Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Democrats' Twisted Morality
Revelations of an extra-marital affair two years ago by former North Carolina senator John Edwards has led the Democratic Party to not only reject the possibility of him running again for vice-president but to rule out allowing him to give his widely-anticipated address before the national convention. According to former Democratic National Committee chair Don Fowler, Edwards no longer meets the "high moral standards" expected of those given such a prominent role in the party's quadrennial gathering.
At the 2004 convention, however, the party leadership apparently saw no violations of its "high moral standards" in Edwards' decision less than two years earlier to co-sponsor the resolution authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq on the false grounds that that country still had "weapons of mass destruction" and posed a threat to U.S. national security, a decision he was still steadfastly defending at that time.
In fact, despite Edwards' key role in making possible an illegal and immoral war of aggression, the Democratic Party not only provided him with a prime time address at their convention that year, he was rewarded with their nomination for vice-president of the United States.
In other words, the Democratic Party apparently believes that leading our country into a disastrous war on false pretenses, a decision which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and has brought untold suffering to millions, is of significantly less moral consequence than committing adultery.
Rewarding Edwards' Earlier Moral Lapses
In September 2002, in the face of growing public skepticism over the Bush administration's calls for an invasion of Iraq, Senator Edwards rushed to the defense of the White House in an op-ed article published in the Washington Post. In his commentary, Edwards claimed that Iraq was "a grave and growing threat" and that Congress should therefore "endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
In reality, as was widely assumed by most independent strategic analysts based upon available data at that time and has subsequently been acknowledged by Edwards himself, Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" and offensive delivery systems had been eliminated years earlier, he no longer had the capacity to produce new WMDs, and was therefore no longer a threat.
Furthermore, in support of the Bush administration's efforts to repudiate the United States' obligations under international law and to undermine the United Nations and the post-1945 international legal order, Edwards also insisted in his Washington Post article that "We must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action."
Following the invasion, despite the absence of the WMDs, the WMD programs, and the WMD delivery systems he falsely insisted Iraq still possessed, Edwards defended his support for the U.S. conquest anyway, indicating that these ostensible security concerns were simply the excuse, rather than the actual reason, for his support of a U.S. invasion and occupation of that oil-rich country. In an interview on Meet the Press that November, Tim Russert asked the North Carolina senator whether he regretted having given Bush "in effect a blank check for the war in Iraq." Edwards replied by saying, "I still believe it was right."
During his first run for the presidency in 2004, amid growing reports of widespread and systematic violations of international humanitarian law by U.S. forces and increasing public opposition to the war, Edwards continued to defend the occupation and supported a series of resolutions sending hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars to support Bush's military conquest.
Virtually every mainline Protestant denomination in the country, as well as the Catholic Church, had already gone on record declaring that the U.S. invasion of Iraq did not constitute a just war, was not morally defensible, and that the country's resources should be redirected toward meeting human needs. Indeed, the vast majority of both religious and secular ethicists in this country weighed in against the very policies so vigorously supported by John Edwards during the 2002-2004 period.
As a result of all this, if the Democratic Party was really concerned about a politician's sense of morality, there would have been plenty of grounds to have marginalized John Edwards at the 2004 Democratic convention.
Yet, despite all this, he was rewarded with the nomination for vice-president over scores of qualified and experienced Democratic leaders who took more principled and moral stands on these and other critical policy issues.
Punishing Edwards' Turn to the Left
Since stepping down from the Senate in 2005 and launching his second bid for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, Edwards appears to have undergone a genuine moral reawakening. Not only did he call for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, he -- unlike Senator Hillary Clinton -- formally apologized for his support for the invasion. He called for greater U.S. support for international humanitarian law and a major re-evaluation of U.S. foreign policy. Most notably, he rejected the neo-liberal international economic policies of the Clintons and the Democratic Party establishment, condemned the economic and political abuses of corporate elites, and came to champion the interests of the poor and middle class in ways few serious candidates for president in this country have done for decades.
This became a problem for the Democratic Party establishment, which has long had close relations with the Pentagon and major corporations. There was a clear discomfort over the prospects of Edwards becoming Obama's running mate or even just giving a major address before a nationally-televised audience where he would likely stress the moral imperative of America's social responsibility to its poor and the need to challenge powerful corporate interests.
Revelations of Edwards sexual indiscretion -- which had been rumored for many months but mysteriously became public just two weeks before the convention -- have provided the Democratic Party with the excuse they were looking for to rule out Edwards running as their vice-presidential nominee for a second time as well as to deny Edwards a podium for his populist message at the convention.
The Washington Post reported that top aides to presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama acknowledged that, in addition to having already dropped Edwards from the short list of possible running mates, "they had been moving to avoid having Edwards speak at this month's national party convention even before his admission."
The recent revelations have also given an excuse for the Democrats to deny the increasingly progressive former senator any policy-making position in the foreseeable future. The Post article quotes Fowler as insisting that "any role for Edwards in a potential Obama administration is 'dead'."
Ironically, former president Bill Clinton, whose marital infidelities by most accounts far surpass those of the more left-leaning Edwards, has been offered a major prime time speech before the convention. In addition, Obama has publicly declared that Clinton, a strident backer of neo-liberal economic policies, will play an important advisory role in his administration.
Yet what is perhaps most revealing in the contrast between the Democratic Party leadership's treatment of John Edwards in 2004 and in 2008 is their apparent belief that having an extra-marital affair is significantly worse than being, as a result of his role as an enthusiastic co-sponsor of the Iraq war resolution, an accessory to mass murder.
It is also profoundly disappointing that Obama -- who, despite the North Carolina senator's earlier war-mongering, praised Edwards in his 2004 keynote address before the Democratic National Convention -- apparently agrees with these distorted priorities.
One cannot help but wonder whether a party and a candidate with such a twisted sense of morality really deserves to win in November.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco.
116 Comments so far
Show All"Yet what is perhaps most revealing in the contrast between the Democratic Party leadership's treatment of John Edwards in 2004 and in 2008 is their apparent belief that having an extra-marital affair is significantly worse than being, as a result of his role as an enthusiastic co-sponsor of the Iraq war resolution, an accessory to mass murder." 'Nuff said. Run Ralph. Run!
A majority of Americans believe "having an extra-marital affair is significantly worse than being, as a result of his role as an enthusiastic co-sponsor of the Iraq war resolution, an accessory to mass murder". Sad but true.
Precisely why I dont vote Democratic anylonger; i.e., Dems have no problem sanctioning slaughter in Iraq and with their proxy child, Israel, but look the other way on torture, give Bill (oh those nasty stains) Clinton a plum speaking role, and Hilary who advocates for nuking Iran, but Edwards stupid sexual liaison gets them to pontificating on their elevated soap box. Piss on the Dems.
Quoting from a January 26, 2008 article by Alex Lantier, entitled "Study Documents Nearly 1,000 Lies From Iraq War Propaganda Campaign" ...
"The Senate was then (when the War vote was taken) — as now — under the leadership of the Democratic Party. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle declared at the time that America had to speak 'with one voice' in threatening war against Iraq. Then senator ... John Edwards wrote in a Washington Post opinion column just weeks before voting for war: 'America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.'
"The Democrats at the time had the leadership of the Senate intelligence, armed services and foreign affairs committees, yet none of them pressed for investigations into the blatant lies being used by the administration to prepare for war.
"The reality is that both parties were quite conscious of both the phony character of the administration's propaganda campaign and of the administration's determination to manufacture a pretext for war no matter how contrived. They backed this campaign because the representatives of big business in both parties agreed on a strategy of invading and occupying Iraq with the aim of seizing control of the country's vast oil reserves and establishing US hegemony in a vitally strategic region.
"Using US military power as a means of asserting American capitalism's dominance and thereby offsetting its relative decline on the world market was a consensus policy within the ruling elite. Among masses of working people, however, there existed intense opposition to war. The barrage of lies and propaganda about an imminent threat from nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was unleashed in order to terrorize the American people into accepting a war.
"The Democratic congressional leadership was not a victim of this lie campaign, but rather served as a willing accomplice.
"There is no doubt that the 935 lies (re. the Iraq War propaganda campaign) assembled in this study (by the Center for Public Integrity) constitute a vital piece of evidence that would amply justify the impeachment and prosecution for war crimes of Bush, Cheney, Rice and others in the administration. The fact that there is no move to indict these officials for their crimes, however, only points to the continued complicity of the Democrats, the media and the predominant layers of the ruling political establishment in continuing a war of aggression that has claimed the lives of over 1 million Iraqis as well as nearly 4,000 American troops."
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/lies-j26.shtml
I am a big Zunes fan, but I think this article is way off base.
Edwards' populism is as phony as his haircut or his marriage. Edwards can sound progressive in order to win over a certain contingency-- but its all marketing. President Edwards wouldn't be any more progressive than President Obama. They're both going to follow the same corporate agenda.
I might be able to see past Edwards cheating on his dying wife, were it not for the fact that everything else about this man is duplicitous.
The one thing I do like about this article is Zunes' very valid point that the dems see infidelity as being worse than complicity in mass murder.
KaneJeeves is correct pointing to American Exceptionalism as the indoctrination which explains this twisted morality.
It's well over 4,000 American troops by now, and God knows how many Iraqis. We'll probably never know. That the Dems are even being considered as a party of opposition to the murderous Republicans is testimony to our complicit media in this massive war crime. Obama's as culpable as the rest, with the exception of Kucinich, Feingold and few others, but the party hierarchs deserve the same treatment Bush-Cheney and Co. would get in a just society--public trials and swift justice. Lacking a just society, we're the audience for yet another round of phony war mongers posing as reformers in the upcoming convention in Denver. Why we keep putting up with this circus of lies and liars, thieves and murderers, pretending to be our saviors, only extensive social psychotherapy could ever explain.
Nobody for president.
"This became a problem for the Democratic Party establishment, which has long had close relations with the Pentagon and major corporations. There was a CLEAR DISCOMFORT over the prospects of Edwards becoming Obama's running mate or even just giving a major address before a nationally-televised audience where he would likely stress the moral imperative of America's social responsibility to its poor and the need to challenge powerful corporate interests."
A form of extreme greed and power based madness has enfolded Washington. It's diseased body is filled with gurgling corruption. Immunize yourself by not voting Repug or Dim.
As Stephen Zunes points out in the above article, John Edwards formally apologizd for his vote to authorize the war in Iraq -- unlike several other Democrats, including Hillary Clinton.
Still, Edwards remains with a political party, the Democratic Party, that's just as criminally liable for mass murder as the Republicans.
John Edwards' conscience, my oh my, what a tangeled web it appears to be. ... He apologized for his pro-war vote on Iraq; but, then again, that apology also helped him politically, didn't it? Helped him in his run for the presidency. ... How *convenient* a conscience is when it involves a grab for political power.
If Edwards truly had a conscience about the war in Iraq, he would have broken with the Democratic Party -- the Democratic Party being just as criminally complicit in the War as the Republican Party.
What would have happened if Edwards, *truly* sorrow for his pro-War vote, had broken with the Democratic Party and spearheaded a drive to establish a third party movement? ...
He could have been joined by not only those already in the fight (Nader, McKinney, et al) but also by fellow-Democrats, such as, Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Lee, Barney Frank, Russ Feingold, et al.
But those Democrats -- THOSE MEMBERS OF THE LEFT-WING OF THE BUSINESS PARTY -- don't want to give up the political "property" they've acquire under the auspices of the Democratic Party. They *like* the power they have.
Can you imagine if Democrats like Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Ted Kennedy, when he was healthy, Russ Feingold, Barney Frank -- Democrats with their kind of "name recognition" were to bolt from the Democratic Party and establish a third party movement. ... But they don't. ... And why not? Because, evidently, property -- *political property* -- means more to them than human life.
Property over principles. ... Why should this come as a surprise? What else can one expect from the Democrats, the left-wing of the Business Party -- a Party that speaks on behalf of business/oligarchic interests as opposed to democratic/human interests.
So poor John Edwards all of a sudden finds his conscience about the Iraq War when (surprise! surprise!) an apology for his pro-War vote is of material advantage to him in his run for president. ("Hey, I know: I'll apologize! Yeah! Yeah, that's the ticket!")
And poor John Edwards conveniently finds his conscience and "feels sorry" for his adultery -- albeit after the you-know-what hit the you-know-what. In other words: after he got CAUGHT!
But where, oh where is poor John Edwards' conscience when it comes to publicly repudiating the Democratic Party for their criminal complicity regarding the war in Iraq?
Can John Edwards now turn to mainstream media and say what needs to be said -- that my adultery is nothing as compared to my vote to authorize the war in Iraq and, worse, my not speaking out about my party's continuing support for that War.
John Edwards, go away, just go away. The sane people in the world, the ones who recognize the criminal savagery of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the possibility of wars in Iran and Pakistan -- the Democrats being in support of all four wars! -- sane people don't need you or your "politically-motivated conscience" to guide them.
Just go, and take your overweening ambition, your "conscience" and your phony populism with you.
No surprise here, that the Democratic Party practices "twisted morality." Besides its inability to recognize the greater culpability of war criminals than of adulterers, the party has shown its out-of-focus morality in its treatment of Obama himself. Witness the giant collective shrug this past winter and spring as Tony Rezko was indicted for corruption in Illinois and yet Obama has enjoyed (so far) a teflon moral coating that allows him to escape having to account for his association with his former fund-raiser and colleague in many a morally dubious if not downright corrupt operation in Illinois politics: of the same kind that sent a former Governor to jail. Evelyn Pringle, investigative journalist who, along with Chicago Times reporters, dug out much of this political dirt, expressed amazement that the DNC was ignoring this "skeleton in the closet" for Obama, even anticipating that the DNC would have to intervene and remove him from the presidential ticket were he to be nominated. This did not fly well with those determined to nominate Obama, and even the mention of the name of Rezko by Hillary Clinton was tossed off as another indication that Clinton would "do anything" to win the election; and there was the same ad hominem rejection of Pringle's charges since she was, after all, a self-announced Clinton partisan.
Don't assume, by the way, that Obama won't eventually be brought down by a scandal growing out of his Illinois political background. That's the way scandals "work," after all. Something rotten goes on for a long time, many people know it's rotten (think safety conditions of bridges or levees for example) but nobody "does anything" until something blows away the usual practice of ignoring the situation (like a bridge collapse or flood) and heads must roll and someone must be held accountable. There's another person yet willing to "do anything" to be elected President (the name is McCain) and there's still every reason to believe that the Illinois scandal will be an important if not main part of the "swift-boating" yet to follow. (And don't blame me for giving the GOP the idea; you don't have to prompt these fellows to bring out their long knives, whether they are dealing with inconvenient truth or with damned lies.)
I don't buy into Edward's 'progressive' label. Just another manufactured reality (lie) to sell the corporate agenda.
While I realize that Edwards at least said his vote for the Iraq war was a mistake, he may be saying that for political reasons (because that position would get him more votes) rather than reasons for speaking to the truth. And I do think that a person's personal life has to be a consideration when evaluating a candidate, though infidelity is below starting a war and betraying the country under the veil of patriotism.
Unfortunately, the democratic party leadership, finds that becoming more republican is the path to winning, which may be true, but it is not the path to solve the problems of America. It doesn't address the issues related to sustainable and peaceful living. They don't talk about over-population, impairing and depleting natural resources, corporate corruption, war based economy, failure of our elected officials to follow the law, protection of basic human rights, etc.
It is important to get along, but it is more important to do the right thing.
Vote third party. Consider the Green party this year. I don't think it will send a message to the democratic party leadership, but it will send a message to other frustrated voters that they can vote for someone other than the two corporate parties.
If the morality of Democrats is twisted, they come by their delusions honestly. Consider the forms of property: an apple, an apple tree, a horse, a house, a mill, a mine, a factory, a patent, a copyright. It can be plainly seen that an individual's moral obligation is different for all these objects, yet the liberty with regard to one's property is considered to be identical for all.
American recognition of morality is clouded by those American values enshrined within our own Constitution.
I don't think this is a Dem thing. I once had a conversation with a die hard conservative Repub about how bad Bush was compared to Clinton. I said "Bush is responsible for the deaths of 1000's." Response was "yah, but come on Clinton had sex in the White House and cheated on his wife". I was stunned. But I think I know why that response now. If you believe everything US does is by definition correct (i.e. believe in American Exceptionalism) then Bushes actions are justified. Clinton's on the other hand don't fall under the purview of American Exceptionalism, so they are in fact worse. Twisted but i think true.
Show me an elected male politician that has not had an extra-marital affair with a woman, and I will show you a gay male politician who is having an affair with another man.
"high moral standards". Democrats. Politicians. Obama. Edwards. Clintons. Pelosi. Reid. Hoyer. "High Moral Standards". LOL . . . Love Our Lice. L'il Ol' Liars. Lie Or Lose. Laugh Out Loud. Lots Of Luck.
I had high hopes for Edwards. No more. He's simply stupid.
Keep your penis in your pants...or at least in your own wife.
One more word: Fishbowl.
Bush prostitute Nancy Peloser was on Larry King last night and Cindy Sheehan's name wasn't even mentioned. That's how the MSN operates. They figure that the best way to make an issue go away is to ignore it.
Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same.
VOTE MCKINNEY. VOTE NADER. VOTE SHEEHAN.
I'm glad Zunes clearly illustrates the American crisis of our time. Instead of a government "by and for the people," we have let two colluding, finagling gangs rig the system to put "their" interests above Americans as a whole.
It is far beyond time people who still believe in our founding principles step forward "loud and clear." No more Ron Paul trying to convert his party's Nazis, or Kucinich and Willie Nelson trying to drum up membership in the "other" immoral gang.
Imagine a Congress filled with individuals like Cindy Sheehan. People clearly there with the interest of the nation and humanity at heart - devoid of party loyalty.
There's your moral America. There's the America I once believed in. There's your beacon for the world.
For politicians ever since Parnell sexual lapses have been used to discredit opposition, while somehow the established alpha males of the right usually get a pass.
The other thing that is used is minor accounting discrepencies. Everyone please send money to Cindy so she can hire accountants to fill out her paperwork.
hey how about bush admonishing russia not to invade a sovereign state
american politics has become so grungy and stinky they make mugabe look good
i just wish the chinese would sell their government bonds and bring down the whole rotten system - and soonly
the nazis and the sheeple - off to the fema prisons for the lot of you worthless scum
i don't see bush shooting his mouth off to russia this week - actually holding the upside down american flag at the olympics was so apropos
there isn't even the illusion that he is charge anymore - not that he ever was - the drunken drug addict cheerleader from andover
actually i'd like to see putin have 10 minutes in a room alone with bush - snap his chickenshit neck
let's see the neocon chickenshits attack a country that can defend itself, as can russia
by the way sheeple - russia has made it very clear that this fight will be nuclear
good riddance to bad rubbish
Thomas O. Anderson,
I like your style, especially the following:
"Imagine a Congress filled with individuals like Cindy Sheehan."
I wonder what would have happened if Lech Walesa and the dockworkers he and his comrades organized back in Poland in the 1980s had said: "Oh hell, we can't do it, we can't throw off the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union. Screw it -- T.I.N.A. -- There Is No Alternative."
Instead, their revolution was successful. And it was successful because, as your post suggests -- it first started in their *imagination.*
Not only that, but when they got down to business, they turned away the Soviet system with no democratic tools, no democratic mechanisms whatsoever!
By contrast, we in the United States have a great many democratic mechanisms with which to fight. ... We have regulatory agencies (OSHA, the SEC, the FCC, the EEO, etc.)... we have open courts ... we have what are *supposed* to be open elections ... we have impeachment ... we have judicial recall ... we have a Constitution ... we have a Bill of Rights. In short, we countless "democratic tools" with which to fight the Democratic-Republican duopoly.
Note: People throughout the world have achieved revolutionary changes in their country without any of the *institutionized* democratic mechanisms we, as Americans, take for granted.
Thus, Americans, in order to affect any kind of meaningful change, have to first realize that we are at a great advantage in the United States, as compared to other exploited people. We have not only the above-mentioned democratic mechanisms, albeit grossly under-used, we also have a strong tradition of broad-based progressive dissent.
Also, many Americans (including some at this CD site) have to stop being so damn pessimistic about what can and cannot be changed in the American political system. ... Those in power count on citizen-pessimism and citizen-cynicism. ... They COUNT on a "you-can't-beat-City-Hall" attitude on the part of the general public.
Why? Because that kind of negativity makes the general public passive, apathetic and, in turn, easier to manipulate and control.
Being in "City Hall," they love it when the general public says: "we can't fight City Hall." ... What do you think they do then, stop acting corruptly? ... Of course not. ... They keep on keepin' on.
As Ralph Nader puts it: "Pessimism is a function of inactivity." And inactivity is just what those in power want. ... Thats' how they STAY in power!
I can tell you from personal experience that foreigners are amazed -- especially during US presidential campaigns -- at how *helpless* Americans feel at the prospects of changing things for the better -- and yet at the same time how much Americans have at their disposal with which to make those meaningful changes!!!
The ruling class in the United States is in a constant state of, shall we say, "concern" that the masses stay in place, that the masses behave themselves, that the masses be manipulated and, in turn, controlled.
Indeed, a great deal of time, money and propaganda are allotted to see that this is accomplished.
So don't for a moment think that the ruling oligarchy is not afraid of the *sheer numbers* of the general public -- especially at the ballot box!
And again, Thomas, thanks for that inspiring image -- "a Congress filled with individuals like Cindy Sheehan."
wsws.org 2:49 PM:
"Can you imagine if Democrats like Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Ted Kennedy, when he was healthy, Russ Feingold, Barney Frank — Democrats with their kind of "name recognition" were to bolt from the Democratic Party and establish a third party movement."
What a profoundly interesting question, and how relevant it is that you explain their behavior by their attachment to their "political property" which is exactly why I think so many Democrats don't abandon their membership in a party that is corrupt and feeble but is at least "theirs." As a Kucinich partisan, I have shared the anguish that Dennis will not consider giving up his membership in the DP to help with the vital work of establishing a "viable" third party; and I've felt the anguish of many of my friends who are half-hearted Obama supporters who seem unable to think beyond the box of believing there are only two varieties of political property in the U.S., the elephant and the donkey, and if you don't "have" one of these you're a nobody.
wsws's list of distinguished progressive Democrats leads me to try to think when in my memory (and I'm 75) there has been any Democrat who left the party "on principle" (I'm sure there were a couple) as, for example, Senator Jeffords did for the Repubs.
The great exception today, of course, is Cynthia McKinney, former Democratic congresswoman who lost her "property" (was dispossessed of same by a Republican operation) as a member of Congress from Georgia and joined the Green Party, now as its Presidential candidate. Maybe, just maybe, if progressives give McKinney's candidacy the respectful consideration that it deserves, it will encourage a few more progressive Democrats to give up their party "property" and come out for a third party. (This may happen only if these people. like McKinney, lose their political positions, as I have half-hoped might be the case were Dennis to have been defeated for his Ohio congressional seat: though I contributed money to his campaign.)
In case you wondered, just after I was given an award from my local Democratic Party for having been a 50-year member, I divested myself of that "property" and re-registered as a Green. Like other accounts of people who were burdened by their "earthly goods" and felt much relieved when they gave them up or went broke, I can attest to the cleansing power of that kind of property divestment. Great god almighty, free at last!
The Dean left-funnel of the DNC became a further right (meaning mostly quieter without challenging the legitimacy of CNN's nomination of HillaryObama) left-funnel. Won't get funneled again!
When will we teach media and propaganda strategies so instead of three hundred year old checks and balances meaningless words to our kids in school?
We dont have the common vocabulary for a democracy.
The best way to get it is by CORE SAMPLING studies where we can actually SEE THE FLEXIBILITY of pols being limited by permanent corporate-tied instituions. You guessed it: 1963, or more fake elections!
'According to former Democratic National Committee chair Don Fowler, Edwards no longer meets the "high moral standards" expected'
Chomsky made a recent point about the Demoks' ability to meet the "high moral standards" expected:
'When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we didn't say, like Obama on Iraq, that this is a "strategic blunder." Or like Hillary Clinton, "they're getting into a civil war they can't win." We said it's aggression, which is a principled position, and we're capable of saying that when an enemy carries out a crime. It's wrong even when it succeeds. The question is, are we capable of applying to ourselves the same criteria we apply to others. You can say that's a moral principle if you like. But it's so elementary that if we can't accept it, we might as well admit we are Nazis.' -Gunning for the Prize
I would vote Green, except I can't bring myself to vote for Nader.
I'm waiting to watch Edwards over the next few years to see what he does.
For instance, if he's really serious about his drives to fight poverty and help workers, we'll know it. Its pretty obvious that he won't be running for President in 2008. So, if he's really serious about these efforts and puts a lot of effort into them, we'll see that he really means it.
At this point, I don't know. I see the rhetoric and the positions taken in his last campaign. But are they for real? Who can tell? Unless you've got some sort of psychic power to read the man's soul, you probably can't know for sure.
But time will tell.
anbaric_lite ... it might help you if you knew that Nader is not running on the Green Party ticket. Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party nominee. Nader is running as an independent.
To Jerry Rose. I liked your post a lot, but there is one detail I thought I'd point out. I lived in GA up through 2003. With Rep. Cynthia McKinney, there were two major attempts to kick her out of Congress. One in 2002. Then, after she won her seat back in 2004, there was a second in 2006. I lived in GA during the 2002 elections, and volunteered on her campaign.
In 2002, it was as much a Democratic attempt to kick her out of Congress as it was a Republican operation. Essentially they both sided against her. The candidate who they picked to run against her was a protege of Democratic Senator and former Governor Zell Miller. And as you can expect, when someone is both a former Governor and sitting US Senator, they are probably the most powerful elected official in the party. The campaign against Ms. McKinney was funded by Zell Miller contributors and the consultants who normally worked a Zell Miller campaign were working for Magette, Ms. McKinney's opponent.
Magette held the seat for just two years. Then the other part of the deal between her and the Democrats came into force and she made the run for the US Senate that they had promised her. But I guess she didn't get a promise that she would win as she finished way down a crowded primary field.
But, in 2002 at least, it was very clear that it was the Democrats who attacked Cynthia McKinney as much as the Republicans. The Republicans contributed their part, crossing over in large numbers to vote in the Democratic side of the 'open' primary. But it was very, very clear that the Democrats wanted Cynthia McKinney gone as much as the Republicans did.
I wasn't in GA in 2006, so I can't speak to that campaign.
Just another dot to connect when considering the 'Democrats twisted morality'.
Think about taking impeachment 'off the table'. The Constitution is crafted to create 'seperate but co-equal' branches of government that provide 'checks and balances' against any one branch grabbing two much power for themselves. This is the most fundamental guarantee of our liberties that the writers of the Constitution could give us.
On top of that, each member of Congress takes an oath of office to 'protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.'
When the Democrats talk about taking 'impeachment off the table', they always talk politics. They don't refute all the potential charges against Bush and Cheney. They don't present evidence that no crimes were committed. Instead they talk about politics. They talk about being afraid of a 'backlash'. They talk as if taking this course in blocking impeachment is something that will help them win the next election.
In essence, they are willing to destroy the Constitution of the United States of America, let the best protection of our liberties collapse, and violate a solemn oath they took upon taking office .... all for the shallow and greedy purpose of trying to promote their own grab for political power.
The bizarre thing is that anyone would ever be willing to elect such people or such a party to positions of responsibility.
i always admired edwards' anti-corporate stance. i think politicians shouldn't be asked questions about their personal life. it's none of our business.
There is only one viable political party in the US, and most of us know that. Both parties represent ONLY the interests of the rich, and both have grotesquely exploited the poor. Both are pro-war; Obama's preference is for war in Afhanistan, while McCain appears to prefer moving into Iran. America today is like a house with a crumbling foundation, about to collapse. Instead of rebuilding the foundation, both candidates have their sites set on reselling the fallen lumber and bricks as soon as the building collapses.
We could vote for a third party candidate, but it wouldn't change anything. In the past, we could say that it forced the two parties to recognize the support for anything other than the corporate agenda, but I really think it's too late for that to matter anymore. Talking about campaign finance reform -- a priority for at least the past 50 years -- hasn't accomplished a whole lot; US politics, after all, is owned by the rich. They are the deciders, and without widespread revolt, this isn't going to change.
trishlane August 12th, 2008 5:26 pm
i always admired edwards' anti-corporate stance. i think politicians shouldn't be asked questions about their personal life. it's none of our business.
I feel that my response to your first contention has to be left-wing. My response to your second might sound more right-wing but I don't think it is.
1.Edwards is a member of the political elite. He is a rich trial lawyer and phony as his 400 dollar haircuts. He never made any serious challenge to the powerful folks who control the Democratic party. I don't think president Edwards would have stood up to powerful corporate interests.
2. I think personal lives do matter. Not that I want everybody delving into people's personal issues, but the fact is that people who are opportunists in the political world are going to be opportunisits in their personal lives. I'm not sure that the opposite is true, but in any case I think this affair only further undermined Edward's honesty and integrity. It takes character to stand up to corporations and Edwards doesn't seem to have a lot of that.
I wonder if Pelosi would have had impeachment on the table if W had been lying about a sexual affair instead of just WMDs, torture and everything else. But then who or what would admit to having sex with him?
I would vote for JFK again (well, if he were alive that is), I would vote for Bill Clinton again, and I would vote for John Edwards again - IF sexual peccadillos were their greatest "crime."
Of course I'm not a democrat or republican. Guess that does make a distinction.
Let me get this straight, Edwards is not allowed to speak due to his affair, and Bill Clinton does. Now don't get me wrong, I think they both should speak. Bush and Cheney destroy America on so many different levels, and they are welcomed with open arms at their convention. And Democrats are worried about what these people on the right think, for what reason. Great, punish Edwards for a sexual dalliance, but let the crime family of the Bush administration just walk away scott free, with not even a slap on the wrist. Yep, this party's moral compass is severly damaged and twisted.
I would not vote for Bill Clinton. His personal and political lives don't deserve a distinction. Were Clinton a great humanitarian I would forgive the personal sins without hesitation. The truth is that Bill Clinton is not a trustworthy politician or a trustworthy man.
Rtdrury,
In a previous post, you quoted Noam Chomsky …
"The question (Chomsky writes) is, are we capable of applying to ourselves the same criteria we apply to others. You can say that's a moral principle if you like. But it's so elementary that if we can't accept it, we might as well admit we are Nazis."
That quote reminds me of Chomsky making the same point, this time as regards "terrorism."
Noam Chomsky in a recent interview
" ...what I write causes extreme anger for the very simple reason that I use the U.S. government's official definition of terrorism from the official U.S. code of laws. If you use that definition, it follows very quickly that the U.S. is the leading terrorist state and a major sponsor of terrorism and since that conclusion is unacceptable, it arouses furious anger.
"But the problem lies in the unwillingness to recognize that your own terrorism is terrorism. This is not just true of the United States, it's true quite generally. Terrorism is something that they do to us. In both cases, it's terrorism and we have to get over that if we're serious about the question."
Click here for the entire interview -- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15416.htm
And this also from Chomsky in a recent "CounterPunch" article:
" ... terrorism (according to the US definition of terrorism, from the official US code of laws) is 'the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature ... through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear,' typically targeting civilians.
"The British government's definition is about the same: 'Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause.'
"These definitions seem fairly clear and close to ordinary usage. There also seems to be general agreement that they are appropriate when discussing the terrorism of enemies.
"But a problem at once arises. These definitions yield an entirely unacceptable consequence: it follows that the *US* is a leading terrorist state ..." (Asterisks added.)
Click here for the entire article, "The Terrorist in the Mirror," http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky01242006.html
The same can be true for words like "aggressor" and "invasion." We're not the aggressors in the Middle East, we didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan. We're just there to "pacify" Iraq. Oh, yeah, and to promote and guarantee democracy.
And we don't have weapons of mass destruction. ... Oh, ok, we do. ... But we would never use them. ... Oh, ok, we did. ... But we didn't mean to kill innocent civilians. ... Oh, ok we did. ... But, but: we really didn't kill "innocent civilians" -- those dead people weren't even dead people, they're "collateral damage."
Indeed, what does the US government call one of its most lethal nuclear weapon systems
-- "The Peacekeeper."
And we don't "arm space," all we want to do is "build a shield" against enemy attack.
In a previous post, KaneJeeves wrote:
"I once had a conversation with a die hard conservative Repub about how bad Bush was compared to Clinton. I said 'Bush is responsible for the deaths of 1000's.' His response was 'yah, but come on Clinton had sex in the White House and cheated on his wife.'
"I was stunned. But I think I know why that response now. If you believe everything US does is by definition correct (i.e. believe in American Exceptionalism) then Bushes actions are justified. Clinton's on the other hand don't fall under the purview of American Exceptionalism, so they are in fact worse."
But I think it's something even beyond American Exceptionalism, Kane. ... In 1988, Garry Will wrote a book called "Reagan's America; Innocents At Home," in it he wrote:
"The truth about (America's) actual behavior, whether on the old frontier or the new, is as threatening to our sense of identity as the terrorist himself."
Americans for the most part are in a state of denial -- historical denial, psychological denial and ethical denial. And, as such, Ronald Reagan was, and remains, their emotional hero.
Because Reagan was so much more than a mere propagandist – he actually *believed* the cover story. So that when his handlers sent him out to lie about this and lie about that, he actually came to believe the cover story, he actually believed the lie!
So that here was this ... shield. You know, and what possible harm could a peace-loving nation like the Untied States do putting a "shield" in outer space to protect against nuclear attack?
And here was "poor little Kuwait," being attacked by "big bad Saddam Hussein."
Reagan was great at telling morality tales -- even if the moral itself was contradicted by the American government's own egregious actions!
Reagan is greatly loved by millions of Americans because, like them, he thoroughly believed American myths.
George Bush does, too; so did Richard Nixon; but their lies are not as convincingly told as "The Great Communicator." Because their faces are not that of Ronald Reagan. He smiles, theirs scowl. He soothes, theirs raise suspicions, even amongst the faithful, even amongst the flock.
Again, Garry Wills:
"Visiting Reaganland is very much like taking children to Disneyland. It is a safe past, with no sharp edges to stumble against. The more visits one makes to such a past, the better is one immunized against any troubling incursions of a real New Orleans ... the real American West. If capitalist 'conservatism' cannot be rooted in the real past it works to obliterate, then it will invent a deracinating past, a nostalgia for the new, a substitute history to lull us in the time machine that travels on no roads, reaching goals no one could plan. ...
"Reagan gives our history the continuity of a celluloid Mobius strip. We rides its curves backwards and forwards at the same time, and he is always there. There is an endlessness of surface that becomes a kind of depth … "
Enter Jerry Falwell. Enter the Christian fundies. Enter the evolutionists..
Wills:
"Only a believer could make Reagan's fictive past credible to others. Only a touch of fanaticism can hold out against all kinds of converging evidence. ... For many, Reagan is not only a comfort but a necessity. He is a demagogue as rabble-soother, at a time when people do not need to be stirred up by assuaged, to have anxieties dispelled, complexities resolved. They need to believe that the simpler past not only perdures but prevails."
And so this was the America Bush Sr., Bill Clinton and, in turn, Bush Jr. inherited from the Grand Master, Ronald Reagan. ... Except now things *are* stirred up. Things *are* beginning to unravel, with millions of Americans having a hard time maintaining the knee-jerk denial that so long has been their friend and companion.
So, it's not just a sense of "American exceptionalism," it's much more than that. It's a mythology, rooted in denial, that is so powerful that its antidote, the truth, would be several times more damaging than a thousand 9/11s.
This is a country that has yet to acknowledge the truth as regard countless historic events -- Scottsboro, Tuskeegee, Dresden, Ludlow, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Japanese "internment," Vietnam, the near-genocide of the American Indian, Cuba, Nicaragua, East Timor, Chile, New Orleans, the Palestinians, the economic sanctions against Iraq. The list goes on and on. ... And here we are in Gulf War 2, with over 1,000,000 Iraqis dead. And counting.
As things are going now, given that "American denial" is still in full-force, 20 years from now some curious soul might ask -- Why in the world wasn't Bush impeached for invading Iraq? ... Why did both parties let him get away with what he did? ... The same can be asked of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, just substitute Vietnam for Iraq.
And corporate-controlled, corporate-sponsored mainstream media, will they ever admit America is less than great? Of course not.
And on it goes. Mythology. Exceptionalism. Denial. ... "The Great Communicator" lives on!
As one of the crew of the Pequoid said of Captain Ahab: "He's dead, but he beckons."
GKL said: "But then who or what would admit to having sex with him?"
I think Pelosi would. Everytime I see her photo with Bush, she looks like an adoring school-girl. I think she's totally in love with him, which of course explains partially why she protects him.
Twisted morality? What's morality got to do with it?
How 'bout just plain ole TWISTED?
I save so much money not-buying multiple vitamins, because I consume well in excess of the minimum daily requirement for irony just by checking the news-- irony-poor blood is a thing of the past!
When the "top-tier", "viable" Dem candidates emerged, I presciently dubbed them "The Mod Squad": Pete, Linc, and Julie.
I never could quite settle on whether "Pete" Edwards is indeed an occasionally inspiring pretty boy, or whether he truly has redeeming populist/progressive beliefs. The question is moot, now. Amerika's atavistic puritanical streak of sexual retardation is pathetic and tragic, and the pathological mix of repugnance and fascination lays a cruel and unfair trap for politicians. (Did you catch "lays" in there?)
Because the fact remains that being caught with one's pants down after facing down the world with fervent denials about personal dalliances means that one may henceforth justifiably be condemned as a lying sack of shit. (To a point-- unless crowded by circumstances. See below.) Gaining a political life in this quagmire of hypocrisy, with its miasma of prurience, DOES mean losing a private life, rightly or wrongly.
My guess is that Edwards will be a second Gary Hart-- another politician with a glimmer of promise who indulged a politically self-destructive propensity for philandering and denying it. The stink does eventually subside, but Democrats never seem to rebound to a point where they can make it back into the starting lineup.
All THAT said, it's certainly no surprise that the Dem leadership is shunning Edwards; it strikes me as exactly the same approach Al Gore took to Bill Clinton. The Democrats aspire to a nauseatingly pious "squeaky-clean"ness-- ergo that abomination called Joe Lieberman, who slouched towards the Veep spot in 2000 because of his preposterous reputation for being morally upright and pure. HoJoe was insurance against the prospect of Gore being contaminated by a still-radioactive Bill.
Obama, despite some equivocal revelations about recreational drug use, is still pretty much coming off as a Boy Scout-- reverent, brave, thrifty, etc. And, as Joe Biden helpfully noted, "clean"-- a good, clean-cut Negroish man without a particle of venality or proclivity for sins of the flesh. This is no time for Obama to embrace and forgive sleazy sinners; the convention is Obama's glorious public baptism, in which the way must be prepared to allow the Voice of God to boom, "This is my Beloved Son, in Whom I take delight!"
And just to prove to all of the pragmatists and realists out there that I grok their attitude, the irony-rich truth is that the Clintons are too embedded in the Democratic power structure to let them get away with making Bill wait in the car during the convention.
Edwards is expendable; Bill is not. So Bill gets a pass, and is waved with apparent enthusiasm to the podium without the slightest suggestion that HIS "moral standards" don't make the cut.
It doesn't get marc richer-- whoops, I meant MUCH richer-- than this.
lefk
1. He did verbally take a stance against corporate greed. This to me was quite astounding. Maybe it was BS and he never could deliver on the stance in any substantive way. Maybe it was phony posturing under cover of his $400 haircut, but he said it. He put corporate profiteering out there as part of the national debate. Thank God I say. (Thank you Kucinich too.)
2. I dunno.....they all fool around don't they? We have to get over that being a litmus test. I'm disappointed for sure. But is spousal fidelity a qualification for public service? Looks like George and Laura are pretty solid. He's not exactly my kinda prez.
There is no morality in marketing.
.
I'll say it again…
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
Is it just me?
At 3:14 today I entered a post describing what I think is another egregious incidence of "twisted morality" of the Democratic Party, the apparent blindness of the Party and Obama's supporters to the indications of his possibly corrupt Illinois political connections. No one has yet commented, pro or con, on this posting or indicated whether they share my suspicion that this situation may well escalate into a "scandal" under the un-tender mercy of the Republican attack machine. The Democrats may throw Edwards under the bus, but what will happen if the Chief Under-the-bus-thrower himself becomes an impossible albatoss for any hope of a Democratic victory in the race for the White House?
trish,
I agree with you that sex scandals can't be a litmus test. But I think when someone's integrity is already in question something like an extra-marital affair further undermindes their credibility and trustworthiness.
For a long time I thought that folks just needed to leave Bill Clinton alone, but Monica-gate did matter. I completely disagree with the Republican assault on slick Willy, but nevertheless feel that the scandal revealed Clinton as a power-hungry scumbag. He's really done nothing in his career to make me think otherwise.
What has Edwards DONE to show that he isn't just interested in power over people?
Little Brother:
"... the irony-rich truth is that the Clintons are too embedded in the Democratic power structure to let them get away with making Bill wait in the car during the convention."
Speaking of "waiting in the car," I once heard a story about the actress Tallulah Bankhead that fits Bill and Hillary to a tee.
It seems that Tallulah was in a restaurant, dining with "Husband Number Four," or maybe it was "Husband Number Five," somewhere around there. ... And into the restaurant walks "Husband Number Two," who Tallulah hadn't seen in years.
Without looking up from her meal, Tallulah said to Husband Number Two: "Didn't I tell you to wait in the car!"
Poor Bill Clinton. What if Hillary had won the nomination and chose Paula Jones as her running mate?
And who would Monica have voted for? (Inquiring minds want to know.)
And, while we're at it -- Did Bill, consciously or unconsciously, sabotage Hillary's campaign? It sure seems that way, doesn't it?
What, one wonders, was said privately between Ma and Pa Clinton after Bill put his foot in his mouth once too often?
-- Bill, are you tryin' to fark me over?
-- Why no, honeybunch, I'd never do that. ... Fark you over. ... Perish the farkin' thought. You lost because you just don't have my "communication skills." ... You know as well as I do that I can "lay down a load" with the best to them!
-- Well, how exactly do I acquire those communication skills?
-- Practice, practice, practice.
-- I see. ... And what do you think of John Edwards?
-- Practice, practice, practice.
"It is also profoundly disappointing that Obama — who, despite the North Carolina senator's earlier war-mongering, praised Edwards in his 2004 keynote address before the Democratic National Convention — apparently agrees with these distorted priorities."
In all due respect this is muddled reasoning. Was Obama supposed to trash the Democratic Party in his convention speech in 2004? Was his decision not to really suggest that he "apparently agrees with these distorted priorities"?
The superior moral argument against the invasion of Iraq has finally prevailed in the Democratic Party and in America. Let's focus on electing the candidate who had judgment in 2002 to oppose it.
If Dennis Kucinich had given a speech at the convention and not trashed John Edwards would he be being treated the same way as Obama is by those of you who apparently are voting for John McCain?
Barack Obama is a legislator, not a messiah. Legislators make compromises and get the ball rolling. Its up to activists to push legislators to make the right choices. You can't blame Obama for putting the Democratic Party on a firm anti-war footing in 2008 because he didn't do it sooner.
Let's look at the record, Obama made this speech when the Clintons were still 'invincible':
"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…"- Barack Obama, October 2007
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
And made this speech as a not well-known Illinois politician, (too advance his career? give me a break.):
"What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."- Barack Obama, October 2002
Amen, Brother Zunes! The hypocrisy of the Demorats is nauserating! The deck is stacked an d yet the American populace, the Dumb and Dumbers and Naivete's, refuse to see it.
They would rather staym mesmerized by the coporate media's smoke and mirror circus and all the juicy rumors and inneundos of Edwards affair rather than the truth of what is going on in the world and how Obama is part of the problem not the solution.
If there exists a glimmer of hope that American's will wake up intime it will come in a huge adhoc movement during the Democratic and Republican Conventions to demand that the debates be opened up to Nadar of the Peace & Freedom Party and McKinney of the Green Party.
If there is no such adhoc movement and an open debate does not happen then we can be sure thatd the American spirit of real freedom and democracy is moribund and beyond hope!.
Vote for Nadar! Demand that Obama and McCain open up the debate!
The corporate Democrats now in power in that party form the deceptive progressive "Trojan Horse" of the totalitarian corporate regime in America. The corporate Repubicans form the out-in-the-open, pro-torture, militarism of the totalitarian corporate regime in America. The morality that Zunes points out as distorted is exactly that: a morality of the law of force and minority rule by the corporate rich.
That's why Edwards and his progressive rhetoric (and perhaps his progressive transformation) are out.
One needs to reach no further than Obama's comments about the Sermon on the Mount (which embodies universal morality of compassion and love) to support the conclusion of Zunes in this article:
Obama said:
"Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?"
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
It is sameness not change that Obama and the Dems represent, for the Sermon on the Mount and its "blessed are the peacemakers" message are exactly the change America and the world needs.
Regardless of which warmongering president we get, once this election is over, we have a progressive, constitutional revolution to bring about.
John Edwards was a terrible choice for John Kerry as his Vice pres running mate ! I think Kerry tried to pull off a JFK/LBJ trick--Im a Yankee and I'll pick this smooth, young southern attorney guy to pull in the vote from the South !!
****But Edwards could not even deliver his own state in Carolina for his party---Man, if you're a politician and canot even bring your home-state to the party table--what good are you??? Yep, he was a fast riser lawyer, handsome and gets $300 hair cuts, family man, seemingly to care about poverty and middle America issues.
****My surprise was his success at bringing himself back up as a Pres contender in the primaries==his throw of support to Obama was a biggie which may have kept him on the short list as potential Obama running mate==up to last week !!
****Keep in mind that all during the Monica thing and his impeachment, Pres Clinton held a 70% popularity rating among all Americans==we are not too dumb and are able to separate the human error from the leadership qualities which Pres Bill did have !! ***Regarding the 8 percent popularity of the US Congress job performance , most of the above posts demonstrate they deserve it, for their twisted morality and their Culture of Corruption in the halls of our Government !! Once again we are not too dumb as the polls indicate==but also once again we Voters are left to pick the lesser of two evils, and not the best of the best !