The Debate

Yeah, I watched the first hour of it... then I had to go night-night.

Notes:

Clinton was dog-piled as everyone knew she would be. The attack... flip-flopping. This is generally a gendered attack on male politicians that suggest they aren't masculine (read: decisive and intransigent) enough.

Electability... again, reference to the polls that show many men will not vote for Clinton because she represents feminism... saying more about what they think feminism is than any commitment Clinton herself might demonstrate to overturning male-supremacy.

Were there legitimate reasons to attack her record and positions? Hell yes. She's an imperial war hawk, for starters, a muckymuck with the corporate DLC, and deeply committed to neoliberalism. But criticism of her war support was tepid; and while several opponents went after her support of the Iran war resolution, no one made the statement of fact that Iran is not a dangerous country.

Where her opponents and the press jumped down her throat... and here's where I told you so... was on immigration. She said it was okay to issue drivers' licenses to undocumented ("illegal") immigrants, as a practical safety measure -- the only sensible position she took on a damn thing all night -- and has been getting slammed for going on two days now.

Tonight on MSNBC, Chris Matthews and his guests (among them arch-xenophobe Pat Buchanan) were openly talking about how "Americans" don't like seeing all these people that don't look right or talk right; and how the mere appearance of "supporting illegals" will be a political kiss of death in 2008 A-me-ri-ca.

That's right folks, this will be the Year of the Xenophobes.

And forget Dennis Kucinich. His entrapment on the question of aliens (not illegal ones), UFOs that is, has effectively done what the defense industry media and the DLC have wanted to do ever since he recently polled 2nd in a California straw poll... trivialize and marginalize him forever.

I contend that "illegal aliens" will be the defining issue of the 2008 election that will put a Republican back in the Oval Office (because the Democratic candidate will not take a firm position against the Iraq occupation). I said that months ago, and I stand by it.

And the Democrats deserve it.

That's why when Ralph Nader runs again, I'll be getting petition signatures in North Carolina to put his name on the ballot.

I invite readers to see what the Dems did to Ralph the last time he ran... it was thuggish. Here's the link.

Meanwhile, the criminal war continues, and America slouches toward its own unique rewrite of fascism... one where Latin@s are portrayed as the infection in the body politic.

History will say we deserved everything we are going to get; and may the Democratic Leadership Council and all its members rot in Hell.

Comments

[Cassiodorus]

Now, I'm not all that enthused about a Nader candidacy next year -- he'll be 74 years old, fighting a media blackout again (I remember 2000 news broadcasts giving us Nader news without telling us which party he was running with, as if we didn't deserve to know!), probably with the same old anticorporate message, and with little chance of being heard over the din of media-inspired cynicism that typically drowns out rational voices in election run-ups. Maybe he'll surprise me -- and maybe Hillary or whomever else is running will surprise me, too. I'm not one to give up on free will. At any rate, I'm not really enthusiastic about candidate Nader so far.

But the sheer folly of the anti-Nader crowd makes me wonder what sort of right-wing corporate DLC strategist invented the "blame Nader" schtick. In fact, one of the reasons I'm cool to the idea of another Nader candidacy is that Nader himself is likely to be drowned out by the anti-Nader to-do and its expected accompaniment: dirty tricks.

In fact, I imagine it to be rather likely that 2008 will be a repeat of 2004 and 2000: the Democrats will win the Presidency, the Republicans will steal the election, and everyone will blame Nader afterward.

[Cassiodorus]

Now, I'm not all that enthused about a Nader candidacy next year -- he'll be 74 years old, fighting a media blackout again (I remember 2000 news broadcasts giving us Nader news without telling us which party he was running with, as if we didn't deserve to know!), probably with the same old anticorporate message, and with little chance of being heard over the din of media-inspired cynicism that typically drowns out rational voices in election run-ups. Maybe he'll surprise me -- and maybe Hillary or whomever else is running will surprise me, too. I'm not one to give up on free will. At any rate, I'm not really enthusiastic about candidate Nader so far.

But the sheer folly of the anti-Nader crowd makes me wonder what sort of right-wing corporate DLC strategist invented the "blame Nader" schtick. In fact, one of the reasons I'm cool to the idea of another Nader candidacy is that Nader himself is likely to be drowned out by the anti-Nader to-do and its expected accompaniment: dirty tricks.

In fact, I imagine it to be rather likely that 2008 will be a repeat of 2004 and 2000: the Democrats will win the Presidency, the Republicans will steal the election, and everyone will blame Nader afterward.

[sabocat]

Looks like we'll have someone better than Nader to vote for this time 'round. Apparently, Cynthia McKinney is running as prez candidate for the Greens. Everyone's waiting for the formal announcement, but a copy of her filing form was just posted on marxmail. Much better than Nader, imho. Wonder if Ralph will run as vp to Cynthia, or if the Camejo faction will put up someone from california. She should galvanize the Green party with a huge influx of african-american votes. As someone recently wrote, all things considered, even if big bird was the green nominee the party would probably win 28% of the vote. Go Cynthia!

[Stan Goff - Huffpost Blogger]

The notion that Nader defeated Gore is pure bullshit, a creepy myth propagated by the same Democrat attack machine that used specious lawsuits to undermine democracy in the last election. Yeah, read the link in the post, and explain yourselves.

The most immediate "problem" is the presence of 160,000 US troops and 30,000 US mercenaries in Iraq, conducting a war that has taken over a million lives so far.

I am not wealthy, have raised three Black children and one Jewish one, and my daughter-in-law, as well as two nephews are Chican@s.

Bush policies and wars were co-signed by Democrats every step of the way.

So did a lot of you.

When this shit started in September 2001, those of us who said no to war were in the tiny minority. We were patriot-baited; and our facts were stubbornly ignored.

Kucinich and Nader both oppose NAFTA and all the other neoliberal "free trade" agreements. These agreements -- in conjunction with dollar hegemony (look it up, it's not complicated) -- are the principle problem in Latin America, where the quest for dollars to service external debt has pushed small landholders off the land and transformed local agriculture into environmentally unsustainable, industro-toxic export platforms... the reason so many of those brown folk moved North in search of less-shitty jobs in El Norte.

I know a little something about Latin America and the Caribbean. I've been to Haiti 21 times. I've also been to the Dominican Republic, Panama, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Venezuela, Colombia, and Peru... and not on vacations. Before you pop off with stereotypes about "corrupt Latin American leaders", perhaps you can itemize who they are and where they are... this is just more racist drivel armored in comfort and ignorance.

Your buddies in the Democratic Party, with the exception of a few Black Caucus members, stood by while the US engineered two coup attempts (one successful) against democratically elected governments in Haiti and Venezuela.

Yeah, vote Democrat.

[cheforacle]

Stan, so if Nader takes enough votes from the Dem nominee this time, the GOP Prez will have a shot at 2 or 3 more Supreme Ct justices; I suppose you are anti-choice and you don't want a vigorous attack on global warming which, I believe, is the biggest problem we face today. It is indisputable that if Nader did not run last time, we'd have a better Supreme Ct, Gore would've devised a strategy for dealing with global warming and we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. But I guess you don't care that elections have consequences; you want to vote for the "perfect candidate" whatever that means for this country.

[MrLion]

Prediction: The Democratic Party will not become progressive until the Clintons depart the stage. That, unfortunately, will not happen for at least another 20 years.

[JennyP]

Yes, thinkbig. A Bush presidency was part of the Naderite scorched earth theory. They rationalized assisting in his election, to impose the unchecked wars, the environmental devestation, the oppression and exploitation of the most powerless. The 2000 election woke me up to the fact that the neo-left were no different than the neo-cons, both extremes were fascistic and neither to be trusted, ever.

Mr. Goff, Nader, and any other hardcore Naderites like Medea Benjamin, etc.. have as much blood on their hands as Bush, or even Hillary, and all the rest. They dismissed what Bush would impose. Affluent elites demanded others less powerful be sacrificed in what was a blind lust for power. They are the sort no one should ever trust in government.

Mr. Goff could care less about poor Hispanics, whether we're talking about those in the US illegally, those who are citizens of the US or those who live south of the border. They are merely something else to exploit, in their blind lust for power. If you are willing to destroy the lives, the futures of poor American children, who are black, brown and white, then you have no compassion for any children. It means that you view all life as fair game, something to be used as disposable pawns.

A true progressive would stand up to the corrupt, wealthy governments of Latin America to demand they raise wages and opportunity for their people, that they raise taxes on the wealthy in their own countries.

What wealthy, corrupt Naderites demand is that poor Americans be thrown out of work, and replaced by those here illegally, to undermine American wage standards and workplace protections. Just as in election 2000, they are allied with the right wing, the Bush administration, the US Chamber of Commerce. They rationalize Nader's millions of dollars in the corporate investments that are dirty, and foul. Those that make money from exploitation, slave labor, frankenfoods, the rape of the Niger Delta, yes, big oil and big pharma too. The military industrial complex, purveyors of sprawl. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

Thus,...I'm an Independent!
I'm taken for granted and marginalized by BOTH parties...


Thanks again, Stan,

[762X39mm]

STAN IS CORRECT AGAIN! (e.g., Run Ralph Run, we deserve what we get, DLC rot in hell, et.al.) Nice work homie.

Also, Derrick Jensen's Endgame I & II should be read folx...

[thinkbig]

Wasn't it the Naderites that gave us Bush? Who's side are you on?

[luzcannon]

Nice to see you post, sir. It has been too long.I think you're spot-on about the issue that will kill the Dems and keep the Neo-Nazis in power. Easy to see if you're a thinker, and damn depressing. Slog on! Giving up is not an option, and despair is for the lazy.