Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Michael Moore: "I'm Morally Prohibited from Voting for Hillary" [VIDEO]

Posted by Manila Ryce, The Largest Minority at 5:10 AM on February 7, 2008.


Moore also talks about how his 2004 film "Fahrenheit 9/11" is still banned from broadcast TV.
Michael Moore on Hillary Clinton

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Election 2008 in your
mailbox!

 

While on Larry King Live last night (about 1 minute and 30 seconds into the clip below) fellow liberal Catholic Michael Moore said he is "morally prohibited from voting for Hillary in the primaries because of her war vote". The pope obviously gave him orders in the form of a hilarious evite he couldn't refuse.

Hillary supporters are as irrationally fanatical about "their gal" as the Paulbots have been about the good doctor. In all honesty, at least Ron had some good points in regards to foreign policy, and understood that the terrorists just don't hate us because of our freedom. In contrast, there is very little to admire about Hillary's voting record which would warrant just as much blind praise and excitement from her base. Why any self-respecting liberal would openly support Hillary is beyond me.

The fancy umbrella in this shit cocktail is, of course, Clinton's 2002 vote to authorize force in Iraq, which she still refuses to apologize for. Senator Clinton should be begging everyday for forgiveness, knowing that her hawkish attitude helped cause the death of over a million people. However, there is no hint of remorse from her. No apology. No acknowledgment of any wrong doing. Instead, she has the audacity to deny all responsibility for what she calls "George Bush's war," and claims that she actually did make the right decision based on what she knew then.

However, we know that Hillary was also presented with evidence that refuted the faulty intelligence she claims to have based her decision on. She chose to ignore that evidence. The only reconciliatory step Clinton has attempted to make was to call on Congress in May of last year to repeal authorization for the Iraq war, a move which would've accomplish nothing other than to help her own image and silence anti-war liberals who've complained about her initial authorization vote. This move would've only repealed her vote, not the actual war.

Now, I've made some pretty big mistakes on the job but never one big enough to cause genocide, and if "faulty intelligence" ever did lead to a clusterfuck of that magnitude, I'd like to think that I would feel enough shame to at least step down rather than demand that I be promoted to the highest office in the land. However, if there's one positive thing I will force myself to say about Hillary - it's that she's smart. Despite Hillary's "foolish consistency" being "the hobgoblin of little minds," as Ralph Waldo Emerson once remarked, she is much smarter than to allow herself be tricked by George W. Bush into any war.

This isn't just George Bush's war. Anyone who respects Hillary's intellect knows it's her war too. To paraphrase a quote from the 60's it's time we "bring the war home" to Hillary, as well as the politicians, celebrities, and yes, even bloggers that support her. Morality shouldn't just prohibit us from voting for such a hawk, it should obligate us to mobilize against all enabling pro-war institutions - which includes the Democratic Party itself.

Digg!

Tagged as: iraq, clinton, moore

Manila Ryce is a regular blooger for The Largest Minority


Franken-Coleman Update: Norm Returns To Senate As Non-Senator
Al Franken, has been declared the winner of the Minnesota contest but has yet to be sworn in as court battles continue.
Post by Ryan Grim. January 21, 2009.
A Bar Stool View of This Moment in American History
Some reactions to Obama's inauguration speech (which, yes, I watched in a bar).
Post by Joshua Holland. January 20, 2009.
Franken-Coleman Recount: How Far Will It Go?
Will Norm be able to take this all the way to the conservative-controlled US Supreme Court?
Post by Phoenix Woman. January 10, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A breath of fresh air in a otherwise polluted, putrid environment.
Posted by: williameon on Feb 7, 2008 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While we were catapulted into a Hypnotic trance by our deceit-full miss-leaders and Faux Media chanting in unison!
911 911 911
Our rights, jobs, homes, savings and country disappeared.
Like magic!
Wrongfully before your eyes!
Three buildings disappeared and with them your rights, jobs and Country.
Goodbye American Dream!
Hello project for a Z-neo-Fascist Century!
Brought to you by Cor'pirates'-R-Us.

While you were sleeping, the largest transfer of wealth in Human History took place!
From you to the C.E.O.'s. of
Corpirates-R-Us.
No shot was fired.
No war was fought.
In the middle of the night,
In a Board Room
They ran away with the store.

Then Bush gave them a Tax break.
A Tax break to the top 1/10 of 1% of the Richest people in America.
Who take home more loot then half of the Country combined.
The Waltons, Forbes, Allen, Murdock, Gates, D. tRump, got Tax breaks and also Government Welfare.
And look who is holding the BAG baby!
We got no money for:
Education,
Infrastructure,
Health care,
Renewable energy,
Environment,
Poverty!
But we got WAR!

Grog Bless Americo!
The Home of the Ignorant and Enslaved!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the war vote
Posted by: andrewstromotich on Feb 7, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
agreed, I am very uneasy by hillarys vote, but I am more disturbed by obamas bush-like stance on a pre-emotive invasion of Pakistan, which is the dumbest thing I think any politician could tout (an attack ok a nuclear power that is not at war with America)...
I cannot believe how heavily skewed the images of the two candidates is becoming

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:outrageous claim Posted by: Christie
» RE: Here's the quote Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» RE: Here's the quote Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: outrageous claim Posted by: EncinoM
» OBL is dead Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: OBL is dead Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: OBL is dead Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE:A truther? Posted by: Techubus
from z-mag
Posted by: andrewstromotich on Feb 7, 2008 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan," Obama told the foreign policy establishment. The sovereignty of Pakistan will not be respected, under an Obama presidency. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

But Pakistan has The Bomb. And there is no telling what kind of regime will replace Musharraf once he is overthrown by his own military or fundamentalist Muslim supporters when the Americans invade Waziristan, Pakistani territory. Musharraf has told them over and over again that an invasion of Waziristan would destablilize his government. However, Obama is not listening. He is more intent on out-warmongering Hillary Clinton, than making sense of the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: from z-mag Posted by: andrewstromotich
» RE: from z-mag Posted by: Lauren
» RE: from z-mag Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: from z-mag Posted by: kilmeister
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Obama isn't a change candidate
Posted by: carolcarre on Feb 7, 2008 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are Hillarybots any worse than Obamabots? All the Obamabots can do is tell me how wonderful he is and how he is for change. I ask: what change do you mean? and no one can answer, because he isn't for change, he is simply for himself as president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama isn't a change candidate. yep..he is! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Our choices for '08: warmonger, warmonger, and warmonger
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Feb 7, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(Hillary v. Obama) v. McCain ==> Warmonger.

Says all there is to be said about us!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. and Mrs. President
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive on Feb 7, 2008 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This quote from the article says it all...

there is very little to admire about Hillary's voting record which would warrant just as much blind praise and excitement from her base. Why any self-respecting liberal would openly support Hillary is beyond me.

And again...
Senator Clinton should be begging everyday for forgiveness, knowing that her hawkish attitude helped cause the death of over a million people. However, there is no hint of remorse from her. No apology. No acknowledgment of any wrong doing. Instead, she has the audacity to deny all responsibility for what she calls "George Bush's war," and claims that she actually did make the right decision based on what she knew then.

She is a scheming, conniving, politico. We would get the Clintons, yes the Clintons (they would talk over every move she made in the Whitehouse. Nothing like a Mr. and Mrs. President, yuk) as President if she were elected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OBAMA's change- a new war (same ol same old)
Posted by: andrewstromotich on Feb 7, 2008 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i quoted obama above talking about getting to the real war in afghanistan and pakistan, and all i can say is what a load of crap.
this guy touts himself as change and talks about creating a real peace when really his plan is no different than any others- he plans on creating a new generation of martyrs.

real change for peace would be dealing with isreals illegal and immoral treatment of the palestinians, not showing up at aipac fundraisers to show support.

real change would be to dissolve the "terrorists" support group by giving them (the population of the countries obama wants to ramp up hostilities with) another option, not by giving them no other option.

real change would be coming from someone who spent a lifetime working for change, not just a couple years working for a presidency.

i'm not saying real change is coming with hillary, but if she did return the nation to something similar to what it was under her husbands presidency, it would be a real change from what we have now.

and please tell me how it will protect american lives to invade a country that has a nuclear arsenal. hardly sounds like the negotiations he was talking about supporting.

ya know, it's easy to look clean when you have done nothing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OBAMA's change- a new war (same ol same old) Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Hillary's experience...NOT! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
60 minutes candidates page
Posted by: andrewstromotich on Feb 7, 2008 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
odd hey, that the media is so bent towards their coverage. check out the good ol boys that 60 minutes touts as "the candidates" (guess a woman on the page would have been just plain wrong)
http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/127/the_candidates
link

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More on his catholic faith..
Posted by: daniel1982 on Feb 7, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How do his Catholic morals make him vote on abortion?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More on his catholic faith.. Posted by: bloggeddowninMKE
» cafeteria catholics Posted by: davidg
how about Edwards?
Posted by: Zibblu on Feb 7, 2008 11:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can dig on what Moore is saying except for one big thing. Didn't he endorse Edwards who also voted for the war in Iraq? I mean it is true that Edwards at least admitted he was wrong on that vote... but still.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: how about Edwards? Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: how about Edwards? Posted by: EKSwitaj
» RE: how about Edwards? Posted by: nochicagoboys
Church and state
Posted by: 2dogarage on Feb 7, 2008 1:13 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love Michael Moore but I don't really understand why he admits that his religion informs his politics and goes on to decry those that attack the candidates for their religious beliefs.

Seems to me that if you belong to a religion that only recently recognized blacks as human beings that it would inform your policy decisions regarding this sector of American citizenry.

Who let the dogs out? Woof Woof.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Church and state Posted by: nochicagoboys
i think that is the point
Posted by: andrewstromotich on Feb 7, 2008 2:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who cares what moores religious beliefs force him to do politically, religion and politics are best left seperate (duh mike, pretty surprised you'd say that).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: i think that is the point Posted by: andrewstromotich
The Republicrats are all the same.
Posted by: leland61 on Feb 7, 2008 8:53 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The distinction between the two parties is one without difference.

Hilary is a globalizing imperialist and has made no bones about it. Obama is trying to avoid all the issues by talking about 'hope' and 'change' as if they were words of substance rather than mere meaningless rhetoric and bologna.

It is highly unlikely that either candidate or an overwhelming vote for Democrats will result in anything more than the march of American imperialism, and the extension of the new age of feudalism far, far into the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I supported Edwards
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Feb 8, 2008 12:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neither of these candidates is even my second choice.

Having said that, this country is teetering on the very brink of a fascist dictatorship - or haven't you all noticed? The last two elections were stolen. Every conceivable plan is now being laid to steal the next one too - and by some fluke, the Republicans are about to nominate their strongest possible candidate - in spite of themselves. (I have some hope that Paul is gonna split off and run on his own ticket - you heard it here first folks - he denies it but he sure ain't spending all that money he's raising. That would siphon off a lot of disgruntled Republicans.)

McCain's undeserved, self-promoted reputation for "straight talk" and independence, the MSMs ongoing, uncritical love affair with him and their hatred of all things Democratic would make this a tough fight in the best of circumstances. Combine that with his appeal to Independents - and the absolute necessity that they not all break Republican and we are gonna have a fine mess indeed if we don't reach some accommodation amongst ourselves.

Ask yourself this: Is it more important that MY candidate win THIS election or is it more important that one of the Democrats ensure that we even have elections four years from now? Do you realize how high the stakes are this time? Do you realize what will happen to the shreds of our Democracy if the Rethugs have four to eight more years to rig the machines, round up and disenfranchise dissenters? To put another fascist or two on the Supreme Court? To further consolidate the media? To control the internet?

I know why you love the candidate you support - and why you despise the other. Sometimes grown-ups who don't like each other much have to work together. A conservative group has already raised one quarter of a billion dollars to trash the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. This is war. They know it - even if you don't. Some of em are gonna be on every thread, trashing your candidate and pretending to represent the other. Divide and rule. Worked in 2000, 2004 - and it'll work in 08 if you let it.

I am begging you - whatever these candidates are, remember that they are not John McCain. Forget that and this man who campaigned his ass off for Bush, voted for 95% of his program and all his judges - will win.

He isn't gonna trash the nominee; he won't have to - especially if we do it ourselves and allow pride and bitterness to distract us from the all-consuming necessity of keeping John McCain out of the White House.

Speak well of your candidate. Promote them. Discuss their strong points - but remember the strongest point of all - neither Hillary or Barack is John McCain!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When they march you off to the camp
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Feb 8, 2008 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least you'll know you didn't sully yourself by voting for a corporatist candidate. Maybe they'll put you in a GOOD camp. I hope you don't have any kids too young to vote - they're not gonna believe you when you explain that you gave up their right so you could stay pure.

Between now and them just tell yourself that I am overly dramatic. Republicans would never steal an election - or the rest of em, forever and ever amen. They didn't politicize the Justice department, suppress voting rights in every state where they attained a majority, knock tens of thousands off the voter rolls, pass legislation to disenfranchise (voter ID) hundreds of thousands more, employ illegal strategies (phone jamming Dem HQ,etc) engage in caging of minority voters, install "magic box" voting machines nationwide, or employ any of a hundred other illegal strategies designed not to win, but to steal elections.

They didn't turn the civil rights division of the Justice department into the mirror image of it's intended purpose, driving out the blacks, refusing to prosecute violations of voters rights and instead trying to limit voter registration drives and intimidate voters.

Well, they did, actually - but if you tell yourself nobody saw it coming (suspension of the 2012 election or nationwide rigging for a forgone conclusion and the permanent Republican majority) and nobody could have seen it coming (worked for Condi)it will get easier every time you say it.

I mean, who could ever have imagined that 2008 was our last chance? Not you, certainly.

Thanks for saying that my last post was well written. Shame you just blew it off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

60 Minutes non-coverage of Hillary
Posted by: CanyonWren on Feb 8, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow. Astonishing. I'm shocked they had Edwards on their site, he was the major media blackout victim. It's clear who the media are pushing...and the people follow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

60 Minutes non-coverage of Hillary
Posted by: CanyonWren on Feb 8, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow. Astonishing. I'm shocked they had Edwards on their site, he was the major media blackout victim. It's clear who the media are pushing...and the people follow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: She Voted For The War, So What? (But she continues to support it.)
Posted by: nochicagoboys on Feb 8, 2008 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sharon, I'm certainly not begrudging Senator Clinton for her poor sense of judgment concerning her: (1) voting to authorize the Iraq War Resolution; and (2) voting to institute The Patriot Act. Unfortunately, too many were duped into believing Bush during those emotional, heady, times.

However, this still doesn't explain why she continues, time-after-time, to vote to fund this illegal and immoral occupation.

That's my concern, and I would think it would concern all those who adamantly continue to support her. Possibly, maybe, most supporters of Senator Clinton do support the on-going occupation. Maybe all the polls are wrong about a majority of Americans wanting the troops home. Your unconditional support of her leads me to believe it could be true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Michael Moore and (his) Irish Catholicism
Posted by: Cathyc on Feb 8, 2008 1:55 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As one who had the misfortune to be born into Catholic Ireland, I can confidently say that Moore is one seriously flawed guy if he is boasting about the fact that he is from an Irish Catholic background AND studied in a seminary...

Jesus wept!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

me thinks you gotta read it again
Posted by: grkjr on Feb 8, 2008 6:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what jibbish... at no time did moore say what what so many seem to think.. moral oonvictions are just that, irregardless of which religion it comes from, and they most all share a common thread: that killing is wrong. His response has nothing to do with the catholic church or the pope and everything to do with living in a christian way of which he was introduced to via the catholic church.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: me thinks you gotta read it again Posted by: andrewstromotich
Michael Moore is a fool
Posted by: johnp on Feb 8, 2008 8:09 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Michael is a fool. The man has been taken in by Obama's hypocrisy on war, which is, if anything, worse than Hillary's stands. All you need to do is examine the "whole" Obama record on security issues, and compare it to Hillary's, and it aint' pretty. People talk about Edwards having been willing to apologize for his vote allowing Bush to invade Iraq. Hillary is the only one that regrets that her vote was dishonestly by Bush, to launch an illegal war against a sovreign nation, but refuses to "apologize" the way Edwards has, if only because his apology was as much a matter of political expediency as her vote likely was. All politicians make a political calculation when they vote, and that includes Obama, who's adopting a holier-than-thou facade, that makes him seem like a complete idiot. This is all diversion. Obama is not fit for the presidency, on grounds of his abysmal lack of experience. And for democrats, Obama's program falls short on many points, compared with Hillary's. Say what you will on these points, the facts are unavoidable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

POLITICS MAKES STRANGE BEDFELLOWS, AND
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Feb 8, 2008 10:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
conversely strange enemies. Michael Moore found Hillary Clinton's Iraq vote to be odious. He's right. Worse yet I suspect she held her own nose from the stink. But she is the senator from New York. New York has a large population of right wing Jewish voters. I'm afraid she bowed to their wishes. Sadly by now even they have probably abandoned their own previous position. Their previous position was kill any Arab, any time, anywhere. This was never a good position and still isn't. Hillary can't change the past. She can only live it down. We might as well let her.

The only other choice is to elect Dennis Kucinich. This doesn't seem likely. But, if you can get him nominated I'll vote for him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Write In Ron Paul
Posted by: ronheri on Feb 9, 2008 2:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the establishment is successful in keeping Ron Paul off the ballot (Like thet were in keeping him silenced in the debates and out of the MSM), the only chance to take back our country will be to write Ron Paul in for President.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Write In Ron Paul
Posted by: ronheri on Feb 9, 2008 2:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the establishment is successful in keeping Ron Paul off the ballot (Like thet were in keeping him silenced in the debates and out of the MSM), the only chance to take back our country will be to write Ron Paul in for President.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

give me a break.. ron paul
Posted by: grkjr on Feb 9, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
truly amazing that someone who is so against the was, as the only progressive stand he has, can con so many ....do you honestly want no govt anywhere for most any reason...lets take fascism to new high...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why Obama did not vote for the war
Posted by: jarbyus on Feb 10, 2008 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He was not in the Senate at the time! Who knows how he would have voted if he had a constituency to consider, or had been given information that was not available to him at the time. His Pakistan remarks as well as his offering pie in the sky to everyone on every topic conceivable makes me feel that he will say anything to be elected. I support Hillary because I believe "change" is in the details, and her plans and policies are more detailed and she knows how to work the system to get more done. Obama is a show horse and Hillary is a work horse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

libratographer
Posted by: libratographer on Feb 10, 2008 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yep, it is all coming out at last.
My 82 year old WWI POW Veteran uncle is breaking his family tradition of straight ticket Repub. voting this election; and encouraging his Muddle American friends to take a good look at #43. He wonders why he sacrificed so to have everything plundered. Americans are on alert: we need to do the hard work of paying attention to who is doing what, not so much of who is doing who.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SAD DAY
Posted by: willyd1962 on Feb 12, 2008 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a sad day when we dems listen to some loud mouth like m. moore. What in this world has he ever fully accomplished except complain. Well i take that back. He has cleaned out a few food buffets. And why doesnt he go to CUBA for all his health care?? Maybe a stomach tack!?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]