Saab Lofton,

We are not replaying the past. We have four certifiable fascists on the Supreme Court -- Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts -- who are on record as supporting a "unitary executive" with dictatorial powers. And we know the rest of the federal courts are already packed with fascists. We have seen the ability of Republicans to use electronic voting machines and to discount exit poll discrepancies. We have seen Republicans use the justice department to disenfranchise minorities. We have seen Bush use electronic surveillance and torture, illegally, and otherwise violate the Bill of Rights, and get away with it. We know there is great pressure by Internet providers to junk Net Neutrality and by media companies to get the FCC to approve further consolidation.

We all have experienced periods of small changes followed by dramatic jolting changes. Given Giuliani's history as mayor, acting in a frighteningly authoritarian manner, as well as his rhetoric on the campaign trail, with the historical precedents of the Bush administration, and the Supreme Court just needing one more fascist to support a dictator, the election of Giuliani would very likely provide just such a dramatic change, and certainly for the worse.

I am a lifelong socialist and I despise Hillary and Obama to the core of my being, but I cannot in good conscience just sit by when Giuliani presents such a grave threat to the future of the USA and the future of humanity, as well as the future of my young son.

And I accuse both of them of being too far to the Right!!!! Both Obama and Hillary would be considered 'Neo-Cons' in any other country. They both support health-for-profit systems, war in the Middle East, no more taxes for the rich, huge subsidies for the oil industries and other multi-national corporations, weak unions, NAFTA and a ridiculously large military industrial complex. What the hell is 'left' about either one of them?

I hope HRC doesn't get nominated, no difference between her or any of the Reps candidates.
And I think the reason why she is attacking Obama so much, is because he got Oprah's endorsement, and Hillary knows how powerful is this woman shaping the minds of millions.
I have no hope for this "democracy" (but I'm still supporting Kucinich!)

What was it that Hillary was saying about not fighting dirty, and wanting Dems to stick together earlier in her campaign? Too left? Calling someone too left/liberal is straight out of the Repug "We Fear Change" Slander Cookbook. How has the human race made it even this far? What a crazy planet.

Take note: Hillary accuses Obama of being too far left while the American people simultaneously and in majority want 1)an end to the war, 2) impeachment of at least Cheney, 3) and an end to torture. Seems to me that Hillary is not in concert with most American voters . . . And if Obama continues his rightward lean he will increasingly appear as a hypocritical politico - talking change, but reinventing himself toward the right.
So Hillary - alexnosal (above) is correct: you sing the Republican song while wanting Demos' votes. Amazing . . .
Remember in a recent debate when Hillary accused her co-runners of using the Republican attack book - it would appear she is not doing exactly the same thing to Obama. What else would you call it when an 'alleged change agent' such as Hillary accuses her primary rival as being too far left?
Kucinich is the only legitimate, intelligent, and coherent voice in this election. I have already abandoned the Democratic party - after having voted with them for the past three decades. They no longer represent a choice - AND THEY MUST PAY THE PRICE.

Hmmm. If Obama is too far to the left, then she's a right wing extremist. I don't consider myself a left wing extremist, but even Obama is far too centrist for me... considering that today's centrist is yesterday's Goldwater Republican.

I wonder what adjectives she'd use to describe Kucinich! She is concretely abandoning the Democratic base here... Well, we really needs to form our own party anyway.

The only candidtate who says anything near what I want to hear is Kucinich. Read his interview in Salon:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/11/kucinich_qa/

Orwell triumphs yet again!

The establishment-worshipping, kiss-the-ring of the corporate overlords Barack Obama is somehow "too far left"??????

Red herring...Hilary will say and do anything to get what she thinks she is entitled to, the presidency...too bad it's not a real presidency, just a faux presidency she may inherit from a faux president.

She becomes more repulsive in her tactics daily.

Of the candidates, Dennis Kucinich is the farthest left.
Many of us would like that, but we're probably not gonna get it. Of the top three John Edwards is the farthest left, but we may not get him either. Obama is next and has a chance, perhaps because of the very improbability that he has gotten this far while this young. Hillary is least "left", really, but far preferable to any of those who are "proud to be" conservative.

Among the reasons Barack or Hillary are preferable are the Supreme Court, the agency appointments, the tone of U.S. foreign policy, taxes and their proper relationship to wars, national debt, the declining dollar, and the words to be emanating for our children to hear from The White House for four or eight years.

Oprah is getting older and realizes she should use her position in life for national policy. She has wisely chosen whom to support. If that doesn't work and we get Mrs. Clinton, well, okay. But when the country sees Mrs. Clinton bashing on other liberals (as none of us ought to be doing), the country may very well change its mind about her. That "might" leave the improbable Barack. And what a deal for the world to see America follow G.W. Bush with a young half-black CONSTITUTIONAL scholar. We should only hope for such a thing to restore respect for our country in the eyes of others, not to mention what it would do for citizens to have a president eager to re-examine our government's recent errors.

Oh My God!! We can't have anyone to the left of Reagan!!!

Daily, Hillary Clinton shows herself to be a right-wing corporate hack. Anyone who can justify voting for her is their own enemy.

I am curious about what the dem supporters take on this is, it seems like it is a party thing.

Non of this surprises or matters much to those of us who are D.K. all the way.

But I guess it does position the rest of the candidates as out of this world left.
Obviously left is not her base.
She is the most viable republican candidate in either party, and I think that must be the leverage she is going for.

If you read the article you fell in the trap!

WHO CARES!

Nice to have a woman president but not his woman. Seems like she is willing do anything to win but then what? more of the same.

"A Insider Advantage snapshot poll taken over the weekend, as Obama and Oprah Winfrey appeared at a rally in Columbia, showed Obama leading Clinton 28 percent to 22 percent, with a 5-point margin of error"

I would venture that whatever being "too far left" means in Hillary's mind, it is working to get supporters for Obama. If I were on Obama's campaign, I would totally ignore this dumb tactic and accuse Hillary of being an "inside-the-beltway elitist", beholden to special interests.

The death penalty is the litmus test. I won't vote for anybody who supports it.

DEMERARA -- I believe you ask a great question: "[if] … she is willing do anything to win but then what?"

My guess is she's sold her ovaries, for it,
and is really now just another one of the impotent
'good-ol-boys'.

Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »

And, as the election approaches, we can expect these gems from Hillary:

Don't vote for the Republican candidate, because he is too far to the left!

Rush Limbaugh endorses my opponent, and we know Limbaugh is too far to the left!

Grover Norquist is satisfied with the Republican nominee, but certainly Norquist is too far to the left!

And, as my running mate, because I do not want to be too far to the left, I am passing on Jesse Helms, who is too socialist for me, and I am choosing Strom Thurmond, who was too far left when he was alive, but has matured and come to his senses in the grave!

Wow, far-right accusing right of center-right of being 'too far left'.

Funny, but since most of the Democrats seem to be perturbed by how far right both campaigns are, and you see some of the field trying to position themselves to the left of both, its a very strange campaign tactic. I think I'd file it away with the rest of "Hillary is panic-ing" stories.

The hillary-ous part of the story is the bit where Obama tries to deny it and blame it all on some aide. Wow, there's strength of character for you. Take close note that Obama is such a panderer to the corporate, right-wing point of view that he sees this story as something to be denied.

If I could still stomach being in the Democratic Party, the candidate I'd like to support would respond to this story with a Wellstone-ish type of strong speech that says 'damn right I'm to the left of Hillary. And proud of it. And here's why I'm right and Hillary is wrong.'

Too bad Wellstone is dead.

She's flipped. Our politicians are too far gone. I am all for letting Putin/Chavez run the country.

Such arrogance. She is already positioning herself for the general election so she can show how tough and to the right she is. Hopfully this will backfire and Dems (who say they want change) won't give her the nomination.

Hillary is attacking Obama because her campaign is imploding.

The poll numbers coming out of Iowa and NH are driving her nuts. They show a very tight race, with Obama and Edwards right on her heels. Her entire campaign strategy was built on the fact that her early name-recognition gave her early leads. So she tried to take that and push the line for months that Hillary getting the nomination was 'inevitable.'

That worked with the Democratic party hacks for whom the only thing they care about is that they pick a winner. They've all tied themselves now to a ship that sinking fast. And they are all probably quite nervous about it.

Hillary is in panic-mode because she's having to craft a new strategy in what is just really the last few days of the campaign. Remember, everyone takes off for Christmas in a few days and won't care about politics. And no one sane would run negative TV ads during the Christmas holidays. Can you picture sitting around the family TV watching Rudolph, and then an ad comes on with Hillary looking like an attack bitch flinging mud. Ain't gonna work. So, while the calendar says its about three weeks out to the first elections, the real world says Hillary might have a week to ten days tops to save her sinking campaign.

If Hillary comes out of Iowa and NH as the loser in both, the inevitability of her nomination is shattered. And, as the useless blowhards like Dodd and Biden drop out, it will quickly become a race of the 'anybody but Hillary vote' unifying on anyone left standing against her. If she doesn't have the nomination sewn up before then, she's toast.

The big day is the national primary on Feb 5th. If Hillary loses Iowa and NH, she'll have no momentum and her fundraising will dry up. She'll look like a sure-loser that no one will want to support.

After all, its not her charming personality that's been attracting support. Its been the power political machine that's said if you are a party hack and want to advance, attach yourself to Hillary as the sure winner. Take that away and all she's got left to run on is her bitchy personality and her right-wing, pro-corporate record.

This isn't about the general election.

She's trying to play the same 'electability' card that Kerry played in '04. She thinks the only thing the Dem voters will care about is someone who can beat a Republican. Like all mediocre strategists, she's still fighting the last campaign\war.

The Triangulatrix strikes again! For her next trick she will accuse him of not being "manly" enough.

I'd guess the death penalty crack was for the benefit of white, male, Southern voters, and the "socialized medicine" point for the AMA, insurance industry and pharmaceuticals.

One time I actually puked when I saw Hillary on tv. There should be a law against her. Or, here's an idea, use one of her speeches in place of waterboarding torture. Given a choice, I'd take the waterboarding.

It is hilarious that anyone could call Obama too far left. I happen to be a leftist and I can tell you Obama ain't one of us.

Every day Hillary reminds me more and more of Richard Nixon.She can't accuse Obama of being "Soft on Communism." There's no traction in that any more but soon we'll hear that he's "Soft on Terrorism."

The salient feature that I remember about Nixon is that there was no position he would not reverse, no principle he would not betray, no sleazy tactic he would not persue, no depths to which he would not stoop on behalf of himself.

To our friend Daniel David: This article shows just how futile it is supporting the Dems, in their continuing move to the right. The result is things just keep moving to the right, to the point where some corporate hack like Obama can be pictured as a "leftist". And now it has come to this: you are prepared to support Hillary Milhaus Clinton! Would you buy a used car from That Woman?

If he is too far left one more reason to vote for him.

Obama is such a wimp. An empty suit, a slick celebrity playing a role, pandering, to feel-good platitudes, devoid of substance and further away from the black experience, raised in Hawaii- by a white mother from Kansas, than most Americans who would think twice about complaining about the battles of the 60's. Including civil rights. His message is that liberalism is shameful because he shrinks away.
The Clintons are NeoCons and their message is that liberalism is shameful because they accuse other Democrats of being liberal.

Not much of a choice there since the majority of the country leans towards liberal views on the issues but don't have any representitives to stand firm on the issues--as if it was liability.

It isn't just the dishonesty of Clinton's smear. (Obama isn't left wing; single payer isn't radical left, neither are gun control or anti-death penalty). It isn't just the disloyalty to her own party (attacking the active base for a cheap and temporary bump in the polls). It isn't just the stupidity (she probably won't get the temporary bump). It isn't just her utter disconnect with the majority of party members and substantial numbers of repub and independent voters (many much farther "left" than Clinton or Obama, many pro-single payer and anti-war because it is sensible, not because it is "left" or "right").

In a sane country, the above would completely disqualify a candidate and derail a campaign. But it is even worse than all that. What we are seeing here is utter, unprincipled ruthlessness, megalomania and power-madness. Clinton is obviously quite willing to throw everything and everybody over board for her shot at the newly above-the-law "unitary executive". Think about it for a minute: if Clinton gets in and swings right who will there be to stop her? The left will be vanquished. The Repubs will be attacking her from the Right, but there won't be any room on the right for an attack - Hillary will be there already.

But no, forget all that! We should support her because she might (MIGHT) be able to get a reliably pro-choice hack corporate lawyer on the SC, right?

yes, obama is too far left. Unlike Bill Clinton, he probably won't leave the primary campaign trail to go back to his home state to preside over the execution of a brain damaged african american male. That is what the "progressive" Bill Clinton did to get elected.

EVERYONE is left of Hillary.....

Sorry to be slightly off topic:

I just heard that Kucinich has been excluded from the debate this Thursday, 12/13, sponsored by the Des Moines Register, because his Iowa organization is based in someone's house, not an office. I just wrote to the newspaper, and called CSPAN (which is showing the debate) to express my displeasure (to be mild about it). Please do the same if you support DK.

I don't understand why anyone even pays attention to this mini Lady MacBeth. The very fact that she's even in contention for the presidency should tell you everything. She's bought and paid for by the plutocracy and the American people are too cowardly to do anything but whine and complain while another fascist is foisted on them.

Forgive me for going off topic....

I just read where Dennis Kucinich has been barred/banned from the Iowa debate on a "technicality". That's right: he is not allowed to participate in ANYTHING going on in the fair state of Iowa. That is the final straw for me.

Read here for more: http://www.dennis4president.com

I will follow any responses to my post during this thread and then I'm giving up and signing off. I wish you all the best of luck in your political AND personal endeavors. This corrupt system is beyond saving and I refuse to waste anymore time trying to ward off a hurricane with an umbrella. Be well, All.........

"Too far left." I understand each word individually, but strung together, it's just gibberish, lacking in meaning.

HRC -- America's answer to Eva Peron.

The idea of "left" and "right" come from the seating arrangement of the French Parliament during their 1780s and 90s revolution. It creates a mental image of a continuum, and that plays into the corporate, militarists in both parties. There is no continuum. Progressive (according to the Green/Nader/Kucinich/Congressional Progressive Caucus platform) means a foreign policy that seeks peace through example and strict adherance to international law; an electoral policy that stands for the idea that the will of the people is the law of the land via public funding for elections, proportional representation in the legislature, real and instant runoffs and constitutional amendements via initiatives and referendums; a domestic policy that builds a middle class, cares for all equally regarding health care and employment, and reverses the Hood-Robin economy by empowering workers to be on Boards and implementing progressive taxation. There is no spectrum or continuum. Clinton and Obama stand for none of these things. (Read Paul Street's essays on them at ZNet.) Edwards talks like he does, but has no progressive policies to implement *real* progressive policies even as he attacks "corporate Democrats," while actually being one.

Kucinch is a true progressive. So is Cindy Sheehan. So is Gravel. So are Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Diane Watson, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., John Lewis, Jim McDermott. And several others in Congress. So is the Green Party. So was Wellstone. By entertaining the left/right deception, we enable ourselves to be marginalized as "extreme." The truth is, a majority of Americans are progressive in terms of the major parts of the progressive platform. And 30 percent self-identify as progressive according to a 2007 Gallup Poll.

Hillary isn't right or left she's a fascist So is Obama and all the other demo's and repugs except Kucinich. If I can't vote for Kucinich I don't think I'll vote for anybody at all. Voting for a third party message doesn't work either. I think the best thing us voters can do is just not vote. That would definitely send a message.

Neither of them are where most Americans are on Health Care. Most of us are tired of spending 12,000$/year on health care so some private corporation can make a profit off our sicknesses.

Just as I suspected, Hillary's politics is really on the Far Right. Just like Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

She seems to be getting desperate for come backs. She lacks unity.

What is even more maddening than Hillary's accusations, is the all-but-shouted unspoken assumption in this mainstream article that someone who opposed the death penalty and backed socialized medicine really would be "too far left" They even put "single payer" in scare quotes.

not enough time to read all the comments, so I might be repeating someone here...sorry!

bait and switch.

will obama risk taking the bait and come out even further right? verified he supports the death penalty....

will this impact Iowa voters is question? Insider snapshot? what the hell? a cheesier form of entertainment weekly? --if it could get any worse....

anyway, came across this on a blog week ago...here is a one political ranking system.

where do the candidates place? hmm ... looks pretty right and far right to me... but what do I know?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008u

ANYBODY BUT HILLARY!!!

She is too far right of Bush

Hillary Rodham Clinton is too far to the right. She's what some call a "Republicrat".

Dennis Kucinich is getting my vote.

Hillary Clinton along with Joseph Lieberman are Republican plants. Declared themselves Democrats in order to weaken and destroy the Democratic party. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, guess what . . . .? That's why she is being supported by large Republican corporations/military industry, etc.

Earthian -

I been saying this 4 months. We must reframe or continue fighting an uphill battle.

'Progressive' invokes getting somewhere.
'Left' invokes 'out of left field' and must deal with those who are 'right'. Try winning a argument based on those ideas.

It's a third way. Get off the x-axis of right-left. Y? (geometric humor-who'd'a thunk it was possible?).

Leftists will never pick up the votes of bitter conservatives but progressives might.

This is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black".

They both pander to the MIC and MSM has kept them both in the limelight from day one.

If a real pol was taken across the nation, and their really were debates between the candidates, the majority of people would select Kucinich, Edwards and Gravel as the top choices. In Thom Hartmann's 'straw pol' It's been Edwards then Kucinich, as a close second. Un-American and pro-Bush supporter Hillary Clinton comes in a far distant third or fourth, behind a far distanced third or fourth Obama.

Not all Americans are ignorant, ya' know. Hillary Clinton, ( Diane Feinstein (secret Nazi admirer) and their kind have jaded personalities and have sold their souls for money and power. They have no feminine instincts left. As for Obama, he's too ambitious for his own good but knows who butters the bread.

Kucinich for President, Mike Gravel or Ralph Nader for VP in 08! Cindy Sheehan needs to defeat the not so gentle lady from the city by the bay. Hey gals and guys. Remember that song from JOURNEY?

Pure idiotism. I am 100% sure this is like a great blessing for the Obama campaign, and we will see him surge ahead of Hillary at some point.

"Leftists will never..." - oops, my bad.

Never say never - Romeovoid

In battle terms, attacking from the left is a head-on, World War I-style assault that will be bloody and most likely unsuccessful. That's what is expected and the defenses are in place. Making progress (see, there's that word!) will be difficult and costly.

Get around the flanks. Attack from undefended sides.

The antithesis of 'Progressive' is 'regressive'. How much more useful that term would be in describing our political enemies than 'right-wingers'.

'Retarding' is another opposite and would allow beaucoup cheap shots at the sorry-assed excuses of human beings we have as candidates (with too few exceptions).

Change the battlefield of words and ideas to our advantage.

Apparently anyone who doesn't love bush, support waterboarding and other torture, support the 'war' on terror, think Iraq was a good idea, or believe that Valorie Plame got what was coming to her is too far left. If you like Ms. Sheehan you are too far left. If you are against the death penalty you're too far left. If you aren't a bible thumping neo-conservative hawk that hates muslims you are too far left.
I guess I'm WAY left then. I'm so far left I can't even see the fence.

Hillary is a fascist. But I am sick of "The attack, coming as a surprising new ABC News-Washington Post poll showed her national lead over Obama widening to 30 points,..."

These "polls" make me sick. I am tired of being lied too. Everywhere I brows I see that Kucinich is the candidate of choice. He is the only reason I am designated a democrat. If he goes, I go.

These debates are criminal. How dare they exclude Kucinich.
I am not for fascism or the New World Order. Kucinich is the only one that can lead this country.

Our politics is BANKRUPT. Only fools would have expectations that anything good could come out of the system as it is now. There is NO LEFT OPTION which is viable here. The left has been CUT OUT by the fascist rightist majority which includes most democrats as well. The system will meander on in its way to total tyranny. We're more than three quaters of the way there now. There is really no hope whatsoever that solutions will come from the system that exists. Only when the whole thing collapses which is inevitable within the next ten or twenty years might there be some chance for us to have a sane social democracy here. Meanwhile anyone who isn't rich is going to experience a downhill slide into economic insecurity, and the society will become ever more dysfunctional.