Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hillary and the Politics of Disappointment
When Democrats worry about Hillary Clinton's electability, they focus on her reenergizing a depressed Republican base while demoralizing core Democratic activists, particularly those outraged about the war, and consequently losing the election. A November 26 Zogby poll, for instance, now shows her trailing the major Republican candidates, while Edwards and Obama defeat them. But there's a further danger if Hillary's nominated--that she will win but then split the Democratic Party.
We forget that this happened with her husband Bill, because compared to Bush, he's looking awfully good. Much of Hillary's support may be nostalgia for when America's president seemed to engage reality instead of disdaining it. But remember that over the course of Clinton's presidency, the Democrats lost 6 Senate seats, 46 Congressional seats, and 9 governorships. This political bleeding began when Monica Lewinsky was still an Oregon college senior. Given Hillary's protracted support of the Iraq war, her embrace of neoconservative rhetoric on Iran, and her coziness with powerful corporate interests, she could create a similar backlash once in office, dividing and depressing the Democratic base and reversing the party's newfound momentum.
Think about 1994. Pundits credited major Republican victories to angry white men, Hillary's failed healthcare plan, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." But the defeat was equally rooted in a massive withdrawal of volunteer support among Democratic activists who felt politically betrayed. Nothing fostered this sense more than Bill Clinton's going to the mat to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Angered by a sense that he was subordinating all other priorities to corporate profits, and by his cavalier attitude toward the hollowing out of America's industrial base, labor, environmental and social-justice activists nationwide withdrew their energy from Democratic campaigns. This helped swing the election, much as the continued extension of these policies (particularly around dropping trade barriers with China) led just enough Democratic leaning voters in 2000 to help elect George Bush by staying home or voting for Ralph Nader.
No place saw a more dramatic political shift than my home state of Washington. In November 1992, Democratic activists volunteered by the thousands, hoping to end the Reagan-Bush era. On Election Day, I joined five other volunteers to help get out the vote in a swing district 20 miles south of Seattle. Volunteers had a similar presence in every major Democratic or competitive district in the state. The effort helped Clinton to carry the state and Democrats to capture eight out of nine House seats.
But by 1994 grass-roots Democratic campaigners mostly stayed home, disgruntled. In Washington State, there were barely enough people to distribute literature and make phone calls in Seattle's most liberal neighborhoods, let alone in swing suburban districts. Republicans won seven of our nine congressional races, and reelected a Senator known for baiting environmentalists.
The same was true nationwide. I spent that campaign season traveling to promote a book on campus activism, staying with friends long involved with progressive causes. Everywhere I went, critical races would go to the Republicans by the narrowest of margins. Yet my friends and their friends seemed strangely detached, so disgusted with Democratic politics that they no longer wanted anything to do with it. Surveys found that had voters who stayed home voted, they would have reversed the election outcome. Even a modest volunteer effort might have prevented the Republican sweep.
To prevail in close races, Democrats need enthusiastic volunteer involvement. This happened in 1992, and then again in 2006. If Hillary is the nominee, she's likely to significantly damp this involvement, especially among anti-war activists, many of whom are currently saying her candidacy would lead them to sit out the election entirely. She'll also draw out the political right in a way that will make it far harder for down-ticket Democrats in states like Kentucky and Virginia where the party has recently been winning. In a recent Pew poll, she had both higher unfavorable and lower favorable ratings than either Obama or Edwards. And a July Fox poll (of citizens, not Fox viewers), 29% of voters (including 27% of Independents and 5% of Democrats) said they would "never vote for her under any circumstances," compared to just 6% overall saying the same about Obama, and less than 1% about Edwards. So she might not win at all, despite Bush's disastrous reign.
But even if she does, she is then strongly likely to fracture the party with her stands. She talks of staying in Iraq for counterterrorism operations, which could easily become indistinguishable from the present war. She backed the recent Kyl-Lieberman vote on Iran that Senator James Webb called "Cheney's fondest pipe dream." She supported at least one regressive version of the bankruptcy bill and the extension of Bush's tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. If her contributors are any guide, like those she courted in a $1,000-a-plate dinner for homeland security contractors, she's likely to cave to corporate interests so much in her economic policies that those increasingly squeezed by America's growing divides will backlash in ways that they're long been primed to by Republican rhetoric about "liberal elitists." And if Democrats do then begin to challenge her, the relative unity created by the Bush polities will quickly erode.
Because the Republican candidates would bring us more of the same ghastly policies we've seen from Bush and Cheney, I'd vote for Hillary if she became the nominee. But I'd do so with a very heavy heart, and a recognition that we'll have to push her to do the right thing on issue after issue, and won't always prevail. We still have a chance to select strong alternatives like Edwards (who I'm supporting) or Obama. And with Republican polling numbers in the toilet, this election gives Democrats an opportunity to seriously shift our national course that we may not have again for years. It would be a tragedy if they settled for the candidate most likely to shatter the momentum of this shift when it's barely begun.
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles
92 Comments so far
Show AllYou know, you can say a lot about Hillary, not much of it good, but I gotta say, looking at all the flurry of photos of her that are out there, I'll betcha she was a mighty fine looking bird back in her day. I just had to say that. Hope I didn't make anyone sick… oh yeah, F-Bush
[f hillary too]
### ### ### ###
No for real though, here is my dilemma:
I do NOT want Hillary to the Dems nominee for President.
I am a huge supporter of Dennis and where he is coming from.
One hundred percent.
But he doesn't have a chance in hell to be nominated.
Ain't gonna happen.
On the other hand, to pick from the THREE, I would choose Barrack in a heartbeat (Edwards just wouldn't have the muscle, though he has some good ideas).
So, what to do? Throw away my 'block Hillary vote' by voting for Dennis or further solidify the status quo by voting for Barrack (cause we know if the little guys don't get the support nothing will EVER change).
Oh, I live in PA, my wife tells me that we won't really make much of a difference here.
Dunno.
I have been reading Paul's writing for years and this is the best and meatiest piece yet.
What Loeb describes does not make sense if Hillary is a loyal Democrat working to win elections.
If Hillary is better understood as a bi-patisan hack, her paramount goal is to keep reformers out of power. Driving tough, smart ambitous people out of politics is the primary tool in this effort. Driving good people out of politics leaves power in fewer and more corrupt hands.
Driving morally driven people willing to work out of politics can best be accomplished with boredom, frustration, dissapointment and contempt.
When that doesn't work and reformers achieve office they are gerrymandered out, or a second reform candidate is put up to split their votes, or support is witheld at crucial times.
The real conflict in American politics is the conflict between hack and reformer, not Democrat vs Republican or liberal vs conservative.
"Indispensable Enemies" by the late Walter Karp lays out a complete alternative paradigm for understanding what politicians actually will do to get power and what they will do in office.
And they will still rally around her, like Kerry who should've easily trounced Bush with no margin of error)as the "most electible". And then, she will be blamed for everything. The problem will be compounded by the fact that she is not liked--she is fundamentally unliked across a broad spectrum outside her Zionist footsoldiers in corporate financed Hillaryland, which means there will be no one there to catch her when she falls. And she will fall, and pout, and whine and setback the legitimacy of women as effective leaders. It is well past time that the Clintonista posse saddle up and make for the hills.
Oh yeah, how I detest her.
"I'll betcha she was a mighty fine looking bird back in her day."
Yeah, but she only "gave" to men who furthered her shallow power-hungry political ambitions. Her marriage to Bill was strictly a political manoever contingent on Bill's continued progress toward the White House.
In her college days, she jumped from the Nixon campaigns to Eugene McCarthy and back again.
All her sordid history, in three parts, can be read here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11162007.html
These are strong arguments that have to be taken seriously. There is no room for messing up anymore. We are poised at a very bad juncture in our history. We have to take decisive action on Climate Change. Can that happen if we remain a corporate-controlled political system? We have to reverse the damage to our Constitution and preserve our liberties and what representation we still have. To make matters worse, there is a strong chance of catastrophic terror attack during the next decade that would probably make us even more authoritarian. We need a leader who can reduce tensions globally, reign-in militarism, secure nuclear materials and improve the relations between the US and the Moslem societies. We need a leader who can protect the poor and the middle class and put our economy on a more firm and equitable footing. There is no room for error.
hey now wrote:
"Edwards just wouldn't have the muscle, though he has some good ideas..."
Can you tell me what you mean by "muscle"?
hey now--PA is a pivotal swing state in the general though.
If you are registered as an Independent, do what I did..re-register as a Dem to vote against bush in drag and VOTE FOR DENNIS KUCINICH in the primaries.
Hillary showed her true colors when she weaseled about NAFTA in the Democratic debate. Of course, why should it be more than a vague memory to her? Unlike us, it's not hurting her financially. Except as a senator and wannabe president, it's her job to KNOW these things. Honestly, from some of the things these elected people say, I wonder are they really clueless or are they damn liars?
There is no way I would vote for her. And Paul Rogat Loeb, you're kidding yourself if you think you can push her to do the right thing. Just look at her voting record. As for what she says, every time the wind changes direction she changes her tune. But there is a total disconnect between what she says and what she does.
I think it's sad that after eight years of the Bush administration we're still playing the "there's no difference between them game". Who here honestly believes that what we're witnessing now would have happened with Al Gore as President? Yet back them the same comments were being thrown his way...I for one would take Hilary Clinton any day over Rudy, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. Do we really prefer these guys over her??? As we fret about Bush lite, we forget that these guys almost make Bush look like the Progressive. They're running on a platform that Bush hasn't been Conservative enough! Look, I understand all the arguments against her but I really thought that after the Bush experience we would have realized that there is actually a difference between Democrats and Republicans but maybe it will take a constitutional amendment banning abortion, a few more Patriot Acts, and the end of Social Security and Medicare before we fully grasp that.
Oprah to the rescue!
She may be able to push Obama to the nomination..then again, I still think a large part of the electorate wont vote for a woman or a black man.
Obama sounds like Osama.
Once a democratic nominee is picked expect the media to blast them.
Folks: I will vote for Dennis Kucinich in the primary here in NH, because he is the only real leader with real, workable plans among the Dems. I could probably support Richardson, and perhaps Dodd, and swallow hard and vote for Edwards in a general election. Having read their positions, though, I could not, and would not, either work for or support either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They both work at the margins, and do not stand for the fundamental change that is so desperately needed in this country. The author is correct: if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, we progressive activists will sit on our hands and refuse to work for her, or vote for her. Then, it would be "a pox on all your houses" and the American people would get what they so richly deserve for their lack of attention to what is happening to them, namely, another royal screwing.
ldfan--Congress dismal approval rating is what? 11%? Hillary is in Congress--and that should tell you something. Instead of challenging, confronting--and holding the Bush gang accountable, they, in essence, enabled, aided and abbetted all the things that you now claim are so horrible, so unspeakable that those who allowed it are preferrable to those who were allowed to continue doing those horrendous crimes.
Under inspection that logic does not work and I am SICK of people whining that at least Hillary is not as bad as Bush. In my estimation, she is worse for enabling him--for making him more legitimate than how the majority of Americans view him.
As anyone who has ever taken poli sci 101 can tell you a funny fact is that while Congress' approval rating is always low (30% would be high) people's opinion of their congressmember is always higher. I would be shocked to see a non-swing district (already an tiny fraction of the 435 seats) where the representative polls below 50% approval. This ironic circumstance (a problem stemming from how we choose our representatives)creates a situation where the famous saying "I hate Congress but I love my congressman" comes from. Telling me that Congress has a low apporval rating a Hliary Clinton is in Congress says effectivly zero. So what? As a Senator she has the power to...filibuster? The Democrats don't even enjoy a true majority let alone a filibuster proof super-majority. Last time I checked the Democrats don't have the votes to override Bush's veto either. This article is a nice tale on how the Republicans wiped out a 50 year running majorty because Bill wasn't progressive enough but the unfortuate reality is that many people in this country were sucekred in by the tales of the "horrors of socialiszed medicine" and voted in the Republicans on that wave in addition to the house banking scandal (similar to the Jack Abranoff's recent scandal with the Republicans). Many of the democrats who lost in '94 were associated with that. But to ignaore the Family and Medical Leave Act, the tax increse on the top wage earners, the climb out of recession, etc... I don't get it. We scream a pox on all your houses but forget there are real world consequences when we happen to live next door...
There ought to be a term for voting for who you think will win, rather who represents your values.
i can think of a few but...
The H. Clinton supporter's, best argument is he's not Bush. Neither is D.K. so what. what is so special about her that she is the frontrunner?
...Nothing, That's why she is the frontrunner.
Idfan...Vern is right. The powers that be have made a complete mess of things. The solution is not to elect their co-conspiritors, which is what the Dems have become.
Hillary is the worst of the lot. That the Dems could expect to win with someone who will energize the opposition and demoralize their own base is amazing.
But then, in reality, preventing true reform is more important than winning. There has to be a safety valve to keep the masses from revolting so we let them choose which ruling class candidate to vote for. If you look at Hillary's list of donors it is easy to see that if she wins, they win. And if she loses to a Republican, they also win.
I agree with Borrusky about Karp's "Indispensible Enemies"
It is indispensible reading!
Idfan: Glad to see you got all the talking points down, but it is highly unlikely that you will be able to peddle that crap here to folks who actually know that there are things congress could do instead of constantly using excuses for their helpless caving at every turn.
Please don't insult us. Their ratings are in the gutter for precisely that reason and everyone knows it.
Hey, personally I will cast my vote for Kucinich. But to say, come the general election, I will sit on my hands and not care what comes about...people don't think it can't get worse because any light study of the late 1800s can tell you it can be a lot worse. And don't think hard fought gains can't be wiped away for decades or even a century. Look at the fate suffered by the African-Americans in the South. The civil reights act of 1964 didn't look a whole lot different than the civil rights act of 1868! This is not a board game of Risk - real lives are at stake here. to say Hiliary Clinton is no different than the people running for the Republican nomination requires a serious dose of "suspension of disbelief"!
I certainly won't vote for Hillary if she's the Democratic candidate. I don't think the Democrats will move closer to their base if one of the frontrunner candidates wins, and certainly not Hillary.
The only way the Democrats will respect their return-to-the-Constitution base and restore Democracy is to lose this presidential election, and change their tune for the next one. There are large numbers of what were once reliable Democratic voter that won't vote at all. So that leaves the party with far fewer votes than they might have had.
And it's dangerous if the Democrats are counting on disaffected Republicans to vote for them. Why wouldn't those disaffected Republicans vote for Romney, who I think will win the Republican nomination?
The 2008 election may be the most unrepresentative of urgent American concerns than any we've had in decades. It's the worst set of forerunner candidates that I've ever seen.
Look, in case you haven't noticed in the ten elections the country has voted Republican 7 times. I find it seriously hard to believe this is because the Democrats didn't turn out their base...I wish this country was more Progressive but the sad reality is that it isn't. Chalk it up to stange historical circumstances of two large oceans and a heavy dose of religion but that's the fact onm the ground. I mean, do you think the fact that nearly 50% of this country believes the Earth was created 5,000 years ago doesn't affect their political outlook? The sad fact is if the major cities of the U.S. are fundamentally different than it's rural areas. And those rural areas will voe Huckabee because he raises his hand and says I don't belive in evolution. We sit here and debate about Hilary and these people are gaining more and more power. Think the U.S. looks scary now? Think about how it looks if a guy like Huckabee is in charge of 4,000 nuclear weapons. Would it be great if we had a parlimentary system where progressives had a stronger voice? Of course, and let's work for that. But sit on the sidelines if it's Hilary Vs. Huckabee???? I think not!
I'm really getting tired of hearing from progressives that they'd really like to vote for Dennis Kucinich but he's "unelectable." In fact, I'm getting tired of hearing about "electability" as an issue in a campaign. Are we having a popularity contest or are we trying to elect a President? Who proclaims people to be "unelectable?" The Main Stream Media (MSM), that's who. Who controls the MSM? The status quo power brokers, that's who. More than sixty percent of the people in this country agree with the positions that Dennis Kucinich argues for. So exactly how is it that he's "unelectable" except that enough of you are convinced that he is that you won't vote for him. Well, he's not going to be unless we vote for him. And not voting for him because some controlled crystal ball call the MSM tells you you'd be throwing your vote away is a dumb reason to throw your support behind someone else. Especially in the primaries. Wasn't John Kerry supposed to be electable? Didn't the MSM tell us that Fred Thompson was the saving grace of the GOP? How many bad candidates does the MSM have to put in front of us before we finally stop listening to them and vote our conscience?
Hey Uncle Ben,
I will vote for Kucinich in the primary. But let's just say for argument's sake he doesn't get the nomination and Hilary Clinton does. Are you telling me it would really be better to lodge a protest vote for _________ than for her to beat the Republican nominee. When we faced this question in 2000 we went for Nader over Gore; who here truly wouldn't like a do-over on that one? In 2004 the majority of this country (in record numbers) actually voted for Bush. Now, we will face this choice again and my main point is that after all this I really can't believe we're saying there really is nmo worthwhile difference between dems and rep's because I can think of a few million reasons showing there are and I will be casting my first ever presidential vote for a dmeocrat this fall! Went green the last two times...
That stat about belief in creationism in my opinion is one of the biggest problems we face in this country. When half the country believes in fairy tales it's really hard to have genuine political discussion. Hell, a lot of them would be happy to see World War lll because it might mean we're clsoer to the rapture!
Idfan: The Democrats lost the farm when they pursued DLC centrist (read: Right)policies and pursuit of traditioanlly Republican funding(bribes)instead of blowing their own horn they utilized triangulation manuever to innoculate themselves AT THE EXPENSE of their own message --their own purpose, their own reason for being. It was as if they loathed their base. So, it grows thin the ABB rallying cry and variations on the same theme. It only works in the short term. I suggest you read a few of the other articles today--they all make the same point--Hillary doesn't connect. Maybe it is you trying to force her upon voters who simply, from one end of the spectrum to the other, are not receptive.
The writing is on the wall. We understand that she is the candidate the corporate class promotes--why would you think that is what we want?
I'm going to try and put this out one more time and then stop shouting into the wind. I am not voting for Hilary Clinton in the primary. I am merely making one major point. And this is not a slogan. Whoever wins the democratic nomination - be it Edwards, Obama, or Kucinich or Hilary Clinton. I hope that nominee wins the general election. Because I truly believe that we have hardly seen the worst of it. The more we turn away and act like the Communists and Socailists did in Germany (the communists believing the socialists were worse than Hitler and the socialists believing the communists were worse) the greater the liklihood that we actually do witness some serious roll backs. I'm not tlaking welfare reform here. We're talking about a far-right Supreme Court for the next few decades and the elimination of not only the gains of the 60s but the new deal and the Progressive era along with it. Again, this is not a board game. There are real world consequences when we play this game.
Why do writers continue to waste time on an old political whore like Hillary? They should be writing about the system that we have, not the nuts running it. We need to change not only the king, but the kingdom as well. And although we have political system that can put the breaks on governmental crimes, we don't have a politician who will stand up and be a Statesman and apply the break. The system is near collapse inspite of Miss Hillary.
Hoa binh
Should've told the Clintons then who were more than willing to participate in the rolling back--at a more leisurely rate. They are the bone thrown to keep the pack quiet.
People did not arrive at this juncture overnight. Sooner or later you will too. Meanwhile your soapbox preaching falls flat since we heard this crying wolf act too many times to believe it anymore.
Great article. Hillary is politics-as-usual. Hillary is more Iraq war. Hillar is more NAFTA. Hillary is Republican-light.
What we need is someone with vision and courage. That does not describe Hillary. But the mainstream media are shoving her down our throats like she's the only choice.
I also don't like this new phenomenon of political family dynasties in this country. It seems you need a famous surname to be elected president now, and that's undemocratic.
People, in the primaries, give someone else a chance! Vote Kucinich, or Edwards!!
Too bad the Democrats can't field a viable candidate. Maybe we should hold off on the election until they do.
Hillary is the Repubs fondest dream. Otherwise why would Murdock help her funraising and why would Scaife give her the ok? They're salivating over her as the Dem nominee.
Any other Dem can probaly win, certainly Edwards or Obama or Biden. Probably not Kucinich, though he'd be great if that weren't true.
This is not the time to fool around. No Nader, no 3rd party. If we want to stop the "End of America (Naomi Wolf's new book)" we need the Repubs to lose, and to stay lost. And we need someone who's willing to repudiate the whole empire-authoritarian project. Hillary would't do this even if she was electable, which she's not.
idfan...so you believe that won't happen under the Hillary regime?
or does the MSM spin just make it look different?
you can bet it won't be covered like BushCo. HE gets made to look dumber than he even is. she 'll be made to look like a movie star. it'll be the bad repubs that block supreme court nominees, and they (Dems) cave and pick someone more suitable.
the slow erosion of our rights being preferable to the wham-bam method, i think not. the slow erosion method allows the powers to build up the police/military so that when the people are finally moved out off the couch to the street they are ready for us.
With every protest, citys site examples as to why they need new riot gear, they can spin the protesters to be violent whatever, and build up the infra structure to handle an unhappy majority.
garret,
stay lost is the point.
with Hillary or whoever. look for 4 and out.
and the Repubs have 3 years to expose Hillary as a fraud (which she is) and position themselves to rescue America from (what they call)the left.
The Democrats have functioned as co-conspirators throughout the Bush era. Just about all of those in the House and Senate, with pathetically few exceptions, have voted to enable the wars, the wire tapping, the secrete prisons. All of it has been endorsed by congressional votes since the Democrats gained leadership of both houses. Funding has continued for all of the disastrously criminal policies. Impeachment off the table. War crimes trials off the table Collaboration with Bush has been the result of the Democrats in power. We cannot change the Republicans, but voting in the Democrats hasn't helped either. The conclusion is clear: we cannot continue supporting either of these two terrible choices. A vote for Hillary is a vote to continue the terrible immoral practices. Don't do it.
A young governor from Arkansas back in 91 wasn't given any hope of winning the democratic nomination either.
Kucinich will actually CRUSH any Republican if he runs simply because his policies appeal to the vast majority of Americans (immediate withdrawal from Iraq, universal health care, etc.) but the problem remains in the fact that the mainstream media is still ignoring him. Dennis is gaining steam though and don't be surprised if he suddenly gets noticed. Remember that a majority of Americans still haven't heard of Dennis Kucinich.
People must avoid this defeatist attitude that Dennis doesn't stand a chance and switch to the mindset that no one else is a viable candidate.
Make no mistake... Obama, Hilary and Edwards are all corporate lackies. Just one look at their campaign donations will confirm this.
For some time, I've been telling people that my new political motto is the Eugene Debs sentiment: "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it." That includes Clinton, Obama, and, to a lesser degree, Edwards.
Recently I had a conversation with a family member whom I respect greatly. I told him that I'd write in Kucinich no matter who wins the nomination because I just refuse to vote for another corporate shill. His response was that a Giuliani presidency is a high price to pay for one's principles. He's a dictator waiting to happen.
This made me rethink my decision to do a write-in. I'm not convinced now either way, but I am definitely exploring a lot of ideas. These are:
1. The lesser of evils is still evil. So how do we deal with this reality? Is it better to have an evil-but-not-so-terrible president or is it more important to make a statement.
2. What if I - and others like me - stick to their principles and refuse to vote for one of the leading candidate, resulting in at least another 4 years of insanity? Will the long term repurcussions be the total destruction of democracy (such as it is) in America? Or will it instead bring the democrats to their senses along with the America public? Will the republicans, in other words, completely self destruct? Or will they do so much damage the American experiment is unrecoverable?
3. What if the lesser of two evils is not really less evil? What if we forgo our gut instincts and allow this travesty to continue and find out that Clinton is truly and totally owned by international corporate interests? (I am thinking of the new anti-terrorism legislation promoted by democrats in congress that amounts to thought policing of our citizens.) Do we get more NAFTA type trade, more "nothing is off the table" warmongering about countries that are not an imminent threat to us, more support for the wealthy?
"Flip-flopping" and "waffling" are derogatory terms used to describe progressives and liberals who tend to see all sides of a picture before making a final decision. Well, I'm waffling about this upcoming election. At this point, I'm trying to make the best sense I can of a bad situation.
I am a true Kucinich fan. He really does reflect the views of most Americans, has integrity, and presents winning arguments to promote what he believes. The MSM doesn't like him because he is not pro-wealthy corporations over real people. He is not unelectible - he just is highly unlikely to get the nomination because the media either ignores him or makes him look like a complete nutjob. Given a real public forum to express his ideas, he would be a very viable candidate. I don't see that happening, but anything is possible. Hope springs eternal. Even Pandora's box had hope in the bottom.
So I'm still up in the air. I know I could hold my nose and vote for Edwards, and maybe even Obama. But Clinton? Ugh. That would be a stretch. I guess it does depend on who the republican candidate is. Anyone over Guiliani or Thompson. The others are slightly less odious, but the whole religion thing scares me too. I won't vote for any of them, but I'm not sure I wouldn't do a write in for Kucinich if, for example, McCain was the candidate. Even though he really, really makes me cringe.
Time and research will tell.
I'm becoming fairly resigned to voting third party for president yet again (which is all I've ever done but for Kerry - out of fear - last time around).
The potential Democratic vote is already split because the leading candidates are corporate scoundrels, and a lot of us know that. Kucinich and Gravel are the only ones of them I would have even considered.
However, if Hillary wins the nomination, and the Republican nominee is Ron Paul, I may just vote Republican for the first time. Ok, probably not, but it is somehow weirdly conceivable.
That makes sense, of course we'd rather have a guy who wants to elimiate all federal programs and have a constitutional amendment banning abortion than Hilary b/c he has better sound bites when it comes to the war...
Idfan - to be clear, the notion of voting for Ron Paul was a joke. I'm well aware of many reasons why not to do that. The point was, Hillary is no better.
I think LeeAnn makes a lot of good points. Although, I think Huckabee has to be up there in the anybody but category. At least McCain at one point recognized how poisonious the religious right is, Huckabee goes out of his way to point out is 5,000 years credentials. Global Warming? God will take care of it. The economy, war, let's just get together in a megachurch and pray about it. Oh, but of course let's follow the Nicaruaga path and outlaw abortion in all circumstances from the moment of conception.
ldfan - agreed. I like Ron Paul's stance on the war, but his pro-life, small government agenda is just too conservative. I agree with his non-interference with other nations, but I disagree with what I've heard about his antipathy toward social security and other government programs.
Perhaps I have a limited view of his issues, and perhaps I'm wrong about what he promotes. If so, he might be good enough that I'd write in Kucinich rather than vote for the "frontrunner" and take my chances on another republican.
I guess it might be a good idea for me to research Ron Paul a lot more. So many posters on this site like him. It would be good to find out why.
Again, do we really believe that Hilary is no better? Would the country really look the same whether it's Ran Paul or Hilary Clinton. Anyone who has ever utilized Medicare, social security, a student loan, a pell grant, taken some time off when a family member is sick, would certainly face a much different country with the programs abolished...I agree completely with Naomi Kelin that this things are nearly impossible to abolish in a democracy minus a great shock but one terrorist attack with a guy like Guliani or Huckabee in power and that's all the shock they would need. I truly hope that minus the chat room rhetoric any of you in a swing state would not actually follow this Hilary is no better logic in the voting booth.
LeeAnnG..Personally, I'll vote my conscience just to be true to my own spirit. No expectations, no disappointment....just truth to one's self.
Mrs. Clinton has the entire democratic establishment with her and there must be a good reason for this and it is because she is part of an arrogant elite whose policies are not in the best interest of the United States. The big winners should she be nominated are huge corporations outsourcing more jobs with her blessing,the military industrial complex which is bankrupting the country and last but not least AIPAC and its followers who actually run the democratic party. It is time for a change!
Even over at the Democratic Underground, Hillary's hacks have to work 24/7 just to give her a modicum of credibility among the Democratic partisans. And this is pre-primary.
Why the hell should we have to accept the very worst as the best we can get to cling to a slow decline of the Empire into medicrity? Sometimes I think it would be best to let it fall like the Depression in order to re-prioritize rather than increasing the desperation over a prolonged decay under the DLC brand.
No thanks. No more Clintons, thanks. Die Yuppie scum, as Abbie Hoffman used to proclaim on his tshirt.
And what will the Kucinich fans say when Dennis comes out in May or June and announces his support for Hilary and calls upon all of those who voted for him to do the same? I guess at that point his words won't mean as much. And why hasn't Mr. Kucinich resigned from the Democratic party yet? Oh and why will Bernie Sanders who no one could ever accuse of being a corporate hack also throw his support behind the democratic nominee? Because no matter how hard you try to make the donkey an elephant all of these people are keenly aware that the Republicans make life a hell of a lot worse for people in this country and the world than the democrats do. I'm sorry but no matter how loudly you say it hilary is not Guliani, she is not Huckabee, she is not Thompson, and she is not McCain or Paul. And given the choice between her and any of those neo-fascists I am shocked to hear progressives say there is no difference...
I will not vote for Hillary or Obama; democracy is supposed to be about voting for what you support, not being blackmailed into supporting what you don't so that something else you don't support doesn't win. FDR was very popular, and Kucinich would be very popular if the right wing elite media didn't control things; he is 'electable.'
Only someone who is indpendently wealthy could actually say that it might be best to fall into another depression. I would like to hear someone who actually lived through the depression say something like that. Are you aware of how many people faced starvation, how much suffering took place, how brutal the economic reality was. Believe me, if we were in a depression we wouldn't even have the time to debate these things. It is thanks to Keynes and the new deal that thankfully we haven't faced one since. My friend, you must have spent some time runnning in the same revolutionary groups I used to be a part of. Yet the irony was everyone who said such things had enough funds to be okay should it actually ever happen...
Kucinich has made his support conditional and I would be very interested to see what he does this time. He must know his credibility is on the line. Sanders is foul when it comes to unconditional support of Israel. His allegiance is ultimately to tribe.
If the Democrats were so keely aware why have they been so complicit to the point that the disconnect between the public and the ruling elite is an ever-widening gulf?
Depression? Don't hold your breath. There is suffering now--ask Ms Hillary about Welfare reform.
There is always a gulf between the people and the ruling elite. The problem is "the people" as I pointed out before are not always the brightest bulbs in the batch. Again, over 50% believe the world was created within the last 5,000 years. "The people" are often the ones voting against there very interests. It is easy on campuses and in the blogosphere to say things like maybe if we had a depression, maybe if things got really, really bad. Well you know what? Whereas in 1917 you got Lenin and Trotsky during the depression you got Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco or was Roosevelt no worse. As I have consistently said it is a dangerious game to play how much worse can it get because the answer, unfortuately, is A LOT!