Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
31 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Become a Fan
  (74 fans)

opednews.com

A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.

Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."

So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there's John Edwards.

It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Michael Francis Moore (born April 23, 1954) is an American film director, author, and social commentator. He is widely known for his outspoken, critical views on globalization, large corporations, gun violence, the Iraq War, and the George W. Bush (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

30 Years Ago Today: The Day the Middle Class Died ...a letter from Michael Moore

Michael Moore Talks About SCOTUS, Occupy, Weasel Democrats and Obama

Where Does Occupy Wall Street Go From Here? ...a proposal from Michael Moore

Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange

"We the People" to "King of the World": "YOU'RE FIRED!"

An Open Letter to President Obama "from Michael Moore

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
25 people are discussing this page, with 31 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Michael Moore and Ralph Nader, a shame they dont s... by ardee D. on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 3:55:15 PM
Certainly not a Democrat if Kucinich is out so a... by dave stanley on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 4:32:45 PM
obsessive much?... by ardee D. on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 6:59:00 AM
I have to say that I admire the tenacity, the pers... by John Sanchez Jr. on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 8:27:16 AM
The reason Ron Paul supporters are so passionate a... by Rick Theile on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 11:24:24 AM
Libertarianism, like objectivism, holds the v... by John Sanchez Jr. on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 12:39:54 PM
and only in the opinion of a few and increasingly ... by ardee D. on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 1:31:13 PM
Unfortunately Dr. Paul is a flat-earther on enviro... by clsgis on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 11:57:46 AM
For me, the war is still #1. Ron Paul has the most... by joriet on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 7:14:45 PM
Michael Moore, thanks for all you do and for Sicko... by August Adams on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 8:08:12 PM
First you say, "Ron Paul believes that the &q... by Cap'n Stubbs on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 12:28:19 AM
My evaluation precisely!... by Rowan Wolf on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 8:31:49 PM
Forget that Michael Moore ignores the fourth place... by Kevin Gosztola on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 9:42:49 PM
     Who knows why Dennis offe... by mikel paul on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 10:37:29 PM
...he hopes to become Obama's running mate.... by Peter Dearman on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 10:39:37 AM
I was hoping that Kucinich supporters would see th... by fou on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 2:37:14 PM
And that means the rise of the police state.We all... by Kathryn Smith on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 9:46:27 PM
Come on, Michael.  You're just mad becaus... by Dale Hill on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 1:52:47 AM
Mike:    I love your movies, but I&... by Peter Wedlund on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 4:19:26 AM
Having voted as a democrat most of my 65 years; I ... by ronheri on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 7:37:58 AM
One reason I am a Ron Paul supporter is because he... by Rick Theile on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 11:47:40 AM
Michael:  First, love your movies.  May ... by Michael Morris on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 7:44:37 AM
when I read from the above article and comments th... by richard on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 8:13:26 AM
Amen. The entire election process is a sham that h... by Bill Cain on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 10:05:26 AM
Edwards has the most conservative record of the to... by Bill Samuel on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 8:34:36 AM
Good overall article, Mr. Moore.However, all this ... by wch on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 9:20:37 AM
Michael, you sound the same in print as on camera,... by localvore locavore on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 11:15:23 AM
Kucinich is only doing his job.  His job is t... by clsgis on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 11:47:02 AM
Despite what Moore (great films, btw, Michael)&nbs... by fou on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 2:49:13 PM
especially when there is a far better way of deter... by Isaiah Truman on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 9:28:55 PM
Moore is a big fat hypocrite. Ron Paul is a liar t... by Ty on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 3:07:05 PM