Obama vs. Clinton – October 2002
In determining which of the two leading Democratic candidates would make the most competent and credible commander-in-chief, it is revealing to compare the public statements of U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama during October 2002, when Congress voted to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Former President Bill Clinton, at a recent rally on behalf of his wife, insisted that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama had had virtually identical records on the Iraq war and that Obama’s claim that he “had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning” was “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
The record from that fateful month, however, shows that there were indeed major differences between the two presidential contenders, with Senator Clinton supporting the Bush administration’s push for war and its exaggerated claims about Iraq’s alleged military prowess while Obama was opposing a U.S. invasion of that oil-rich country and openly challenging the administration’s exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat.
Though under no obligation as a state senator to make any public statements on foreign policy, Obama took the initiative to speak out against the prospects of war at an anti-war rally in Chicago.
Obama believed that Iraq may have been able to develop chemical and biological weapons and he certainly carried no pretense about the nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime, referring to the late Iraqi dictator as “brutal” and “ruthless” and acknowledging that “The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.” At the same time, he recognized that “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors.” Furthermore, Obama noted how he recognized “that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained.”
That same month in Washington, however, Senator Clinton was insisting incorrectly that Iraq was “trying to develop nuclear weapons” and that Iraq’s possession of biological and chemical weapons was “not in doubt” and was “undisputed.”
Senator Clinton then went on record insisting that the risk that Saddam Hussein would “employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States” was enough to “justify action by the United States to defend itself,” specifically by authorizing President Bush to launch an invasion of Iraq at the time and circumstances of his choosing.
Even though Obama was right in emphasizing that war was unnecessary and Clinton was wrong, this hasn’t stopped the New York senator from accusing him to this day of being soft of Saddam Hussein. Despite Obama having called at that time for continued containment by the international community and the return of UN inspectors, Clinton charged in a nationally-televised interview on Meet the Press this January 14 that “His judgment was that, at the time in 2002, we didn’t need to make any efforts” to deal with that threat.
In other words, Clinton was trying to make the case that the ongoing international strategy at containment supported by Obama during this period - enforcing sanctions, maintaining an international force as a military deterrent, and returning UN inspectors to Iraq - was the same as “not making any efforts,” essentially using the Bush administration argument that refusing to support an invasion of Iraq equaled doing nothing.
Whether Iraq constituted a threat to U.S. national security was not the only thing that separated Clinton and Obama back in October 2002. In the months leading up to the Senate vote, former State Department and intelligence officials, European and Middle Eastern allies, scholars specializing in the region, and others argued that a U.S. invasion would likely result in a bloody insurgency, a rise in Islamist extremism and terrorism, increased sectarian and ethnic conflict, and related problems.
Despite this, Senator Clinton insisted that her voting to authorize the invasion was “in the best interests of our nation.”
Meanwhile, back in Chicago, Obama was observing how “even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He also recognized that “an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda.”
In summary, on the most critical political question of the decade, a freshman state senator from Illinois was able to figure out what an experienced member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee could not - that Saddam Hussein was no longer a threat and that an invasion of Iraq would harm America’s national security interests. Over the next few weeks, Democratic voters will have the opportunity to decide whether which of these two leading candidates has the best judgment to lead this country during this next critical period.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and international relations at the University of San Francisco and the author of the September 30, 2002 cover story “The Case Against War” in The Nation magazine.
What is surprising about a Republican (officially a DINO) who uses Rove’s playbook — using distortions to attack the opponent in the area of one’s own weakness?
Of course the disciple of Saint Raygun isn’t any angel either.
Obama would probably make a better president but in the end they all feed at the same trough. None of them are trustworthy..not Edwards, not Kucinich. Maybe Nader or McKinney…but I dont trust the rest of them.
Okay, from now on, everyone who keeps insisting that Obama is a “disciple of Saint Raygun” or anything of the sort, despite Obama himself having definitively answered that baseless canard in last night’s debate, is officially an IDIOT.
It is true that Obama expressed admiration for Reagan’s success in crafting a winning coalition that allowed him to achieve many of his goals. Obama would like to do likewise, except that his own goals are nearly the opposite of Reagan’s. That’s what he said. That’s what he meant. That’s all there is to it.
Kelmer,
It is true that Obama will make a better president, AND that they feed at the same trough. My feeling, though, is that Kucinich has a way to go — suing all these states, I mean — and, I’m going to vote for him.
Hillary will make a better Republican. I don’t care! She voted every time, with Bush.
The Clinton’s have not only obscured her full-throttle support of Bush and the war but they have taken Obama into the sewer where they live. When you are fighting rats you must go down into the sewer and that is where they have the advantage on their own territory
Obama is only half good. Why doesn’t he drop the other shoe? That the POTUS and his collaborators, such as Hillary, are war criminals and that his administration will prosecute them? Instead, he offers a forget-the-past outlook which makes him complicit in the monstrous crimes against humanity committed by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nader2000, everyone who wants to forget about the war crimes is also officially an idiot. If Obama will not hold anyone accountable, phooey on him.
Nader2000 wrote, in response to my earlier comment:
“Okay, from now on, everyone who keeps insisting that Obama is a “disciple of Saint Raygun” or anything of the sort, despite Obama himself having definitively answered that baseless canard in last night’s debate, is officially an IDIOT.”
Okay, as a certain famous fascist recently said, “That hurts my feelings.”
Obama has been flirting with the supply-side warmongers among Republicans and Independents from the beginning of the race. I believe many, many people who believe in the causes of peace, justice for working people, environmental protection, honest government, and racial harmony, and basically the welfare of the great majority of people in the US and the world, were seriously offended by Obama’s praise and any explanations sound disingenuous, as he was at the time obviously trying to obtain a newspaper endorsement.
Obama spit in the eye of progressives, maybe as much as any candidate who praises Strom Thurmond in some offhand way spits in the eye of every African-American. Obama may still be the lesser evil in comparison with Hillary, but he certainly closed the gap.
People just aren’t listening and have tuned out everything except the image and entertainment value of Clinton and Obama. The press and especially broadcast media cover politicians,not politics. So little is expected in terms of any sort of reform of the process, that this junk politics is what the vast majority of people who do vote, go along with. There out to be huge demonstrations outside every venue where these “debates” are held.
Obama completely lost me as a voter when he linked himself to Reagan. Hillary never had my vote, since she is corporate/military sponsored. Edwards of the top three is the only hope. Yet, “they” won’t let him be elected. Kucinich was removed from debates by “rules.” Sorry Democracy is dead. The election is rigged. Food for thought: When was a coup d’etat ever elected out?
I think the record is clear, once we think for ourselves. Zunes clarifies the question of who supported the war and who opposed it. Clinton mispoke when she said Obama “liked Reagan.” Obama repeated verbatim his appreciation of Reagan’s ability to craft a coalition but clearly denounced Reagan’s politics. The email currently circulating about Obama’s church being a Muslim terrorist organization is easily debunked when you investigate the Trinity United Methodist mission statement and speak to their members in your own communities. And yet people cling to their mistaken, ignorant biases.
Clinton may be the most experienced candidate still in the race, but experience making wrong choices is not a good thing. (Biden has more experience and would have made the best president.) Clinton and Edwards want to force their politics on the rest of us–they both have a universal health plan, for instance, but they don’t account for the individual’s right to choose. Obama offers a health plan for everyone WITHOUT forcing everyone to join. Many people, like myself, don’t need or want insurance.
Obama is clearly the most ethical candidate running. He is also the most conscientious about his responsibilty to make the right decisions. He had the foresight and the courage to oppose the war from the beginning. He has the vision to see the need for coalition building–a democratic foundation. He has good ideas that will benefit all of us, but he allows for individual choice. And he has the support of the people, who are breaking their piggy banks to fund his campaign. He is the most democratic of all the democratic contenders. But many people won’t see that because they let others do their thinking for them.
Anything to get back into the whitehouse–outswaggering Bush, vulnerable teariness, strident machismo to picked-upon poor, unliked little Hillary to calling out attack dog hubby to a feminist exploiter to Bush league lies upon lies to racist subtexts. The sleazy Clinton soap opera promises more mediocre reruns for primetime.
If the article doesn’t even bother to mention D.K. and now Edwards it might as well be about McCain and huchabee.
What’s newsworthy aint the fact that its down to Obama & Clinton, it’s the systematic exclusion of anyone who might consider the interests of the population.
Obama, nearly every time he had the chance, voted to fund the occupation. THAT is meaningful. Obama’s statements at the time are less so. Obama (and Clinton) believes NOW that he as president would have the right to launch attacks on Pakistani soil, a violation of the UN Charter Article 4 (2). Obama (and Clinton) says NOW that “all options are on the table” with regard to Iran and its (commercial and legal) nuclear energy program, for which they have an “inalienable right” according to Article 4 of the NPT. That is a threat of nuclear war against a non-nuclear weapons possessing nation that is breaking no laws.
Kucinich believes in none of these crimes and has not committed them. He has not threatened Iran, as Clinton and Obama have. He has not funded the illegal, immoral, imperial occupation of Iraq as Obama and Clinton have done. Neither have apologized for either. Any Green Party candidate would also be progressive, like Kucinch, in adhering to international law and the Nuremberg precedents.
Therefore, the differences between Obama and Clinton are trivial compared to their current corporate, militarist policies and war crimes of threatening Iran (See the text of Art. 4 (2) to see that threats are a crime.) And such policies are completely at odds with their so-called advocacy for social programs like health care, for only by reducing the Pentagon budget would any such programs be affordable.
Nader2000 says, and I agree:
“Okay, from now on, everyone who keeps insisting that Obama is a “disciple of Saint Raygun” or anything of the sort, despite Obama himself having definitively answered that baseless canard in last night’s debate, is officially an IDIOT.
“It is true that Obama expressed admiration for Reagan’s success in crafting a winning coalition that allowed him to achieve many of his goals. Obama would like to do likewise, except that his own goals are nearly the opposite of Reagan’s. That’s what he said. That’s what he meant. That’s all there is to it.”
I’m repeating this again for all those people who will believe what they believe, even if the facts prove otherwise. The above statements are good examples.
It’s no wonder the Progressive’s haven’t won an election in a century. As Common Dreams and Huffington Pot’s commenters have proved: We can hate and repeat lies just like any Right Wing Nut.
maggie50,
Nice spin, but, as reported by Paul Krugman yesterday, Obama made the ridiculous claim, among others, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
Dynamism in warmongering, destroying trust in government, comforting the comfortable, further afflicting the afflicted, exploding the deficit, undermining environmental protection, pursuing terrorism and pillage in Central and South America, …. ?
I still find Obama less odious than HRC, but Obama did cross the line in his praise of Reagan. That should not be disputed.
Who cares about these weasels? Not me!
Looks like Ralph might run again. FINALLY I can get interested in the race & can send some money to & that I can volunteer for (someone I can trust.)
Run Ralph run!
Yes!
Obama has supported the war and occupation of Iraq ever since he has been a US Senator and that was Bill Clintons point.
When Obama was asked how he would have voted, if he had been a US Senator at the time of the vote, he replid, “I don’t know”.
Clinton’s argument is, “that yes, Obama did speak out against the war when he was an Illinois State Senator, but ever since he has been in Congress, he has supported it 100%. That’s a fact, but he blasts Hillary for her identical votes and refuses to acknowledge the truth of it. That is not the sort of thing I wish to see in our president. We’ve had far enough bullshit from presidents.
my2sense wrote “Clinton and Edwards want to force their politics on the rest of us–they both have a universal health plan, for instance, but they don’t account for the individual’s right to choose. Obama offers a health plan for everyone WITHOUT forcing everyone to join. Many people, like myself, don’t need or want insurance.”
Edwards made the perfect analogy last night, comparing this to Social Security. I believe as Edwards does that we cannot let people opt out or they will not participate. It is fantasy to believe that the working poor will choose to take money out of their pockets to pay for health care. As this poster notes, they believe they do not want or need healthcare. But the fact remains that those of us that pay for healthcare end up paying for people who choose not get healthcare for whatever reason. Obama has also flirted with privatizinf SS so this should come as no surprise but it is not a progressive position. It shows an ideology, unlike mine, that does not believe that together, through our government we can make this country better for everyone. It was great to see Obama called out for his high level of abstraction when it comes to the most difficult policy choices.
A vote for Ralph is a vote for the republican candidate. Think about it people. If Ralph thinks he is helping to bring about a boader demcratic choice by ensuring a split in our defenses, he is a fool. The repubs will bury us in our own principles. Why not stand together to get the repubs out, then work from within to change the system? My dead grandmother has a better chance of winning than Ralph Nader, no matter how good a president he might make. But if we don’t save this country from the corporate fascists this time around, I’m afraid our consititution is as good as dead. Will Nader be any closer to his goal of a broader democratic process then?
Obama’s best attribute is, he is an excellent orator. He votes so do not agree with his talk. tha tmay be “SMART” politics, but do we really want another “SMART” politician?
I want an honest and a very intelligent one who will fight to restore our democracy. ~John Edwards~
Edit does not work again! His votes do not agree with his talking.
(1) Clinton Smears on Obama’s Iraq War Record
“Indeed, reporters asked Mr. Obama about the Democratic presidential ticket throughout the 2004 campaign, because Senators John Kerry and John Edwards had both voted for the Iraq war resolution. In an interview with The New York Times in July 2004, he declined to criticize Mr. Kerry or Mr. Edwards over the Iraq vote, but also said that he would not have voted as they had based on the information he had at the time.
”But, I’m not privy to the Senate intelligence reports,” Mr. Obama said. ”What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.”
“Clinton Camp Challenges Obama on Iraq” by Patrick Healy, March 22, 2007
As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.” -Bill Clinton, March 18, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html
“Bill Clinton’s Own Fairy Tales on Obama’s Views on Iraq”
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14219.html
“Hillary Clinton on Iraq”
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802
(2) Clinton Smears on Ronald Reagan Comment
“Obama-Reagan Context You Have Not Read”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/172928/040/265/439089
What Obama said was that “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not.”
“I don’t want to present myself as some kind of singular figure…I think what is different is the times…I think we’re in one of those times right now. I think that we’re bogged down in one of those times right now…I think Kennedy moved the country in a fundamentally different direction…I think the Republican approach has played itself out…What I’m saying is is that I think the average baby boomer has moved beyond the issues of the 60s, but our politicians haven’t…Even when we talk about war our frame of reference is the Vietnam War…Well that’s not my frame of reference…My frame of reference is is what works.”-Barack Obama
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews
18 minutes in
Is anyone making the case that Bill Clinton fundamentally altered America?
Hillary will say anything to win. She voted for the 2001 and 2005 Bankruptcy Bills written by the Credit Card Industry (so now you have a 29% interest rate instead of a 30% interest rate). She voted for the Iraq War in 2002 written by The Vice President’s Office. And she supported Most Favored Nation Status for China written by Wal-Mart lobbyists. She supports Mitt Romney’s Corporate Health Insurance Mandates. Oh and by the way, she sat on the the Board of Wal-Mart when Barack Obama was working for the working poor on the streets of Chicago.
Hillary’s Free Trade Agenda
“…she supported most favored nation trade status despite concerns about China’s human rights record.
William Kristol, a self-described Reagan-era internationalist and the editor of The Weekly Standard, said Mrs. Clinton’s speech sounded like the thoughts of Senator Moynihan. But, he said, her remarks hearkened back to Reagan as well. ”You’ve got to be happy that Democrats are now willing to embrace at least some aspects of energetic American leadership,” he said.”
“Mrs. Clinton Suggests That U.S. Engage Aggressively in World Affairs” by Dean E. Murphy, October 18, 2000
Hillary/Edwards/Mitt Romney’s Corporate Mandated Health Insurance Plans
“But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.
Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state’s insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year’s national average. That would undercut the plan’s secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs.“We’re going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits,” said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. “If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don’t think health reform is sustainable.”…
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html
I agree that Edwards made the perfect analogy last night, comparing his health care plan to Social Security. Thank you for making my point. According to Social Security law, many categories of wage earners are exempt from paying into SS-
Workers are not required to pay Social Security taxes on wages from certain types of work:
Wages received by certain state or local government workers participating in their employers’ alternative retirement system, like postal workers and railroad employees.
Net annual earnings from self-employment of less than $400.
Wages received for service as an election worker, if less than $1,400 a year (in 2008).
Wages received for working as a household employee, if less than $1,600 per year (in 2008).
Wages received by college students working under Federal Work Study programs, graduate students receiving stipends while working as teaching assistants, research assistants, or on fellowships, and most postdoctoral researchers.
Earnings received for serving as a minister (or for similar religious service) if the person has a conscientious objection to public insurance because of personal religious considerations, but only for “qualified services” performed for a religious organization.
I’m sick of this primary B.S. (we know how this works and what its leading to) so lets skip ahead.
I know that Edwards does not want to be V.P. But.
I wonder what reaction a Clinton/Edwards ticket would get.
I wonder what happens to the rest of the field when they Party picks a candidate?
will any go 3rd party who? D.K? Edwards/Nader?
realitychecker, it is fantasy to believe the working poor have any money in their pockets to spend on health care, And now that the Federal Reserve Bank has decided to resuscitate the stock market by heating up inflation, it will only get worse for them. We need universal single payer health care. It’s efficient, affordable, and all sectors of the economy pay a fair share into it. And unlike the insurance industry health care system, the government stays out of health care decisions. That’s between you and the health care provider of your choice. Very few people have a clue about it because the Propaganda Ministry is silencing every voice on the subject.
Another voice they are silencing is that of Edwards, now that he is insisting our national wealth needs to be fairly shared with the middle and working classes. I’m sure that’s why Nader is considering another run, because Edwards is being marginalized for taking a stand.
Yes, Hillary and Obama are answering to the same masters, but no tactic is too low for Hillary. Obama is trying to run a positive campaign and avoid negative fighting, and Hillary is trying to kneecap him and distort and lie. She can’t admit she made a mistake. Gee, who else do we know with that character flaw?
kathyodat
And I’ll repeat what Maggie 50 repeated:
Nader2000 says, and I agree:
“Okay, from now on, everyone who keeps insisting that Obama is a “disciple of Saint Raygun” or anything of the sort, despite Obama himself having definitively answered that baseless canard in last night’s debate, is officially an IDIOT.
“It is true that Obama expressed admiration for Reagan’s success in crafting a winning coalition that allowed him to achieve many of his goals. Obama would like to do likewise, except that his own goals are nearly the opposite of Reagan’s. That’s what he said. That’s what he meant. That’s all there is to it.”
I’m repeating this again for all those people who will believe what they believe, even if the facts prove otherwise. The above statements are good examples.
It’s no wonder the Progressive’s haven’t won an election in a century. As Common Dreams and Huffington Pot’s commenters have proved: We can hate and repeat lies just like any Right Wing Nut.
If any of us who frequently comment on Common Dreams could actually go and step into the shoes of a Senator or a Congressperson for a few months, especially during a hardcore right wing dictatorship, they would have very different things to say about individual bills passed. I would be the first to downplay Edwards’ sincerity, for example, because he voted for just about all the stuff he rails against now, with the exception of the various free trade agreements.
There is a tendency in our progressive world to respond to ditto-heads with “ditto”. The time has long been approaching, and is here now, when we have to learn how to approach these times with an open mind, heart and the wisdom to know that responding to aggression and fear with just more aggression and fear, creates nothing but agression and fear. Just like a man can admit that another man is very good looking , with out actually being gay, a left winger can look at a right winger or a centrist, as the case may be, and see the potential merits in what they are saying if there are any. The point is, if we can’t sit at the table, we can’t make the deal. Reagon, love him or hate him, got a lot of D’s to sit at the table. Obama believes in that approach, only from a vastly different direction. I think Edwards probably does too, only Obama’s voting record is far superior. And finally, voting for funding, contrary to what we like to say here on the site, is NOT voting to support the war. When you have a nutcase in the White House, who will keep those boys in there no matter what, we owe it to them to keep them armoured and fed, at the very least. Obama sees the need to fund them and work for their safe return at the same time. It’s painful sometimes to work that way, but that is how deals are honestly made. Politics is about getting as much as you can get, without expending everything else in the process.
Obama is an amazing speaker. So many of my friends, some of them used to actually be good lefties–have fallen for the “intanglibles” he excells at. But, with his Reagan remark, he lost me. Completely. For good.
The Reagan revolution marked the decline of progressivism/liberalism and the rise of modern right-wing conservatism. He was brilliant in redefining the agenda, the terms of the debate, and political spectrum. As a result of his presidency, we have entered a political environment where true economic progressivism is outside of the scope of realpolitik. The corporations have won.
I have deep regret about Obama’s decision to pick up the Clinton mantle of the Third Way/moderate Republican approach. He gives such a damned good speech. But he lost me when he failed, while praising the economic dynamism associated with Reagan,to make it clear that that was a myth. Reagan-onomics, like Bush-onomics, failed. Until the national Dems can mouth those words, without embarrassment, there will be no real change for the working people of this country.
Edwards 2008
dlp67, you said that Reagan was brilliant. Does that make you a Reagan supporter?
How can anyone argue with Edwards being the attack dog against the number one threat to democracy in America? Corporations, in collusion with government are creating a fascist state, but I don’t hear Clinton or Obama speaking out about undue influence of corporate money in the election process, or administrative process after the elections, do you?
Although I wanted to watch the debates last night prior committments prevented this. Instead I got to watch an endless tirade of BS from pundits about who would be the better president, basically the choice between only the first really viable black candidate (who I don’t trust), or the first really viable woman candidate (who I REALLY don’t trust). On CNN I would estimate the mention of Edwards was reduced to about one fiftieth of the time spent discussing Clinton or Obama. When I switched over to MSNBC, Edwards was hardly mentioned either, so my ire was certainly aroused when they showed the results of a poll that had Edwards beating either of the other two candidates in the debate by a huge margin of 15-20 percent.
Now you don’t think that this obvious attempt to exclude Edwards, and shove these other two candidates down our collective throats, could have anything to do with the fact Edwards is speaking out against corporate control of America & our government, do you? Or the fact he has accepted only about one tenth the corporate contributions/bribes the other two Democratic top tier candidates have? Since most of the US media is Jewish controlled & owned a good place to start to “follow the money” might be to see how much financial support (extortion) groups such as AIPAC give to (can exact from) the candidates. Corporate people don’t give their money/bribes and expect to get nothing in return, now do they?
Forget Obama & Clinton, unless you want more of the same mega-money controlled crap we have suffered through for the past 7 disasterous years. The only chance I see for America to have a chance at real progress for the most of our citizens is for Kucinich & Edwards to join forces, reject the Democratic party, and run together on an independent ticket. By doing this not only would they be electable in this ‘call for change’ paradigm, but they would also be such a powerful force the MSM couldn’t ignore or marginalize them. Clinton & Obama constantly shoved down my throat by the corporate media leaves a bad taste in my mouth, how about you? It gags me to no end, but makes me want to spit nails.
my2sense
um, no.
Edwards 2008
All politicians lie to a certain extent, but possibly NONE of them had such a CONTINUOUS RECORD of LYING as CLINTON….the most ludicrous, of course, when he tried to explain to us the definition of “is.”
What his current lashing out at Obama is doing is REMINDING the American people NOT of the good legacy of his presidency, but of those times of LYING (and let’s not mince words by using “misspeaking) that permeated his eight years in office and culminating in that infamous impeachment charade.
HOW MANY people want to re-live those years of what came to be known as “triangulation” of the positions taken?
Clearly, Hillary has a record that many can LOOK UP if they don’t recall. Everyone has the internet and with a little research you can find some of her more despicable votes. My favorite which has received NO ATTENTION is the vote in FAVOR of CLUSTER BOMBS. This was an amendment put forth by Senator Dianne Feinstein, I think in 2006, and she was totally on the wrong side of this. Obama, in an instance when he DID vote, was on the right side–to prohibit use of cluster bombs.
Hey, guys. Do your background homework when they start to re-state who said what. And DO NOT take them at their word. It’s Bloody Tuesday coming up and probably the final word in who will be the candidate.
###
Earthian - “Obama (and Clinton) believes NOW that he as president would have the right to launch attacks on Pakistani soil, a violation of the UN Charter Article 4 (2).”
Article 4 paragraph 2 of the UN Charter states, “The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”
How does that make attacks on Pakastani soil a violation? This section deals with membership in the UN for states joining after the initial charter.
Earthian - “Obama (and Clinton) says NOW that “all options are on the table” with regard to Iran and its (commercial and legal) nuclear energy program, for which they have an “inalienable right” according to Article 4 of the NPT. ”
That only applies if the non-nuclear weapon country, Iran in this case, follows Articles 1 and 2 of the NPT. I think that there is evidence that they, IN THE PAST, had been in violation of Article 2 of the NPT, thus does Article 4 still apply?
I personally DO believe Iran has the right to pursue a commercial nuclear program even if it isn’t a good idea for sooooooo many reasons. However, if they do pursue a commercial nuclear program, then *they* have to prove that they are in accord with Article II, which they are not really working hard to do.
El Baredai has stated that Iran is in compliance, but just. Iran should do more to allow inspectors to prove tht they are not developing weapons. If they did this I would have no problems (other than the obvious environmental concerns) with their actions.
Vote for my wife she’s just as bad as the other guy?
Bill’s losing his touch.
He used to smarm much better.
As Paul Smith just wrote, the media almost totally ignores John Edwards. Wonder why? Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t, he has endorsed Edwards.
The media is owned by big corporations and their pundents are totally controlled by them. Thecorporations and big business fear John Edwards and they certainly should. If he’s elected, he will be in far more danger from them than JFK was. And as history proved, JFK was in grave danger.
I cannot see a Edwards/Kucinich slate going anyplace Paul, even though it would be a great slate. For one thing, Kucinich has insured they would not ever get along at all. If they ever did join forces as a third party, what media would fairly cover them? They would make jokes about them.
As John Edwards noted at the debate, He is the ONLY candidate which the polls show, will defeat Senator McCain or any other Republican candidate. If you want another Republican President, don’t vote for John Edwards.
kathyodat- I agree 100%. I am entirely for single payer not-for-profit health care. I was drawing the distinction between Edwards and Obama on this issue. And for those of you pretending that there is no way to opt out of Edwards plan you are wrong. But, you would not be able to opt out simply because you don’t want health care. Edwards says that low income workers and the unemployed would receive coverage without paying, it’s hard to tell whether that would really happen. But the truth is I do not trust Obama, at all. He is a wink and nod guy at progressives but he does not stand tall and proud for any progressive issue. I know the delusional Obama backers are gonna go nuts over this. And for the record I’d rather have the enemy I know (clinton) than Obama. I will vote Green if either Obama or Clinton are on the ticket, so don’t blame me if the Democratic party and their minions select either to be their candidate. If you choose Edwards, I will probably vote for him. So, you’ve been warned, a vote for Clinton or Obama in the primaries is a vote for McCain in the general (that’s of course using your own twisted logic of how a democracy works). Good luck with either of them in November….
dlp67 -
Sorry to nitpick, but I disagree “about Obama’s decision to pick up the Clinton mantle of the Third Way/moderate Republican approach.”
We should never conflate Ronald Reagan with Bill Clinton. Yes, Bill was a DLC Republican-Lite Democrat, but there were vast differences between him and Reagan. Reagan moved the REPUBLICANS to the right. His rhetoric was duplicitous and appealed to independents, yes. But, his agenda was extreme right. Even George H.W. Bush said his trickle-down theory was “voodoo economics,” and after eight years of Reagan, campaigned for the presidency on a “kinder and gentler” theme.
If Obama has decided to pick up any one’s mantle, it is Reagan’s, whom he repeatedly praises.
Responding to the Zunes’ article, he is correct that Obama was right and Hillary was wrong about the war in 2002. What Bill Clinton and others say is a “fairy tale” is that Obama’s claim to have been consistently anti-war. That IS a fairy tale. Obama cast several dozen pro-war votes since entering the Senate in 2005, and didn’t cast his first anti-war vote till 2007 — and that was for political expedience, since public opinion and his Democratic competition had moved to that position.
Bottom line, Hillary has been consistently wrong, Obama has been duplicitous and is now probably the most hawkish of the three leading Dems, and Edwards was wrong in 2002 but has been (mostly) right since 2003, and currently has the most aggressive Iraq withdrawal strategy. I’m pulling for Edwards.
If Edwards doesn’t get the nomination, we will end up with a Republican who I predict will be McCain. Hillary is despised by the right and left, and this country is racist. And the billions will continue to pour into Iraq while our economy is in freefall. So much for the middle class, headed for extinction.
kathyodat
The wife of the man who said,” I didn’t have sex with that woman—Monica Lewinsky.” is just as blatant a liar as the husband who claims fellatio is not sex.
BeForKids,
Exactly. Why do you think the corporate media has done all it could to ensure the Democratic nominee would be HRC or Obama? It looks like they will get their wish, though it appears they will fail in pushing the incredibly flawed Giuliani on us and will have to settle for madman McCain.
No matter how the Clinton’s try to obfuscate in their best Karl Rove imitation, there is no getting around the fact that Obama assessed that Iraq would become a debacle of the first order. Too many of the political class of this country went along with Dubya, Cheney, & Co. when obstruction was called for. Edwards went along with it too (though he has the grace to admit it was a mistake). No matter what verbal mud is slung, this voter knows who voted for what & will remember that when it is my time to cast a ballot.
It is sad that Obama enthusiasts are so concerned about the right interpretation of his recent remarks, yet in the next breath repeat lies about Ralph Nader that have years longer standing.
Either one is concerned with accuracy, or one is not.
What’s fellatio Saila? It sounds like a foot fungus or something? Is it Italian, it ends in O?
Just out of curiosity, what does everyone think about an Obama/Edwards ticket? I for one think that Edwards as a vice president is fantastic and would probably ensure he runs successfully later on. It would also give those who are skeptical of him (myself included) to really check him out in earnest. Obviously and Edwards/Kucinich tickets would be a giant love fest, but it just ain’t gonna happen.
Last thing: It seems a lot of folks here are really certain that Obama and Billary are basically the same corporate shills. However, I have seen very little evidence of Obama’s corporate side, nor anything else really that says he is anything like Hillary. It would be wonderful if we could get aways from the same bitching and moaning that the righties engage in about us, and instead focus on their actual voting records and the campaigns they are running and the ones they ran in the past. If there was ever a time to get down to the facts, this is it people.
Kucinich whishes he was ignored like Edwards.
From:
http://stormglass.blog.com/
A LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA - DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
Dear Mr. Obama,
If you truly believe all of the things you profess to believe then I
feel that there is only once sensible course of action: throw your
full weight behind the candidacy of Dennis Kucinich and hope that he
will return the favor by asking you to be his running mate.
This is the truly revolutionary thing to do. Such an act would
convince the majority of Americans that you really do stand for hope
and change. It would also convince the vast majority of the world’s
population, who are a good deal more savvy about such things than we
are, that we really are going to take our collective fingers off the
proverbial trigger.
Right now statistics show that the country is deeply disgusted with not
only the war but; the lies, the erosion of civil liberties, the so called war
on terror, the corruption of the media, the criminality in Washington, the
gangsterization of the private sector, the military complex and election
machinery. Many are demanding impeachment and we are all hungry
for a real democracy and an end to imperialistic doublespeak. We are all
pondering how those who kill, maim or torture millions around the world
over many decades through media manipulation and war could possibly
be held accountable. The answer escapes most because we are all ultimately
held accountable, through our actions. None are uninvolved.
With all due respect you do not appear to be on the path to providing us
with the complete legal and ethical overhaul this country, and even more
so the rest of the world, truly deserves. The song and dance the democratic
leadership is peddling is only mildly distinguishable from that which the neo-cons
are offering and everybody seems to knows it on one level or another.
If you remain on your current course your ability to change the system
from within will come up against the brick wall of the corporations who put
you in power in the first place. The only thing that might provide
you with the power to change the country for the better would be the
people themselves but they are not truly activated because you are cueing
them with a wink and a nod that you are not really about change in the
grand sense. Only enough change to be able to let some steam out of the
pot before spiraling down into a lame duck president mired in age old scandals.
The motivation of the people will be sapped significantly by our
bitter acceptance that you were just another politician who talked big
about change and hope but implemented and inspired very little of
either. We will have come to accept that hope does not come in the
form of handsome politicians who talk tough to get elected but
otherwise pretty much do what the ultra elite tell them to do.
You may score a few points with the people for normalizing relations
with the rest of the world and even more points from the elite for
helping to usher in their fabled new order but that certainly
isn’t going to give you the kind of legacy historians will want to
write about fifty or a hundred years from now. At least not write
about kindly. History is of course a much more brutal adversary than
republicans and progressives. History may just look at this time in
America and see two types of people occupying all points of the
political spectrum. Those aiding and abetting fascism and those doing
everything in their power to reverse our decline into a culture of
death and imperialist destruction.
If as you read this letter you take a deep breath and look into the
depths of your being, the part where you ponder the world your
children and their children will be left with, if you dig deep enough
you may awaken to the merit of this suggestion. If when you search
down into that personal space you have a most important epiphany and
come to understand what is at stake and what is good, then you may actually
take this outlandish concept to heart. If you do, the very next day historians
will sharpen their pencils to write about the unfolding of one of the
most noteworthy events in modern history. Far bigger and broader and
earth shattering than simply becoming the first black president - and
that’s saying a lot. That’s how big such a move would be.
Your readjusting to such a clear position of integrity and courage
would be such a large scale act of humility and grace that it would
stand to eclipse all of the horrible events of the past few years.
Such a statement would show that you really are worlds apart from
Edwards and Hillary and give the American people the chance to step up
to the challenge and emulate your gesture by, themselves, doing what
needs to be done.
Your sudden act of clear, breathtaking leadership would encourage
people not only to support Kucinich’s candidacy but also, even more
importantly to; start boycotting major corporations, start taking part
in the electoral process, start helping their neighbors get back on
their feet financially and otherwise transform themselves into better
people who are busy going about the business of creating a better world.
By singling out the one man who has been saying and doing the right
thing for the people of the world from the very beginning of this
national nightmare, you will be singling yourself out for the most
authentic form of political redemption. By embracing the man who has
implemented impeachment proceedings, and who accepts zero corporate
funding and who has the only truly not for profit universal healthcare
plan, you will be dramatically and unequivocally transforming your
words and positions into actions. Nothing would so boldly and
effortlessly place you among the truly heroic history makers of our time.
This is a time where we desperately need a new generation of founding
fathers and mothers to assume the reins in public life. So far, there
are only twenty-four signed on to Kucinich’s impeachment bill. It is a
start. We could use a Senator! By placing your weight behind Kucinich,
who would institute a truly incorruptible, peace seeking, environment healing
administration you will be taking a much more profound position of leadership
than by seeking the presidency yourself.
By backing Kucinich you would instantly become part of a broad
tapestry of citizens who are leading America through perhaps the most
significant transformation in her entire history. A growing coalition
that will help the world move toward peace and cooperation. By
becoming part of this team of truth seeking advocates and protectors
of the greater global community you will allow history to smile upon
you. You will also be, after eight years of Kucinich, elected for two
terms as the person who people trust most to make sure we don’t slide
backwards after all of our hard work.
It’s a hard decision. We certainly know what your handlers would say. Good luck.
Judgment Matters. The Truth Matters.
Zogby Poll. Dec. 12-14, 2007. N=1,000 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.2.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
Edwards loses to McCain and Giuliani in this poll. Obama is the only candidate to beat all 5 Republicans. Go figure.
“Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war.”
“Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the senators who read the report and a staunch critic of the war, said the findings were “enough to have me vote against going to war in Iraq.”
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html
‘HILLARY AND THE 2002 NIE’
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/25/204032.aspx
‘What I knew before the invasion’ by Senator Bob Graham D-Florida
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html
“Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren’t really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That’s the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?” - Barack Obama
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
Edwards wins over the Republicans in ten other polls, including USA Today, Time, LA Times, Bloomberg etc. ~Dogwagner~ posts his same song every chance he gets, his comments only tend to help the Republicans.
How anyone could vote for a self-serving sleazebag like Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Obama isn’t perfect but of the major candidates he is the clear choice.
I don’t really get the Edwards vote.
If you like Edwards why not Kucinich?
And if it’s because of electability.
Then what happens when the party snubs him and nominates Pinocchio?
Where does the support for him now go?
Will he will run third party? With Nader?
c farris, if you are interested in a left critique of Obama, then you may find some on the ZNet site, among other places.
Here is a representative sample:
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/15969
If some people want to throw Obama into the trash bin permanently because he said something positive about Reagan, then I’d suggest that you were never a Obama supporter in the first place. Reagan was an illiterate, racist, bad-acting asshole who ushered in the non-thinking, figure-head-only style of presidency regressive activists had been working on prior to his election. That said, we shouldn’t be so silly that we can’t look at him and see what made him successful at getting people to vote against their interests (which is what Obama said).
Obama has moderated his stances a good bit since his early days in Illinois and I hope that if he becomes the nominee and eventually the president, he remembers that. I definitely want to see our unofficial feudal system dismantled though. We’ve had the Bush and Clinton dynasties ruling the country since ‘88, and shit has been really bad. HRC winning the presidency would be a very depressing turn of events indeed.
Well, enough about these Dems. McKinney for President ‘08!
Obama is taking advice from Brzezinski, reason enough to not vote for this guy. You want another Afghanistan?
Especially given that Obama says he would go into Pakistan without approval–an international crime itself. And, instead of talking about fighting povery, like JRE, he’s wanting to increase the military budget and troop levels.
Earthian January 22nd, 2008 1:08 pm
“Obama, nearly every time he had the chance, voted to fund the occupation.”
Kucinich, the man of principle didn’t.
Thank you Earthian for being so down to Earth and stating the obvious and for saving me the time to say what you are saying. Well said!
p.s. Obama and Clinton are both pro-war, pro-big business and pro-status quo. Don’t listen to the pundits, just examine their records. By their deeds you shall know them.
Reply to Goose2 January 22nd, 2008 2:49 pm & 2:57 pm:
Goose2, thanks for your questions. I made an error in reference to the UN Charter.
When I wrote that Clinton and Obama committed the war crime of threatening to bomb Pakistan and Iran, I said that threat was a violation of Article 4 (2) of the UN Charter. I got the numbers backwards. Sorry!!! It is a violation of Article 2 (4) which reads:
“4. All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any member or state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
The “threat . . . of force” is a serious crime. Clinton and Obama are Senators in a nation with an enormous military. That makes the threat credible. Any threat against any member state is a crime. If a nation is mounting an attack, Article 51 allows a nation to engage in pre-emptive force to counter an actual or eminent attack *after* informing the Security Council of the fact of the attack which is being countered by force. That’s the way the law reads.
A nuclear attack on Iran would obviously be a crime of the use of force called a crime against peace, established at Nuremberg as the supreme international crime. It would also be a violation of the 1948 Genocide convention which forbids killing part or all of a people based on national or other identity.
Iran has not been found guilty of violating the NPT by the IAEA. It is the US that is in obvious violation of Article 6, for we are developing more nuclear weapons (see the QDR of 2007) instead of disarming via good faith negotations as Art. 6 requires. There is no public evidence available that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program. They have not invaded another nation nor overthrown one in modern times. Iran allows inspections of its nuclear facilities. See the IAEA website for the whole story. Questions of secrecy regarding their program in the past are just conflicts over sovereignty versus access. Besides, we actively support Israel’s and India’s weapons programs and they haven’t signed the NPT treaty. This totally undermines the treaty itself. Plus we are not in compliance with Article 6. The article requires complete nuclear disarmament.
Reply to tailcap January 22nd, 2008 6:57 pm: (two comments up)
You wrote: “Kucinich, the man of principle didn’t.” [Referring to not voting to fund the Iraq occupation.]
Thanks for your comments Railcap. I agree with you about Kucinich. The same applies to Mike Gravel and any Green Party candidate.
You say Obama and Clinton are pro war. If voting to fund the occupation is pro war (and I think that is true) then I agree with you.
Edwards voted for the use of force resolution in the fall of 2001. But he apologized for it. Yet he still threatens to attack Iran if they don’t bow down to illegal US demands and those of the UNSC. (”All options are on the table,” he says.) So, despite some of his populist rhetoric, he still has not committed to the rule of international law as a restraint on US use of force.
Maggie and Nader- way to hit the nail on the head!
“It’s no wonder the Progressive’s haven’t won an election in a century. As Common Dreams and Huffington Pot’s commenters have proved: We can hate and repeat lies just like any Right Wing Nut.”
Amen to that…sometimes I see no difference between the rheteroic between O’reily et al and the far left.
What I was raised to believe that the progressive really did stand for was in the spirit of the late Paul Wellstone, and the later Hubert Humphrey: An inteligent discussion understanding and LISTENING to all points, then making an informed decision. Just b/c the right spews venom and lies does not mean the left has to. Yet this is what I see a lot of on commondreams, moveon, etc; and it depresses me. For example I tried to respectfully dissent on a Chavez article, saying that his mouth and ego are getting in the way of ruining the movement, and I got called a right wing spy, racist redneck and a Gringo- (a racist term in and of itself.)
If we truly are better than they are- osea, left taking the intelectual high road, we cant do the same crap they do. That is why the Clinton campaign worries me, as they are using Rove-like tactics to destroy Obama. And, if she is so experienced, and if they do have Bill in their corner, why are they so afraid of him? Obama’s Regan remarks were taken out of context.
Furthermore, kudos to leobixby for recognizing that colations need to be formed. Enough of the my way or the highway crap. There are 300 million of us in the US, 7 billion of citizens in the world. We cannot all be ditto heads, cannot all have the same opinion, cannot all agree. That is where we need a strong colation builder. Bush didnt do it and look where we are. We all know if Hiliary gets elected, 1/2 the country will hate her right from the start. Can Obama build the colation? Can Edwards? I dont think K can, and Nader surley cannot get over his ego enough to do it either (he ruined a great chance to be a part of the pie and get the greens some spots in the white house in 2000).
I cannot make up my mind on who I want to support, but not sure that I have many choices either, which is probably the most depressing thing of all.
“In determining which of the two leading Democratic candidates would make the most competent and credible commander-in-chief, it is revealing to compare the public statements of U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama during October 2002, when Congress voted to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq.”
NEITHER! They are both shills for the status quo, tweedle dum and tweedle dummer. This article and over 1/2 of the following comments, including this one, are a waste of bandwidth!
I could care less what Obummer said about Ronnie RayGun! It is nothing but theater. Obummers whole campaign is nothing but theater, as is Billarys. Obummer will never win the general election I do not care what sort of poles dougnwagner trots out. All you star struck sappy Obama supporters are lying to yourselves, either that or you are working for the Repugs.
The core premise of Stephen Zunes piece here, that Hillary “supported Bush’s push for war,” is a deceitful and crass oversimplification, in effect, a lie.
Zunes knows this, yet he persists in this stupidity, in spite of it. But, Zunes’ lie, notwithstanding, the right-wingers, having gotten the tiniest opportunity to attack the Clinton name, engage their blood lust like comic book vampires. The BS is the same old, same old, we’ve seen for 10 years. The same adolescent fantasies and delusions. The same tired, lurid and empty charges. Why NewsCenter contributes to this silliness is beyond me. The public simply ignores this level of deceit, and, in spite of continuing attempts to bring Bill Clinton, and now his wife, down, the Clinton brand continues its ascent in the public mind. Bill Clinton, is easily the most respected, honored, beloved and popular president, probably, in history. Everywhere he goes in the world, he gets red carpet treatment, and 10 minute standing ovations. Little Zunes and his bitter, back-stabbing and jealous, extreme left and extreme right-wing crowd keep falling deeper and deeper into their hole.
I found me a great T-Shirt for the rest of the 2008 primary season!
http://tinyurl.com/yoba5w
johncpt January 22nd, 2008 8:01 pm - Ah the wisdom of the centrist. What a bunch of huey! Bill Clinton did more to push this country to the right, with his centrist appeasement policies, than any of his surrounding Republican peers. I will grant you that Clinton is a well respected statesman, but why that should make me want his wife as president I have no clue.
johncpt, the voting record is there. The evidence is on Zunes’ side. All you present is name calling and projection.
The vote to give Bush a blank check was what it was. Face facts.
Clinton and Edwards did not vote for more inspectors. They voted for war. In fact, the resolution that Clinton and Edwards voted for has no conditions attached to it. It is a resolution for war to invade and occupy Iraq for any reason Bush determines.
What H.J. Resolution 114 “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq” actually says:
“Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.”
[Section 8(a)(1): SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred–(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.” http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm]
“The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/october02/houseres_10-10-02.pdf
“Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren’t really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That’s the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…
We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.
That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don’t need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don’t need another President who thinks big but doesn’t feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don’t need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it’s time we had a President who acted like that.”- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
And seriousprofessor,
you are obviously not very serious, because you are calling Paul Street, a neo-stalinist, a leftist. He is a neo-stalinist hack job.
“[Obama] praises the architects of the Cold War for checking the Soviet Union’s nefarious designs “to spread [in Obama’s words] its totalitarian brand of communism.”- Paul Street
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?%20SectionID=72&ItemID=12928
Obama’s words? Give me a break. They were also Trotksy’s words. The fact that “the USSR modeled the possibility of independent national development outside the parameters of U.S.-led world-capitalist supervision” does not dismiss the fascism that made it possible. Hitler also modeled a possibility of independent development outside the parameters of British-led world-capitalist development and the fascism of Mobutuism ‘modeled a possibility of independent development outside the parameters of US-led world-capitalist development’. There is nothing intrinsic to that outsider status that is inherently good.
“The so-called friends of the Soviet Union (left democrats, pacifists, Brandlerites, and the like) repeat the argument of the Comintern functionaries that the struggle against the Stalinist bureaucracy, i.e., first of all criticism of its false policies, “helps the counter-revolution.” This is the standpoint of the political lackeys of the bureaucracy, but never that of revolutionists. The Soviet Union both internally and externally can be defended only by means of a correct policy. All other considerations are either secondary or simply lying phrases.
The present CPSU is not a party but an apparatus of domination in the hands of an uncontrolled bureaucracy. Within the framework of the CPSU and outside of it takes place the grouping of the scattered elements of the two basic parties: the proletarian and the Thermidorean-Bonapartist. Rising above both of them, the centrist bureaucracy wages a war of annihilation against the Bolshevik-Leninists. While coming into sharp clashes from time to time with their Thermidorean half-allies, the Stalinists, nevertheless, clear the road for the latter by crushing, strangling, and corrupting the Bolshevik Party.”
“Only the creation of the Marxist International, completely independent of the Stalinist bureaucracy and counterposed politically to it, can save the USSR from collapse by binding its destiny with the destiny of the world proletarian revolution.”- Leon Trotsky
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330715.htm
“Is it not monstrous?” – we wrote in March 1932. “The country can not get out of a famine of goods. There is a stoppage of supplies at every step. Children lack milk. But the official oracles announce: ’The country has entered into the period of socialism!’ Would it be possible more viciously to compromise the name of socialism?” Karl Radek, now a prominent publicist [1] of the ruling Soviet circles, parried these remarks in the German liberal paper, Berliner Tageblatt, in a special issue devoted to the Soviet Union (May 1932), in the following words which deserve to be immortal:
“Milk is a product of cows and not of socialism, and you would have actually to confuse socialism with the image of a country where rivers flow milk, in order not to understand that a country can rise for a time to a higher level of development without any considerable rise in the material situation of the popular masses.”
These lines were written when a horrible famine was raging in the country.
Socialism is a structure of planned to the end of the best satisfaction of human needs; otherwise it does not deserve the name of socialism. If cows are socialized, but there are too few of them, or they have too meagre udders, then conflicts arise out of the inadequate supply of milk – conflicts between city and country, between collectives and individual peasants, between different state of the proletariat, between the whole toiling mass and bureaucracy. It was in fact the socialization of the cows which led to their mass extermination by the peasants. Social conflicts created by want can in their turn lead to a resurrection of “all the old crap.” Such was, in essence, our answer.
The 7th Congress of the Communist International, in a resolution of August 29, 1935, solemnly affirmed that in the sum total of the successes of the nationalized industries, the achievement of collectivization, the crowding out of capitalist elements and the liquidation of the kulaks as a class, “the final and irrevocable triumph of socialism and the all-sided reinforcement of the state of the proletarian dictatorship, is achieved in the Soviet Union.” With all its categorical tone, this testimony of the Communist International is wholly self-contradictory. If socialism has “finally and irrevocably” triumphed, not as a principle but as a living social regime, then a renewed “reinforcement” of the dictatorship is obvious nonsense. And on the contrary, if the reinforcement of the dictatorship is evoked by the real demands of the regime, that means that the triumph of socialism is still remote. Not only a Marxist, but any realistic political thinker, ought to understand that the very necessity of “reinforcing” the dictatorship – that is, governmental repression – testifies not to the triumph of a classless harmony, but to the growth of new social antagonisms. What lies at the bottom of all this? Lack of the means of subsistence from the low productivity of labor.”- Leon Trotsky, ‘The Revolution Betrayed’, Chapter 3, Section 5
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm
seriousprofessor - Facts is facts, and the fact is that regardless of the facts he presents, Mr. Zunes is doing nothing more than jumping on the Billary bashing, Obummer worshiping band wagon. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with Billary bashing
And as for Obama and the United Nation’s stance on Afghanistan and Pakistan
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/708/55/PDF/N0170855.pdf?OpenElement
It’s the same situation everywhere in the world. One group acts, the other doesn’t. The group that acts takes power. How you can think that the Taliban is not pressuring Pakistani politics is beyond me. If we don’t act, the Taliban will. Get real.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1650518,00.html
Obama’s not against political Islam. Obama’s against antidemocratic political ideology. Obama’s for rule of law. Obama’s against rules written by antidemocratic ideologies.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1628168,00.html
“The United States is a democratic government, and democratic governments should work for democratic values across the globe. Pakistan is no exception.”- Pakistan Supreme Court Justice Rana Bhagwandas
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/world/asia/06pakistan.html
“We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.”- Barack Obama
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event&event_id=269510
Dougwagoner, you need to do your homework. Like Kem Patrick says numerous polls (not just the questionable one you cite) have Edwards beating ALL Republican candidates with one exception. The one exception is McCain who ties at 44% on one poll with Edwards. Why do you think the corporate MSM is trying so hard to marginalize & exclude Edwards??? THEY FEAR HIM!!!
Paul,
I seriously doubt GE fears a guy who’s political position on every major issue has changed so that he could become ‘electable’. Rhetoric counts for squat in my book. I’ll go look up his voting record. If you or kem knew what you were talking about you would be able to explain why Edwards has yet to win a single race despite the fact that his #2 contributor is a trillion dollar hedge fund. In reality, the campaign with the most individual contributors in American history at this point in a presidential campaign is Barack Obama’s.
JUDGMENT IS WHAT COUNTS ON DAY ONE
Dennis Kucinich: “In answer to your questions about why I didn’t support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3969318
Top Contributors to Edwards Campaign
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008
Fortress Investment Group
“The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_pf.html
Don’t waste your time PaulMagillSmith. dougmwagner is a shill, he will continue to peddle his illusions as reality until the bitter end. Just scroll on past his stuff is nothing more than another waste of bandwidth.
Goose2 January 22nd, 2008 2:57 pm
…*they* have to prove that they are in accord with Article II, which they are not really working hard to do.”…
The US was also supposed to eliminate their own nuclear weapons. Why doesn’t the US have to prove that they are destroying their own arsenals?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/nucl-m21.shtml
The treaty was designed by the major powers to help ensure that the number of states with nuclear weapons capacity remained confined to the original five. In return, the treaty acknowledged that non-nuclear powers have “an inalienable right to develop, research, produce, and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” (Article IV of the treaty). The treaty set out procedures by which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would verify that nuclear energy programs were not being used as a cover for nuclear weapons programs. (The material used to run a nuclear power plant can be further refined in order to produce material suitable for weapons use.)
The nuclear powers also agreed to gradually eliminate their own nuclear stockpiles, although no precise procedures or benchmarks have ever been established for this commitment.
The Bush administration, however, is pursuing a policy that would undermine the basic compromise contained in the treaty. It has called for Article IV to be eliminated or revised, while at the same time continuing to develop the US military’s own nuclear capacity.
While attempting to curtail the nuclear energy rights of other countries, the US has been quietly developing its own nuclear weapons capacity, in particular by researching the development of low-yield devices designed to attack underground bunkers or weapons production facilities. The current US budget proposal from the administration includes sizeable provisions for funding research on these so-called “bunker-busting” nuclear weapons.
dougnwagner, fine. Now go look up Obama’s top contributors. By the way, Edwards’ number one contributor is ActBlue, a progressive PAC which gave him over 10 times as much as Fortress, while Hillary and Obama got nothing from them. I guess real progressives aren’t very impressed with them. Hillary and Obama however, got major funding from the banking and financial industries. Edwards is accepting public campaign funds, they are not. Follow the money. Unfortunately in this psychotic country, the one with the most money wins. Hillary and Obama have pulled in $90 million and $80 million respectively. What do you suppose they’ve had to promise for that? Nothing??
kathyodat
Chunga, you’re right. I forgot my first rule. Don’t talk to trolls, they aren’t listening.
kathyodat
Maybe if the “major democratic candidates” hack away at each other enough, Dennis Kucinich will begin to attract enough of a following that finally the MSM will have to begin paying attention to his platform and the only real way forward!
Concludes Zune: “In summary, on the most critical political question of the decade, a freshman state senator from Illinois was able to figure out what an experienced member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee could not - that Saddam Hussein was no longer a threat and that an invasion of Iraq would harm America’s national security interests.”
At that moment in time, let us not forget, it was political death to vote against anything that supposedly promoted national security, and a FOR vote did not mean the FOR voters couldn’t figure out what was up. In fact, as the late Paul Wellstone showed, voting his conscience and against war brought on actual death to him and his wife and others. Not that he would have done otherwise if he had known the consequences, but few if any other senators were willing to come under fire, even figuratively.
Things have really sucked for a long, long time. Could it only be seven years?
I’m not sure this formerly great but now mortally wounded country once full of bright-eyed, gung-ho citizens can survive a Clinton OR an Obama. So I’ll vote next Tuesday in Florida for Edwards, even if he self-destructs in South Carolina on Saturday.
KEM PATRICK — Did you have another two martini lunch, hmm? Oh, now you entry at 3:00pm after your nap, and i can once again enjoy your wisdom.
Whew what a week! Oh, its only Tuesday?
Folks, I know we’re in real trouble, but all this hot air could power the country and save a few polar bears. I’m wondering if the homeless guy in the vestibule of my building will safeguard his territory, when I need to join him, as urgently as I have safeguarded his.
President McClinbamabee will be a great President. He-she will continue to ensure America is number one and able to continue plundering under a better plunderer because Bush has turned out to be as incompetent at plundering as everything else. 600 billion and 1 million killed, and he still doesn’t have a deal for the oil! He’s awfully late on getting the Iranian oil as well. ABSOLUTELY INCOMPETENT. Time to change the pitcher. Bring in McClinbamabee.
So much hot air with so little point, much like the media-hyped Obama-Hillary grudge match. The bottom lines for me are simple:
1)This country can not survive another four years of Republican rule. It barely survived the last seven. Therefore, whoever gets the Democratic nomination–Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Kunich, Kermit the Frog–automatically gets my support. I’d personally prefer Edwards and Kunich is definitely getting squeezed out of camera sight, but get a grip, people. Do you honestly want to give the Repubs any more chances to destroy our country? If the answer is no, then stop being petty and get to work. However, recent events on voting do lead me to…
2)With the electronic voting machines firmly in place, it’s easier than ever to fix an election. All our hot air (yes, I include myself on this list) on sites like this plus our voting record might easily make us targets if someone else is pulling the tabbing switchs. Of course, ignore the starry-eyed techno-geeks who think that their gizmos are going to save the planet and acknowledge that just ordinary technology breakdown may be enough to swing the election. Such accidental landslides are less calculated than manufactured ones, but the results are the same. As has been said, we may just be participating in an elaborate shell game. However only a born or paid victim whines about the unfairness of life without doing something about it.
Just some things to keep in mind before the next faux election event happens.
I’m voting for Edwards here in SC on Saturday, along with a host of other friends and family members. I hope we can make a difference. I don’t know who will win here this time, but Edwards won the primary here in 2004 over Kerry and the rest, but it will be a tough race here. I don’t know how many here watched, but it was clear that Edwards won the debate last night.
EDWARDS ‘08
Debate? It looked more like a shit fight to me MIKE and Hillary had the first throw. Did you notice when Edwards was speaking on an issue, Wolf Blitzer or Obama would start talking at the same time as Edwards spoke his last words, the camera would zoom in on them and and ruin Edwards points? Edwards is the only decent candidate left who has any chance and the media is screwing him royally. Edwards still did very well in spite of the distractions, and he was endorsed by Martin luther King Jr.
The Clinton’s seem to have learned well from Karl Rove.
dougnwagner, you are welcome to drop the personal comments any time.
I think that most commondreams readers will be less interested in the categories to which writers belong than in the substance of the writing. You’re welcome to join in analyzing the merits of the argument any time.
Your personal response, however irrelevant and misguided, indicates that you are not a piece of software. Nevertheless, your shrill tone and constant red herrings makes you a troll.
You are welcome to cease being a troll any time.
Think Global & Weep–
Is There Reason To Think Black Elitists have more integrity than
White Elitists– Is There Reason To ….THINK!?
The New Bank of the South Shatters Neoliberal Economics
By Mark Engler
By itself, the bank represents a serious challenge to U.S.-dominated institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the
World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). As part of a larger trend, it signals a major break from the policies
of “free trade” neoliberalism that dominated in the region throughout the ’80s and ’90s.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19135.htm
It was the 80’s when the fledgling NWO came to Davos– the annual (unpublicized) meeting of the “Master Monetary Race” Their object was, still is, to level U.S. wages, until we’re even up w/those of Mexico and other depressed economies . At first it only hit the lower classes but now professionals are getting hit. Not to worry, though –that is, if you do more than 7 figures — It was NAFTA!! in the 90’s with the advent of the Clintonian Neo-”Liberals” and the vigorous rhetoric of Bill Clinton that the NWO came into its own. It was/is a sad day in America when our democracy reduces to political “debate” w/ Hillary’s cynical, contemptuous gaze on Barack confident none will challenge the crude, tyrannical, machine behind her, while elsewhere Bill bullies, & intimidates w/ his customary Machiavellian duplicity –and their dictatorship locked up. .It’s sad because so many know! and yet there’s so much fear, few will come forward. Had he not so dramatically consolidated his Elitist Corporatist media behind him in ‘96, they could not have counted on the pathetic public ignorance of the Trojan Horse he insinuated into our one time democratic party.
Poor Obama– it falls to him, the single candidate to survive the Clinton’s gauntlet. Many of us watched as several other better known candidates w/”creds,” & much less vulnerable to Clintonian duplicity were discredited and/or banned from the all powerful Machine-Clinton. Obama’s got a vision– and, too honest for a politician. But since our mission has gotta be to prove we’re not the World’s!! Public Enemy # 1, we’re done if his candidacy doesn’t survive– and it’s back, to square Bush/Clinton 1.
They brought their whole machine to bear on Chris Matthews, a well known & much loved TV news show host. and man! he took a beating from the Elitist establishment even!! Barbara Walters , former fiance’ of the Clintonian advocate, Alan Greenspan. I listened to Mike Malloy on Air America who lost his job for speaking the truth– without the crass revisionism Bill demands. It’s no wonder there is so much fear.
Chunga’s Revenge, Zunes’ motive may be exactly as you say, but the evidence does not change. Fellow-discussant johncpt accused Zunes’ of lying about Clinton’s support for war, and that accusation was false.
professor,
i really don’t care what you think, I care about the facts. I’ve looked at your argument and it is devoid of facts. Paul Street is a neo-stalinist who uses labels instead of facts to make his arguments, and if his criticisms of Obama are your best criticism of Obama that’s pathetic.
Hillary and Edwards voted for the Iraq War. Zunes article is great at disillusioning people like you who would argue to us that somehow rhetoric speaks louder than actions and facts.
Hillary will say anything to win. She voted for the 2001 and 2005 Bankruptcy Bills written by the Credit Card Industry (so now you have a 29% interest rate instead of a 30% interest rate). She voted for the Iraq War in 2002 written by The Vice President’s Office. And she supported Most Favored Nation Status for China written by Wal-Mart lobbyists. She supports Mitt Romney’s Corporate Health Insurance Mandates. Oh and by the way, she sat on the the Board of Wal-Mart when Barack Obama was working for the working poor on the streets of Chicago.
Hillary’s Free Trade Agenda
“…she supported most favored nation trade status despite concerns about China’s human rights record.
William Kristol, a self-described Reagan-era internationalist and the editor of The Weekly Standard, said Mrs. Clinton’s speech sounded like the thoughts of Senator Moynihan. But, he said, her remarks hearkened back to Reagan as well. ”You’ve got to be happy that Democrats are now willing to embrace at least some aspects of energetic American leadership,” he said.”
“Mrs. Clinton Suggests That U.S. Engage Aggressively in World Affairs” by Dean E. Murphy, October 18, 2000
Hillary/Edwards/Mitt Romney’s Corporate Mandated Health Insurance Plans
“But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.
Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state’s insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year’s national average. That would undercut the plan’s secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs.“We’re going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits,” said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. “If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don’t think health reform is sustainable.”…
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html
Not only did Clinton know that Iraq had no WMD–because she had the evidence from her husband’s administration–but her vote for invading Iraq was a calculated cave-in to AIPAC. Every Middle Eastern vote Clinton makes, she makes with an eye toward AIPAC. If elected president, Clinton will be in a powerful position to implement AIPAC’s vicious anti-Arab agenda. The feminists who now are pushing her out of a knee-jerk reaction to her gender should at least recognize that many more Arab women and children will suffer and die under a Clinton presidency. If that goes down well with feminists, then their movement be damned.