I'm Already Against the Next War

It's become clear over the last week that the more Hillary Clinton is pressed, the more she reveals her true self. The fact that this self is unscrupulous is bad enough, but the fact that her whole campaign for the last year has been predicated on positioning, spin, and other varieties of public relations is worse. In fact, it is not only worse, it is Bushian, and that is the worst. Even though Clinton won two and a half contests of the four staged on Tuesday, her campaign strategists are fighting among themselves, her campaign is in a turmoil, and, it seems, they can't decide which tack to take. Should they try the lying (about NAFTA, about Obama's religion)? Should they try the cheating (trying to seat delegates from the Florida and Michigan primaries)? Should they try the fear-mongering (the red telephone ad)? Should they try the sucking up to Republicans (spelling out similarities between Clinton and cheerleader-for-war McCain)?

No one ever said that the Clintons weren't corrupt. Even they didn't say that. The only questions were 1) Were they less corrupt than the Republicans and 2) Did they combine at least a modicum of compassion and interest in the public good with their corruption? Back in the 90s, I felt that, on balance, Bill Clinton was openly compassionate, and that his corruption did not fatally taint his administration. At any rate, he did not GLORY in corruption as Reagan and Bush 1 and their advisors did. I also felt that after the Reagan Revolution (excuse me, I meant to say Reagan Devolution), triangulation was the only way to get anything done, and so they did it.

But Hillary Clinton seems to have learned the wrong lesson from her Senatorial success. The lesson she has learned is that Republicans such as McCain are more her friends than Senators with progressive principles. As a result, it now appears that Clinton and McCain stand together on one side of a divide, and Barack Obama stands on the other side of that divide. The divide is between the inside-the-beltway ruling class, who can see no reason of any kind that they should give up the power they have accumulated and the avenue to wealth that it represents, and the citizenry of the country, who in every poll insist that the country is headed in the wrong direction. In the last week, Clinton has put herself on McCain's ticket, attacking the change that Obama promises and seems poised to deliver (whether or not he can remains an open question), and promising more more more of the same of what we have had for the last thirty years. More of the same is exactly what almost everyone does not want, but Clinton tells us everyday in every way that that is what we will get -- what we have had is what she touts as her "experience". What we see in her campaign is that we will get the same old same old with an added measure of chaos.

Clinton, of course, is not Cheney. Dick Cheney is the mad master of corruption, a person who literally doesn't know what integrity is. But Hillary is too smart not to know, and she has made up her mind to shelve her integrity for the sake of ambition. And let me be clear what I mean by corruption -- I have no idea what her financial gains have been over the years, and I don't care. What I mean by corruption is any and all support of the criminal policies of the Republicans while calling herself a Democrat, in order to gain power.

Some weeks ago, I wrote a Huff post about a remark Bill Clinton made, that if Hillary became the nominee, the presidential campaign would be exceptionally "polite". We now see that he wasn't joking. Both Clintons are in favor of the status quo, and will fight tooth and nail to maintain it. They are surrounded by advisors who both literally and figuratively are married to the Republicans. They are, indeed, now part of the "vast right wing conspiracy".

One of the key questions about the Democrats since the 2006 elections is, where do their loyalties really lie? Time and again they have failed to stop the Republicans, or settled for a little populist embroidery around the edges of policies that by and large serve to increase the power of the Republicans. Their excuse, which is growing thin, is that they don't have the power to confront Bush. Hillary Clinton is now showing their real agenda -- preserving the status quo at the expense of the military, the taxpayers, the economy, world peace, and the rule of law.

Obama is not a known quantity. I have seen him one time and listened to one speech, and I was reasonably impressed by that speech. But Hillary Clinton is a known quantity. If you like the world that the Bushes and Clintons have made in the last twenty years, then you should by all means vote for her. But as of this week, I don't see her as the person I want answering the red phone.

Comments

[elsrks]

Thank you.I am amongst many who are disheartened about this campaign.
I believe we are forgetting how important the CHARACTER FACTOR is in this election.
Obama is a decent, honorable, honest, team player (it has been noted that his campaign organization continues to function seamlessly without infighting) . In my opinion, he is a man of CHARACTER and moral rectitude. He has been consistently restrained and generous when Hillary tries to belittle, diminish, insult and intimidate him. Her tone and words vacillate from (ostensibly) gentle and kind to (at times) vitriolic, aggressive, sarcastic, vicious, mean-spirited and passive-aggressive. Throughout, Obama has been respectful despite her negative tactics.
My strong contention is that Obama is the much stronger of the two--and is a fierce competitor. (As Donna Bazile says "Obama is tough") but he is a gentlemen and resists getting pulled into negative nonsense.
Clinton dismisses Obama's oratory as 'empty rhetoric'. MANY DON"T THINK SO! Obama's oratory skill- his message of transformation and his ability to stir hope and possibility, unity and optimism should not be trivialized by Hillary's 'rhetoric'. INSPIRATION is powerful, rare and pure joy to experience. Words do not preclude action- they can inspire action. At this moment in time when our collective energy will be required to tackle the problems we face in the 21 st century, a man's words and passion can help us- a divided country -- put aside our differences, listen to one another and find the common threads that connect us to move our country forward. To be successful, we will have to try to transcend gender, race, ethnicity, class and political party. I believe that is Obama's gift.
Obama's philosophic approach to change (David Brooks articulates it better than I) is one of a ground up/grassroots MOVEMENT . It is about us-the people-- we become participants in the process of change thus responsible to learn/understand issues we face and pressure government to listen to the voice of the people. Any real change happens thru social movements! Obama is empowering the people to mobilize and he will be the facilitator of this change. I believe, as he has touched so many, he will be equally as successful in Washington.(his record so far bears this out).
Hillary's approach is the old- top down politics. She will "roll up her Sleeves" and be a "fighter" . Whether it is her fault or not the government divide of old may only perpetuate( if not be more severe) if she were to become President and chances are that the 'progress' she speaks of will be minimal and change much more difficult. Washington would be as others have described re: the Clintons --status quo (and riddled with constant Clintonian drama like it dominated in the 90's). Hillary describes herself as a "fighter" (a Gergen suggestion when all else was failing)--you vs. me- which is inherently divisive and polarizing. Obama's approach would be more inclusive and consensus building.
Re: the (outrageous!) 3 AM call-- Obama has demonstrated to us consistently that he is steady,'un­flappable'­, thoughtful, smart, wise and CENTERED. He has raw talent/gifts that will only get stronger and more seasoned with time. It has been noted by many that his learning curve is impressive. He has discipline and drive. We can only extrapolate from what we know to predict success-- his character, life story/experience, past judgments/choices. I trust he has the ingredients necessary for great leadership. If there were to be a crisis (at any time) I trust Obama more than a person who has shown us episodes of emotional volatilty, and labile and unpredictable behavior. Are we to believe Hillary would be a good/better commander-in chief/leader because SHE says so???
Re: Experience--I recommend Nicholas Kristof's article- "Hillary, Barack, Experience" 1/20/08 NYTimes. When he speaks of years in Washington- he cites a former president's assertion that "The same old experience is not relevant" - like hanging around the White House and Congress but rather from"experience rooted in the lives of real people".. Re: details of domestic and foreign policy- Obama has already demonstrated impressive expertise in these areas.
The Clinton's have been allowed of late to FRAME, DEFINE and CONTROL the conversation- i.e.--suggesting she is winning? and HE should be HER VP, which states/people are more important than others in this election big states/small states-cau­cases/prim­aries (although many feel Obama will inevitably expand the electorate and defy the old paradigm of Blue/Red state predictions and will (most assuredly)help others get elected to the Congress and Senate) and inflating her victories last Tuesday even though Obama came so close in elected delegates (and shares the victory in Texas)-
The recent ("kitchen sink") constant bombardment of lies, distortions, negativity and use of the media in order to diminish Obama and squelch the people's "love affair" with Obama/the Social Movement (in order to stop the momentum) seemed to have worked somewhat. Isn't it sad that so many in our country desire a new brand of politics and yet fall prey to the old ugly conniving tactics? For Hillary to denigrate Obama in one breath(re: his readiness to be commander-in chief) and magnanimously offering a "dream ticket? with Hillary at the top- in another breath-- is to use a Gary Hart word--Chutzpah! and much worse (as Cokie Roberts described it as) sinister.
Women-- is it possible that Hillary is using the gender issue to polarize and divide us (men/women)?Is it possible she is manipulating us (women) to feel overly sensitive to any critical remark made against her? I am a middle aged women, a product of 60's activism and a feminist. I have not heard her articulate any women's issues. I am troubled that she tolerated a man who had cheated and lied and humiliated, disrespected, and betrayed her. Is it admirable to stand by her man? or is it politically expedient? Should we admire (male or female) exaggeration/lying? and deception, do and say what you have to in order to win? - was she so outraged by the political flyer sent to voters? was her moment of breaking down (twice)related to the prospect of losing the Presidency perhaps? what is her 35 years experience? Are the Clintons willing to sacrifice the party for their own ambition(i state nothing new!)
From a HUMAN (not male/female) point of view- OBAMA has the quality and strength of CHARACTER that I favor as a role model for our daughters, sons and husbands! Our children may have it right--they have connected to Obama.
BOTTOM LINE--the 2 candidates are smart and have similar platforms re: major issues and are both qualified to be commander-in chief.. It boils down to CHARACTER, and NEW IDEAS/VISION/"MIND SET" for future strategies. The world has always had problems but at this moment- we are at a sensitive point--it is more tense with less margin for error. Obama is not steeped in old school politics and long years enmeshed in Washington. He will surround himself with bright, thoughtful, creative and wise people. In addition, his successful Grassroots movement of empowering the people to understand what's at stake, favor his ability to do what needs to be done for our country, our country in relation to other countries and the world as a whole.
If anything in life is absolute it is --"the Math" --2+2=4..if Obama is leading in elected delegates and the super delegates attempt to reverse the will of the people i will vote for Nader in Nov.
CHARACTER MATTERS, INSPIRATION MATTERS,PHILOSOPHIC APPROACH TO CHANGE MATTERS, ANTI-WAR from the start MATTERS.-DEMOCRACY MATTERS (no more dynasties!)

"The world is pulling for Obama"! Moments ago--Canada said "that if we (the US) don't elect him, Canada will take him!
Someone once asked "who do you want to live with in your home for the next 4 years"?
Let's seize the moment and make OBAMA our next President of the US of America!

[MarylandDem]

This is unquestionably the most ill-informed, hyperbolic, pointless article I have ever read on the Huff post. I'm not sure I can ever enjoy a Jane Smiley book again! What does she mean by "the world the Bushes and Clintons have made in the past 20 years?" I've been working on Capitol Hill since 1980, and there could not be a more night-and-day difference between the policies and successes of two administrations than Father/son Bush and Bill Clinton. The world of Bill Clinton is peace in Northern Ireland; peace on Bosnia; 6 million new jobs; Federal budget surplus; gas @$1.50 per gallon; Family and Medical Leave Act; and on, and on, and on. We need more of all this, and whether it's Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton, Ms. Smiley better get onboard. Politics is a contact sport, and if Ms. Smiley wants "polite" she should go to a tea party.

[AtiasMom]

Good for you! Like your comments. The Jane Smiley article is just another mud slinging job on Senator Clinton. Don't you just like how everyone says how bad Hillary is and she has to be careful. How much does she have to take from the mud slingers.

Barack Obama can stay good looking providing wonderful empty rhetroic because he has all the media doing his dirty work. Wonder what he would do if we were on an even playing field. Maybe it's time to take the pillow away. He's not as clean and nice as everyone thinks. Unfortunately, he is human just like Hillary.

[mawrm]

Yes, while we all know brinin peace in Northern Ireland and Bosnia are part of Hillary Clinton's latest claims to suggest her being a world peace maker, those who had their eyes open during that time remember differently. While the Northern Ireland peace agreements may have been consummated during the Clinton era, the movement to bring peace to Northern Ireland that became the genesis for those agreements was in work long before Clinton ever reached office. The Clinton White House was instrumental in helping reach the Dayton Agreement but to suggest by spousal proximity that Hillary Clinton is owed credit for bringing peace to Bosnia is stretching. Her trip to Bosnia was in the accompaniment of a comedian and a singer, not exactly a diplomatic negotiating team. There were also crises in nations like Rwanda and Liberia where the Clinton White House refused to act even after much international prodding to do so with the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

Yes, Pres. Bill Clinton does deserve credit for the budget surplus, but for $1.50 gallon you have to thank OPEC, the American oil industry and supply/demand for that - as president, he had little to no direct control over the price of gasoline. An important factor that folks tend to forget that was HEAVILY responsible for Bill Clinton's success was the end of the Cold War which free up a tremendous amount of our resources. Being the first American president after the end of the Cold War meant presiding over a time of unprecedented opportunities for growth, where new markets were open, new demand for American goods, thus an expansion of our economy. Couple this with the emergence of the internet as a marketplace (again Bill Clinton had no direct hand in this, just happened to be there at the right time) and you have a situation that would make even anyone look like an economic genius if they had the intelligence to harness the situation correctly.

Again, Bill Clinton was a GREAT president, he helped shepherd a lot of beneficial legislatio­n/budgets/­internatio­nal agreements for the American people and should be lauded for his accomplishments. My intent in pointing out the things that helped his success is not to demean his accomplishments but rather point to the factors that aided him that may not be at the disposal of whomever gets elected in 2008. Bill Clinton never faced the challenge of a complete meltdown in the mortage industry (which will only get worse), the past due bill for a $2+ trillion illegal war in Iraq, or $4/gal gas, resurgent industrial bases in Europe and Asia, baby boomers hitting the retirement/Social Security dole in the millions, an extremely weak US dollar, all of which will severely hobble our economy for years to come. These would be herculean challenges even for a Bill Clinton.

Further there is a real problem in this intentional muddying of Hillary Clinton's record and Bill Clinton's record and the cherry-picking of Bill's better accomplishments to pad Hillary's resume. If George W Bush had done the same with his dad's accomplishments, few they were, you would be crying murder. And what it does is gloss over the difficulties facing the next president and avoids strong questioning of Hillary Clinton's independent fitness to be president _based on her own record_.

But back to Jane Smiley's point - the issue is the entrenched political attitudes surrounding the Bushes and Clintons - these are the most powerful political families in the nation and their behavior has been such that they both tolerate corruption and cronyism as "standard operating procedure" in Washington. We've had to endure scandal after scandal during Bush years and the Clinton years and people are fed up with it. Further, both in George W Bush's case when he was in the primaries in 2000 and now Hillary Clinton's case is that they believe they are somehow owed the White House. For the sake of the democratic institutions we enjoy, as tempting and as comforting as they may seem, we need to move away from political family dynasty politics because the corruption and cronyism only get worse with each successive iteration.

[mamamay]

It appears that folks are assisting hillary in this divide of Dem party. Why is she given and the media given the okay to put out the sleaze but showing slowness to stand up for Obama? Hil is dividing our Dem Party and she is showing her true Rep side by standing with McCain. What is this all about? What ever JMcC says about the war, Hil agrees. Both, Hil and McC think hanging around a place gives them experience. It is age that is mounting but they are both confused. How can you answer the phone at 3AM when the phone call doesn't come to you, first? How can you fix the economy when you don't even know what economy is made of or how math is factored in? Both Hil and McC need to get their own bill of health in order, and stop fooling the voters. Playing on the poor folks deficiencies is intimidating and devestating. These folks need to be lifted up and given some type of hope for help, not a bunch of fear mongering promises. We need to vote Obama and stop this drama. Obama is the one most prepared and ready for now and day one to lead this country into safety and prosperity.

[amiblueyoubet]

You have your fingers on the pulse.

[inwonderland]

And I thought I was a passionate-detail ladened advocate for real change!

After reading your post, I no longer feel that my frustration, inspiration, exasperation
and jubilation (sometimes all in one news cycle)....are hyperbole.

Kudos to you.

Ever think of asking for a job for Obama for America as a spokesperson?
I say this cause Clinton seems to have so many tenacious surrogates, and I keep seeing Jamal
jumping from one cable station to another.

And...yes, I am saying it in print, it would help if some of the Obama surrogates were white.
No racisim here..in fact the opposite. If all the talking points are pointed out by African Americans, it will fuel the concept that only Blacks will vote Obama.

I am lookin in the mirror and that ain't so.

SO.......if ya have time, and can pontificate on tv.....think about it.

I am phonebanking, pitching special events for PA, commenting, writing PR on multiple websites and blogs and driving everyone I know (and some I don't know) crazy by the irrefutable truth that this country needs Barack Obama as it's next president. This is a time in our unhealed nation in this broken down world, that he is the only one who can alter the headlong course into something even darker than we have now.

And YES, it is very much about who he is. His tone and timbre, his measured manner, his thoughtfulness, and maybe even his short time in Washington DC. The world does not need one more slick politician. It does need one emblematic change agent...a healer.

Anyone who says that Barack's personal traits are unimportant...needs to look at the great leaders, artists and writers...it IS about their insides.

And this candidate has it both inside and out.

I am not big on prayer, but I must admit, I am prayin up a storm as we storm Mississippi and will probably go down to PA to give it my best PR shot.

Thanks again for normalizing the madness.

[rosal]

Thank you for your insightful post. It pays to be well informed.

[Veeve]

Hillary Clinton will continue to posture against Iran just as she did with Kyl-Lieberman. She always bows to public sentiment and I worry that she will be only too eager to strike if public pressure demanded it.

[BubbaC33]

I do hope that Obama supporters will eventually come to terms with Ms. Clinton's vote on the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman amendment. All it did was to correctly label the IRG as a terrorist organization. Here is what Obama supporters never seem to remember. Obama helped write binding legislation, SB 970, that did the very same thing. If Ms. Clinton was wrong, it follows that Obama was wrong. But his supporters never seem to be able to remember his legislation.

[spreadoption]

Our nation is in a whole lot of trouble, from one end of the spectrum to the other. Some among us would rather pretend that USA is still #1, that we are undergoing a normal "correction" in our economy, that (next to Israel) we are somehow 'chosen', and that overall we are still "the biggest and the best" in the history of the world.

Huh!?

Our kids are killing each other. Most recently somebody shot to death a beautiful young woman who was Pre-Med and President of her Student Government at Carolina. On a main street of the utterly charming village of Chapel Hill.

We went on to play a big Duke-Carolina basketball game the next night, as if Life goes on and a game can somehow overcome a terrible wrong ... an outrage. Ho-hum. Too bad, but life goes on. "We'll play the game in her name." (What is her name?)

Somehow Corporate America has gained control over all of us. So the game went on, of course, because it means big bucks, it's been scheduled for months ...

Given two hours of prime time network television time, here's what I would have wanted to see: First, cancel the game ... figure out some other time to play it. Immediately after 9/11 our so-called leader, George Bush, encouraged us to go shopping to support our economy in the wake of that horrendous assault. Now he and our silly, impotent Congress are cheerily giving us each a few hundred bucks of tax rebate as if that'll fix everything. Instead of another silly basketball game, I wish some television executive "leader" had stepped up and devoted the same time to getting us to think.

Where is the outrage? Where is America?

I'm 60 years old and I'm outraged. If Barack Obama doesn't get the nomination I won't vote, and if he doesn't win the presidency I'll give up on our nation and I'll hope to move elsewhere. Western Europe is very interesting; there people have none of our ridiculous bluster and all of our forward-thinking.

Popular wisdom has it that, okay most of our strength has wandered overseas, but the one thing America retains is its preeminence in Innovation. Huh? Dubai is building the world's first totally 'green' city. Tapei has recently erected the world's tallest building and it's an incredible monument to the latest in engineering and technology. Germany and France are leading the world in green technology. Estonia has a paperless government and they brought us Skype. (How many of us know where Estonia is?) These are amazing and beautiful works. Meanwhile, America stubs its toe on stem cell research and funding medical research of any kind because we're hung up on Intelligent Design and all manner of other nonsense. Alzheimer's Disease is a tsunami which will wreck our economy and our lives and our children's lives if we don't wake up. Right now!

Wake up, America! We are no longer preeminent in anything, including innovation. We could be again, but that would require us getting out of our own way.

[biglover]

Hello to Spreadadoption. I understand your frustration - but in the event Obama does not win the nomination and I believe he will win it - please do not stay home and protest. Remember, there is a lot more at stake than principle- THE SUPREME COURT is a huge issue. There will be at least two and maybe 3 or even 4 supreme court justices retiring in the next 4 years, This is the democrats chance to bring balance to the Supreme Court.

Just take a deep breath and hold your nose if you have to but, you must vote for the democratic ticket no matter who is on top. We cannot afford to have all these people stay home on principle

[deutchs]

No. If this nomination is stolen by Clinton than it would be much better to not vote for President at all. The corporate elite have almost full control of this country. Our only hope is a completely honest and moral revision of our government's priorities. Hillary offers more of the same destructive selfish old style politics. Voting for Hillary is like painting a room when the walls are infected with termites.

Obama should run with Bloomberg as an independent if she steals the nomination.

[fatcat too]

Recently Obama's campaign managers asked supporters to write in to say why they supported him, so that they could prepare a digest to make the case to superdelegates that they should go with the popular vote. I concluded mine by saying that if these delegates didn't get the message and chose Clinton, I'd be casting my absentee ballot by writing in Obama's name.

[rosal]

I am sorry, but is not going to happen. I was ready to hold my nose and vote for her, until she endorsed McCain. If the supreme court gets 9 conservatives, blame her, not the voters.

[patianneb]

Perhaps slightly off topic, one of the ways the corporations, including multi-nationals has taken control is simple enough: WE WANT IT ALL, WE WANT IT NOW AND WE WANT IT CHEAP. Sooner or later, in an finite world, we gotta pay.

[davequ]

hillary and Lieberman are in my opinion 2 of the most dangerous non-bushies in government today. They are "war-in-a-box" ... just add water.

If she gets the nomination, we are in for big trouble.

Clinton(s) must be stopped.

Dean, Gore, Pelosi, Edwards ... are you listening? Do you CARE??

[mamamay]

I agree with you. We need to wake up and stop this war for the delegates that Hil is seeking to get her take on America as a 3rd term for Bill. This method of lying and talking down to the people is just too much the voters to digest. We need to speak out to the Poor people in the states to alarm them of this smooth talking hil, who has over 16years botched up her takes on Universal Health Care. In New York, she still hasn't produced those promised jobs, and No one knows how long it would take for her to produce jobs in the other states. Why is Hil still allowed to remain in this race? The reason we can't get Obama over the top is because we're keeping Hil in this race. Without her dividing the Dems, Obama would have reached over the top. Why are we committed to someone who isn't in the race to serve the Dem party? Why are we allowing Hil to jeopardize the rest of the Dems who may seek offices in the future? This open slander of Obama by Hil when she said only she and McC were ready with experience, but Obama has only a speech, should have been grounds for suspending her campaign. Who is not being tough now? Suspend Hil and end this projected spending to eradicate more of the same old dirt, she has caused in not knowing how to share the delegates in Mi and Fla. so that we can use the money to assist Katrina, etc victims. Hil should fire Wolf for calling Obama iken Starr. Why are we always creating human wars that further divide us? Powers was fired for calling hil a monster, and so should Hil fire wolf..This is unfair. People are sick & tired of this drama. Vote Obama in 08

[rjcrane]

This piece hits the nail on the head even though it lacks specifics to back up many of the claims. So I want to provide everyone with my own specifics of how Beltway politics works and how members of the Democratic club protect one another even against their own better interests or the best interests of the Democratic party. Let's go back to the CT senate race in 2006 where Ned Lamont handily beat Lieberman in the Democratic primary with a huge turnout of voters for a primary. Did Bill Clinton and Barbara Boxer go back to CT to help Lamont like they did for Lieberman before the primary? Hell No! And did most of the other Senators try to help Lamont - the only Democrat in the race - try and win that seat? Hell No! Instead at least 13 Senate Dems either supported Lieberman or wouldn't take a stance in support of Lamont, including Sen. majority leader Harry Reid, who seems to have cut a deal with Lieberman that allowed Lieberman to campaign as if he would keep his Committees and seniority which ultimately proved to be the case. Now Lieberman is campaigning on behalf of at least two Republicans: Susan Collins and John McCain.

So where do their loyalties really lie becomes a relevant question. And the answer is to any dog that will lie with them.

RJ Crane, topplebush.co

[Luna1]

Thank you for this post and i couldn't agree with you more. Now we have the Clinton spin demons telling the press that in order to win the Gen'l Election, the democratic candidate needs to win in the big states where it counts like, Ohio, California, New York, New Hampshire, like she did. So because Obama didn't win the popular vote in those states during the Primaries, does that mean the democratic party would not vote for him in the general electin if he were to be the dem candidate? AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE? Do all the other states not count as being crucial? Well, I for one, will vote for McCain if that woman, by some unfortunate twist of fate manages to win the Democratic nomination. And I can say HILLARY IS A MONSTER, and she’s spinning out of control like one of those dreadful little dirt devils that starts out small and ends up being catastrophic.
It appears to me that she’s seething inside that a freshman Senator can create a wave of unity and she can’t. She’s burning up with jealousy and contempt for the young Senator because he hasn’t shown signs of strain and stress even when most people would in tense situations, and she has. She’s fueled with power and ambition and Obama is fueled with inspiration. She’s already proven that she will resort to using fear-mongering and negative tactics to bring Obama down, and so far he doesn’t want to go that route.
Hillary Clinton is destroying the Democratic party, and Obama is trying to save it -- he's trying to bridge the partisanship that has plague our goverment for so long.

[Hansharriet]

You guys must be off the wall! What is this in-fightying among Democrats. Are you trying to help McCain, then keep on slinging the mud on each other to give him the ammunition to use against any Democratic Candidate. The most abhorrent Democratic Candidate would be preferable to any Republican who wants to comntinue these criminal wars and curtail our civil liberties. Thank you for nothing. I match my liberal, progressive credentials which go back over 77 years fighting fascism during Hitler's regime. The best way to defeat a candidate is to divide the forces. Divide et impera. That's how the colonial powers ruled.
All that mud should by both Candidate slung against McCain who wants to continue the war for a hundred years, go after our freedoms like the Gestapo and GPU or NKVD and put everybody into Gitmo. Wake Up, America!
Concentrate on bringing these present administration's war criminals to justice and impeach the Leadership for murdering 4000 Americans and hundreds of thousand Iraqis on lies publicized by this administration

[Janelynne]

i agree with you hansharriet. I don't understand the Anti-Hillary hyperbole nor the Obama obsession, but it serves the right and corresponds with the corporate media's bias. When Bill Clinton brought prosperity to America, he made enemies of the same corporations who now own the media. These same media trumpet Obama and smear Hillary. The people who don't read much jump on the bandwagon. One candidate is WUNNERFUL and one is POISON, when neither of these hypes is true. The point is: why are we smearing either one of them? Because we are followers, not leaders, and we are following the pied piper.

[amiblueyoubet]

Concentrate on bringing these present administration's war criminals to justice and impeach the Leadership for murdering 4000 Americans and hundreds of thousand Iraqis on lies publicized by this administration


Right now we're concentrating on getting Obama the nomination. You do the above.

[dsigeorge]

Thank you for doing your homework UrbanInterloper. Very well done! So much for the experience argument.

[carolc]

I believe all evidence supports Hillary Clinton as the best choice for the next Presidential nominee to carry on the Bush legacy for the Republican Party.

[dsigeorge]

Thank you again Jane. What is very disheartening is the tendency for many democrats to believe the disinformation coming from the Clinton's. There is no real compassion for the common man here. No soul.

[TruthSpeaker]

In July of 1996 I attended COP-II, the second Global Climate Change conference. At that time the science was pretty much "in". The head of Bill Clinton's Energy Department gave a talk to about 100 or so people, during which he stated: "We know from our studies that we can reduce U.S. energy consumption and emissions by 10%, just by mandating energy efficient light bulbs." Like the idealist that I am, during the Q&A I put up my hand and asked the obvious question: "Are you going to do it?" He looked like a deer in the headlights. "Well, um you know, there are lots of job and economic implications that we would have to study before considering such a step." I responded "If you don't have an environment, you don't have an economy; Are you going to do it?" He ignored the question and moved quickly to the next question....

This is a prime example of the Clinton corruption. Even with Al Gore as his VP, Bill Clinton chose the health of his corporate contributors over the health of the planet. Where was Hillary in that decision?

[liveandlearn]

if that is an example of corruption, what will you do when faced with wrongdoing (as in the last seven years)?

IMPEACH BUSH and CHENEY!

[Pollwatcher]

Thank-you for this excellent article. Hillary Clinton is utterly devoid of principles and decency. The day she departs the presidential campaign can't come soon enough.

[Serena67]

Amen, sister!

[kmdippenger]

Seems to me that longevity in politics means nothing today...look at today's headlines ..I'm ready for new and Obama has proven to be someone who is both intelligent and well grounded and I like the positions he's presented on the policies we should implement in our government to get it working again. From the bottom up folks, nothing will EVER shake the status quo to make changes from the top down.

[kellygrrrl]

I agree, Jane!

After spending 15 years admiring, respecting, defending the Clintons - in just one month's time my opinion of them has eroded to near contempt.

One voice, one man, stands on the High Road!

[biglover]

I agree Kellygrrl. I was such a fan of Bill and even Hillary and now they totally disgust me. But don't stay home. You must vote. REMEMBER - SUPREME COURT. 2 or 3 justices will retire in the next 4 years and a fourth within the next 8. We need to save our court. No longer can we have Supreme Court justices selecting our president or turning over well establishes laws.

[TheInsomniac]

Agreed.

[UrbanInterloper]

From the Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 10, 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783&&

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

Clinton, like Bush, falsely states that Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the U.S. invaded. Even Bush has acknowledged this was not true. Clinton was flat out wrong, and was either lying as Bush was, or was too foolish to see through Bush's transparent lies.

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

Now this much is undisputed."

Undisputed? Clinton offers more evidence of her disastrous judgment.

"So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

Clinton professes her belief that a unilateral attack on Iraq has "appeal," and that the option should be left open for future administrations (including perhaps, her own).

"Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it....But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act."

Fact: In the six years since 2000, there were nine vetoes in the U.N. Security Council. Eight were U.S. vetoes preventing the U.N. from criticizing Israel.

Fact: Clinton turned to AIPAC's network of high-dollar donors when her campaign ran out of money.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120295209438666989.html?mod=blog

Clinton apparently believes that international support is necessary only when it's readily available. If not, oh well.

"I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable."

She got that part right, at least.

"President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."

Clinton admits to taking Bush at his word. Later she admits to not reading the NIE.

"If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections."

Clinton admits to political posturing over matters of war and to caving into Republicans. She admits she is more afraid of Democrats opposing forced inspections on Saddam than of Bush using the war powers she's about to give him. This is good judgment?

"I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

Clinton, like Bush, falsely links the impending invasion of Iraq to 9/11/01. New York overwhelmingly opposed the war, and in 2004, voted two-thirds for Kerry and against Bush. In Manhattan, it was 80% against Bush. It was clear, and remains clear, that the invasion of Iraq would increase the terrorist threat to New York, not decrease it.

"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

In her closing remarks, Clinton places her trust in Bush, putting into place the nail that will seal the coffin of her doomed 2008 presidential campaign.

[rhettab]

Thank you for your post. I hope it gets picked up and used. Obama should make it into a commercial.

[mjasper]

Right between the eyes UrbanInterloper, and let there be no doubt the same corprate money that
supported the GOP is now behind Clinton. Corp America always has a dog in the fight, just not as
well trained as Bush.

[AtiasMom]

And who do you think is supporting Barack's campaign? It's not just Opra's effort pulling out the dollar signs!

It doesn't matter who gets into office. The price for the priviledge will be very high and will dictate what will get done in the next 4 or 8 years.

Whoever gets in office will not be able to fix this country over-night. Maybe, that's why I think it is more important to have experience than good looks and rhetoric.

[deutchs]

Barack Obama stands with us. He has raised the most money in the history of this country, and he has done it all with small donations. He has over one million contributors. Again, that is 1,000,000 intelligent and inspired souls. The average contribution is only $100. Hillary has raised lots of money also, but hers is corporate money. Ninety percent of her contributions are at the 2,300 dollar limit.

There is a clear choice here. Support the corporate and elitist status quo and kowtow to Clinton or stand with the people and support Obama.

[amiblueyoubet]

I was born and bred in NY. I was shocked she won the primary so handily.