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

[brianwestchest]

Wow. Very well said.

Actually, I was a big fan of Bill Clinton. I'm a lifelong (I'm 46 now) "independent". I've voted in every presidential election since I was 18. But, I've never voted for a Republican. This time around I was thrilled to see it would be Hillary (Clinton) as the Democratic nominee (this was back before I knew who else would be in the field). I knew her reputation made her divisive. But, I was still excited to see a strong Democrat and a woman at that running for President.

Unfortunately, her campaign has shown she is willing to anything and everything to become President and I am very disappointed. If she should happen to the nominee in November, it might be the first time I actually vote for a Republican. How sad is that?!

[roselaw]

After spending over $100 million to tell us who the "real" Hillary is, she still has a nearly 49% negative rating among likely voters. I don't see how she can possibly gain a sufficient majority to actually change anything, even if she wished to do so.

Except, Hillary doesn't want much change. She touts her experience on foreign policy, for example, but a close advisor, and reportedly our next secretary of state if she wins, Richard Holbrooke, says she is more willing to use military force than her husband. She refuses to take the first use of nuclear weapons "off the table," and excoriates Obama for saying he will. (A position she once held before turning into the warrior princess)

She voted to attack Iraq, and repeated every crackpot claim by Cheney in doing so. She criticized Bush for not being tough enough on Iran, and recently voted for a Lieberman resolution threatening Iran, just before a new intelligence estimate was issue showing that the Iranian threat had been exaggerated.

She loudly supported Israel’s devastating air war on Lebanon, and sponsored punitive legislation against Syria. She chastised Obama for his willingness to meet certain foreign leaders. She is involved in the "neo-con lite" Democratic Leadership Council, is still surrounded by advisers who strongly supported the invasion of Iraq, such as Holbrooke and O'Hanlon, and has the whole-hearted support of AIPAC. She is firmly in the Lieberman wing of whatever Martian party he represents.

Mrs. Clinton has received more defense contractor money than any candidate, in either party, and wants to expand the Army at a cost of billions.

Our military empire is breaking us financially, morally and politically. Yet, Clinton’s “experience” suggests that instead of change, she will simply put lipstick on the same old ugly pig.

Some of this is from a remarkable piece by Steven Zunes at antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=120511).

[sunshower7]

Hillary 's IRS forms please.......

[VoterFraudNeverAgain]

If you are looking for someone who is opposed to the Republican agenda and is a "known quantity" - as you phrased it - then it's Ralph Nader.

If you are truly against the next war - use the power of your pen to help elect Ralph Nader (by "elect" I mean getting him as many votes as possible). Why is it so difficult for progressive writers to look beyond the duocracy that the MSM has created here?

It's high time we fixed the broken, corrupt, dysfunctional election system. Do away with the unrepresentative, illogical electoral system that is so easily prone to manipulations and shennigans. A multi-party, vibrant democracy is a sine-qua-none for preventing future, illegal, immoral wars.

[Cybershaman]

Glad to see people are catching up. This is exactly why I voted Nader in 2000. But, I won't do it again.
Republicon by default is no better than Republicon by any other means. PURGE THE ROLLS! VOTE GREEN! Let BOTH of these disgusting parties lie in the bed they made!

[solid]

Damnit Jane, how do you read my mind so well? It's almost like you know what I am going to think before I think it. As Tom Cruise once said "You, you complete me".

In all seriousness, spot on commentary.

[jwsub28]

I also forgot to ad that Hillary is a Republican just like Liebermann. The people of Conn. got fooled by Liebermann but I'm sure they are ashamed of that vote now. It's funny how it comes out in the end. Don't be fooled by Hillary, she is a Republican in sheep clothes just like Joe Liebermann.
Both of them should be kicked out of the senate, they are from the old school politics. Use and abuse you up then they kick you under the bus.

Republican's love Hillary !

[jabee]

More than that...just like Lieberman.

This thing doesn' break down along R or D politics. Its all about who supports Israel, i.e. WHO will
get money from AIPAC. You all know that.

And Corzine and Bloomberg talk about BUYING buying new elections in Flordia and Michigan., under Hillary rules....

And you thin the "NEW YORKERS" aren't out buying SUPERDELEGATES? Again for teir girl Hillary, whom they deek "AIRTIGHT on ISRAEL".

[bumpersticker]

Well said, as usual.

The signature line of the last 20 years may have been Michael Buffer's, "Let's get ready to rumble." Kenneth Starr "brought it on" in a sneaky, sinister way, and Bush/Cheney brought in on in West Side Story, "we are the Jets" way without the music or Maria...just mean-spirited territorial gangs. Obama has brought the hope of something better, but the Clnton's and Republicans want to change the venue - back to the wrestling match with body slams, head butts, full Nelsons and Vince McMahon setting the carnival mood.

Hillary has asserted that this Death Match 2008 only proves she is a fighter and how true winners are selected, (Bush-reheated.) They are wrong - it's the WWF full of posing, lies, and fake threats. They, as Bush, live within self-created, self-serving illusion.

Let's get ready to come together and live in reality! Bye Bill and Hill and W and Darth.

[MoMule]

I hesitated to read this piece because I am a huge fan of Jane Smiley's I would only suggest to her that she do a litlle research on Obama. I know that will be hard because the press has put an embargo on anything that could possibly be critical. She might start with the piece in the Houston Press titled, "Obama and me" and next try taking a look at the opinions and associations of Obama's advisor on the economy the one who flubbed in Canada ,Goslee. Please do not think that because he has wrapped himself in the package of " new politics" that Obama is aything other than your standard politician. A close inspection of his decisions show that if the choice is standing for clean government or his own ambition he choses himself everytime. There is no evidence that at anytime during his rise he has reached back to help those he supposedly in the race to help. While there is plenty of evidence that for all of her flaws Hillary has provided tangible help to many,many people. Obama has already capituated to the Insurance industry with his ( not ) Universal plan. Hillary means to get everyone covered. We will not get a clean politician until campaigns are publicly funded. I would think Ms. Smiley would have recognized Obama's sexist "dog whistles" please don't give him the benifit of the doubt give him the same scrutiny always given to the Clintons.

[jmyoung666]

Obama may be another ploitician, but by any possible standard, and I am willing to hear a factually supported argument to the contrary, he is a better candidate.

[mshawn]

The "Obama and Me" piece you are referring to is a smear piece that was published in a right-wing Dallas newspaper.

As for Obama's economic adviser, his name is Goolsbee, not Goslee. As far as what he said to the Canadians, it was the exact same thing that Obama has said: "I am not looking to repeal NAFTA, just strengthen the labor and environmental protections."

What is this tangible help that Hillary has provided? She voted for the war in Iraq. Who did that help? She voted against a ban on the use of cluster bombs in civilian neighborhoods. Did that vote help the thousand of civilian women and children that are killed and maimed by cluster bombs?

Was Hillary helping women and the working class when she served on the board of Wal-Mart and never once brought up Wal-Mart's poor labor practices and discriminatory practices against women?

By essentially endorsing McCain over Obama, is Hillary helping the democrats take back the White House?

Obama has helped enact health care for the working poor, job programs for the unemployed, legal protections for those accused of capital crimes. Before getting into politics, he worked as a community organizer, a civil rights attorney and taught constitutional law. Compare that to Hillary's resume of corporate litigation and serving on boards like Wal-Mart. Which one seems more committed to helping others.

Hillary set back universal health care two decades with her horrendous approach to the matter in the early 90's. During this campaign, she has shown that she will do whatever it takes to win. Obama, to his credit, has done his best to remain above the fray. There is plenty of sleazy stuff in the Clintons' past that he could use against them, but he has refrained from doing so, choosing instead to focus on the issues. He's complimented Hillary as being a worthy candidate, but he's said he thinks he would be better. In return, Hillary has endorsed McCain.

[mabelle55]

This is what I mean when I say that people "buy" the "new politics" line being sold by Barack Obama.

To hear him (and you) tell it, Sen. Clinton is evil incarnate. What I see in these posts is the good/evil split: "HRC has done nothing to improve the lives of women, children, the elderly, the poor, the [FILL IN THE BLANK], but My Candidate [BHO] serves as God's right hand with all the wonderful things he has done.

If you and others spent even HALF as much time actually looking at Clinton's record as you do demonizing her, it would be apparent to even the most ignorant that Hillary Clinton has accomplished much good in her 35 years of public service. Even during her stint on the Wal*Mart board, she persisted and finally instigated the company to reexamine its hiring and promotion practices for women and to address its environmental obligations.

She is responsible for creating SCHIP -- State Children's Health Insurance Program, based on the program she worked to create in Arkansas.

She reformed Arkansas's education system to make schools there some of the most competitive nationally.

She introduced legislation to provide continued health care to military families when their spouses were deployed AND she sponsored legislation to provide increased funds and support for veterans with physical disabilities, PTSD and TBI.

She has voted in favor of amendments to set specific timelines for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

She has sponsored legislation to make abortions legal for U.S. military women in U.S. military hospitals around the world.

She has been a long-time advocate for equal pay/pay equity and pension and Social Security equity for women and has sponsored legislation to enforce EEOC laws re: equal pay (which have been ignored and not enforced under Bush).

She sponsored legislation to provide additional grants to low-income college students eligible for PELL grants.

She sponsored legislation to force U.S. companies to certify that toys and consumer goods imported from foreign countries (especially China) meet U.S. health and safety standards and supports mandatory fines for companies that do not AND supports increased fines/tariffs on Chinese companies that use poisonous chemicals and ingredients in their products.

As for the charges that the Clintons have "sleazy" stuff that can be used against them, this is pure nonsense. Ken Starr spent months and months and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to smear and undo the Clintons for wrongdoing in Whitewater, unscrupulous travel monies, and Hillary Clinton's "cattle futures" investments. His investigations turned up nothing -- not one OUNCE of wrongdoing, in spite of a Republican-controlled Congress and a media that was hell-bent on their destruction.

The ONLY wrongdoing that was ever proven -- and that was because Bill Clinton knew he could no longer deny it -- was the Monica Lewinsky sexual affair. And while that WAS bad, it pales in comparison to the impeachable offenses of the Bush Administration!

If you are going to bad-mouth Hillary Clinton, at least do your homework first and stop buying the misinformation, lies, deception, and scurrilous rumors about her that passes as "fact."

[Geoffreys]

I gave the Clintons the Benefit of the Doubt for about 12 - 14 years. So, I guess that means Obama should receive it from me as well for a time ....

[mabelle55]

I'm disappointed, too, that Smiley and others have bought the "new politics" package now being sold by Barack Obama.

It is appalling to me that the media and seemingly-intelligent people can overlook, minimize, deny, justify and excuse Obama's double-speak on issues ranging from NAFTA to ethics reform. He speaks so eloquently about not allowing lobbyists to set his agenda, yet he takes money from these same lobbyists -- regardless of what he says! And he has done so since his run for the Illinois Senate.

He has been pro-NAFTA as recently as 2004 in comments to the Associated Press and to the Decatur News, and he has voted for NAFTA-like agreements in the U.S. Senate.

He has voted consistently in favor of the Iraq War and has never spoken up or against this war since his election to the U.S. Senate. He vetoed a significant amendment that would establish a timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq to war funding as recently as 2006 (sponsored by Sen. John Kerry).

Where have his "new politics" been in the U.S. Senate? According to those who have worked with him there, his ambition for the presidency far exceeds his willingness or ability to take "controversial" stands and he frequently ducks votes on these issues. His NV (missed votes) record is the fourth highest in the Senate.

Finally are his campaign contributions. His claim that he does not take money from "lobbyists" or "special interests" is dubious at best, an outright lie at worst. He conveniently shades the truth about a large percentage of his contributions from Wall Street firms, the insurance industry, the telecommunications industry. and the mortgage and banking industry.

"New politics"? Hardly. Just politics dressed-up in a smoother-to-swallow package. And shame on Smiley and anybody else who fails to see through this.

[MrsJerusalem]

You're mistaken. She's not buying in to anything. In fact, her tacit support for Obama was pretty much on default, so I wouldn't say she's exactly gung-ho about the guy. I think the important point to be made here is that Clinton is old news, and Obama is fresh blood. We need someone who's not been in the game long. I like those odds.

[Miguel]

Yes, I see the post here has politicized hugely on the flawed premise that McCain and all republicans want war, want to kill children, want to kill for money and oil, etc., etc., etc.

My personal experience as a onetime leftist has been the slow recognition, through personal meetings with victims of foreign totalitarian violence on a scale unimaginable to Jane, here, or most Americans that her premise is fatally flawed, fatal that is, to millions of "other people". I'm speaking of the 1,000,000 Vietnamese presently inhabiting jungle-covered graves (courtesy of Ho Chi Minh, a friend of Jane Fonda's), never seen or visited by any of my former comrades; not to mention the 1,500,000-2,000,000 Cambodians who shared a similar fate at the hands of other totalitarian marxist theologins schooled in their vaunted French universities.

As in Vietnam, I've discovered the only truly caring people re: Iraq are our returned soldiers. All others are merely posturing, playing political/power games for their own benefit. Hillary and Obama fit the mold perfectly. McCain at least doesn't seem to want to abandon the Iraqi People to the seventh-century killers which Bill and Hill, along with Barack, are perfectly willing to do for their own personal benefit.

As for Jane's casual comment about the negativity of the Clinton-Bush years, I cannot remember negativity coming from Bush, but plenty of it coming from all my former friends, the Clintons and all the democrats who don't seem to mind Iraqi women being enslaved and Iraqis suffering un-imaginable horrors at the behest of yet another set of totalitarians to whom they will bow their collective democratic heads.

[stageplay]

I am a Vietnam veteran, too. Last week a poll of the Iraqi people showed that 80% of them want us out of Iraq "immediately". If we stay there, obviously against the will of the vast majority of Iraqis, does that make us "totalitarian"?

[Miguel]

Thanks for your reply and service, but this is flatly and absolutely not true! No one wants us there beyond a certain point, Iraqis and Americans agree, and we all understand that. If you've talked with the 'boat people' of Iraq, Iran, Vietnam and Southeast Asia, as well as Eastern Europeans, you will clearly understand that our duty is to humanity, not to a bunch of self-serving politicos who unerringly pander to our lowest and weakest denominator; having helped totalitarians fill the earth with murdered human beings, just so we can 'feel good'.

[kimk3]

I totally agree with this post. I have been calling Hillary a Republican for a while now. Even Alan Greenspan said that Clinton was his favorite Republican president. Hillary's idea of "crossing the aisle" is to go and vote Republican. McCain has a better record of voting against Bush's tax cuts and showing some fiscal responsibility towards defense spending in vetoing defense spending bills. Yes, Hillary is a known known while Obama is a known unknown. Hillary's Bushian rhetoric about the situation between Columbia, Equador and Venezuela is alarming. I don't want her answering the red phone or any phone on my behalf. I don't think I can vote for her if she is the nominee. I will just concentrate on getting more progressives in congress and hope we can stop whoever the next president is from more wretched policies.

[MoMule]

You might want to really check out your candidate's economic ties.

[jwsub28]

Thank you for what I am thinking every single day. As the days go by I see Hillary for what she really is, and it is not a pretty picture. I don't appreciate the fact that she and McCain feel like they are the only one's competent to answer the 3:00 AM call. That totally scares the crap out of me. A very old man who medical records are sketchy at best, a war mongler and a woman who was first lady feels like they are the ones that can handle any crisis. What exactly did you do that made us a better world while you were first lady? Does that mean that we can nominate Laura Bush also since she visited many countries a long with her incompetent husband. She likes the war also apparently.
We are going to be ending 8 years of the worst president and VP in history. This is a very important decision to make and she is destroying our party by lining herself with McCain.
I want your papers released while you were first lady, why are you not releasing them? Something to hide?
I want your tax returns released, Obama has released his. What is the problem? Do you have money problems in your campaign? Can you not afford an accountant? What exactly is the hold up?
Please address this, as a voter I really need to know this information. It is only fair that you do what every one else that runs for president does. Or, are you that special?
Please Hillary, Please answer that simple question

[FranktheDem]

I predict that Hillary and Bill Clinton will file a "late" return on their taxes in spite of her half-hearted statement that she would reveal it by April 15. This is typical of her history of evasion and misleading statements that prove her quest for the nomination to be all about Hillary and to hell with the wishes of her party and the needs of her country. I am in my 70's and never, never in the history of a nomiinating process have I seen a candidate diss his/her opponent for the nomination in favor of a rebublican as to his ability to be a leader. This, and the deceit of attacking like a Pit Bull on the day after she reached across the debating table stating to Obama that she was "indeed honored" to be competing with him! The movie "The Many Faces of Eve" certainly comes to mind when I see such erratic behavior.

[sunshower7]

The reasons HIllary attacks Obama like a vicious , blood-thristy pit bull and refuses to show her IRS records are all tied to her insatiable greed for power and money, and her real role NAFTA-GATE.


While Senator Obama fought successfully to increase our investment in renewable fuels, the Clintons accepted $31.3 million from financier Frank Giustra, . a director and major shareholder of UrAsia Energy Ltd,. a Canadian based corporation which invests in uranium mining and nuclear reactors in Kazakhstan and around the world.

Clinton acknowledged this. NY Times article, January 31, 2008.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/06/738264.aspx

The Billary's have and will make a lot of $$$$ on uranium used for nuclear fuel and, of course, nuclear weapons.
If Hillary gets into the White House, you can be certain that their financial portfolio will reflect the increase of profits they make from this government's production of nuclear weapons.

That is why Hillary was so gung-ho in supporting Bush's Iraq war, and the Lieberman bill to authorize a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran.

She's a monster.

[elevando1]

Jane,

I couldn't be more disappointed with the judgment you show in your argument. According to you, it is better to vote for someone without a record than someone with one. This isn't really an argument that supports Obama's message of Hope, but instead it supports taking a "Leap of Faith", and that isn't rational.

Lets face it, both Dem contenders are essentially the same when it comes to the issues, but I question who can cross the aisle and get bipartisan support for their agenda. I am willing to bet Clinton would be better at this because she is a fighter and she understands that there needs to be compromise to get stuff done. Hillary had a better record of doing this in the Senate, and yes, more so that Obama, but that is not to say Obama hasn't had his moments.

[areaman03]

This logic is flawed.

You say that because Hillary is a "fighter" she is more likely to attract bipartisan support??? Ask yourself: why does she have to "fight" all the time? Could it be because she DOESN'T attract much bipartisan support, and therefore encounters a great deal of hostility and friction, against which she must "fight" ????

Lightning rods attract lightning. It doesn't matter that they aren't scared of the thunder.

[Countess]

She is not a fighter at all and she is as qualified to president as Laura Bush or Harriet Miers. We don't want a right wing democrat who is also corrupt.

[Roshi98]

Jane, I thought one of the strengths of Obama was his purported ability (perhaps supernatural) to "bridge divides," yet you condemn Hillary for this very quality. I find it stunning and frankly a bit disingenuous to attack her for being too cooperative with conservatives at a time when Obama's supporters decry partisanship and "business as usual." Hillary has made inroads with conservatives, but there's nothing in her voting record to suggest that she's crossed over, a la Joe Lieberman, or that she's conceded her fundamental progressive values. It's easy to paint broad strokes on personality if your sole frame of reference is a political campaign, but it's also disappointingly lazy, especially when it comes from a person of letters (although a minor one).


Lest you forget, about a month ago the Obama campaign released a four-page flier akin to the infamous "Harry and Louise" ads from years ago making wildly false and misleading statements about Hillary's health care plan (a plan, I might add, that is significantly more progressive than Obama's). The Obama campaign has made false and misleading statements about Hillary's stance on NAFTA, which, by all objective accounts has been neutral at best, and desirous of serious modification to protect American workers. The Obama campaign, surrogates in particular, have made specious and absurd claims of racism on the part of Hillary Clinton, the latest example being the supposed "darkening" of Obama in an attack ad - these claimants, of course, fail to note that the ENTIRE ad is dark, including images of Hillary, who, based on the logic of these people, must be trying out a latter day Al Jolson imitation.


Fortunately, I've looked much deeper into the records of the candidates and found them quite similar in many respects. Obama deserves much credit on matters of addressing inner-city poverty, health care, and education. Hillary deserves just as much credit for SCHIP, veteran health care, and education reform. The records are impressive. But at the federal level, records of achievement are based not on personality, but on inter-personality - how a person works with varying and conflicting parties to get results. Here, Hillary's willingness to connect with and even, in some instances, befriend the very people who sought to destroy her husband (how's that for poetic justice) to pass health care for National Guard troops returning from Iraq, or SCHIP extension, or committee oversight, these are the bread and butter of federal government and an invaluable quality necessary to be an effective president.


I think you've spend too much time pondering the next Shakespeare play you're going to borrow from and not enough time getting back to what this country actually needs in a leader. Pretty words are not going to be enough, not for what we face in these challenging times. We need someone who understands the other side, can compromise without giving in, and can get results. There is only one candidate, Hillary, who has the strength and wisdom to see it through.


Don't hope for the best, vote for the best!

Hillary '08

[SouthCentralDel]

Roshi98,

You're serious, aren't you?

[yoyopron]

Thank you, Roshi98. With all the anti-Clinton mash I've been reading lately, I've started to feel that I'm nearly the only one who sees any light in Clinton. "A part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy' " ? That sounds a great deal more like absorbed rhetoric than analysis.
Obama has been making a great deal of promises and has rock-star appeal, but his views boil down to something very similar to Clinton's. While Obama is painted as a force of revolutionary change, I really am doubting that he can deliver on his promises.

[MrKnuckles]

Good points and you write beautifully Jane.

[mfarrell]

The more articles I read like this... the more I am inclined to not support Obama.

[mfarrell]

Roshi98

Good response. I wonder if Hillary had mentioned how much she worked with the very ones who tried to destroy her husband, just what effect it could have had in the primaries.? It's a effective and valuable point, lost on many I am sure.

[exoevolution]

Very well said Jane!!

The Clinton's & The Bushes only care about ONE thing POWER. All you have to do is open your eyes & look at their "actions". Both families are the patrons of the "status quo" and if you include John McInsane you have the trifecta of the "status quo".

ONLY Obama can claim to be an agent of "CHANGE"!

People this election is real simple. If you want more of what America has been getting for the last couple of decades - vote Hillary or McInsane. BUT if you want something different, if you can see a new way, a new America, an America that can be more than a Corporate War Making Empire, then you can begin to understand what Obama means when he asks us all to stand up & truly believe "YES WE CAN!

If America is to right itself again we must move beyond the tired old game of "fear" & "division".

Hillary & McInsane = "fear" & "division" (same old past).

Obama = CHANGE & HOPE (A NEW FUTURE).

It all starts with YES WE CAN!

[BrooklynAlbee]

Gotta admit: Smiley & exoevolution (or is it execution?) do a great job of thinking like stand-up comedians. Or movie greats. Their brand of humor is admirable. Great imitation of Laurel & Hardy. Find another partner & make it the Three Stooges. I'm happy I can still laugh & enjoy such stuff.

[hellboundtrain]

Bush=McCain=Clinton=Deception, Dishonor, Deceit, more war death

Americans must demand the opposite from what these people represent and continue to offer.

Stand up for our Constitution!

[EdGarfield]

So let me see the logic of this essay. Clinton and McCain are the same, but Obama's been saying all along that he and Senator are very similar. So Obama and Clinton and McCain are the same. But the Clinton Administration was evil and warmongering. In fact the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration are the same. That the Clintons are corrupt and evil. They aren't as evil as Cheney, though. But Hillary Clinton is not a "Progressive." She's never said she was. And let me clue you in Ms. Smiley, these so called "Progressives" are not Democrats. They are opportunists, like Obama, who wouldn't exist without the progressives. You say that Obama is "not a known quantity." That is perfect for the radical left, who have imbued Obama with almost mystical abilities. He never voted against the war. He has never voted to stop funding for the war (He was busy at a fundraiser). He has changed his withdrawal plan from "first thing he will do in office" to "In his first six months" to "A year and a half" to "Three years" to "We have never given a definite timetable for withdrawal." Mr. Obama might not be known but the leftists and radicals and the chattering wine and cheese Ivory Tower set, like Samantha Powers, are known. And we all saw how she feels about the Democratic voters in Ohio by calling them "cowards and obsessive." Obama's people and Obama have no sense of history, no sense of loyalty and no sense of party and no sense of community. Stick to fiction Ms. Smiley.

[maryo]

I can't help but laugh at the capacity of the Obama people who want the new politics, except when it comes to their own prejudices.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Obama supporters just want the corruption to stop. You just support the corruption. If we have to expose the corruption and you don't like seeing the cold hard facts that your candidate is corrupt, then that's just too bad. Living in denial of the facts and the truth, isn't going to help America change the corporate and military control of our government. If you support Clinton or McCain you're part of the problem too. Voters who don't examine the corporate contributors and lobbyist money that has gone into the Clinton and McCain campaign are enabling the corporate and military agenda, by refusing to understand that these two candidates are not the solution to changing the problems our country faces. The problems in our country aren't the the issues the press keeps harping on about because all these issues (even the price of gas) stem from the corporate control and corruption of our failed government.

[honesthonest]

Maryo,

You're a joke.

[mfarrell]

and the Obama campaigners who want "politics as usual" when smearing HRC. When I vote Republican for the first time in YEARS, I will know exactly why. Yes, Obama can claim to be the agent of claim. So what. I can claim to be the Anti-Christ, but then, proof that he exists elsewhere is right here in these posts.

[SouthCentralDel]

maryo,

Explain what you mean by 'their own prejudices"