How About

The Democratic party are corporatists who have perfected the skill that they are not?

by Michael Cavlan (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 225 comments) on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 11:49:44 AM
 

And your solution would be?

Bhopal happened in or around 1986.  All your points are valid and cannot be excused or dismissed lightly.  Nor can greed and corruption on the scale we are witnessing globally.  That is fact to ponder--global decay.  It is systemic within the human condition now and historically. 

Are you ready for peaceful revolution?  Are you ready, as was MLK and many others, white and black, to put your life on the line to affect change?  If you put the dilemma in those terms, I think the rhetoric might drop a level and bring us back to solid ground.  We are all part of the patterns evolving in modern life; we put the leaders in Washington and allowed them to stay at their leisure.  We didn't demand truth when the political assassinations robbed us of leadership that might have changed our destiny for good.

We didn't march in outrage when the 2000 election was stolen in broad daylight under the cover of legitimacy; we were too busy enjoying the good life afforded by the rape of other less fortunates.  There are few among us who should be instructing on the sins of Bill and Hillary Clinton; they do what works in America; "the business of America is business," thus spake a businessman of note long time ago and behold, that is the anthem we should rightfully be singing--"God bless our stock market."

And I doubt any other developed nation is much different.  Only a few can claim superior cradle-to-grave care for its citizens.  That high living standard is predicated on global exchange and it is called the profit motive.  The U.S. pulled them along like the engine on a train after the big war.

But Hillary did not have a vote on anything until 2001.  I suspect this piece is just another Obama apology coming from a left end-run.  All those errant companies existed before Bill Clinton entered politics and will continue after the last hurrah in Washington D.C.  Still, Hillary remains the fittest and most ready candidate in this election season. 

Instead of the usual anti-Clinton treatises, how about some cool, dispassionate exposition of the coming distruptions planned by R68 and their sister organization, UA in Denver in August?  R68 means Recreate the  bloody '68 riots during the Dem convention.  And UA means Unconventional Action--acting in concert, they hope to disallow the delegates to vote on a Democratic nominee if Hillary takes her case to the convention hall.  It's the old-style underground network and new recruits revving up the fringe to do battle against democracy.  It may not be a healthy democracy, but it's all we have and we best keep it.  

They also plan to challenge the Republican convention in Minnesota.  Both these venues are vulnerable to illegal acts that can easily turn deadly.  I once had a modicum of respect for Obama supporters.  That was until they started to defend the Weather Underground for violent protest; at that point, they lost all credibility in my opinion.

by Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments) on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 7:04:44 PM
 

A few questions

"We didn't march in outrage when the 2000 election was stolen in broad daylight under the cover of legitimacy"

Marilyn's right - this was inexcusable. But I'd hold responsible the President at the time, the vice-president presiding over the confirmation of the vote, and the first lady at the time, before I'd blame the US citizens. In fact, the US citizens wrote letters, articles, books and made movies about exactly this problem, while the leading Democrats did nothing. 

"Hillary remains the fittest and most ready candidate in this election season."

Can you back this up? I'd challenge this "fitness" in light of being duped to give Bush a blank check for the Iraq war. In her own speech on the Senate floor: "I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."

 I believe what you might call "readiness" others may call "entrenchment" - in other words, the kind of experience, connections and alliances that helps her, not the greatest number of Americans bring change to exactly this broken system.

"I once had a modicum of respect for Obama supporters. That was until they started to defend the Weather Underground for violent protest; at that point, they lost all credibility in my opinion."

Can you share where Obama, his campaign or his supporters defended violence? I hadn't heard that, but I have heard Sean Hannity and other haters conflate the fact that Obama shared a stage with Bill Ayers with the suggestion that Obama somehow endorses Ayers' actions or beliefs.

I'd like to learn which Obama supporter defended violence, and try to figure out why the feelings of this Obama supporter you cite would make you lose respect for other Obama supporters who never wished harm on anyone. 

by Gustav Wynn (60 articles, 38 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 283 comments) on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 11:58:09 PM
 

On this you seem way off-center

The 2000 election was cleverly dumped on the laps of the judicial system--both state and federal; the Repubs are inveterate "states righters" when it suits their purpose and will turn on a dime when that expedites their mission.  Therefore, the SCOTUS countermanded the SCOT state of Florida and disallowed a recount of the vote.  Where was the Gore campaign to go?  What authority would you have had the President, First Lady and Al Gore turn to for deliverance?  God?...the U.S. supremes are the final say on judicial issues.  Didn't Bushistas pack them with fellow travelers counting on a little help from friends on high benches?  Our judical system is still in tatters, a joke, top-down.

Hillary and the war...who, now opposed the Iraq invasion?  I can think of one or two in the Congress--Kucinich and maybe Feingold; and Feingold reluctantly approved the certifiable John Ashcroft for AG, which brings his judgment into question in view of a miserable Ashcroft tenure; no one is perfect, but I digress.  (I am writing from memory; I haven't any material in front of me, which is my usual style.  I generally go with intuition first, a very female approach, and I'm dyslexic, which gets in the way of typing but not necessarily in the way of reason--so don't think my meandering is lack of resolve.)  I'd have to Google Congressional votes on the I. War.  Did you?

Oh, yes, Barack Obama opposed the war from his perch high above the common hue and cry way out in Illinois, where he took a grand stand position which is now the bread and butter of his campaign sloganeering.  As it applies to the Hillary history.

I opposed the war as did we on the progressive boards, in the main.  What was George's approval rating immediately after the invasion--the shock and awe televised for our viewing pleasure?  In the ninety percentile, if memory serves....Americans seem to like war, especially when we win.  Must be Hill's triangulation theory in play as we know she was planning on running for president even back in '93; but she also planned on fulfillling her first term as NY senator before announcing, unlike our boy Obama.  Someone described another man as "an ego attached to a body"; I think that pretty well sums up the junior senator from Illinois.  I love a good phrase.

What else did you take issue with?  My distaste for armed aggression from both domestic and foreign terrorists.  (Or my government's co-option by the military/industrial complex.)  All the same to me; war is war and Bernadine Dohrn in her position paper declared war on the U.S.A.  I said earlier and repeat it now:  violent peace protest is an oxymoron.  If you defend the carnage, you are in effect part of the problem.  In a civil, evolved society, legal and nonviolent demonstrations will work; just takes patience.  Gandhi managed to throw off British oppression without personally firing a shot.

Using that philosophy, MLK managed to excite a national consciousness, leading to a broad political coalition which allowed for passage of the Civil Rights legislation and welfare and health programs in the Lyndon Johnson administration.  The only violence engendered came from the white racist base of regressive politics. 

I must remind you that pulling out selective passages for debate is a good tactic if you want to duck certain responsibilities.  You did not address my points, rather, you demand I submit to your litmus test.  Now, please tell me how Hillary's vote on Iraq disqualifies her bid and negates all the positives she has acquired.  Your arguments and Obama's campaign hinge on a few glitches in Hillary's resume deflecting the gaping holes in BO's political experience.  She is promising to bring the troops home in increments, beginning within sixty days of her inauguration.   Obama says he will withdraw all troops, in a little looser time frame.  Experts say that is not going to happen.  It's all smoke and mirrors.  The war issue is a statemate.

by Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments) on Friday, April 25, 2008 at 11:48:56 AM
 

Obama vs. Hillary

The Gore campaign could have found at least one senator to sign off on the petition by the Congressional black caucus (there was one on the ticket who kept his mouth shut and then supported the Iraq war). The White House at least could have made a public statement questioning the vote. President Clinton could have called for any number of investigations by the DOJ. I'm sure you know the improprieties found filled several books, thanks to Conyers and the GAO, but when it was time to act decisively, the Clintons did not act in the interest of the people, they were lining up pardons-for-sale at that time, unfortunately. If the President can't use executive powers to prevent election fraud in the US, then only God can I guess. Bill and Hillary were completely disengaged at that point, thinking of themselves and a $100 million dollar payday ahead.

Hillary had already visited NY to arrange a senatorial run which would pad her resume for her own presidential run, cutting ahead of dedicated native New Yorker Nita Lowey who was supposed to run for Moynihan's seat.

Who opposed the Iraq invasion? Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Leahy, Levin, Feingold, Durbin, Wellstone and 14 more Democratic senators plus 2 Republicans. Hillary again put her self, her career and politics ahead of the American people. This is a pattern I hope you will recognize, Hillary's biggest negatives are her war vote and her perception as someone who does things for political expediency, especially here in NY.

Obama's opposition to the war should be his bread and butter - he showed proper judgment. If you opposed the war THEN, I can't understand why you can overlook Hillary's vote and the blood on her hands. I find it interesting that you also credit Hillary for planning a White House run so long ago, fulfilling 1-2 senate terms first. On the other hand Obama (our boy Obama?) rose quickly from state senator to US senator to run for President on a platform of ethics reform. This more then any thing else points out the difference between the two - Hillary lays low, plays the game, and Obama sees problems in DC and attempts to fix them forthwith, assembling a massive base of support from common citizens. This is why I choose Obama and reject Hillary, McCain, Pelosi, Reid and all the status-quo insiders.

I agree with you on non-violent protest, I support FOR, an organization built around just that principle. You claimed Obama supporters defended the use of violence somewhere and I asked where this was. It's an unfair manipulation to charge Obama with guilt-by-association that way and I was calling you on it. If you can't show who supported the bombings, just concede the point.

I never said Hillary's Iraq vote disqualifies her bid, just that it was the #1 reason cited by voters who voted against her. The reason I hold it against her personally is because I knew better at the time, making signs and protesting (and so did you apparently) and there is a better candidate. Obama knew what you and I knew, that the war was going to be a great big mistake, and we were not alone - millions worldwide protested. Whether Hillary was following the polls, Congress or her heart, she got it wrong and was the last to admit it -- after Kerry, Edwards and all the others.

As someone who worked hard for 5 years as an anti-war activist in NY with a brother-in-law serving in Iraq, I felt let down by Hillary again and again and I feel she cared more about her image and her candidacy then the troops, the Iraqis and the economy.

Ultimately however, the only thing that disqualifies her bid is not having the greatest delegate count. Them's the rules and it's not decided by either you or I.

I'm not eluding any conversation at all, I'm happy to address the argument that Obama has "gaping holes in his political experience" very simply. I've said this already in my post The Polarizer vs. The Unifier: A Reasoned Look but I think experience is nowhere near as important as honesty and integrity and I would be happy to send someone brand new to Washington that had no scandals, baggage or enemies and could concentrate on fixing the problems we face as a nation, rather then looking to defeat the opposing party. Just look down the list of Senators, Congressmen, and Cabinet appointees in DC and you'll see an overwhelming majority of duplicitous, two-faced hacks who couldn't perform as well as the average third-grade schoolteacher, but had all the connections necessary to get the position.

If you or I could become President tomorrow perhaps the best thing we could do to restore true representative democracy would be to reduce the influence of corporate cash in Washington and reform campaign finance laws. This is exactly what Obama's Presidential platform is built on. Hillary is a big part of this problem, with her bigger corporate backing and her husbands' long history of accepting illegal campaign contributions (for which people now sit in jail), she has no credibility on this issue, nor any appearance that she cares to fix it.

Hillary may honestly believe you must fight fire with fire, I respect her temperament as a battler and her refusal to ever surrender - but America now sees you fight fire with water. We need to stand up against the form of government corruption that the Clintons represent. Granted, not as bad as the Bushes, but Obama seeks to serve the American people while Hillary seeks to serve herself.

by Gustav Wynn (60 articles, 38 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 283 comments) on Friday, April 25, 2008 at 10:52:23 PM
 

Marilyn: I hardly know where to begin -

but the R68/UA thing did jump out at me.


Your concern about incitement of riots in Denver is valid, certainly, but it should more properly be addressed to Rush Limbaugh:


Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.

"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.

click here
</a>
That, I believe, is called telegraphing the plan. And by the way – I have no idea what R68 and UA might be, but a Google search didn't enlighten me. How do you know that “R68” and “UA” aren't Rush-inspired, featured in the usual dittohead spittle that gets emailed all over the country by this demented creep's ever-indignant followers?


If nothing else, we should have learned a great deal from the Clinton and Obama campaigns about the kind of people the candidates are, how they function under tremendous pressure, how they think, and what their administrations might look like.


And I can't imagine how anyone could miss the real problem with the Clinton campaign: Hillary Clinton has demonstrated many times over, by the ill-planned, ill-executed, managerial and financial disaster her campaign has been from the beginning, that she is unable to lead a campaign organization that works. That doesn't augur well for her ability to run the entire government. And she has demonstrated many times over, by the pandering, calculatedly divisive, cornered-rat, scorched-earth campaign she has run, that she is morally unfit to lead this country.


I share some of your concerns, but I don't see Hillary as the solution. At this point, I frankly don't see how anyone can, but I'll take to the streets to defend your right to believe what she says and to buy what she's selling. Been there, but that was another time and in another country. I still send money to Kucinich, and I supported Edwards – but more and more I have been impressed, and encouraged, by Obama's intelligence, courage, eloquence, and dignity; his remarkable ability to think on his feet; his thoughtful responses to questioning; and his gallant efforts to run a campaign that sticks to the subject of politics that concern real people with real problems.


Also by the way - Obama opposed the Iraq war in the context of a run for the Illinois state senate. I grew up in Illinois. Do you have any idea of the courage it took to oppose that war, at that time, in Illinois? Writing first and thinking later, parroting Clinton talking points, doesn't get you high marks in this debate. There's Google. Look it up.


Hillary's much-trumpeted experience consists of blowing healthcare reform for an entire generation, a career otherwise notable for the unattractive habit of saying one thing and doing another, and a presidential campaign that blew every possible advantage. She wasn't ready on Day One of the Iraq war, or on Day One of her campaign. Why would we turn over what remains of our country, and the future of our children, to this person and the corrupt and/or incompetent people around her, and – most of all – to the corporations that own her?


My opinion of Hillary's politics, and her integrity, took a permanent dive when she invited the healthcare industry lobbies to write her healthcare “reform” bill. The day I learned that was right up there with the day I learned there was no Santa Claus. I had been so happy when this attractive, vital, wonky pair won the election – I bought every last thing they were selling, and during their eight years I learned, to my sorrow, that nothing they had said, not one word, had been indicative of what they really thought or what they planned to do.


When the Clintons are campaigning, they lie. They are enthusiastic and persuasive, and they lie. It's possible that they actually believe what they are saying at the moment they say it. I don't know the answer to that and I don't care. That is the point I was making in my original post: whatever you think Hillary will do when she is elected, you should measure her promises against her consistent pattern of lying pretty much every time she opens her mouth.


Hillary's support for NAFTA is a matter of public record, despite her campaign's frantic effort to rewrite history while she was campaigning in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Now she says I was really against it all the time, or it, um, didn't work out like we hoped. Bull. NAFTA worked out as a bonanza to the corporations that designed it and that now benefit by it - and a disaster for the middle class, the economy, and environmental standards, exactly as predicted by those who fought the Clintons while they engineered its passage. Hillary makes much of her intelligence and mastery of detail. Did she miss something?


The Clinton campaign is using racism, hate, and fear, like any other Republican campaign. But for good measure Hillary, because she can, has made a calculated appeal to the woman-as-victim tradition that pollutes gender politics. How idiotic to vote for a person who asks for your vote because he or she is a victim. Who does this? As a woman, I find it embarrassing that this crap works at all.


Far better women than Hillary have fought and won hard battles, and it was never easy, and the fight isn't over - but women didn't get this far, last time I looked, by bitching and whining. Mother Jones must be whirling in her grave.

The poor-little-woman talking point demeans every woman in the world, and it has no place in a contest for president. But it's there, because Hillary put it there; she keeps it front and center because she knows it works.


But I don't really think we'll see Poor Hillary if, God forbid, she becomes President. I'm afraid we'll see Bad Ass Hillary; the one who just promised to nuke Iran. Which Hillary you see in the campaign depends on what demographic she is pandering to, and which page from the Rove dirtbook her campaign plugs in for the next news cycle. But the Hillary we have seen in this campaign, I think, is the real Hillary. The one that has been under wraps since Arkansas. The one that is having a prolonged hold-your-breath-and-turn-blue tantrum because the path to the White House isn't working out as she expected. The one that lied - repeatedly - about something she and many of the people close to her KNEW was not true. The one that is willing and eager to bring down her party to win a nomination that she has ensured, by her suicide-pact campaign against a fellow Democrat, will be next to worthless. We have a president who thinks like that. The last thing this country needs is another.


The Clintons are now endorsing John McCain, chumming up with Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife. They are Fox's new best friends. The outstandingly ridiculous Terry McAuliffe said Fox News is “fair and balanced,” and Fox turned it into an ad! Bill Clinton guest-hosted the Rush Limbaugh show the day before the Texas primary – I could go on and on, but doesn't this sort of realignment with the Dark Side bother you just a little bit?


The Clintons gave us triangulation, best defined as the principle of starting well to the right of the political middle and negotiating to the right; and the DLC – the frighteningly powerful corporate arm of the Democratic party that has done so much to corrupt and cripple two-party government in this country.


I hope to live to see the Clintons and the DLC fade into deserved irrelevance. When that happens, our children and grandchildren may have a chance to rebuild the country, and the planet, that the corporations the Clintons serve have so nearly destroyed.

by Ruth Ann Rooks (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, April 25, 2008 at 9:08:58 PM
 

Ruth and Gus-persuasive sell; no buy

I don't know where most Americans get their political opinions; must be a K-Mart's blue light sales.  One size fits all for a bargain price.  I know that is a cute way of saying it's all chaff with a lot of BS thrown in.  But it is the character of politics and politics has never been as advertised.

Hillary's foilbles, her ambition, her aggressive style are indeed the subject of beaucoup books, magazine and paper screeds, TV accounts for time immemorial and ad nauseum.  Which should give many pause.  Never in the annals of American politics has a couple been so highly scrutinized or attacked or denigerated while they were still living and in power.  Did it not occur that both Scaife and Murdoch have a strategy that dovetails with the RNC (from which the moronic media heads take their cues) dirty  tricks?  If you can't intuit that gambit, you lack imagination.  I put up some go-to links on the Lindorff rant yesterday directing the reader to some pertinent facts about the so-called Obama victory in numbers.  This constant contest to see who can best divine the numbers and demographics is a pointless exercise by those who have a lot of time on their hands, IMO, to eke a little niche in the circus of electoral politics.  Pollsters come to mind and immediately following are the pundits who fill airwaves and pages with their personal asides on things I find obvious. 

I will concede Hillary has a longer history and that brings up questions; however, a short, uncontested resume and Obama's love affair with the media must come to a halt while we air out some of his dirty laundry; seems only democratic, don't you think?  (The old "let us come together" theme is a time-honored ploy to redirect our energies and avoid issues.) 

As to the R68 and UA orgaizations, found it posted on one of my political boards and followed a link to the site where it was discussed in detail.  It is not unusual for the media to hide info that might be traced back to the Obama campaign and it is hinted that his devotees are militating against any thought of a Hillary nomination.  If it is a hoax, then I will be the first to admit it; if these schemes turn out to be genuine, then where will you come down on this issue?  Will you continue to defend violence as a counter to flawed, but democratic processes?  The last time I observed, the Weather Underground people were not under direct attack; they could have protested the war by leaving the country, claiming conscientious objector status, disappearing within the country--Dohrn and Ayers were successful for eleven years evading prosecution after their little temper tantrum succeeded in the death of numerous innocents and three of their own.  And you don't see evidence of support for them on this board?  Better rethink that thesis and do some homework.  Never have I come across a more ridiculous outcry in defense of people who should be serving a life sentence, not enjoying the good life in Chicago's upscale suburbs.  (The neighborhood of Barack and Michelle but they hardly know the former domestic terrorists.)

You can haul out all the scams, gates and sins of the Clintons (largely fictionalized tabloid accounts by opportunists) and it won't change the fact that Barack Obama is not their moral superior and rather is their intellectual and political inferior.  If you think women aren't fully aware of what is transpiring within the Dem Party and will turn to embrace Obama come November, you are badly deceived.  I will not vote for a tainted product and I am aware of several hundred men and women who feel the same.  So go ahead and bash Hillary at will; you will simply be playing into the hands of the Repub strategists whose real goal is to put up the best front man to shill for the coming New World Order.  And that is not just a conspiracy theory.  I have not gone into all my old pet peeves because I am trying to get Hillary elected and have dispensed with many side issue; they are not less imperative, but we can hold only so many thoughts in our minds at a given time without losing focus.  That is the trouble with Democrats; their coalition tends to fracture with too many varied causes and nothing is ever accomplished.  The Repubs don't have that dilemma.  They have a goal and nothing, but nothing disuades or deflects that purpose. 

by Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments) on Saturday, April 26, 2008 at 6:41:32 AM
 

addendum to above response

Here is the link to the R68-UA issue; it is fairly-well documented.  Of course, this is an unusual climate for hoax and hyperbole and both tend to morph and shape shift with a little encouragement from fans.

http://www.stop-obama.org/  (this is the home site of biracial anti-obama group)

http://www.stop-obama.org/?p=255#more-255   (An article with graphics and commentary about the possibilty of disruption and rioting at the coming political conventions this summer by Jeff Gold and Gregory Chang: "Obama Camp and R68, One Degree of Separation.") 

On the Iraq War vote in the Senate: John Edwards also voted for the resolutiion which gave Bush permission us use force to protect US and encouraged use of diplomatic efforts to enforce UN Security Council and all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions regard Iraq.  The NIE was generally dismissed and more alarmist briefings by the administration informed the decision to vote for resolution.  Three separate admendments to the original draft were voted down in either House or Senate.  It was a time of great distress and misinformation was the order of the day; Senator Clinton and Senator Schumer both represented the state which suffered the greatest calamity on 9/11.  The country was solidly behind Bush and he was well aware of the fallout if his programs were not implemented.  As pointed out earlier, his approval ratings were in the 90s after his invasion.

Then to the point that Hillary was planning a presidential run as early as 1993; sorry, that is a typo and should have read 2003...either way, it can be read as a bit of satire.  What ambitious man or woman on the Hill doesn't aspire to be President at some time in their career?

by Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments) on Saturday, April 26, 2008 at 8:19:03 AM