For the record, let me state that everyone is growing weary of hearing McCain misquoted as saying he wants to fight the war for 100 years. It's hyperbole people. We're all educated and we know what the point is. He does intend to maintain a "presence" (if elected) for 100 years IF NECESSARY much like we do in Japan, Korea, Germany, etc.....get the point? If we're speaking fiscally, how about the funds in excess of $8M that Clinton has taken advantage of since his presidency was over in post-presidential benefits. That's more than the last four presidents before him put together! The increase in debt burden since Bush took office is less than 10%. I'm not defending it. I'm just interjecting a little reality into the "hype".
Speaking of presidents and wars, do you agree that this country has lost far more people and were involved in many more big wars under a democrat president?
World War II (3.5 years) --407,316 Roosevelt
World War I (1 year) --116,708 Wilson
Vietnam War (10+ years) --58,168 Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon
Korean War (3 years) --54,246 Truman
Iraq War (5 years) --4,000 (as of 03.24.08)
Afghanistan (6.5 years) --487 (as of 03.22.08)
Notice any trends in administraion?
And the length of wars increase as politicians hinder the progress and undermine the authority of military leaders in the field.
All that being said, Hillary would be the worst thing that could happen to this country.
100 (or more) Reasons Dems Have to Kiss and Make Up
We just hate each other. Clinton supporters are screaming "I'd rather eat glass than vote for Obama!" Obama supporters are hollering "I'd rather hop right into that hell-bound hand-basket than vote for Hillary!" There are rabid supporters on both sides who threaten to vote Republican if they don't get their way. Or, they say, they won't vote at all.
We're going to have to declare peace, folks. Even if we don't want to do it.
According to the most recent George Mason University/HNN poll, in which 109 historians were surveyed over a three week period, 98.2% of the respondents agreed that the George W. Bush administration is a failure. 61% of them rate W's presidency as the worst in U.S. history. In 2004 GMU/HNN surveyed 415 historians. At that time, 81% of them rated the Bush White House an "overall failure." Clearly, the number of presidential scholars who recognize the Bush years as disastrous is growing.
Repeatedly, historians have cited the same reasons for their low opinion of the current president's policies: "...a doctrine of pre-emptive war, crony capitalism, bankruptcy/fiscal irresponsibility, military adventurism, trampling of civil liberties and anti-environmental policies." And, as for the singular argument that George W. Bush is the worst president in history: "Although previous presidents have led the nation into ill-advised wars, no predecessor managed to turn America into an unprovoked aggressor. No predecessor so thoroughly managed to confirm the impressions of those who already hated America. No predecessor so effectively convinced such a wide range of world opinion that America is an imperialist threat to world peace."
We cannot afford a "throw-away" vote come November because we're pissed off at Clinton or Obama. There's too much at stake. John McCain has fully embraced the Bush Doctrine, adopting his hyper-aggressive militaristic approach to foreign policy in the Middle East. Trading a swaggering Jesse James Six-Shooter School of Diplomacy administration for a gamble on Bart Maverick's "I'll call your anti-American attitude and raise you one pre-emptive strike!" notion of sound policy in a volatile region is Wild Western lunacy.
Senator McCain has embraced the Bush financial scam--a Darwinian economic policy ensuring survival of the richest and taxes weighted at the wrong end of the economic scale. In the Bush economy the more you make, the more you take. A McCain presidency promises four more years of the same disastrous policies that have us stampeding like a herd of spooked, mindless cattle toward the edge of a cliff. The impetus, if we make another mistake, could result in a lethal plunge from the precipice.
Not so long ago we thought we had a little wiggle-room. We were on firmer ground both economically and in our relationships to one another and the rest of the world. We were a strong enough nation, many of us believed, to survive a sizable political misstep.
I got a sympathy card from a friend in D.C. after the Supremes handed Dubya the White House in 2000. She was well-connected, a former press secretary to a member of the House, her husband a former Capitol Hill producer for C-SPAN and past president of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association. She wanted to make me feel better. Her message?
"You're being hysterical about a 'dangerous buffoon in the Oval Office'. Stop. Calm down. Stop. This is America. Stop. Really. Stop. How much damage can one man do? Stop."
Seven terrible years later, we know how much damage one man can do. We don't need hundreds of presidential scholars to tell us how high a price we've paid for bad leadership. 81% of us--ordinary Americans--have joined the ranks of the "I'm Worried Sick, Man!" Club. We know this nation is badly off-course. We've come to realize that the United States of America is not the inevitable, immutable, invincible force we've always believed it to be. We are not impervious to economic ruin, to defeat. We are not invulnerable to the consequences of poor judgment and poor policies. One man can, when we are already staggering, take us down for the count.
Unless we're willing to risk everything we hold dear, everything we believe in, we Democrats are going to have to make peace with one another and support either Candidate Obama or Candidate Clinton when the time comes. Whether we like it or not. The tantrum vote or non-vote is not an option. The alternative to the lesser Democratic candidate, the one whose tactics offended us, the one we don't want or never liked, is the Bush Doctrine, "100-Year-War" McCain style. And that's too high a price to pay to get even.
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
I completely understand and respect your point, and hope you'll at least try to understand mine.
Should Hillary Clinton become the nominee (as unlikely as that is), my choices as a voter would be between a delusional candidate with no connection to reality, who as at least admitted his mistakes and tried to apologize for some of his racist actions, and a candidate whose campaign is based on delusional divorce from reality, exploiting racial division, calling my value as a voter and human-being into question, and refusing to apologize for any of her errors in judgement.
Basically, I get to choose the delsional racist I know, or the one I strongly suspect.
Right on Linda! If ever there was a time to be a Yellow Dog Democrat, this is it.
I'm the person who lectures others about the importance of voting. After a lot of hard work, I've found myself with several things to be thankful for lately. A) This primary is not a tie. B) There are still enough states left to send out a resounding nod for President Obama C) The Clinton team seems to be disintegrating. D) Staying home on election day still lets the other party win. Post-Bush/Cheney/Rove, I don't believe any Republican deserves the White House mantle. Dammed if I'll just let 'em take it again.
Hillary Clinton is a Democrat in the same way that Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. Not. So your plea for unity just doesn't make sense. Also, "one man" has had lots of help from Democrats at least since the mid-terms. The Republican party is finished and I don't think the Democratic party is worth saving. I hope Americans will reject both parties and start fresh with an *American Labor Party* that will unite the working people of all races, genders and walks of life. Democrats could have been coasting to victory behind Edwards or Richardson. You are dealing with the consequences of your own choices. With the country facing multiple crises, Democrats are squabbling about race and gender. But But But ............the Republicans are worse............
Now is the time for all good men to bolt their freeking party.
Linda, I have no beef with democrats - they are not running for president. If you expect me to vote for a pathological LIAR, you have another thing coming. You think that Hillary is a democrat? I don't She is no better than a neo-con. She will say ANYTHING to get elected, and then go about lining the pockets of the rich fat cats she really supports. You keep framing this as a fight between democrats. I am not against democrats, and I know how easy it is to be led astray by a perpetual LIAR. After all, look what we have now. Nope. I am against Hillary Clinton. She is not honest. She is a LIAR. She will not uphold the constitution. She will not play by the rules. She will betray confidence. She is right up there with the worst ever. Even in her early job, she was a pathological LIAR:
"Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation " one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman"s 17-year career.
Why?
'Because she was a liar,' Zeifman said in an interview last week. 'She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.'"
Thank you. I'm about as rabid an Obama partisan as can be, and have been a Hillary detractor since 2003... (ugh, still can't believe I voted for her as my senator in 2000) -- and I totally agree with you. I may not like her on a personal level, and on a political level, and I have some pretty big doubts as to whether she'd actually get any progressive policies advanced, BUT...
THERE IS NO QUESTION IN MY MIND THAT ANY ONE OF THE DEMOCRATS NOW RUNNING, OR PREVIOUSLY RUNNING, WOULD BE 100 TIMES BETTER THAN MCCAIN IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!
It's very easy to get overheated in this contest, but I can't stand Hillaryites OR my fellow Obama supporters saying they'd vote for McCain, or throw their vote away in a swing state... All that says to me is, you're putting your personal obsession with your candidate AHEAD of everything they supposedly stand for! And that, to me, is the height of immaturity.
Go Obama... AND GO DEMOCRATS! (yes, even Hillary-backing Dems!)
The problem is....Hillary doesn't stand for what I stand for....so if she is the nominee who am I supposed to vote for?? McCain doesn't stand for what I stand for either...so unfortunately that means if Hillary is the nominee I won"t have any other choice but to either stay home or vote for a third party nominee.
I understand where people are coming from in getting angry over fellow democrats saying they won't vote if their candidate doesn't get nominated but, at least for me, it's not being petty or angry over my candidate of choice not getting the nomination. It's that I couldn"t conscionably cast a vote for a candidate (Hillary) who I truly feel would leave the country worse-off than it is today. I think that voting strictly on party lines, overlooking the fact that the candidate has questionable ethics and a known lying problem and assuming they will surround themselves with good people because they previously had family in the White House (a father or a husband) is how you end up with someone just like GWB in the White House.
PS - It's a bit ridiculous that we only have two political parties to choose from when, in reality, people in this country fall along a huge political spectrum.
Linda,
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you on this one. While I typically tend to cheer "right on!" when I read your work, my heart and mind can't let me get past HRC's dirty fight in the primaries. And I'll never forgive her de facto endorsement of McCain over Obama a few weeks ago.
When Bill Clinton had his multiple affairs, many friends suggested that we could never trust a man who would betray his own family. At the time (and still today), I respectfully disagreed. I saw and see a distinction between a man's mortal flaws and his ability to lead the country.
However, with Hillary and her flagrant rejection of the Democratic Party and democratic principals, I am firm. I cannot trust a leader who would win power by fighting the will of the people. To me, calling in old favors, breaking the preagreed rules of the DNC, stirring up racial animosity in a flagrant attempt to appeal to our ugliest natures, insinuating lies about Obama's religious affiliations and, above all, disregarding the will of millions of popular voters is not an act of civil service. It is an act of machiavellian self service.
She is determined to win the nomination despite the will of the people, not by the will of the people. And for that agregious offense, I would rather vote McCain...
Who do you and the rest of the blogosphere mean by "we"? When I phonebank to real voters in real places -- the kind who don't hang around on blogs much -- I hear a lot of "anyone but Bush/McCain" out there. Polls back this up. Don't confuse blogs with the real world.
Loading comments…
Posted April 6, 2008 | 08:59 PM (EST)