Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Why isn't there greater opposition to Hillary Clinton's candidacy by the progressive online movement?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • 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.

Hillary Rolls on: Are the Netroots a Paper Tiger?

By Jeff Cohen, AlterNet. Posted September 7, 2007.


Why isn't there greater opposition to Hillary Clinton's candidacy by the progressive online movement?
Advertisement

As a longtime progressive tired of ineffective protesting, I've watched in glee as MoveOn has amassed political power by Webbing a few million of us and our dollars together. I'm a proud MoveOn member, even though I disagree sometimes with its leaders (mostly over too-cozy relations with top Democrats).

And as a longtime proponent of independent media, I'm gleeful that liberal/progressive bloggers have seized a new medium to mobilize millions of activists and confront a Democratic elite that seemed unwilling to confront and beat Team Bush.

Given my glee, it's difficult for me to have to pose this question: Are the Netroots a paper tiger -- more roar than bite?

Despite being overwhelmingly opposed to the nomination of Hillary Clinton, the Netroots have so far done little to slow down her coronation. Boosted by celebrity-worshipping corporate media (and a maximum donation from Rupert Murdoch himself), Hillary Clinton keeps rolling on -- allied with the corporate lobbyists and Democratic insiders loathed even by moderately liberal bloggers.

Meanwhile, Clinton has never been popular among the Netroots. She's never moved out of single digits in the (unscientific) monthly straw poll of DailyKos readers, while John Edwards has averaged 38 percent in the last six months among Kossacks, with Barack Obama averaging 26 percent.

In an April straw poll of MoveOn members following a virtual town hall on Iraq, the results were Obama (28%), Edwards (25%), Dennis Kunicich (17%) and Bill Richardson (12%) -- followed by Clinton in fifth place with 11 percent. Clinton did better following a July town hall on climate change, but finished in third place, 17 points behind Edwards.

The reality is stark: While it's hard to find a MoveOn leader or respected progressive blogger who supports Clinton, they can't (or won't) stop her.

Several factors may explain why most Netroots leaders are not taking stronger action:

1) They "misunderestimate" the potential hazards of another Clinton White House.

While progressives desperately want a Democratic president, the last Clinton in the White House subverted the progressive agenda. Eight years of Clintonite triangulation caused the Democratic Party to decline at every level of government. Hillary today is surrounded by the same staff and would likely appoint the same corporate types to top jobs as Clinton I, where big decisions were often corrupt and calculated toward moneyed interests.

The toughest brawl Bill Clinton was willing to wage (besides saving his own hide from impeachment) was against the Democratic base: for the corporate-backed NAFTA. Through the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Bill brought us far more media conglomeration than George W. He pardoned well-connected fugitive financier Marc Rich, while leaving Native American activist Leonard Peltier to rot in prison despite pleas from Amnesty International and others.

Hillary's contribution to Clinton I was her botched healthcare proposal, a corporate-originated "reform" that would have enshrined a half-dozen of the largest insurance companies at the center of the system, and was so convoluted it never came up for a vote.

What we've seen of Hillary Clinton in the Senate and on the campaign trail suggests that Clinton II would indeed be a sorry sequel. Today she's winning the endorsement of Republican CEOs, after having had Murdoch host a benefit for her at the Fox News building in 2006. Just as Bill Clinton's spine achieved a rare firmness while battling for NAFTA, we recently observed in Hillary a rare passion and firmness on a single issue: her YearlyKos defense of lobbyists, including those who "represent corporations that employ a lot of people."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: netroots, media, moveon, hillary clinton, barack obama, john edwards

Jeff Cohen http://www.jeffcohen.org/ is founder of the media watch group FAIR http://www.fair.org/index.php, former TV pundit/producer, and author of "Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


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:
One thing Hillary has going for her....
Posted by: rbohan on Sep 7, 2007 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The wingnuts HATE her. Just like they hated Bill. There's something to be said for that.

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

» RE: My enemy's enemy.... Posted by: NumberSix
The netroots have "leaders"?
Posted by: rancespergl on Sep 7, 2007 4:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is with this bullsh*t term "netroots" anyway? Isn't that some vague tag made up by...who? The mainstream media to get their "mind" around something they don't understand?

We're a virus. There's plenty of opposition to Hillary. What, I'm supposed to rent a billboard?

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

» RE: The netroots have "leaders"? Posted by: MyLeftFoot
Hilliary Is Not a Progressive, but an Opportunist
Posted by: Trainer12 on Sep 7, 2007 4:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you hear Hilliary's speech before the American Legion on NPR? She said the "surge" in Iraq is working. The only candidate that netroots and progressives should back is Kucinich. Where are our principles? I am tired of the DLC, the DCCC, the DSCCC and the corporate lobbiests determining who both parties nominees will be and what their platforms will be. Get out of the "blogesphere" and run for delegate or participate in the straw poll caucuses. That is the
only way we will make the Democratic Party progressive and get it away from the rich, corporate interests. Kucinich has the least amount of corporate or special interest money. MoveOn gave money to Casey in PA during the Senate Primary. Bob Casey was hand picked by Senator Schumer/ Ed Rendell and DSCC. All other candidates were pressured to
drop out and marginalized by the MSM. Casey is no progressive, he is a DINO. If I make it to the DNC in 08 in Denver, CO. as a delegate I will be wearing a no more dino button along with my Kucinich button. People power and persuasion should be the means. We need reason and logical civil debate to convince the voters of our vision. Money, image and wishy-washy, "parsing" of camaign slogans just don't cut it with the masses.

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

Just a Republican
Posted by: warrior woman on Sep 7, 2007 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I couldn't agree more with the sentiment of this article. From my perspective, voting for Clinton would be no different than voting for a Republican. Look what problems NAFTA has brought us, less employment, more poisons, shoddy workmanship, etc etc. There are 2 things I would mention:

1) review this article, while exposing the DNC for what it is and what it's done, at minimum we have a more conservative Democratic party, at maximum, it's been infiltrated by Republicans and is no different. Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives
By Matt Renner
t r u t h o u t | Report http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090607J.shtml


2) this response from Senator Klobuchar, MN, a woman who received 70% of the vote to get elected, gives lip service to her Republican vote on wire tapping. It further cements the basis of this article and the one mentioned in #1 above. We don't need more Republicans, we need more courage and honor in a place where it is completely lacking with few exceptions, Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich come to mind.

"Thank you for contacting me concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I appreciate hearing from you.

The FISA bill which passed both the House and Senate in early August is a temporary measure that will expire in six months. I would have preferred that the Senate enact the version of the bill offered by Senator Carl Levin, which I voted for.  That bill included a more comprehensive role for the FISA court. While I voted for the Levin version, it did not have the votes to pass. I voted for the temporary extension because I couldn't allow there to be a gap in our intelligence gathering activity, while at the same time I knew that I would work for a different bill on a permanent basis.

I will now actively work during this temporary six month extension to ensure that any permanent FISA extension strikes the right balance between protecting our safety and protecting our civil rights.

The resignation of Attorney General Gonzales is the first step in achieving that balance, and I hope that his departure lifts the cloud that has lingered over the Justice Department. He leaves a legacy of justice tarnished. I was among the first to call for his resignation, and I am hopeful that a new Attorney General will be a more independent voice for the people and uphold the principles of law and justice in this country.

Thank you again for your input, and please don’t hesitate to contact me again regarding this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Amy Klobuchar
United States Senator"

More crap. They could have held their ground, worked for an additional day and driven home that the Constituion means something. Instead? Regardless, with Hillary, we get more of the same. Don't want it.

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

Hilary's Sexperience
Posted by: cashelboylo on Sep 7, 2007 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is this nonsense Clinton keeps claiming about her experience?
In public office, she has served only six years in the United States Senate;
Edwards has served six years in the United States Senate;
Obama has served seven years in the Illinois state senate and two years in the United States Senate. Nine years in public office; by far the most experienced of these three candidates.
Clinton’s White House experience is of about the same order as that of Laura Bush and Monica Lewinsky and of about the same significance as a presidential qualification.

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

"netroots" are too small to be effective?
Posted by: drouse on Sep 7, 2007 4:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If a subgroup has a poll and out of A, B, C it chooses C (or worse, D) -- and then a national polling group comes along and the average person likely to vote chooses A ... well then the subgroup is out of touch with the mainstream and isn't likely to be able to influence the results.

I think a lot of politicians (that you folks don't like) would look at something like Kos and figure they were a small group of radicals plus a bunch of kids who aren't going to vote anyway. Would those politicians be wrong?

Just a thought.

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

the answer to the question is complex
Posted by: Suzon on Sep 7, 2007 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. The "frozen in the headlights" syndrome. Why step in front of a steamroller?

2. Some men and women dislike attacking a female.

3. Not wanting to throw stones alongside the rabid Hilary-haters.

4. She didn't invent the corporation.

5. Preaching to the choir.

6. It's more energizing to be for a candidate than to be against one.

7. Bush, Cheney, et al give us enough to worry about right now!

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

Edwards and Obama ALTERnatives?
Posted by: peacelf on Sep 7, 2007 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the basic tenets of Hillary's neoliberal conservatism, thank you. However, why is it that any posting on "alternet," the alternative news site, offers the same ole big media choices of Dems, while the genuine ALTERnatives are pushed back in the background. I'm talking about Kucinich.

Who genuinely stands for and has consistantly represented progressive values? Who opposed the war from the get go? Who has brought up impeachment charges against Cheney? Who has a house bill for a single-payer universal healthcare program for america? Need I go on?

I nearly laugh everytime I hear someone call themselves a progressive, then votes centrist. It only proves that the right wing media, neo-cons and neo-liberals have succeeded in pulling the center to the right. Kucinich is the genuine article, the real center of american values.

Any progressive who says Kucinich doesn't have a chance has already ruined his chances. Get off the computer and go campaign door to door!

Peace

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

Do you hear what I hear?
Posted by: hagwind on Sep 7, 2007 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As far as I can tell, the "netroots" is mostly pack journalism with a bigger and invisible pack. There's a smoke-filled-room aspect to it too. The smoke-filled rooms of yesteryear, however, were generally filled with pragmatic, politically savvy guys who knew what was going on out on "the street," wherever the street was. The smoke-free non-rooms of today seem to be oversubscribed with people who haven't gone much beyond "Hey! We're in a smoke-filled room, just like the big guys! We're hip, we're cool, we have the answers!"

Well, guys, you're missing something on this one. NOW's Political Action Committee endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, a decision I 100% disagree with but whose implications need to be taken into consideration by anyone interested in spiking the Hillary steamroller. For many moderate, liberal, and even progressive women, the prospect of a woman president is compelling enough to override disagreement on specific issues. No, it's not rational, but it's there. Both Clintons recently appeared at a $50/ticket fundraiser in my area, and I was amazed by the diversity of the women I know who forked over the money and went. They ranged from hard-core local activists to women who talk so seldom about electoral politics that I have no idea who they voted for in the last two elections.

From what I can tell from the outside, the smoke-free non-rooms of the "netroots" include a somewhat higher percentage of women than the smoke-filled backrooms of yore, but the impression I get remains overwhelmingly male and its understanding of feminism -- and, perhaps more important, of the impulses and experiences that inspire feminism -- is shallow. Maybe these political bloggers are talking so much to each other that they're drowning out some voices they would benefit from hearing?

One thing a lot of the old-time pols knew: it was good politics to let people talk and at least act as if you were paying attention. It's pretty good advice for organizers of any time and any political persuasion.

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

» ....Nothing new here.... Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: ....Nothing new here.... Posted by: hagwind
» My apologies.....!!! Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: My apologies.....!!! Posted by: hagwind
» RE: First Woman President? Posted by: oregoncharles
Don't Blame Netroots
Posted by: Urstrly on Sep 7, 2007 5:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It pains me to say it, but as much as I oppose a Clinton presidency, and I'm adamant, I have not been moved to support either Edwards or Obama. While I agree with Edwards about poverty, I wish he'd say something meatier about foreign policy and global warming. We are all going to be screwed rich and poor if we don't mobilize to stop the endless war machine. Obama seems lost in Consultantland, wavering here, saying ridiculous things there. His immaturity shows. Kucinich is right on almost all the issues but, IMO, unelectable.

I wish the netroots would spend their time on impeachment;every day Bush/Cheney stay in office jeopardizes our nation, and leaves powers in place that I wouldn't want any president to have. Looks like Al Gore is not going to step up to the challenge, so I guess I'll have to side with someone else, but I can't blame Eli. He seems to mirror my ambivilance.

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

» RE: Don't Blame Netroots Posted by: JohnMucci
otto
Posted by: otto on Sep 7, 2007 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe we need to jump on someone's bandwagon, rather than just oppose Hilary. I know this is hard to do and a bit dangerous at this point, but I'm almost ready to commit to Edwards. I like Kucinich's stands but I'm afraid he's not electable. I'm bothered by Obama's backing of Israel and relying on their lobby for money.
In the 90's I pretty well liked Clinton too, but it was mainly because he came after 12 years of Reagan and Bush Sr. Now I see him and Hilary as "corporate Democrats"...too much like I found Brian Mulroney up here in Canada at the time.

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

» RE: otto Posted by: LindaB
» RE: otto Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
And the reason is...
Posted by: Axiom69 on Sep 7, 2007 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the reason the leadership of groups like Moveon fail to criticize Hillary publicly is because they see her as the best chance to defeat the Republicans in 2008. This is flawed thinking. Right now Hillary may be leading in the primaries but those polls only reflect Democrats, who are looking for anybody who can win the Whitehouse. Add in Republicans and Independants and her negatives soar to almost 49%. Thats 49% of the general electorate that WILL NOT vote for her. Also, right now the Republican base feels disenfranchised after all the scandals. Not to mention the lack of any really inspiring candidate. How many will probably not even come out to vote? That will all change with Hillary on the ticket. Republicans will crawl out of the woodwork and come out in droves. Whoever the Republican nominee is, he is almost guaranteed 49% of the vote before any ballot is even cast! It won't matter if Al Gore was the Republican nominee, they'd vote for him over her anyday. Then again maybe he needs to switch parties and run against her. What a hoot that would be. I bet it would actually work too.
Either way, do we really wants 24-28 years of a Clinton or Bush in the Whitehouse? I know I don't. Obama may not have the experience of Edwards but I don't think he would be as threatening to the Republicans (read: they stay home on election day). Plus, I feel he would actually be able to bring people together and end some of the partisan gridlock. All a Hillary Presidency would mean is 4-8 more years of nothing getting done in Washington.

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

» RE: And the reason is... Posted by: LindaB
» RE: And the reason is... Posted by: hagwind
All this is politics as usual,
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Sep 7, 2007 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
which is just more business as usual, with the same results, surrender to corporate fascism and war.

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

I won't vote for Hillary under any circumstance
Posted by: tomkara on Sep 7, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and I've told everyone I know why I won't - the reasons already having been adequately explained by other posts here. I'll vote green or independent before I vote for Hillary.

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

Wake Up Call
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 7, 2007 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until the Primary system stops being held hostage by New Hampshire, Iowa and other states that are not representative of the US, we are stuck.

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

» RE: Wake Up Call Posted by: mrsmagoo
» RE: Wake Up Call Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Wake Up Call Posted by: Lauren
Hillary and her situation
Posted by: Tim Chadron on Sep 7, 2007 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is the same while being the exact opposite of Ron Paul and his situation. Both are being manipulated by the main stream media through the controlling interests of the MSM.

Overwhelmingly, the people seem not to favor Hillary for president yet those who control the MSM want her to be the democratic nominee, thus all the favorable press. Ron Paul, on the other hand, has (at least by poll and internet support) a great deal of support and has been shown to win every poll when it comes to who won each debate held to this point, yet the powers that be do NOT want him to become the Republican nominee, thus no mention in the MSM.

How is it that 1) so many people can't see this happening, and 2) those who can see let it happen? TIme to write some letters to your local papers and to your reps., of course....

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

Democracy ended
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Sep 7, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with corporate financing of election campaigns and the resulting prostitution of Congress and the White House, coupled with a media-addicted public.

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

I am so tired of "Kucinich is unelectable".
Posted by: Ellie1 on Sep 7, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever I see his name, is always followed by that. Why is he "unelectable"? Because he is intelligent? Because the American people are so damned shallow that they vote on appearances and image? Has this country become that uninformed? I guess the last two elections prove that the answer is yes.

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

Who can do the job best?
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 7, 2007 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We elected Jimmy Carter (bless him) and watched him flounder because he was an outsider. Ever since, I have realized it's more important to elect someone who has the connections and the clout in the capitol to get the job done.

In addition, I hear from the construction workers I know that Hillary is an attractive candidate on the work sites. Yes, all the bitching about NAFTA to the contrary, union voters like her.

And is there a bigger issue than health care? (Yes, the war in Iraq. She has straddled there. But if you think anyone can get elected in the US today without straddling, you're sadly mistaken) And we know her heart is in the right place on health care.

Yes, she dallies with all the old Demo losers from the Gore and Kerry campaigns. But anyone who thinks you can get elected and avoid them completely, is sadly mistaken. (I see I repeat myself. But that's because I'd like to see an election where we're not all sadly mistaken.)

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

» To which I'd add: Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: Who can do the job best? Posted by: hagwind
Get Out And Talk To People
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Sep 7, 2007 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the so-called 'Net Roots' has been imagined to be larger than it is. By limiting their efforts and ideas to blogs, they fail to reach a larger audience.

There is a gold mine out there. The working-class stiffs normally written off as republican, religious, right-wing and redneck (how's that for alliteration?).

As Joe Bageant says, these people normally never think about politics, but they have been so spectacularly screwed over by George W. Bush that there's never been a better time to win them over.

Reaching them is not as simple as typing up a scathing article and hitting submit on your browser. These people don't use the internet, and if they do, it's not to read blogs. You have to reach these people the old fashioned way. You have to get off your comfy chair and go out and pound the pavement. You have to talk differently. You can't bombard them with all kinds of radical sounding, screechy, high falutin', lefty talk. You have to talk to them in terms they understand.

Here's a group of people that have been ground into the dirt systematically, and yet continue to vote republican. Why? They don't know any better. The only thing they know about the left is what the right tells them. So go out and talk to them like people. It won't be easy but it will be more effective than moping around in the lefty echo chamber.

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

Great Article!
Posted by: kraken on Sep 7, 2007 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for saying what needs to be said.

The Corp. Media are doing their best to make sure Hilliary is the nominee. Edwards has gotten the endorsement of 4 unions in the last two weeks and barely a word is heard about it in cableland. I'm sick of the biased coverage!


If we don't want Hilliary as the nominee we better get into high gear and start complaining to the media about their slanted coverage. I hope those that voted for Edwards in the online voting at KOS join me in contacting the media everytime they fail to cover Edwards campaign. I also hope you will post info about Edwards on all of the websites where you post.

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

What the hell's up with the Kucinich campaign?
Posted by: sausage on Sep 7, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm with Ellie1. I too am tired of the "Kucinich is unelectable" meme. He has the most thought out, extensive positions on all the issues essential to all Americans and yet it's as if he's invisible. I mean half-baked libertarian-Republican Ron Paul gets more Internet bandwide and TV facetime than Kucinich.

But later this month Kucinich is passing up the 30th annual Tom Harkin Steak Fry, the single biggest gathering of Iowa Democrats. From what I gather Dennis and his lovely wife, Elizabeth, will be in transit from Hawai'i to Ohio the day of the Harkin Steak Fry, but all the rest of the Democratic presidential field will be there.

Given the choice I'd rather be in Hawai'i over being at the Balloon Field in Indianola, Iowa on a Sunday afternoon in September. But I'm not running for president!

And I've only received one campaign call from the Kucinich campaign so far. I donated and gave them my e-mail address, requested e-mail updates, then nothing. I regularly get spammed by Edwards, Obama, Dodd and Biden. I was getting spam from Hillary's campaign until I blocked it.

I don't know what's going on, but it seems to me whoever is running Kucinich's campaign is insuring his unelectablity!

I hope this situation gets straightened out.

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

Ron Paul/Howard Dean vs. Hillary
Posted by: lamar on Sep 7, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somebody above noted it well. Ron Paul has all kinds of internet support, but no traction with the voters (and if you're tired of the Ron Paul show, Howard Dean's early run in 2004 was the same thing). Hillary is just the opposite.

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

If Politics Were a Meritocracy...
Posted by: BitcoDavid on Sep 7, 2007 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all our leaders would be dogs. No, literally. Since, however, they won't let dogs run for office, Kucinich is the only logical choice. True, he has funny ears, eats only celery and is just to the right of Che, but he remains the only individual running, who brings any emotional and intellectual honesty into this beauty pageant of a campaign.

It is interesting to note, that although everybody says Kucinich can't possibly win, the above are the only negatives anyone seems to be able to come up with. I, in all honesty, don't find any of those things to be at all bad.

I have never supported Hillary. It''s that old spectre of "elect- ability." The fact is, now as it was then, Republicans will, under no circumstances, vote for a Democrat, no matter how much she lies about her positions.

Perhaps a write-in campaign for Jon Stewart, or even Micheal Moore, but not Hillary.

Of course, we all know that we're going to end up in another life and death struggle, forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, and from that point of view, I'll have to pull the lever, or mouse the touch screen, for Hillary, because the media has already chosen her as my candidate.

The above, naturally, is based on the assumption that we will have the opportunity to vote, at all. Some of us, those who wear tin-foil hats, apparently, suspect an "October Surprise" the likes of which will put all the others to shame, but that's fodder for a different post.

Long before September 11th, upon being asked by my conservative Brother in Law, why I didn't like Bush, I replied that I found it difficult to respect someone who was clearly stupider than I. Little did I know, Bush would end up proving that he was, in fact, stupider than a bag of Doritos. Proof positive that politics is, indeed, anything but a meritocracy.

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

Sick of Business as Usual
Posted by: Gravitas on Sep 7, 2007 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I do hold out hope for Obama among the Dems, part of me wants to vote for Ron Paul. There is alot about him I don't like, but I do think it would be making a statement about being sick of business as usual. And as the nanny government gets more forceful, the civil libetarians are looking better and better. Because government policies have really become a vehicle for corporations to exploit for their own sake. My liberites are worth more than some businessman wanting to make a buck at my expense.

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

"Edwama"?
Posted by: JCW on Sep 7, 2007 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author makes an unsubstantiated assumption that those who support Obama or Edwards would automatically throw their support behind one or the other if one of them dropped out of the race. I know of many people whose first choice is either Edwards or Obama but whose second choice is Hillary Clinton.

I also know many, many people who favor either Edwards or Obama and cannot stand one of the two men. Personally, I strongly support Obama while Edwards is 5th or 6th on my list.

I don't think there is necessarily a widespread "Edwama" vote.

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

We've lost the Republic & Hillary is just more proof..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Sep 7, 2007 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary is a symptom of the disease that has infected America..

The corporate elitism and failure of democracy and opportunity for the average American to partake in their government and system as a duly elected representative..

We are a fascist corporate oligarchy masquerading as a nation there is nothing about Hillary's candidacy that will change this..

There is only one Democratic Candidate for Americans to vote for that will really bring any change and that is Dennis Kucinich...!

Hillary is Bush lite, and Edwards is Hillary lite..!

The only hope is for every true Democrat to vote for Kucinich or at least against Hillary..

Then we might get an election and not selection by the Bilderbergers and Council on Foreign Relations..and Tri-Lateral Commission..

Edwards is throwing all his most progressive supporters off his blog site one after another just making them disappear like Stalin..

The Bilderbergers still have Edwards by the short hairs apparently..the Insurance companies too..


We've lost the Republic and Hillary is just more proof..

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

Ah..progressives....
Posted by: cmaukonen on Sep 7, 2007 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ten degrees left of center when times are good. Ten degrees to right of center when it effects them personally.

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

» RE: Ah..progressives.... Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
» RE: Ah..progressives.... Posted by: hagwind
» Mort Sahl? Posted by: rancespergl
Potential Commander-In-Chief Hillary Clinton
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Sep 7, 2007 12:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dearest Jeff Cohen . . .

May I kiss your sweet face! I am so sickened by the Hillary movement and the Progressives that cheer this corporate hawk on I cannot begin to tell you. In actuality, I am frightened more than nauseous.

I have written much on Senator Clinton since before the day she formally announced her campaign. Last evening I started to pen another essay in response to Bill Clinton and his proclamation on The Today Show. Contrary to what Mister Clinton believes, I am not "preconditioned" to oppose a Hillary candidacy. Indeed, when the now senior Senator was First Lady, my family and I strongly supported her. Early in the Clinton years, we thought she would make a great President. We hoped for this day, until we saw who Hillary Clinton authentically is and what she truly believes. You are correct, Bill was not the Progressive he might have been.

As you note, Hillary Clinton's actions are not those of a Liberal. She is a clever corporate lobbyist. Her experience equates to six years on the Broad of Directors at Wal-Mart.

Senator Clinton will not introduce Universal, Single Payer Health care. The Pharmaceuticals invest in her campaign. These business tycoons would be devastated if she lessened their profits. The two, Clinton, and the drug industry are inexorably tied.

As much as I protest against a Clinton presidency, admittedly, more than a month ago I may have become part of the problem. Each time I published an article at Daily Kos, and another supposed "Progressive" site, the Hillary Hawks came after me. It seems the mere mention of her name is a signal for those that love war as much as their candidate does.

Attacks on my words were extremely personal. Biting barbs filled the screen. Although just this weekend, The New York Times published an article titled Meet the Missus, I was skewered, lambasted for referring to the Senator as such. Explanations of how I used all her titles in the treatise and did not wish to be repetitive did nothing to quell the quarrelsome. The truer topic was never discussed, Hillary Clinton and her politics.

I am an extremely peaceful being that has never attacked the Senator as a person. Yet, if and when I write of her I am burned at the stake. I pulled a couple of essays off Progressive sites, and did not publish another for fear. Those among the Netroots that support Hillary Clinton, I suspect, may not be as harmless as a paper tiger. Thus, I no longer widely publish my thoughts on the Presidential hopeful.

If you would like to read a few of the essays that were slammed and damned, I invite you to travel to . . .
Hillary Clinton Says "I'm In." My Reply, "I'm Out"
Hillary Clinton or Her Husband; War in Iraq
Potential Commander-In-Chief Hillary Clinton Blames Iraqis
Clinton Blames Bush and Congress. Calls for Accountability, Not Her Own
Clinton Speaks of Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Not of War
Clinton, Obama; To Communicate or Not to Communicate?

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

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

december
Posted by: december on Sep 7, 2007 1:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm voting for Senator Clinton and I tell everyone I know. She introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act in the Senate this year to decrease the gap between how much women and men earn. In May 2007 she voted against continued funding of the Iraq war without a timetable. She joined the filibuster against Samuel Alito. She was one of a few leaders who pressured the FDA to allow emergency contraception to be sold over the counter. She's got my vote!

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

WHOPEE
Posted by: fox1 on Sep 7, 2007 2:07 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Us right wing nuts hate Clinton too. All they are good for is machine gunning women and kids at Waco.
Vote the Constitution Party! www.jbs.org

Learn the truth!!!!

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

» Yes... Posted by: Bbear41
She is no blushing bride...you already know EXACTLY how she will fuck...
Posted by: ekipnrut on Sep 7, 2007 3:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....over (what's left of) your rights..... CLINTON1

CLINTON2

CLINTON3
....you...her...and Bubba...do you really want THAT
menage a trois?

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

Never bet on the dead horse
Posted by: NumberSix on Sep 7, 2007 4:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I honestly think that MoveOn, Kos, DU and others went with the "my enemie's enemy is my ally" ideal, until, like the rest of us, we realized the Dems are Fascism Lite. Yes, it was a tough blow to watch Pelosi lay down and play nice-doggie to Herr Shlub, to see ANOTHER trade deal signed to screw us out of whatever jobs are left. The Dems showed their true colors: Rethugs in sheep's clothing.

Clinton is among the very worst: She is a political windsock, she follows the trends, never shows real leadership. Bought-n-paid for? Big Pharma bought her way back when her old man let her "reform" health care......by making backroom deals with the insurance lobbyists, oh, yes, yes, and yes!

What the netrooters need to do? Kiss the Dems the hell farewell, and let us form our own party of progressives, with real goals that reflect We The People, not Dow Jones, not Boeing, not Halliburton, not General Electric, not Proctor and Gamble, thank you. The day Kos wakes up and realizes the Dopeycrats sold us out, and it is time to form our own party, the sooner the better. Otherwise, the netroots is still backing one dead-assed horse.

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

NARAL will keep her in line.
Posted by: GPFrank on Sep 7, 2007 6:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The comment I wrote back to NARAL when they announced their support for Hillary is that NARALl are the ones to keep her in line. (That is, in exchange for their support. )

Yes, Hillary waffled on many issues and her campaign ad now simply invites us for tea ("doing lunch") at the White House if we give the campaign enough money, addressing us all as "insiders " who know so much that there is no need for further discussion. Two years back I was especially mad about her voting for that stupid flag burning amendment, standard fare for the silly season.

But I feel that unless we have women's rights and women's equality there is no chance of any serious advance in national justice or international justice, Without the mother having complete domain over her motherhood there will alway be an embedded underclass in this great American republic.

Hillary is the front runner insofar as clout and power is concerned. She is the most likely
to be elected President and to pull the Democratic congress
with her. In spite of that when one gets older one gets more sensitive. While many years ago I autopsied small animals
as part of my research I now couldn't stand the killing of a chicken. In a similar fashion I now gag at the opportunism
presented by Hillary Clinton in her decision to run for president and her campaign statements even more so. Unfortunately she is well aware of how all this hangs on the plight of women. But I hope after this woman actually becomes queen, she will take time to reflect on the burning of her ambition.

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

» Like Lady Macbeth? Posted by: hagwind
jonnie rae
Posted by: jonnie rae on Sep 7, 2007 6:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your use of "Edwama" reminds me of the Boston Herald's use of "Billary" to describe the Clinton administration. I think it is insulting. Other than that, your piece is brilliant, pointing out the harm done by the Clintons to the Democratic progressive agenda and their "Republicanization" of the party. He balanced the budget. That was our issue?? Throwing millions of women and children into poverty by ending "welfare as we know it," forcing millions of workers into unemployment through NAFTA, expanding the war on drugs and mandatory sentencing to prove he was tough on crime, throwing the poor, the black, the hispanic into prison doing more time than murderers, unavailable to their families or communities, in most states disenfranchised, unemployable when they get out. Oh, yes, he "feels your pain." As for Hilary, remember the "you get two for the price of one" statement?? It will be the Clintons all over again in the White House. Moving to the center, they call it. It is a selling out of the basic principles of the party. The MSM has her way ahead, and they have all but annointed her as the candidate before a single primary!! It is time for the Left Wing of the party, those of us who stopped a war and legal segregation among other things, to show some courage and not be afraid to criticize the Clintons and show the damage they have done, which Bush capitalized on big time. I hope your piece is being published in many other places because people need to be constantly reminded of the truth and end their nostaglia for a past that never was.

[« Reply to this comment] [