Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama, Clinton and the War
It should mean a great deal to progressives that in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination Sen. Ted Kennedy favors Sen. Barack Obama over two other colleagues he has worked with in the Senate. No one in the history of that institution has been a more consistent and effective fighter than Kennedy for an enlightened agenda, be it civil rights and liberty, gender equality, labor and immigrant justice, environmental protection, educational opportunity or opposing military adventures.
Kennedy was a rare sane voice among the Democrats in strongly opposing the Iraq war, and it is no small tribute when he states: "We know the record of Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth."
But that is precisely the truth that Sen. Hillary Clinton has shamelessly sought to obscure. Her supporters have accepted Clinton's refusal to repudiate her vote to authorize the war, an ignominious moment she shares with other Democrats, including presidential candidate John Edwards, who at least has made a point of regretting it. It was a vote that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, 3,940 U.S. service members-five more on Monday-and a debt in the trillions of dollars that will prevent the funding of needed domestic programs that Clinton claims to support. And it doesn't end with Iraq. Clinton has been equally hawkish toward Iran and, in a Margaret Thatcher-like moment, even attacked Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden.
Clinton's apologists include Gloria Steinem and too many other feminists, who should know better than to betray the women's movement's commitment to peace in favor of simplistic gender politics. It is disturbing, not because they conclude that Clinton is the best candidate, but because they refuse to challenge their candidate to be better. Does it not matter that Clinton's key foreign policy advisers are drawn heavily from the ranks of the neoliberals, who cheered as loudly for President Bush's war as did the neoconservatives? Are they not concerned that Richard Holbrooke, who exploited his experience and access to secret information during the Clinton presidency to back Bush's Iraq invasion, is a likely contender for secretary of state should she win?
Sandy Berger, a key Clinton adviser, played a major role in convincing Kennedy's congressman son, Patrick, to vote for the war authorization against what the younger Kennedy said was the advice of his father and his own better instincts. According to a Knight Ridder report at the time, "Patrick Kennedy said the most persuasive arguments for attacking Iraq came from members of the Clinton White House," including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who is often described as the foreign policy expert closest to Hillary. Patrick J. Kennedy refuses to be burned twice and now supports Obama.
Yes, if Hillary Clinton is the candidate, she probably will be better than the Republican alternative and, as Ted Kennedy made clear, deserving of our support. But isn't it troubling that she can't hold a candle to Sen. John McCain when it comes to fighting Pentagon waste or pushing for campaign-finance reform to curtail the power of lobbyists? Isn't it disturbing that Sen. Clinton has received more money than any other candidate of either party from the big defense contractors, according to a report on the Huffington Post? Why have the war profiteers given her twice the campaign contributions that they sent to McCain, if not for the expectation that she is on their side of the taxpayer rip-off that has seen the military budget rise to an all-time high? It's for the same reason that the bankers, Wall Street traders and other swindlers who produced our economic meltdown fund Clinton.
Hillary Clinton has made "experience" key to her claim to the presidency and tells us she will do the right thing from "day one." The reality is that her extra four years in the U.S. Senate hardly provides better experience than Obama's eight years in the Illinois state Senate battling for progress with the nation's most hard-boiled politicians. And if she lays claim to her husband's presidency, then she must also take responsibility for caving in to big media with the Telecommunications Act, selling out to the banks with the Financial Services Modernization Act, and killing the federal welfare program-a political gambit that deeply wounded millions of women and children. Her political career began with the Senate and she hit the ground running, but, as her craven support for Bush after 9/11 shows, it was in the wrong direction.
Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle.
© 2008 TruthDig.com
86 Comments so far
Show AllThe American political process is a total sham, we all know that. It has been proven yet again as we see our favorite candidates drop out of the race, or worse, never get a look-in (like DK). The corporate controlled media and the political establishment again brazenly assert their control.
At least we all seem to understand how the system works, which is more than can be said for at 70-80% of the US population. These are the ignorant and fearful majority who supported the Iraq war, and worse, the continuing occupation.
We all know what the radical right (the alliance of Evangelicals and Neocons) and their corrupt fellow travellers have done to this country.
This is what is so demoralizing: it has taken 40 years and billions of dollars for them to get where they are now. It is totally impossible to undo what they have done between now and November.
As flawed as she is, I think Hillary is the only person who gives us a chance to BEGIN to claw back what we have lost. I believe that Bill and Hillary began that process in 1992, certainly they did not complete it.
Surely, it is hard to fault Bill for what he did domestically. As for foreign policy: at least he didn't threaten Iran and Syria, and invade Iraq. I'm not even certain that his missile strike killed anyone, Stephen Zunes article is the first I've heard about that.
When looking at Bill's record I think we have to recognise that OUR perceptions of America and it's place in the World are in a very small minority. The Clinton's have to work within the majority paradigm that exists TODAY in this country.
Face it, Hillary would not stand a chance of being elected Prez if she burst the American myth.
Haven't any of you tried to talk sense to these deluded Bush supporters, or even moderate Dems? They go berserk! I have been physically assaulted by two of my neighbors (in the Atlanta suburb where I live..... don't ask) when I spoke frankly about the dire state of this country. THEY DO NOT WANT TO KNOW! Chomsky says it best: Intentional Ignorance.
Even though I would have voted for DK in the primary, I had no delusions about his electability (or Ralph Nader, or any Green Party candidate for that matter, though they best represent my views).
At best we can BEGIN the process of reforming this country. But for a major disaster, it will take 15 years to take back this country for the people. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the procees by which we lost it that began in 1965.
I am not dogmatic about this, or anything else for that matter. After all, I AM a liberal, and think I understand what being liberal really is (read John McGowan "American Liberalism").
Right now I believe that Hillary is our only hope because of her experience in thwarting the worst machinations of the Radical Right and USA Inc.
Even if she is elected we shall have to hold her feet to the fire, praise her when she does good, criticize her otherwise. We will have to write our Congress persons, write our newspapers and be eternally vigilant. Our job will not END in November, it will just BEGIN.
A Clinton Coronation or an Obama Revolution?
Hillary can't wait to put the finishing touches on her wonderfully aggressive 60's agenda, while Barack is at home in a tomorrow Hillary can't visit even in her dreams.
Hillary is thrilled with the chance to add more contributions to her amazing lifetime list, while Barack is thrilled with America's chances for real change when he is President.
Hillary is amazed at where she's been and what she's been able to accomplish, looking forward to recognition and vindication for her life's work, while Barack envisions efficiently accomplishing today's most pressing American policy goals and then moving forward to heal the world's common global challenges.
Hillary loves herself-in-power ruling over her former enemies, while Barack loves the-power-in-himself leading a unified America and world into a hopeful 21st century.
Shall generations await coronation of Jeb Bush into an inevitable succession of Clinton and Bush kings (and queen) reigning in hubris over a 20th century past? Or will we charge our servant Barack Obama to lead us into an American future of unimaginable possibilities?
(Nancy Pace blogs on breaking news at the intersection of politics, peace, culture, and spirituality at www.epharmony.com.)
At this point in time I can't bring myself to vote for any of the candidates. I can't, in all due conscience, go to the voting machine and vote for any of the Democratic candidates and any of the Republican candidates are totally out of the question. I will not jump on the vote for the lesser of two evils bandwagon either. If anything I will vote along Green Party lines. To do anything less is to violate my own integrity, if not sanity. And if things get worse,as I'm sure they will, considering the platforms that the present candidates stand on, then I say bring the house down. The electoral process has become nothing but an insult to any one with any iota of intelligence or common sense. The right to choose our leaders has been co-opted by a corporate media monopoly that has chosen the candidates,not for us, but for themselves and that really makes the public look like dupes. I can't be a part of that process. I will instead work for peace and equality on a local level. I would love to see the day when all the voters in this country boycott the vote and when the election returns come in they all read zero. Of course, that's a hypothetical. But, what a message that would send around the world.
Republican: Our country can't be dragged down, it already is seen by the world as the lowest of the low. The country is universally hated, and deservedly so. America is a shitty place with shitty people in it and everybody knows it. It has been shit for a long time but the world was not as aware of that as it is now. Bombs will not gain you respect. When you lose respect it is very difficult to get it back. Violence will not do it, even if Americans seem to think so.
republican January 31st, 2008 7:07 pm
I actually have heard that some people wouldn't vote for Obama because he has HUSSAIN as a middle name. I can think of a lot of good reasons why I wouldn't vote for Obama but using his middle name as a justification is backward, racist and ignorant.
Say what you will about The Nation, but I think we can all agree they're a progressive voice - right?
Well, check out:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20080218&s=hayes
When yall get done worshiping Allah lets talk.
IF you want a muslim named Barack HUSSAIN Obama that turns his back on our flag and wants to be sworn in on the coran instead of the bible like ever other leader before him than you sould move to iraq than you can have the type of life your looking for, and the rest of us can get a honest AMERICAN in office!!! Look at the facts people if you feel bad about the middle east say a prayer for them but dont but the in office and let them drag our country down!
Robert Scheer has for many years been one of my favorite journalists ! His articles in Nation magazine and similar publications are credentials which now convince me to vote for Obama rather than whoever the Green party runs for office.
I am a lifelong republican 61 years old. I am unable to support any of the republican contenders for president this year and am strongly supporting Obama. If Clinton is the democrat candidate I will vote Green. She is absolutely no better than Bush.
Gravel's still on the ballot. He's a "progressive" of sorts. Wants to abolish the IRS and get revinue from the regressive sales tax and issue rebates to poorer folks. Sounds like a crazy armchair quarterback idea to me.
I cannot understand why so many progressives remain so optimistic. It seems quite clear that Hillary is not a good answer, and neither is Barack, and neither is voting Green (because Greens have no chance of winning or even of relevancy), with regard to improving our prospects for a bright future in the US.
However, most progressives understand that national boundaries are arbitrary and have been determined by elites over time to suit their own interests. We are all part of a human family struggling to survive as best we can on the surface of this rock hurtling through space. Let us not forget the other 95.5 percent of the members of the human family and let us vote for the individual least likely to start more wars and least likely to end civilization, i.e. let us try to minimize the damage the imperialistic US does to the human race.
In that vein I wonder how is it in the interests of women in the human family to elect the more enthusiastic warmonger who will likely kill millions of women simply because they get in the way of some imperial ambitions of ruthless, heartless criminals?
As for people of "faith": religious zealots, whether they be Christian or Muslim distort issues for their own narrow self-interest. Personally, based upon their disasterous record in dealing with contentious issues, I am not interested in their opinions whatsoever.
__________________________________________________
If you're still around, SetYouFree, read it and weep:
Hillary's Prayer: Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html
Listen Kernel, if G. dubs was more decent and honest than his competitors, we know that he was a warmonger from the start & therefore not very decent. He turned out to be one of the greatest liars of American history precisely because he never thought he was lying.
Clinton has run a very ugly campaign & seems to think she deserves the Democratic party's coronation. She is fundamentally dishonest as was her husband-- who expanded executive power and began some of the classist policies (welfare reform) that have only continued under Bush.
Obama is more than just rhetoric. His career as a community activist on Chicago's south side and his carreer as an excellent Illinois state senator shows his commitment to grass-roots democracy and a reasonably progressive agenda.
Obama was organizing poor communities when Clinton was on the board of Wal-Mart. I have a suspicion that Obama might care about people and not just power.
leftk,
"I worry that Obama isn't very progressive when it comes to foreign policy, but the U.S. will never have an anti-imperialist president."
And why won't the US ever have an anti-imperialist presidency? You seem to be suggesting, if I may read between the lines, that we don't actually chose our own leadership. It's as if the Bilderbergs/Trilaterals/CFR's/AIPAC/MIC/media/bankers basically select it for us. Oh for shame.
If so, then this whole discussion is moot. We don't get to vote on our leaders, unless you call voting on a pre-selected candidate counts as a "vote" in the strict sense.
If you're arguing that we'll never have an anti-imperialist president because ordinary Americans are greatly benefiting from the Empire, show us your evidence. On metric after metric (health care, quality of life, crime, benefits, etc.), Scandinavian countries beat us. No empire required. How, exactly, does Empire trickle-down to the benefit of ordinary Americans?
As Kucinich has exited, and now edwards, who i wasn't very exited to have to support, I think i'll be sitting out this election. once again the lesser of two evils from the dems, against a senile old repoob...god help us all.
"Yes, if Hillary Clinton is the candidate, she probably will be better than the Republican alternative and, as Ted Kennedy made clear, deserving of our support."
BUUULLLLL BLEEP! Her corporate sponsors, her Democratic Leadership Council advisors, and her promotion of the DLC "centrist" strategy that has made the Democratic Party little more than Republicanism with a human face, shows ME at least that Clinton will simply bring us more corporate based policies. She will not work for me, and I refuse to work against my own self-interst. I am not that afraid of another GOP administration. In fact, having a Republican in the White House when the whole shebang falls apart might not be a bad idea.
Obama...Clinton...Clinton...Obama.
How about NEITHER!
As for Obama and his "change" platform...isn't he the guy that said he'd invade Pakistan if he saw the need to do so, just to chase Bin Laden??? Some peace candidate. Obama will need to do more work on his "change" message if he wants the elctorate to believe him, especially after cuddling up to an old guard Washington Democrat the likes of Ted Kennedy. Come on!
And Hilary.... well, how does one say bought and paid for?
Want REAL change? Go to the Green Party! This nonsense of continuing the same old, same old with the Democratic Party by simply offering new faces is worn out.
Dimitri___ I do not have much faith in either political party as they are pretty well poluted by well off factions with their own interests. However, unless we want to just declare Bush dictator and forget the whole election thing, what can we do but support the party and the candidate that will do the least harm? Yes we can go with a small party to make a point, but what real benefit is that to the country? The Naderites took enough votes away from the Democrats to install Bush, so I do not see anything smart about that.
JosephMorton__ You have it right, either Rommney or McCain would finish off what we have left, so a vote for Hillary is the best thing as we know she is a fighter and cares as least somewhat about the country. I believe she is unfairly cast as a warhawk since she voted with almost everyone else to not appear soft on TERROR. We have no idea what Obama would do in office so as Bill C said it could be a roll of the dice.
Leftk___ The last time the nation voted for a president to bring back honesty and decency to the White House we got born-again Bush who has not done a single thing he promised to do. He did not tell us he would take from the poor and give to the rich and scrap most everything including the Constitution while giving us endless war. Be careful when supporting an untried candidate because of fancy speechs.
There is a significant difference between Clinton and Obama. I can't believe some of these postings by so-called progressives using Hillary's rhetoric about Obama.
I worry that Obama isn't very progressive when it comes to foreign policy, but the U.S. will never have an anti-imperialist president. (Chomsky 2008? I don't think so!) For those of you who feel uncomfortable with 'Amerika's' foreign policy, I fully support and empathize with your decision to vote for the green party, but don't use Clinton's rhetoric to debunk a democrat who is infinitely more decent than Hillary. Also look at some of Stephen Zunes's comparisons of the foreign policies of Obama and Clinton and tell me there's no difference.
Obama may not be the progressive we want, but he will bring honesty and decency back to the presidency. Clinton will simply continue the expansion of executive power that have been so problematic in the Clinton and Bush administrations. Hillary is an ELITIST and a Machiavellian power grabber. She is very dangerous for democracy. I would consider voting green if she is the nominee.
So to sum up, I think that voting for someone less progressive than oneself is not 'lesser evil-ism'. On the other hand, the democratic party MUST change. If Hillary is the nominee, it will not change & a voice of progressive dissent will be welcome in my book.
Hey eshu, Why don't you tell us what you really think?
Obama's lack of audacity on fighting against the war since he became Senator gives those of us with loved family members in the military, whose lives and limbs are at risk, little hope that he will rapidly end our act of national cowardice in invading a much weaker country -- Iraq -- which was no threat to us -- and maintaining that act of national cowardice by remaining there.
His position has been identical to warmongerer Hillary's position since he got into the Senate. He and Hillary -- the 2013 twins.
Who says Hillary is divisive? Reading some of the "progressives'" comments here about the Clintons, it sounds like Rush Limbaugh's "ditto-heads." Hillary has already brought together the left and the right...against her.
There *is* worse than Hillary, and he's called McCain. Iraq will be a quagmire for years, so think about judicial appointments (possibly 3 Supreme Court justices). Think about environmental, education, social and economic policy. If that doesn't make you want to vote for the Democratic nominee, you haven't been paying attention these last 7 years.
We need a supermajority of Democrats in Congress. Don't vote, or waste it on a 3d party candidate, and then see what we end up with.
Just looking at this board is so depressing. While I would like to have a candidate as progressive as I am, it is unrealistic to think such a candidate could get elected in this country. Of late, the left is consistently fractured due to the people who cannot get realistic about the election. As long as people on the left keep saying "Screw this, I'm voting 3rd party or sitting it out if the Democrats are giving me candidates like these" then the right will continue to govern. It's that simple.
The post above entitled "andrewsac January 30th, 2008 8:47 pm" is on the mark.
Those of you who drank the Nader Kool-Aid in 2000 said that he would use the votes he received in 2000 to continue pushing and building a progressive movement. Same in 2004. What happened? He simply disappears until it is presidential election time again.
The whole idea that Obama and Clinton have any significant ideological, policy or worldview differences is ludicrous. Most of Obama's domestic and foriegn policy advisors are Clinton 42 alumni. And the other half of Clinton 42's advisors work for Clinton (wouldbe-44). The economic policies proposed by Obama are no different than those proposed by Clinton.
Notsure this says much. We know what reprobates the Clintons and their minions are. But it is most likely that John McCain will be the Republican nominee. McCain, despite what is said here, is one of the sleazist politicians to ever appear in Washington, and that is saying a great deal. the Clintons have some of the most vicious attack dogs around, and it is going to take every one of them to get at the real sleaze of McCain. It will, without a doubt, be one of the dirtest campaigns ever waged, and it is probably beeter to have the Clintons than the naive and rather polyannish Obama. All around it is even more dismal than the 2000 election candidates, which was a low point in itself. And before McCain became the likely nominee, I would have voted for my usual candidate, Pogo, but the monsterous McCain is probably the most dangerous man on the planet. He is only marginally smarter than Bush, but he has hoodwinked large numbers of people into believing that a war criminal, an incompetent pilot--he was after all shot down, and had crashed airplanes before that--is a hero and an independent sole. The sleaze of his leadership of the Keating 8 is infamous, and he is in bed with ever lobbyist he can sneak into his back door, as well as Russian mafia cronies. Richard Holbrook is a sleazeball of the first order, but who do you think is going to surround McCain--Mary Poppins? What all people must do is to google McCain and begin to do what the media will not--expose him for what he is. A McCain presidency will make Bill Clinton look like a saint, George Bush as a restrained madman compared to the havoc and devastation McCain is planning for the world. In a McCain v. Hilary, as bad as it will be, we must all unite to stop this madman.
I feel like a little pawn on a great big chess board. I'm being played.
A few weeks ago the consensus was that Kucinich was the man. The Clinton supporters were running for cover and Obama supporters could run but not hide. After DK was taken out the progressive's choice was Edwards, we started slipping. Next, Edwards quits, now we are slip-sliding down the slippery slope of lesseroftwoevilism. Slowly, but surely we ooze into the soft slime of Dweedle Dee-ism.
Reminds me of the one about the frog that stays in a pot because the temperature gets increased slowly enough that the frog doesn't realize what's happening until it's too late. Obama anyone? Hillary? We're cooked!
By the time this rigged election system plays out here in California my only choice will be whether I want my next president to be a hawkish corporate black Republican or a corporate, hawkish woman Republican.
Sorry, I'm going 3rd party and when enough of us do we can start taking our country back.
You can't be against the war and vote to fund it! The Greens called for impeachment long ago. Now they need money, time, and votes from progressives with principles. The time for building the alternative is now.
If you continue to accept the argument that you have to vote for a lousy candidate to prevent the other lousy candidate from being in office then you will never get anyone in office you like...ever. You are being played for a fool.
People who are arguing for or against Nader &/or Kucinich are arguing about 2 people who are not running for President at this time. You should probably look at who are in the Green primaries and argue about them.
I will probably be voting for the Green candidate, but if you want progressive how about this...take the lesser of two evils for President, but never vote for a corporatist-party candidate in ANY other race...senate, house, governor, school board, mayor, etc. Get the third parties built up from the ground.
The best is gone (Dennis K), the most electable DEM is gone (Edwards), leaving us corporate warrior princess (H Clinton) and "let's hope for the better, or at least I'm better than them (GOP)" B Obama. If given a choice, I don't know. Meanwhile, the "other" candidates of the same cloth but different party (GOP) are a bunch of old jokes, but again, based on recent DEM track record since 2000, more of the same, unless Edwards gets another shot at VP for either one. Hillary has supported this war to look tough and appear "right" - she's wrong about Iraq and like GWB/GOP, has been wrong from start since jumping on the band wagon of victory. C'mon DIMs Leiberman in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, snatch yet another defeat from Victory Democratic Leadership. DEM president in 2008 is probably already off the table, if McCain sqaures off against either Hillary or Barack. Meanwhile the occupation of Iraq continues to bleed all of us dry.
Hillary's VP? Wesley Clark.
eshu is speaking straight talk for all you fools who think any Dem has anything worthwhile to offer us. The legacy of Democratic atrocities is lengthy and every bit as bad as Republican atrocities. Stop being lazy and do your homework.
To Set You Free let me assure you my comments that were to expose the massive fraud that is Obama is in no way an endorsement of Hillary. She is a scumbag that deserves a place in the political pantheon of corporate sycophants. If you honestly think for a moment that Hillary will set you free you haven't done an iota of research on the situation and/or have a profound gap in your understanding of the American political system. Get crackin'.
And to Peoria Teacher I suggest you look into this some more. Obama did in fact CHOOSE Joe Lieberman to be his mentor in the Senate.
Any who defend either of these corporate scumbags has an infantile understanding of power politics. Unfortunately the American political consumer has been conditioned to look no further than the latest hype and latest platitude.
So how many people here can actually name 3 top advisers to Clinton and Obama?
What do you people who support these corrupted politicians use as your basis for making your assessments?
Stop believing in the tooth fairy and do the not-so-hard research of who these people are and how it is they got into these positions.
Funny, I heard all this eight years ago: they are all the same, a vote for one is a vote for all, you can't trust any of them. Can ANY OF YOU imagine Gore leading us into Iraq, a busted budget, rising home defaults, torture, theft of nine billion dollars in Iraq by god-knows-who, bankruptcies, a failed healthcare system, nine trillion in debt, and the hatred of every other country on the planet? There WAS a difference, folks, you just weren't looking hard enough. Now you would rather vote for Nadar AGAIN? Crazy, crazy, crazy. It is you who are the problem here. Everyone gets to fall in love during the primaries. But after ALL of the Americans have voted and handed us the nominee, it is time to get behind them, plain and simple. Voting for Nadar, or anyone else this time around, is just going to put McCain into office, and your kid into a uniniform, all because McCain will have to use a draft to keep a hundred-year war going. It actually CAN get worse, folks. Higher taxes to pay for endless wars, a draft that kills our kids, and a banana-republic country that owes it's life to Communist China. Honestly, can you imagine anyone in the past racking up a debt like this to Russia?
Suck it up. If you want to avoid the bad getting badder, vote for the Dem. For whatever reason, the people in the early states didn't want a populist. I understand the anger. But we can't go back and force a new vote in Iowa, N.H., Nevada, or S. Carolina. And I wouldn't want to. This is democracy, and it is messy. The majority is not ready for the kind of progressive agenda we are advocating here. But there is one way to get NO PROGRESSIVE AGENDA - not voting at all, or throwing away a vote on a man that will not win. You had your fun voting gleefully to not elect the nominee put forth by the American people in 2000. Now it is time to do the right thing and keep this country from becoming more of a cesspool than it already is. McCain = Bush, plain and simple. And to abdicate your responsibility to vote to stop this downward slide is childish and churlish in the extreme. Grow up, and stop trying to hold your breath until we listen to you and your tantrum. There are people all over the world who would give anything to make a change in their own government. They are not given the choice to vote, period. So vote, damn it. A lot of people gave everything they had to make that possible. Would it kill ya to exercise that one little muscle once every four years?
Clinton supporters are amazing. For the duration of his eight years, the fucker Clinton supported an embargo against the Iraqi people that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. He also launched military attacks on Kenya to boost his own poll numbers when the heat was on his little marriage imbroglio. The man is a fucking war criminal. He helped break unions, he helped introduce Nafta, and created a "healthy" capitalist economy under which wages fell. Unemployment fell because more people were taking more jobs in the service sector. Not real jobs, but service sector jobs. Fuck that motherfucker. Scab. Fuck his jerk corporate lawyer wife. Fuck the Clintons. I hope they both die tomorrow.
As for Obama, if he's fool enough to front for the capitalist empire, he deserves whatever happens to him. He ought to be embarassed, claiming that "ninety per cent of the race problem in the United States is behind us". Yeah? Tell that to kids in the shitty urban schools this system is "too broke" to pay for. Tell that to kids who are sitting in trenches in Iraq because they were promised the sun and the stars in exchange for a little college money. Fuck Obama. Fuck capitalism. Fuck democratic party true believers.
My god, I can't believe so many of you who post here still swallow this swill from democratic party shitheads.
The folks on here who keep claiming "Obama praised Reagan" should read the full text of the original Obama interview a little more carefully. Don't just parrot what the Clintons have been saying. Obama has subsequently explained that interview in more detail, but one does not need to read those later explanations to understand unambiguously what he was saying in the original interview. Everyone who saw or read the original interview knows exactly what he meant, but the Clinton backers continue to parrot the mis-characterization of Obama's statement for political gain.
Don't take my word for it - there are many sites on the 'net that have the full text or video of Obama's statement. For example, see for yourself here and judge:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/01/obamareagan.html
Thank you, Nancy Pace, for your thoughtful, comprehensive list. I'm going to print and use it for talking points when I phone bank for Obama this week end.
I have very little interest in USA politics because American people are just media driven, they just believe the written word, RIGHT OR WRONG. However this article states the bleak truth and no comment is necessary !
Thank you Peoria Teacher for your sane comments.
"...just stack the bodies outside the door. Who'll be the last to die for a mistake?"
Bruce Springsteen
If women vote for Hillary BECAUSE she is a women, isn't that a good reason that women should not be allowed to vote, PERIOD. This comment is made in jest, but it is the lowest form of intelligence displayed by some of the smartest among them. How sad to see it. Do some women really believe that it matters so much to just have ANY WOMAN? And Hillary, a military-industrial-machine hawk, to boot. Women for killing, line up behind Hillary. Women who support US domination of the world, line up behind Hillary. The rest of you know Obama IS different and speaks of a higher Truth. Whether or not he can actually deliver is not really up to him. It is up to us to pressure our senators and representatives to change their corrupt ways too.
We have been brainwashed into wanting politicians to say what we want to hear. There's a big difference between wish and reality. That's why I do not want to begin counting my chickens before they are hatched. There are so many unpredictables and veils beyond which I cannot see now. However, what I do know now is that I am strongly inclined for Obama. I have known the Clintons long enuff that I will not be deceived by their unreliable promises.
"Obama had Joe Lieberman as his mentor and looks up to Ronald Reagan. He wants to bomb Iran and Pakistan. That's enough for me. I won't vote for him or Hillary. I'll vote Green."
This is just one of many false comments posted today. Obama's mentors in the Senate have been Sen. Durbin and Sen. Kennedy. He talked about Reagan's ability to inspire - not about his policies. He does not want to bomb anyone but cannot afford to go as far as Kucinich and have a chance of being elected. I have been a supporter since he was in the Ill. Senate and know him to be unabashedly progressive but also pragmatic. Do all of you Nader/etc. supporters indeed want 4 more years like the last eight? That's what you'll get if you continue your devisive ways. Obama is our only chance for real and lasting change!
Take This 40-Question Quiz: "Hillary or Barack???"
(My Score Was Barack 40, Hillary 0)
Whose campaign runs like the country should run?
Who believes in a transparent government?
Who will tell the truth if they do something wrong?
Who trusts the public to be able to handle the truth?
Who values advisors who disagree?
Who respects and welcomes opposing points of view?
Who won't hurry into war?
Who will resist the pressures of special interests and big money?
Whose family will be a credit to (and a delight in) the White House?
Whose tenure will reflect most positively upon America?
Who is liked and respected by all members of Congress and the Supreme Court?
Who can explain confusing issues to the American public?
Who can we believe when we hear conflicting stories?
Who is the least partisan candidate?
Who has the most global perspectives?
Who has an audacious vision of where to go, and a detailed plan for how to get there?
Who has the leadership and executive skills to solve even our biggest problems?
Whose example inspires us all to make personal sacrifices for the common good?
Who will guide us thoughtfully through national emergencies, tragedies, and catastrophes?
Who inspires our youth to greater effort, contribution, and productivity?
Who are national and world leaders eager to work with?
Who is it impossible not to like and admire?
Who do we most want to see succeed?
Who can heal our many divisions?
Who holds to moral principles under pressure?
Who has sound judgment under pressure?
Who reaches out in friendship to all foreign leaders and ordinary citizens?
Who will bind up the nation's wounds?
Who can be counted on to defend us wisely from those who would do us harm?
Whose leadership inspires all the world's peoples?
Who will move citizens of all ages and backgrounds toward greater civic involvement?
Who is the most intellectually broad-banded?
Who has the best "people skills"?
Who understands minority perspectives?
Who can offer global leadership toward solutions to common problems?
Who can sell tough solutions to the American public?
Who do Republicans not mind losing to?
Who inspires the confidence of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike?
Who do I look forward to listening to, weekly or more often, for the next eight years?
Who has the potential to become America's greatest President, in her time of greatest need?
I like BENDOVERCRATS (thanks nathan!) I'll be using that one for sure!
You can vote for McCain, Hillary, or Obama, but don't worry, you are still getting a republican.
I think I've got all the points, let's see if I can tally it all up:
1)Progressives "should" listen to Ted Kennedy; 2)Thatcher
3)Holbrooke; 4)The DOD/Pentagon waste coupled with "big defense contractors" donations
equals = 5) high expectations for return results from candidate, so it goes the same for,
6) Wall Street because Clinton is a puppet; 7)Experience = cave in, and sell out
8)Bill Clinton examples of success also = guilt by association
and the kicker, 9)Craven support for Bush.
Now that we've got all the negative associations with Clinton out of the way, could the progressive writer(s)
go into detail about what the alternative candidate brings to the table? Obama's points in the argument
were:1) Illinois senate record, 2)anti-Iraq war statements, which seems intended to conclude as,
he isn't swayed by a nutty, old strategic advisor lurking behind the curtain, or connected to or supportive
of budget increases for DOD, doesn't have connections with Wall Street, or other guilt by association
thing-a-ma--doodles, like, say, neo-liberal interventionalism.
Equally, the author left out that Ted Kennedy was most of all moved by Obama's crowd appeal. Kennedy didn't
quite label Obama as such. Maybe it was a combination of Kennedy and his niece arguing all the candidates were
very much the same, in deed and action, but what stood out most about Obama was his, well, crowd appeal. While
crowd appeal is never intended to speak directly about the issues, it still can reach you on an individual level
-and it is a real big plus for getting everyone on the bandwagon. It appears to be a very impressive attribute.
While Obama may turn out to be every bit as Thatcher-esqe as Clinton is purported to be, he's got charisma and
charm, and he reaches across the isle (how's that for doublespeak?). People are intended to vote for the candidate
that best moves them --regardless.
Finally: The progressive "should" ... X, Y, and Z!
The tyranny of should is a powerful tool
I'm not sure that Repugs (I like that Kernel!) ARE anxious to run against Hillary, but I am sure they want Obama to get the nomination. Just think of the scurrilous slogans: "Obama. Osama What's the difference?" or "poor blacks created the housing crisis, you're going to let them run our economy?", "He's a Muslim, and worse a Kenyan, look at the mess they've created in their own country.", "a son of poor white trash and a black father who absconded, right, just what we need to run the country!". Of course, all that's rubbish, but look what they did to Kerry.
Will Hillary suffer the same fate? Of course she will. But she and Bill prevailed over these lying, greedy, unscrupulous, prudes for 8 years, and Bill left office with a 70% approval rating!
SET YOU FREE__ Agreed, Hillary, although far from perfect, is our best chance to get something done for this country. Have many of you Clinton bashers forgotten that our country was not in an endless unnecessary war or occupation and our budget steadily got better for eight years during Bills presidency? We would have a different country today if we could have continued on a course of diplomacy and fiscal sanity. Our country was a respected nation during Clinton`s years but we have lost all of that. If anyone likes what we have now, vote for the Repug candidate or Teddy`s pick, Obama, and watch the Repugs rear him up. If you are sick of lies, war, debt, cronyism, religious prattle, divisiveness, and incompetence, vote for Clinton and the country.
Calling Hillary the "Queen of Sleaze" is not very illuminating to the discussion. Justify it, if you can. Unsubstantiated pejoratives makes you sound like a Bushie. You don't want people to thnk that, do you?
As for people of "faith": religious zealots, whether they be Christian or Muslim distort issues for their own narrow self-interest. Personally, based upon their disasterous record in dealing with contentious issues, I am not interested in their opinions whatsoever.
The really relevant question is: can she beat the Republican nominee.
It does not matter that she is better than voting for a Republican if her winning the nomination means that we will be electing a Republican in November.
Please tell me why so many conservatives are excited by the idea of running against her. Could it be that they think she will lose? Are they correct? What do people think?
People of Faith can vote for Nun of the above.
How can anyone justify supporting the 'Queen of Sleaze' for president?
She and her husband are supported by the same money and political interests that put Cheney and Bush in power.
The threats made by Bill to bolt the Dems if Hillary does not get the nod should give everyone pause about where her interests lie.
two elections ago ralph nader warned us, and was excoriated for it, that descending into racial/gender politics is foolish and counter productive. our focus should be on improving everyone's rights as citizens and human beings. small wonder that the dems have ignored all his warnings. a prophet without honor in his own land. typical. my ticket is kucinich/nader or nader/kucinich - peace /justice -justice/peace. write it in. . .
Electile Dysfunction: The inability to get excited about any of the candidates.
You could only say that the neocons want Hillary if you believed that she supports their policies. With her votes on the AUMF and the Revolutionary Guards one certainly has some basis for that.
But I have been there, and have since changed my mind. Keep in mind what's happened in this country and you will understand why the situation is so dire on many fronts, and why it will be so difficult to change direction.
As we all know the ruling cabal consists of an alliance of neocons (Cheney et al) and Christian Zionists (Bush et al). A perfect storm of mutual self-interest occured with the decision to invade and occupy Iraq. Don't forget that this action was supported by 80% of Americans.
Read the AUMF: The preamble is pure (unsubstantiated) rubbish, but the balance of the document is very cleverly worded such that if you didn't vote for it you would be marginalized to the position of not willing to allow the Prez to take action to protect America from imminent threat. With hindsight we know that the document was a clever deception from start to finish, and that the President had NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of "liberating" Iraq, but instead was intent on a long-term occupation (for control of oil, or more specifically to break OPEC so that they could not use the oil weapon to blackmail us again).
As for her position on the Iran's Revolutionary Guard. That resolution has to do with SANCTIONS not WAR. Edwards pointed out, quite rightly that it could be used as a first step.
The other aspect of the occupation of Iraq has to do with supporting Israel's uncompromising position on the West Bank. Bush's Evangelical supporters are religious zealots who believe that Israel has a Divine right to ALL of the West Bank. This fits in nicely with the hard-line position of successive Likud regimes (Natanyahu, Sharon, Ohlmert)in Israel. The continued existence of regimes in Iraq, Syria,Iran, and Saudi Arabia that supported a just peace in Palestine were a threat to both America's and Israel's hegemony in the region. Israel's very existence is due to Britain's need for free access to mid-east oil.
My faith in the Clinton's rests on Bill's genuine efforts to sue for peace, which Bush brazenly and forcefully abandoned when he took office. In his stupendous ignorance and arrogance he thought he had a better way to deal with the Palestinians and their supporters.
Even though Bush's Machaivellian plan for "peace" (by killing anyone who opposed him) was not well understood in this country in 2000. The Saudi's knew EXACTLY what he would do. Hence 9/11.
And the rest is history.
Hillary has a great deal of experience -- experience in voting for war and empire, surrendering to corporations and Republicans, talking up expansion of the military industrial complex, and reassuring Wall Street she will be a better friend than Bush ever was.
If Hillary is the nominee, it will be easy for me to support Ralph again. If Obama somehow makes it, that will be a harder call.
The neo-cons who rule us, want Hillary Clinton and that's their call. That's how it is.
If we get run over by a concrete truck, we either die or end up in the hospital. Facts are facts, no matter how much we may not like it.
With Obama or Hillary, you still will have Bush's war policies.
Correction: There is NO debate that they will be better than Bush.
This is probably one of the most important discussions we can have. I agree with all that chlamor and bakinin say.
Kem Patrick: Please tell me why you think Hillary is a Neocon?
Hillary's position on Iraq has infuriated me too, but we don't know where she really stands because she has no choice but to play unscrupulous politics like everyone else. However, I have many times felt that she should simply stand-up and say "I'm a Liberal and proud of it!". But we all know how that would play in this country.
Ultimately, you must decide whether you trust her political instincts, because she and her political machine are the only hope we have. It's a classic cup half-full or half-empty situation.
I look back to the Clinton years and see their many failings too, but given the political reality of the time they did very well for the American people. There is NO debate that they would be far better than Bush. Of course how COULD anyone be worse that Bush. God help us, we may not have seen the worst yet.
People desperate for an end to the Bush presidency forget that the ruling class controls the government. They so want to believe that voting for Democrats will change things that they close their eyes to all evidence.
Obama threatening to bomb Pakistan pushed me over. Then Clinton criticizing him not for threatening a US ally, but because he didn't threaten to use nuclear bombs!!
And we have posters here claiming that one or the other is "progressive".
(And yes, I know the US shouldn't be supporting Mussaraf. The point is that we are, and Obama threatened to bomb them. Way to stabilize a nuclear country, Democrats).
What may be good is the possibility of competition for the remaining 1/4 of Democtratic voters who are progressive , in which strong commitments are made to get out of Iraq, invest in sustainable energy, and reform the current extremity of predatory capitalism. I think Edwards did this for the sake of the country and the all too screwed up Democratic party.
Obama had Joe Lieberman as his mentor and looks up to Ronald Reagan. He wants to bomb Iran and Pakistan. That's enough for me. I won't vote for him or Hillary. I'll vote Green.
You're right Kem, it will take a depression in this country to change anything significant politically. Then it can go one of two ways, like Germany or like America (i.e., the New Deal). I believe Obama would buckle up and do the latter, but I may be wrong. Better than McCain, however.
I agree Jetsom, there may be some racism, but I don't think it's enough to have a real effect. And we can't just keep nominating white men, we have to break through one day, and now is that day.
It is heartening to see so many beginning to expose the myth of Barak Obama being such an antiwar candidate...and let us not forget, in the midst of a stream of anti-Clinton outbursts from the centrists who call themselves leftists, that Kennedy's endorsement of Obama may be more an anti Clinton expression that a pro Obama one. This feud is between the Kennedy position as the number one political family in America and their visualisation of the Clinton usurpation of that position.
I simply cannot get over how the sordid tactics of the Obama wing have forced a Green supporter to a defense of Hillary and Bill Clinton. The simple truth is that a vote for the presidency should be based upon real experience and track record, and while Senator Clinton can be found wanting in that regard on far too many fronts, at least she has a damn record!
Im still voting Nader......
I'm with Kristina40 and bidelo. I just can't vote for a right-wing war hawk who's every move is calculated political utility (if she's nominated, she'll likely run against a war nut in McCain, but I still won't vote for her). A candidate has to offer more than the "d" word opposed to the "r" word. I think I speak for a lot of independents who won't vote for her but are willing to give Obama a try. Whoever you vote for, dems, don't vote for Clinton because you believe racists won't vote for Obama, therefore lessening his chances in November. That would be self-fulfilling prophecy at its most pathetic.
Hillary states now that she will have the troops out of Iraq in 60 days. She has not elaborated a great deal on that issue.
As long as Hillary maintains her health, and barring a depression, and there is an election, Hillary Clinton will be our next president. I guarantee it. She is the chosen one by the neo-cons who actually run this country. It's time for a Democrat. McCain will be the Republican choice and he will not win the general election.
It is 500 to 1, that neither Obama or Edwards will be Hillary's chosen running mate. Edwards may have a cabinet post. There is a slim chance it could be Bill, but I doubt that also. I don't have a clue yet of who else may be the VP choice.
That's how it is, we progessive thinkers have little power as yet, we may never have much, unless after a depresion there are any of us left.
John Edwards just dropped out and with his exit went the only chance the Democrats had to win back the presidency. Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a reactionary Republican disguised as a Democrat and reminds me very much of the character Livia in "I, Claudius". If this is what the Democratic party has come to, let it disappear.
At one point in his CCGA oration, Obama had the audacity to say the following in support of his claim that U.S. citizens support "victory" in Iraq: "The American people have been extraordinarily resolved. They have seen their sons and daughters killed or wounded in the streets of Fallujah."
This was a spine-chilling selection of locales. Fallujah was the site for a colossal U.S. war atrocity. Crimes included the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the targeting of ambulances and hospitals, and the practical leveling of an entire city—in April and November 2004. The town was designated for destruction as an example of the awesome state terror promised to those who dared to resist U.S. power. Not surprisingly, Fallujah is a leading symbol of U.S. imperialism in the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is a deeply provocative and insulting place for Obama to choose to highlight American sacrifice and "resolve" in the occupation of Iraq.
It gets worse. Obama has repeatedly voted to spend billions on the illegal invasion since his arrival in the U.S. Senate. He inveighs against the "Tom Hayden wing of the Democratic Party" and has told congressional Democrats they would be "playing chicken with the troops" if they dared to actually (imagine) de-fund the Cheney-Bush "war."
Obama has repeatedly and absurdly claimed that the illegal invasion was launched with the "best of democratic intentions."
He praises U.S. military personnel for their "unquestioning" "service" in Iraq and (despite numerous U.S. atrocities there) for "doing everything we could ever ask of them."
His belated calls for withdrawal are hedged by numerous statements indicating that an Obama White House would maintain a significant military presence in and around Iraq for an indefinite period of time. And Obama has refused to support taking a reckless (possibly even nuclear) U.S. military assault on Iran off the table of acceptable U.S. foreign policy options.
Barack Obama reacts to the world's response to imperialism in precisely the same way as his counterparts; he proposes more war. Obama wants to add almost one-hundred thousand new troops to the U.S. military, to alleviate the shortage of manpower that Iraq attrition has wrought. In his speech to the Woodrow Wilson Center, Obama gave away their destination: Waziristan. Obama wants a more aggressive approach to the so-called "war on terror," to take "the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
So what we have in Barack Obama is an alternative War Party, planning an alternative War. He has told us so, and we should believe him. He is no peace candidate, and goes out of his way to prove it.
Among other things Obama promises to add 100,000 troops to US military and step up US intervention in Pakistan and Afghanistan, with a focus on Waziristan. To even hint that Obama (remember here he worked AGAINST anti-war candidate Ned Lamont and FOR war hawk Joe Lieberman in their political contest) is any sort of anti-war candidate you have to have your head in the sand. Remember also that he voted FOR the mendacious war criminal Condoleeza Rice to of all things the office of Secretary of State.
Now let's talk about Iraq.
"I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq."
- Barack Obama
Obama's handlers and supporters place considerable emphasis on the claim that the junior senator from Illinois has voiced a "consistent position against the war" and (by extension) the Middle East. The assertion has some technical accuracy; Obama has publicly questioned the Bush administration's case for war since the fall of 2002. But serious scrutiny of his "antiwar position" shows that the supposedly "pragmatic" and "non-ideological" Obama speaks in deferential accord with the doctrine of empire.
Consistent with his denial and embrace of Washington's imperial ambitions, Obama has refused to join genuinely anti-war forces in calling for a rapid and thorough withdrawal of troops and an end to the occupation of Iraq. In a critical November 2005 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA) call for a rapid redeployment and any notion of a timetable for withdrawal. Obama's call for "a pragmatic solution to the real war we're facing in Iraq" included repeated references to the need to "defeat" the "insurgency"—a goal that means continuation of the war.
Obama's November speech to the CCGA advocates a vaguely timed Iraq "scenario" in which "U.S. forces" might remain in the occupied state for an "extended period of time." Obama advances a "reduced but active [U.S. military] presence" that "protects logistical supply points" and "American enclaves like the Green Zone" (site of one of the largest and most heavily militarized "embassies" in history) while "sending a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in the region." U.S. troops "remaining in Iraq" will "act as rapid reaction forces to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists." This is part of what Obama meant when he told a fawning David Brooks that, "the U.S. may have no choice but to slog it out in Iraq."
I agree with everything that was said about Hillary, but Obama is no shining star either. He praises Reagan, the chief architect behind the destruction of the middle class. He echoes Republican talking points that deal with Social Security and plays the "Bush Lite" macho role when talking about terrorism. I don't believe either of these candidates has what it takes to roll back the extremist, corrupt and detrimental policies of the Bush administration.
Sorry, but "from the beggining" is garbage, since it effectively came to an end when he voted to fund the war that he previously had been against.
Both the front-runners are for the war, with the only difference being degree of enthusiasm. I will not support either one.
"Isn't it disturbing that Sen. Clinton has received more money than any other candidate of either party from the big defense contractors, according to a report on the Huffington Post?"
That line says it all.
I think that we could do worst than get behind Obama. Do you really want McCaine?
I agree with Kristina40. Hillary is the perfect weather vane. She voted for the war for political expediency, and then was against it when it became unpopular. I just can't stomach voting for someone like that. At least Obama was vocal against it before it happened - he could have easily jumped on the bandwagon thinking he might run for President one day. Yes, he's wrong to not vote to defund the war, but it's far less of a sin that starting the war in the first place. And yes, he's somewhat of a corporate hack like all the rest, but we have no choice at this point, we're stuck with a flawed political system at this time. I'm getting ready for Super Tuesday here in California and I'm probably going to vote for Obama.
Nothing will get the US out of Iraq other than military defeat. We are in there, have always been in there, for geopolitical reasons: whoever has primary influence over the petroleum and gas resources of the Middle East will be the one who can maintain world hegemony. But what the US geostrategists haven't taken into consideration is: the exhaustion of the US military due to imperial overstretch, the exhaustion of the American people due to confusion (carefully arranged by government and mass media), overwork, general demoralization. We have invested $500 million in by far the largest embassy we have anywhere in Baghdad. We have at least fourteen military bases which are meant to be permanent. I repeat: we will not leave Iraq until we are driven out of the country. And that will happen within the next few years.
The rest of the party elite has to get behind Obama if the Kennedy endorsement is to have any clout.
I heard Obama say that he would have the troops out of Iraq in 16 months. That's on of the few concrete statements I've heard from him. I'm hoping that if he's (s)elected, he will suprise us in good ways. I know Clinton won't.
Obama wasn't a Senator so didn't vote on the Iraq issue BUT, he was very vocal in his opposition to the war from the beginning. The idea of McCain in the white house is just plain terrifying to me. 100 MORE YEARS IN IRAQ? Uhm, I will have to vote for Obama if he gets the nod. Hillary, I just don't think I'll be able to do it, I just can't. She was all about NAFTA until it became unpopular, just like she was all about Iraq until it became unpopular. If people thought Kerry was a flip-flopper, wait til the GOP gets ahold of Billary...
No matter who our President is, we need to do more as citizens to talk about what is going on in Iraq. We can't have democratic citizens making judgements about the war while still thinking it is revenge for 9/11. The President effectively mislead the American public to the point where 67% of the population thought Iraq was involved with 9/11. We still have work to do in terms of repairing the truth about what is going on.
The war will go on and on. These two were nominated by the Corporations to divide the opposition. The more people who fall for these bendovercrats, rather than denounce our Corporate rigged electoral system, the longer we will remain in Iraq and the longer our entire country will rot.
Lesseroftwoevilism R.I.P. 2008!
It's common knowledge that Obama was NOT in the U.S. Senate when the vote for the Iraq invasion was taken. He does not try to obscure this. I don't know who I will vote for in November but it will definitely be a Democrat. I am for the truth about the candidates, however. The Republicans spread enuf lies about the Dems without us joining them!
What Obama has obscured is that he wasn't a Senator when he opposed the invasion and occupation and didn't have to vote on the authorization. As a centrist Democrat in his two years in the Senate he has made statements agreeing with the Bush policies and has voted to continue funding the war. He also has made no statements that he'd recommend pulling the troops out now.
It's not truthful to paint Obama as the progressive anti-war candidate without looking deeper than his pretty speeches and color. Read his statements. Look at his voting record. Then decide. I am a Hillary supporter and I am ready for this fight. Howabout you?
Look at the facts - The sleaze label because she takes money from the same interests as Bush, supports the war, etc, etc.
Also, last time I looked many of the problems started with Bill. What do you call 500,000 dead Iraqi children from our Bill installed illegal sanctions?, NAFTA(ask never-to-work workers about this) and corporate capitalistic globalization which is going to make us a 3rd world country.
I can well understand why the Neocon Swiftboaters are sharpening their knives. Ignoring reality won't help. I cannot think of a better way to bring out the sexist pigs of the US than to nominate Billary.
ESHU__You need to cool down a bit or you might blow your top and will not be around to give us any more informative posts. I notice you and chlamor both hate the ground the two democratic contenders walk on but do not offer the solution to the countries problems. If you think the Clinton years were so bad , what must your opinion be of Bush`s destruction of everything he got close to? At least Clinton had the guts to raise taxes on the rich and balance the budget so after eight years they talked of paying off the national debt. Now our kids have ten trillion of tax cuts to the rich and a war charged up to them. Our country is going down the drain, and all some of you can think of to do is trash both Democratic contenders.
NANCY PACE___ Who has not been tested yet as president and we have no idea if he can follow up his impressive speech with action and withstand the corporate rule that does not want all of his ideas?
Who has a middle name that the right wingers will have a field day with and close connections with a backward Muslim country?
I left the USA in 2003 because of the Iraq War and have been living and teaching in Thailand for the past 5 years. I supported Kucinich and Edwards, but now I am supporting Obama. His strong statements in opposition to the Iraq War are a lot better than Hillary Clinton's refusal to apologize for her shameful vote to authorize Congressional support for an illegal and unconstitutional war of aggression. Her Walmart Board of Directorship work also rankles me greatly. More importantly, I believe if it comes down to a vote in November between Clinton and McCain, McCain will win because he is more likeable. Therefore, we must all work incredibly hard to make sure that Clinton does NOT get the Democratic nomination in Denver. I belong to Democrats Abroad in Thailand and will be voting on next Tuesday Feb. 5 in Bangkok for Obama. Democrats Abroad get 22 delegates at the convention, and if necesary, I will go to Denver!