33 Comments so far

1. kittyladyoregon February 21st, 2007 5:35 pm

   I will never vote for Hillary Clinton for president. She triangulates to the nth degree, never telling the truth. She has learned well from her husband, whom I have likened to a moderate Republican. He is not a Democrat. Nor is she.
   If she becomes the nominee, I will vote Green.

2. opeluboy February 21st, 2007 6:38 pm

   I share your views on the Clintons, kitty, and will also vote Green if Clinton wins the nomination.

3. reh February 21st, 2007 6:39 pm

   I voted for Nader in the last two Presidential elections in Texas. As long as the Democrats dance one step to the left of George Bush’s policies I will continue to vote for Green or independent candidates or not vote at all in Presidential elections.

   I am pessimistic about the future for national politics, but optimistic for politics in other areas. I feel the passion, courage, and action for change in the world today reside mainly at the local and state levels and with international organizations.

4. johngarwig February 21st, 2007 7:18 pm

   Keep votin’ “Green” and you’ll have a gray country! You all must be young…good 4 U.

   Hillary got on board with the “go in” folks, like all Representatives/Senators, excepting Dennis Kucinich. She’s running for prez, and they’re not…so she’s required to reject the Bush idiocy. She does….what would YOU think? Do you really think Hillary is PRO war? If so, then u’re an idiot or dumb thinker. Hillary Clinton is as about as Pro-war as I’m against clean oxygen.
   She’d be an excellent president, especially when compared to the dangerous idiot we have in office now.

   Fact is….’07 is NOT ‘02….in ‘02 representatives, Hillary included, were required to vote with the warring public. Admit it, everybody in America was forced to adhere to bush and his nonsense…they played the ‘patriotism’ card…admit it. I did. You did.

   In closing, a vote for Nader, (unbelievable) is a vote for nothing. I loved Ralph…years ago when he was relevant. He is not….relevant, anymore. Surely you know this.

   Get on board with a winning candidate, someone who will promote left-wing policies regarding everything. Get used to the idea or DON’T vote. Your cynicism is resounding loud and clear. Your choice. Cynicism from you people is very scary.

   Sincerely,

   Your democratic friend,

   John E. Garwig

   South Euclid, Ohio

5. expatincebu February 21st, 2007 7:28 pm

   John, respectfully, you are full of crap.

   I was against the Iraq invasion from the beginning because I did the research and KNEW the bush propaganda was bogus. If I could find this out, anyone could. Yes, Hillary was playing the patriotism card, which is EXACTLY why I will never vote for her. She is dishonest.

   Hillary is NO liberal or progressive. It takes more than being pro choice. She is a DLC Democrat, meaning Republican lite corporate shill. If she is the best the Democrats can offer then they DO NOT DESERVE power and the U.S. is doomed anyway.

6. Poet February 21st, 2007 8:17 pm

   Gore Vidal was right when he suggested (during the Ford/Carter ‘76 campaign)that America needed ballots with a “none of the above” option. Unless one candidate got a 50% plus majority of all ballots cast the election would be declared a invalid and redone. At least it would give us some new bums to dislike.

7. solon February 21st, 2007 10:04 pm

   I do not want her as the nominee either. We need a new face, new ideas. I’m leaning toward Obama, but Edwards is a possibility. as are some of the others. But unless tghe GOP nominates a peace candidate like Chuck Hagel, I would probably hold my nose and vote for her in the general election. But I hope I don’t have to. Solon

8. ezeflyer February 21st, 2007 10:17 pm

   Funny thing Mr. Garwig, Ralph Nader has saved our ass countless times and you still hate him. He’s doing it again in spite of Democrat’s venom. If you want to understand why, watch “An Unreasonable Man” on Pay Per View. Meanwhile, you might visit: http://www.usgreens.org/index.htm

9. newayeen February 21st, 2007 10:20 pm

   Look, Hillary is dissembling, obviously, and dissemble she must in order to win. I’d rather she win than a Bush clone. She may be Nixonian, or worse. But deep down, and she has Bill’s team’s loyal support, she is a rationalist-humanist. We know the real Hillary. Lets not forget, please. She is one of us, but she must don the filthy clothes of hell in order to win. You can’t get into a coal mine, read politics, without getting dirty black.
   Thanks
   Usama Khalidi
   Hyderabad, India

10. newayeen February 21st, 2007 10:21 pm

    I forgot to mention in my post, I am in my self-imposed exile, which happened to be convenient.
    Usama Khalidi
    Hyderabad

11. johnuw93 February 22nd, 2007 12:08 am

    It did not take much research to know that Bush’s case was bogus. Watching Powell’s pathetic UN performance, in which cartoons substituted for actual evidence, ought to have been enough for any even slightly skeptical person.

    But that was then. The problem now is that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are gung ho on the “Iran is the threat” line. This renders their anti-war stance on Iraq incoherent. It makes no sense to say, as Edwards does, that we need to pull out of Iraq while also rattling the sabers against Iran. I am sure Edwards can read a map, as can the other two.

    Kucinich is consistent, although his peace plan suffers some incoherence as well. (He assumes that which is the main issue, ie, the legitimacy of the so-called government in the Green Zone. He calls for a major role for the guys in the Green Zone although it’s clear that it is an American puppet and rejected by most of the nation.)

    As for the Nader issue, I also voted for Nader IN TEXAS. Does anyone imagine that had I and other Nader voters cast votes for Gore, the outcome for Texas’ electoral votes would have changed? Of course not. So a Nader vote in a non-swing state registers my actual opinion, not a calculcated compromise on someone like Clinton (either one). That’s a message worth sending.

12. Edip Yuksel February 22nd, 2007 12:19 am

    I had, in the past, was willing to vote for Hillary. But, her position on Iraq, and her political calculation and dishonesty has turned me off. I am going to vote for Barak Obama, who voted against our agression in Iraq.

    The simple question for Hillary is this: If a candidate was duped by a warmonger and intellectually challenged president, and if another candidate was not, which one should we vote for? The duped or the wise?”

    If Hillary becomes the candidate, I will to will vote Green.

    Peace,
    Edip Yuksel

13. newayeen February 22nd, 2007 12:53 am

    But, Edip, I doubt if Hillary was duped in the first place. She knew what she was doing, living down her liberal credentials so she can win the presidency (by a long series of causation). Is that lying? Maybe, for a greater cause. Dubious morality? Maybe. How much honesty do you find in public life?

    I am not cynical, or a purist or an absolutist. I believe in values. It’s all relative, and in the final analysis, what counts is power, which is value neutral, can work for the good or for the bad.

    Thus, Hillary must do what it takes to win, and then use the power to do good, keep the bad from doing mischief.

    Usama
    In convenient exile

14. RichM February 22nd, 2007 1:26 am

    Anyone who takes any of the marquee-name Democrats (Hill, Obama, Edwards) seriously has a poor grasp of the situation. These 3 are the only “viable” ones, not because they have the best ideas, but because they’re polished performers with major corporate backing. If their policies were the least bit unfavorable to corporate players, they wouldn’t have gained that backing. This already means that none of the 3 can possibly be a force for reining in the excesses of corporate power — the root cause of our out-of-control militarism, our environmental destructiveness, & our social inequality.

    The richest moments on political blogs are when someone dim enough to still believe in Dem Party corporatists, stands up to scold & threaten others who are recognizing the need for alternatives to the sellouts of the Dem Party.

15. newayeen February 22nd, 2007 3:37 am

    You must be an absolutist and a purist, Rich, to decide not to compromise on your stand. Personally, I will take any decent, law-respecting Dem for the presidency, who would not be as destructive as the current occupant.

    Isn’t that good enough? Must you have the perfect and the ideal candidate?

    Can you also speak plainly, rather than just rail against the corporatists? All of nothing?

    Usama
    In convenient exile

16. Uncle Buck February 22nd, 2007 9:10 am

    It’s entirely possible that none of the above mentioned will be nominated, including Clinton. The sad state of American politics is leading people to think in terms of the “lesser of two evils”. If that’s the mindset, then that’s what we’ll get. The cream doesn’t seem to rise to the top in the American political system,(think current…. work your way back). I’m waiting for someone to call a dog a dog, the courage to challenge the status quo, speak of laws and justice and peace, someone who acknowledges other nations as human beings and potential friends.

    My greatest wish is the demilitarization of America, the country I live in and have spent all of my days. I know of the lies, deceit, blood and hypocrisies of its roots, the manifest genocide, the empirical dreams of the elite, the ever expanding power of cold blooded capitalists, and the fear of other empires’ desires.

    Show me a leader with a heart, spirit and mind, and I’ll vote for him or her regardless of party affiliation.

17. Kate Anne February 22nd, 2007 9:51 am

    I won’t be voting Green for president — unless NYC’s Mark Green somehow ends up the nominee — any more than I will be shooting myself in my foot. That said, Hillary is a DLC corporation-loving hack who has a lot to learn from us, We the People. If she learns it, if WE can get it through her head, there could be hope.

    Gore Vidal was on David Bender’s Politically Direct show on Air America Radio and HE called her intelligent and he likes her, but it is clear that Vidal prefers Edwards more. (And please don’t give me/us Obama — see Glen Ford’s articles on the subject. He’s with the Black Agenda Report — http://blackagendareport.com/) Bobby Kennedy Jr. and Mike Papantonio will be having New Mexico’s Bill Richardson on their Ring of Fire show on Air America this weekend. You can stream it.

    But Hillary? I am so tired of holding my nose and voting but I will do it again if necessary. BUT not until I work for ANOTHER more progressive candidate (We all know she isn’t liberal - puh-lease!!) — someone who will chose the middle class and working people over the corporations AND work for peace seriously. Kucinich is there for conscience — God bless him. Maybe he’ll bring out the better stuff in the other candidates, even Hillary.

18. Shane February 22nd, 2007 10:16 am

    Sen. Clinton a humanist? What planet do you come from? She is pro-war, and has said that nukes against Iran are an option. See:
    http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0214-28.htm

    Bill Richardson, Gov. of NM. Anti-war, anti-nuke, pro-diplomacy, pro-environment. He is a true international statesman, and may help to turn the tide of the military-industrial complex.

19. Rick February 22nd, 2007 11:29 am

    Hillary not a hawk?
    He is what she had to say recently at a get together of APAC.
    “she’s advocated engagement with “our enemies and Israeli’s enemies,” adding, “I believe we can gain valuable knowledge and leverage from being part of a process again that enables us to get a better idea of how to take on and defeat our adversaries.”

20. RichM February 22nd, 2007 11:47 am

    newayeen - you call the current WH occupant “destructive.” Do you not think this related to his putting mining company execs in charge of the EPA, drug company execs in charge of the FDA, media execs in charge of the FCC, etc? He lets oil company execs write energy policy. Oil & defense company execs determine foreign policy. He appoints judges with 100% track records of finding in favor of tobacco companies & polluters, & against the interests of consumers & environmentalists. This is plutocracy.

    Oh, excuse me. I must be “railing against the corporatists” again. And to be aware of this dangerous & consistent pattern of how the US govt is controlled by corporate interests — this, I suppose, must be an example of “purist absolutism.”

    Both parties are dominated by corporate power, & consequently act as instruments of corporatism. The differences between the D’s & R’s are small, & mostly matters of rhetorical style. Neither party offers any escape from rule by the military-industrial complex, oil companies, & Wall St. As long as that continues, opponents of US militarism, environmentalists, & ordinary working Americans will be under the heel of these limitlessly greedy entities.

    Or, to speak more plainly: if only the big guys control the Federal govt, we get govt of the powerful, for powerful. That leaves the rest of us in great danger. The 2-party system acts to perpetuate that condition, not to remedy it.

21. ezeflyer February 22nd, 2007 11:48 am

    Most of us vote for the person, not for what he stands for. We vote for his or her charisma, gender, looks, public speaking abilities and so on. Unfortunately, that means we sometimes get stuck with actors and puppets we want to have a beer with as our leaders with finger on the nuclear button, put there by their corporate backers. If people were to look beyond that, they would find somebody like Mike Gravel, who offers real and lasting solutions to our periodic boom and bust problems often requiring a revolution to solve. See them here:
    http://www.ni4d.us/

22. writer2 February 22nd, 2007 11:58 am

    nobody mentions the role of aipac in hillary’s prowar stance.
    who knows whether she will get the nomination. but judging from the fact that edwards and obama are saberrattling against iran as eagerly as hillary is, the problem as i see it is that whoever gets the nomination is firmly in the aipac ideology corner.
    and they will bring more war for the US, more hatred towards us, less justice in solving international problems

23. logrithmic February 22nd, 2007 12:06 pm

    Mindless militarism… true true!

    Clinton, like so many Democrats, chose to ignore all skepticism with regards to the run-up to the war. She could have been a courageous voice against the march towards war. Being the elected representative from the state of New York, she could have been a, heaven forbid, LEADER. Instead, she played political calculations in her vote.

    Now, it is up to the rest of us to deprive her of the nomination.

24. Coyotita February 22nd, 2007 1:08 pm

    Tell Hillary for me:

    IT’S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU!

    It’s about us, U.S.

    It’s about listening to us

    It’s about leading us to peace

    It’s about us, U.S.

25. redski February 22nd, 2007 2:55 pm

    Sadly, the confluence of historical fact and present necessity are driving Hillary [if feels that way to me] to her positions. I also believe she lacks a history–vide the Iraq war speech, issues about the Pentagon, escalation preparedness, etc–that would persuade many of us to vote for her. Regardless of her opponent and the facts of the moment.
    These are hard times. I’m only 70 but they seem to be more certainly critical than a light-weight demagogue like Joe McCarthy or a criminal facist like Richard Nixon represented.
    If it is to remain a democracy that actually functions as one, we must change course dramatically. And soon.
    I think Robert Scheer has isolated some critical moments in our thought on this and this discussion is very valuable for me.
    I would like to see it open a little and begin to discuss what the so-called candidates might begin to discuss, the issues where our analysis drives us. (Rather than let them continue with their ‘think-tank’ created scenarios.)

26. johnuw93 February 22nd, 2007 3:08 pm

    What they should be discussing is a just settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, accepting Iran’s overtures to heal the relationship, and rapid withdrawal from Iraq. And energy independence. Instead, the three front-runners want to outdo each other in endorsing Olmert’s plans, which renders the anti-war stance of Obama and Edwards (and Clinton’s coming conversion) incoherent. You can’t threaten much by way of military action against Iran while taking the troops out of the neighboring country. Sure, you could nuke ‘em. But if you want to achieve any political ends, ground troops are indispensible. Kucinich would seek peaceful relations with Iran and withdrawal from Iraq. That has the merit of consistency. Of course, it also implies the end of the quest for global imperial hegemony. So sad.

27. kittyladyoregon February 22nd, 2007 4:10 pm

    I still will not vote for HIllary. Richardson is a distinct possibility. I do not want us to go to war on Iran. That is insane. Even more insane than going to war on Iraq. Remember Machmoud Ahmidajab (sp?) is not the leader of Iran. The Ayatollahs are. Peace must be attained between Israel and Palestine before we do anything else. Troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.

28. orbit7er February 22nd, 2007 9:34 pm

    surely Hillary Clinton remembers better than anyone the circumstances by which the UN Arms Inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in 1998:
    because her husband, President Bill Clinton, ordered a bombing of Iraq in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
    But history is always conveniently rewritten by
    people like Hillary who also probably forgets the pictures of Iraq destroying some of its SCUD missiles which the UN had determined actually could travel 3 miles more than the 93 mile limit. This was no secret - it was filmed and photographed and broadcast worldwide by the UN. And conveniently forgotten..
    Hillary will never get the nomination…

29. corvo February 22nd, 2007 9:43 pm

    Hillary Clinton is neither a progressive, nor a liberal; the only reason she’s a Democrat is because nobody had the good sense to kick her and her DLC pals out of the party.

    Even when she was a “liberal” she was pro-war, pro-Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell, and pro-Dismantle-the-Welfare-State; her unjustly vaunted health insurance proposal was simply a proposed handout of gargantuan proportions to the big players in the insurance industry.

    She’s as phony as her cookie-baking.

30. newayeen February 22nd, 2007 10:10 pm

    Uncle Buck, and others: I appreciate your candor and your hope. We all share that hope. But in this imperfect world, we have to give due weight to relative merit. No one has control of the system. The competition is fierce. The verbal war, the polarization, is unprecedented and unbelievable.

    Where will all this end? you gotta ask. I would like to err on the side of optimism, some faith in humanity, despite the hard eidence of Abu Ghraib, the unspeakable carnage that goes on in Iraq toda, and was seen in Gujarat, India, too in March 2002.

    My choice is limited by the field of candidates. I choose based on chemistry. I have never regretted voting the way I did, almost straight party Dem.
    Thanks
    Usama
    in convenient exile

31. bellthecat February 23rd, 2007 4:05 am

    Sen. Clinton will never get my vote,,she lost it the day she stood in Israel looking at the apartheid wall & said “this wall is good for Palestinians.”

    All the government officials who have “dual citizenship” should have to give one of their citizenships up if they want to serve in the US government.
    Let’s have some candidates who will put america’s interests ahead of Israels.

32. newayeen February 23rd, 2007 5:05 am

    Yes, it does look like a question of who defines America’s interests. Israel? with its agents in Washington and everywhere else?

    Or the majority Americans, everybody included?

33. bnkizinotika December 11th, 2007 11:26 pm

    titsuzosuxiri…

    exrusevuwiry…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)