SUSAN Sarandon doesn't think Sen. Hillary Clinton belongs

[MsUSA]

in the White House.

"I find Hillary to be a great disappointment," the lefty actress tells More magazine. "She's lost her progressive following because of her caution and centrist approach. It bothered me when she voted for the war. There were brave people who didn't. She's not worse than other politicians, but I hoped she would be better. What America is looking for is authentic people who want to go into public service because they strongly believe in something, not people who are trying to get elected.


http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix/63236.htm

[Trevelyan]

1. NO to hillary!!! eom

[merh]

2. Sarandon is right!

She's not worse than other politicians, but I hoped she would be better. What America is looking for is authentic people who want to go into public service because they strongly believe in something, not people who are trying to get elected.

Saradon rocks! Hillary is a sell out. No to Hillary in 2008 (unless he is the only person on the ticket opposing a repug)

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[merh]

37. too late to edit typ

So, I'll correct it here.

"Saradon rocks! Hillary is a sell out. No to Hillary in 2008 (unless she is the only person on the ticket opposing a repug)"

Sorry I missed the deleted post! :crazy:

[electropop]

67. No DLCers need apply.

We will not let another DLC/RNC hack represent this party. We are Dems and we will vote that way in the primaries.

[Radical Activist]

3. She makes strong points

A lot of people feel the same way, including me.

[liveoaktx]

5. Add me, too. No Hillary

[mattclearing]

4. That's a great quote.

Too bad it's being published in the Murdoch Post.

[Bucky]

6. I don't wanna get caught defending Mrs Clinton, but....

Let's not get silly and start calling her Dino for her IWR votes and centrists stands. The difference between Senator Clinton and 99% of Republicans is much more signficant than her differences from Ms Sarandon. If elected president (which I refuse to contemplate until after the 2008 nominating convention), Mrs Clinton would be a leader who listens to the voters, makes judgments based on facts, and is open to debate, logic, swasion, and science. I'm not in her corner by any stretch, but she's not a disappointment. She's exactly what she presented herself as--a suburban, centrist Democrat. She's hated by the Right, but that's got more to do with their need to hate than her stand on the issues.

[still_one]

9. I disagree, she does NOT necessarily listen to voters

look at how she ran away from confronting the russ feingold censure resolution

[PATRICK]

24. Even so

granting that all her critics are dead wrong it goes to perception among her natural base(not to mention automatic enemies) that for POTUS and its gravitas and expected effectiveness they don't want her there, simply.

Many many people I know who voted for her don't want her to run. One extra reason is that they buy also into the fact that the drumbeat by the RW against her dooms the candidacy. That is an extra lack of confidence we cannot afford in the slightest. All Dems potentially suffer from the latter but she carries it around like an unshakable anchor she dragged(and now drags more easily) against a goofy GOP Senate seat challenger. If she shows that she can cut that anchor she will score a first and really boost her credibility in the campaign department. So far no one has tried except honest, in your face progressives like Wellstone. And that is just the start of her surmounting obstacles which she probably does not even recognize(part of the main problem too).

Those problems don't lie with people like us who probably would mostly work and vote for her, but with the very people she thinks she is weakly winning over but definitely not as far as I can see. The open rhetoric of progressive critics might lead her to the opposite conclusion but her career is full of bad choices. "I trust Colin Powell." We can expect more of the same.

[Stephanie]

50. Hillary has a progressive opponent in the NY Senate primary - Tasini

Jonathan Tasini - check him out. Tell your friends. He'll be speaking at the Peace Rally in Times Square tomorrow.

www.tasinifornewyork.org

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

94. She didn't listen to the voters of NY, the majority who were against war.

That is and will be the defining moment in her political career to me.

[still_one]

7. I couldn't agree more

If Hillary runs and wins the nomination in 2008, I will NOT vote for her

[byronius]

44. Really? Jeb Bush for you, then?

[Stephanie]

51. Of course you will - we all will.

Once we have our nominee, whoever it is, we will all rally behind them. NOW is the time to duke it out, now and during the primaries. But once the candidate is chosen every Democrat must stand behind them, or this planet is literally doomed.

[LiberalUprising]

69. No Stephanie

Not all of us, stop with the projections, you do not speak for everyone. In the end it won't matter who we vote for or if we vote at all, the repugs do the counting, the only way a Dem gets in at this point is if he/she is appointed by the powers that be.

[Stephanie]

70. If that's how you really feel, why bother posting at DU?

If you don't believe the good fight is worth fighting, what are you doing here?

[LiberalUprising]

73. Oh so I must love it or leave it?

Where have I heard that before.....

You really believe 'fighting the good fight' is backing a repug light and throwing your vote to who ever has a D by their name with disregard to how they vote on key issues?

Maybe you are the one at the wrong site.

[Stephanie]

74. That's not what I'm asking.

If you really feel so fatalistic, and feel that we have no power to elect candidates that we want, I wonder what your reason is for posting here? You must have some hope that we can have an effect or you wouldn't bother.

[LiberalUprising]

76. I believe we can change things

but not by backing candidates that don't have the best interest of the people at heart.

THREE elections stolen so far and you have faith that this one will be any different?

[Stephanie]

77. No, I don't have faith that the election will be fair

I do have hope. :hi:

[Stephanie]

75. okay so you just completely changed your post

but I'll tell you what I believe - I support a PROGRESSIVE candidate. I am supporting Jonathan Tasini against Hillary in the NY Senate primary. In the presidential primary I am hoping I will have the opportunity to support Al Gore. I would be happy to support Feingold. There are other candidates I would support, such as Edwards. I DO NOT WANT HILLARY to be our nominee. But if she IS the nominee, I will support her, on the theory that any Democrat is 1000 times better for me, my family, my country and the PLANET than any Republican, hands down. That's what I believe.

[Iris]

90. "love it or leave it" - hmm.. . .where do we hear that reply most often?

Oh, yes! That's a popular freeper response.

I hear what you are saying LiberalUprising. I'm feeling the same way lately.

[Stephanie]

92. You completely miss my point.

I'm saying, if you have no hope, why post here? Why even get out of bed? Just lie down and give up, if that's how you really feel.

I did not say love DU or leave it, and calling me a freeper is way out of line. Chill out.

[LiberalUprising]

96. And all I was saying is

you do not speak for all Dems, let alone the progressive libs. Not all of us are voting for a Dem just cause there is a D by the name, doing so is every bit as stupid as the people who vote repub just because of the R. We have to get over the Dem vs Repub, lib vs con bullshit, it does nothing but divide. Vote the person not the party.

[Iris]

89. I still believe in progressive ideas. I see very few professional

politicians out there who represent them.

[HamdenRice]

85. No we all won't; there are two Dems I WON'T vote for-Hillary and Lieberman

Of course I believe in Democratic unity. And there is hardly a single major Democratic leader I would not vote for.

But if either Hillary or Joementum were nominated, I would be forced to leave and join the Green party out of principle.

At some point, you have to have principles.

[Stephanie]

93. Then please take a look at this Senate candidate, challenging Hillary

If you feel that strongly about her, help us take her out in the NY primary:

www.tasinifornewyork.org

[Iris]

88. Actually. No.

I'm getting to the point where I may not vote at all.

Except for perhaps the primary here in GA where I'll vote for the least offensive Republican (b/c we are allowed to vote in either party's primary here).

I'm really tired of not having anyone represent me.

[zulchzulu]

8. Stop with the GOP framed "voted for the war" already...

That shit is Rovianesque. You have to give Hillary and others the benefit of a doubt that they were voting for the UN to be able to inspect Iraq for WMD and to not just give Chimpy the keys to Armageddon via lies about why Iraq was about to nuke New Jersey...

I'm not a big fan of Hillary getting the nomination by any means, but saying she "voted for the war" is not being honest.

[still_one]

10. I don't have to give them any benefit of the doubt

she obviously can't even make her mind up on the censure resolution

you give her the benefit of the doubt, there were enough BRAVE democrats who knew otherwise

[Johonny]

11. Beat me too it

There was a vote for the war? Last time I checked the issue she did vote for got the UN inspectors back into Iraq.

[SOS]

19. No

Hillary voted for this:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

The vote gave Bush 100% authority to determine. Once the IWR was passed, Bush could start the war at his sole discretion.

What person, in their right mind, in October 2002, believed that Bush wouldn't use this authority to bomb Iraq?

[zulchzulu]

23. From what you cited, she voted for the UN resolutions...not preemptive war

In the citation:

"(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

"

Nowhere does ANY UN resolutions allow for preemptive attacks on a nation...maybe you have something to back that up.

I'm not saying I would have voted for the IWR, but there is at least the benefit of a doubt (at that time) that the President of the United States would follow plans in accordance with the law and would be honest about his tactics. After the IWR was passed, it DID NOT give Bush sole discretion to start a war. It merely gave the UN a chance to go back into Iraq and search for WMD...which they were kicked out of illegally by Bush.

[SOS]

30. 100% authority given to Bush

read this part carefully:

the President shall...make available...his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

His determination. Period.

Once Bush (and Bush alone) determined that peaceful or diplomatic means were not "adequate", he had complete, 100%, sole authority to invade Iraq.

On edit: technically it was not a vote "for war". It was a vote to give Bush the sole determination to start the war.

23 Senators were aware that only Congress can declare war and voted against this resolution. Byrd was furious that Congress has handed over it's power to the Executive in the matter of starting a war. He called this vote the worst moment in his Senate career.
Only a fool could have believed, in October 2002, that Bush would persue further diplomatic or other peaceful means and avoid a ground invasion of Iraq.

[Johonny]

34. I pointed out elsewhere

It is not her fault Bush is dishonest, terrible president. That is the president she has been given to work with. In her place I see a politician that had a public fearful of another terrorist attack, intelligence reports of weapons programs in Iraq, a president asking the senate for the backing to force a Dictator to follow a treaty. The resolution was framed to the American people as a tool to force Iraq to live up to the UN. In that goal it seemed to be working.

Now privately I didn't trust Bush. I lived in Texas under his horrible Governor days. I wouldn't have voted for this thing. But I'm not a US senator. I don’t have the pressure of the job. It's kind of hard to imagine this president or any president would start a war of aggression for personal gain. I mean that's a hell of a lot of corruption. At the time the vote could have been framed as a vote to prevent war not for a war. This sort of the odd thing about the Iraq war. Had Bush been a good president the resolution could have been a great moment in his presidency. It could have open the door to real negotiations with Iraq. Perhaps a lifting of the terrible sanctions. To me the story of Iraq is always a story of how Bush blew it.

[zulchzulu]

47. So we can agree it wasn't a "vote for the war"

It was a vote to trust that the President was a law-abiding citizen who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and not lie to Congress, which is an impeachable offense.

It was also a vote that the UN resolutions were to be complied with as well...

Personally, I would have voted against the IWR, but I understand the logic at the time for those that were not firmly in the chickenhawk mode but for the UN to have some power in the resolutions involved with Iraq.

[HamdenRice]

86. It doesn't matter what she voted for - that idiot is STILL for the war nt

[slipslidingaway]

78. I read through some of Senator Byrd's arguments a few months

ago and I do not think he could have stated the point you mention anymore clearly than he did.

snip...

and the third paragraph shouts what you have stated, the comments were made on 10/10/02.

http://thomas.loc.gov/r107/r107.html


"Mr. President, this week the Senate is considering a very important resolution. The language of this resolution has been touted as a bipartisan compromise that addresses the concerns of both the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress. But the only thing that I see being compromised in this resolution is this Constitution of the United States, which I hold in my hand, and the power that Constitution gives to Congress to declare war. This resolution we are considering is a dangerous step toward a government in which one man at the other end of this avenue holds in his hand the power to use the world's most powerful military force in whatever manner he chooses, whenever he chooses, wherever he chooses, and wherever he perceives a threat against national security.

The Bush administration has announced a new security doctrine that advocates acting preemptively to head off threats to U.S. national security. Much has been said about the diplomatic problem with this doctrine. But we should also recognize that the administration's new approach to war may also pose serious problems for our own constitutional system.


.....The President's doctrine--and we are about to put our stamp on it, the stamp of this Senate. The President's doctrine, get this, gives him--Him? Who is he? He puts his britches on just the same way I do. He is a man. I respect his office. But look what we are turning over to this man, one man.

The President's doctrine gives him a free hand to justify almost any military action with unsubstantiated allegations and arbitrary risk assessments."


another comment

"...I say, my friends, I am sorry to see this day. This is my 50th year in Congress. I never would have thought I would find a Senate which would lack the backbone to stand up against the stampede, this rush to war, this rush to give to the President of the United States, whatever President he is, whatever party, this rush to give a President, to put it in his hands alone, to let him determine alone when he will send the sons and daughters of the American people into war, let him have control of the military forces. He will not only make war, but he will declare war.

That flies in the face of this Constitution. This Constitution does not give to a President of the United States the right to determine when, where, how, and for how long he will use the military forces of the United States.

I plead to Senators in the name of this Constitution: We need people who will stand up for the American people. We need Senators who will take a stand. I hope Senators will take what I am saying in the best of spirit. I think we are making one horrible mistake."



Senate vote on war resolution delayed by voice of Byrd
Senator set to prolong debate on measure giving Bush power to attack Iraq; 'This is a blank check'

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.byrd10oct10,1,1899718.story?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil&ctrack=1&cset=true


"..."This is a blank check," he said. "Congress is ceding, lock, stock and barrel, its power to declare war - handing it over to a chief executive. Congress might as well just shut the door and put a sign up there that says, 'Going fishing.'"

[WI_DEM]

48. We all know that the resolution gave Bush the ability to go into

Iraq. Let's stop trying to justify it. Kennedy, Feingold, Boxer and others saw it for what it is--why didn't the democrats who voted for it? most of whom were running for re-election that year and/or planning a run for president--they were just afraid they would be labeled "soft on terrorism." plain and simple.

[Radical Activist]

12. WTF?

There was only one vote giving Bush authorization. If you want to be more accurate and say they voted to give Bush a free hand to deal with the situation however he saw fit, then go ahead. That sounds even worse to me though.

[Armstead]

16. It was either naive, afraid or overcalculationg

No one could have interpreted the IWR vote as anything but giving Bush a blank check to invade Iraq.

There was no reason for anyone to vote for the IWR resolution unless they agreed with Bush that invading Iraq would be good thing. Period.

Anyone who thought it would stop at "giving the UN the power to inspect" or that Bush would be held acountable either had not been paying attention or were too afraid to act on their principles to cast an honest vote.

[Johonny]

20. This is crap

I'm sick of blaming Democrats for a war the president started. I'm sick of people doing so based on a vote that did not start the war. A vote that in principal was the right thing to do. That Bush is dishonest and ignored the wording of the resolution is not the Democrats fault. The Democrats in the senate did not elect Bush. The Democrats in congress did not reelect Bush. It seems pointless to bash people that you might dislike but could be on your side in the future when the choice is people you dislike that have no chance of ever being on your side. That's the game of politics. Hillary apparently knows how to play it. Susan as a private citizen free from election and safe from knowing no choice by her may cost people's lives. She is at a little more liberty than any elect official to say what she feels. In private she may find Hillary is much more liberal than she appears. That's politics.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

32. I agree & its easy to jump on this band wagon in hind site

The gop wants to lable anyone who opposes the president un-American, etc. Let's not forget that these same bastards didn't support Bill Clinton during the Bosnia war. Tom Delay refused to bring up a resolution supporting the troops. So, I guess that makes them the cut & runners & un-patriotic. Turn the tables on them.

[High Plains]

63. They could have voted against the resolution!

Anyone who wasn't blind, deaf, or dumb knew what that resolution was about.

It's really rather pathetic to see people try to make excuses for the Democratic war enablers.

[roguevalley]

61. GOP framed. They VOTED for the war. Plenty of people didn't.

The big difference is that they put something on the line and Hillary 'triangulated' and bullshitted her decision and now its come back to bite her on the ass. ANyone with a brain should have seen that this war would not only fail but do so with such force that even our brain dead country would come to loathe it. The problem with being a leader is you have to eat your mistakes. If bush has to, so should she and the other yellow bellied bastards who voted for this war. This board had it pegged that Bush was using the vote as camo. She was THERE and listened I am thinking to the lies first hand. If we could get it, she could too. She voted for her career and now people are dead. She has to take her own lumps on it and she is NOT ALLOWED a pass anymore than ANY OTHER DUMBASS who voted for the war. If the pugs are bastards for voting for the resolution, how are the Dems who did not bastards too?

Hillary will pay to god for this vote, just like every other yellow belly in the congress. Fuck them all. Sarandon is right. And, if you can put aside the idolatristic thinking so reminiscent of bushbots, you would agree that on this issue she is dead wrong. But not as dead as the soldiers who are dead because of her cowardly vote.

RV

[freefall]

79. I disagree, zulchzulu. There was enough information available at the time

so that Hilary and everyone else should have been aware that there were no WMD in Iraq. Especially, someone as smart as Hilary. Late last year I wrote to my Senators, both Republican, and asked why if I, an ordinary citizen without any research resources other than my high-speed link, was aware that there were no WMD in Iraq, they, with their staffs of experts, weren't aware of it. (Needless to say I received meaningless replies.) I have asked myself that question many times in the last three years and still have difficulty understanding. It was obvious at the time that the Administration was going to attack no matter what the facts were and millions of people all around the world saw what was going to happen and protested against it. That the Democrats in Congress couln't see that is beyond comprehension; I believe they did see it and voted based on self-interest.

Additionally, at that point in the Bush's presidency it should have been apparent to all that he was dangerous. The Democrats especially had to know just how dangerous this neo-con administration was but instead of standing up for us and fighting they tried to protect their jobs. No, the Dems, or at least most of them, who voted to give Bush that right did so out of political motivations and fear. What galls me is that they had to know their political maneuvers were going to cost lives. I believe in Hilary's case it was a purely political move. She is power hungry and calculating. If Hilary is the candidate in 2008 I will hold my nose and vote for her but I won't be happy about it and she will never get any of my money or labor.

Peace,

freefall

[zulchzulu]

91. There was plenty of "info" on both sides at the time

Granted, I personally would not have voted for the IWR mainly becuase I would have taken Bush completely out of the equation and made it entirely a UN action that would have used UN forces to go in and investigate/search for WMDs and then ONLY come back to the UN with a report and action afterwards....but...I simply want to state that those who intentionally made statements that inspections need to be made first and were not wanting Saddam's head on a plate (such as nearly all the Democrats who voted for the IWR)...did in fact not do the GOP-framed "vote for the war".

That has been my point in this thread. As for how Hillary has acted since the IWR, I completely disagree with her statements that the war is going well, that we need to stay there, etc.

[tomp]

83. just remember, she could have noted "nay".

it was an option. and a hugely better one, imho. i like it when my senator gets it right. she didn't.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

13. Thats right I rather have McCain, Pat Robertson, or Frist be are

next president than Hillary. I certainly will never vote for her no matter what. :sarcasm:

[Warren DeMontague]

14. No, I'd rather have Gore, Feingold, Clark, or any one of a long list

long list of OUR people...

than Hillary.

If she's the nominee I will, of course, support her. But I think she's about the worst choice short of Lieberman.

[Stephanie]

53. I'm with you and I like your list, in that order

I would be so happy with Gore!

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Hey. There's another thing I agree with her on.

:yourock:

[MuseRider]

18. Well said.

That is exactly how I feel about her too but am unable to put it down in a fashion that does not make me look like I hate the woman.

[Individualist]

21. Brava, Susan!

:applause:

[karynnj]

22. And who did she vote for in 2000?

Nadar Gore actually fits the description of what she wanted. I think he went into public service because his family (and Gore himself) were committed to it.

[zulchzulu]

25. Good point...

I believe if you drank the Nadar Koolaid in 2000, you need to shut your piehole about how bad Bush is. There certainly was a difference between Bush and Gore if you had a freakin' clue.

[intheflow]

41. I don't agree.

I voted for Nader in 2000 because I lived in Massachusetts at the time, which was going blue no matter what. I was hoping not to elect Nader, but to actually start a conversation about the need to break the two-party system that gives us DINOs, for instance. I would have voted for Gore if I lived out of an easily blue state.

Besides, Gore actually won the freaking election, so to blame Nader voters for his so-called "loss" is just GOP framing bullshit, imo. So please don't tell me to shut my pie hole.

[zulchzulu]

45. A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004

You need to shut your piehole about it...but it's the truth. Period.

[noiretextatique]

52. the truth is: the election was stolen

a vote for nader was a vote for nader, and gore won the election anyway.
you convienently leave a few folks out your "it's all nader's fault" equation, specifically, katherine harris, the bushistas, scotus, and a democratic leadership that was willing to pass on the disenfranchisement issue for (supposed) political gain. pathetic...even a coup couldn't get the democrats to fight.

[Blue_In_AK]

66. ITF, exactly why I voted for Nader in 2000

although in my case it was because I knew Alaska would go for Bush.

[mondo joe]

26. No one Sarandon is happy with is going to get the nomination.

At least not in this decade.

End of story.

[roguevalley]

62. so what. she spoke her opinion. Good for her.

[deutsey]

65. Yep...I thought that's what our side was all about.

:thumbsup:

[shance]

27. "The lefty actress"?? How quaint. Do they call Chuck Norris the "righty

actor"?

How purposefully demeaning.

[Blue Belle]

29. Well, it is the NY POST.

They have never hidden the fact that they veer to the right more so than Fox News.

[shance]

31. True. However, does that mean we resign to biased, inaccurate coverage?

Susan Sarandon is a concerned American. Just like we are.

I think its important for us to fight the labels which are solely designed to divide Americans and weaken our power as citizens.

Its not about "right or left", its about confronting and eliminating those in leadership positions who are complicit in the intentional assault on the American citizens and our way of life, our economy, war profiteering and are unwilling to do the right thing.

[Blue Belle]

33. Oh, I agree with you... it's just that we'll never get an unbiased slant

from the NY POST (Page Six no less). It's a gossip column and salacious fodder is what they do... people hold Page Six with about as much regard for truthfulness as they do the National Enquirer.

[happydreams]

43. Nice catch and reply

:thumbsup:

[shance]

58. Thank ya.

n/t

[genie_weenie]

28. Hillary is Awful but, I'd vote for her

Because of three reasons.

1) She's a woman. And the first woman president is going to have to deal with some major shit. And not many better suited (today) to deal with shit than Hillary.

2) She's going to have to pull us out of Iraq in order to get re-elected in 2012.

3) I can only hope McCain doesn't get the nom because no other republician is a threat (currently).

[LeaveIraqNow]

35. Not voting for her.

Is jut as bad as voting for a republican if she is the nominee.

[im10ashus]

36. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Stephanie]

55. Correct, and Welcome to DU!

However, I sincerely hope she is not the nominee!

[BrklynLiberal]

38. Brava Ms. Sarandon. PFFFT to the NYPOST

[in_cog_ni_to]

39. Susan Sarandon for President!

GREAT points.....SPOT ON!:thumbsup: NO DLCer for Prez!

[Hardrada]

40. Ms Sarandon is quite correct.

Our Iowa Senator Tom Harkin admitted he was WRONG in voting for the IWR. Hillary never will. Also she is too DLC and AIPAC-influenced to suit me. And is just one more of the global corporate elitists who have no trouble with NAFTA, CAFTA etc.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Hillary won't get into the White House with my vote.

I'd sure love to vote for Susan (or, her husband) for president.

[Pastiche423]

97. If you are referring to Tim Robbins...

He and Susan have been living gloriously in sin for 18 years. (Have not married.)

They are my favorite activist couple. I especially loved Tim's A Chill Wind is Blowing in This Nation:

www.commondreams.org/views03/0416-01.htm

As to Hillary, I agree 100% w/Susan.

[WI_DEM]

46. She summed it up well, "What does Hillary believe in?" except

wanting to win the election?

[Radio_Guy]

49. I'm not a New Yorker, but...

Isn't there anyone more progressive to go against Hillary for the Senate seat? Surely there has to be someone better than her who is truly anti-war. Susan is right. "What America is looking for is authentic people who want to go into public service because they strongly believe in something, not people who are trying to get elected." We are looking for people like that in Congress as well as the White House.

[Stephanie]

56. I'm so glad you asked! --->>>Jonathan Tasini

And if you're so inclined, he could use some donations:

www.tasinifornewyork.org

[Cha]

99. This isn't your district, Stephanie but

I thought you would like to hear about this..

"Republican Rep. Boehlert of N.Y. to Retire
By WILLIAM KATES
ASSOCIATED PRESS

UTICA, N.Y. (AP) -

Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, announced plans to retire Friday after nearly 24 years in Congress.

"It is time," Boehlert told a crowd of hundreds of friends, colleagues and family members at Utica's historic train station. "I feel like I've done it the right way. ... This decision was not made lightly, nor was it made in haste."



http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-
gen/2006/mar/17/031707921.html

Boehlert is my representative in Congress..he's more moderate than most but he still got behind bush with the War On Iraq. We wrote and called his office many times in the lead up to the Bombing of Iraq.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

54. she is right

not very many people are progresssive enough to vote for a woman president

those who are progressive are pissed off at hillary clinton because she is such a centrist.

[faithnotgreed]

57. i wont click on that link but the posted quote is right on

[threadkillaz]

59. She's a junior senator with no exec branch experience.

If Obama can be marginalized by being a junior senator be called "not ready", then so can Shillary.

[Pithy Cherub]

60. Susan Sarandon thoughtfully lays out why Hillary is lackluster.

Hillary has defaulted on her responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution by being a frightened DLC armadillo. She will stand up against video games but not on censure. Hillary will stand up on flag burning but not against a president who "misused, misled, mistakenly" (whatever euphemism for LIED works) the IWR to annihilate Iraq and kill so many innocents on both sides. Hillary stands in support of her immoral IWR vote and is not sorry she enabled Bush. Susan is absolutely correct in stating that Hillary cared more about being re-elected than about what was best for America and constitutional.

[Blue_In_AK]

64. I very seldom disagree with Ms. Sarandon...

...and this is another one of those occasions. She's right on with this one.

[iconoclastNYC]

68. Hillary is wrong for our party and wrong for the country.

She is not a stand up democrat. She's too insidery and too "moderate". She's also DLC operative - the corporatist wing of the party.

DLC Democrats - Corporate selected, corporate approved. Shouldn't your Democrat be owned by the Fortune 500?

[oasis]

71. Since when did Naderite Bush enablers start picking Dem candidates?

[NoodleyAppendage]

81. Yawn....that's right. Start calling people names when you don't like it.

Maybe, just maybe, Susan S. actually has principles and ideals that are closer to what the Democratic party should be as opposed to the neutered, corporate shill party it has currently become.

J

[oasis]

84. Names? Most Nader folks are proud to have supported him. She

definitely has forfieted any claim to be a speaker for those who do vote Democrat.

[genieroze]

72. Clap, clap, clap, clap!

:toast:

[NoodleyAppendage]

80. Nailed it! Hillary is the worst political opportunist Dem...

At some point along the way, Hillary lost her idealism and necessity for selfless aid to become a political opportunist of the worst type.

I HATE the fact that we will most likely be FORCEFED her as a Dem candidate in 2008.

Anyone but Hillary would be fine by me. She hasn't proved herself principled enough to hold the highest office in the land. We already have an unprincipled person in the WH and look where that's gotten the country.

J

[sleipnir]

82. Is the NY Post even an allowed link? It's pretty right-wing.

Take this trash somewhere else.

[robbedvoter]

87. Sarandon also thought Palm Beach voters (2000) were idiots

She made fun of them on letterman in those times - which made sense as she was a naderite.
So, I never follow her political opinions. Not even when I happen to agree.

[FourScore]

95. My thoughts exactly!

Susan Sarandon - eloquent as always.

[WiseButAngrySara]

98. I agree with Sarandon. Hillary can't win anyway. That's precisely why

the M$M is promoting her as if her nomination is a given. I am opposed to her running, because she will never win!