London Calling: Memo to Hillary Supporters -- Tell It Like It Really Is

I have a favor to ask of some of you Hillary Clinton supporters, particularly the females among you. And you are legion.

For once, I'd just like to hear one of you say something along these lines:

"Yes, I know Hillary was wrong to vote for the Iraq war. But I'm going to overlook that because she's a woman, and so am I. And it's time we had a woman president in the U.S."

I suspect that a lot of women, most of them committed Democrats, feel precisely that way. But they won't admit it, at least not the ones I talk to.

I understand why Ms. Clinton has decided not to come clean on why she voted for the war, and why she feels she can't apologize.

To disclose the former would reveal the kind of political calculation she'd rather not be known for, but is. And when candidates apologize, that can be seen as a sign of "weakness."

But I would hope that some of her fans could be honest enough to say what really happened in the Iraq vote. And why they still support her, despite hating the war.

But rather than do that, Hillary's supporters subject us to these absurd verbal contortions in trying to justify their candidate casting the same vote as the Republicans she's running against.

(And please, stop with the semantic, hair-splitting canard about the difference between voting for authorization and voting for the war. That's a ridiculous argument, always was.)

Hilary's supporters won't acknowledge that, in voting for the war, their candidate was still pandering to her New York constituency, well after the 9/11 attacks.

They won't admit that, like Cheney, Hillary has linked the Iraq war to 9/11, as recently as earlier this year.

And they try to paint her as a "victim" of bad intelligence, the exact same way the White House does with President Bush.

Think about that for a minute, in light of what we've just heard from Bill Clinton.

On the one hand, Hillary's campaign likes to point to her being more experienced than Barack Obama, because of her time as the First Spouse. But when it serves her political purposes, they'd rather we ignore what she learned during her time in the White House.

Hillary wants us to disregard, for instance, that it was her husband's administration that decided in the late 1990s that the Iraq sanctions were working and that there was no longer any need to keep the weapons inspectors there, to play cat and mouse with Saddam Hussein.

Remember those tedious eleventh hour ultimatums NATO gave Saddam, pulling the bombers back at the last minute when the dictator finally agreed to let the inspectors do their jobs? I do, because I was there covering them.

It was on her husband's watch that the US and NATO chose, wisely, to change tack. The new policy was to pull the inspectors out and simply bomb Iraq, in a limited but effective way, every time Saddam stepped out of line by building a new radar facility or breaching the no-fly zone.

And the policy was working.

Hillary Clinton's supporters love to tell us how much smarter she is than George Bush. No argument there.

But now we're supposed to believe that she swallowed the intelligence nonsense that Bush was peddling to Congress, on how dangerous Saddam had suddenly become, even though she knew, first hand from her days in the White House, how impotent Iraq really was.

None of it adds up.

Girls, we know, and so do you, that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war in order to position herself for the 2008 campaign. And it's tough to argue, politically, with her decision, given the way the Democratic race looks today.

But there's another aspect to this -- the moral question. And Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of one of the most important moral issues of our time. For reasons of ambition and political expedience, she made the wrong call.

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died in a war she helped start. Thousands of American soldiers have been sacrificed, tens of thousands more maimed.

The congressional vote, of which she was a part, helped lead to the biggest strategic disaster in the modern history of U.S. foreign policy.

Despite all of that, millions of Americans are going to support her, simply because they feel it's time America had a woman president.

Well, the least they can do is admit that. To say it frankly, and honestly, in a way we longer expect of our politicians.

Or is that too much to ask?

Comments

[villastrangiato]

I was considering voting for Hillary - but the Joe Lieberman alliance kind of wiped out that possibility. Any suggestion that Hillary isn't tied up lock, stock, and barrel by some pretty scummy special interests is laughable. She and Lieberman are amongst the highest recipients of politicians receiving donations from insurance companies. They regularly take money from AIPAC and others in the war mongering crowd. And for Hillary to accept fundraising from none other than that bastion of Liberalism, owner of Fox News - Rupert Murdoch - that just put me over the edge.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

With this latest display, one can only conclude that Hillary has crust. Maybe even more crust than the current moron occupying the oval office. Enough of the Clinto/Bush crap already - it's getting nauseating.

[cheerleaderBush]

Excellent points...all true.

ALSO you neglected to point out the other FACT that at the time of the Oct. '02 vote (where congress abdicated their constitutional responsibility to a corrupt and incompetent president) the democrats controlled the Senate, which means they could have voted down the "Bush Iraq" resolution, BUT Hillary Clinton and other democratic senators handed Bush a blank check to invade and occupy iraq... and the rest is a tragic history.

[DemWoman]

Anyone in Congress apparently had their gonads tied up as a result of 9/11. I remember gritting my teeth as almost everyone purchased car flags, and had flags outside their homes after that. Now, I respect the flag as much as the next guy/gal (probably more--at least I know how to care for the flag.....most nincompoops these days wear it, drag it, leave it out in the rain, leave it outside and on the pole at night without a light on it, etc.), but the flag worship after 9/11 was nauseating. Especially the placing of them on autos--most cars looked almost like they belonged to foreign ambassadors, with flags on each side of the car, flapping in the wind--rain and shine.

I only bring this up because at that time, speaking up was a sign on desiring political death. I remained silent (biting my tongue, mostly) during this time in our history, and was accused of being anti-USA. Anyone who spoke up against the faux patriotism of most of the country was immediately shouted down by the megaphone of the reich wing.

I wish ALL Democrats could/would have voted against the Patriot Act and the other resolutions which allowed Bush and the rest of the govt. to begin their power grab, but I can sympathize with some who were not verbally talented enough to support their decision to vote against the popular tidal wave. That said, I also remember being able to distance *myself* from the prevailing wind of patriotism­-uber-alle­s, and could not understand why politicians could not figure out how to do so too. It appeared that only precious few politicians would have the intestinal fortitude to go against the prevailing wind--I remember seeing them hold off and then fall over, one after another. Was that right? Of course not. But, it was somewhat understandable that they were hesitant to commit political suicide.

[Dansden]

Richard:

Because you call it a 'CARNARD' and 'HAIR-SPLI­TTING'does not make it so! Here is WHY- AGAIN!

ALL the information was NOT in since the IAEA had not completed their review and surveillance! To 'AUTHORIZE' does NOT MEAN to SUBSTANTIATE! It means to trust the leader authorized to use seminal and critical information to use discretion and wisdom with the power to USE THAT AUTHORIZATION IN THE BEST WAY FOR AMERICAN JUSTICE AND AMERICAN VALUES!

Who ON EARTH or in America can deny that Lil Georgie 'cooked the books', used incendiary and indiscriminate innuendo and personal obsessive-­compulsive behavior to rush to INVADE IRAQ?!?

Hillary is correct! We want to trust our President but this president has confirmed in a myriad of ways why he CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH ANY AUTHORIZATION, but we learned that he COULD NOT BE TRUSTED the hard way since he has decimated our economy, destroyed our national credibility, shredded our cherished Constitution and driven our military into disarray and division through his onerous and obstinate compulsion to destroy something!
(Remember, this is the kid who ran ALL his businesses into the ground, stuck firecrackers in forg butts and lied about his own military record!

To put it into perspective:

To AUTHORIZE a marriage by law does not mean to insure a happy or healthy marriage!

To AUTHORIZE a driver's license by law does not insure responsible and safe drivers!

To AUTHORIZE a housing site by law does not insure that a good house will be built!

RICHARD:
To AUTHORIZE a power to wage war does not imply that an invasion of another country under false pretenses should occur!

[BernieO]

I am surprised that many people do not get the fact that if the Congress had defeated the resolution it would have been a signal to Saddam that we were not serious about disarming him. It was only his fear of our attacking him that forced him to allow the inspectors in. The threat of war is a powerful tool. Hence the authorization to go to war IF Saddam would not cooperate. The fact that he did cooperate, but that Bush went in anyway doesn't change anything. Once the request for authorization was made, the Senate had two options - tell Saddam (and others if his ilk)he would pay no price if he refused to cooperate or pass the resolution.
We are in the same position now with Iran. They will only cooperate with us if they are afraid of our military power. Unfortunately we have radicals running our government who are apt to attack instead of using diplomacy.

[sierra]

Yeah, well....

Does anyone remember Scott Ritter??????

And all the efforts he made to stop this criminal adventure????

How come I was so smart to know it would be a disaster and that Iraq didn't have WMD??????

WHY????

Because I have followed the Middle East Area fiasco for more than 50 years.........

And I know the "power of the press" to lead us into war.......

And, incidentally, the "no fly zones" were/are against international law...France pulled out of them almost immediately that they were imposed back in the '90's.......

Know history and you know the future....

sierra

[ARBOC2]

Dansden, your excellent post made it unnecessary to for me to comment on the BS that Hillary voted for the war and that there is a hell of a difference between authorizing going to war as a last resort and "voting to go to war". No one voted to go to war, not even the Senator from Israel, Lieberman. No such vote was proposed or taken. It is far from hair splitting to mention the difference between voting to go to war and voting to authorize going to war if all else failed. The fact that Bush and the neo/fascists had no intention of doing anything other than going to war is now damn well known.

Hillary is playing to win and has gotten a little bit desperate to win over those who won't vote for her under any circumstances. The flag burning amendment turned me off on her for a long time, but I told myself she is a politician and just sucked it up and moved along hoping it would not get any worse, as it may if she gets too pushed by her nearest opponents.

SHE DID NOT VOTE FOR THE WAR. In fact, what is going on in the Mideast is hardly a war. If WW2 was a war, this political charade hardly qualifies. I guess Bush's statement that this would be a different kind of war is the one truth he has told.

For those who do not know what constitutes a war they should check Ken Burns "WAR" documentary on PBS. Roosevelt did not tell the country to go out and shop till they dropped, as did Bush after 9/11. JESUS!

[JimR]

Yet even with the cooked books, Obama still thought war was a bad idea. So did I. So did a lot of other people on here.

Sorry, you can't blame Hillary's vote on Bush. Why did she vote against Sen. Levin's amendment which would have required Bush to come back to Congress for an authorization to use force?

[jbloggz]

I think before you take a final decision on Hillary or anyone else you might just take a good look into that chrystal ball. The way things are going they'll be nothin much left to govern. The USD is screwed and all over the financial world there's the heavy sound of dumping going on. I think you're gonna need a lil bit more than a kind lady to sort out the coming mess. If the European Bank decides to do a Greenspan and go for an all out print run on the Euro to counter the printing presses of the Fed then a 100 bucks a gallon not a barrel will be the norm. So folks hang onto your sub prime mortgage because the way things are going you'll soon pay it off with a months salary check!

[deminmo]

The bottom line is, we go to war in Iran, Bush uses the nuclear option, there will be NO election. He will declare a national emergency and all the talk about who has the job next will be null. Yea, its a worse case senario. But look what we have gotten so far.

[taj]

Why did so many of our Representives and Congressman lock step behind Bush & Cheney when voting for this war in Iraq? Because this Administration (Bush,Chen­ey,Powell,­Rice and Rumsfeld) all lied and did it very well. Even the average American believed them.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

At one time I was hoping that Colin Powell would be President.

Not any more.

[MAGLATINA]

I NEVER THOUGHT MUCH OF POWELL... EVER SINCE THE GULF WAR...HE CAUSED THE EVILS OF TODAY... IN 91 IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT TO GO INTO IRAQ AND ERADICATE SADDAM'S REIGN...
WE WERE ALSO TRAITORS TO THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ

[JimR]

But there were some Democrats who did not march lockstop behind them. Those are the Democrats who deserve our support, not the ones who let themselves be led like sheep.

[Clare822]

Does my memory fail me? Wasn't it Saddam who kicked the inspectors out of Iraq in '98, not Bill Clinton who withdrew them?

Anyway, the purpose of the 2002 vote to authorize military force in Iraq was to convince Saddam that, if he didn't allow inspectors back in, we were going to attack him. It worked. He let the inspectors back in. Then, incredibly, it was George Bush who told the inspectors to get out of Iraq because he was going to attack it anyway. So I don't consider the 2002 vote a mistake. Not rescinding it immediately after the inspectors were allowed back in was a mistake in hindsight, but who knew Bush was going to be so stupid?

The Kyl-Lieberman vote was, however, a huge mistake. Same vote as in 2002 with Iraq, but without any purpose other than approving an attack on Iran. THAT'S the vote that I want to hear from her about.

[bringbackimus]

I am a registered female Democrat. I do not support Hillary Clinton, because I know every move she makes(including her vote giving Bush a free pass to start his war in Iraq) is politically caculated and that she is a phony.
If she is the Democratic nominee, I will not vote in 2008, rather than vote for the lesser of two evils.

[nickyboy1]

I am registered female Democrat. I do not support Hillary Clinton either. My candidate will be John Edwards. However, if he is not the nominee - and it's looking that way - I will vote for Hillary. . . absolutely no question about it. She is intelligent, balanced and moral - especially when compared to the thugs. Whoever wins the presidency is no longer "president" - more like manager - under our new type of govern. - the oligarchy. We need as many bright, balanced and moral influences in high places as possible.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

She is not the only woman Democrat phoney.

Pelosi and Feinstein for example.

Feinstein's husband Blum has a billion dollar no bid contract in Iraq. And you wonder why the Dems don't deny funding.

We've been had. Again.

[Lane]

Dear Kendo-
Somebody doesn't like women, does he??????

[akzidenzgrotesk]

i too am a registered female, although i'm technically an independent i have always ended up voting democrat. and i must say, i'm disapointed in a lot of other democrats (especially women) who say they won't vote at all if hillary is the candidate. seriously, you'd rather rudy guiliani or ron paul be president? while i don't agree with hillary on pretty much any of the war stuff, she's one of the few i would trust to protect and/or implement all the other things i hold dear: education reform, health care reform (i know her proposal needs a lot of work, but at least it's headed in the right direction), family planning and gay rights.

i also think most of the democrats can be trusted with those things as well (i'm not terribly certain about john edwards with regards to family planning or gay rights, but he's better than any republican alternative at the moment), so i'll be voting no matter who gets the spot, and i would hope, if you care even a little bit about this country, you will do the same.

[MAGLATINA]

AKZI, THE WORST OF DEMOCRATS IS BETTER THAN ANY REPUB... BECAUSE IT IS THE PLATFORM AND PHILOSOPHY THAT IS IMPORTANT. YOU HAVE IT RIGHT.

[WOLFWARRIOR]

Maddlizz:
All you Hillary haters, just vote for the Republican Presidential candidate and you will get the government you deserve.
............

Thats a good line put out by HIllary - The Queen of Mean - When you actually go look at the Clinton record on Human Right's ...

And again as for hateing Old-Hil - It's being scared a sh*t of what the Clinton's Have really done to American's - You can look at the effect's of nafta and now cafta ...

and why don't hillary answer a question ????

Instead of the standard - Why did you vote for another war ???

Heeeeeeeee­eeeeeeeeeh­eeeeeeeeee­eeeeeeeeee­ee

Does she really think it's so funny million's have been displaced and hundred of thousand's more have died or wounded in IRAQ ????

and if thats the case - THEN SHE HAS MORE THEN GOT HER STRIPE'S AS THE NEW QUEEN OF MEAN ...

and what about her support over American Poor Worker's - TAXING THEM - to support illegal-slave-labor ???

Just like BUSH-REPUB"S gave a snow-job the last two election's - HILLARY is being painted as some saint of manifest-destiny ....

AS LONG AS IT MAKE'S OR STEAL'S A BUCK - WHO CARE'S WHO IT KILL'S ...

I FOR ONE WANT A DIRECT ANSWER ON HER STAND ON AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHT'S - AS WELL AS IRAQIE HUMAN RIGHT'S ....

WE KNOW WHERE HER HUSBAND STOOD ON THESE ISSUE'S - WHERE DOE'S SHE STAND ???

...

[TruthResearcher]

You and we, already have DIRECT ANSWER.

[Claire Voyient]

Looking back at the vote seems so simple now, because Bush has hacked his duties. While republican and democrats struggle with having an idiot in charge, who wants the president to be voted impotent when facing the world forum. All this "admit this admit that" is nonsense, and i suspect from a disgruntled non-hillary supporter. Admit that!

Do not rule out the feminine voter. Once we let hillary discuss issues from her perspective, rather than splitting hairs, many states may be in play. And while she seems so calculated, even that demands hard work. Most anti-woman retoric is short sighted. What husband is going to ask his wife why she voted for a women president?

[GordonsGirl]

Maybe I live in a bubble here in Chicago but I see no signs of the legion of Hillary supporters. Of about 4 dozen people, I've met four who support her - with one exception, all men. In fact, those that most vociferously oppose her candidacy are women.

Why? Because we do not trust her. Before Kyl-Lieberman, I'd have been willing to consider her if she said the following: I know that I am not the most experienced candidate. The resumes of Sens. Biden and Dodd and Gov. Richardson tower over mine. That said, Bill Clinton is my husband and I've lived in the White House. Also, I consider my ability to fight the GOP more important in this election than how I'd actually govern. Ask me no hypotheticals as I will not answer them but, as Gen. Petraeus learned, I demand that you answer those I pose. Do as I say, not as I do.

Kyl-Lieberman, though, again exposed her true colors. She is all about executive power and privilege, regardless of the cost to the rest of the country. My great fear is that she'll lock up the nomination early in the year, then Bush will strike Iran. Voting Democrats explode in rage and refuse to vote Clinton. Giuliani is our next President.

[akzidenzgrotesk]

that is exactly why it's so stupid that democrats would refuse to vote for hillary!

and i honestly can't understand this woman on woman hatred of hillary. as a 25 year old female, i really like her, and so does a good percentage of my generation (well, she's at least equal to barack for a lot of us, so we're happy no matter how the nomination goes). but for some reason, women of the previous generation (my own mother included) seem to HATE hillary with a vengence. i don't get it. if she had ever said the things you want her to say, well, she would lose all respect and people would see her as some weak willed little flower. self deprecation is an admirable quality in a friend or aquaintance, it is a fallibility in a presidential candidate. when can we as a country get over this desire to have a president we'd like to take to the bar and hang out with over a beer? we've seen what happens when you elect a good ole boy, so why does everyone keep falling into this "but i don't like her as a PERSON" trap?

[Maddlizz]

All you Hillary haters, just vote for the Republican Presidential candidate and you will get the government you deserve.

[JoAnnCr]

No one is a Hillary hater, just lovers of honesty, decency and originality. Voting for Hillary is like voting for Bush; you never know what you will get.

And yes, certain Republicans, not the Bush wannabe's, would be better than Clinton. I'd take an honest Republican over a pandering Democrat any day.

It IS time for a woman president. Just not this woman.

[TankerRat]

Very interesting reply JoAnn. I agree. Besides, anybody who thinks Bill Clinton was actually the president may want to reconsider that stance. Hillary will in all likelihood be the Dem candidate. I WILL NOT support her nor will any of the other voters in my family (so they've told me). I've a feeling I'll be writing in Bill Richardson's name since he is the only candidate so far that I feel I can comfortably support although I could live OK with Edwards.

[tysgram]

I also agree. If people do not realize soon enough that we are playing into the Republican's plan to nominate Hillary it will be too late. Most people will vote against her no matter who the Republican nominee is. Bush is counting on that! Even Bill said on Meet the Press yesterday, " She said she would never run for office because no one would vote for her because she is too hard headed". Haven't we had enough of a hard headed president?

[PeterM]

As a progressive independent, I completely agree. At this point, I would vote honest republican than Democratic spinless corporate sycophants like Hill.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Hillary IS the Republican candidate.

[TankerRat]

Spot on Kendo. Tysgram, you also make an excellent point. Akzidenzgrotesk, you may wish to consider resuming your medication.

[deminmo]

Why do people say "hate" a political candidate, or the president? I don't hate them. I hate their policies, their willingness to compromise morals for political reasons, their lack of logical reasoning. To disagree is not "hate".

[vastleft]

I am not a Hillary supporter, but it's not semantics to say there was a difference between offering the President a big stick in political brinksmanship and for the President to completely abuse that power.

Still, she has not taken either of the two legitimate options that would explain her vote:

http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2006/03/ok-dems-who-authorized-iraqi-war.html

Worse, it was "Oops, I Did It Again" with her recent vote on Kyl-Lieberman to set the stage for an Iran War.

[JimR]

Believe what you want to believe, but the vote to authorize the use of force was a blank check for war.

Senator Levin tried to attach an amendment that would require the president to come back before Congress to seek the use of force, and only after U.N. approval. The amendment failed.

Guess who voted against it?

[bethinCary]

I think people should vote for the RIGHT woman, if they are going to vote.
Seeing some other female leaders like Tsipi L. in Israel and Hil, there's no doubt in my mind they will keep the Mideast in an unstable state without promoting peace or end to the wars.
Hil should have to be accountable for the Iraq vote, cluster bomb nuke vote, and the Leiberman vote.
People in this country have by large numbers from the 06 elections said they want change. Hil has shown by her votes-she is more of the same.
Hil wants to play the same Beltway politics with lobbyists and try to outsmart the boys at thier own game (the GOP). The trouble with that
is that the people of this country reject that and want different-NOT more of the same.
This kind of mentality will ruin it in the future for other women who want to run for elected office.
Women can make thier own "niche" in politics-without resorting to the same tactics the guys have always used. That's what's needed for this country.
Again.....how loudly can i say this:
NO MORE STATUS QUO.

[cuthbertallgood]

Of course any questions about Hillary's war vote go double for John Edwards. Mr Edwards did far more than merely cast a vote for the Iraq Resolution, he was an early and eager co-sponsor of that Bill, signing on to his friend Joe Lieberman's war authorization on the first possible day. Only 14 Senators put their names on the line as sponsors. Edwards helped promote the invasion to his peers, drummed up suupport, and pushed it through.
He has 'apologized' without explaination for his vote, but he does not bother to mention his early hawkishness and his devotion to Leiberman's plan. Just 14 Senators were as much in favor of invasion of Iraq as Edwards. When it came to the vote, even one Republican voted no, against the Edwards co-sponsored bill for war.
This is just fact. Hillary and John both voted yes, but John was involved way past just casting a vote, he was virtually Leiberman's right hand on the Resolution.
Both of them are disqualified for foolishness, lack of foresight and a rush into a wrongheaded and illegal war.

[Mytigodess]

Hillary is neo-con light. I am a female and I wouldn't vote for her.

Anyone running for president, who is now in congress or has been in the last 2-3 sessions, who has in any manner voted for or supported the war and given Bush a blank check without question is NOT fit to be the next President unless they have made amends and are going to hold the current president's feet to the flame.

If they cannot show the leadership we want now, what kind of leadership will they have as president?

Dennis Kucinich may be viewed as a trollish, nut job by most, but at least he is consistent in his anti-war stance and wanting to impeach both Bush and Cheney.

[herronsmith]

I would not vote for Hillary if she were the only candidate which may very likely happen. I further will not vote for the "top tier 3". All are linked in some form or fashion with Bush, either politically or socially (Ms. Clinton can deny this ad nauseum but it is a widely held belief). Voting for her is like voting Republican but given the "illusion" of change. I believe the writing is on the wall and the choice is already made. This would explain Barak Obama's lack of tenacity and toughness with most of Hillary's non-answers. It also explains why all of the "top tier 3" rarely criticize her. I am going for someone further down the list but have not made up my mind. I am currently wrestling with Dennis K's notion of lowering the drinking age. I get the "if you can go to war, you can drink" argument but too much data exists on the teenage drinking and driving tragedies. That leaves a rather narrow list of Democrats, a couple of old workhorses, a nut job who speaks the truth, and Bill Richardson. Is he too connected to the Congress/Republican clan?
By the way, I am a female and am glad I don't have to admit why I am voting for Hillary!

[woodchips]

Count me as undecided, but I think Hillary is scary. Any politician whose personal views are the product of polls and focus groups is not fit to be president. While many are writing off Kucinich as a fringe candidate, he seems to be the most consistent, honest and intelligent choice.

His is opinion on the drinking age is somewhat irrelevant. The drinking age is enforced by state law, not the feds. Furthermore, while there may be a lot of data to suggest that teen drinking/driving is a problem, it's a problem regardless of the legal age. It is hypocritical that we regard an 18 year old as an adult in nearly every way, except with regard to alcohol. I am not an expert, but I'm guessing that because it remains taboo for the 18-21 group, there is probably more tendency toward binge drinking and generally irresponsible behavior.

If a higher age is the answer, why is it that in many EU countries, where the drinking age is much lower, there are far fewer DUI problems?

[Kendo Nagasaki]

When a new scientific theory is introduced most entrenched scientists ridicule it until it becomes accepted by the mainstream.

Kucinich is in much the same position.

[BuyMoreAmmo]

I'd vote for that "trollish nut job" in a minute, when the alternatives are female, black, cute, tall...get my drift? "Special K" simply tells the truth, as I see it anyway, without trying to qualify it. As for Bill Richardson, while better than Hillary or any Rethug, here in New Mexico he's know as the "we don't need no stinkin' fence" Latin Dictator. This is gonna get messy before it's over. Oh BTW, if Kucinich was elected look at the cute candidate his wife would make 2016...LOL