Rudy goes after Iran, how does Sen. Clinton comport herself in the Senate? Does she stand up courageously in opposition to President Giuliani’s moves towards war? Or does she stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the president, generally supporting his attempts to “protect the American people” — though occasionally carping about his tactics?

The question answers itself. She will be about as much “opposition” to Rudy as she (or Pelosi, or any Democrat) has been to Bush.
Bill BRG November 6th, 2007 1:53 pm

Yo, Kawika,

Don’t laud Paul too much. He’s good on Iraq and foreign interventionism. On some of the aspects of American militarism he’s good.

He mentionns nothing about arms trade.

He says nothing on his website under “Issues” about energy policy, global warming or resource depletion. Which are going to be the leading causes of political, economic, military and social conflict in the next few decades (at least). With Texas having as much coastline as it does, you’d think it might be a concern. Can you say hurricanes, Ron Paul?

He says scant little about protecting the environment. Ignorance is not okay- it’s a dereliction of responsibility of government. See common welfare. When the coastlines and hurricane/tornado areas of this country are going to be adversely affected by climate change and global warming, it’s a matter of national security that even the Pentagon has stark projections about.

Check Ron Paul’s website- First,he’s against the International Criminal Court. Second, he’s anti-abortion. He says nothing about universal health coverage. He’s a proponent of home schooling. NRA guy.

He talks about enforced border and is agaisnt NAFTA, but he doesn’t connect the harm done to Mexicans with it!

Libertarians, are an improvement over Neocons but they carry a whole lotta baggage. Then include Paul’s nativism.

Paul is attracting a lot of the people that John Anderson did in 1980. People who don’t pay attention to politics, then hear a couple of things they like. Ron Paul talks about freedom a great deal, but desn’t seem interested in informing the public about several of the most important issues to confront this country.

Am I glad Ron Paul’s running? Yes, because he’s against us being in Iraq and empire.

But Dennis Kucinich represents policies across the board that would make this a country I could be proud of.
5280 November 6th, 2007 2:17 pm

…more of the same from this guy. Hack, hack, hack! Ha!

Ron Paul or Ralph.

Winning ANY national election is not a priority for any democrat, stealing your money however, is.
Paul from Texas November 6th, 2007 2:59 pm

BillBRG: Ron Paul is gaining and Kucinich is losing. I would take either man as President, but only one of them is a serious threat to the status quo.

The biggest problem, IMHO, is that the ideas of the progressive Left are too scattered and lacking in focus. ‘Global warming this, Corporate America that’. There is no loud voice shouting in unison to end authoritarian and imperial government. In the Ron Paul Revolution, there IS such focus.

After New Hampshire, Paul will be a front-runner in the top tier.
jcephrie November 6th, 2007 3:43 pm

No mention of Gravel. SHAME ON YOU. I don’t get it. Why is he ignored? Please somebody tell me. I’m starting to think “progressives” are as blind and ignorant as everyone else. They just follow the Kucinich or Nader of the time and ignore anyone else. Gravel is anti war. He fucking filibustered the draft and got the pentagon papers into the congressional record. He laid out a plan for the democrats to pull the troops out of Iraq. They dropped the ball. Your censorship is just as bad IF NOT WORSE than GE’s. Don’t give me the bull about Gravel not standing a chance, if he doesn’t then neither does Kucinich.
Dr. Zimmerman Robert November 6th, 2007 3:48 pm

Clinton is Bush in women’s clothes.

ABC

Anybody But Clinton
speakthetruth November 6th, 2007 5:04 pm

Gravel, Kucinich, or Paul. For me, sanity, integrity, peace, and liberty trump other issues. I believe some issues can also be taken care of at the State level. The hope is for something anti-Police State, anti-Empire (Amen).

At this stage, Paul’s momentum & trajectory look promising.
adamhewitt99 November 6th, 2007 5:11 pm

Do you people even know who Tom Hayden is? Describing this man as a partisan hack is ridiculously off base. Port Huron Statement? anyone? And Ron Paul? really? You know, i kind of think public education and abortion rights are pretty important, also social security and medicare are pretty alright too.. Next time you try and sing the praises of Ron Paul, try to realize that there are other issues out there besides the war. Look up “libertarian” Why is Gravel ignored? Because, while he might have an idea about the war, there are other issues, not to mention the fact that he’s a crazy bankrupt old man who hasn’t done anything since the 1970’s. Simply being anti-war does not make a candidate or a great man, suggesting so is ignorance at its finest. The reason Kucinich is far and away a better candidate than either of these men is because he has other issues, he’s more than anti-war, he’s the whole progressive package.
Euarto Gullible November 6th, 2007 5:25 pm

Common Dreams may be a great site with progressive news, but they have definately alligned themselves with an agenda, and that means giving Kucinich a monopoly on the anti-war coverage. Before the invasion of Iraq, Ron Paul was the only Republican vocally opposed. This site acknowledged Ron Paul as a “progressive” then with multiple news items, but now has distanced itself from him because it seems to dislike his other Libertarian aspects. While I have really appreciated the exclusive pieces on CD about Israel, I think that this website has narrowed its diversity of viewpoints in recent times, and that’s not fair to readers. Ron Paul’s absence from this site astounds me, considering that over half the articles here are against the war. I hope the CD realizes that in order to stop the wars, ALL anti-war voices must be acknowledged. Isn’t that our “Common Dream?” Ron Paul has done a tremendous service to this country for calling propaganda what it is on television, before thousands of viewers and challenging business as usual. And he hasn’t been preaching to the choir. He’s telling the people who need to hear it most. Republicans who have been misled by the Neocons. When articles like this are linked here that make no mention of Paul, I suspect that CD is going out of its way to avoid publishing pieces favorable toward Ron Paul because they’re afraid of sending Kucinich supporters to the other side. While that’s fine, it’s leaving a great deal of the talk about Ron Paul to be left to the message boards, and that’s not fair to the anti-war community who frequents and donates to this site.
jcephrie November 6th, 2007 5:32 pm

The national initiative and the tax are the only places Kucinich and Gravel appear to differ. Maybe Gravel wouldn’t try to set up a department for peace, but he does advocate a peace volunteer program with the reward of paid college. Gravel has a more aggressive plan for saving the environment. Your ignorance of Mike Gravel’s policies indicates to me you are too quick to judge adamhewitt99.

Additionally I’ve never heard Kucinich directly mention the military industrial complex or how the war on drugs is racist and has failed.

We need people like Kucinich in the Congress where the power is supposed to be.

Also this article was on the antiwar stances of the candidates which is why I focussed on that particular issue.
Mordechai Shiblikov November 6th, 2007 5:36 pm

Because he is a Libertarian, Ron Paul is the only real conservative among the Republican candidates. He has no chance of securing the nomination because he has no interest in presiding over an empire. QED. Hillary Clinton, should Democrats be stupid enough to nominate her, will be easily defeated. When the Republican controlled Joseph Goebbels Sturmabteilung Propaganda Machine gets done with her she’ll look like a cross between Madeline Murray O’Hare and Sweeney Todd. The Democrats best chance is to get Albert Gore to run with Virginia senator James Webb. They can easily defeat the sweaty and priapic Giuliani or that Cosmic Empty Suit, Romney. That probably won’t happen either. So what we’ll probably wind up with is the political equivalent of a Michael Bay movie. And we will remain in Iraq for the forseeable and bloody future. The times we are living through prove once again how totally and absurdly irrational human beings are. QED!
jcephrie November 6th, 2007 5:52 pm

I’ve never heard Kucinich say Military Industrial Complex or that the War on Drugs is a failed and racist policy. I’ve been looking.
Hank Fur November 6th, 2007 7:08 pm

While Tom Hayden and Robert Sheer are snug in the pockets of the Democratic Party, many of us will be looking for a way out of here. Both Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney have expressed an interest in running if Hillary is the nomination. There are a couple of Dems to support (Kucinich, Gravel) but we all know what that’s about, right? Keep ‘em in the corral with a tasty looking carrot dangling before their eyes, prance out all your distracting stalking horses (remember Dean?).

I just can’t believe people like Hayden and Robert Sheer are peddling this kind of bs.

Tom, John Edwards is the best anti-war candidate? Have you forgotten? He voted for the war on Iraqis (before he was against it, of course). Here’s the explanation:

Edwards sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and was privy to secret information on Iraq’s military capability. Also on that committee was Senator Durbin who voted against the war resolution. Being sworn to secrecy, Edwards had no way of knowing that his complicity would come back to haunt him. He pretended to think Iraq had WMDs so he could vote for it. Sen. Durbin’s comments about the Senate debate to go to war on Iraq:

“So, in my frustration I sat here on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq and thinking the American people are being misled. They are not being told the truth. That’s why I joined twenty-two members of my colleagues in voting no. I did not feel at the time that the American people knew the real facts.”

And indeed, they didn’t. But Edwards did know the “real facts” and voted for war anyway. So, Tom, if this the best the Dems can do then it’s all the more reason to bail from the Dems now. Edwards deliberately promoted a war that has killed millions of people - and he KNEW AT THE TIME it was based on lies. Who cares if Edwards aplogized (certainly not the dead and maimed). He was promised a chance at the presidency! Of course he’d have to “apologize.” He’s a smart man. He knew the war would be irretrievable once it started. Mission accomplished.

I have pledged never to vote for a traitor or someone who lies for political advancement.

I trust that Ralph Nader and others with the same commitment and love for the world’s people. I don’t trust someone who voted for a war that killed millions when he knew it was based on lies. I don’t trust the judgment of anyone who proposes to support and vote for that person either. (That means Tom Hayden and Robert Sheer for two).

Robert Sheer and Tom Hayden, what happened to you? Why would you advocate supporting murderers? Is this what getting older means? I want nothing to do with it if that’s the case.
jmill2k November 6th, 2007 9:09 pm

Dear Tom,

With Kawiki and others, I agree that you’re being a bit exclusive by leaving out candidates who might be good for the country. You could do well to be more inclusive, especially because it is, by my watch, still 2007, and for Heaven’s sake, the Big Beautiful Woman with helmet, spear, and breastplates is still in her dressing room!

Putting candidates aside for the moment and ignoring the Deciders in the Washington box altogether, remember this: The Citizens are the ones who actually have all the answers; The Citizens have within themselves all the brilliant solutions to all the complicated problems, and the critical question, on which our country’s survival depends, is whether or not these Citizens have the courage to wise up, rise up, and demand that the ball be returned to their court.

Tom, you never know, there may be some unknown out there, still in the acorn mode, who’s always been considered something of a nut anyway, who will appear on the scene, who will demand more of the Citizens than will all the other candidates, who will thereby be elected, and who will, approximately one nano-second after finishing his inaugural address, hand that ball to those Citizens.

Stranger things have happened.

j.miller,
AlexLawyer November 6th, 2007 10:03 pm

Trying to fathom Hillary’s position is like reading tea leaves. Her speeches are pastiches of cliches, platitudes, equivocations and prevarications. It’s intended to be a political Rohrschach test, where everyone sees or hears whatever he or she wants. Bill did much the same thing, albeit with considerably more charm.
O roe November 6th, 2007 10:48 pm

Although Mr. Hayden only mentioned Giuliani as the token GOP candidate, he was one of the most outspoken anti-Vietnam activist’s in history, Chicago Seven, SDS and on and on.
He is older, he is also a staunch Democrat, so if you somehow expected him to opine about each and every person running, because each and every one of us may or may not have had our Presidential hopeful mentioned, remember alot of what we hope to achieve by activism through resistance, Tom Hayden damn well co-authored that book.
peaceman November 6th, 2007 11:37 pm

Tom, What’s going on, brother? With your record and lifelong commitment to non-violence and human rights, plus your progressive environmental stand, you should have given a thunderous round of support for Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

I spoke to you at the Green Festival in San Francisco last November about how quickly we could withdraw every one of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

You have an admirable resume, Tom. Don’t be a ‘die-hard’ Democrat. Our country needs Kucinich and Gravel.
thePublicPundit November 6th, 2007 11:57 pm

Come on Tom, you’re waaay smarter than this oversimplified tripe your hammering out. If it’s a third party you that you fear, then that explains, for a number of reasons why you fail to mention Dennis Kucinich. Perhaps not viable in the Machiavellian sense, but in the spirit of a true revolutionary sense, Dennis would be the only candidate that should be considered.

Why so mum on Kucinich? It’s like Hitchens not reacting to the support by the US of Turkey vs the PKK. Come on!
Kernel November 7th, 2007 12:16 am

Kucinich is not perfect, but considering all angles, he is the progressives best chance for change, which we have to have. Now, all we lack is a cause to galvanize voters into action the way the “values” right wing of Repubs and the NRA seem to be so proficient at doing. The Repubs have those issues locked up and also the “Protect the American People” blather. Obviously, it will take something like health care for all of our citizens to get people riled up enough to go vote. We need to see pictures of children sick and dying with no medical treatment to counter the ones of aborted fetuses, etc. If the progressives cannot get on the same page the way the Repubs have done and play hardball they may lose again.
Laurence November 7th, 2007 2:08 am

The only progressive thoughts I have anymore are found in Ron Paul’s message of “liberty and peace, and the prosperity they bring”…

… “Hope for America… in a sound dollar, the rule of law, and the U.S. Constitution.”

We have to unite around something worthwhile if we want a sovereign government beholden to the people at all.

And for myself… I can’t see any other presidential candidate in this race who makes a better case for a smaller government and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Both major political parties’ top-tier candidates today are financed by corporatist or elitist (communitarianist) interests determined to rule us through fear, sleight-of-hand, or outright oppression, let’s face it.

The few controlling the many… by coercion or force. Preying on our common neuroses. Intimidating us through fear.

To listen to their standard-bearers is to be led down a rabbit hole of false assumptions, false beliefs… and everything that matters little… to individualist thinkers… who crave freedom… and common sense… a whole lot more… than being constantly deceived by top-down collectivist groupthink… involuntary contracts which we are forced to obey… or authoritarian constructs… designed to enslave us to other people’s points of view.

On the one hand, we’re presented Tweedledum; on the other, Tweedledee - misguided communitarians, foolish opportunists… or devious traitors, all.

All of them in favor of more government favoring one side against the other.

If we don’t start thinking for ourselves, they win - and we, the people lose. Dogmatic and dualistic thinking keeps us divided; united, we stand, and divided we fall.

Very sad. Haven’t you and I built some resistance to such nonsensical sloganeering?

If we’re not permitted to own our own minds, and own our own bodies, what have we left, but tyranny?

Think about it. Who else in the whole wide world is more of an expert about living your life… and pursuing your uncommon dreams… than you?

The revolution is on - don’t ignore it, my progressive friends. Politics of the Left and the Right both tend to keep us off-centered and off our game.

We don’t need to consider straw man arguments from supposed experts… opinion makers… or thought leaders… when our laws are being rewritten every day… without us even knowing about it.

Search “communitarianism” and “communitarian law” if you don’t want to be left out in the cold.

An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Winnetou November 7th, 2007 5:05 am

kawika

You are the one who is a partisan hack. Why are you still talking about the Republicans. They are dead and not coming back. Just kick them out and start with a clean slate.
Republicans are disgusting and that is not because I do not ‘favour their team’. It’s just because they messed up. ‘Your team’ has messed up and has to live with the consequences.
newageartist November 7th, 2007 7:13 am

Tom Hayden,
What ever happened to you? I remember the radical, anti-establishment Tom Hayden of the ’60’s. But this??? How did the corporate party entice you into their lair? Your writings could be those of any other corporate controlled party hack. An article like this is so like the back-stabbing corporatists in the Democratic Party that it jumps out and smacks you across the face before you even get to the last paragraph where once again we hear the same old fear factor of a third choice being the spoiler for a Democrat! And to think you only give Dennis Kucinich one sentence in this entire article. Where has the old Tom gone??
starofthesea November 7th, 2007 5:42 pm

newageartist—All too many gave up most of their dreams as too unrealistic and took up the banner of pragmatism. It’s the same reason that MoveOn disapoints me, and why even the most progessive voices are all too often afraid to back a dark horse (loser) like Dennis Kucinich. I refuse to give up my dreams for a better world, no matter how many times I get slapped down. Dreams provide much warmer companionship on the journey that cold hard pragmatism and that little speck of respect that so many on the left crave and sell out for. Guess they actually believe they have credibility if they don’t appear too idealistic. Ah well, every society needs its artists and dreamers, right?
Mark Abram November 7th, 2007 6:53 pm

Tom Hayden is a long-committed, hard-campaigning progressive activist, and an astute political analyst as this essay shows.

The one thing I would disagree with is the claim that Biden is the most dangerous of the Democratic candidates. He is probably the most egregious asshole, but he is more dangerous on Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he greased the way for the Iraq invasion back in 2002, and can do considerable harm today, than he is on the campaign trail, where he appears as a buffoon with little money and no popular support.
jsc November 7th, 2007 9:57 pm

Since there’s no chance of Gary Hart coming out of retirement Ron Paul is the best available. I, too, like his message of peace and fiscal responsibility. It’s time for the pendulum to swing back.

I think Progressives should elect enough congressmen and women that Dennis Kucinich would be elected Speaker. Somehow, that seems a better fit. They should also cut a deal with Paul to assure protection of welfare while we all try to chop away at the warfare. Whatever anyone might want the federal government to do, we all have to face the fact that the gov’t is bankrupt. We are spending nearly $400 billion a year on INTEREST on our debt which continues to spiral out of control.

Ron Paul is the only one addressing this. Read/see his interview with Judy Woodruff on The News Hour.
www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/paul_10-12/html

I understand the concerns about abortion and the environment and share them, but abortion is on its way back to the states anyway. I don’t believe abortion will be legal in the coming police state. Stopping corporate subsidies is the first step in giving inventors & entrepreneurs the ability to compete. Ron Paul has suggested offering large financial “prizes” to people who invent new technologies. A.G. Bell and T. Edison did not work for the government. Whatever we may think the gov’t should “do”, this gov’t, no matter who’s in charge, is just out of control and broke.
foolchild0 November 8th, 2007 6:52 am

Yeah, I’ve got to chime in here. The glaring exclusion of Mike Gravel is inexcusable, and I applaud the people who have pointed it out before me.

Why does the entire progressive community want to pretend he doesn’t exist? If you want to disagree with him, fine, do it, but what’s with the constant cold shoulder or name-calling? He’s just a “bankrupt old man”? Wasn’t Kucinich sleeping on Shirley MacClaine’s couch at one point?

And why isn’t everyone furious that he’s about to be excluded from his second straight debate since confronting Hillary Clinton about her vote on the Iranian Republican Guard resolution? And the fact that Kucinich chose not to mention Gravel’s absence at the last debate sent up some warning flags with me, as well as the convenient fact that suddenly the Cheney impeachment is coming up just as the primaries heat up. I’m beginning to feel that Representative Kucinich is not as separate from politics as usual as he appears.

And I also take issue with people saying Kucinich and Gravel differ only on the National Initiative and the Fair Tax. Their Health Care plans are also quite different. But I think the biggest difference is that Mike Gravel really is against Big Government- he wants decentralization, making the citizens more responsible for the workings of the government, with several built-in organic mechanisms (health care vouchers, the sales tax) to ensure it works, while Kucinich advocates that idealistic pseudo-socialist vision of a strong, benign central government regulating everything with a smile. And that’s what I think makes Gravel such an untapped resource- his approach could really play to more conservative Americans, whereas Kucinich is a very traditional liberal who isn’t going to win over many converts, and will inspire a HUGE backlash from the right. Gravel, on the other hand, seems like he has ideas that could transcend right-left politics. That is why he has my support, and why I am saddened that his message has fallen on such deaf ears, and that those ears belong to the people who one would think have been waiting for something like him to come along for quite some time.

Gravel 2008!
www.gravel2008.us
kjgp25171 November 10th, 2007 2:05 am

Thom,

You do a disservice to write Bill Bichardson off as only a potential secretary in a new administration. He is clearly the most experienced and respected candidate to address all of the potential disasters we face in the foreign policy arena. Remember where Howard Dean was 4 years ago.

Here his a link to read Bill’s position on our new torture attorney general.

www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-bill-richardson/a-devastating-failure_b_71969.html

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)