Bush Three Is Wrong -- Is Clinton Three Any Better?
I had once considered John McCain an ultimately acceptable choice for president.
I thought that, compared to the other Republicans in the field earlier, McCain was a man who had lived a serious life. He had faced serious problems and offered respected solutions to issues such as campaign finance reform. McCain was a war hero, a US Senator and maverick in a party that often didn't know what to make of people like John McCain.
But mavericks don't make it to the highest echelons of the GOP. That is how we got stuck with this Bush. In order to ascend to the highest ranks of the Republican Party, you have got to realize that the current size and scope of the budget of the federal government is the greatest opportunity for the personal enrichment of the upper class in this country since the turn of the previous century or the period around World War II. As much as any industry that brings its products to market, selling your goods and services to the US government, and particularly the military, is a chance to make staggering and heretofore unseen profits. The current budget of the US Defense Department is the most shameful misappropriation of American tax dollars in our nation's history.
There are cycles in American history wherein the richest and most powerful people who actually own and run this country make there greatest effort to elect a true corporatocracy candidate. They literally steal the election, if need be. They install their witless, pliant factotums and they start skimming. They order even more expensive things we don't need. They relax regulations to the point where there are essentially no regulations at all. They might even start a war, if the can get away with it. If questionable people happen to be in the country taking flying lessons without learning how to land and you don't bother to investigate them, you increase the chances you may get away with it.
There are periods in American history when the haves just knock the have-nots to the ground and say,"Enough." They push the government into greater debt. They sign unconscionable mortgages for future generations. They lie and tell the American people that to get out of the convoluted military quagmire would only threaten us more. Threaten our children. Their future.
When their friends run into trouble, they bail them out. No, I mean we bail them out. They decide. We simply do the paying. Bill Clinton killed welfare as we knew it. Maybe its time had come. I was hoping that both Clintons would have condemned the Bear Stearns deal in the harshest terms. No such luck.
John McCain has changed. He drank the Kool-Aid, the one they served as baby formula in the Bush home all those years ago. McCain will be Bush Three. I was wrong about him. He has velcroed his lips to the ass of the elephant and he's gonna keep kissing until a second term would end.
But, if Bush Three is wrong, terrifyingly wrong, then is Clinton Three any better? Who do you think really has the guts to stand against the most potent special interests who truly care more about the dollar than the flag? We don't have a draft in this country in order keep politics out of military policy. For too many Americans, the truth is that, "My child isn't over there. That's all I care about." The fact that there has not been one great, national day of protest against this war will surely come back to haunt us all.
Who will end this war?
Obama will end this war.
I encourage the Democrats of the state of Pennsylvania to cast their vote tomorrow for Barack Obama.
I sweated this a lot. I admire both Bill and Hillary. But the shame and disgrace of how we have treated our own fighting men, not to mention many innocent people in Iraq, weighs more heavily on me now.
This country is in deep trouble. We not only need something effective, we need something new. I believe Obama will bring that more that Mrs. Clinton.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you Alec, for putting into words the disgraceful actions of the power brokers of the last eight years. Many Americans have lost all respect for our government, and have a sense that there is a terrible sickness at the highest levels of power. How else to explain the shameless incompetence in our elected and appointed officials? At some point, the Clintons have been painted with this brush also,hence Hillary's vote for the Iraq war. Obama is a thoughtful, self made man, who will surround himself with other thoughtful people, even some that disagree with him, I think. I just hope the process of "getting there" doesn't taint him as well. But for now, he is our best hope. Pennsylvanians, please, come to your senses and forget the bowling and the guns, you'll always have those no matter what, and help put a stop to this fiasco, by voting for Barack Obama tomorrow.
hard to toss my cookies and roll my eyes at the same time
can we ALL move past the stupid "kool aid" thing?
it's so expired
i think the Koolaid reference is a from the sixties "about acid in the Koolaid"
not the Jonestown.
Wrong Pattyfish
"Kool Aid" doesn't hold a candle to "Fizzies."
http://www
Alec love, you've brought tears to my eyes.
Thank you.
I believe as you do.
Great article although it would be prudent not to have too much faith in Obama. He is certainly the only candidate who is not certain to plunge the country into further catastrophe.
We can be hopeful that he will end the war, that he will restore the constitution, that he will change the trade agreements that have devasted the working class and sent all the jobs abroad, he may turn out to be the best president that America has ever had. Or maybe not.
We won't know what he is capable of until he is in office.
Good book you might want to read by Malcolm Gladwell, called "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking." It delves into the 'knowledge' that is actually accumulated that shows itself in things like gut instinct, character evaluation, intuition, or, as I like to call it, "direct knowing."
Intuition you mean? It is powerful to the inuitor but not to others. It can trump the orderly rational investigation by its speed, but can be utterly wrong too.
Let me re-mint a phrase here "intuit but verify". That is how science and invention work, because logic must proceed from assumptions or for lack of a more elegant term, guessing.
Would you trust someone you just met with baby-sitting your children for even based on "Blink", which I also read. I certainly would not and I certainly wouldn't use "Blink" to decide who is going to have the most importanat position in the planet that protects every citizen in our country and many around the world.
I think you need to understand the power of critical thinking over a "blink".
I'm so glad to read that you're supporting Sen. Obama, Mr. Baldwin!
In the last six weeks, I've noticed that during his campaign speeches, and especially during last week's disgraceful "debate", Obama's sounding less like a populist and more like a genuine humanitarian, while Hillary's speeches are more shrill, strident and she's blatantly pandering to the warmongers.
The Bush/Clinton Presidential puppet show has had a mind-numbing, soul-draining twenty-year run, and it'll run for another four years if Hillary or McCain becomes President, and it's time for this show to be canceled. The best way to cancel it and give ourselves and the rest of the world a fresh start is by electing a humanitarian, not a warmonger, as our President, and so far, Obama seems to be the most humanitarian Presidential candidate we've seen in a while.
McCain, after a life of “public service” carries with him nearly no public following (not counting the little lobbyist honey that he seems to have been chasing at least as much as she was chasing him). I’m seeing that the Hanoi Hilton left him with a fundamentally damaged psyche, and it scares the shit out of me to think of him in charge.
My god, he’s “the ultimate Comander in Chief” and can’t even seperate out the Shia and the Sunni? It’s my sincere belief that if the puppet master pulling his strings was taken away, he wouldn’t have had a chance of being elected to public office. Someone saw the son of career military brass who had been a POW and created a marketable package. I think that he is actually someone that BUSHCO cultivated and then kept waiting in the wings in case they needed someone off of the bench. He never made it to the bigs and his shelf life is almost up so it’s safe to give him a shot in a throw away year.
There’s John McCain in a nutshell!
Please refrain from referring to McLame being a maverick.
There is nothing remotely maverick about war mongers. They've been around forever.
"my friends. . . " Friends don't send friends to slaughter based on thoroughly bogus intelligence
(aka sheer stupidity).
I believe in Obama, too. We need change, as in no more dynasties like the Bushes and the Clintons. A change that would not bring the same old tired players back to Washington, for the same disastrous results.
There are many more of us who are "bitter and angry" than there are of them, the " take advantage of the commons", "pay fewer taxes" fat cats.
" Bill Clinton killed welfare as we knew it. Maybe its time had come."
And you call yourself a progressive?
Boo.
How do you know Obama will end this war, Mr. Baldwin? As Jeremy Scahill and Amy Goodman have pointed out on DemocracyNow and Real Time with Bill Maher, Obama intends to keep approximately 60,000 troops in Iraq, to guard the massive US embassy and Baghdad airport, and to carry out "counter-terrorist" operations. It's no secret that the majority of Iraqi citizens want US forces out of their country, and having approximately 60,000 remain will still be inflaming insurgents and militants, not to mention having a US military presence in the Middle East is what is enraging the people in that region of the world, while being a recruiting tool for bin Laden.
Obama has not accepted Jeremy Scahill's ideas. This was made very clear when Scahill wrote his 'white paper' for his think tank. He stated unequivocally that this was not endorsed by Obama.
Alec -- I'm curious.
What makes you so sure Obama will end the war?
Considering since he's been a US Senator his voting record is virtually identical to Hillary's.
I am sincerely curious.
Yep just have a look at his website www.barack
As far as I know, there has been no "We leave Iraq now" bill put before the Senate. What has been put before the Senate is bills to extend the funding for the troops fighting the war. Failure to support those troops would be a tragedy. Failing to support them in pursuit of a political agenda would be a crime of the sort perpetrated on Vietnam veterans.
I suggest you read Sen. Obama's position on Iraq, and Middle East diplomacy in general, and contrast that with the idea that we should "obliterate" Iran should they do something that they aren't likely to do, can't currently do, and would be suicidal for them to contemplate (ie, nuking Israel).
So far, Sen. McCain wants to invade Iran, Sen. Clinton wants to "obliterate" Iran (up to and including nukes), and Sen. Obama wants to talk to Iran.
If that sentence right there doesn't convince people who our next president should be, consider this: The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (You know, the type of document Sen. McCain and Clinton ignored when they voted to invade Iraq) suggests that our best course of action is *drumroll*
to talk to them.
jeg.....yo
well, Obama has introduced several pieces of legislation which would have begun phased troop withdrawals, and he opposed the war in the first place, and says repeatedly that he wants to end the war! the voting records are similar, yes, but again that initial opposition to the war is major. he predicted exactly what would happen, correctly. the big difference in their voting has been that Obama voted for an amendment which would have banned the use of land mines and cluster bombs in residential areas, which Clinton voted against. these are true weapons of mass destruction - cluster bombs kill cruelly and indiscriminately, and every war we've been in for the past hundred years has ended with a humanitarian landmine crisis which dragged on for decades after killing children and innocents. this is a major distinction to me, and illustrates a very different view of human rights and American exceptionalism. Clinton also does not have a record of sponsoring legislation to end the war whereas Obama does. they have voted the same way, but he has shown much, much more leadership than her on the issue.
Part 1
Obama’s position on the war in Iraq, in spite of the October 2002 speech, has not been as unwavering as he would have us believe.
He wrote in The Audacity of Hope that by March of 2003, “I began to suspect that I might have been wrong.”
In July, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”
Once elected to the US Senate, he told Charlie Rose on PBS, “Once the decision was made, then we’ve got to do everything we can to stabilize the country, to make it successful, because we’ll have too much at stake in the Middle East. And that’s the position that I continue to take.”
Part 2
Mirroring the Bush administration’s position, he asserted on January 26, 2006, that “it remains my position that we have a role to play in stabilizing the country as Iraqis are getting their act together.” In this interview on Meet the Press, he further stated, “My position has been that it would not be responsible for us to unilaterally and precipitously draw troops down regardless of the politics, because I think that all of us have a stake in seeing Iraq succeedIt wasn’t until October of 2006 that he called for “all the leadership in Washington to execute a serious change of course in Iraq.”
A month before he announced his presidential candidacy he repositioned himself again, saying for the first time, “It’s time to start bringing our troops home.”
It wasn’t until May of 2007 that Obama voted against funding for the war for the first time.
In June, 2007, Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry’s proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an “arbitrary deadline” could “compound” the Bush administration’s mistake. He voted instead for a Republican
BTW--Obama didn't introduce any legislation on this issue. Pretty pathetic for someone who is running on this issue. And for the record all the pieces of legislation on this site that he has his name tagged to where not written by him. He tagged his name onto them to look good (like "politics as usual) http://www
Obama has barely showed his face in the senate, much less introduced several pieces of legislation. He hasn't even called a meeting of the one committee he chairs. What kind of record is that?
It is part of his policy approach, and he has laid out his plan. Everything he has said or written shows that he disapproves of continuing this war.
I trust him. Who do you trust?
Because he does not lie.
Great post ...rotflma
Alec, Clinton has committed an unwavering stance that she will pull out every six months as soon as she is president regardless of what the military says. No questions asked. Obama says he'll do it 16 months, but since he is so interested in unifying I predict he is going to be pushed into staying.
I am currently waiting to hear if my friend from Buffalo, NY who is missing, is identified as one of the bodies found dead in Basra. I have no patience any longer.
Clinton is my vote to end this war, period.
You are saying you don't trust Obama because of your own 'prediction'.
My 'prediction' is that Obama will keep his word. Oh, and he didn't vote FOR Kyl-Leiberman or cluster bombs.
Oh--it's you gain McFlipFlow. I didn't say I don't trust him. I think he wants the war to end and means well, but I think he gets too caught up in reaching across the isle. I don't want to reach across the isle on this one. I want someone to take this country back, not ask politely or try to reach understanding on this issue. There is no more understanding on this. Our boys are dying everyday.
Given her past, how do you know she's telling the truth.
When it comes to policy and votes in the Senate, Clinton has delivered on every promise.
And you comapre Obama's and Clinton's voting record on all issues -- they are nearly identical.
The major difference -- Obama missed more Senate votes than she did.
I seriously suspect that some of these most vicious anti-Hillary posts are GOP operatives pretending to be Obama supporters.
If I'm right, they succeed in making both Obama and Clinton look bad to anyone who reads these posts.
Oh they all mislead at times. Spare me the crap that she does and Obama doesn't. See all his lies here if you dare. http://noq
Now how you trust Obama after even half of the things on the attacked link?
From her past which I have followed closely and the staggering strength that Hillary has demonstrated over and over against all the crap that comes at her, just proves to me that she isn't going to be inmidated by all the stuff the military and repubs will throw at her once in the presidency over ending this occupation.
HRC has strength to get this done.
My feelings, exactly. Tonight. -- Pennsylvania, Obama is the right choice. For many reasons, one of which is that there are many more of us than them. And John and Hillary represent THEM.
I myself went in to this election season thinking I win either way. I win if Hillary wins because we get a strong confident first woman president. And If Barack wins I get the man I chose, a strong confident and inspiring first African-American president. And then Hillary just tore the good out of this campaign. She became a selfish, hypocritical liar. I don't care if the media thinks this hasn't been a nasty campaign. Clearly they are out of touch with the voting population because they seem to feel other wise. The proof is in these op-ed pieces. And after last Tuesday's debate when then media said Obama lost, but nearly every single online poll conducted had Obama as the winner in huge margins.
I cannot respect anyone who would throw their own under the bus to a republican, and act that should have had her expelled from the DNC.
I can't respect anyone who uses the mere fact of being a woman as some sort of shield against the media attacks over her own gaffes and mistakes. Screaming media bias and sexism if you go against her. To this day I have not heard one single person say a woman is not capable of being president. They just don't think Hillary is a good candidate. Anyone woman but her is what I keep hearing. I am a woman and I can't accept weakness or political manipulation of your position in life.
became? Hillary has always been a selfish, hypocritical liar.
The thing is she wasn't in our face everyday with her bs. And to make believers out of New Yorkers was an incredible feat. I give her total credit for that.
But the way she has conducted herself, it's like watching Doctor Who. She is a Slitheen. They wear human skin and try to act like humans, but the giggle a lot and are full of gas. She has slowly being dragged out of her skin and this is what we are witnessing.
http://en.
Thanks Alec!
I sweated it, as well.
My first choice was Edwards.
But there was a huge part of me that felt really good about either Clinton or Obama.
I voted Feb 5 in CA
Edwards dropped out right before.
i thought about it for less than a minute and was surprised how quickly the answer came.
but I still felt cool with Hillary, if it came to that.
I'm in a such a different place now, a few months later.
I'm looking at it from a pure business perspective
even though I have a huge emotional investment
one campaign has been run with exemplary fiscal responsibility
like a fine-tuned machine
one campaign has been mismanaged and disorganized
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
