Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCluster Bombs Are Not Good for Children, Hillary
(Ditto for Landmines and Sanctions)
The human soul is difficult to fathom. One person alone is capable of both compassion and cruelty.
In her autobiography, Living History, Senator Hillary Clinton portrays herself as an advocate for children, a defender of women and human rights. In fact, the Clintons have a long history of sacrificing the rights, even the lives of children, for political expediency. It is time to set the record straight.
On September 6, 2006, a Senate bill--a simple amendment to ban the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas--presented Senator Clinton with a timely opportunity to protect the lives of children throughout the world.
The cluster bomb is one of the most hated and heinous weapons in modern war, and its primary victims are children.
Senator Obama voted for the amendment to ban cluster bombs. Senator Clinton, however, voted with the Republicans to kill the humanitarian bill, an amendment in accord with the Geneva Conventions, which already prohibit the use of indiscriminate weapons in populated areas.
All senators are expected to inform themselves on the issues before they cast a vote. The evidence is overwhelming. It is hard to believe that Senator Clinton was unaware of the humanitarian crisis when she voted to continue the use of cluster bombs in cities and populated areas. A U.N. weapons commission called cluster bombs "weapons of indiscriminate effect." For years the international press reported the horrific consequences of cluster bombs on civilians. On April 10, 2003, for example, Asia Times described the carnage in Baghdad hospitals: "The absolute majority of patients are women and children, victims of shrapnel, and most of all, fragments of cluster bombs." Reporting from a hospital in Hillah, The Mirror, a British newspaper, became graphic: "Shrapnel peppered their bodies. Blackened the skin. Smashed heads. Tore limbs. A doctor reports that 'all the injuries you see were caused by cluster bombs. The majority of the victims were children who died because they were outside.'"
Even after wars subside, after treaties are signed, after belligerents return home, cluster bombs wreak havoc on civilian life. Up to 20 percent of the bomblets fail to detonate on the first round, only to become landmines that later explode on playgrounds and farmlands. Children are drawn to cluster bomb canisters, the deadly duds that look like beer cans or toys before they explode.
Clinton on Landmines
Of course Senator Clinton did not expect her vote on cluster bombs to become an issue in a presidential campaign. But that vote is one of many examples in a pattern of indifference to the welfare of children in the Developing World.
Because Clinton is now taking credit for the White House years, when she was a partner in power, we should also look closely at the Clinton policy regarding landmines, an issue of great concern to parents, to all those who care for children. The U.S. is the leading manufacturer of landmines. For families across the rest of the globe, landmines are buried terror. More than 100 million landmines are deployed in over 60 countries worldwide--nine million in Angola, 10 million in Cambodia. About 20,000 M14 antipersonnel mines are buried in the mountain areas of Yong-do, South Korea. According to U.N. estimates, 26,000 people, mostly civilians in developing countries, are killed or mutilated by landmines every year. In rural areas landmines are so ubiquitous and lethal, peasants risk their lives to earn a living tilling the soil and planting crops.
The worldwide movement to ban landmines burgeoned in the Clinton years. It was a visionary U.S. citizen, Jody Williams of Vermont, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to end the ignominy of landmines. And it was primarily in defense of children that Princess Diana, speaking from a minefield in Angola, raised international awareness about devastation caused by weapons from the West.
In December 1997, 137 nations, more than two-thirds of the world, signed the Ottawa treaty, an agreement to ban the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. How did the Clintons respond to world opinion, to the humanitarian movement against landmines?
President Clinton flat out refused to become party to the Ottawa convention. As he put it, "I could not sign in good conscience the treaty banning landmines." In "good conscience"?! Are landmines good for children?
The Clinton Sanctions Were Calamitous
Senator Clinton is currently trying to build a campaign around her experience in the White House, but she refuses to take responsibility for the most inhumane and disastrous foreign policy operation of the Clinton years: the infamous economic sanctions against Iraq. The sanctions, a colossal failure, formed the centerpiece of Clinton foreign policy. While the sanctions began with Bush senior in 1990, they were carried out and enforced with a vengeance by the Clinton Administration. The second war against Iraq actually began long before George Bush launched the shock-and-awe bombings in 2003. The Clinton sanctions afflicted the entire Iraqi population. Child mortality, as well as the death rate for the elderly and the chronically ill, skyrocketed. Malnutrition debilitated the country. Irrigation and sanitation systems collapsed. Common diseases multiplied. The Iraqi medical services, the most advanced medical system in the Mideast prior to the sanctions, fell apart. Farmers ran out of fertilizers and machine parts. Thousands of trained professionals fled the country. The sanctions, combined with surprise bombing raids, destroyed the entire infrastructure.
As the full magnitude of the calamity became public knowledge, humanitarian organizations, like Voices in the Wilderness, made appeals to the White House. Denis Halliday, former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, resigned in protest in 1998. (His successor, H.C. von Sponeck, later resigned as well). Contemptuous of human rights and world opinion, President Clinton blocked Russian and French proposals to end the sanctions.
The Premise of Foreign Policy
It was Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, who fully revealed the Clinton Administration's cold indifference to human rights. In her notorious interview on national TV with Leslie Stahl, Albright said that Clinton policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, children who were dying of disease and malnutrition as she spoke. For the record, Albright did not deny that half a million children under the age of five perished as the result of sanctions. When Stahl asked: "Is the price worth it?" Albright said without qualification: "We think the price is worth it."
Half a million children under five is a genocidal number. Of course, Albright was talking about Arab children, not Europeans. Had she made a similar remark about British or German children, she would have been fired and denounced within an hour. Albright's candid statement uncovered the essentially racist view of Arabs common among foreign policy experts--all men and women of experience, to be sure--in Washington.
The premise of U.S. foreign policy under Clinton and Bush is unmistakable: Arab peoples have no rights which the U.S. is bound to respect.
When historians sum up the sanguine events between 1992 and 2008, Clinton's economic sanctions against Iraq and the Bush occupation of Iraq will be grouped together as part of a single, catastrophic process.
Senator Clinton has never disavowed the sanctions or the racist attitudes that made them possible. In fact, she is now calling for sanctions against another country in the Mideast--Iran.
I have no doubt that Senator Clinton is sincere when she promotes domestic programs for children--projects to reduce childhood obesity, plans to curtail teenage smoking. And like Obama, she advocates full health care insurance for all American children. All well and good.
But it is clear from her record--her voting record and her White House experience--that Senator Clinton, like her husband, does not measure human rights by one yardstick. The lives of Arab and Iranian children are measured on a different scale. We need a president who cares for all God's children, not just the white kids depicted in her Red Phone ad.
It is not experience itself, but the capacity to learn from experience, that should determine who should lead, and who should be deprived of power over the lives of others.
Paul Rockwell is a national columnist living in the Bay Area. (rockyspad@hotmail.com)
39 Comments so far
Show AllKathyodat, turns out Hillary's trumpeting of her children's health care work is also exaggerated:
"Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue."
-- Susan Milligan, "Clinton Role In Children's Health Care Disputed," Boston Globe, March 14, 2008.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/clinton_role_in_health_program_disputed/
Can you imagine the gall of someone who has women and children thanking her at her rallies for her work in 'drafting' health care legislation for children?
LOL, Little Brother (March 13th, 2008 1:30 pm), and maybe we'll get a war with Iran -- with nukes -- to boot!
Wsws.org website (March 13th, 2008 2:13 pm): "But what would happen if Obama were to move to the left? And means it! In other words, move to the left not just rhetorically but rather in a real and meaningful way.
"The answer is simple: his corporate supporters would cut him to ribbons."
That seems to be happening already as Obama is being raked over the coals for his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright while nary a mention is heard of John McCain's acceptance of an endorsement from anti-Catholic nutcase John Hagee. Certainly no one in the Big Media (except Keith Olbermann) is demanding that McCain renounce Hagee, or playing repeated tape loops of Hagee's more bizarre 'sermons.'
As far as the Wsws.org characterization of Obama's views supporting NAFTA, here are some pertinent quotes:
"We sharply differ with some of those views, particularly Obama's opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement."
-- Chicago Tribune editorial, Feb. 29, 2004.
"The two big Chicago daily papers both endorsed him enthusiastically in the primary, even though they disagreed with him on major issues -- his opposition to the war in Iraq and, in the case of the Tribune, his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement."
-- The New Yorker, May 31, 2004.
"(When) I am president, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate -- we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America."
-- Barack Obama in Janesville, WI, Feb. 13, 2008, as quoted by The Nation.
On a single-payer health care system:
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health-care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. ... A single-payer health-care plan, a universal health-care plan. That's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, and we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."
-- Barack Obama, speaking to the AFL-CIO in June 2003, as quoted by Media Matters.
To be honest, I haven't researched the credit card vote thoroughly yet, so I have no comment on why Obama voted the way he did, but, as I've posted before, if you have a perfectly flawless candidate then tell me who it is and I'll vote for her or him.
Incidentally, Matt Gonzalez is hardly an objective bystander -- he is Ralph Nader's running mate this year.
Kirafa (March 13th, 2008 3:57 pm) wrote: "WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HIM."
Speak for yourself, Kirafa, and you can easily go to his website (barackobama.com), watch cable news shows and Google him to cure your ignorance. If you know nothing about him, it's only because you don't want to.
Siouxrose (March 13th, 2008 7:39 pm and March 14th, 2008 6:41 pm ) good comments and my congratulations, as well.
Kivals (March 14th, 2008 10:51 am), it's true and we've already driven into the ditch. Unfortunately, the Big Media, the advertising hucksters and most of our politicians have discovered how profitable it is marketing to the reptilian brain with simplistic, fear-laden messages.
Mdswatch (March 15th, 2008 9:24 am) wrote: "...Barack Obama (whose now-deceased mother also apparently worked at the U.S. Embassy in Indonesia only a few years after the 1965 CIA coup in Indonesia) should be supported politically by U.S. anti-war activists."
Excellent attempt at a smear, mdswatch. First I've heard that Obama's mother worked for the US embassy in Indonesia, but even if she did, what would that have to do with the 1965 CIA coup? And you forgot to mention that his stepfather was a Muslim, he's been endorsed by Louis Farrakhan, his middle name is 'Hussein' and that his 'spiritual mentor' (as the Big Media is calling Rev. Wright) is a 'Christian extremist' who is 'blaming 9/11 on the victims.' Yes, he's a black Muslim/crazy Christian who is in the back pocket of AIPAC. Trifecta!
Sounds like Paul is getting into the kind of "saviour politics" he used to criticize in the 1960s. U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Member Obama is not going to challenge the power of the U.S. military-industrial-complex to exercise a special influence over U.S. foreign policy, anymore than he has ever used his power as a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Member to call for hearings on the role AIPAC plays in exercising a special influence over U.S. Middle East policy. Don't forget that a long-time member of the General Dynamics weapons manufacturing board and a long-time supporter of the Israeli government, Lester Crown, is a member of the Obama campaign's national finance committee. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama (whose now-deceased mother also apparently worked at the U.S. Embassy in Indonesia only a few years after the 1965 CIA coup in Indonesia)should be supported politically by U.S. anti-war activists.
oops... she's going to be too busy as Secretary of State
I wonder if Samantha Power could be recruited to run for Senator in New York.
looks like this one opened some eyes
Right. her vote against the cluster bomb ban disqualifies for being pres, and while she may not have direct responsibility for the blockade, her embrace of albright ties her to that most monstrous of all war crimes. also if she is allowed back in the white house she brings bill with her, and that alone is too horrifying to contemplate.
i remember after bill won that election against old bush, the late editor of the progressive was a regular on the news hour and he was asked for his thoughts. he said this:
" I think our long national nightmare has ended. And a new national nightmare has begun."
I do feel a wonderful sense of community with many on this site. Some of you are such enlightened souls! Many quite brilliant. I appreciate the congratulations from KIVALS, NAMASTE, LITTLE BROTHER & KATHY DAT.
Again, watching LIFE come through our bodies from this mysterious source is such a profound experience. I wish that ANY ONE who ran for public office had to spend time meditating in a garden, walk by the sea, observe children playing, and perhaps witness LIFE entering this sphere. Perhaps then the TRUE nature of the sacred would instill in their hearts and minds an INCAPACITY to serve the military-industrial complex, which of course is the guns that secure the "butter" for the wealthy elites, as the crumbs pour down on the rest of us. LIFE IS SO PRECIOUS... ONLY those who acknowledge that truth are FIT to represent anyone in any political body.
Kirafa, BULLCR*P we know nothing about Obama. We know he opposed the criminal invasion of Iraq, while Hillary voted for it. We know he voted to ban cluster bombs and she didn't. We know a LOT.
Hillary Clinton is indeed a monster. Who but a monster wouldn't want to ban the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas?
kiuvals -- Your ideas do have merit, but I fear that it is much much worse than that.
I ascribe it to real brain lesions
and hideous psychopathetic criminal tendencies,
as well as mono-railed thinking along a track aimed over a cliff.
Namaste
Siouxrose,
Congratulations on your new grandchild. Children are all precious, aren't they!
As for why there are cold, seemingly conscienceless, heartless ghouls like Bush, Cheney, McCain, and Hillary still with us, I ascribe it more to one-dimensional thinking than any other factor. There are so many dimensions to life, and so many variables to consider, so that those who focus on just one issue, whether it is the "free market," the creation of wealth, Merikkka's "safety," or even gender equality, generally end up in the ditch, just as someone who is driving an auto and looking only at one point on the horizon will invariably end up in the ditch, or worse.
WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HIM.
And what I know about Clinton I don't like.
kirafa, because women and children were killed on Sept 11 it is okay fou the US and its allies to use cluster bombs? Nice morality!! Jesus.
If cluster bombs had any effect on terrorism your morality would be just as appalling but you might be able to argue from a position of logic. But they generally kill civilians. Israel killed 1100 civilians mostly with cluster-fucks in 2006. Ask thm how well that war turned out for Israel in defeating terrorism.
And not everyone who bashes Hilary supports Obama! I regularly bash her AND him - they are both a waste of ballots. Vote for someone who might make a change not just persist in the old habits of capitalist war-mongering
Cluster bombs are severe child abuse. They continue to injure children long after the "necessity of war" is over.
Child abuse committed by a weak-minded and stressed out parent in moments of anger is totally inexcusable.
Cluster bombs are child abuse committed in cold blood from safe places afar by wealthy and calculating operators with dead souls. The victims are small children in other countries, where people are usually brown and poor. The children, not busy with ski lessons and such, wander in fields where they are blown up.
Voting for cluster bombs in such a cynical way qualifies Congresspeople for eternal punishment in the ninth circle of hell. Oh and by the way, don't vote for them.
another bobble headed buck tooth
drivel dripping vapid vacuous
repiglickin in human clothing.
Plays the race card without playing
the race card. caters to empty
headed pasty old white women who
know nothing of her history
or record but vote for her cuz
she is a woman? Slick willie
lurking around the help? oh jesus.
four more years? what an embarrasment
where is ken starr when you need him?
Thanks all of U for exposing Obama and ClintonS for who they are. Indeed the military industrial MONEY complex rules, and that's why the mine/clusterbomb bans were not adopted by the US. The Clintons nerver cared about the children: remember the head of the children council - a friend of the Clintons- resigned over Clinton's welfare reform because of it's impact on innocent children.
Mines/cluster bombs kill long after wars are over: that's enough to ban them.
George C Brown (above): RIGHT ON! I wish I knew how to keep it so short!
Israel would have been upset if Hillary voted against the use of Cluster Bombs in civilian areas. They had just dumped tons of them on Southern Lebanon at the time.
The problem with cluster bombs is not who they kill when they are dropped, this is an issue with all weapons, it is that a large percentage do not explode at once, but do go off some time later, like when a kid picks one up to take a look.
Depleted Uranium in our weapons is another ticking bomb. They kill, but slowly. A great weapon for incidental genocide, and we and our pal Israel have spread it all over Iraq and Lebanon.
We are monsters. We can blame our leaders, but we vote for them and then do not hold them accountable due to we swallow their lies, and some even like the taste. It is not a recent development.
We conquered America, the native Indians were ethnically cleansed, those who were left were rounded into concentration camps (reservations). Manifest Destiny gave us this right, so they said. We invaded and stole half of Mexico from the Mexicans, who were Christian, but the wrong color. We butchered ourselves in the Civil War, which was not a War against Slavery, another myth we swallowed. We discriminated against Blacks for 100 years after the war. We occupied the Philippines at the end of the 19th century and killed over 200 thousand people to suppress the resistance against the occupation.
And then we got to the 20th century, and it did not get much better, and now here we are, bigger and badder than ever.
Maybe they are right, maybe we are the Anti-christ, in the New Israel, and now in Babylon, and our little (big) brother is in Israel. We pretend to be this great Christian nation, concerned about human rights at home and abroad, willing to fight against tyranny and promote Democracy, waving our flags and so proud of ourselves, and wonder why the rest of the world hates us. Because in reality, we do just the opposite.
People say they want change, but vote for McCain and Hillary. Those who do this will be just as guilty of the War Crimes they will commit once elected, since they are known quantities (just as those who voted for Bush in 2004 are guilty). Obama at least you can pretend you were fooled, but in the end, he will not be any different. Of course, those of us who are Christians can all go to confession and have our sins wiped clean. Right.
Perhaps I should be more sympathetic, since you are all going to be so poor in the near future as your leaders intentionally trash the economy to fulfill their globalist agenda and move on to the next stage, which is a global currency and a global central bank. Maybe the UN will come to the rescue and give you the same kind of aid we have been giving to the 3rd world (some call it the equivalent of rape).
It is an economic destruction that has been orchestrated for over 30 years, yet people are oblivious since Fox and CNN tell them all is well. In bad times, which have been more frequent, they say it is just the downturn in a normal business cycle. CPI says inflation is low, inflation must be low. GDP says the economy is growing, it must be growing. They say unemployement is low ( they don't count those unemployed for too long), so it must be good. All is well, until it isn't, and even their lies won't be able to fool you anymore. If you don't like it, they got Blackwater, Infragard, Martial Law, Halliburton Detention camps, tasers, etc.
They may even drop some cluster bombs on you if you protest too much.
I understand that "It Takes A Village To Raise A Child," but what if there is no village left after a cluster bombing attack?
Siouxrose, how wonderful that you have a new baby in your life, and one lucky to have you.
kathyodat
Peacnik, it's good to see that evangelical Christians are not monolithic in their support of war, weapons, torture, sanctions, corporate greed, environmental destruction and the rest of the foul agenda the vast majority of their co-religionists--fundamenalist Christians, conservative Catholics, right-wing Zionist Jews and others--have so enthusiastically embraced. If not for these "values voters" and "communities of faith," we'd not be in these wars, we'd have done something about global warming, we'd be more generous and less destructive, hence more liked and less hated, in the world. These are the people who have formed the reliable, pliable and amoral base of the Republican party and whose ethics and values have brought the US to ruin.
SIOUXROSE -- May the moment and stars bestow abundant blessings for yourself, grandkid, daughter, and all that walk along their path together in harmony and love.
Namaste
Wsws.org website at 03-13 at 2:13 pm
Extremely well said. On so many of the so-called liberal web sites, such as Crooks and Liars, those commenting on the presidential election seem to believe that Barack Obama is the savior of the Democratic party, if not the country, who seemingly walks on water and should therefore be practically immune to criticism. The liberal blogs demonstrate that [so-called] liberals can end up succumbing to the easy to swallow bromides that the politicians hand out to the people ["agent of hope and change"] as that of their conservative colleagues and their fanatical followers. It seems that any time a hot button issue occurs in this country, such as a presidential election or a country going to war, emotion and flag waving will inevitably win out over reason, analysis and logic. Another example of the dumbing down of America.
A well written book which does an excellent job of discussing this malady which seems so endemic in the United States is The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby.
Siouxrose: Congratulations & Best Wishes 8)
Last night I stood in a small hospital room surrounded by female nurses and a midwife as my daughter went through the amazing stages that test human strength to its limit in birthing her 2nd child. Watching this miracle of life emerge, I can only wonder how anyone with any sanity or intelligence could affirm, support or fund programs that GUARANTEE the decimation of other equally miraculous births/lives. These weapons caches and programs are a bane on mankind's heart, soul, conscience and moral purpose. it is beyond the pale that anyone in the 21st century would still countenance such items.
I can't wait to see this jaded bunch of hillbillies sent packing. Don't forget either, the children who were reduced to melted piles of burnt flesh at Waco. The Clinton and Bush families no nothing but the power of the gun. They all should burn in Hell, if not brought to justice by the total corrupt government that we call ours. With that said, we can only hope there IS a hell.
These people are pure evil.
Ban cluster bombs, period. The USA and Israel have enough other weapons of mass state terrorism that cluster bombs are not necessary in the least.
Well, excuse me - I don't post often, but there's an issue here that seems to be getting lostin all the discussion about what's allowed or legal or permitted by the US Government, the Geneva Conventions, etc.: all these rules about war miss the point. War is wrong. War is inhumane. War, fundamentalist Christian brothers and sisters, goes directly against the commandment about not kiiling. Last I checked there was no "unless..." in the commendment, a commandment that exists in every major spiritual tradition.
W're the guys will the biggest arsenal, and an obscene budget to make more cluster bombs, more nukes, more missiles, etc., all aimed at killing and exerting power.
How about the US becoming a leader and saying the to world "We're sorry, we have been acting in a misguided manner, and will now put our nuclear materials into energy production, will scrap all the military hardware that can't be used for peaceful purposes; we will close down the military industrial complex and apply those resources to caring for people in this country and around the world.
It's a dream, because there are too many strong economic interests that want things the way they are. But the rest of the world, rather than trying to invade us, would once again look at this country as a country of humans, rather than monsters. And maybe they'd give peace a chance, too.
Hillary cant afford to support a cluster bomb ban, as Israel needs to use them on arab children.
Isn't the reason for keeping clusterbombs so that extremists and terrorists will know that they cannot move into highly populated areas and expect safety?
I am as democrat as the rest of you, but on September 11, women and children were not spared. Do I want us to bomb heavily populated areas? HELL NO! But, if we knew on September 12, that Bin Laden was in a populated area, would we have hesitated?
I don't want us in any war at all, at all; unless it is to keep our own children and families safer.
I am just sick of the constant bashing of Hillary Clinton. Screw your heads on, we know nothing about Obama, just that, "Gee, he sure gives a great speech."
WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HIM.
Bombing civilian areas is part of the mission. Destroying something with a weapon that continues to main and destroy after delivery is DOD engineering. A favored logo at the DOD is Raytheon, no need to connect dots - insubordination isn't tolerated from "candidates".
Has the mainstream media picked up on Hillary's "enabling" vote on cluster bombs?
Of course not.
Has it been covered as much as Howard Dean's 2004 yelp? Eliot Spitzer's chagrined face? Hillary Clinton's 3AM (Be Scared Be Very Scared) telephone call?
We Americans are now in our every-four-year Fantasyland, otherwise known as, selecting a president.
What IS Hillary's voting record?
What IS Obama's voting record?
What IS McCain's voting record?
Neither Hillary nor Obama are truly progressive candidates; they're bought and paid for with the same corporate money that all other mainstream Republicans and Democrats functionaries are bought and paid for.
Obama knows full-well that he can wrap up the nomination AND the Election -- in a heartbeat -- all he has to do is move to the left. All the polls on all the issues indicate an electorate signifigantly further to the left than the three finalists running for president.
This goes way back; and not just for Democrats. Exit polls taken of people who voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984 showed them to be much further to the left than the very person they had just voted for: Ronald Reagan. "Why did you vote for him then?" they were asked. "Because he makes me feel good!" was the most common reply.
But what would happen if Obama were to move to the left?
And means it! In other words, move to the left not just rhetorically but rather in a real and meaningful way.
The answer is simple: his corporate supporters would cut him to ribbons.
He'd be characterized by mainstream media as an out of control lefty. All he'd have to do is yelp after eating a bad batch of chili in Texas or East Los Angeles and the media and its corporate sponsors would "Howard Dean" him beyond recognition.
And Barack knows it.
He may *sound* like Martin Luther King Jr. But, Senator, when it comes to courage and truth and justice, we all know Martin Luther King Jr., sir ... and you're no Martin Luther King Jr.
So Obama, like Gore, like Kerry and like so many others before them look for that 1% or 2% of the electorate that's "in the middle," that can go either way; and that's where they battle for the presidency, trying to win over that 1% or 2%.
That 45% to 55% of all eligible voters DON'T vote in any given presidential election means that there are LOADS of voters who can be persuaded to vote for a candidate. And far more of these non-voting Americans are left of center rather than are right of center. But what all the mainstream candidates know, as an article of political faith, what they hold close to their heart every day on the campaign trail is that, given their millions of dollars of corporate financial support, they must never, never EVER go there. If they did, if they ever moved signifigantly they'd be cut off financially by their corporate paymasters.
This they know as surely as they know the night follows the day. To thine own self -- forget about it!
Any sentient commondreams.org reader should know that Hillary is as Republican as they get. So let's not even *consider* here as a legitimate progressive. However, many believe Obama to be their answer. I'm afraid not. Please see: "The Obama Craze: Count Me Out" by Matt Gonzalez
Here's an excerpt from the article:
"Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an amendment he voted on as part of a recent bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it would have been the beginning of setting these predatory lending rates under federal control. Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.
"Now Obama explains his vote by saying the amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling too high. His explanation isn't credible as Obama offered no lower number as an alternative, and didn't put forward his own amendment clarifying whatever language he found objectionable.
"Why wouldn't Obama have voted to create the first federal ceiling on predatory credit card interest rates, particularly as he calls himself a champion of the poor and middle classes? Perhaps he was signaling to the corporate establishment that they need not fear him. For all of his dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it seems Obama has little intention of doing anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome."
And this as regards NAFTA:
"Regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement, Obama recently boasted, "I don't think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have." Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed Obama's record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated Press article and found that comment to be misleading: "In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent's call for tariffs would spark a trade war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade protections for US workers."
And this on single-payer health insurance, ***single-payer*** health insurance being the only meaningful health insurance from the point of view of the average American: --
"Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. ...
"The expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program."
Click here for the entire article -- http://newsblaze.com/story/20080302075722tsop.nb/newsblaze/ELEC2008/2008-Elections.html
"Senator Clinton, however, voted with the Republicans..."
That's all we need to know.
Cluster Bombs are firecrackers compared to Nuclear Weapons. Hillary supports the use of both types of terrorist weapons. A cluster bomb may kill a few children in a city. A thermonuclear explosion will kill ALL OF THEM. Where do you draw the line? How many people killed at one time is enough? How do you convince the mother of a child maimed or killed that we're the 'good' guys? The bottom line is that there is no justification for ever using 'blanket' type bombs like Clusters or Nukes and Hillary supports the use of both.
There is no provable relationship between campaign contributions from AIPAC and Munitions Manufacturers, and Sen. Clinton's voting record.
That would be felony Conflict of Interest and of course, Sen Clinton is as pure as the driven snow.,. a paragon of White Womanhood.
It takes a village to eat a family.
I think you're being entirely unfair to Senator Clinton. Your selective, biased review completely omits recognition of the hard work she and soul-mate colleague Holy Joe Lieberman have done to discourage video game manufacturers from putting naughty bits in their products!
And if Hillary had her way, no Amerikan child would be left behind to stare at Old Glory being burned by dissenters.
So pardon me if I begin to correct the record!
The more we see Hillary Clinton in action the less we like her. Her support for Cluster Bombs and her race baiting tactics in this campaign are enough to turn our stomachs.
Hillary approves enough of Madeleine Albright to have her at the top of her foreign policy team. More landmines, cluster bombs and sanctions, people? Helluva foreign policy. But after all, Hillary is a Clinton. She's great at taking credit for success, but distancing herself from the disasters, even while intending to prolong them.
I wish someone would ask her to justify her votes on cluster bombs and landmines. Oh yes, to "keep America safe". Just like invading Iraq.
kathyodat
Well, what riverman doesn't understand is that Hillary is Bush in drag
Hillary for shame. Another reason of many not to vote for her. Being a woman does not magically make her more compassionate or better or wiser than her male counterparts. Witness Madeline Albright, Condi Rice, Margaret Thatcher. The list can go on.
Riverman, please take your meds or clear your head or something. This stream of consciousness rambling with poor grammar and atrocious spelling makes absolutely no sense.