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
You 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!
TThere is a huge difference between the effects of welfare reform and 25% unemployment by their count, and open starvation in the streets.
Cry out for the hope of revolution and you better have the forces ready to carry it out otherwise you will get the true candidate of law and order who invariably wiill resemble Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Pinochet. Cry out for things to get worse so they can get better and you may wait along time before you even get back what you had…with much suffering along the way
OK. I just went to Ron Paul’s site and read about his issues. Yikes! He is all about free markets solving all problems. He is against regulating business, even to the point of not thinking regulations would stop scandals like Enron. He absolutely believes, according to one essay, that there is no separation of church and state in this country. His contention is that the constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and that includes posting the 10 commandments on government buildings if that’s what the majority in a city wants. He does not see posting the commandments as government advocacy of a certain religion and also does not seem to realize that the constitution was meant to protect the religious minority who might not be comfortable with the specifically religious commandments such as “thou shalt worship no god but me” (as opposed to the more specifically moral like “thou shalt not kill”). As an agnostic, that sounds like government promoted religion, and I imagine that many Christians would be offended if a specifically Islamic religious display were placed in an American government building.
In addition, Paul is completely pro-life and wants to initiate legislation that establishes conception as the beginning of life. He wants to dismantle federal funding for education.
Ron Paul is so small-government oriented, he wants to lower taxes to the point of near non-existence, effectively removing the federal government from the ability to build roads, schools, parks, or libraries. He would turn this all over to the state or local governments or individuals.
As a progressive, I believe that taxes are the collective price we pay for living in a civilized society. Local and state taxation couldn’t possibly take care of all the needs or our nation. Some areas are just too small, too poor, or too sparsely populated. It’s interesting that the “red” states, like West Virginia where I live, receive more in federal taxes than they pay, while “blue” states with big cities and a disproportionate number of “liberals” pay more than they receive. Right after the 2004 election, I saw tables with how much states pay in taxes and how much they receive from the government, and poor, southern, rebublican states get by far greater benefit from federal taxes per capita than northern, “elitist,” democratic states.
So, no. Ron Paul is not my candidate of choice. In fact, he’s kind of scary to me.
The Commmunist Party had a slogan in Germany in 1933 which said “First Hitler, then us” they thought things would “get so bad” the people would turn further left…
Idfan, absolutely Hillary is no better. She is of, by, and for BUSINESS. Though the superstitious wackiness of the Republicans is truly a terrifying prospect, the bottom line is that Hillary’s position has always been that of enabler (for wars, profits, religious evil). I think the programs you mentioned might be on the way out, whether we get a Democrat or Republican president. Do you really believe Hillary is going to fight the corporations for our health, or education, or peace? Everything she says indicates otherwise. As an individual, my choice may well end up: vote for the candidate who believes in fairy tales and legislates on those lines (Republican), or for a corporation masquerading as a woman (Hillary), or for hope (third party), or just skip the whole thing.
Be sure that I’ll carry this logic into the voting booth. Clinton’s a warmonger and a power addict. How’s she going to help anything?
Idfan: “The Commmunist Party had a slogan in Germany in 1933 which said “First Hitler, then us” they thought things would “get so bad” the people would turn further left…”
Well, they did, eventually…
1.) Germany was much more left in the 1920s than today. Millions of people were in the communist and socialist parties and Germany was on the eve of revolution throughout the decade.
2.) Would we prefer going through world war lll and tens of millions of deaths just to get to the stage of social democracy (if you can go that far for Germnay today). Is Andrea Merkel really Rosa Luxemburg? I think my point is very solid.
ldfan, you make a lot of sense, and that is exactly why I am still so undecided. Of course Hillary Clinton is a far cry from Rudy Giuliani! And very different from Huckabee (a true horror show as someone pointed out) or that moron Fred Thompson. I’m not convinced she’s all that different from McCain, but I don’t think that will be an issue. At this point, it’s hard to tell who will wind up on the ballots for either party.
Clinton is bad, but taking all the issues into account, there is still a difference between the parties. Yes, a Gore presidency would have been substantially different from a Bush presidency, and so would a Kerry. But I don’t know if I believe a Clinton presidence would be subtantially different from a McCain or Romney presidency.
The executive priviledge condition is now in place, and I don’t believe Hillary Clinton would be first in line to dismantle it. There are a lot of differences between now and 7 years ago, so there are many factors to consider.
willybill, I admire your convictions, and that is my inclination too - to stick with voting my conscience. At least all of this has us thinking, and that’s always a good thing.
I agree there may not be much difference between McCain, Romney and Hilary but then again I wrote many articles about why I didn’t think there would be that much difference between Bush and Gore…I would just rather not gamble on it come the GENERAL election. The primary is the opportunty to vote your heart, the general election is where you vote with your brain. Do you really think 72% of France wanted Chirac as President? No, but they recognized that Le Pen was a fascist and didn’t want to risk entrusting him with state power. It is a dangerious risk to give someone like Guliani the power of the U.S. military, one only needs to see what he was able to do with the NYPD. And believe e, “the people” are plenty happy not to have 2,200 murders a year…oh but at the expense of liberty…
Idfan: “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!”
You’re right on about this. It’s easy for us to be smug. The worst of the last century are Time-Life books gathering dust as far as most of us know. That said, Hillary or any stay-the-course sort of candidate is way below what we should be able to come up with. The next president better be a goddamn crackerjack or this country’s huge problems will almost surely get worse. A revolution is a dumb, childish idea with our public as ignorant as it is right now. With a little imagination and a personality cult, America could become the scariest place on earth in short order.
Idfan: “1.) Germany was much more left in the 1920s than today. Millions of people were in the communist and socialist parties and Germany was on the eve of revolution throughout the decade.
2.) Would we prefer going through world war lll and tens of millions of deaths just to get to the stage of social democracy (if you can go that far for Germnay today). Is Andrea Merkel really Rosa Luxemburg? I think my point is very solid.”
1. The Germany of the 1920s does not exist today in really any form. The communists and socialists of those days would hardly be calling for revolution in today’s Germany. How exactly is 1920s Germany left of modern Germany? In the 1920s they wanted socialism, and today they have it. I think you’ve got it backwards.
2. Angela Merkel is not the same as Rosa Luxemberg, but we don’t need a Rosa Luxemberg today (in Germany, or the US). We need a Dennis Kucinich or maybe a Ralph Nader.
I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Period. If you want change you cannot continue to vote for the lesser evil if they oppose fundamental change. ldfan- you are shortsighted and selfish, trying to preserve what little we have left for yourself at the expense of what we want and what we should all demand from OUR government. The Dems can’t keep pretending that Progressives or Greens are electing Republicans when they refuse to even attempt to bring us back under their tent. They know the game and they know the score. I will not play by their rules so you can throw away your vote, but I’ll be voting for the single candidate who best would represent me. And it has nothing to do with who I’m told can or cannot win….
Good discussion folks, we were civil and intelligent all the way through (minus the selfish comment).
Look, I’ll be punching my dot for Kucinich in the primary but come Nvember I’m not taking any chances with these elephants and will vote for the Democratic nominee. Have a great day
Enough already. No more being co-opted by soft facism because we are afraid of Rudy Giuliani. Shouldn’t have voted for Kerry; he wanted to up the number of troops in Iraq, remember? I won’t vote for Hillary. More of the same. She represents the most cynical side of American politics. If she had stayed a Goldwater girl I’d have more respect for her, be she sold out to the big money interests. Puts her career first, the lives of millions second. The difference between her and Giuliani isn’t worth my voting for her. Evil is evil. Let’s wake up, folks. The problem isn’t that Nader sucked votes away from the Democrats. The problem is that the Democrats didn’t give us anything to vote for. Enough voting against Republicans. Let’s vote against Democrats also, if they give us more of the same.
I couldn’t vote for her. Please don’t nominate her, dems.
I’m prepared. I have my “Impeach Hillary” sign ready. The difference with Hillary as President is that a Republican congress won’t hesitate to impeach her. Of course, they’ll find some silly excuse. Perhaps she’ll perform oral sex in the Oval Office (not with Bill). Her impeachment should be for the war crimes and other crimes against humanity that are all too predictable. But, at least the Republicans won’t take impeachment off the table. One thing’s for sure: she will give us ample sufficient reasons to support her impeachment. Just as Bush and Cheney have.
I can so relate to the Loeb’s article — if you feel similarly you should be sure to be sending your donations and helping out the candidate(s) of your choice. [I’ve donated to Edwards, Kucinich and Dodd.]
The latest Zogby poll is frightening — yes, I know other polls say other things, but Hillary has a lot of baggage and there are people on both the right and the left who abhor her (i.e., my brother Gregory and I). I have suspended my National Organization for Women membership since NOW Pac endorsed her — and I have been a member consistently since 1979. (And even started a NOW chapter in Ohio and restarted another.) That says a lot.
The mainstream corporatist medium would tell us it is all over even before Iowa and New Hampshire. The thought depresses me and then I decide to ACT. I’ve been petitioning and talking to folks and now I am going to make another donation to John Edwards (FYI — I worked for Kucinich last time and got Kerry — eewwwww — John Edwards and his Elizabeth are a great team
Peace hugs!!!
Kate Anne <== who as an NYC peace and justice activist knows too much about Clinton
Why would we assume that we could push Hillary to do anything but serve the corporate agenda?
If Hillary is annointed the Democratic nominee by the media and whatever voting machines it takes, I will be one of the ones who sit this one out.
I voted for Bill - once. After Hillary invited the pharma and insurance industries to the White House to design the healthcare plan, I smelled that fool-me-once rat and got, permanently, off the Clinton choo-choo. After eight years of Clintonian triangulation and cynical corporate-serving doubletalk and betrayal, I won’t have another DLC hack on my conscience.
I can’t figure out whether the corporate establishment wants Hillary because they figure she’ll lose, or because they want her to win - either way, we’ll have a Republican for president.
I haven’t given up hope that if we are very, very lucky, we might still have a chance to nominate John Edwards.
I’m with you Outside the Loop! This isn’t a participatory democracy/republic any longer and the sooner we admit this to ourselves, the sooner we can start working to change it. As long as we accept these “NON-CHOICES that are being shoved down our throats, we cannot pretend we have a say in our future any longer. We, the people, have been written out of the process, even though those who do control it will try to convince us otherwise.
In the larger cosmic sense, things are becoming clear and polorized. People are seeing as they never have before that the false distinctions we’ve been buying into are what has brought us to this point. This is a genuine crisis for many reasons facing the human family.
The control/direction of the Dem party has been taken over, and not by regular working people. We can see now that both parties are supported and controlled by the same ruling oligarchy—they just change the uniforms of the team captains now and again, to fool people into supporting one or the other “team.”
No more of this crap. Time to take seriously a real alternative—it cannot happen overnight but we have to start somewhere, and we have to start now. The set up now is meant to be so scary to disempower us, but if you think that the powers behind this can’t come up with equally or even scarier scenarios in the future, you are plain wrong, Scared people will stop dreaming about better things–they will feel that holding onto their ideals is just too risky, and that is exactly why the king makers do what they do. It’s a rigged game folks. We can never win it, because there is no real contest going on. Either team will throw the game if they are told to. Hell, they don’t even call the plays, for cryin out loud. Isn’t that apparent?
I refuse to be frightened, and I refuse to be cowed. ANy candidate who refuses to repudiate where we are at now, cannot be trusted to turn this Titanic around—–it’s really not too complicated at all, now is it?
I can put all your minds at ease. Obama is going to come in 1st place in Iowa, and it will be uphill for everyone else after that.
Jeez, talk about strange… What if the Republicans did move to impeach the next Democratic president? And what if it were Hillary with the unimpeached GW Bush sandwiched between her and Bill?
Idfan - “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…”
In 1992, we heard the same shrill arguments about Bush Sr., and most people on the left bit their lip and supported Clinton. 8 years later, the Democrats had lost both Houses of Congress, as well as the majority of state legislatures. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to fall for this ruse again.
Hey NOW. i am not being defeatist when I say Kucinich doesn’t have a chance, I am being realistic.
I hate to be realistic.
Hate it with a passion.
Not one thing amazing and earth shattering thing has ever happened in this world from folks being realistic. I know that. But, “we” (anyone and everyone who wants to see Kucinich have a fighting chance)have what is called a collective action problem - which is to say - Yeah it’s great, all of us on this little island of brilliance, this website that is on the periphery of the electronic medium, saying we are going to vote for Dennis.
Yeah, Dennis is the MAN! yeah, he’s the only one I would want in the White House…blah blah blah. Great.
But MOST F#*king Americans don’t have a clue who he is!
You gotta get that.
So how are you, me, - WE, anyone… going to get that to happen considering the way things work.
Collective action is where everyone who feels strongly about something is taking action - in this case, action that would further more action, where it eventually becomes a movement.
I can’t think of a way to do it in ‘the real world’ can any of you?
That is what is missing.
The way things are, everyone that votes for Dennis in the primary will be voting to make a point.
Can we afford to make a point considering how it is? I don’t think so, but I could easily be wrong. If it came down to Hillary or ____, I have to say I hope it would be Ron Paul, or a chance for Bloomberg. I would vote for either one of them first!
F- Bush by the way!
Well put, starofthesea! for the past 35 years I’ve been voting for who I want to see win and will do so this time as well. I will never waste my vote on someone who will sell me out and betray me. We will not turn our country around until people can get that through their heads. Yes, it’s rough. It’s been getting rougher for decades. Yes we got a budget surplus under Clinton, but on the backs of the working poor. And the rich got richer faster than ever before. Screw that.
No matter which of these lying snakes gets the Democratic and Republican nominations, it will get worse. And I know that under a Republican president, even worse yet. Something no one may be able to prevent with their plans to steal the general election anyway. And maybe they’re rigging the primaries as well. Who knows what they’re up to?
As long as the majority of the electorate is so ignorant and inattentive, we’re in trouble. I don’t know what it will take to get their attention, or if this democracy is doomed. Ralph Nader said in 2000 (and maybe even earlier) that the Democratic party was hopelessly corrupt. That was his word: hopelessly.
These people clinging to the Democrats make me think of the God joke. A man falls off a cliff and grabs a branch growing out the side of it. The branch starts coming loose, and he cries out “God, what do I do now?” He hears a voice from above saying “Let Go”. So how bad does it have to get before you people learn to let go? Now we’re faced with the prospect of a rabid right wing Supreme Court. Don’t you realize things can get even worse than that? Why do you think the Democrats will save us? What in the world have they done to give you that idea? They could have stopped those right wing Supreme Court appointments, but THEY DIDN’T. There are many things they DIDN’T do. But go ahead, keep voting for them. Knock yourselves out.
BEFORKIDS—– I love your last two sentences especially—how totally accurate. And you could have added a third and final sentence. “Crazy is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.” SOme of us are quite sane, thank you very much!
HEY NOW—I’ll be frank! Your comments are exactly what is frustratingabout so called liberals. You are so damned proud of your pragmatism, and you think we should just gush all over with admiration. Guess that makes us just dumb schmucks for daring to dream for a better world.
Frankly, I’ll take the company of Martin Luther King anyday over “realists” such as yourself. Where would any of us be if someone who came before us hadn’t dreamed of a better way? And I AM realistic enough to see that in this current set up, we are not being offered any real choices—they just want us to think there is a difference. That’s realism, my man!
How about if we suggest that Kucinich starts wearing elevator shoes? Would he be electable then? Sometimes small things affect elections more than the large issues do. Kucinich should be our man, if we could just get him looking down at Hillary.
Let me get this straight.
The article consists of eight paragraphs where Paul Rogat Loeb explains to us his disappointment with Hillary. He is disappointed, his friends are disenfranchised and every sane person sees her as a corporate hack and a liar.
But wait…
He’s going to vote for her (!!??!!)
Ok, ok. I get it.
Paul is more afraid of Republican candidates than Hillary.
I mean, he is afraid of her… It’s just that he’s more afraid of Repugs.
Democracy at it’s best. We should all vote for the “viable” candidate that we’re less afraid of. If we’re going to have non-consensual sex with the system, why not chose the orifice?
When you think of how many tacticians, strategists, PR / marketing people, and statisticians come together working ridiculously long hours just to try and get you to check one candidate’s box instead of the other’s, don’t you feel a little cheated? I mean, in the end, doesn’t the voter’s part in this exercise seem disproportionately small and silly?
Maybe we should be looking at a new, improved, and much more complex way of voting, too.
Ah, yes, the “electible” one
Source: Agence France-Presse
‘Hillary haters’ out in force as 2008 votes loom
2 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Prowling the Internet, spilling venom on blogs and dominating the airwaves on conservative talk radio, “Hillary haters” are back and out in force as 2008 presidential nominating contests loom.
Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton is sparking the same waves of vitriol in the conservative echo chamber that burst forth during her husband Bill Clinton’s eight years in the White House.
Just 37 days before the leadoff Iowa caucuses, Clinton remains a lightning rod, targeted again by enemies who hounded her as first lady but adored by supporters backing her potentially historic campaign.
Clinton is the target of a daily ouburst of vitriol on blogs, branded a “communist,” “Satan,” “Jezabel,” “Lady Macbeth” and a “female Stalin.” One group, dubbed “Stop Hillary Now” is trying to recruit hundreds of millions of anti-Clinton activists through the online networking site Facebook.”
..and that isn’t even taking into account how many activists on the Left despise her.
Hillary haters have picked up on the fact that Hillary is a Republican in a Democratic primary. The DLC, which she helped found, has succeeded spectacularly in taking over the Democratic party and weakening it from within. Hillary haters need to broaden the battle to take on the DLC and the politics of “triangulation,” government of, by, and for the multinational corporations.
Hillary is just not as gifted as Bill at pretending to be a liberal. Her dishonesty sticks out all over, unmodified by charm and political shape-shifting. People who are put off by her lies and her double-talk and her clumsy efforts to project warmth and bonhomie are picking up on something fundamental. It’s not that we don’t like her - we don’t trust her.
Hillary hating is, at least for me, about the widespread perception that the fix is in, and that Hillary will be shoved down our throats by the mainstream media and whoever is controlling the elections this time around - it’s about her support for Bush’s war, her Bush-like secrecy, her take-no-prisoners campaign tactics, and her connections to the corporate power structure, most notably represented by her chief strategist, Mark Penn, whose PR firm, Burson-Marsteller, is presently flacking for Blackwater.
This is much too basic to be personal. We need to take on what she represents. The fight is a lot bigger than Hillary - she is only the latest wolf to be dressed up in a nice little sheep suit and marketed to the country by the corporate establishment. This fight needs to be less about Hillary and more about who runs the country - the citizens or the corporations. It may be our good luck that she is not as good as Bill at pretending to be something she is not.
Vern — There are a lots of rightists who call Hillary a liberal — would that she really were then maybe she would listen to her supposed Democratic base here in New York. I despise how vitriolic I feel about Senator Clinton but I feel it none-the-less. I try to accept my feelings. Instead of concentrating on this negative energy, I focus on the candidates I prefer while trying to avoid the Oprah-Barbra faceoff. The press is abominable. Whoops, more negativity.
starofthesea; Thank you very much for an outstanding contribution to this article as well as comments in other Common Dreams news releases. You address the core issues of this corrupt system we are living under and until we, as individuals, change within ourselves to better society by actively participating, the situation in this country and the world in general will return back to the dark ages of the past, only with modern technological junk.
Kucinick and Nader are beacons of light on the dark horizon. How could any liberal/progressive or just plain ‘decent’ person not want to support Dennis Kucinich?
I’m rather disapointed when so many liberal talk show hosts on the radio say they’ll support Clinton or Obama, the corporate favorites, even though they prefer Kucinich’s policies. Where is the vote of conscience anymore? Why endorse more of the same?
starofthesea; Your Nov.27th, 7;43pm post says it all. You are a STAR!
This article is ridiculously irrelevant. No wonder it was written by a Democrat. Since when can Democratic candidates be called ’strong alternatives’? Paul Rogat Loeb is as dishonest as Rush Limbaugh.
Clinton was the best Republican president we ever had. He gave us NAFTA, GATT, welfare ‘reform’ and, like Bush, bombed Iraq for 8 years. Hillary, Obama, Edwards will just continue his sorry legacy. Of course, idiotic Democratic voters can’t see what’s in front of them and will support the criminals. That’s what idiots do.
For those of you who think you are being “realistic” by choosing the “lesser evil” of the probable Democratic Party candidate, take a good hard look at the actual record of the Democratic Party. How does the Democratic Party actually work to further the interests of working class people? People who want, for starters,
a Canadian style national health care, strong environmental laws, and country
which does not start wars of agression.
Be honest with yourselves and examine what your values really are, then ask
does the record not the rhetoric of the Democratic Party *really* represent your values?
I suggest reading:
http://www.internationalsocialist.org/pdfs/democrats_lesserevilism.pdf
PEACEMAN & STAR - Yes, I heartedly add my appreciation as well.
Some thing else here in POLITICS is hideously deranged, when the (Jimmy) Carter Center’s states (somewhere on CD) that our electoral system doesn’t even qualify for their monitoring of our own USA elections, because it don’t meet the minimum standards it uses elsewhere (in 3rd world countries).
Namaste
__ __ __ __ We must be the change
__ __ __ __ we wish to see in the world __ Gandhi
Hillary hating is, at least for me, about the widespread perception that the fix is in…
But as the cited article explained, the great majority of Hillary hating does nor come from the left, it comes from a overwhelmingly larger rabid-right majority who believe that Hillary is some kind of left-extremist.
So, is Hillary really a stealth leftist or a genuine center-rightist? Recall that Bush successfully convinced virtually everyone (including me) that he as a moderate in 2000 but he really was a stealth extreme right winger. And Gore ran as someone virtually undistinguishable from Bush, so, was he rally a stealth leftist? Should we assume in US presidential politics that the candidate is actually pursue policies the opposite of what they claim? Me, I voted for the only straight talking candidate - Nader.
@Uncle Ben at 1:11p.m. + Starofsea,
thank you for putting into succinct posts what I was thinking.
All those progressives who claim that Kucinich is unelectable are just parroting
msm propaganda - you know - you can’t unring a bell.
Instead we should be saying at every opportunity that Kucinich has so much support that if he is not elected then the election was rigged.
Wasn’t it at the Detroit Auto Workers convention that Dennis had multiple standing ovations while the likes of hilary were booed?
Don’t do the corporations work for them by
repeating their talking points. Sure hilary has the zionists in her pocket & fat cat contributors - but for all that we
still have the numbers.
I’ve voted for the lesser of 2 evils in the majority of presidential campaigns - NEVER
Again, I’d like to see a Kucinich/Richardson ticket (how awful, I like the New Mexican governor but can’t remember if his name is Richards or Richardson.)
I think these two mentioned above would strive to do the right thing/the ethical thing in their policies.
Whether health care, big business, environment, energy alternatives, toxicity in the environment or any and all of these it comes down to who has the courage to talk about all of them rather than focusing on the pin head. You want to hear about health care? The advance of environmentally based health problems by a toxic environment and air related pandemics is what we are looking at in the next few years with rising temperatures
The people of the USA have been so ill informed as to what a change would really do to this country that they have forgotten that no one could be worse than George Bush. . . No one! The real problem is not Kucinich as president, the problem is that he puts his emphasis on the wrong problem at the wrong time. The problem is getting him into a credible platform of ideas and I say to him while impeachment is necessary, it is unlikely. There is not enough time and the issues most pressing are again avoided, like the environment and those really important before the congress now! The issue of the election will affect the economy and the future of the USA as no other. None of the candidates are really talking on the major points the environment in association with the economy or health care.
The environmental news coming out is not new but it is very grave and keeps being pushed to more urgency as new research comes to light. If any one reading this comment cares to look at the website of NASA, the research papers of James Hansen in particular that were published long before Gore was on the scene and many since, they would understand that we really can not deal with much more than one degree to two and half degrees Celsius of warming at its maximum to ward off the most serious effects of industrial societies pollution and to offset this growing catastrophe. At about two and half degrees warming which is presently in the pipeline we will be dealing with about 550 ppm of carbon in the atmosphere, a rate actually above the tipping point of one and half degrees warming. This is the absolute figure to avoid the major positive feedback loops that are starting and scheduled to kick in by 2020 or earlier if nothing is done quickly. Positive feedback are starting now with methane now being released on the tundra into the atmosphere a four times addition to greenhouse gasses and causing the poles and glaciers to melt more rapidly, or has no one noticed?
The below scenario excerpted from the climate articles here on commondreams tell us clearly without rapid change runaway climate change and their feedback loops are in reach within 10 to 30 years if nothing is done rapidly. The positive feedback loops will melt the remainder of the glaciers and perhaps dump Greenland into the sea as well. Also, the melting of additional ice-shelf’s at the poles. That means perhaps a 3 to 30 foot ocean rise by the end of this century, but the process is beginning now and in 20 years or less without rapid change in economic direction the human race will reach a point of no return. The press continues to bend the information toward the global economic agenda thus minimizing it. India for example is less concerned about climate change than they are about economic production, although their neighbor Bangladesh is slipping into the sea . Still in India, there are several moves in the direction of smaller is better concepts of reality.
There will be sufficient human displacement of people on this planet to bring American citizens into a nightmare scenario that makes the present Mexican border problem a walk in the park. What about the transfer of health risks as a result of this problem? Not to mention water and food related issues and the economy, always the economy
Yet is seems the political discussion rests on the complete list of talking points in isolation, such as Clinton’s health package and its cost, rather than what is really at stake the complete interrelated package of all these issues and more. The media reduces the public debate to its most simplistic level and all here are arguing about one issue or another rather than the entire package . The media keeps the public dumbed down for obvious reasons they represent the money people. As a result we become unable to talk about moving radically to deal with climate change the first and major issue which affects all other issues and is completely related to economic change.
The world does not have (much later) before a more aggressive approach to all the issues beginning with climate change now! Remember New Orleans? Within next 10 to 20 years is where it all hangs. If nothing is done very soon it will mark the beginning of the end for the human race. Those appear to be the facts and no technology will stop runaway climate change once it begins, indeed if we look at the melting poles the worst case is much more apparent than formerly believed . . .it has already begun!!
Perhaps it might be too late now, according to James Lovelock, in his view it has begun. James Hansen at NASA makes a very compelling case for the time frame for action within the time in office of the next president of the USA and so does the UN. I think anyone who really wishes to be informed should go to the websites of these people mentioned here or the IPCC. It is technical information but worth taking the time to inform yourself. The answer is to start working quickly for change and vote for those candidates who speak of change and another direction and who represent ideas rather than special interests. For example the best work would be to defeat the pro-business Clintons and elect Kucinich or Obama or possibly a joint ticket while we know they have an outside chance they are the best possibility for change.
But we all know business interests will prevail with Clinton capturing the vote and a pro-business a vote is a vote against the environment. No one running on the democratic side could be worse than Bush. Anyone who can think understands that the business interests control the environmental agenda and most candidates. The republicans will continue the work of burying the planet as will pro-business democratic candidates most of whom have been bought, whether by health interests or anything else concerning big money.
The facts of the science is what is important. What the environmental facts really suggest is economic depression in the west in the near term. But if we are really serious about saving the planet (no one wants to hear that if they are connected to big money) it means voting for economic and environmental legislation limiting pollution and green house gasses. . .in any event that is change!
But environment, water, energy production these are the real issues of this election campaign but no one would dare mention them in association with change in economic direction for fear of defeat. A redirection and a retooling of the global economy and of America is in order and that is not a popular issue on wall street or people invested in wall street. . .most everyone in one way or another.
We have to change rapidly and move to a none-stop production of environmental invention and energy alternatives for the western world and developing nations rapidly. It also means rapid technology transfer for the developing world without delay, this may save us some time. A cut of 80% of the carbon emissions within the next 10 years is in order and it must be done beginning now and well on the way before 2012 the next date for Kyoto. Kyoto is a western world fabrication to tell us we can keep polluting while where figuring a way to deal with this crisis economically.
A change of the present direction of economic production and fast move in a different direction economically for the use is what is required by anyone that can think and put simple figures in context of this crisis. The world is waiting for this move by the Americans and watch the dollar rise rapidly once this plan would be announced if ever. This is why this upcoming election is so critical and the results of it will determine whether the human race survives. . . . It is that critical! The economic change in direction could possibly reemploy a lot of people who have lost their work in the polluting industries. This is the challenge to America to remake itself after eight years of the Bush/Cheney regime. It is equivalent to a fight for survival that required the retooling of America at the outbreak of WW 2. It requires change in the so-called war on terror, a bush fabrication advanced by the media which is a money centered mind conditioning creation and finally it means leaving Iraq, and using those resources to fight the real enemy to survival, the western consumer, hydro carbon based, societies of the western world.
Who knows that might mean less of an investment in China and more of an investment the western world for a healthier environment, the Chinese might follow that example as well.
Which candidate will say this to America? Which candidate will really tell the truth? If they did they wouldn’t have a chance in this election because Americans don’t want to hear that! Any one having the courage to really tell the truth would find themselves on the next train to Siberia. They would be shouted down by the crowds of people and many on this blog.
But the economy is the issues and that is determined by the war in Iraq. The illegal bush-war that Kucinich wants to impeach Bush/Chenney for but takes us into another direction and not well thought out. He is focused on the lies of Bush rather than the future of the world.
The production of alternative energy will soak up the idle job market, indeed it is doing so now! With a shift to the priority of economic production and development directed at saving this world and its equilibrium, means in simple terms a crash economic change which is vitally necessary, without that we are done. If any one thinks that we can continue with an oil economy and business as usual with a consumer based society, they are living in the world of denial which so much of the western world occupies. The below is a light message compared with what the truth really is: from UN sources of information!
The world needs to spend 1.6 percent of global economic output annually through 2030 to stabilize the carbon stock and meet the 3.6-degree Fahrenheit temperature target. Rich countries, the biggest carbon emitters, should lead the way and cut emissions at least 30 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. Developing nations should cut emissions 20 percent by 2050, the UNDP says.”
The above is letting you down lightly is really not what the actual projections are. The world will crash in on its regional global populations is what the information below is saying. There really is no place in this discussion for a 5.4 to 7.2 Fahrenheit degree rise in temperature. . . .this scenario painted with the these numbers below is a different planet closer to Mars not Earth. The news media play with numbers like the lottery. We can tolerate one degree and perhaps two and half degrees warming at the outside, . . .in the next 50 to 90 years. . .that’s it!!!!! An additional 3 degrees to five degrees Fahrenheit is three more degrees greater than this climate and its creatures can sustain or endure without collapse!! This quoted from the recent UN assertions here in commondreams:
“a temperature rise of between 5.4 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (3 and 4 degrees Celsius) would displace 340 million people through flooding, droughts would diminish farm output, and retreating glaciers would cut off drinking water from as many as 1.8 billion people, the report says.” this is an understatement and conservative.
The above report is economically associated and conservative as well as misleading!!! Forget this idea of 5.4 to 7.2 Fahrenheit of warming that is the Martian landscape because it allows for the runaway positive feedbacks to take hold. Whomever believes this world can sustain this degree of warming is either working for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank or is gathering this information from the laboratory at XXON/Mobile!!??????
Meanwhile the group here is discussing who will give us better health care on a dying planet and impeachment of Bush a good way to avoid dealing with the truth. We can be suspect of anyone who says they have the truth. The need for understanding this current cast of characters wanting to be president is important. None of this group has the faintest idea of what we are really dealing with in terms of global warming numbers concerning the environment, and if they did they would not tell the public. They know it’s bad and their advisers are telling them they can’t deal with this issue to get elected by the masses.
The masses? Unless you have not heard, these are the people above who are worrying where their next bag of groceries comes from and the money to pay the rent! They really don’t give a damn about the environmental issues. . And have no time for thinking about 10 to 20 years from today that has no realty attached to it for most Americans or the rest of the four and half billion people on this Earth in the same situation. . . .
Or, for the rest of the population working for and controlled by big business and big money. . .that is what this election is really about and if one thinks about the complexity of all these interrelated issues we know that we can not beat the odds that business will win. That means the future for humanity is limited even for the one percent that has everything.
Sure elect Edwards, Obama, or Kucinich or any combination for the Democrats that are not funded by big business for this election.
IKE
Does anyone know of any Hilary supporters? Honestly…I have a whole range of friends and professional contacts of every walk of life, and have only met one who ‘knows’ some..after doing an extensive survey, nonetheless! I’ve never met ONE, and many of my circle would love to see a woman…but.
So…we are ‘handed’ the selection?
I think it will take a huge economic collapse and/or extreme situation for someone like Dennis (or even Ron Paul) to get in…
and the ‘issues’ are irrelevant when we are in the state we are right now as a country (or the echo of what once was), but for peace, integrity, and responsibility…fiscal and otherwise.
Thank you.
FYI, Paul Rogat Loeb is scheduled to be on Thom Hartmann today, Thursday, Nov. 29. Should be good!
And, yes, Sloonie, I know a few Hillary supporters. The Queens Democratic Party shoved Hillary down everyone’s throats, but some went willingly. I told them I was supporting John Edwards — but they know I’m an independent Democrat. Still, some in my independent club like Hillary. Not many.
Thanks, Kate Anne…anyone else?
I heard a rumor of one person who supports hillary, but then, I live in Eugene OR where nobody is a centrist on either side of the aisle.