Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The New Phase for Obama, Clinton and the Rest of Us
Obama still leads in the race for the nomination but has been damaged on core issues of character and message. Clinton still can win but only by alienating many voters the Democrats need. The peace and justice movement should be cheered by the attention to Iraq and NAFTA, and keep on pressing the candidates.Obama must get tougher without contradicting the high standards he is setting for himself. There are two lines he can pursue:
His campaign can demand immediate disclosure of the Clinton tax returns, White House and Library documents that will show where Hillary Clinton's $5 million donation came from, and whether Bill Clinton has used his influence in cases like the uranium contract with Kazakhstan for a Clinton donor who gave at least $31 million to the ex-president's charitable foundation [NYT, Jan. 31, 2008]. It is imperative for Obama to parry the Clintons on these issues while the ugly Chicago trial of Obama supporter Tony Rezko is unfolding in Chicago.
Second, those same White House records will reveal whether Clinton has lied about having lobbied internally against NAFTA as First Lady. Only biographer Carl Bernstein claims she did, but he may be referring to her concerns about the timing of the NAFTA initiative, not NAFTA itself. Obama needs to parry on this issue to offset the story out of Canada that his representative gave secret assurances to Ottawa about Obama's NAFTA proposal.
Finally, in terms of policy, it is becoming increasingly questionable whether Obama can succeed at his lofty visionary level without sharpening a principled policy difference with Clinton that really matters to voters. It is too late to dream up a new issue. The only policy difference favoring Obama that goes straight to the issue of "experience" is Iraq. It no longer is enough that Obama opposed the war five years ago, especially if it appears that there are no differences between the candidates now. For whatever reason, Obama has allowed Clinton to appear to take an identical stand on the war. Is that true? Or is it time for Obama to issue a further clarification of his position separating him from both Clinton and McCain? The peace movement and media can play a role here.
The key questions are these:
- Does Clinton propose a timetable for withdrawing combat troops, like Obama does?
- Does either Democratic candidate plan to withdraw all troops, or leave tens of thousands of Americans behind fighting a counterinsurgency war like Afghanistan today or Central America in the 1970s?
Are these questions too complicated for the media and the candidates to ask themselves? Or is it true once again that the issues which are hidden in campaigns turn out to be the most important in the end?
The peace movement can help force the issue, especially in Pennsylvania, if it is galvanized. Iraq, it is said, is the pivotal issue in the Philadelphia suburbs. The message from the peace movement delivered on blogs, leaflets and in rallies could be something like this:
We oppose Sen. McCain because he wants to continue President Bush's war in Iraq for years ahead at a cost of X lives and X dollars to the people of Pennsylvania and this country. But we have an urgent question for the Democratic candidates: which of you really will end the Iraq war, on what deadline, and not leave behind tens of thousands of US counter-terrorism units and advisers in a bloody counterinsurgency quagmire like Afghanistan today or Central America in the 1970s?
Assuming Obama says nothing new, which is likely at this point, the way is open for Clinton, believe it or not, to become the preferred anti-war candidate. All she needs to do is listen to John Podesta, the former White House chief of staff for her husband, who strongly favors the withdrawal of all American troops in one year. Podesta argues that leaving thousands of troops behind would sink them further in a quagmire. Or she could listen to her husband's former CIA director, John Deutch, who publicly says the US should broker a deal with Iran and get out of Iraq. She could seize on Obama's apparent policy of planning to continue contracts with Blackwater security forces.
Or Obama could stop relying on his five-year old speech and say the time has come to clarify who really wants to leave Iraq. In this scenario, he would say that Clinton has avoided saying whether she would set an actual deadline to withdraw all combat troops, whether troops will be gone by 2013, or whether she would leave tens of thousands of American troops still in Iraq after two terms of her presidency. The evidence is clear that she plans to keep behind trainers, advisers, counter-terrorism units and sufficient forces to "deter Iran."
The math is simple, starting with the Baker-Hamilton assumption of 10-20,000 American troops left behind after combat units withdraw. For 15,000 adviser/trainers there would be a back-up force three times that number, for a total of 60,000. If 50,000 private contractors also remained, the total would run to 110,000 while the current combat brigades were being withdrawn. This could be the greatest false promise since Richard Nixon's secret plan for peace in 1972, which was followed by his carpet bombing of Hanoi with B-52s.
For further on this false promise, see "Many Troops Would Stay in Iraq If a Democrat Wins", Wall Street Journal, Feb. 29, 2008, and "Peace, Or Counterinsurgency Without End", Tom Hayden, SF Chronicle, Jan. 24, 2008.
So what is a sensible alternative to this nightmare scenario? Any serious alternative would begin with the assertion that counterinsurgency in Iraq can't turn around a war that 160,000 combat troops have failed to win. The US units will be caught in a sectarian crossfire. Only a political/diplomatic settlement can contain the damage caused by the Bush policies, and a diplomatic offensive will have to include a pledge that American troops will withdraw before the neighboring countries will become engaged in the issues of refugees, reconciliation and reconstruction.
Beyond Iraq, it is crucial that the US not fall into the Bush-McCain-Neo-conservative scenario, stated by Bush in 2005, of a new Cold War against "Islamo-fascism." Not that American military power shouldn't be available for deterrent purposes against anyone who has attacked this country. But military approaches in the absence of a primary emphasis on diplomacy and political/economic/energy solutions will only sink the next generation in permanent, bloody, costly, and destabilizing quagmires without an exit strategy in sight. It will be like burning down haystacks in search of needles. It is exactly the US policy that Osama Bin Ladin hopes for. [see Marching Toward Hell, by Michael Scheuer, the man who tracked Bin Ladin and carried out renditions for the CIA]
This scenario, if pursued by any of the candidates, will also bury the possibilities of funding universal health care or alternatives to our oil dependency for the next generation, just as Lyndon Johnson's delusional promise of "guns and butter" destabilized the American economy and made us vulnerable to oil boycotts in the wake of Vietnam.
It would create a worsening national security crisis by further inflaming the Muslim world, isolating the US from its allies, and creating the pretexts for multiplying insurgencies, including the possibility of another 9/11-style attack.
Anyone with the brain of a plant can see the US heading right into these traps and quagmires. Read Barbara Tuchman's March of Folly and it will become clear that only a stunning jolt might force a reversal of course. That "jolt", hopefully, will come from a popular and unavoidable demand for peace rather than another military fiasco.
Obama, if he truly aspires to audacity, now is the time to point out that this is the disastrous and predictable future that will result from the policies proposed by those who claim to have superior "experience" and "expertise" in foreign policy. For precedent, he could stand in Springfield, Illinois, and remind the nation that it was another political novice from Illinois, young Abraham Lincoln, who opposed the Mexican-American war and went on to become quite a commander-in-chief.
Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq and Writing for a Democratic Society, The Tom Hayden Reader.
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
187 Comments so far
Show All*
Unfortunately, Tom, neither candidate is listening to your analysis. And if Obama doesn't take some sort of bold step, and fast, the public will be left shaken and unsure by Hillary's attacks. As she intended. She's a wicked one, doesn't care a whit about collateral damage with her scorched earth policy. If she wins the nomination, McCain may well be the next president, considering that her praise of him amounts to an endorsement. If Obama wins the nomination, she's given McCain a loaded gun. I thought she was supposed to be smart. What I get is that when she's desperate, she acts without thinking. Not a good sign. Unfortunately the American public is acting like a giant amoeba, flinching when poked, without realizing what's really going on. Look at Ohio. One of the original crafters of NAFTA managed to hang it around Obama's neck (with an assist from the fascist PM of Canada - hey, does that mean we get to meddle in their elections too?).
Hillary Clinton is so ego driven to become president, she doesn't care how many corpses she leaves strewn around. Well, we knew that about her when she voted against banning cluster bombs. Someone pointed out that she did it to look strong. I'm not sure which is more obscene, to do it for money or to look like a hawk. Either way, children get blown up. Neither way, was it a principled decision. Of course, if she ever had any, she left them at Wal-Mart.
kathyodat
If Obama wins the nomination he's got my vote. If Hillary gets away with her negative campaigning then I will not vote or vote for Nader.
ces4, me too, for Nader. I always vote.
kathyodat
When has any Democrat challenged the talk about a new cold war against Islamo-fascism? The Dems seem to buy into this completely, and they constantly try to prove how tough they'll be in fighting if they get the chance to manage the evil empire.
And that's the whole thrust of the Dems. They'll be better managers of the Evil Empire than Bush\Cheney\McCain. They love the evil empire just like the Rethugs. They only say they might have different tactics and would be better managers of the evil empire than the rebpublicans.
Remember, Bush has probably killed a million Iraqis during his reign. But the Clintons killed about the same number during their eight years. The two used different tactics and different weapons. Bush uses invasions and bombs and bullets and torture and disappearences. The Clintons used sanctions and starvation and the withholding of medicine.
But the Dems and the Republicans both leave nearly identical mountains of bodies in their wake.
Turns out that it was Clinton who said not to worry about her NAFTA rhetoric. I'll be sure to send in my donation to NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN right away. Thanks for blowing it for Obama in Ohio.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02/28/fact_check_on_inaccurate_repor.php
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/05/canada-obama.html
Tom Hayden refers to "war" in reference to Iraq seven times. But he refers to "occupation" not once. He fails to discuss that the Iraq invasion and occupation are illegal—that they are crimes. This plays right into the Republican strategy, as do the stances of corporate militarists Obama and Clinton.
When McCain says in a debate: "Do you or do you not want our nation to win the war in Iraq?" this framing of a war by Hayden leads to ineffective answers to that question. If Obama and Clinton (following Hayden's "war" frame) say "no," McCain will brand them as traitors. If they say "yes" he will say "How will troop withdrawals help us win?" The answer within that frame will be . . . weak.
But if the "war" frame is abandoned, and the progressive and accurate frame of "occupation" is adopted, then a true progressive could say (like McKinney or Nader): "The question Senator McCain, is not whether I want to win the Iraq war. No. The question is 'How can you win a crime?' The question is 'How can you win an illegal occupation?' And the question is, 'what do we do to prosecute those American officials, such as you, who supported the crime of the Iraq invasion and occupation?' We must ask 'how do we hold you accountable for the deaths of over 4000 American soldiers and over a million Iraqi civilians?'"
That kind of response would be be accurate, powerful and principled. But neither Clinton or Obama, nor Hayden have been thinking through the situation, the framing, the law and the reality to create decent progressive responses to the inevitable Republican militaristic arguments.
Come on Tom Hayden. Think this through. Read George Lakoff. Read Thom Hartmann. And read Charles Derber. It is an occupation. It is a crime. We need a call for ending the occupation and for war crimes trials, not weak arguments and trivial policies against a war that ended in 2003.
Thank you Tom Hayden for the insight and analysis. You're exactly right. Obama needs to expand on his criticism of the assumptions underlying the phony "War On Terror." I believe he is already on the record as stating that the phrase is misleading. Now he needs to separate himself from Clinton's position by explaining how it is misleading and counterproductive to our national security. He needs to explain why the Republicans have used this whip up jingoistic impulses in the American public and impugn the patriotism of Democrats, Progressives and the Peace Movement.
One "wild" and bold thing Obama could do to "manage" both Hillary and the Republicans is to tell her (publicly) that he is ready to join her as VP on a "dream ticket." If she accepts, the two of them will stop fighting and almost certainly beat McCain. If she declines, the Democrats (including especially the super delegates) will be so mad as to run away from her and nominate him. Obama could "LEAD" now by offering to serve the party, the people, and perhaps 12 or 16 years of liberals at the White House
Or, he can stand and fight, maybe winning, and maybe exposing us all to losing November. I'm not necessarily recommending either, but leadership is a bold thing and INCLUDES "managing" the Clintons.
I fail to see any problem with Samantha Powers' comment that Hillary is a monster. How about "sociopath"? Would that be better? Her team has circulated photos of Mr. Obama in a Muslim outfit, has accused him of her own cynicism in discussing NAFTA, has accused him of plagiary which she has freely practiced, has hidden her tax forms while professing concern over Reszko, and so on. Perhaps above all, she has given us an open look at her calculating, obnoxious, arrogant, and polarizing personality. I now can see why her health care proposal, whatever its merits, was shot down; nobody wants to work with her! What confidence can we have that she can work with anybody – other countries or the Congress – on anything? She is obviously brighter than Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain, both of whom have stupid notions about "victory" in Vietnam and Iraq. In contrast with their stupidity, she offers us cynicism and narcissism. She advocated the Iraq invasion, not because she believed in it particularly, but because it seemed a cool and winning position to take. Now that it has emerged as a fiasco, she criticizes the execution, not the inception, of the war. She advocates the seating of the Florida delegates, not because she believes in their representation, but because she believes they may put her over the top – even though she knows perfectly well that Mr. Obama did not campaign in Florida because the primary violated DNC policies. If she were interested in a fair representation of FL and MI voters, she would advocate, and pay for, a do-over, in which it is openly understood, from the start, by all voters, by the DNC, and by all candidates, that the primaries are to count. Her staff accuses Mr. Obama of being like Ken Starr, in insisting that she be as open in her tax and other financial matters as Mr. Obama has been, while at the same time asking insinuating questions about Reszko and circulating the photos of the Muslim outfit – and then, ever so slyly, Mrs. Clinton says, "As far as I know," Mr. Obama has no terrorist links because of his name or garb.
All of which brings us to the matter of fitness to be in the Oval Office. She is a disgrace to her gender, she is a disgrace as a human being, and (pragmatically speaking) she has lost. In recent statements, she has shown her disloyalty to her party and her contempt for her opponent in making comments to the effect that she and Mr. McCain have crossed the threshold of qualifications to be Commander in Chief but that Mr. Obama has not. These statements can be accepted only if we subscribe to the looking-glass world of Alice in Wonderland. I agree that she and Mr. McCain are in the same league, in being unfit for the Oval Office. Mr. McCain is unfit on grounds of stupidity. He truly believes in some kind of nonsensical "victory," in the Iraq matter just as he did in Vietnam. The last thing America needs is that kind of "leadership." Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, is unfit on grounds of totally amoral cynicism. She is unfit, further, because of her utterly arrogant and secretive character. The DNC needs to work up the wherewithal to remove her from the Presidential race – either that, or watch her destroy the Democratic party. The American people deserve a better shake than a choice between stupidity and cynicism. Senator Obama offers them an alternative – rare in American politics – to that choice.
There is something that could be said about Hillary's EVERREADY claim to picking up the phone at 3 am without her makeup, but fully garbed... where WAS she when her husband, whose tenure she relies on completely for her claim to experience... yes, where was she when MONICA WAS IN THE OVAL OFFICE...
Was Hillary en garde, aux aguets, as the French say, then? And what was her ultimate response to her husband's behavior, for his humiliation of her, of his willingness to just let Monica be labeled a liar, which she would have been cept she kept THE DRESS which let the world know she was telling the truth.....yes, Hillary's response was... what? I am sure that Obama will shrink from bringing up this lack of surveillance, because, he is, ultimately a nice fellow who would not want to hit below the belt... but don't think Hillary isn't ready to hit below the belt should the opportunity arise...
I agree. Obama needs to start discussing the ways that peace can be effectively waged. America is tired of these hawkish morons who take their leads from fictional icons portrayed by John Wayne and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Let's just grow up people and try to re-learn what we were forced to learn in kindergarten, that it is required that we all find a way to just get along. People are hurting. No more bullshit.
Daisy - I understand your words. But we are sinking here, so don't go there. I heard a brilliant idea: DNC calls candidates and superdelegates to DC. New Rules: 1. stop the childishness. 2. From now on, whoever goes/continues to go negative, or in any way provides Republicans talking points, the other guy gets the superdelegates. Problems with that: how will the DNC do anything so smart? how would they absolutely enforce it? And I already hear Hilary saying she won't agree. So how in the hell is she going to negotiate anything as president? I forget, with what she is doing now she won't get there. (Credit David Bender with the plan outlined).
The problem with presidential elections is that the candidates try to say as little as possible. This is why we need to focus on engaging in a global conversation about peace.
We also need to do a better job of framing the issues.
It is an occupation not a war.
We don't support defeat, we support a new strategy for victory.
We don't have to live within a war of all against all.
We have the ability to live in peace.
McCain-Hillary Ticket... So Hillary is so ready to tout her foreign experience? Maybe she should be secretary of state? Or would that be disaster? I tend to think so. I am disappointed to learn that my friends who thought so little of the Clinton team's integrity seem to have been on the mark. I really don't think Obama has antagonized so many people as the Clintons have... and this alone makes him the superior candidate. An Obama-Clinton team sounds awful-- a McCain-Clinton team might work for the REpublicans.
I thought Samantha Powers called Bush a monster, not Clinton. Maybe Democracy Now got it wrong.
Obama gives better answers--like on Nader he said: the job is for the democrats to make voters feel he is a better choice than Nader, while Clinton said: Nader cost Al Gore the election.
Billary is toxic.
Our president should, and I repeat, should, have an outstanding character. We have suffered under the hand of one who did/does not... at this point I may not vote at all if Hillary is our candidate. I do not want to say I had a part in her election. She'll have to slug it out on her own with her sweetie buddy McCain. And we can watch our country sink further into morass. Sigh. No empire lasts forever. When those at the top cannot inspire because of their lack of integrity... well, then all is hypocrisy. I haven't tilted to hyprocrisy, nor the dictum "the end justifies the means." But then I'm just a small town insignificant who read inspiring biographies as a child. Probably those books were filled with lies... I'm becoming a cynic.
I have an idea for an ad for Obama-It's 3 in the morning and the phone is ringing-a voice picks up the phone and sez "you must have the wrong number there's no Monica at this number!
Obama isn't ego-driven? Tell me another one. Anyone who runs for office has to have a strong ego. The so-called "scorched earth" policy if Hillary is nothing compared to what McCain's swift boaters will lob at Obama. So why are people complaining about Hillary doing what every politician, including Obama, does? Can we stop saying Hillary is destroying the Democratic party? She's doing it a favor by rehearsing for the general. If she's the nominee, she can mop the floor with McCain's "we're winning in Iraq" lies. She'll play as dirty as McCain and beat him on the issues. Obama will be Kerry Redux (I can imagine it now, "Please, can we be civil here?"). Hillary's no more the destroyer of the Democratic party than Obama is the savior.
btw, didn't Hillary just LEND the money to her campaign? Do you suppose she is charging interest? At credit card rates, maybe? Or maybe just a token interest rate to show how generous she is?
Fun idea from Melmac... that's a really superduper idea.
Maybe there could be a series of phone calls... Paula Jones, Monica, ...??
I'm beginning to think, based on rmax's comment, and other similar comments i've read here and elsewhere, that what's going on in this election is not a division between left-wing vs right-wing or republican vs. democrat but rather between idealists and cynics. I wish I could think of a word besides "idealist" that sounds less airy-fairy but if I have to choose one or the other, Idealist (and Obama)is where I will stand.
The problem facing us is that we know the characters of two of the contenders... and neither one stands up to the integrity test... But you know what, maybe Obama should say, "Fine, go ahead, Hillary, show us what you've got...and we'll just watch as we crumble. Who wants to take us this mess anyway?" Or maybe McCain should just be assigned the Herculean task of cleaning out the stables, or descending into hell to rescue those who languish there due to current policies. Maybe it's just desserts... those who participated in creating the problems should have to fix them... A McCain-Clinton administration...
Obama will sure have his work cut out for him... and I think that he had no hand in creating the awful situation we now are witnessing....domestically and abroad.
Now that "Monster Hillary" is using Obama as one of her campaign promises. She knows she can't win his followers over, so she is plagiarising, in effect, using his presence as VP to win their votes! What kind of a sick, egotistical bitch would do this?
Look at this:
Clinton raises possibility of ticket with Obama again
SARA KUGLER
Associated Press
March 7, 2008 at 1:17 PM EST
HATTIESBURG, Miss. — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday again raised the possibility that she might run with rival Barack Obama on the same Democratic presidential ticket.
Speaking to voters in Mississippi, where Mr. Obama is expected to do well in next week's primary, Ms. Clinton said, "I've had people say, 'Well I wish I could vote for both of you. Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday."
It is the second time this week that she has hinted at a joint ticket with the Illinois senator; he has not ruled it out but says it is premature to be having those discussions.
He needs to take a stand against her. Use a campaign slogan from Macy Gray: "Get back bitch, I ain't giving you shit!"
I going out and making a bumper sticker right now. Who else wants one?
"Obama still leads in the race for the nomination but has been damaged on core issues of character and message." It's all relative to me. Hillary Clinton didn't have any character or message to begin with, except "Clinton for President."
This tortured analysis is too smart by half. Hillary Clinton is a warmonger like her hero John McCain who sang "bomb bomb bomb Iran while laughing. This is the person she puts on the same footing with her while showing nothing but contempt for progressives in her party who support Obama. We must face the fact that Hillary Clinton is a right wing extremist herself and when her husband thanks Rush Limbaugh and his racists friends for helping them out in Texas we can see what she really believes.
I agree that Obama needs to push his anti-war rhetoric harder, but I also don't understand why he is not working harder to point out that Hillary Clinton all but declared that her Republican rival would make a better president than her Democratic one. Clinton's comparing McCain's experience favorably to her own is unconscionable.
Just for starters, maybe Obama needs to say something like, "Senator Clinton seems to believe that her experience as First Lady somehow equates to Senator McCain's military service. Other than being married to a former president, Senator Clinton has virtually the same experience as Senator McCain and I do." And that could be just a launching pad for examining Clinton's judgement, integrity, and party affiliation.
By equating herself with McCain, she has handed a campaign line to the Republicans that they are sure to use. In the event that Obama is the candidate, the line will go something like, "Even Obama's DEMOCRATIC opponent, Hillary Clinton has said that Senator McCain is more prepared to be president than he is." Should Clinton get the nomination, they can use the fact that she used any method to attack Obama without regard to party loyalty. Her character is definitely in question, and the Republican machine is masterful at making the most of questionable character in its "enemies."
Seems like she has created a no-win scenario, and has made it more likely that the Republicans might actually find a way to put another war-mongering hypocrite into the white house for at least 4 more years of insanity.
These are fluid times, the US economy is in full meltdown at a scale which none of us seem to comprehend, oil is racing off the charts, Iraq remains lingering over all of us, etc. I say let McCain finish what Bush has started, the total destruction of our Country. Then in four years either Hillary, Obama or a true visionary to be named later can join all of us in rebuilding America under a "New Deal". In the meantime, focus on survival and good luck (we're all really going to need it).
~MAX~ Be careful of what you post here. The truth is not an acceptable option for many of the political pundants here at CD and you may find yourself labeled a DLC shill, or worse. You can lose "friends" by speaking a fair and objective political opinion.
~CAPTN 72~ I sure don't agree to have McCain in for four more years of Bushism, but you are correct about stating we are in for tough times and whoever the next president is will inherit a damn mess that no one will be able to correct. It may be a shame if Obama does win and inherits that mess because he'll be blamed for it. I believe we may have a depression before the general election and then it won't matter who the president is.
In fact, Bush may cancel the election and take over HIS kingdom if the depression does hit. Ironic, our forefathers who gave us our Constitution and ousted a King George, would be spinning in their graves to hear we have another "King George", one who ignored and buried that piece of "paper".
I'll vote for whichever one wins the Demo nomination, I favor Hillary a bit more than Obama, my wife favors Obama a bit more than Hillary. Those are personal opinions, we still love one another and sleep in the same bed every night. But post such an opinon here, and some who once not long ago said they were our friends, turn on us because they have a different political opinion and scorn and shun us. What a shame.
I can see the democrats split before the general election no matter who the candidate is and McCain being easily elected. Some will refuse to vote and some will vote third party, essentially voting their conscience and knowing full well Nader or another cannot win even 4% of the vote.
WHY did Hillary Clinton, with her brains and Bill's mega-Rolodex of Democrats all over the country, NOT contest the caucuses? WHY did Hillary not even try to organize her supporters to attend and win the Idaho and Nebraska and all other caucuses?
Even extreme hubris is not a workable explanation; wouldn't the 'inevitable' candidate want to roll up big wins everywhere, to show her strength?
Instead of running a campaign designed to achieve a big, clean victory, she has run a campaign so incompetently that the only win available to her now is an ugly, divisive, guaranteed-to-lead-to Democratic-loss-in-the-fall, split-the-Democratic-party-for-a-generation bloody win.
Now, in the last couple of weeks, her strategy has become more obvious; she's running a campaign to elect McCain!
Her below-the-belt comments praising McCain's experience over Obama's and her disingenuous answer to the question about Obama's faith on 60 minutes now make sense. A very smart woman like Hillary should have been able to give a straightforward answer to a simple question about whether Obama is a Muslim; but instead, she weasled on the question and then whined about her own difficulties.
Hillary has been around long enough to know that respectable Democrats do not provide sound bites for the Republicans; it is fine to criticize Obama, but it is NOT acceptable to denigrate a Democrat in comparison to a Republican. Not amongst mature professionals, at least.
The only reasonable explanation remaining is that Hillary is working to elect McCain. She's just not honest enough to join the Republican Party and work openly toward her goal.
Hillary Clinton: Working for McCain's election since Day One!
melmac78,
Great line.
Let's face it. Billary is Bush-Lite. Plain and simple. Obama needs to go on the offensive and bury this lying, abhorrance of a woman once and for all. (I have nothing against women running for political office, but I can't stand Billary). She is two-faced, consistently and constantly flip-flops, a warhawk, and bought and paid for by AIPAC. She would be disastrous as POTUS.
As the Democrats prove themselves fools once again, McCain marches on. I guess we need to love war and poverty.
~Mayari~ that is a very simplistic opinion and funny too. Hillary didn't dream Obama would do so well, __ few of any of the political experts did. Obama fooled them and taught them a good lesson in the process. No campaign can cover all 50 states effectively. Hillary concentrated on the states which had the most delegates.
To assume from that decision that she is supporting McCain is not at all sensible, __ it's laughable. She wants change as much as Obama does, her campaign staff made some serious errors, as has Obamas. Those things happen in every election. For example that stupid red telephone TV ad Hillary ran. That's dumb and will hurt her. And it should. ___ She should knock off the bullshit and stick to issues. ___ It reminds me of the "Dukakaus" TV ad, of him riding around in a tank with his helmeted head bobbing up and down at the open hatch. He looked foolish, many people percieved him to be foolish and it cost him the election.
Tom Hayden writes:
"The peace and justice movement should be cheered by the attention to Iraq and NAFTA, and keep on pressing the candidates."
-----
Gee, it seems like just the other day that Tom Hayden was proclaiming "We Have A Nominee" . . .
Color me NOT cheered, okay -- at the not-quite-revelation that both faces of Hillobama are talking out both sides of their mouths on Iraq, NAFTA, etc., their advisors sliming around "off the record" to anybody who'll listen.
Outside the corporate salary mills, meanwhile, there's a gathering Depression -- and we'd better have a brilliant president, not either of these whining hacks, who've tried to appease the right by heaping adoration on milita-nuts Reagan and McCain.
Just NOT being a white male, it appears, ain't everything.
I'm not voting for either of these "post-partisan" frauds, EVER.
For the closet-conservative "liberal" punditocracy and the Democratic Party delegates to pretend NOW that the "will of the people" is being served by media muscle and purchased primaries (many of which have had substantial participation by non-Democrats), is just silly.
If the primary process had been based on politics, instead of the manufactured celebrity assured by Hillobama's 10-to-1 money advantage (and if some "politics in command" counter-culturish spokemen --who. should. have. known. better. -- hadn't prematurely jumped on the O'Bandwagon) Edwards might already BE the nominee.
Let us pray -- to whatever gods are currently considered permissible -- that the Democratic convention nominates John Edwards.
The question to be asked is: Do we Americans even have a right to win this illegal war in Iraq? What is victory and do we have a right to pursue it?
Why is anyone supporting Hillary Clinton for president? I have this feeling these idiots think by voting for Hillary, we're going to get Bill again as the defacto president and we'll all be magically transported back to the 1990's with money in our pockets and gas costing $.99. Get real, I supported Bill, campaigned for him and once he left office read ALL the books by the insiders. One remark I'll never forget being credited to Hillary "we're the president, now", meaning she considered herself as much the president as her husband. Also, all the early f-ups in the Clinton administration from travel-gate to White Water which led to Monica were hers.
The republicans want Hillary to be the democrat to run as she'll be so easy to beat. I can see it now, they'll "swift boat" her so fast her head will be spinning. If they can convince the voters that John Kerry was the coward for going to Vietnam imagine Hillary Clinton, smoking gun in hand standing over the still warm body of Vince Foster.
Before I made my mind up about anyone, and actuallly have not done that as yet. I checked their voting records. Those are readily available for ANYONE to read and study. They aren't bullshit, they are accurate voting records. Of the twelve major votes on the Iraqi issue and those of who Bush appointed to important positions, their votes were quite different,__ I was very surprised.
Of those TWELVE very importnat votes, Obama voted FOUR times in the way progressives would approve. ___ Hillary voted EIGHT times of the twelve in the way progressives would approve. I don't approve of Hillary's vote on cluster bombs. I also don't approve on Obama's vote on the IRAN war proposals and his NOT voting at all on some very important issues. The two are not identical in any way and their votes prove that, ___ votes don't lie. Check it out, __ or just blog pre-concieved opinions.
Daniel David,
one bold thing Hillary could do is accept losing. She will never win the majority of pledged delegates. The news is she just lost Texas. Which means she only won Ohio and Rhode Island on Tuesday (with a little help from hyphenated-Americans and flat lies about Obama's staff meeting with Canadian officials regarding NAFTA).
And big states with hard to tap media markets where she had 16 years of having her name tapping into them indicate she should have done better than she has, not that Obama should have done better than he has. The Democratic Party is not going to lose New Jersey, California, and New York. And the fact is that he makes states competitive Democrats don't usually competete in while erasing 30-20 point leads in California, New York, Ohio, Virginia, New Jersey, Georgia, and Texas.
The Democratic Party has spoken. The Clintons just don't like what they hear.
If the Democratic Party isn't about Democracy within the Party then Obama should run as an independent.
"The majority of a single vote (is) as sacred as if unanimous" - Thomas Jefferson, Founder of the Democratic Party.
Kem,
of course those 12 votes that matter so much to you (and I doubt that) don't include the one vote that matters to everyone else.
You may not care about the Iraq war vote Hillary cast in 2002. Millions of Americans do. Because once that vote was cast, every subsequent vote has been and will continue to be a vote to get the bus out of the ditch that 67 people or 60 people + the president can agree on.
Her vote to invade and occupy a country to steal their oil in the name of 'terrorism' that not one single Iraqi committed on 9/11 disqualifies her ipso facto.
Hillary Clinton did not vote for more inspectors. She voted for more war. Read the PLAIN ENLGISH of the resolution that she voted for that has no conditions attached to it. It is a resolution for war to invade and occupy Iraq for any reason Bush determines.
The Democratic Party can be the Antiwar Party or it can be the I Don't Know How to Read English, Conduct an Election, Stand up to the Clintons Party.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 28-March 2, 2008. N=1,126 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"
Worth It 34% Not Worth It 63% Unsure 2%
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
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
"It is noteworthy, then, that Senator Clinton voted against an amendment sponsored by Senator Carl Levin that would have authorized U.S. military action against Iraq if the UN Security Council approved the use of force and instead voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.
If Senator Clinton believes the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq because of that country's violation of Security Council resolutions, other Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other states that are in material breach of UN Security Council resolutions, such as Israel, Morocco, Turkey, Armenia, Pakistan and India . Her insistence on the right of the United States to unilaterally invade foreign countries because of alleged violations of UN Security Council resolutions seriously undermines the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and thereby opens the door to international anarchy."- Stephen Zunes, Professor of Political Science, The University of San Francisco
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/23/7245/
"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."- Barack Obama, the next President of the United States
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
Only extreme party loyalty or corporate media addiction, could blind someone to Clinton's myriad lies and extreme tactics. - "She's just doing what politicians always do." -
What a load of BS. - She's just doing what KARL ROVE always does. She's Machiavellian. Her language is Orwellian. She IS a monster. - Remember when CSPAN quit having a Republican call in line and just titled it "Supports the President?" - That became the definition of a "good Republican," like the "good German." - Be a good German, vote for Clinton in the general election no matter WHAT.
Like every other catfish belly white DNC establishment "liberal" in the last fifty years... her job is to LOSE.
But first she has to win. If she pulls it off in November, against the wellspring of progressive sentiment in her party... I'll kiss your butt on mainstreet.
I suppose if we're at war in Iran, Eastern Europe and Latin America by then, anything is possible.
#
melmac78 March 7th, 2008 1:05 pm
I have an idea for an ad for Obama-It's 3 in the morning and the phone is ringing-a voice picks up the phone and sez "you must have the wrong number there's no Monica at this number!
++++
I think Saturday Night Live might hire you. Thanks for the laugh. In the middle of this mess, it's so good to laugh.
Thanks ... you made my afternoon!
peace ...
Earthian, great suggestion here. Send it to Obama's headquarters
"... But if the "war" frame is abandoned, and the progressive and accurate frame of "occupation" is adopted, then a true progressive could say (like McKinney or Nader): "The question Senator McCain, is not whether I want to win the Iraq war. No. The question is 'How can you win a crime?' The question is 'How can you win an illegal occupation?' And the question is, 'what do we do to prosecute those American officials, such as you, who supported the crime of the Iraq invasion and occupation?' We must ask 'how do we hold you accountable for the deaths of over 4000 American soldiers and over a million Iraqi civilians?'"
That kind of response would be be accurate, powerful and principled."
We've got the makings of a great House of Representatives on this board!
peace ...
Kem Patrick___Don`t feel too bad about your opinions not being appreciated here. My wife and I have exactly the same idea as you and your wife-- I favor Hillary and she is more for Obama.
It is not much loss to have people ignore or ridicule you when all they can do is spew out venom that is not based on fact, but is only jumping on someones bandwagon to nowhere. We have posters that are apparently only concerned with creating a poisonous and divisive atmosphere and ruining what at one time was an enjoyable and informative venue.
It evidently is great fun to outdo everyone with false and twisted rhetoric, but it accomplishes nothing, and voting for sure losers or not at all is also worthless. This has turned into a depressing waste of everyone`s time as we need to concentrate on the possible solutions, not some fantasyland.
The solution--A Hillary and Barack ticket to bring back some sanity again and stop the ruination of the country.
Good advice,Tom, and I hope Obama folllows it, because I think he is a tad better than Clinton, especially with respect to military issues. However, the advice seems a tad late and really too bad that the candidate hasn't know all this from the Get-go. The candidate you describe sounds like the candidate I supported for all the reasons you gave, John Edwards. But Media and quite a bit of the Left was ignoring his great populist, progressive positions and overall electability, according to polls. Now, he is out front again in supporting the Iraq/Recession Connection campaign. Where are the candidates on that campaign. I'll tell you, scared to death.
Karita Hummer
Edwards Democrat
Yeah ~DOUGWAGNER~, I care about the vote on prop 114. Of course the truth is, Bush didn't need that vote to go to war and that's a fact you ignore. You also ignore the fact, that Obama has stated more than once, that if he could have voted on 114, he probably would have voted yes also, because he supported Kerry and would not have wanted to embarrass Senator Kerry. He's also said he would have voted no. He's also stated he is not sure of how he would have voted if he had been able to vote. So there you go, which statement is the truth? He has supported funding the war on twenty other votes since he has been in the Senate.
The argument that not funding the troops would be abandoning them in Iraq is bullshit. If Congress didn't fund the war, we'd pull our troops out of Iraq. The Iraqis don't want us there and we have no business staying there, or maintaining the $76 billion dollar embassy complex in Baghdad. But Obama voted to continue funding the war and so Did Hilllary. Of course Obama runs on the platform, that he's NEVER supported the war and occupations.
Everyone knows you are a staunch Obama supporter ~Dougwagner~ and that's fine, good for you. I applaud your dedication, Obama is a fine man. But if any wish to know the HONEST truth of his and Hillary's votes, ___ check it out, ___ don't accept mine or ~Dougwagner's~ posts. Obama's a fine man, a super orator, but he sure as hell is a LOT less progressive and their votes prove it.
Back in February I heard a lot of Democrats saying, "They're both good candidates, I hope X wins the nomination, but I'll support either one in November".
What happened? Clinton starts to play a little hardball?
Those who accuse Clinton of "lacking loyalty to the Party" and then declare that they'd rather vote for Nader rather than her need to listen to what they're saying.
Voting for Nader = Letting McCain win.
I voted for John Anderson rather than Jimmy Cartin in 1980 because I didn't like Carter's position on nuclear power. I didn't think that the clown from California, Ronald Reagan, had a snowball's chance of winning.
I won't make that mistake again.
If McCain wins, the war goes on indefinitly, we lose Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court, and power plants continue to pump mercury into the air.
If Clinton wins, the war goes on while she negotiates a deal that preserves some American influence in the Gulf, we keep Roe v. Wade, and the polluters get cleaned up or shut down.
Half a loaf is always better than none.
I still want to see Obama win. Since my state has already voted, the best way to express my displeasure with Clinton is to SEND HIM MONEY. I suggest we all do the same.
Blah, blah, blah.....
"The peace and justice movement should be cheered by the attention to Iraq and NAFTA, and keep on pressing the candidates."
I'll have some of what he's smoking.