I just called Hillary Clintons office and they confirmed what AP reported

[still_one]

That she was against Murthas plan for immediate withdrawl

I explained to them Murthas resolution NEVER called for an immediate withdrawl. Instead Clinton's staff pointed me to Murthas web site which said as soon as possible. I again pointed out THAT IS NOT WHAT THE RESOLUTION SAID. He said 6 months or whatever is practicable

I am sorry, but there IS NO WAY I WILL SUPPORT HER OR THE DLC CRAP

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. What If She Gets The Nomination, What Will You Do Then?

[MadHound]

3. I don't know about the OP,

But if Hillary gets the Democratic nod, I'll be voting Green. Getting out of Iraq is the number one issue today, and if she refuses to commit to doing so, then she doesn't deserve to be in office.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

10. Getting out of Iraq is the number one issue?

I still think addressing the Peak Oil situation is a vastly greater issue than the Iraq debacle.

Don't get me wrong; Iraq is bad, but if we actually start running out of oil before an alternative is found -- everyone on the planet is screwed.

[Nordmadr]

18. We have a winner. I agree with you about Peak , but still don't

intend to vote for Hillary myself. If she wins the nomination, I will weigh my options then.

Olaf

[newspeak]

188. so, if we're the biggest energy hogs in the world

we can just invade any country, murder their people, and steal the oil?

[Nordmadr]

210. Huh? Where is that directed? I do not feel we should invade for

oil. I am one of those folks out there known as a "peak oiler" and think we have a major energy crisis ahead. MY solution to that would be to begin rebuilding localized economies and communities, you know, the ones that have been destroyed in this country, while expanding our use of renewable energy sources...and greatly modifying our education system to fit a new world eco-friendly paradigm. I do not support obtaining more of it by invading other nations. I'm all about sustainability and the environment. I am a veteran, and against the Iraq war. Perhaps your comment was directed somewhere else?

Olaf

[MadHound]

31. Well, first off Peak Oil is a slowly unfolding problem,

Compared with Iraq. We still have time, barely, to deal with that before the full brunt of it falls on our country.

Meanwhile people are dying in Iraq daily, innocent men, women and children, along with our misguided and misused troops. Sorry, but emminent death takes a much higher place over Peak Oil.

And besides, it is highly unlikely that the Dems corporate masters will allow them to come up with a viable solution before we go over that cliff. Peak Oil is being relegated to the back burner, and the official policy is to stay the oil course until it is too late.

Therefore I suggest that you and everybody else who can start addressing the Peak Oil problem on their own, now, while we still have a chance. It doesn't have to be expensive either. Converting to *extremely* fuel efficient vehicles, conversion to biodiesel powered vehicles, growing and storing your own food. These are measures that can be undertaken by almost everybody. Further measures that cost a bit more are installing a wood stove, wind turbine, or solar panels. Also, you can force your local community or power company to start getting power from renewable resources.

Stopping the daily body counts is the number one priority. After that other issues can be addressed. But to dither in other issues while people die is simply criminal. Besides, we as a country can multitask.

[yurbud]

69. Iraq and peak oil are the same issue. Talking about peak will lead to

pull out of Iraq.

Essentially, the real debate about the war has gone on entirely out of public view, and few Democrats (and none of the leadership) has directly connected the dots, or even directly addressed Peak Oil in a way that would get the public's attention and convey the proper sense of urgency.

Even if a democrat calls for withdrawal, I'll be concerned if they don't address peak oil, because it means they will at least be open to more phony wars to steal oil, that don't even benefit us--only the oil companies profit.

[leesa]

133. We will run out of oild before an alternative is found. You think

Hillary's going to change that? Why do you think she's for perpetual war in the ME?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

146. I think that if Kerry had proposed a national initiative

To develop a true alternative energy source within the next 10 years, he would have won by a landslide -- and with all the best minds in the country working on it, we could have made it happen in much the same way that Kennedy proposed the moon shot.

Many people also thought that was impossible when it was proposed. I still feel that any President who actually wanted to accomplish this goal, could. There is plenty of time before all the oil is gone -- probably 30-40 years.

Besides, where did I mention Hillary in all this? I only thought it was odd that the poster I replied to thinks that Iraq is the most important issue facing the country right now. I think that in the fullness of time, Iraq is going to be merely a minor footnote in history at best. That was my point.

[katinmn]

208. "Iraq a minor footnote in history at best" Amazing.

That is incredibly naive.

America is going to be paying for this shamefiul period for generations and in many ways that you, apparently, cannot grasp.

BTW, Iraq is now the American peoples' top priority. It is the NUMBER ONE issue facing the country right now in every single poll.

[trekbiker]

179. we arent going to run out of oil for a long time...

we're just going to run out of the cheap easy to get, easy to refine oil. We'll have oil for the next several decades at a minimum but it will be increasingly expensive oil with larger and larger percentages derived from costly oil sands, coal, oil shales, etc. The economics will drive the development of alternatives and fuel efficient technologies. In 10 to 20 years you may still have a Ford F250 but it will cost you a fortune to drive it anywhere.

[still_one]

12. actually that is NOT a bad idea

if the democrats follow the DLC, then bye bye dems

[Tom Joad]

15. The DLC. A gift to the Green Party.

[mike_c]

21. as a green who left the democratic party in 2004...

...I couldn't agree with you more. The DLC has ruined the democratic party for me.

[Poiuyt]

162. The Green Party. A gift to the Republican Party

At least until we get Instant Runoff Voting. I certainly admire the Green Party, but there's no denying that it's dividing the Republican's opposition

[WeRQ4U]

177. I admire the Green Party and support it at the state and local levels.

But in the national arena, it's a worthless vote. It's not legitimate yet.

If it were, I may place my vote there as well. Call me a jackass, but I embrace reality.

[Howardx]

13. they need the iraq issue

still on the table in 06 and 08. her and biden mainly.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. I think you are on the wrong site then.

Is there a Greenunderground anywhere? If you aren't willing to stand behind the dem nom then you aren't committed to our cause in my opinion. (and yes, my opinion. I don't want to hear that who am I to say blah blah blah)

[Redneck Socialist]

53. It seems to me that Hillary is the one that's not...

all that committed to the cause these days.

on edit: typo

[Frances]

54. I agree that this is democratic underground, not green underground

I do not want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee and I have no problem saying so. But if she gets the nomination, which I doubt, I don't plan to vote Republican--or Green. I am a Democrat.

Edit: corrected typo

[MadHound]

58. And the blood of innocents will be on your hands also.

You may be able to live with that, but I certainly can't, and I don't want to be part of a party that makes such a cold-blooded calculus out of innocent lives.

Besides, as poll after poll shows, withdrawl from Iraq is a winning issue, so why the hell don't we be on the right side of it for once instead of trying to out hawk the chicken hawks?

And as I said to the earlier poster, go check the rules, progressives of all stripes are welcome here.

[MadHound]

55. Well friend, if you will check the rules here

It says that progressives of all stripes are welcome. Secondly, given my thirty plus years of working for the Dems, I'm willing to stack my Democratic creds against yours any day of the week. Third, voting for a candidate who is going to continue to death and destruction simply because she has a D behind her name is morally repugnant in my eyes. How can you square such a moral outrage with your soul? I know I certainly can't, and find those who can, do and will to be rather, well, never mind. I would like to stay on this board.

Don't you get it yet? People are dying daily! Innocent men, women and children, along with our misguided and misled troops. This doesn't mean anything to you? You're willing to keep tossing meat into the grinder just as long as a Dem gets the nod? How can you live with yourself?

If putting a Democrat into office means writing off the lives of innocent men, women, children and our troops, then the Democratic party I know will be morally bankrupt and no longer worthy of my support. This was the same dilemna faced by the Democrats in '68 when they backed the pro-war Humphrey after RFK's assasination. Their decision to support that illegal, immoral war cost them an entire voting block that they have yet to recover from fully yet. Making the same mistake in '08 will sound the death knell of the party, for the vast majority of people in the party have a sense of morality and won't sit still for a win at all costs scenario.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. Don't Ever Tell Me They Don't Mean Anything To Me

And shame on you for twisting the logic in such a way to tell me I'm morally bankrupt.

[MadHound]

66. Sorry friend, but I'm just calling them how I see them

You ream me out for putting the lives of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis ahead of party politics and I'm simply calling you on it.

Nothing, nothing is more important than to stop the killing. If you are going to put party politics above that, then I have every right to wonder if your morals are misplaced. Perhaps you should re-examine your morality if you are so touchy about this. Judging from your response to my questions, I think such an examination is in order, but hey, that's just me.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. My Morality Is Fine, Thank You.

And yes, nothing is more important. But I would hope that by 08 that point would be moot anyway.

And if I don't agree with you on every single issue I am morally questionable? Sorry, but that attitude reminds me of the 'other' party.

[MadHound]

76. Nope, not a preacher, just somebody helping to stop a war.

And while we can hope in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one fills up first. With Democrats like Hillary, how in the hell are we going to end the war if we continue to reward them with our vote?

And you still haven't my questions from above, namely how can you live with yourself by putting the cold blooded calculus of party politics ahead of the lives of our troops and innocent Iraqis?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

78. Well

"And you still haven't my questions from above, namely how can you live with yourself by putting the cold blooded calculus of party politics ahead of the lives of our troops and innocent Iraqis?"

I refuse to respond to such a right-wing inspired attack statement. Sorry.

[MadHound]

81. LOL, now that's a twist! Anti-war=RWer!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

In other words you don't have an answer, and you're finding this whole line of questioning becoming quite uncomfortable. Good, that uncomfortable feeling you're experiencing is your conscience acting up, prodding you to do the right thing, the moral thing, not the politically pragmatic thing. Listen to it, learn from it, and act on it. You don't have to tell me about it, you don't have to tell anyone. But sit down with yourself, listen to your conscience, and then perhaps you'll understand where I and many many other anti-war activists are coming from.

Nice talking to you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

84. LOL

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sorry :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

But you just made me laugh so hard with the absurdity :rofl: :rofl:

[WeRQ4U]

91. I'll help you out.....Since you're so morally superior to everyone here...

How exactly is your green party vote going to translate into ANYTHING good? Answer me that. War, while VERY important, is NOT the only issue. At least with our horrid, politically motivated and callous DLC vote, we'd be advancing our agenda as far as Choice, Civil Rights, Torture, Equal Protection, Church and State, the 4th Amendment....etc. etc. etc.

Sure, your own conscience would be much improved by voting for someone Anti-war, but will the country, or the troops for that matter? I'll answer for you.......NOPE. If Hillary and the DLC are not willing to pull out the troops, and neither are the republicans, it's a wash. But your logic baffles me. You will sacrifice ALL other progressive causes for the war? I'm not willing to do that. What you're telling ME is that the republicans have blinded you by the war. They have already got your vote. They know that you wont' use it for the OTHER progressive causes and will, instead, vote for a candidate with absolutely no national voice. Give me a break. Call me a callous jackass, but you're being idealistic and irrational.

"If putting a Democrat into office means writing off the lives of innocent men, women, children and our troops, then the Democratic party I know will be morally bankrupt and no longer worthy of my support."

What is this garbage? How about this, after your moral anti-war crusade agains the "O-So-Corrupt" Democratic party, you waste you vote on some green party nobody, and the REpublicans take office for another 4 years, come and explain your twisted rhetoric to the poor, the orphaned, the wrongfully imprisoned, the unemployed, and the minorities. Let's see how impressed they are with your activism when their benefits, rights and lives are being stripped away by another republican candidate.

I'm sorry, but your attacks on other Democrats are wasted here. You can take your moral soapbox someplace else, as far as I'm concerned. No one on this site is pro-war. But almsot everyone here has views on OTHER progressive issues. You've proven to me, through your post, that you don't. War is your only issue. Well, it's not ours.

[MadHound]

97. Well, first off, if you would do some searching around here

You would find that I'm involved in many other issues, but hey, thanks for the ill informed broad brushed slam. Made my day:evilgrin:

Secondly, there is a definition of insanity that goes something like this: Insanity is when you continue to do the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result every time. Friend, our party and our country fit this definition very well. First off, the party has continued to go ever rightward, become ever more Republican in the vain hope of winning. Well, we see how that piece of insanity has worked now, haven't we:eyes: Perhaps it is time to break out of this insane loop that we're in, try something different, like, oh say, going back to our leftist roots, becoming the New Deal Dems again? Just a thought.

Third, independent parties like the Greens and others have had positive affects by pressuring the two major parties. Just one example, FDR. He knew that he was going to face some crippling opposition from the Socialists in his first re-election bid. It isn't that the Socialists would actually beat him, merely that they would take away enough votes in order to insure a Republican win. Not wanting to lose, FDR did a very pragmatic thing, one that today's Dems can't seem to do, he cut a deal. In order to get their support, FDR enacted two of the Socialist party's biggest demands, and thus he won, and through that bit of parley, we all won. For those two items that the Socialists were pushing and that FDR adapted were

Social Security and Unemployment Insurance.

Third parties have a long history of not neccessarily winning elections, but of influecing them and injecting some key pieces of the puzzle into the national discourse. If I vote Green, it won't be out of a sense of salving my own "superior morality:eyes:", it will be because this will be the only way I know how to influence the national discourse. Perhaps Hillary will watch the polls, see the problem, and change accordingly.

And no, war is not the only issue friend. But it should be the first issue on peoples' minds and the party's mind. Sure, perhaps it will give short shrift to minorities, women, gays, orphans, the unemployed, the poor, the wrongfully imprisoned, who will complain. But at least they will be around and alive to do so. Dead soldiers and dead Iraqis won't be.

Many many people can multitask friend, it is quite easy, easy enough that even I can do it. Thus, I work on many issues. But issue one, priority one is to stop the killing. And to put partisan politics ahead of that is wrong, wrong in so many ways that I can't even begin to count. But let me tell you something, the Dems were face with this same choice in '68, and they went with the pro-war candidate Humphrey, and thus dug their own grave. We whine and bitch and moan about how we're unable to win elections, well that is because with one fateful decision back in '68 the Democratic party forever alienated their leftist base. With a choice between two pro-war candidates many people simply opted out, and have stayed opted out. And thus, even though there are more left leaning people in this country than RWers, the Democrats are losing time and again. We repeat that same mistake again, and the Democratic party won't be able to withstand those repercussions, and it will slide gently into that good night.

So say Hillary is somehow elected president on a pro-war platform. Answer me this, how in the hell is she going to get anything done with those of us in the anti-war movement hounding her 24/7? You think she's going to get a pass from us simply because she has a D behind her name? Go talk to LBJ and see how much good that did him:eyes:

Rather, why not have Hillary and all the party take the right position, the moral position, the winning position, and end the war NOW. If not friend, then I and many other millions of people will declare the party bankrupt, and toss it on the dustbin of history. You want support from the left, well then it is called compromise. You've got to give something to get something, and this time we're taking nothing less than ending this illegal, immoral war. Don't like it, see how far you get without us. How's that for a compromise?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

99. Extremism.

Of all the words above, only one came to my mind in response.

[MadHound]

101. My my, hasty with the perjoratives today aren't we.

First off somehow I'm a RWer, now I'm an extremist, what's next, that somehow I'm a terrorist? All because I dare to hold the Democratic party accountable for ending a war that some of its members helped start. Horrors, an extremist peace-nick:rofl:

Look friend, this is nothing more than playing political hardball, something that the Democratic party knows about all too well, since they were one of the first to use it. I know, I've witnessed it first hand as a precint chair, national delegate, and various other funtionaries. The Democratic party is all about hardball politics, and quite frankly that is all that the Democratic party will listen to is hardball politics. Well, OK, hardball politics and shaming techniques ala Cindy Sheehan. It took one totally committed woman who was unwilling to yield that finally showed the Democratic party where they had left their spine.

So yes, I'm going to play hardball politics, that is the name of the game. Yes, if enough of us anti-war folk get together, we can hold the Democratic party hostage until they decide to compromis. Isn't that what all of you good party folks tell us, that politics is about compromise? Well guess what, it is time for compromise in earnest friend, and the party should pay attention. Otherwise a lot of people like myself will go elsewhere. Don't like that, well you know what to do, no hawks for president, plain and simple.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

104. It is your approach, not your position.

Never called you an RW'er. I said your approach reminds me of their tactics. I don't question your democratic conviction, I question the approach.

But to each their own. You have as much right to be passionate about your issues as I do, but I have as much right to disagree and think it is an extremist point of view.

[MadHound]

106. Sorry about the approach friend, but putting partisan politics ahead

Of the lives of our troops, ahead of the lives of innocents, ahead of the moral well being of our country just makes me a bit touchy. If that is extremist to you, so be it. But it seems like extremism(as you define it) is the only thing that gets a response in our current political arena. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all. Well, with so much at stake, I'm willing to be the squeakiest wheel on the face of this planet if will end this war.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

110. I haven't seen anybody put partisan politics ahead of anyones lives here

That is the extremist approach you have that I am talking about, and the rovian tactics.

Taking a simple ideal and spinning it away melodramatically in an attempt to make you morally superior to others.

It is ok of course to disagree with posters opinions, but to tell them they are morally inferior to you because they don't agree with you is rovian, extreme, and just plain abhorable.

[MadHound]

112. I'm not saying that anybody here is morally inferior friend

Yes, I'm questioning peoples' morales when they jump all over me for putting ending the war ahead of partisan politics, but I'm not saying that they're morally inferior, perhaps that they just need a time of moral reflection, and possbily political reflection also.

You however have equated me with a RWer, an extremist, that I don't belong on this board and now are comparing me with Rove. Damn, I must be hitting the right nerve, LOL. Perhaps you should examine why exactly is it twinging so bad.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

113. Nahhhh, Not Hitting Any Nerve. Just Coming Off As Silly

And for the record, a statement of I'm not saying that anybody is morally inferior I am just questioning their morals is 100% absurd and silly on its face LOL

[MadHound]

115. Your ad hominems betray you friend,

For they are the last refuge of those who have no solid ground to stand on.

Cheers

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

118. LOL LOL

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You are too much! LOL

Cheers right back

[WeRQ4U]

126. You need to READ the posts, before htiting reply.

First, it wasn't a broad brush slam. It was my opinion based on what I've gleaned from your posts. My point was that you've been blinded by ONE issue. And your walley vision over that ONE issue, albeit a big one, has consumed you. You've already decided that due to her views on the Iraq war, you could care less about her views on everything else. You would rather waste your vote on a Green Party candidate with no national power, and in the process assist one of THE most corrupt political factions in history.

SEcond, you do realize that those two HUGE issues that FDR helped implement will be clipped, snipped and sunsetted under a republican adminstration YOU helped elect, right? What good does it do to help the Democrats become more Left minded if THEY AREN'T GOING TO WIN. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Wow, you really showed the Democrats didn't you?:eyes: The only party you've helped move is the Republicans. That's all. Idealism is fine for poetry. It doesn't work in politics.

Third, I don't even know how to respond to this. Sure, perhaps it will give short shrift to minorities, women, gays, orphans, the unemployed, the poor, the wrongfully imprisoned, who will complain. But at least they will be around and alive to do so.. Yeah, I'm sure they'll be thrilled about it. ? ?

Forth, you ask how the hell Hilary is going to get anything done with us in the anti-war movement hounding her. My answer is, it might be hard, but it will be possible. I ask you THIS: How the hell do you expect ANYTHING progressive to be done when you've helped elect another extreme Right wing republican? For under YOUR hypothesis, there is still a chance for change...while under mine, we're fucked. Just like we've been fucked since 2000.

Finally, you wrote:

"Rather, why not have Hillary and all the party take the right position, the moral position, the winning position, and end the war NOW. If not friend, then I and many other millions of people will declare the party bankrupt, and toss it on the dustbin of history. You want support from the left, well then it is called compromise. You've got to give something to get something, and this time we're taking nothing less than ending this illegal, immoral war. Don't like it, see how far you get without us. How's that for a compromise?

I've said it before, blind idealism is killing the cat. And so long as people continue to worry about how it SHOULD be, ideally, and fail to focus on how to change things from the WAY they ARE, then we'll be stuck in this quagmire forever. I say if you want things changed, then step one should be to get someone with at least SOME of your views into office.

And "Compromise"? You're joking right? You're boasting extremist, idealistic, my way or the highway, and in the same breath preaching compromise? Wow.

Compromise, as defined in Wester's, is "A settlement in which each side makes concessions." How, exactly, is cutting and running away from the Democratic Party, in hopes of finding your "true" left wing roots someplace else, a compromise? How is setting aside all of your other progressive ideals, for the sake of one issue, a compromise? I'll tell you, "friend", it's not.

A compromise is a realization that although a candidate may not agree with you on ALL fronts, the best candidate is one that will advance as many of them as possible. And the key here being the word "advance". On a national level, the Green Party is illegitimate. State, Local levels, it's a different story. And I'll be the first one to encourage them. But at a National level, it's just not an option.

How's this for a compromise. Be an activist towards ending the war. Call for the removal of troops and protest and picket until you're red in the face. But, and this may blow your mind here, in the meantime.......WORK ON THE OTHER ISSUES. And, in my opinion, all there is to choose from is a morally corrupt Democrat, a morally DEVOID Republican, and some Green Party hack with no political muscle at all........I'll take the Democrat thank you.

EDIT: I just had to add this. The continuous, two-headed "Friend" reference is so tiresome and condescending. If I thought that you were being polite in using it, it would be one thing. But I know you're not.

[Tactical Progressive]

100. Well said

And while I can sympathize with a Democratic 2000 voter who has gotten single-issue tunnel-visioned over the war, as we all feel the pain, for any Greenie who voted for Nader in 2000 to come out all morally sanctimonious is hypocrisy on a Republican level.

Greenies are a huge component of why we're here. The blood is on your hands too, make no mistake. We warned you what a bunch of evil, corrupt monstrosities these people are and I don't want anyone to forget that. Their 'not a dimes worth of difference' crap gave us GWB in flying colors and blood. Look in the mirror greenies, any time you want to assign responsibility for the death and destruction in Iraq. PNAC couldn't have done it without your help. I'm sure it's been morally convenient for you to forget that, but it doesn't change the facts.

All of us, including Hillary, are in this mess because of you. And I don't care if you were politically dull enough to lead us here; it's no excuse whatsoever. Now you're threatening to do it again because... because of Hillary? No, because of the chaos you helped institute that has trapped us all. That's some moral pedestal you stand on. Look in the mirror if you want to see someone with blood on their hands.

[MadHound]

105. LOL, do you know what ass u me means?

Well friend, you just stepped in it. You assumed that I was a Green, you assumed that I voted for Nader in '00 and the Greens in '04, you assumed. Ass u me, get it?

Let me tell you friend, I have worked long and hard for the Democratic party for over thirty years, starting when I was eleven. I've headed up precints, wards, even went to the Big Dance as a delegate. What the fuck have you done besides ass u me? Oh, by the by, I also voted and worked for both Gore and Kerry, so take your little sanctimonious, presumptuous rant and shove it. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, who you're talking to, or anything about me. You ass u me entirely too much.

But hey, apparently you are OK with continuing to sacrifice our troops, kill innocent men, women and children in an illegal, immoral war of empire, just so long as a Democrat gets the nod. Well friend, I won't ass u me, for that is foolish. I'll just ask you flat out, where the hell is your conscience?

[Tactical Progressive]

107. It means you can't read

The first sentence of my post explicitly exempted you of responsibility.

[MadHound]

109. Sorry, no backpedaling now

You replied to me, you insulted me, you lumped me into your little tirade because you were certain that I have been voting Green. The whole tenor and tone of your post betrays you friend.

So first you assume, and then when called on it, backpedal. Glad you're not running for office friend.

[Tactical Progressive]

111. Wow, wrong on both counts

I didn't reply to you. Nor was I assuming, let alone certain, that you have been voting green. In fact, I wasn't even thinking of you when I wrote the post MadHound.

My post was explicitly targetted at one particular group, which I stated right up front. I don't think I could have been any clearer.

You quite obviously misread my post, which directly excluded exactly the group you belong to: people who didn't vote for Nader in 2000.

You misread my post, ass u med incorrectly, and have been the one doing the insulting MadHound.

[MadHound]

114. Gee, what else was I to think,

When you kept referring to the singular "you" and using my quotes such as "blood on their hands", and jumping in on the side of a person I am having a discussion with? No, your post praising the writings of another was directly a reply to me, but your wording, your quoting of my posts all point to the fact that you did indeed have me in mind.

[Tactical Progressive]

123. Just stop.

There was no singlar 'you', it was a broad 'you' denoting Nader-2000 voters, specifically Nader-2000 voters. My whole post was about that group as I made clear right at the start.

They have nothing to say in this debate. Nothing.

I didn't quote anything from you.
I didn't indeed have you in mind.

You're the one assuming. You're the one doing the insulting. All because you didn't read what I wrote.

At this point, I think you owe me an apology for going off on a post that explicitly had nothing to do with you.

[MadHound]

I read exactly what you wrote friend,

In a post siding with somebody I was having a discussion with. In a post lifting quotes from previous posts of mine on this thread. In a post that continued to say You, You, YOU. I don't think that I'm misinterpreting or assuming a thing. I think that you're just embarrassed at getting cost sans trou. Oh well.

And before you go off on the Greens and Nader any further, let me clue you in to a few things. It wasn't Nader and the Greens, who with their whopping two percent in Florida '00, who cost Gore the election. It was Gore who cost himself, and the rest of us, that election. A few facts for you:

During the election campaign in Florida, many many Floridians were quite unhappy with Gore's position concerning off shore drilling in the Gulf. They didn't want it, and they wanted Gore to back this up on this. That whole compromise thing again friend. But Gore simply couldn't ignore the wishes of his corporate masters at BP Aamaco, thus he ignored the wishes of these voters. This pissed these people off so much that they decided to hell with Gore, we'll double screw him and vote for Bush. All 600,000 of them. Breaks down to 200,000 registered Dems and 400,000 self described liberals that Gore pissed away. How close was that final vote tally? Somewhere around 500 vote shortfall that Gore had. Ooops.

Then there is the matter of Greg Palast and Votescam. During the recount actions that led up to the Supreme Court selection, Greg Palast handed Votescam to Gore on a silver platter. All the details, who was responsible for scrubbing the voter rolls, how many voters were disenfranchised, the whole works. Now think about this for a minute, what would you do if you had just been handed the means not just to defeat your political enemy, but to banish him and his cronies to the political wilderness forever? What would you do?

Sadly, Gore sat on it, and saddled us with Bushco.

Even your DLC god, Al From, says that Nader and the Greens didn't cost Gore the election, in fact far from it he states that according to exit polling without Nader in the race, Gore would have done even worse.<http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>

Sorry, but the blame Nader game is tired, old and stale. It scapegoats somebody who had marginal effect, and it prevents the Democratic party from taking a long, hard, honest look at their own problems, and then setting out to resolve them. If you still want to keep your head in that mode, fine, that's your right. But realize that by doing so you're becoming part of the problem, not part of the solution. Spending energy and resources on demonizing somebody who was simply exercising their Constitutional rights prevents you from grasping that this party's problems don't come entirely fromt the outside, but there are massive internal ones as well.

But if you want the lefts' help in this next election, then you are going to have to compromise to get it. And the big point for compromise is the war. If you ignore that, if you dismiss those voters and put up a pro war canidate, the party will lose, and sustain a blow it might never recover from. The paralells between Iraq and Vietnam aren't just on the battlefield friend, but also in the political parties' responces to it. It cost the Democratic party dearly when they backed the war with Humphrey, it may cost the party their very existence if they back a pro war candidate this time around.

[Tactical Progressive]

165. You are embarassing yourself

You simply can't admit you went off on a post that was neither directed at you nor referenced anything you said. You you you was defined unequivocally in the opening statement, and it wasn't anyone who didn't vote for Nader in 2000 let alone you personally. That much is clear, except for you assuming what you want to assume.

Greenies cost us election 2000 and in so doing gave us this war. It wasn't even unintentional, as greenie threats are now starting to remind everyone. 100,000 Florida voters - I don't know where you get 600,000, but either way - were more than enough to cost us a presidential election and a war. The math is incontrovertible, and that's just the numbers; greens cost more than that in 2000. You can argue till you're redfaced but you can't change the reality. And you better get used to hearing about it because I can guarantee that the backstabbing by greens is going to come up more and more as we approach 2008. You'll get your head handed to you even with your disingenuous arguments and assumptions like you've displayed here.

My post had nothing to do with you. I didn't quote you and you know it. I didn't reference you. I didn't even realize that WeRQ4U's post I replied to was a response to yours. You played no part in my post. In fact, WeRQ4U's post played little part in mine beyond 'Well said'. I agree with that perspective but didn't address it, I just went off on a tangent since he mentioned greens. It was totally off his point and I thought I probably should have responded to the original poster as a general thought, but since I wanted to give kudos and he did mention greens, I replied to his hoping he wouldn't mind me hijacking his single-issue-voting post. He could ask for an apology. You weren't even in the picture.

But now that you're in my face with your phony 'friend' shit, I have to say that your credibility has gone way down in my estimation. You've got nothing but rancor that doesn't back down even when it's been pointed out to you how obviously you misread my post, replacing my clear-as-day words with all of your ass u mptions as you so projectively put it. You don't have the intellectual integrity to admit you were just wrong. That attitude will cost you alot more than it will ever cost me in the long run.

Oh well.

[MadHound]

171. LOL friend, and you speak of my credibility, hah!

Sorry friend, but your excuses are just too convient, as are your pronouns and your lifting of my quotes. And more coincidences friend and even the 911 commission won't help you whitewash your lame excuses.

As for the Greens and Florida go, go check my sources. I linked to the Al From piece, what, he's not good enough for you? Then go read Greg Palast "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". Look friend, I source my claims, back them up with fact. What are you backing your claims up with? Bupcus friend, bupcus. Talk to me when you've got some facts. Until then, the fact remains that Gore's unyielding stance on Gulf drilling cost him aprox. 600,000 votes. Fact remains that he had Votescam, along with Bush's head, handed to him on a silver platter, yet did nothing. These actions weren't brought about by the Greens, no they were done by Gore and the Dems. Nader is simply the convient whipping boy to cover up the party and Gore's own shortcomings.

Credibility friend means having sources to back up your statements. Where are yours? Credibility means owning your mistakes when you've been called on them, not trying to weasel out with lame excuses and vague language. Sorry, but I think that yours is lacking.

So that leaves us where? Probably having to agree to disagree on this one. I suspect that you're probably a nice enough person outside this thread, and that we probably have more in common than not. But frankly it looks like we're at loggerheads on this, and since time is running short, at least for me, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, and meet up somewhere down the line.

Oh, one other thing, my use of the word "friend" isn't something phoney baloney, OK. It is an attempt to restore and interject a bit of civility. I address everybody around here with that word, for in the bigger picture, that is what we are here, friends.

Cheers.

[Tactical Progressive]

180. There you go with more mistaken assumptions

It seems to be your MO. That and accusing others of making assumptions when none were made. Who said I liked Al From? I know I didn't. I can't stand Al From and I think the DLC has outlived most of its usefulness. So any 'sources' you listed asserting what Al From believes are meaningless to me.

You haven't brought any facts to this debate, only misreading and dogged assumption, insisting somehow that I quoted you when no such thing occurred. You are also, as a result, the one not owning up to mistakes here. It's like arguing with a Republican. You make up your mind and however wrong, that's it.

And as far as 'friend' is concerned, that's only interjecting civility when it's done in a civil tone, not a condescending and snide manner. Like, 'Listen friend, we agree on alot of things, but ...'. Not, 'You're a shitbag, friend.' That's the way you've been using it around here today.

We probably agree on 95% of things, and probably almost that much on the means to get to them, so we are friends in the larger sense. We'll talk on another subject I'm sure. I'm off to wade through the nightly news propaganda. Have a good evening.

[Tactical Progressive]

174. Oh, and to address the substance of your post

I'm through arguing with you about your plainly mistaken assumptions about my post, but since you took the time to get real, away from your mistaken accusations, I'll respond to those.

As I said, Nader-2000 voters most certainly did play a huge role in handing this country over to full Republican control. I never said it was them alone. I credit, from worse to bad: Republican thuggery and media complicity in a tie, greedy citizens looking for nothing more than tax cuts from their country, American decadance or malaise or whatever you want to call it, sanctimonious Democrats everywhere who were embarassed that Clinton had an infidelity to such an extent that they betrayed their country at the voting booths or just staying home, and of course, backstabbing greens who put them all over the top. The effect was anything but marginal.

The Nader 'blame game' is far from tired, old or stale. It is the most instructive political example we have here for Democrats who believe that politics means they get everything they want or screw everybody. It couldn't be more important, contrary to your baseless assertion otherwise. You'll see how old and stale it is as 2008 approaches with people looking to desert the party because they don't like one position or another. And you've got to be kidding me with 'simply exercising their Constitution rights', unless you're talking about their Constitutional right to throw this country into right-wing hell. Sure.

I think spending energy and resources on hilighting how real-world politics plays out are anything but wasted.

And here you are, after not having voted for Nader in 2000, somehow not learning the lesson. How is that? Are you thinking of voting green in 2008? After all that cost us how could you have not learned the lesson when it appears you knew the lesson before it had to be learned? I really don't understand.

Let me just say that I have no problem with green issues. I'm far left. In fact, I considered voting for Nader in that vote-swap thing until I saw that they weren't backing down in the battleground states. That was unconscionable. I'll support any far-left issue or candidate, up to the point that it cedes real-world political power to Republicans. That's the line. Anyone who crosses that line is no friend of mine. I think that's a pretty generally accepted position for progressives here on DU, as it should be.

[Nordmadr]

212. Uhhh...just to interject here, you are the one that told MadHound

that he was on the wrong site just because he wouldn't support Hillary if she was the Dem nominee. I don't think it is a pre-requistite to be on this site that you vote lock-step with whoever gets the party nod. That sounds like the other side to me. Personally, I just plain don't like Hillary, and my first inclination is NOT to vote for her. I would put support behind any number of other Democratic candidates that got the nod, probably in this order:

Al Gore
John Kerry
Wes Clark
Richard Durbin

Two Dems I have already put on my I do not support list are Clinton and Biden.

Iraq is a big issue. Peak Oil methinks will be bigger.

BTW, I am registered Green, typically vote Democrat, and am on this board to chat with other Prgressives and liberals, even when we don't agree. Didn't sign a loyalty oath and didn't have to show my "papers".

Olaf

[melissinha]

151. Amen! Dissent for your party counts too!

I think that all this about "dissent is the purest form of patriotism" can also go for constituents that do not agree with the positions of the the leaders in their own party.... WE are the ones that dictate what they are going to do.

I just wish the Democrats could walk together on this issue because it is so essential to the security of the country, the lives of our soldiers and the reputation of our party.

[JNelson6563]

204. I am fully committed

On my second year in a row of working full time hours for zero pay. Let me tell you that if, once again, the Dems nominate the Corporate media's choice (not to mention the GOP) then I will withdraw from the party. No more driving around a huge swath of the state rally folks to get busy building the grassroots, fundraising etc.

No. I was a sucker and worked my guts out last year for a candidate I didn't believe in, never again. Never.

And if you'd like to question my credentials or dedication, I'd be more than glad to dance with you.

Julie

[converted_democrat]

79. Agree with you completely...

I agree with all of the points you made, and I have one to add of my own. I don't think our democracy is best served by volleying the presidency between the Clinton and Bush family for our foreseeable future.

[MadHound]

83. True that!

I'm tired of this game of good cop/bad cop. It only furthers the designs of their corporate masters at the expense of the rest of us.

[AZBlue]

98. There is no one "Number One" issue - poverty in the US; race relations,...

...healthcare for the poor and elderly; Social Security stability; making sure our elections aren't stolen anymore; improving our education system and making sure everyone has a fair chance at it; security against terrorism; Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid; immigration issues....well, you get the idea. All are important issues. And, anyone who says they determine who to vote for based upon one issue only scares me.

[MadHound]

108. BOO Y'all!

Somebody who puts partisan politics ahead of the blood of innocents scares me even more, for such a mindset means that we all are expendable.

[AZBlue]

129. Partisan politics? What are you talking about? Give me some substance!

Far from saying we are all expendable, I'm saying (if you'd listened) that we're ALL important.

Your response has no depth or structure to it. IT sounds like a rhetorical comment spit out with no thought or substance to back it up. If you care to expand, I'll listen.

[electropop]

134. We can't afford 4 more years of GOP Fascism.

I don't like Hillary either (prefer real Dems) but I would be forced to hold my nose if she wins the nod.

I want Boxer/Conyers: real Dems with ATTITUDE.

[MadHound]

153. Ooo, like four years of DLC fascism looks real attractive.

If we continue to reward people for taking positions that are out of step with our fundemental values, and the majority mindset, then how in the hell can we expect to make things better? Pro-war, pro-corporate, it don't matter, all is forgiven because they have a D behind their name? Sorry, but that is insanity and I refuse to participate.

People have told me time and again that I have to compromise to get along in this party, and for the most part I have. But it is high time that our party leaders realize that they also need to come to the table and compromise, and the big issue this season is the war. They need to get behind a solid anti-war stance and go with it. I mean, c'mon, it isn't like this is a minority opinion anymore.

[electropop]

200. Fight the DLC hard in the primaries. That's how we shape the party.

Once a candidate is chosen, even a DLC jerk is preferable to a GOP demon.

[Coexist]

182. Me too - my vote is no longer for the "viable" candidate

I am strictly voting with my gut this time.

[mzmolly]

216. In all honesty, EVERYONE will be ready to leave Iraq in 2008.

Anyone who wishes to be viable that is. The country is tired of this war already.

[still_one]

8. I won't vote for her

it is that simple

No more compromises with me.

[Balbus]

9. I like your name!

Great album



Sorry to get off topic, though.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. Hell Yeah!!!! LOL

[walldude]

73. Mindcrime II Is coming

Pssst.. Mary killed herself!

That said I disagree with your Democrat or nothing statement. We are progressives here it's DEMOCRATIC Underground not DEMOCRAT underground. In the last election against my better judgement I voted for Kerry, at that point it was anyone but Bush. Didn't help though. Let's all just agree to disagree and hope that we come up with a better candidate than Hillary.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

86. Wait, Are You Serious? (About MindcrimeII)

The rest of what your saying I somewhat agree with. I think we need someone better than hillary too. But if that's who the party chooses, then I think we should stand united (i know, I hate lockstep too, but POTUS elections are the one exception I'll make)

[walldude]

142. Yup dead serious about Mindcrime II

I saw the Ryche just before the election last year, they played the full Mindcrime album, with video, actors the works.(thats how I know Mary killed herself) It was awesome. At the end they previewed a song from Mindcrime II. Got to do a meet and greet after the show, those guys are the best...

Here's a link for ya!
http://www.queensryche.com/releases/operation-mindcrime-2/

It has a couple MP3's to preview

[jayfish]

157. One Of The Best Live Shows I've Seen...

was Queensryche. They opened for Metallica (before the sellout)and absolutely crushed. No lights, no stage show no crap. Just the band and its' music. There did seem to be a lot of toilet paper though.

Jay

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

159. I saw them during the livecrime tour

Mary killed herself on Mindcrime 1 though (electric requiem was about that)

Thanks for the info!

[bluedawg12]

196. Some one PLEASE tell me-why oh why is Hill against Murtha plan?

I want to understand her motive.

Can anyone explain this to me?

Does anyone know what this is about?

[wakeme2008]

30. Well I will vote Green

myself... no DLCer for me.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. So Sad.

:eyes:

[951-Riverside]

59. If people had more concrete choices to vote for....

We wouldnt be hearing this from Hillary, I'm all for a 3rd party, for the most part the current main parties are screwing us over and they do it because they know the people will vote for either one no matter what but if people started voting for a 3rd party you would see alot of changes and these politicians would start listening to US once again.

[WeRQ4U]

94. Just how long are you willing to wait for that, however?

Are you willing to live under a republican administration for the next 40 years? I'll tell you what, I'm not. I'll gladly use my vote for a Democratic candidate that has a couple conflicting viewpoints on important issues, so that my vote will be used to advance the OTHER issues I find important.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

[951-Riverside]

103. Its not going to work unless a large number of both Dem & Repubs...

voters vote for a 3rd party, until then I'm not waiting for or banking on anything I'm just hoping that there is a major push towards voting 3rd party because the current two party folks for the most part are not listening to the people.

[WeRQ4U]

127. I'm not calling you out or anything here....

Sorry if it seemed that way. It just kills me though. There is so much blind optimism that a 3rd party political system will SOMEDAY be a legitimate option, that people forget that these things take time, you know?

As for your point. I completely agree. And I believe that as long as Democrats throw their votes away in hopes that the 3rd party will make some difference (which on a national level, it can't), the Republicans will continue to stick together and slowly work together on things that they DO agree on...something that many posters here can't grasp.

[Moochy]

183. Yeah for you

:p

[Southsideirish]

61. I won't ever vote for a candidate who doesn't support my principles again.

[jsamuel]

65. I'd vote someone else, probably green

maybe if the best possible Republican ran, I could even do that. Hillary is a void...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

70. You would vote for a republican?

ARRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[jsamuel]

71. Hillary has pissed me off like no other possible dem candidate ever has

:mad:

[WeRQ4U]

95. How about the current republican adminstration?

Do you like them? Just wondering? Would you not be happier with a candidate that, at least, advanced SOME of your political ideals? I know I would.

[jsamuel]

161. Of course not, read the post, I said I would probably vote Green

But I mean 99% chance.

see post 160

[WeRQ4U]

176. I read it.

My point is this: A vote for a green party candidate is a wasted, would-be democratic vote. Plain and simple. The Green Party is not legitimate at the national level. Your concerns will not be addressed, and if anything, your vote will assist the Republicans in gaining office again. On the other hand, a vote for a democratic leader, even if you disagree in some aspects, is still a more logical choice, considering SOME of your concerns WILL be addressed. I just don't understand the opposite logic.

That is, of course, you're in a state where your vote "doesn't count". Then, hell, do what you want.

[melissinha]

152. I think jsamuel means:

that if there were a Republican candidate that had the reputation and promised things jsamuel wants, jsamuel would not vote for Hillary.


FRANKLY, I wouldn't vote for her either, besides I live in Texas... my votes null anyways (I'd use my stance as a null vote to vote Green Party to up their numbers...
Same goes if I still lived in Chicago, its so Democratic, no harm in voting green for President, but Democrat for other posts.

IF I still lived in Iowa, TOTALLY different story. I'd vote for her. Its a swing state, you can't mess around with your vote there.

[jsamuel]

160. yes, that is what I meant

I wouldn't vote for a Republican lightly. It would only be something I would do if there was an obvious difference between that candidate and the way Republicans are right now. For example, I would NOT vote for McCain. I would probably with a 99% certainty vote Green. However, if there was a great Republican candidate who threw away all the evil in the Republican party (which is really really really wishful thinking) and I agreed with them, then maybe.

I am an independent, always have been. I have also always identified with Democrats WAY more than Republicans. But the thing I care most about is corruption. Corruption corruption corruption. Whichever party is the most corrupt will not ever get a vote from me. Hence, I have never voted Republican.

Hypocrites are the worst. That gets my blood boiling.

[madrchsod]

80. i won`t vote for her

i`ll never vote for a republican turned democrat. she`s a liberal republican

[PassingFair]

89. I will vote 3rd party.

And I can't believe that a "yellowdog" like me would even type that! If we are INSANE enough to nominate Ms. Clinton for pres., I will vote for whatever 3rd party candidate seems sane.
That would include Nader.
It would NOT include McCain.
If NO SANE 3rd party candidate emerges, then I will hold my nose and vote for Clinton.

[Deja Q]

119. The same thing I will do, I expect...

Well, probably the same thing... I just won't vote. He can do what he wants, but I hope he leaves it at just not voting either.

[autorank]

125. Joe LIEberman in drag. She won't get the nomination - just assured that.

This war is not well known in terms of it's impact. Our press is too busy covering kidnappings to pay attention to the catastrophe that is Iraq.

That will remain secret only for so long.

When it's known anyone who enabled Bush or who continued to support the war will have an Albatross hung around their neck, including Ms. Know it All, neo-Neocon, Hillary.

She's officially finished.

Don't be confused by polls 3 years out. It's mostly name recognition.

Shine a bright light on her and she's Joe LIEberman in drag.

[LibertyorDeath]

164. "What Will You Do Then?"

Drown my sorrows while the Rethugs celebrate yet another victory.

Hillary = a repub win end of story you can take that fucker to the bank.
It's a GD guarantee.
Nothing I mean nothing would unite the right more than Hillary as the Dem candidate in 08.

Every MF nascar watching imbecile would be lined up around the frigging block to vote against her.

Unite the Right nominate Hillary in 08.

Oh yeah and just WTF makes anyone think Americans will break with hundreds of years of voting for males for POTUS to vote a Female Democratic into the position it would be Historic it would be Fantastic

it would be in our F dreams.

They'll Diebold her to bits.

[Yupster]

168. She's not my first choice, or second or third

but when she gets the nomination, which I expect her to, then I'll vote for her because what else am I supposed to do?

[Moochy]

181. Cry

:(

[atfqn]

185. If she gets the nomination

then obviously this place is broken beyond repair. At that point I think it would be a good time to join the peace corps or move to New Zealand.

[upi402]

194. vote REPUBLICAN in protest

and to get it all over with more quickly.

not kidding

corporatism owns Rethugs and DINOs.

[JackDragna]

199. I'll vote for someone else.

It's time to stop making compromises on big issues. She marched lock-step into the war, now she should burn.

[CrackpotAmerica]

202. If she is nominated, I still would not vote for her.

That's what I would do then.

[stevietheman]

211. Let's not count chickens...

I am going to fight for Clark.

We need a candidate who sees the truth about Iraq and the entire range of national matters.

Hillary is in la-la land and has become a DLC Republican-lite.

But if she does somehow win the nomination, I'm afraid I will have to sit out the election or possibly vote for an independent candidate if a good one emerges.

That's how much Hillary is wrong on Iraq... Unless she reverts her position, she's not going to be President.

[medeak]

2. Has Bill become a member of the Carlyle Group yet? n/t

[soothsayer]

169. Is he still attached at the hip to poppy?

[kpete]

4. She is such a disappointment

I guess she thinks she is being smart. She should talk to Bill more.

[Balbus]

5. self delete - wrong place

[Jon8503]

6. With you, will not support her. N/T

[Clark2008]

7. This surprised you?

She's been triangulating since Day One.

I didn't think that AP - in this one case - had misquoted anyone.

[still_one]

16. yeah it surprised me

I didn't think she was that STUPID

Obviously, she didn't even realize that was Duncans resolutions, NOT Murthas

[Clark2008]

28. Methinks she's been out too much fundraising for

Senate and Presidential runs that she wasn't paying close enough attention to House goings-on.

[still_one]

32. I hope Clark is smart enough NOT to team up with her

[Clark2008]

63. I hope so, too. n/t

[Tom Joad]

11. The redloyment is immediate. Anyway, why be surprised, Her buddy

Bush and Bill Clinton also oppose it.

The blood of thousands of Iraqis are on their hands.

Anyway, our task is to fight like hell to get the troops out of Iraq. I don't give a rat's ass what these politicos think.

Out to the streets!

[ComerPerro]

14. This is what the Republicans were wanting

So many people everywhere are acting as though the original plan was to withdraw immediately.

When I first heard about Sen Clinton's comments, I figured that the AP had twisted it to make it look like she said Murtha wanted to withdraw immediately.

But if that is what her staff asserts, then it must be her position.

disgusting that it got this far...

[still_one]

20. I called her washington office

I suggest others call to, just in case this particular person I talked with wasn't informed, but I doubt it. He argued with me that on Murthas web site he said as soon as possible. Even that is NOT immediately, and that is definintely NOT the Murtha's resolution

[acmejack]

17. Ditto

Many folks here seem to miss the fact that the DLC has been complicit in selling us down the river. I couldn't agree more with the OP.

[mike_c]

19. I've said it before-- I will NEVER support any dem candidate...

...who does not call for an immediate end to the war against Iraq. Period.

[snappyturtle]

36. I couldn't agree more....

matter of fact I think I would even have a hard time voting for any Democrat that was bamboozeled to vote for the war in the first place. I don't know about what others were feeling at the time, but WMD aside, voting for the war ended any diplomatic efforts.....it's a sad day anytime we resort to war over peaceful means of resolving conflict.

[depakid]

37. By the time the actual contest gets going

That will likely be both the popular and the practical position.

Neither Biden nor Hillary- or any of the other pro-war Dems are going to get the nod.

My hope is that there'll be honest, straight talking progressive worth switching voting for- so that it'll make it worth my while to switch my party affilitation... at least for the primary.

One of those Greens for Dean things...;)

[DemCam]

184. How I love it when we trash our candidates!

It makes a nice warm spot in my heart.

[depakid]

192. Just stating my take- which I believe will come true

In another 18 months, this country (and especially the primary voters in the Democratic party) are going to be so sick of Iraq war, that the majority are not going to consider a candidate whose position on the war has amounted to little more than an enabling of Republican policy.

The trend on that is already apparant- and it's going to continue grow as the war drags on, caualties mount, and the costs (including the opportunity costs) become more and more in our faces and clear.

[Individualist]

56. Same here

Even one death resulting from this illegitimate invasion was too many. Bring our troops home NOW!

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. C-SPAN read her statement on the air the other day and

I couldn't believe my ears....AGAIN. I'm with you. I am SICK TO DEATH of the DLC BULLSHIT. NO ONE from the DLC will get my support. :grr:

[still_one]

38. wow, that confirms it

the dems will NOT get another dime from me until they pass some tests that I have setup

1. filibuster the Alito nomination
2. have a withdrawl plan for Iraq
3. put up candidates that represent viewpoints that the Democratic party was founded on

[papau]

25. Clinton DC phone number below

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
United States Senate
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: [phone]

[Norquist Nemesis]

26. She needs to capture the media attention and clear it up

State she is against "immediate withdrawal", and clearly state that Murtha's proposal has been "re-written by Republicans" in a "vicious attack", once again "lying" to the American people. "These Masters of Deception" continue to believe they can fool good, common sense Americans.

Well...I can dream. *sigh*

[still_one]

43. except I think she is against his plan

[LizW]

27. No surprise.

Hillary is what she is. We shouldn't keep trying to make her something she's not just because she has lots of money and support and might be able to win in 2008. We would just be asking for disappointment.

[Nite Owl]

29. Do you have the AP link

by any chance?
I will call her too and get some others to call. (Not that it will make a difference she's pretty entrenched in her view of the war)

I get to not vote for her next November too.

[still_one]

45. here is the link from Yahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051121/ap_on_go_co/hillary_clinton_iraq

I suggest you call her office. If they indicate something different than they told me, then they better correct it with the media

[Nite Owl]

52. Thank you

I'm going to call and will send an email to our DFA group. Maybe if she gets enough calls she will realize that her base might count for something. I think I will write too.

[Nite Owl]

75. Just spoke with a very nervous

gentleman from her DC office. He was very polite but sounded very unsure of himself. She doesn't think 6 months is enough time, she feels that pulling the troops out would put us in danger here. She will decide after the elections in December. I got right through so it wasn't busy. I told him there was no way I would vote for someone who wanted to keep the troops in Iraq, these are our sons and daughters and they are going through hell just being there, we must protect them.

[EFerrari]

137. Enough time for WHAT? Wall Street to juggle it's money?

(MUTTER, mumble, kick.)

[Frances]

33. I think Murtha has the right idea.

We need to depersonalize the debate on Iraq, however hard that is for people like me to do.

Murtha acknowledged the fact that seeing so many injured soldiers at Walter Reed had influenced him. And he acknowledged the fact that the majority of Americans want out.

But the real meat of his argument is that the U.S. could achieve its goal of a better government for Iraq by pulling out soldiers. His argument is that our soldiers are becoming the target of the insurgents. His hope is that if our soldiers are not there, then the Iraqis will have to work out their differences with each other. Of course, in my opinion, they will work out their differences in a civil war, but then the war will be about Iraq and not about American.

[UTUSN]

34. Uh, MURTHA Voted Against His Own Deal the Other Night n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

39. No. He didn't.

"The Deal" presented for a vote was not his.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

40. That wasn't his deal...that was the GOP version.

[snappyturtle]

44. If I understood correctly....

it was a modified version of Murtha's.

[Norquist Nemesis]

57. It wasn't even modified. It was flipped to an extreme

and all details cut out. It was one single sentence calling for "immediate termination" of the troops. In no way was this what Murtha proposed for debate. His was "immediate re-deployment" or "as soon as practicable."

[flyarm]

64. no it was not..read murthas plan before just assuming ..please

what the gop version was, was afraud..it was a dirty trick...it was a disgrace...and it was nowhere close to what Murtha proposed...so please read before assuming anything!~

fly

[snappyturtle]

214. Definition of modified...Gee

chill out!! Modified means "changed in form or character".....I'm on your side here. Obviously, I recognized that Murtha's proposal was different BUT they both called for withdrawal of troops. I certainly was not backing the repubs version....but I think we can agree that the "character" of the two were greatly different.

[Caretha]

206. You understood wrong

[Frances]

46. No Murtha did not vote against his own deal

Did you watch the debate? I did.

A Democratic representative specifically asked the speaker if the vote was on the Murtha amendment. After some hesitation, the speaker admitted that it was not.

The Republicans wanted the public to think that the House was voting on the Murtha amendment. However, the Republicans refused to allow Murtha's amendment to come to a vote. (So much for an up or down vote.) Instead they substituted an amendment of their own.

Murtha's amendment was a more complex amendment than the one that was voted on.

[Frances]

47. No Murtha did not vote against his own deal

Did you watch the debate? I did.

A Democratic representative specifically asked the speaker if the vote was on the Murtha amendment. After some hesitation, the speaker admitted that it was not.

The Republicans wanted the public to think that the House was voting on the Murtha amendment. However, the Republicans refused to allow Murtha's amendment to come to a vote. (So much for an up or down vote.) Instead they substituted an amendment of their own.

Murtha's amendment was a more complex amendment than the one that was voted on.

[Lex]

49. Uh, you have *GOT* to be kidding me. That wasn't Murtha's "deal."

Let's pay attention, folks!

Sheesh.

[UTUSN]

85. O.K., Enough with the Pimp-slapping Already

I fully realize that the resolution was a Repuke get-the-Dems-over-the-barrel-again. Where are all of you when I'm posting a well-grounded thread?

[Norquist Nemesis]

90. LOL!

No need to jump on you when you're well grounded and correct. :evilgrin:

Sorry, if it seems like that. Just wanted to be sure and get the correction out there. I'm already hearing the Murtha's "immediate withdrawal of troops" proposal throughout the news (both cable and local networks). This morning on WGN, it looked like a canned 'discussion' compliments of Rove...complete with video clips and TV personality cue cards! It's not accurate.

[UTUSN]

93. No, No Need to Jump on Sound Posts, But This Score of You Here

COULD form a rapid-response claque of Followers, ready to alabanze my time-consumed, researched, and highlighted threads. As opposed to letting those DIE THEIR MISERABLE SELF-thread-killed deaths.

But thanks for the civil tone.

[Lex]

96. Starting your post with "Uh" kind of set the tone.

Sorry if my post was "Uh" right back.

I apologize.

[rucky]

201. oh, gawd. the stunt worked. n/t

[malachi]

41. Murtha DID NOT call for immediate withdrawl. Checkout this from

this websites very own Top 10 Conservative Idiots for the past week.

Murtha's Resolution was as follows:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

"Earliest practicle date", doesn't sound like "immediate" to me. It was the repuke resolution that said immediate.

[still_one]

48. thats right, but obviously Hillary DIDN'T GET IT!!!

[Lex]

50. Yes. She didn't get it. And that really is SAD.

She's not paying attention, apparently.

[BJW]

42. she wants to wait to start discussions till after the next Iraqi election

At least she wants to consider it. The Repugs are completely against troop drawdown or withdrawal, whatsoever.

[still_one]

51. then why come out against Murthas resolution?

she does NOT want to consider anything

she wants to talk out of both sides of her mouth

Mrutha said 6 months or whatever is practicable. That is after the elections?

Sorry, if clinton is anywhere on the 2008 ballot for president, I am voting green or a third party, and the democratic party can forget about me

[mmonk]

62. Stay the course, stay until the job is finished,

don't cut and run, withdrawal will bring chaos, you don't want the terrorists to win.

[The Stranger]

67. Goodbye, Hillary.

Enjoy your stay in Washington, hopefully you will be sent packing to Arkansas soon.

[jsamuel]

68. Don't send her back here! NY can have her!

[rniel]

74. Even if she was against his plan

She should've kept quiet about it a little longer rather than sabotage the momentum.

[oregonindy]

77. she is a carpet bagging, dempublican, pro war politician

[Freddie Stubbs]

120. Whatever she is, the voters seem to like her

[oregonindy]

121. I think its cause she hasnt totally revealed herself.

on the other hand which is better the devil you know or the devil you dont?

[MamaBear]

149. I think many of us voted for her to say thanks to Bill

I think many of us voted for her to say thanks to Bill and to give a one-finger salute to the Republicans, who ran a helmet-hair clown against her.

Many of us are experiencing buyer's regret. I can't think of one initiative of hers. The story was that she was being deferential to Schumer -- the senior senator.

Problem is, Schumer is a DINO (in my opinion, of course).

Blue state, red reps, state party in disarray and there are the Clintons, sitting at the top of it with the whole damn DLC, and a public that does not choose to inform itself very well.

Maybe she'll come around. She doesn't seem to respond well to the pleas and proddings of her constituents. She seems to be more worried about moderate women in other states. :shrug:

[UDenver20]

82. I won't support Hillary

For so many reasons.

But the biggest is that...

SHE JUST WON'T FRIGGIN' WIN.

[garybeck]

87. Murtha is not for immediate withrawal

that is rw spin.

[EFerrari]

88. This is why Bobby Kennedy was such an amazing candidate.

He ran at a moment just like this one. And instead of worrying that some schmuck on the right would call him a coward, he not only aligned himself with the peace movement -- he took it FORWARD.

[Wind Dancer]

124. Yes, he was a rare breed in the world of politics.

The ruling elite still control policy and they do not want to end this war now. RFK was one of the bravest politicians in this country's history. The people who dream of peace and equality are always silenced, will this violence ever end?

Abraham, Martin, and John


Anybody here seen my old friend Abraham?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed lotta people but it seems the good they die young
You know I just looked around and he's gone

Anybody here seen my old friend John?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed lotta people but it seems the good they die young
I just looked around and he's gone

Anybody here seen my old friend Martin?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed lotta people but it seems the good they die young
I just looked around and he's gone

Didn't you love the things that they stood for?
Didn't they try to find some good for you and me?
And we'll be free
Some day soon, it's gonna be one day

Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up over the hill
With Abraham, Martin, and John

Sung by: Dion
Words and Music by Richard Holler

[EFerrari]

135. Can't even read the words without tearing up.

Who do we have that is like that?

He had a wife and a family, no need to work as hard as he did. A heart too big to measure, an intellect that was fiercely independent but receptive. The real thing, baby.

:hug:

[Wind Dancer]

154. I know, it's an emotional song!

This country lost a part of her soul the day he was assassinated. We had such hope, I often wonder if we'll ever recover.

:hug:

[EFerrari]

155. Well, if he was possible once, he's possible again.

That's why we call it "Camelot".

[eridani]

195. Not just him but us

We're way too cynical now to write songs like that about anybody, even Kunicich or Dean.

[mmonk]

92. Its important that the US

lose more lives and credibility for a politician's ambitions.

[AZBlue]

102. When did Hillary declare her candidacy for President in 2008?

I support Hillary and I don't get the numerous hate-Hillary threads that pop up. I won't even go into the reasons why I support her because it falls on deaf ears with the I'd-rather-vote-Republican-than-vote-for-Hillary (which in a two party system is what you are doing when you vote Green or Independent), but let me just say this about the threads: I think these threads are a huge waste of time.

Don't we have better things to do? She's running for re-election to Senate in NY in '06. That's it for now. 2008 is three years from now and any number of things can happen - I hate to see these long threads about who people would or wouldn't vote for in '08 - as far as I knew, and please correct me if I'm wrong on this, no one has declared their candidacy yet. Why are we wasting all this time and energy on these, in my opinion, stupid arguments about who will make the better President. Once there are candidates to debate I think we should discuss them - ad nauseum. But now why don't we worry about more important and timely issues??! :argh:

[ieoeja]

116. You're right. We should be working for her defeat in '06.

If we could defeat her in the '06 Democratic primary we would eliminate her as a threat in '08.

[AZBlue]

132. IF you live in NY and want to support her Republican opponent, so be it.

I wonder however why you'd be on DU. Perhaps you'd prefer a Republican website instead.

[Connie_Corleone]

140. I keep asking the same question.

Hillary hasn't said anything about running for president, so why waste so much time on it? And I don't get the people who want to defeat her in 2006. Are they saying they want a republican to win the senate seat? That's insane.

[AZBlue]

145. I agree - there's a bigger picture here.

If you don't like her, that's ok. But, there's no Dem that will compete against her in '06, so they'd rather have a Republican win?? I'm baffled by that!!!

[goforit]

117. Yep!!!....She and McCain don't have a chance in hell. 70% want out!!!

They are as bad as Bush with a quiet reserved smile....

which can be worse!!!

[oregonindy]

122. I think we should start a draft chelsea campaign

see if her views change when its her daughter thats being shot up.

[halobeam]

128. I just called her office in DC...

I spoke with a staff member who said she is undecided at this point as to exactly which direction she will stand by, but is not in favor of "immediate troop withdrawal", noting that they are very well aware that Murtha's proposal is not asking for immediate withdrawal.

[Nite Owl]

131. Yes, but he told me that

six months was too soon so that sort of means immediate to them.

[halobeam]

138. interesting that he left out her definition of "immediate"......

thanks.

[MrBenchley]

130. Glad to see party loyalty is alive and well

[EFerrari]

139. How much more loyal can we get than to squabble endlessly

about what is important?

"Thou are to continue, thou knave, thou are to continue." - Elbow, Measure for Measure.

lol

[MrBenchley]

144. We can stomp our feet and pout

and announce in a loud voice that we're going to quit the party (snicker)....

The funniest thing is that the people who do that seriously also probably have no idea why Democrats don't listen to them and their ideas....

[AntiCoup2K4]

143. It is the DLC appeasement poodle tutuwearing crowd

..who are not, nor have they ever been, LOYAL to the Democratic Party.

[MrBenchley]

147. Hand me a BIGGER laugh, why doncha.....

So Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Max Cleland, Al Gore, et al, are not true Democrats...but YOU are....(snicker)

Tell us, do you actually know ANYTHING about the DLC?

[AntiCoup2K4]

170. I know everything there is to know about those Repuke bastards.....

....posing as Democrats.

The fact that you defend them means that either you DON'T know what they're all about. Or you DO and defend them anyway. Which would make you as guilty as they are.

So which is it?

[MrBenchley]

173. Hahahaha...sure enough, you did....

"Which would make you as guilty as they are"
Yeah, I'm guilty of being a Democrat. Now go cry about it to somebody who gives a shit.

[roguevalley]

150. since when does blindly following the 'front runner' become required

behavior for dems? That is THEIR thing, not ours. We have independent minds and the right to use them. I don't have to kiss hillary's butt when I disagree with her and doing so doesn't make me a bad dem. Fuck that. Go and listen to bush. That's his schtick. Dems have the right to disagree, argue and have other opinions. Saying if you do that you aren't a good dem, that you're disloyal is bullshit.

[MrBenchley]

156. Ah, none are pure enough to stand with thee.....

"Dems have the right to disagree, argue and have other opinions."
Yeah, clearly that's what all this "I'm marching off to join the green party" crap betokens....Democratic freedom (snicker).

Guess every Democrat has that freedom EXCEPT Hillary Clinton.

[warrens]

136. Murtha didn't call for immediate withdrawal

He said, as soon as practicable.

[B Calm]

141. She lost my support a long time ago!

Never ever forget she was a young republican in college!

[redqueen]

148. Oh, stop being such a kneejerk DUer!

:sarcasm:

[still_one]

158. LOL

[Ian David]

163. Hillary is a sacrificial lamb / stalking horse for the real 2008 candidate

Her marching orders are to try and get as many people on both sides of the aisle to hate her.

That way, the right-wing will exhaust tons of political and financial capital on personal attacks against her.

And then, during Primary season, the Democrats will unveil their real candidate.

Democrats will all be so relieved it isn't Clinton, and the right-wing will have exhausted themselves fighting a candidate who we never really wanted to field anyway.

How else can you explain her stupid video-game campaign she went on, to cite just one example?

[LibertyorDeath]

166. I hope...... I really hope you're right.

[Ian David]

167. I'm almost certainly wrong. It's very far-fetched.

But boy, it would sure be fun to watch if it were true.

[AntiCoup2K4]

172. Intersting theory. I just hope it's not in order to sell a candidate who..

....is as bad or worse, such as any of the DLC names being whored around in the media.

[niallmac]

189. If that were true then the Dems would be the coolest cleverest

gall danged party there ever was! Could our smokey room boys be that smart?
I know I sure have a hard time warming up to Hillary and I've tried, Lordy knows I've tried.

[the_spectator]

175. "Withdrawl" is the way Hillary's husband speaks,

removing troops is WITHDRAWAL!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

178. I'm not going to vote for her in her re-election bid as Senator, let alone

for President. When she voted for the Iraq War Resolution, I swore I would never vote for her again. She has done NOTHING to redeem herself in my eyes.

[mzmolly]

186. Has she announced a run for office?

We sure spend a lot of time on her potential candidacy considering she has said she won't run.

I agree with the OP that Hillary is wrong, but she'd have my vote in a heartbeat if she gets the nomination. In a heartbeat.

[katinmn]

209. Oh Molly. Then you are voting for the Christian Right,

the Zionists, and oligarchy.

I'm sorry. You need to take off your blinders, woman!

:hug:

Please, please, please spend some time reading the DLC's website. Look at the people running the place, and Hillary is right in there with those guys.

edit: spelling

[mzmolly]

215. I'm no fan of the DLC., but they don't frighten me. What does frighten me

is another Republican President. I am ABDR. Anyone but a damn Republican. ;)

The Clinton years were prosperous and peaceful (mainly) and I'd love to return to those days meself. DLC or no DLC.

THOUGH - I don't think were gonna run Hillary myself, I think we're going to run a Southern White Male (perhaps a Gov. or a former General) - we are not going to take any chances in 08.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS KAT!

:hi:

[katinmn]

218. Gotcha., mzmolly

Gotta admire your resolve and a good dose of optimism.
:hi:

[mzmolly]

219. He he - thanks.

I'm not really a total party hack, but I play one on DU. shhhhhhh. ;)

[lonestarnot]

187. I've also had it with the Clintons! What the fuck is their problem? It

is a fucking mystery!

[Peace Patriot]

190. I'm finding this thread disturbing, especially this wrangling between

Greens and Dems, between voting against the Iraq war vs. voting for a progressive agenda in everything but the Iraq war (Hillary), and so on.

It seems so counterproductive, and so-o-o-o-o deva vu!

I feel like I've been hearing this argument over and over again, throughout my 40 years as a voter. I heard it between the Adlai Stevenson supporters and the JFKers way back in 1960 (JFK was more establishment/Cold War-ish, at that time); although no Stevenson supporters refused to vote for JFK--it wasn't an option in those days), then this argument hit big time between the Humphrey Dems vs the Robert Kennedy & Eugene McCarthy Dems, over the Vietnam War--an extremely bitter division--and came upon us again between the Clinton NAFTA Dems and the Greens in the '90s, and, of course, between the Gore and Kerry supporters and the Greens in '00 and '04 (not so relevant in '04) , and now between the Pro-Iraq War Dems (or, rather, the potential supporters of such Dem leaders), and the disaffected antiwar Dems and antiwar Greens.

Well, some of these arguments got settled by assassination. JFK turned out to be a great president, and tried to stop the Vietnam war, and probably got killed in part because of that. We had a "peace candidate" in 1964. Yup. That's how LBJ advertised himself. The "peace candidate." I voted for him on that basis--and got upwards of 2 million people slaughtered in Vietnam. Then came 1968. We found a great candidate in Robert Kennedy, who had turned strongly against the Vietnam war, had just won the California primary and was headed to the White House. Bang, bang, shoot, shoot. The Democratic Party imploded, with blood on the streets of Chicago. Humphrey wouldn't disavow the war. And this 40 year loyal Dem voter made the one exception from a lifetime of Dem votes, and voted for Pope John XXIII for president--a write-in. I have never regretted anything more in my life, than that throwaway vote.

Humphrey was a good man, an old midwest liberal, who would quickly have emerged from LBJ's shadow, and likely would have stopped the Vietnam War long before Nixon did. But I was not into compromise--not with close to a million dead already. Same feeling as the anti-Iraq War folks above, in this thread. How can you vote for someone who won't disavow such a crime? Then Nixon got elected, and the war went on and on, and was escalated (by us) into Cambodia and Laos. Eventually, the Vietnamese beat us on the battlefield, and Nixon arranged a withdrawal.

Nixon wasn't anything as bad as Bush, as to social or foreign policy--but it seemed like it at the time. Also, after having JFK for president, with his beauty, intelligence, humor, soaring rhetoric, high goals, and care for the poor and the oppressed, Nixon was such a mean-spirited man (launched Karl Rove's career, he did), and such a conniver, like LBJ, and had so much blood on his hands, and there had been such high hopes in the '60s, such an amazing explosion of creativity and progressive advancement, Nixon just couldn't fulfill our image of what we thought we were. It should have been Bobby Kennedy. We were robbed of that fine leader, who was actually far more politically conscious than his older brother had been. He had been transformed by the '60s. And they wouldn't let us have him.

The mystery of his death has not been solved; just like JFK's hasn't been. When I say 'they" wouldn't let us have him, I'm not sure who I mean, but I have no doubt whatsoever that it was the same cabal that killed JFK and MLK, and that are still in operation today, and probably killed Paul Wellstone (and David Kelly in England). An assassination squad with unlimited funds that can cover their tracks completely--probably connected to the global corporate predators who are now in the process of looting our country blind and destroying it.

Note that it is ALWAYS the antiwar leaders who get killed. JFK, who tried to prevent the Vietnam War. RFK, who was strongly antiwar, and would have won the election. MLK, who had just come out publicly against the war and called it racist. Wellstone, who would have led the fight against the Iraq War. And they only kill those with a good chance of success, or great popularity, or who can't be gotten rid of some other way (like Howard Dean).

So the cabal that kills these people are probably arms dealers and war profiteers. There is most definitely a theme here. And people like Lee Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan are just their tools and patsies--hypnotized, paid off, manipulated, used as distractions. Maybe the same people did 9/11--in order to shock Americans back into a war mode, all the better to loot them blind.. One can't help but see the theme: The most powerful country in the world WILL NOT HAVE a peace-minded president, WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO QUESTION its military budget, and its military WILL BE USED to the benefit of war profiteers and associated interests (for instance, the oil giants).

We've been here before, politically--in this wrangle over the collusive Dems. The establishment commits some atrocity like Vietnam or Iraq, and suddenly we feel the profound flaws in our political system--the collusion of both parties in the atrocity and in this war mode--and those of us who are most sensitive to the evils of war, and most cognizant of it, react to that, and can't get past it. How could you vote for that? How could you vote for killing and torturing people? How can you vote for mass murder?

I could be accused of throwing the election to Nixon. Maybe I did--me and those others who sat on their hands out of their fury at the war. I'm not sure Humphrey would have stopped the war sooner. Maybe he would have. He seemed a better person than Nixon, in retrospect--and would have had the Bobby Kennedy and Eugine McCarthy factions of the party (the majority of Americans) on his case throughout his administration.

I think that this argument above--in this thread--between those who might vote (or vow to vote) Green if the Dems nominate a War Democrat, and those who can't understand this, and think that such voters will in truth be electing the Republican fascist, is somehow missing something big.

Maybe it's this: No true antiwar candidate WILL BE PERMITTED TO gain the White House. They will be Diebolded or assassinated--although now, with Diebold and its brother, ES&S, and their 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, they don't have to assassinate good leaders any more. They just have to touch a keyboard.

I think that those who might vote (or vow to vote) Green if the Dems nominate a War Democrat, and those who can't understand this, are missing the point that it doesn't matter what they want, they won't get it. They won't get an Iraq pullout; they won't get anything even close to true progressive values, in an 'electable' presidential candidate. They WILL get a pro-Iraq War, corporate Democrat, who won't change anything much; may give us a bit of relief on the killing of the poor, but that's it. Like LBJ in 1964, if they can smell what's in the air, they will promise an Iraq withdrawal, but it will never come, and worse, we may see a 'Gulf of Tonkin' stunt and a wider war into Iran and Syria; also a military Draft.

And when the people are good and sick of this pro-war, corporate Dem, and the Dem has taken some of the blame for Bush's financial and foreign policy disasters, then we'll see a worse fascist regime, maybe Jeb, in '12.

The critical difference between the political situations of my youth, and now, is Diebold and ES&S. Do you want your antiwar candidate dead, or Diebolded?

Frankly, I think that was John Kerry's choice on election night, and why I don't blame him for conceding. He certainly wasn't all that antiwar (just wanted to do a 'better war,' as I recall), and really outraged me by saying nothing about the torture, but, still, he never would have started the Iraq War himself, likely would have found a diplomatic way out, and was too much the prosecutor to be trusted in the WH, with all the crimes and thefts they have committed. He never would have made it through the front door. And they didn't want Edwards either. They had to Diebold them. They couldn't afford not to. And Kerry really could not contest it--especially with a completely hostile, Bush "pod people" Congress and a war profiteering, hostile press, and no support from Dem Party leaders (pro-war, most of them, or in Diebold's pocket, too--I don't know)--and if, by some miracle, he had succeeded in challenging the election, he wouldn't have lived long, is my belief. He--and maybe his family as well--would have been Wellstoned.

So that's where we are, in my opinion. And wrangling about who you will or won't vote for is just, well, irrelevant. It resembles the ripping apart of the Dem Party that occurred in 1968. In these present circumstances, it harks back even further, to Germany 1932, when the left-center took to ripping each other's throats out, and could not govern. That may be what happens if Diebold and ES&S choose a War Democrat in '08 (for their own reasons). If the war goes on, or there is a Draft, we will likely destroy that presidency ourselves. (We = antiwar activists, Greens, the young, the vets, etc.) This might also happen over a future financial meltdown.

The bad guys are probably counting on this, and we need to strategize, and be smart about it, and set priorities.

Personally, I think Diebold and ES&S may be the key to a strategy. Even a War Dem has to pay lip service to progressive values such as honest, transparent elections. And maybe we can leverage a War Dem administration into getting rid of the election theft machines--quickly, on a national basis. There is really very little we can do on a true progressive agenda with rightwing fascists counting votes, choosing our candidates, and selecting for office whomever suits their purposes. The rightwing of course has other ways to determine elections--campaign contributions, control of media illusions. But direct fiddling of the votes is new, and it is definitive. There is no way around it--except to attack the election system itself head on and change it for the better--change it back into a transparent, public system.

It will otherwise be a slow slog, state by state, county by county, through state/local jurisdictions, and local efforts face the formidable obstacle of the corruption of state/local election officials by the election theft companies. We might be able to get it done in one fell swoop, with a War Dem president and a half decent Congress--if the bill is strongly guided, and is prevented from doing harm (f.i., federalizing elections, with an electronic voting requirement and weak controls?). Or, we might at least get a commitment to transparent elections from the War Dem, to be used in local jurisdictions.

We really can't get anywhere with Bushites controlling vote tabulation. We MUST change this. And then, with the power we gain from true vote counts, we can begin to address the structural failures of our political system that permitted the Bush coup to happen, and that have corrupted our own party as well.

But we can't even get started, with these corporations tallying the votes in secret. This MUST be changed, as the essential, starting condition for rescuing our democracy.

Think of this scenario: Hillary Clinton (by some miracle) comes out for a return to paper ballots until electronic systems are rock solid secure and transparent--or, more realistically, says she'll pass a law requiring a voter verified paper ballot in all jurisdictions immediately; she won't commit to quick withdrawal of the troops from Iraq, but says she will start a peace process, aimed at eventual withdrawal.

And you have Chuck Hagel opposing her--Hagel, who got elected Senator by his own electronic voting company--and Hagel says, of Iraq, it's time to go; it was wrong; let's get the U.N. involved and get U.S. troops out of there sooner rather than later. But he's a big believer in electronic voting, and it's not even on his radar as an issue.

I suppose the question should be asked: Could we trust ANY of these promises? That's a big if. But I would go with Hillary--for what it's worth--on the strength of Dem higher sensitivity to constituents, and greater obligation to progressive, good government values--with my focus on election reform.

Whether my vote is counted or not, I would make my support as visible as possible, as I think all of the left, and all election reformists, should do--to gain credit with the new Clinton administration, and have some say in its policies, especially regarding electronic voting.

You see, Diebold and ES&S can't just go ahead and elect someone, cold. There have to be some potential real votes, and also financial, party and grass roots support. What they CAN do, with their secret, proprietary programming, is tip the balance--tweak it 3% here, 5% there.

And, yes, I think Kerry could have won if he'd gotten a 10% margin, instead of what he did get, 4% to 5%--because I think the machines have to be pre-programmed to a certain tweak. (I think that's why they had to do the highly visible vote suppression in Ohio: Kerry got a higher percentage than the east coast tweak that they had pre-programmed.) But I do think the Bushites had contingency plans for a Kerry blowout, including a phony "terrorist alert" shutdown of the vote count. Also, to have won that big, Kerry would have had to come out against the war, and would have had to take other more populist positions--and, in that case, he would be dead. Or rather, he simply could not have been 'nominated.' Catch 22 for Kerry.

But in the scenario that I'm laying out, Hillary might actually be Diebold's and ES&S's chosen president--or close enough (a lot closer than Kerry) to what they want--more military spending, possibly a wider war and a Draft, only very minor tax increases for the rich, continued global piracy, environmental initiatives that can be fudged and mostly avoided, dampened investigations of the Bush Cartel's crimes, etc. They likely will want someone on whom to blame Bush's disasters. (They'll want to discredit the Dems--that will be their goal.) And they've pulled gov't policy so far to the right--right off the cliff of fascism, in truth--that Hillary won't have to do much to look good. Just NOT looting Social Security will look good (to the unschooled eye).

What I'm getting at is they won't assassinate her, and they won't stop her from getting the nomination and winning. They will instead select her for their own purposes (or not prevent her election). Ergo, election reform might be doable (whereas other things might not be doable, yet)--and once election reform is on its way, it will be hard to stop, in terms of public opinion, as hard as it was for the Bushites to "reform" Social Security. Too many people, including many Repub voters, will see the logic and fairness of having transparent elections.

But it has to be jump-started somehow. That's what I'm thinking of an H. Clinton administration. It could be pressured to help jump-start election reform.

As for Congress, they won't let us have a majority--or won't let us get much of one--but I think they will give us some modest gains in '06, to avoid suspicion of their fraudulent election system, and try to head off reform movements.

As I said, a Clinton presidency and a half decent Congress, and we could at least get some verification tools, and overall transparency, on a national basis--and start the snowball that can't be stopped, toward total transparency, and removal of Bushite corporations from the election system.

I repeat, we MUST restore our right to vote, and achieve transparent elections, before any other serious reform can occur. It is PRIORITY NUMBER ONE.

Neither candidate will be antiwar. You can be sure of that. And neither will be very progressive. Both will make promises, according to which way the wind is blowing, and how their corporate sponsors feel--but we shouldn't put much credit in ANY promises they make. (Kerry-Edwards promised to insure that "every vote will be counted." Har-har-har!)

How do Green or Nader voters fit into this picture? In 2004, the former Nader voters went big for Kerry (ABBB, I'm sure), and what did it get them? Nothing. They have reason to be bitter. The Greens stood fast in Ohio and other states, and challenged the election. That was wonderful of them. The absence of the Dems even in challenging the despicable treatment of minority voters in Ohio was disgusting. I strongly favor the Green platform and very much want to see open elections in which Green votes and Green candidates count, and in which the two major parties must negotiate with them; as well as a much wider spectrum political debate. But we can't get there with Diebold and ES&S controlling elections. The progressive majority has been thrown back to square one: We essentially no longer have the right to vote.

We should stay strongly, strongly focused. We MUST have transparent elections. In order to address the CONDITIONS that made this war possible, and the conditions that made this fascist coup possible, and in order to even address our filthy campaign contribution system once again, or to begin curtailing the global corporate predators who are destroying our planet and our country, WE MUST RESTORE OUR RIGHT TO VOTE AND THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS.

If we don't, our democracy is over.

I don't have an answer for the Greens, or for those who can't stomach supporting a pro-Iraq War candidate, except perhaps my cautionary tale about Humphrey and my vote for Pope John XXIII. I felt the same way when I was young. And I was very bitter about the assassinations of our chosen leaders. I have a broader perspective now. The more I think about Humphrey, the more I realize that his strong progressive values, close association with labor, and strong commitment to civil rights probably should have been voted for, and that his hands were tied on Vietnam, while he was still LBJ's vice president. Only when he came into his own could he have done something about it. I also think that this electronic voting development basically changes everything. We must work with what they give us--and use that to undo their power over our elections. We must make a good guess about which candidate will be most responsive to election reform, and fully support them, and get it done. (And if what they give us is another Republican fascist, then I think we start talking about smashing the election theft machines, and throwing them into 'Boston Harbor,' and a General Strike until our right to vote in restored.)

To me, restoring our right to vote is the only issue. Whatever candidates they permit to run and to 'win' WILL kill more of our soldiers and more innocent civilians. They will not be agreeable to us in very many ways. It SEEMS that we are forced to choose between a few being killed in the immediate future, and potentially far worse slaughters, nuclear war, even worse fascism, and the end of our planet in the longer term. A horrible, horrible choice. But my point is that there is no real choice involved. Our only choice is to see what the real problem is, and try to fix it, by whatever means possible--by hook or by crook, by connivance, by insincerity, by compromise, to get in there and get the power to force them to restore transparent elections. It is a must do.


------------


For an excellent primer on the perils of electronic voting ("Myth Breakers")
http://www.votersunite.org

For a project for statistical monitoring and challenges of the '06 and '08 elections:
http://www.UScountvotes.org

The GAO report on the 2004 election focuses on electronic voting machine failures, and what needs to be done:
Access to pdf: http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-05-956
Text only: http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05956.html

[Peace Patriot]

191. Sorry to be so long-winded, but I really have to add this: The premise of

these arguments about potential Dem candidates in 2008 is all wrong. You say you will support or won't support Hillary. And I'm saying: you will not be given a choice. The rightwing establishment, which now has secret control of the vote tabulation, wants the country on a war footing indefinitely. And that's what we're going to get, whoever we support, however we vote. It is a done deal. And the only question is: Which of the two candidates that will be presented to us, and chosen for us, will be more likely to support election reform, to give us the edge we need to get it done?

Much of the argument about candidates seems to be taking place on Mars. It is not factoring in this new and entirely determinative development: rightwing control of the voting machines. On Earth, right now, there really is no longer a democracy in the United States. How do you think Bush can be saying, "We'll stay the course," with nearly 70% of the people against it? He doesn't care. He is not beholden to us, nor is his party, nor, in truth, are the Dems. They are all beholden to Diebold and ES&S now.

Our democracy is, in fact, gone--and what we have to do is GET IT BACK. And we may have only one narrow opportunity to do so: that the fascist establishment decides on a War Democrat (for their own reasons).

On the other hand, they may 'nominate' Hillary in order to villify her and Diebold her, and 'select' a new Republican fascist right away (say, Condi Rice).

So, please do not engage in these candidate discussions as if we were living in our normal democracy of old. We are not. The evidence is plainly before us. We need to acknowledge this and work with it.

[Catrina]

197. great posts, thank you

You may be right and it won't matter how we vote. Your point about anti-war politicians being assassinated, is true. You could add Wellstone to the list, imo.

So, why have the American people tolerated this?

I will not support Hillary, however. I cried on the night of the IWR when she stood up after Sen. Byrd's impassioned plea to his colleagues not to give Bush the power they were ready to give him. She sounded phony, apologetic, and she voted 'yes'. Since then, after fighting for her and Bill for so long, I lost all respect for her.

She is the Republican party's choice. Kerry was their choice also. I remember rightwingers on boards I was on, when Kerry's poll numbers were at 3%, telling me he would be the candidate and that they 'were ready for him'. I didn't see it at all and thought they were just mouthing off. But it turns out they were right and they WERE ready!

If she is the candidate, no Republican will vote for her ~ or so few it won't matter. And, many, many Democrats will not again vote against their better judgement.

Iow, if she is the candidate, the Republican candidate will win, imo. Therefore there is no point in supporting her ~ there is no way she could, as a war supporter, get the 10% margin she would need to beat the machines.

I will look for someone else to support and to work for, and I have a feeling that there are many Democrats and Moderate Republicans who many do the same thing. If ever there was a time for the possibility of a third party emerging, imo, it is now, should the right candidate come along and run as an Independent.

Hillary has been bought ~ I see no point in, once again, voting only against another candidate. It didn't work this time ~

In the words of an infamous leader of the free world 'fool me once etc etc ~

[upi402]

193. Clintons are Republican-light...DINOs

Glad to hear you're angry about it. We should be. We need an opposition party or we'll lose again, either way.

[instantkarma]

198. Cheese and Onions

C-H-E-E-S-E-A-N-D-O-N-I-O-N-S

oh no...

[opihimoimoi]

203. I am for giving her the benifit of the doubt....she is not opposing Murtha

merely a question of timing re the "pull out". I too, wish the best way to end this on both sides...for us and for the Iraqis...

and if it were only the 2 parties involved...it would be peace and roses....but there is the 3rd party, the Radical Partisans. How to deal with this mess W has caused requires more than Solomon. It requires Mongo from RockRidge....

[DanCa]

205. she is the last choice for my candidate wish list.

God i hope she doesn't run. Id have an easier time voting for biden or even uncle tom liberman.

[Freedomfried]

207. self-serving power freak,

so they might let her win.

[xiamiam]

213. i will NEVER support Hillary...ever..n/t

[Zhade]

217. Oh.

Well, fuck her, she was never getting my vote anyway.

[JABBS]

220. From Murtha's statement

His plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq