Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Clinton's Iraq Vote - Five Years Later
The fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war provides an appropriate moment to revisit Hillary Clinton's argument in favor of authorizing Bush's use of force, and to contrast it with the case made at the time by Bush's opponents.
In the last few years, Clinton has defended her vote by arguing that "if I knew then what I know now, I would never have given President Bush the authority" to attack Iraq. But a majority of Democrats in the House knew enough "then" to vote against the resolution - as did 21 out of 50 Democratic senators.
In Clinton's Senate speech, still posted on her senate website, she began by accepting Bush's premise that "if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." The question, she said, was whether war was the appropriate means of stopping those developments.
In supporting Bush, Clinton claimed to be taking a middle path between two extremes - on the one hand, those who believed we should go to war only if the UN Security Council approved it, which she considered absurd, and on the other, those who favored "attacking Saddam Hussein now." But not even Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld favored an immediate attack at the point the Senate debate occurred -- October 2002 - so she was rejecting an argument no one was making.
Probably the biggest concession she made to Bush was accepting his argument that war was a legitimate response to the attacks on 9-11, which had occurred just one year earlier. Although she did not explicitly agree with Bush's statements linking al Qaeda to Iraq, she did say her vote was justified by "last year's terrible attacks," and that "in balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."
Other Senators rejected precisely those arguments. Russ Feingold voted against the authorization to use force in part because of what he called "the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt . . . to interweave 9-11 and Iraq." He criticized the "shifting justifications for an invasion," noting "the spectacle of the President and senior Administration officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day."
Ted Kennedy raised a key issue Clinton never considered: going to war against Iraq, he said, "will jeopardize the war against terrorism" - against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. "One year into the battle against Al Qaeda, the administration is shifting the focus, the resources and the energy to Iraq. The change in priority is coming before we have eliminated the threat from Al Qaeda."
While Clinton accepted Bush's claims regarding Saddam's possession weapons of mass destruction, others rejected them. Jim Jeffords, Republican of Vermont said, "There is much speculation about his weapons of mass destruction, but no evidence that he has developed nuclear capability and less that he could deliver it."
Robert Byrd opposed the resolution on other grounds, arguing that "The newly bellicose mood that permeates this White House . . . is clearly motivated by campaign politics. Republicans are already running attack ads against Democrats on Iraq." The criticism of Clinton was implicit but obvious.
In the House, Nancy Pelosi proved to be prescient about the course of the war: "There is no political solution on the ground in Iraq," she declared. "So when we go in, the occupation which is now being called liberation could be interminable. And so could the amount of money, unlimited, that it will cost -- 100, 200 billion dollars." (Of course the war is now costing more than ten times that.)
As for the dangers arising from a long occupation, that problem was foreseen by none other than Henry Kissinger. He testified at a Senate committee hearing before the war vote that he was "viscerally opposed to a prolonged occupation of a Muslim country at the heart of the Muslim world by Western nations who proclaim the right to re-educate that country." In Clinton's speech, she never considered that argument.
63 Comments so far
Show AllHillary panders to the Republicans because she basically IS one. The phrase Vichy Democrat comes to mind. When it comes to Hillary vs. McCain, Ralph Nader has it exactly right. There isn't a hairs width of difference between their policies when it comes to actual votes on the floor. Hillary's repeated votes for war and war funding while we don't have health care prove where her true loyalties lie.
If you want to vote for a Republican you have a choice of Hillary or McCain. The only Democratic candidate for president now running is Barack Obama.
"The only Democratic candidate for president now running is Barack Obama."
Who has consistently voted to continue to fund Bush's War. (Probably because he wasn't able to vote "present.")
Oh, wait... he's a Saint. He's been Absolved.
Hillary is pandering to her Zionist supporters while Feingold, a jew, had the intellectual honesty and courage to go against the invasion. Of course it helps to have a liberal constituency...
As long as Hillary Rodham Nixon continues to lie, obfuscate, fabricate an imginary "experience" as some sort of qualificaiton, all the while smearing her opponent in the primaries, the fact that she threw in with Bush & AIPAC remains news, not something that "we've heard before".
Not only has Hilary failed to learn from history, but she has refused to acknowledge it in a manner that would do Dubya proud. For that very profound failing, she did not get my vote in my state's (CA.) primary.
THE ONLY COURAGEOUS, HONEST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IS RALPH NADER.
Dear Hillary,
I knew then what you know now, and so did millions of people all over the world who took to the streets to try and stop the madman from invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. You certainly didn't show any leadership qualities then, only that you were a good follower. And frankly, nothing has changed over the last five years.
I guess Hillary's argument that she has more experience doesn't hold much water. After all, experience making bad decisions is not exactly a plus. Bush has loads of experience making bad decisions. Maybe it isn't how old you are, but rather what you've learned along the way that counts.
Now let`s all repeat ten times over, as we have not heard this before--Hillary made a mistake!! There has never in history been such a mistake made and no one is fit for office after making one. She did have some company in the mistake, so there are other unfit people in Congress also.
What people better remember is, whose idea was it to invade in the first place, and concentrate on getting the warmongers out, instead of this tired old story.
Sometimes when people make a mistake, they are better in the future fo making it, if they are able to learn from it. Sorry, Jon Wiener, there are hundreds of things to report on that would be of some interest and are not already worn out.
What many fail to mention is, Bush did not need the senate vote on prop 114 in order to use military force against Iraq and Saddam. Had all of the senate voted no, he would still have used the altered NIE report as his excuse to attack. He and Cheney would have condemmed Congress and set public opinion against them. Of course if one spins it in another way, Hillary using low femenine logic, is the reason we went to war.
Hell, she is as bellicose as ever.
Over there in Hillaryland it doesn't matter what the reality is--the consequences of beating the war drum or acknowledging the presumed nomination as long as the pandering and posturing frames perception. How else could she run that ridiculous 3 o'clock in the morning red-phone ad despite the fact that she had been proven wrong? She will never admit she was wrong--rather she will frame it as her macho tough guy act being right. And if you challenge that she will suddenly become the victim.
She is foul.
She didn't even bother to read the Intelligence Report before voting...She was pathetic then and she's just as pathetic now, if not moreso...
Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal.
She will not only continue the war in Iraq, she start the another one Iran (if Bush does not do so this year).
She may even start a war in South America with Chavez using Columbia as a proxy (read her statement regarding the recent incident there).
KEM PATRICK---You theorize that Hillary was using low feminine logic when she voted to authorize use of force in Iraq. I submit that it is just the opposite situation-- she voted that way so that she would not be accused of being soft on terrorism because she was a woman.
I believe in reading history, many more wars have been started by men than by women, who are by nature not as agressive, so all this blather about Hillary causing the war and can not be trusted to end the occupation is plainly just hot air.
Obama nay be a fine candidate, only it is not wise to get into hero worship, as that will only lead to disappointment. Wait until he gets the nomination, and the Repugs will fill you all in on the REAL Obama story that they are hatching up for that time. They may be more concerned with running against Hillary and are trying to get Obama chosen. We will not know their strategy until that decision has been made.
Regarding Kernel's comment about her vote being a mulligan, do you also buy into her "when they stand up, we'll stand down" b.s. she countinues to spout?
I really do not want another President who cannot admit they made a mistake. I was willing to consider Edwards for that reason, he admitted he made a mistake.
Obama admitted he made a mistake in judgment, and although he hasn't done anything wrong in his relationship with Rezko, he trusted someone who wasn't trustworthy. Hillary's still hiding her dirty laundry but I don't think she can get away with it forever. If she manages to steal the nomination from Obama, the right wing lynch mob will catch her out. And the corporate media will be in full throated hot pursuit. At least with him, his past is already out in the open.
kathyodat
Hillary doesn't make mistakes, she makes excuses. As far as I'm concerned, she's a walking disaster. And a liar to boot.
kathyodat
kernel, where do you get this idea that the Repugs prefer to run against Obama? Is that why Rush Limbaugh told the right wing to go vote in Democratic primaries for Hillary? To get Obama nominated? Get a clue! It's Obama who galvanizes young voters, independents, and Republicans who are actually abandoning their party.
kathyodat
Jeevee, I'd add Cynthia McKinney and Mike Gravel to the list of courageous, honest (current) presidential candidates.
~KERNEL~,You misunderstood, I said it could be spun another way. I was makng fun of ~Riverdude~, whom I am sure will soon appear here and offer some more of his "wisdom" on the subject of females. I don't aprove of Obama, Hillary or McCain. The ones I supported dropped out.
Congressional failure to use the "power of the purse" to end the war was a consequence of their unwillingness to take extreme political heat for a purely symbolic vote. Never forget what they did to Cynthia McKinney. It would've diminished their credibility trying to get our troops better protection and smarter management... (the list of bush blunders is way too extensive for this post).
Clinton's "mistake" continues with far more than the original War Vote and everyone KNOWS IT.
The extension of the suspension of our Bill of Rights in the Patriot Act opposed by such radicals as the American Library Association. The support of Israel's Lebanon Invasion, even when Israeli Officers revolted over their orders to attack civilians... Even when Bush himself was critical. The opposition to a Ban on Landmines supported by the International Red Cross among others. The opposition to any limitation on the export of cluster bombs (used extensively in Lebanon) killing 98% civilians, many children (also supported by the Red Cross). Her criticism of the International Criminal Court and opposition to their finding that the Fourth Geneva Conventions are binding to all signatory nations (THAT MEANS US). Her ticking time bomb justification for torture "In those instances where we have sufficient basis to believe that there is something imminent, yeah, but then we've got to have a check and balance." Her opposition to the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (anti-gay).
Her Vote to list the Iranian Guard as a "terrorist" organization, which is just a blank check for the U.S. to strike Iran. She still repeats the provably false Republican Litany of Iran's "nuclear ambitions."
When was that last one? last week or something?
GOOD GRIEF, GET A GRIP. Clinton did NOT MAKE A MISTAKE. SHE'S LYING. GET IT?
I have to wonder what motivates such willful blindness? If you hold out for your pure "progressive" you will remain politically marginalized and maybe the Democratic Party NEEDS to crumble... but I'll not hasten that while a chance remains to put out our tentstakes, to include the honest majority of Americans.
When the DNC nominates the Republican Clinton, I'll be working for Cynthia (god she's marvelous) BUT NOT A MINUTE SOONER.
"Wait until he gets the nomination, and the Repugs will fill you all in on the REAL Obama story that they are hatching up for that time"
THe Clinton machine is every bit as destructive as the Repug one -- it was a Clinton county (or was it state?) chair who circulated the "Obama-is-secretly-a-Muslim-fundamentalist" email.
If there were more, Hillary & her Nixonian aides would have used it already to beat back Obama's campaign.
25% of the White Clinton vote in Mississippi was Republican crossover per exit polls cited by Chris Matthews on MSNBC for crying out loud.
The Righties ALWAYS accuse US of what THEY are doing.
The argument that the Republicans would prefer to run against the Democrat that's scored higher in all national polls is utter hogwash... only someone on the payroll of the Clinton campaign, a Republican operative, a stockholder of the war profiteering corporations or a downright RACIST, would continue to repeat such BS.
Of course Obama's numbers in the National Polls are going down some thanks to the Rovian smear campaign of the Clinton Camp.
You'll be blaming US in November, and probably laughing all the way to the bank.
"The Righties ALWAYS accuse US of what THEY are doing."
Exactamente!
Hillary Rodham Clinton, leader of the Vichy Democratic Party.
Ralph Nader, the guy who still doesn't admit that a President Al Gore would have been a lot different than GWB.
oh HOW B. Hussein O'Bama cried that the 2003 vote to give our Administration the power to launch war was NOT ONE HE COULD TAKE
BUT HE SWORE HE WOULD NEVER MISS THE NEXT ONE since Jan 20, 2005
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh IRAN strik VOTE.
he did.. AND THE KOOL-AID DRINKING flock of his.............
did not NOTICE, CARE, [ fill in your excuse].
he is NOT MLK, M. Ghandi, nor Dalai Lama, not even Jesse Jackson nope he's a lobbyist cloaked in a senator suit. He really would be better on K Street.
wait HE MADE A MISTAKE WITH REZKO
WHICH ONE
THE ONE HE MADE WHEN T.R. helped run for State Office.
the real-estate deal pennies on the dollar for lot adjacent to his house?
the slum lord bills OBAMA shot down
the party T.R. had when OBama announced running for senate.
the money spent on every Campaign B.H.O has ran for political office?
a a a a a a aa
editing these logs JUST DOES NOT WORK.....
wait........ HE MADE A MISTAKE WITH REZKO...................
WHICH ONE
THE ONE HE MADE WHEN T.R. helped run for State Office.
the real-estate deal pennies on the dollar for lot adjacent to his house?
the slum lord bills OBAMA shot down
the party T.R. had when OBama announced running for senate.
the money spent on every Campaign B.H.O has ran for political office?
lmao
wipe that screen off when you're done there chief
KEM__I agree with you, we have three candidates for President that are not the preferred ones, McWar being the worst one, however we have what is left. I though John Edwards had a lot of promise, but the media took care of his chances.
I do not share the opinion that if one`s favorite candidate does not win, then vote for the opposition party or throw your vote on an unelectable person just for revenge.
I have raised cattle, and if a cow got struck by lightning or other misfortune, one time it was six of them, I did not just quit in disgust and trade them for a herd of sheep or swine.
Sometimes one has to just do the best we can and work for better results the next time.
cranky,
LMAO...that was a good one! :)
~Patrickballotintegrity~ you posted the best comment here. ___ Obviously you ssstuttter.
~Kernel~ I agree with you totally. I just didn't want you or any to think that I think females have no logic. On the contrary. Don't know what happened to ~Riverman~, who has been spamming that comment for a week now.
Didn't Hillary have a second chance to vote on the war when Levin proposed his amendment to grant Bush his powers only when tied to a supporting U.N. resolution? She nixed it.
Obama is no different. They're political twins.
So, why the focus on Hillary?
Obama is just a pro war as she is, in fact, maybe more so with his wreckless comments on going into Pakistan illegally.
Don't depend on these politicians to do anything right. They're creatures of our corporate world; they are part of the oligarchy that rules the country. They have to be pushed. Demonstrate,agitate,cogitate.
The war is killing us. End it now. Go Populist!!
formernadervoter,
keep voting for Nader and changing the outcome in Vermont. The rest of us have to be pragmatic about opposing the war in our own way. Bernie Sanders is my favorite senator, but I live in Florida. What should I do? I'm in debt, healthcare is through the roof, going to school to get a professional degree, and I can't afford to make a donation to every single-issue interest group.
I'll take some Obama to get the train rolling down the tracks.
I hope you take a chill pill and contemplate why that would be such a bad choice?
All he did was raise more money in February than any candidate in American history, mobilize more Americans than any candidate in history, and is running against John McCain on the vote to invade and occupy Iraq in 2002.
It's not because he's black, it's because he's beautiful :)
Of course there are some solid factual arguments for having an actual Antiwar Candidate at the top of the Democratic Party's ballot in 2008 too:
1. Clinton's marginal victories in big states only shows what 16 years of saturating the media markets with the Clinton name can do to humanize her to the American public. And apparently not much in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, and Texas (where Obama won caucuses + primaries) or critical Mountain West swing states like Colorado.
Not to mention the fact that in Ohio she lost all three major cities: Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, not to mention Dayton. Do you really think the Reagan Democrats are going to vote for her against McCain? I wouldn't bet on it.
2. Missouri + Virginia + Colorado are now all swing states with 33 electoral votes between them. Had Kerry won any two of these three states he would have won.
Not to mention
Wyoming has a Democratic Governor, Kansas has a Democratic Governor, Montana has two Democratic Senators, North Dakota has two Democratic Senators, and Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota each have a Democratic Senator. Add those states together and you got 30 electoral votes.
Great Plains + Mountain West + Virginia & Missouri = 63 electoral votes.
Ohio + Pennsylvania (48% registered Democrats to 40% registered Republicans, likely to go Democratic)= 41 electoral votes.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/electoral.college/
If we are serious about who has the best chance of defeating John McCain in a year when the Conservative base is likely to stay home, it is not the Democratic candidate that motivates them to get out and vote and who motivates Obama supporters to stay home.
Kernel, while it is undoubtedly true that women are in general more affiliative and less confrontational than men, HRC has clawed her way up in the male-dominated world of politics by playing by the men's rules. Clearly she's more hawkish and personally aggressive than Obama. Let's not substitute gender stereotypes for analysis of past and present conduct.
AlexLawyer, nice combination of logic and graphics. Personally, I've had enough of confrontation and aggression for now. Especially when combined with a low ethical standard.
kathyodat
---
Hillary may some shallow anti-war rhetoric, but her actions at every turn
show her to be someone who shills for AIPAC:-
Iraq
* Her enthusiasm for the sanctions (based on obvious lies)
* her pushing for the invasion of Iraq
* her demonisation of Saddam (once one of our favoured dictators)
* her vote for the war, her continued voting for war funding
* her prentend plans for withdrawal that will leave our troops there forever
* her insistance that impeachment is off the table.
Iran
* Her demonisation of Ahmenjibad.
* Her bagging Bush for not being agressive enough with Iran.
* Her bagging Obama for saying he would talk to them.
* Her vote authorising war on Iran.
* Her insistance that nuclear strikes are on the table.
Palestine and Lebanon
* Her constant one sided support for Israel.
* Her support for the 2006 destruction of lebanon.
* Her cozying up to AIPAC and Rupert Murdoch.
Some folks are trotting out the "mistake" word as solace for their Hillary Clinton support (even though Clinton herself refuses to claim she made a mistake in voting up the Iraq war).
However, the United Nations weapons inspectors had documented, over 10 years beforehand, that Iraq was disarmed. (Iraq was just a dead-in-the-water target for Bush to attack, and everyone knew that.)
Time to wake up! Everyone knew Iraq was no threat even to its immediate neighbors. It had no navy to send planes within targeting distance of the United States. Its missiles couldn't even hit Israel.
My own Senator, Diane Feinstein, pointed to a supposed secret briefing she received from Bush & Co. to butress her decision to give Bush unconstitutional war powers. Her husband is now raking in millions in defense dollars from his defense industry investments as a result of her betrayal of the American people.
Not that Obama's support for funding the wars lets him off the hook.
Honestly, people, doesn't anything matter to you? You watch as our reps vote to bomb the shit out of people, and you want to reward the Democrats for doing that? Have the Democrats thrown you any conciliatory bones this election? Name one! Don't waste your time with Dems and Repugs - worthless trash. If they don't represent you, don't vote for them.
A piece by Andrew Schmookler on NSB that I believe is relevant to this discussion:
*********************************************
For a lot of people, Hillary Clinton's recent choice to use low-road tactics to keep her campaign alive triggered an important shift in their feelings about Hillary as a leader. Just a couple of weeks ago, Hillary Clinton showed great warmth and graciousness at the end of one of her debates with Obama, expressing her appreciation of the "honor" of competing with him for the nomination and gesturing, as she acknowledged that she might not win, toward a future of unity regardless of who prevails. But the past two weeks have made it impossible to see Hillary in such benign terms.
There are a lot of ways of interpreting just what it was that she revealed, and why it's important.
Gary Hart, for example, wrote recently about Hillary's "Breaking the Final Rule" when she "severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power." That politics is a tough game, Hart said, "does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters."
That's important. But I believe that what was revealed has deeper overtones still. What Hillary did reveals that ON THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF OUR TIMES, HILLARY CLINTON IS ON THE WRONG SIDE.
That most fundamental issue is that in recent years, America was taken over by evil forces. In a manner unprecedented in the history of this nation, a group that achieved the highest power in the land launched a systematic attack on America's most sacred political institutions and political values, severely damaging virtually every dimension of our political culture. And the central question for us as a nation in choosing our new leadership is whether we will find a way to lift ourselves out of the mire and muck into which our nation has descended, whether we will cleanse our nation of the immoral patterns that have degraded the soul of America.
Hillary has now revealed something absolutely central to understanding where she stands on that vital historical challenge America must now meet.
What is essential to recognize is the implication of her willingness to resort to the very tactics that the Bushite regime has used in degrading what's best about America.
HISTORY CHANGES THE MEANING OF THINGS
In the wake of World War II, there emerged in West Germany a new democratic state built essentially along liberal lines akin to those of American democracy. Except– into the basic law of the new German state were enshrined prohibitions that would be blatant violations of our American Bill of Rights. In Germany, certain kinds of hatred, certain kinds of bigotry against specific groups, would not be allowed expression, would be treated as crimes.
The history of the Nazi regime had made those destructive patterns so repugnant that the Germans reconstructing that society felt impelled to repudiate them utterly, even at the cost of a small zone of liberty.
In America over the past seven years, certain political tactics have been central to evil's doing its work in degrading America. One of these is the attempt by political leaders to fan the flames of the people's fear and to exploit that fear for one's own purposes. With their fear-mongering, the Bushites manipulated the nation into a disastrous war whose real purposes were other than those told the public to gain their support. And it has been through the fostering of excessive fear that this regime has manipulated the public into supporting its unprecedented assault on the American Constitution and the rule of law.
History changes the meanings of things. When JFK campaigned for the presidency on the "missile gap" at the end of the Eisenhower era, the "fear card" did not have the meanings it has now. Fear is almost always a way of diminishing a people's ability to use its higher mental processes, and to be guided by its best values. But in America today, fear-mongering by leaders is something so central to the stink of evil that anyone truly outraged by this reign of evil would find it repugnant even to contemplate picking up such a repugnant tool.
Like the Germans who felt impelled to reject utterly the kind of inter-group hatred that had ben so central to the Nazi nightmare, Americans who are passionate about rejecting the degradations of this Bushite era would have a natural and powerful impulse to avoid any contact with that regimes major tools.
WHAT HILLARY SHOWED
In the Biblical story of Solomon and the two women claiming the one survivor of their two newborn infants, the one who is motivated by envy is entirely willing to accept Solomon's trick judgment that the infant should be cut into two pieces to be given to each of the two women. The real mother, who is motivated by her love for the infant, cries out that the baby should be given to the other woman. Solomon of course then knows which of the women is the true mother, and the baby is given to her.
Similarly in Hillary Clinton's kitchen-sink strategy, she has inadvertently told us the central truth about her in relation to our nation's central issue: by her willingness to pick up the tools of the evil regime she's wanting to replace, she's shown that she's not really outraged by its evil.
She's resorted to several of the Bushites' disreputable tactics, but I'll stick here to the one: the fear-mongering.
Anyone who really saw her mission as helping lift this country out of the degradation the Bushites have inflicted on this nation would feel impelled to avoid using that tool at all costs. It is too much dripping with blood. It is too fouled with the stink of cynical lies. It is too infected with the disease of tyranny's advance.
But Hillary did not seem so uncomfortable wielding that tool, frightening America with that 3 AM red-phone-call ad.
Anyone whose desire for the presidency was motivated by a vision of our being guided again by what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature would not have encouraged Americans to descend into a more fear-governed, less hope-governed place. This is a country that needs to be led out of fear, not further into it. Too many people have been too scared for too long. And too much damage has been done by driving people into that primitive reptile-brain place.
But Hillary did not hesitate, when she thought it could revive her hopes for power, to tell Americans, "Be afraid, be very afraid."
Hillary has revealed, therefore, that she is not motivated by any great desire to raise this country out of this darkness. From her conduct we are able to conclude: She's not all that much into fighting evil.
Hillary Clinton is, therefore, not the person we need to lead us at this particular historical moment, while we as a nation face our particular historical challenge. On that central issue, she has now shown clearly, she is not on the right side.
Alex and Beforkids__ Well, it is good to know that Hillary is as much or more agressive than Obama. That means we do not have to worry about electing a woman as she is on even ground with the men. Personally, I believe it is not a bad idea to elect a person with some toughness as it will be necessary to deal with the Repugs, who will fight to the last to keep all of their disastrous mess they have created.
That may be why the Repugs are actually more concerned about facing Clinton than Obama, and his message of unity will go up in smoke when he tries to implement some new ideas. The people that have benefitted so greatly the last eight years are not going to just lie down and say walk on us. Unity is a grand goal, but no one but a dreamer could think it will happen quickly, if at all.
When large banks are starting to fail, our dollar becomes worth less and less, the economy tanks, people continue to lose their homes and jobs, and we sink further into depression, there will be much more to worry about than to document every mistake Hillary ever made, some of which are incorrect anyway. If the condition of our country appeals to anyone, they should not support either one of the Dems, just let McWar handle it and continue to pamper the billionaires and finish us off.
"You watch as our reps vote to bomb the shit out of people, and you want to reward the Democrats for doing that? Have the Democrats thrown you any conciliatory bones this election? Name one! Don't waste your time with Dems and Repugs - worthless trash. If they don't represent you, don't vote for them."
We have to shed the notion, first of all, that political realities are fundamentally determined by elections. They aren't. The significance of elections is variable; in the present case, we have two verified warmongers and one who has relatively limited belligerent rhetoric. The only way to disarm the militarists & the military-industrial parasites is by surrounding & flooding them out, not by direct confrontation; electing Obama will not be a "reward" for the Democratic machinery, but a sort of self-reward to the public for beating the well-financed, well-entrenched Clinton machine.
It is absolutely essential that the people gain confidence, not in electoral processes, but in their own potential for political action. We can't leap from the frustrating inertia of the current system to real democratic action all at once. The anger towards the McClinton campaign is a necessary part of repudiation of the main representatives & beneficiaries of the structure; as those cave in, as they're revealed to be irreformable, people will have to learn that they are not the subjects of the ancient ghosts of "founding fathers", but political actors & originators in their own right.
We also ought to recognize that US history is only a fragment of larger, revolutionary history. Our institutions are very rigid due to our pedigree -- the men who designed the national charter were quite alarmed, even Jefferson, when it began to look as if they might lose their own privileged positions.
While Obama is not revolutionary, he is no dedicated acolyte of privilege; and as with everything, the Rodham-Nixon bunch are trying to claim that they, somehow, represent the non-privileged, when the reverse is true.
I didn't get it, but now I do. Those last three above posts, PowerofLove, Kernel, and Dichterfreund clarified it for me. Obama is offering a new way, of hope instead of fear, discourse instead of assault. And Clinton is reminding us to be afraid. And people are splitting into trying a new way or retreating into a fearful defensive way. It's not really about who is more progressive or who voted for what, it is much more visceral than that. And arguing with visceral reactions is a complete waste of time. I couldn't figure out why the Clinton supporters didn't seem to be listening but now I understand. People aren't listening to each other. This has nothing to do with reason, just feelings. On both sides. Some people want to open doors, others want to lock them. The Republicans got this right all along.
kathyodat
With Hillary, we can count on hearing the voice of the Demagogic Losership Cabal. The morality(or indeed, legality) of the Occupation of Iraq is not a
question for Hillary, only whether it was expedient. Is this someone I can
vote for? I am afraid not. The vote to authorize the occupation is only one
in a growing list of reasons why I cannot and will not vote for Hillary Clinton(and notice that the word "bitch" never occurred here...I think it
applies more to Bill).
DICKTERFREUND: Another excellent posting. Gracias.
Clinton is a WARMONGER
I gotta say, listening to Scahill, the Blackwater Expose' author, I'm feeling ill.
Having read Clinton and Obama's plans for Iraq in detail, he reports that the Embassy and bases will remain with an auxilliary force of 40,000 personnel, whether Clinton OR Obama are president.
Throw in traditional U.S. Counterinsurgency programs and PRESTO CHANGO, El Salvador; replete with atrocities committed by proxies, and all the attending public denials.
See? I'm feeling ill.
Obama is now, mildly less despicable... much more honest, I think but... WTF?
Ya know?