After nearly seven long years of Americans being derided by a smug dictatorial President, there is a near compulsion amongst the electorate to choose a leader in 2008 who understands participatory democracy. A leader who sees the President as the RESPRESENTATIVE and SERVANT of The People. A leader who accepts dissent and dissenters - not simply as Constitutionally ordained - but as sincere patriotic investors in their nation.
Under the regime of George W. Bush, those who oppose him have been ridiculed and persecuted. Patriots are arrested and jailed when disputing his policies. The FBI has compiled a list of citizens charged with misdemeanors for non-violently opposing the war on Iraq, rendition, torture, and other unConstitutional and impeachable crimes of his administration.
For his part, Mr. Bush doesn't personally arrest or convict those who oppose him, although he does sanction their arrests and convictions. Instead, Mr. Bush disparages detractors by humiliating them verbally in public and smirking and mugging in a self-righteous juvenile way. Needless to say, after almost two full terms of Presidential mocking, Americans have reached the point of no return. They are tired of a President who disrespects them. They want a President who shows sensitivity to their concerns.
Unfortunately, much of George W. Bush's disdain for dissension can also be seen in Hillary Clinton. It's becoming increasingly ominous to witness Clinton's Bush-like intolerance toward citizens who voice their displeasure - which might explain the recent revelations of how her handlers manipulate her audience. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/11/5158/
In particular, Clinton's "smug mugging" toward questioner Tighe Barry at Saturday's Los Angeles Presidential Forum on Global Warming, helps to forewarn potential voters of her Bush-style contempt for dissent.
Deviating from previous sound-byte debates, the Global Warming Forum offered Presidential hopefuls the chance to deliver uninterrupted dissertations on the issues. Mrs. Clinton, and participants Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, gave lengthy overviews on their environmental policies, which included transitioning to renewable energy, transportation options, America's leadership role in fostering global cooperation to deter climate change, sustaining and promoting green-related employment, and more.
Unlike Kucinich and Edwards who want an end to the war on Iraq, Clinton has voted consistently for military funding for the war, and recently voted to support a controversial resolution that could lead to a military strike on Iran. Considering war's harmful effects on the environment, and its diversion of funds from environmentally friendly projects into military coffers, Clinton has significantly less bona fides on the environment than either of her Forum counterparts.
Thus, Mrs. Clinton made herself a legitimate target for concerned environmentalists - particularly after this inviting exchange with panelist Mary Nichols of the California Air Resources Board, when Ms. Nichols asked:
"Let's talk about how the campaign can help to make this [reduce emissions] happen. I think we all remember what happened to health care and we want to make sure that President Hillary Clinton is able to carry out the mandate that you hope to get. So what can you do through the campaign and through your speeches and other actions in places where climate isn't yet on the agenda to give yourself what you need to combat what we know will be the multimillion dollar ad campaigns that will be coming at you and the rest of us from the coal industry and other like opponents?"
Mrs. Clinton responded:
"Well I'm trying to do that in the campaign now in that I rolled out this energy climate change agenda over a week ago in Iowa and New Hampshire. I speak about it everywhere that I go to try and get it into the bloodstream of the Presidential campaign. That's the first issue. We've gotta make it something that people actually turn into a voting issue. And here's where all of you come in because you have to help this become a voting issue - not just in California but in other states as well.
That's why this forum is so significant because we need lots and lots of people who come to presidential events - and not just the Democrats, but the Republicans as well - asking questions and standing up and saying this is an important issue to me personally. This will influence my vote... "
Hearing this invitation from Clinton to participate in the dialogue, CODEPINK peace and environmental activist, Tighe Barry STOOD UP exactly as Mrs. Clinton asked and posed the following question:
"How can you say you're for the environment when you are always voting for war?"
For environmentalists, this is a legitimate question. After all, it is an oxymoron to support the environment while supporting the wars that destroy it.
Totally forgetting she'd invited the audience to STAND UP and chime in on the conversation, Mrs. Clinton became indignant when Mr. Barry took her on. Rather than engaging him in a repartee that could have answered his question, Mrs. Clinton smugly replied:
"Were you invited to speak here this afternoon?"
Then, in an act that wreaked of ultimate Bush smuggery, candidate Clinton grew even smugger and smirkier. At the pinnacle of smuggus maximus, Clinton stared at patriot Barry, lifted a white mug to her lips, took a smug swig, then smirked with her smug mug in a manner that would put George Bush's real mug to shame.
Oh please, voters!!! Please!!! Not another four years of this!!!
Sadly, as the video (darkly) shows, citizen Barry was hauled off by the Los Angeles Police. He was released with a 50 dollar fine for standing up for his country!
As for the Presidential Forum on Global Warming, only three of the candidates for President showed up. Since the event was non-partisan, candidates from both parties were invited. Of the three candidates who did appear - Clinton, Kucinich and Edwards - Edwards got the standing ovation, and appeared to win the crowd. He was also the only candidate who took questions from the press at the end. Kucinich was earnest and heartfelt. Hillary was a bit baffling since she mentioned on several occasions that she'd just "rolled out" her environmental plan a week ago. One would think she would have "rolled it out" long before considering the gravity of the issue.
According respected environmentalist, Sarah Nichols, John Edwards was the more impressive of the three.
To view Edwards' highly-praised presentation at the Global Warming Forum, visit: click here
Linda Milazzo is a Los Angeles based writer, educator and activist. Since 1974, she has divided her time between the entertainment industry, government organizations & community development projects and educational programs.
Linda began her writing career over 30 years ago, starting out in advertising and promotions. From 1976 to 1989, she operated an independent public relations service providing specialty writing for individual and corporate clients. For the past six years, Linda has focused on political writing. Her essays, letters and commentaries have appeared in domestic and international journals, newspapers, magazines and on dozens of respected news and opinion websites. She's an educator and creator of a writers' program she's taught privately and in public schools. She currently facilitates an advocacy writing workshop and is developing an advocacy writing program to be implemented in public and private educational institutions and in community based organizations.
A political and social activist since the Vietnam War, Linda attributes her revitalized-fully-engaged-intense-head-on-non-stop-political activism to the UNFORTUNATE EXISTENCE OF GEORGE W. BUSH and her disgust with greed-ridden American imperialism, environmental atrocities, egregious war, nuclear proliferation, lying leaders, and global tyranny!
I still lean toward Edwards, but she will make a great President. I am amazed at her consummate knowledge of both domestic and foreign issues, her poise under fire, and her uncanny ability to stay focused.
What a different place our people would be if she had a Democrat House and Senate at the time her health plan was presented, but the American people were still reacting from the radicalism of the sixties, the integration of schools, and had fallen in love with the likes of Phil Graham, Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich. George Bush encapsulates all three of them with Strom Thurman and a little Pat Robertson thrown into his personality.
"Smug mug," "Bush like" are rather trite personal attacks. Put some comparison of her positions as First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the White House and United States Senator. She has long record. Surely, there are things you can dig up besides ad hominem attacks which prove nothing about the person nor their arguments. You sound Senator Phil Graham attacking President Bill Clinton. We learn that in Philosophy 101 and Speech 101 that ad hominem are an automatic "F".
But I like the attacks on her. Now is the time to fight tooth and fang for you candidate in the Democrat Primary. The Primary is the cleansing agent to get "your" candidate elected. Whoever is the Democrat candidate after the Nomination, I will be behind her/him fully. You can take anyone of the Democrats running to be nominated and that one Democrat will stand head and shoulders above anyone the Republicans have to offer.
I disagreed with President Clinton on a number of issues, but I really like his SCOTUS nominees, his ability to refute Whitewater, Filegate and all the other junk designed to keep him from performing as President. She will be better than Bill because she is much more liberal, and she will be better without the Jennifer Jones and Monica Lewinski scandals.
OBHG,
Phil.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Monday, November 19, 2007 at 7:15:59 PM
Well I think she is evil incarnate right up there with Dick and Dubya. I am still sticking by my prediction that if the DUMMICRAPS nominate her the repukes should have an easy win and if she somehow actually wins the election some right wing wack job will probably assassinate her before she ever serves a day in office.
by
BenMarbleMD (22 articles, 0 quicklinks, 203 diaries, 297 comments)
on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 7:16:41 AM
Hillary did have a Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in autumn of 1993 when her health care program was introduced. It was not until the 1994 election that Newt got his majority. The thing to remember is that Democrats accepting corporate pelf, from the health insurance companies in this case, is not something that is unheard of.
Speaking of which, Hillary is not one whit more liberal than Bill. She is easily as much as or more of a corporatist, having accepted contributions from lobbyists, corporations, defense contractors, etc. that dwarf the take by any other candidate, Democrat or Republican. Both Hillary and Bill are acolytes of the Democratic Leadership Council, as was Rahm Emanuel, one of their senior advisors.
As far as Bill is concerned, I will risk running into the ground my claim that he is the best Republican president we've had since Dwight Eisenhower. (See NAFTA, welfare reform proposals)
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1172 comments)
on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 9:24:26 AM
That was not smugness but a reaction of a person who was programmed to behave according to the preset scenario and was told that there would be no changes in the scenario. She not only was totally abashed but then she only tried to figure out if that was a random event or a deliberately staged ploy against her.
Hillary Clinton is sick. She needs mental help. Little shallow brain was overwhelmed by greed and predatoish opportunism. She is a disaster as a human and a tragedy for the Demparty.
My regards, Phil, we still think 180 degrees apart.
by
Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3454 comments)
on Monday, November 19, 2007 at 7:25:45 PM
She is a trilateralist and may also be a Bilderberg member like Bill C. If we want more of the same with Corporate elite running our country, not to mention the aggressive actions done in our name all over the globe to continue then vote Hillary and you can bet on it to continue and worsen.
I'm very wary of Edwards also since he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations which is also part of these global corporate elite groups. Some seem benign but they definately are not. They have goal driven agendas that benifit only the obscenely wealthy. They manipulate all that is going on and has gone on and will continue to do so until they are stopped.
We, the people, are their very expendable work force.
Research these and other groups. The membership list of names is quite telling.
My vote will be for Kucinich no matter what.
by
Rae (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 218 comments)
on Thursday, November 22, 2007 at 4:05:04 PM
HILLARY JUST ANOTHER GLOBALIST IN THE HAT FULL OF TRICKS
WHEN DO THINK IT WILL BE TIME FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO FIND OUT WHAT THEIR PICK FOR CANDIDATE STANDS FOR, IS IT BEFORE THE ELECTION, OR AFTER THEIR ELECTED AND DON'T DO ANYTHING THEY SAID THEY WOULD? IF WE WOULD HAVE DONE OUR HOME WORK BEFORE BUSH GOT ELECTED, WE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS MESS. SO MY POINT IS THIS, JUST TAKE YOUR PICK FOR A CANDIDATE, AND GOOGLE THEIR NAME AND CFR, AND THERE A GOOD START TO SEE IF THEIR FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE THEY ALL SAY, OR IF THEIR A GLOBALIST, LIKE BILL CLINTON AND HIS NAFTA THAT IS DESTORYING THE MIDDLE CLASS. HERE'S THE DEAL ALL THE TOP TIER CANDIDATES FROM BOTH PARTY'S ARE EITHER MEMBERS OF CFR WITCH ARE GLOBALIST, ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS MONEY POWER AND CONTROL, OR THESE CANDIDATES ARE CONTROLLED BY THE TC FREEMASON GLOBALIST, AND WILL FOLLOW THEIR AGENDA, WITCH IS ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. IF YOU GOOGLE YOU CANDIDATES NAME AND CFR, THERE WILL BE CFR OFFICAL WEB SITES AND THIS IS WHERE YOU WILL GET THE SAME DECEPTION YOU GET FROM THE MEDIA, SO AVIOD THE CFR OFFICAL SITES. HAPPY HUNTING AND PLEASE KNOW WHAT YOUR CANDIDATES STAND, FOR AND NOT THAT SMILE AND VOTE FOR ME I WILL CHANGE EVERTHING, NOW MOST OF THE CANDIDATES ARE IN THE SENATE AND IN CONGRESS NOW RIGHT, SO ASK YOUR SELF IF THEY ARE SAYING WHEN THEY BECOME PREIDENT I WILL FIX THE PROBLEMS, BUT THEY ARE THEIR NOW AND NOTHING IS GETING DONE, THESE GLOBALIST CANDIDATES WILL FOLLOW THE GLOBALIST AGENDA, AND NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE. PLEASE DO YOUR HOME WORK NOW, NOT AFTER ITS TO LATE. 2008 IS MAKE IT OR BREAK IT FOR THIS GREAT CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. THAT I LOVE
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 2:16:08 AM
Author's Account of HC's Behavior at this Event: Accurate
I attended the same event the author described, and I was not at all impressed with Hillary. Everything I'd heard about her speaking (shrill, strident, not spontaneous, out of touch) is true. Her cult was present in large and vocal numbers and cheered anything she said. When the man heckled her she taunted him by saying "were you invited to speak?" and then raised the volume of her voice to try to drown him out.
The more I know about her, the more I see that she is very nearly as bad as GWB. As for the poster who said she's much more liberal than Bill, what planet is that person living on? If anything she's even less liberal than Bill.
Her "plan" for global warming was obviously an afterthought, and it's only incrementally better than a typical Republican candidate's. As long as she remains a whore to corporations and the defense industry (as are Dianne Feinstein and Joseph Lieberman), if president she would do nothing to repair the Bush administration's crimes or to restore our democracy or constitution.
I'm so tired of her using gender as an issue when it suits her. To quote Maureen Dowd, Hillary uses nepotism as feminism. I'm female, and would like to see a woman in the White House, but not this one. She's gone beyond being a woman to being a political hack who will sell out anyone to gain power.
She's simply not electable, and if she is nominated it's a surefire loss for the Democrats.
by
teeem (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments)
on Saturday, November 24, 2007 at 7:46:39 PM
8 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
