Here on OpEdNEws, I haven't seen one single article supporting Hillary. It's not because we haven't accepted them. Matter of fact we welcome cogent, well written articles supporting ANY candidate, since we trust our readers to respond and balance out the perspective in the comments section.
It appears that the concensus of the readers and writers on this site, most of whom were Kucinich, Edwards or Paul supporters, are, except for the Paul supporters, now leaning towards Obama.
Meanwhile, there are loads of people who have already started, saying, if Obama or Hillary win, they'll go third party, or stay home. My mom used to say that was cutting off my nose to spite my face. I encourage those of you who think that way to look at the priorities of Obama and Clinton compared to McCain or Romney. Sure, Obama and Clinton don't come close to Kucinich or Edwards or Gravel. But today, we face reality, and that means you get to vote on who is on the ballot. Yes, a third party candidacy would be great, but only if we have instant runoff voting, so your vote ends up counting. Otherwise you are pretty much throwing your vote away. This is my personal opinion. I see too many writers stating that there is no difference between Hillary and McCain. Sorry but the green dragon is at work.
In neuroscience, we talk about the reptilian brain-- the more primitive part ofthe brain associated with territoriality and raw emotions-- with rage. When the higher functioning cortex of the brain shuts down, the dragon part of the brain takes over-- ranting, raving, fighting, running away...
Now, where does the green come into the picture? Green, as in green party. I didn't have any problem with Ralph Nader running in very blue states, where he did not put a Gore or Kerry victory at risk. But running as a green, the green giant led people in Florida and Ohio to vote green, for Nader, and that, my angry progressive friends, cost the planet and the United States dearly, leading to the election of the most despised man in the history of the world.
So... don't, in your green dragon, neurochemically impaired mind, tell me that Hillary, who is in many ways, pretty disgusting, as far right, as much DLC as she is, anywhere near as bad as any of the candidates on the right, except.... except for Ron Paul. And to all my progressive friends and readers and newfound critics who I've just pissed off, I offer no apology.
If Hillary and Ron Paul were the final candidates, it would have been a tough call to me. I'd have to chose between more WTOs and NAFTAs, compromises on civil liberties-- which Hillary would engage in, or onslaughts against women's rights. It would be a very tough call.
But we won't be facing that decisison. Ron Paul will not be on the ballot opposite a democrat. McCain or Romney will be. And to chose between Hillary or Obama and McCain or Romney is a no-brainer, unless you've been possessed by the green dragon.
The way to defeat a dragon is to stay calm. To take possession of your senses. Overcome your anger and your fear. Regain control of your higher brain. Because of you don't the dragon is deadly and will not only kill you but lay waste to the kingdom.
Okay, so now, I've pissed off the greens, the anti Hillary/Obama folks, the anti Paul folks. This article will probably cause some cancelled subscriptions. I'll live with it. It's better to discuss this stuff, to lay it out than to ignore it.
If you consider my concept of green dragon syndrome to be insulting, that 's okay. Maybe you'll get even angrier and vote for McCain or Romney, or Lyndon Larouche. Look at Anne Coulter. She says if McCain wins, she'll vote for and campaign for Hillary. I know. This inflames your green dragon syndrome. But don't you see? That makes her a blue dragon, assuming that she EVER had cortical blood flow.
Stay calm, think straight, think about the good voting for third party candidates did in the past two elections. Believe me, I am holding back on saying what I really think of those who are considering going third party in 2008. Doing it in a blue state might be a symbolic gesture worth doing. But in any marginal state, considering it is, well, a sign of neurobiological impairment, at least, if you identify yourself as a progessive. It's time to be a pragmatist, which means, on Tuesday, if you're in a primary state, that you go out and vote for the candidate you 'll better be able to digest, even though he or she is less than perfect.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
If I am faced with choosing between bad or worse on election day I will stay home. The gas I save by not going to the polls I will spend on food stores and BBs. As the media stranglehold on our political process tightens its evil grip I see a sadness and disgust in those that realize the severity of our plight.
When MLK was killed the cities burned and people took to the streets. Our nation has been looted and destroyed , where is the outrage ? If we accept a McCain or Hitlery we deserve more genocide, more inflation, less freedoms more stormtroopers and the complete absence of hope.
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 426 comments)
on Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 8:15:10 AM
Well John that is exactly what you'll get if you stay home. Hillary may be a corporate democrat(she wasn't my first choice), but don't forget we were far better off under Bill Clinton then we were under Bush. And not only that, but with Hillary in there(or Obama), at least we'll have an ear in Washingon rather than a brick wall. McCain is staying the course, and he will continue to stay the course if elected. He's the perfect Hoover and regardless of what the republicans say about him, he's a devout neocon. That said, why help them along in their destruction by doing nothing? Placing any democrat in there to replace Bush is a clear message to the republicans that we are sick and tired of their shennanigans. Ignoring the election or voting green will not send that message but instead reaffirm the right wing belief that Americans think fascism and the corporate ripoff are just fine!.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 329 comments)
on Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 8:42:45 AM
This position is simply wrong, Mr. Shaw, and dead wrong .
In one breath you approve of the Clinton legacy of globalisation and its concurrent severe damage to our economy, our working class, our childrens future and the throwing of thousands off welfare to balance a budget. That is quite a step , unfortunately it is a step off a cliff. As long as we fail to understand that the lesser of two evils is still an evil we are lost.
As to Rob claiming:
Now, where does the green come into the picture? Green, as in green party. I didn't have any problem with Ralph Nader running in very blue states, where he did not put a Gore or Kerry victory at risk. But running as a green, the green giant led people in Florida and Ohio to vote green, for Nader, and that, my angry progressive friends, cost the planet and the United States dearly, leading to the election of the most despised man in the history of the world.
Well that is quite a mouthful there Mr. Kall. In one breath you deny Nader's constitutional right to run for the office of the President, excepting of course where you think it safe for him to do so. Then, as if this nonsense was not sufficient for one day, you claim some hold upon the voters choices, whether in Florida, Ohio or elsewhere. Despite your presumption as to whom a voter will cast a ballot I fail to see how you do this. Those who voted for Nader, and I was emphatically one of those, would suddenly cast a ballot for Gore or Kerry, as if by magic they cast their politics to the winds.
Rather you keep some vestige of political acumen and note the irregularities in the vote, the unequal distribution of voting machines between GOP districts and Democratic ones. Perhaps you might note that two are serving prison terms for vote fraud in Ohio before you pull out that tired rant about Nader being the spoiler. It is sheer and utter nonsense.
Ralph Nader had a constitutional right to run, you might remember the constitution, that quaint document that Georgie made irelevent, and I have a constitutional right to vote for that candidate who best expresses my vision for this nation. I have voted Nader twice and, barring some unforeseen and miraculous conversion of Obama or Clinton from their corporatocratic politics I will do so again. ( and yes, I probably just made up that word...)
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 5:40:42 PM
Of course Nader had a constitutional right. Huckabee has a constitutional right to keep running, with no chance, will obliterating and two teaming Romney. BUt there's no doubt that the Florida election would have been far different without huckabee in the race.
You say it is nonsense that Nader was a spoiler. I say he was and that it was not at all nonsense.
You certainly had every right to vote for him. I'm sure it felt good. But then there was that little other factor-- Bush winning. If all the Nader voters had faced the fact that without instant runoff voting, voting for nader was a vote that could have ended the Bush disaster four years earlier, maybe the war would be over, and we wouldn't be facing an economic meltdown.
And you can vote for Nader again. He has the right to run, you have the right to vote for him, and McCain could win, or not, and if not, and a dem wins, which is Far more preferable, it will be no thanks to you.
Advocating for Nader is, without instant runoff voting is like advocating to weaken the dem support, just a step away from supporting McCain. Green Dragon stuff. Definitely.
by
Rob Kall (808 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1703 comments)
on Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 11:50:01 PM
I must wonder whether your position is one in which you honestly believe or is motivated by a baser urge? Are you attempting to position yourself for profitability of this site or do you express a sincere belief, I really cannot fathom the answer.
That you so blithely buy into the myth of Nader as spoiler, worrying at it like a terrier with a rag, despite the reams of evidence that show otherwise, despite the dubious ballot counts and disposition of voting machines that favored GOP voting districts, you continue to posit nonsense as if it were fact. Do you , in fact, do this to ensure a flow of advertising dollars or are you really so politically immature that you believe such stuff as this?
One might point to the record of the Democratic Legislators, one might speak volumes about the inadequacies of the last Democratic President, a Republican with a silver tongue, but one gets the sense that it would be a waste of time, too bad.
Voting for a Democrat, whether Obama or Clinton, is supporting the status quo. I believe you to be intelligent enough to grasp this simple point, Mr. Kall. I believe you to be informed enough to know this as the truth. Until and unless the progressive movement thinks outside the box this nation is doomed to its path of corporate control, until and unless YOU, Mr. Kall, use more brain matter in deriving your positions then I fear that you are more a part of the problem than any Nader voter.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 8:44:49 AM
Now, where does the green come into the picture? Green, as in green party. I didn't have any problem with Ralph Nader running in very blue states, where he did not put a Gore or Kerry victory at risk. But running as a green, the green giant led people in Florida and Ohio to vote green, for Nader, and that, my angry progressive friends, cost the planet and the United States dearly, leading to the election of the most despised man in the history of the world.
Of course Nader did NOT run as a Green in 2004, he ran as an independent. David Cobb was the Green Party candidate in 2004 and I proudly voted for him.
Since many Democrats find themselves torn between voting for a Euro-American woman or an African American man, neithe rof whom are particularly progressive, I suggest that you can resolve the dilemma by voting for Cynthia McKinney the African American woman and real progressive.
Are we having fun yet?
by
Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 3:50:44 PM
and a fomer Black Panther has a real chance. Frankly when it comes to what's going on within the Green Party, I actually think McKinney is right! She was shafted by the Greens, the neoliberals who yield the real power in the organization. But honestly, her chances are about as good as Angela Davis' who teaches in my community and in fact whom I also admire but would never support as a candidate.
As for Nader in 2000 running independently and not Green, that in itself is a puzzle. As Churchill once said of the Soviet Union. It is an enigma, shrouded in mystery and wrapped in riddle.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 329 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 4:01:54 PM
It isn't very education to argue "yes he was" - "no he wasn't" when we don't know what "spoiler" means.
Perhaps a "spoiler" is merely someone whose very presence shows the system is spoiled? Then instead of saying the system is spoiled we blame the person whose presence made us aware of the problem.
That is the theme of the old story "The Emperor's New Clothes." It is not the person who says the Emperor is naked who is a "spoiler"; it is the system of silence in the face of the naked truth that is spoiled.
As I see, since we live in a representative democracy, a "wasted" vote is a vote for someone who doesn't really represent us but for whom we vote because we fear someone worse. This is the way the election system is spoiled. When someone runs who represents my views and I vote for that person, nothing is spoiled by my vote, the system is spoiled by not letting my vote count.
The fix of course is Instant Runoff Voting. Congress could adopt a federal statute that all elections for federal representatives are to be conducted by IRV voting so that I can have my first choice vote without wasting it and have my second or third choices count if my first choice has so little support that he or she is eliminated.
No Democrat deserves a vote until and unless the candiate supports IRV elections.
by
Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 3:42:40 PM
ASSERTIONS ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED UNFOUNDED
You fool! Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote a long article in SALON documenting the Republican theft of the election in 2004. It is unclear whether you are referring to the 2000 or the 2004 election when you charge Nader and those who voted for him of being responsible for inflicting George Bush on the world. In Florida in 2000, the media went back and counted all the untallied ballots left over after the Supreme Court ordered us to stop the vote count and appointed Bush. The media counted the ballots under six scenarios and in the four which used the same standord for counting a ballot in ALL the Florida counties, Kerry won. Only in the two scenarios where the differing standards of the differing Florida counties for accepting ballots were allowed -- in other words, inconsistent standards which denied the voters their right to have their ballots accepted or rejected according to an equal and consistent standard, and thus violated their right to equal protection --did Bush win.
Furthermore since the Florida counties outsourced the job of purging convicted felons from the voting rolls to private companies, and the low bidding companies only checked the list of those who had been CHARGED with felonies without incurring the additional expenses necessary to also look at the list of those who had actually been CONVICTED of felonies -- many people who were African American were denied their right to vote. Since the past history of African American voting patterns shows that 90% of them would have voted Democratic, the media estimated that Gore lost 90,000 votes because of this illegal denial denial of the right to vote, a number whch dwarfs the few hundred vote discrepancy between Bush and Gore in the official, accepted vote count.
Some of those who blame Nader for the election of George Bush still argue that Nader's campaign was still one of the factors why Gore lost and Bush won, even though these illegal denials of voting rights were other factors accounting for Bush's electoral victory. But in the light of this documented massive electoral vote theft, itis clear that even if Nader had not been on the ballot, the Republicans would have simply stolen whatever additional votes they needed to put Bush in the White House.
And given the history of the Democrats taking impeachment off the table even before Pelosi assumed her post as Speaker of the House, and given the Democrats failure to vote down further appropriations for the Iraq war, even though they only need 51 votes, not 60, to do so, Robb Kall's assertions about what the Democrats WOULD HAVE done about the Iraq war are totally without any supporting evidence. Remember, assertions about what WOULD HAVE happened are not data or supporting evidence. You can use your theory that voting for the lesser evil is the strategy to achieve the best results to say that, IF that theory is true, that we WOULD not have the war in Iraq, etc IF kerry had won. But you cannot use assertions about what WOULD have happened if Gore had won as evidence that things WOULD HAVE been better IF Gore had won. and that the theory that lesser evil voting is the best strategy is true.
I never said I supported globalization, either by Clinton or Bush and in fact am an ardent opponent to it. The one thing I did say was that Hillary opposed NAFTA calling it a mistake, and I indeed do share that same viewpoint!
Also my point as I believe was Rob's, is that if we simply give up now that our own chosen candidates have dropped from the race, we guarantee another neocon victory. You contend as the Green Party does there is no difference between the two major parties. I say in fact there is a difference. If there wasn't the neocons and their corporate allies wouldn't be supporting Nader, who they know will steal liberal and progressive votes from the democrats.
The Green Party, whose argument has always been there is no difference between the two major party's because of their ties to corporations, are in fact embracing those very corporations themselves. Nader is accepting contributions from 51 corporations who are also supporting the republican candidates. Is this an accident? Do you believe these corporations are even remotely considering the prospect in affecting change?
The Green Party has been corporately hijacked and if their purpose is to put pressure on both party's to affect change, then why do they always ultimately end up stealing votes from democrats and not republicans? Even as far back as 2001, Nader has been giving political cover to Bush on everything from corporate tax loopholes to the environment. That seems a funny way of putting pressure on republicans and particularly the neocons.
If Nader had any intention whatsoever in the best interests of this country, he would see the crucial importance in doing all he could to end the neocon rule rather then help it continue. So if you are saying I'm wrong, it's because I want to get rid of the neocons. You seem to think you wish the same, but in fact and like Nader all you are doing here is giving them a helping hand.
Nader has a right to run. No one said he didn't. But anyone who believes for one moment that he and the Green Party are in there to affect change, they are fooling themselves.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 329 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 10:41:25 AM
Mr. Shaw, and Rob, you are assuming that it will be the GOP or the Democrats who will determine who is the next president. I don't think that assumption holds water because registered Independents are the much bigger block of voters - much bigger than either party. The average of polls taken last year indicate that 42% of all registered voters are now Independents - or WERE; I am certain that number has not subsided - it has been increasing if I'm to believe all the comments I've heard or read recently.
In addition another poll indicates that most of those new Independents are frustrated progressives. By a margin of 3 to 1, another poll shows that they will vote for a Democrat rather than a Republican, and 77% of those liberals indicated their intention to vote for Kucinich.
In spite of the popularity Kucinich enjoys with Independents, I am encouraging people to vote for Cynthia McKinney b/c we need to keep Kucinich in congress with a strong progressive at the helm to divert our war centered economy to a peace based economy. A peace based economy will actually do more for our industry and infrastructure than the defense industry model:
I'm not assuming anything. I do however question your poll results and not because I believe the numbers to be higher than accurate, but because they don't explain the full story. Like for example, the current polls also indicate independents favor democrats over republicans 2 to 1. I never stated independent voters didn't have anything to say about who gets nominated either. Even as a registered democrat I often vote independently and in fact consider myself to be an independent voter. The first 4 state primaries indicate 30% of the overall vote came from independents. However, it is very likely many voters would register as independents if given the chance to vote in the primaries. Perhaps that is why there are about as many registered independents in Iowa and New Hampshire as in either of the major parties. On the other hand, my brother is/was registered as an Independent voter in Nevada, but he re-registered as a democrat so he could participate in the Nevada caucass. So these things must also be taken in account. I'd add further an independent vote doesn't guarantee a vote to the Green Party or to Nader and historical results prove it.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 329 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 5:04:27 PM
Poll results will fluctuate BUT NOT in favor of the Dems
I canvassed for the DNC in 06 - I have also campaigned at busy pedestrian areas for peace, impeachment and for Kucinich until recently. I came across many Independents who re-registered as Democrats just to vote for Denni. I have come across many Democrats on-line and off who have said they are leaving the party. I expect the same thing to happen to the GOP. You are familiar with the poll which indicates Americans are more unhappy with congress than with GWB and that the longer the Dems have sat on their thumbs since becoming the majority - the unhappier people have become.
If you want to question the polls I've produced, perhaps you could produce others that indicate different figures. I predict that poll results will continue to fluctuate but NOT in the favor of either party.
by
Kathleen Bushman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 11:21:34 PM
So many assumptions posed as fact, very typical sir.
In point of fact,Mr. Shaw, you said we were better off under Clinton which is a false statement. The seeds were sown by Reagan and amply watered by Bush 41, Clinton and now Bush 43.
Secondly, you seem to dread the installation of a neocon to the office of the President yet support two who are exactly that, Obama and Clinton. What a piffle!
" If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on th eother hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accord with his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence." Bertrand Russell in Roads to Freedom
You are so wedded to the closet thinking of only two choices that you must perforce manufacture realities to cover up the shortcomings of your rock solid and unfortunately incorrect political beliefs. Dont worry, you are far from alone.
I am, however, very heartened to see the postings of more and more who do get it. It is not whether a democrat or republican wins this coming election , either way we the people are still screwed. The real deal is that, in each coming election cycle there are less folks like Mr. Shaw and Mr. Kall and more who can think outside the box that imprisons us all.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 6:49:00 PM
that you condemn my viewpoints as non factial when you are yet to present any facts yourself. We could go on and argue that every president in our nation's history has contributed one way or the other to the current mess we're in. But the fact remains that Reagan and the Bush boys have individually and collectively contributed more drastically to the national deficit then any other president, in fact more so then all of the others combined.
If you believe NAFTA alone has contributed to this factor you forget that most of this ripoff occurred before NAFTA even existed. I'll admit that under these circumstances, NAFTA(just like tax cuts to the rich) is the last thing we need and I acknowledge it was a blunder on Clinton's part. So was the WTO. However Clinton did a whole lot more good as president then his republican counterparts, especially economically, you know when we actually had good paying jobs instead of Burger King positions. Bush has taken bad situations and only made them worse with his privatization of government and his so called free trade renditions that amount to corporate fascism or corporatism as Mussolini once coined it. Without even mentioning the complete trashing of the Bill of Rights and the looting of our nation's coffers, Clinton's record stands far above George W. Bush's and that is not only a matter of public opinion but of public record.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 329 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 7:34:27 PM
If the economy seemed so much better in the Clinton era, that's only because the full impact of Bill's free trade agreements took time to take effect. Bill had a belligerent foreign policy because he knew, as many of our ex-residents, that our economy relies upon keeping our defense industry amped up and in production. That is why the Democrats fear peace as much as the Republicans - shutting down the defense industry would deal the final dead blow following those blows the free trade agreements have dealt the middle class. America is in desperate need of a president with vision and leadership - two qualities I don't expect from the MSM's selections.
I'd like to tip my hat in respect to Chalmers Johnson. He's right! We are going bankrupt or to put it in even more drastic terms, we've been bankrupt since Reagan when we turned from being the greatest lender state in the world to the greatest debtor state. Thanks to Reagan and Bush one, this nation has accumulated more debt then in anytime in history until Bush two of course who told the first two members of his have more entourage, fellows, you ain't seen nothing yet! The only calm in the storm came when Bill Clinton was elected president. He didn't end the debt of course but he did stabalize it by not running up further debt and by paying down the interest on these insurmountable, right wing inspired loans. To blame him as complicit to our current debacle however is hardly fair. His biggest mistake was capitulating to the republican congress and signing NAFTA into law. That you can blame him for. Everything else you can blame on the real culprits, Reagan, Bush and Bush.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 329 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 3:11:02 PM
Clinton - at the very least - did not use the bully pulpit to its best effect; and you can't tell me that's because Bill is not enough of a politician. You might think Clinton with his charisma could have made a better attempt to galvanize public opinion.
BTW, I was in Seattle for the WTO police riots. PRIOR to the WTO riot, I became aware that our right of assembly was in jeopardy while CLINTON was president. I was part of a demonstration against the Iraq embargo - organized by a group of churches. Heck that bunch of us Quakers, Catholics and Methodists didn't even jay walk!! The fact that we pacifists were so law-abiding didn't keep the FBI from coming out of the Federal Building to snap our pictures. I was no leader - just a participant - but I was a bit ahead of the other demonstrators when dark blue suits - with bulges under the jacket - came out with big expensive looking cameras. I was the first demonstrator to be photographed by a very tall muscular man with a nasty smirk on his face.
by
Kathleen Bushman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 4:17:02 PM
I fail to recognize your argument in that. To Clinton it was not a bully pulpit. He was fighting for his political survival. Capitulating to the republicans on NAFTA was the least of his worries and the worst of his mistakes. His reward for working with republicans got him nothing short of a congressional impeachment. The so called bully pulpit was never realized until recently when a right wing congress unfettered a rightwing president. If Clinton had only half that clout and the same congressional support, he might very well have never signed NAFTA into law in the first place. So no, Clinton was not as responsible as Fe, Fi or Fo- fum
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 329 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 6:36:47 PM
