COMMENTS: 84
The Clinton Campaign: Running on Ambien
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Obama, for example, hasn't turned out to be any more challenging to white America than re-runs of the Cosby show. He was slow to pick up on the Jena 6 case and never showed up at the rally -- although, to be fair, neither did Clinton or Edwards. Like the others, he has refrained from noting that Giuliani, in addition to being a cell phone exhibitionist and a 9/11-abuser, presided over a New York City police department famed for its torture and killing of young black males.
But it's Hillary who's causing the citzenry's heads to pitch forward and collapse on their chests. Every time she opens her mouth, her flat, monotonic voice lays out yards of opaque white gauze, muffling any possibility of "discourse." Where does she stand? Over here, and a little to the side, and maybe a few steps to the right. Hers is known as the "flawless" campaign, but no one in it seems to be able to turn off the endlessly triangulating tape in her head.
Lately she's taken to emitting to sudden, inexplicable, bursts of deep laughter -- known in the media as "the cackle." Whether this is a deliberate "humanizing" touch or a glitch in the computer program no one knows. According to the New York Times, the "weirdest moment" came in response to a question from Bob Schieffer about Republican charges that her health plan would lead to "socialized medicine." As the Times reports, "She giggled, giggled some more, could not seem to stop giggling -- 'Sorry, Bob,' she said -- and finally unleashed the full Cackle."
Maybe she has a better sense of humor than I'd imagined, because the thought that her plan to turn health care over to the private insurance companies might be "socialist" has me rolling on the floor too.
I just wish I could work up the same degree of enthusiasm for Hillary as my friend Katha Pollitt, who recently told the Times: "If people don't stop saying incredibly sexist things about Hillary Clinton, I may just have to vote for her." But what are these incredibly sexist things? True, there was the whole faux "cleavage" issue, and the occasional whack-job who writes to enlighten me about Clinton's bisexuality or Chelsea's true daddy.
Then, in of all places -- feminist Maureen Dowd's column on Sunday -- I found a genuinely sexist comment about Hillary. Dowd apparently approvingly quotes Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, saying that Clinton is "like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won't stop nagging you until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone."
Now I'm all for having literary editors, poetry editors, and the like commenting on our political process, but the "nagging housewife" image is not only a sexist stereotype -- it's about 50 years out of date, stemming from an era when most married women were financially dependent on their mates. Besides, male politicians are never likened to stereotypical husbands, even though some of them can be equally hard to dislodge from the recliner in front of the TV or, as the case may be, the Oval Office.
But the "hellish housewife" comment does not make Hillary a feminist martyr, nor does it make me any more willing to listen to her, either now or for the next five years. Trying to say nothing to offend, she ends up saying nothing to inspire or even inform, and Obama, though still far more engaged and human-like, risks ending up with another Ambien candidacy.
Part of the problem is structural. We make our presidential candidates campaign for at least a year at a stretch. Take a normal person and subject him or her to month after month of trail mix and chicken Caesars, sleep deprivation, and the need to be "on," smiling and handshaking, 16 hours a day. No solitary moments of reflection, no walks in the park, no escape into thrillers. What do you get after a few months of this? A golem, the artificial, man-like creature of Kabalistic lore, a personoid incapable of normal responses.
So yes, America is ready for a black or a female president. Just be sure to wake us up when it happens.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rune on Oct 3, 2007 12:35 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is time to put it to the Democrats. Either force the party to stand up for the major concerns of the majority of Americans that are within the power of the Democratic majority in Congress to insist upon (if not force outright) or leave the party before the primaries start if you want the votes of those of us who stand anywhere to the left of neocon and fascist drivers of current legislative and policy trends. Anything less is just a recipe for perpetuating the most serious abuses of the Bush administration--though not necessarily with as much overt enthusiasm (oh, there's that candor thing again!)--which continues to get its way on most matters just as surely as when the Republicans held the rubber stamp. Either the party most come back to its roots or its candidates must turn their backs on the party and embrace the people they claim to represent if we are to have leadership that progressives and liberals can support or vote for in good faith.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: But can the country endure any more Democratic "leadership"?
Posted by: Sparks56
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vox persona on Oct 3, 2007 1:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Where do we turn?
Posted by: efficacy
» RE: Where do we turn?
Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: Where do we turn?
Posted by: christastropher
» Joe Biden....Are You Kidding???
Posted by: CatDad
» Now you see why I'm so disheartened
Posted by: vox persona
» RE: Where do we turn?
Posted by: Intellect
» RE: Where do we turn? Around. I hope.
Posted by: SamFox
» RE: Where do we turn?
Posted by: Joe
Comments are closed-
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Oct 3, 2007 3:07 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as far as hillary herself. competent. driven. and probably would do a good job except for those anti-clintons, who would see nothing good in her at all. does she also have a personal agenda? now who's being naive? each and every person seeking that office has a personal agenda. a to-do list. most effective as a president, a good chance at being so, but not, however, my choice. at this point.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: wrong on hillary
Posted by: maestra
» RE: wrong on hillary
Posted by: Basenjis
» yes, the reasons i don't like her
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: wrong on hillary
Posted by: JonA
» RE: wrong on hillary
Posted by: 1gma
» RE: imperialist hillary
Posted by: peacelf
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 3, 2007 3:38 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for gender and race, our obsession with a meaningless milestone of having our first female or black president seems to subject those candidates to a separate standard. Is Obama too white to be the first black president? Does Hillary lack the warm nurturing qualities to be the first female president?...And does this article suggest that black/female candidates must be less boring than white males?
Maybe we should have a new way of picking a president. They're all sequestered and subject to a gag rule for the entire campaign, and nobody is allowed to know the color or gender of the candidate. Their only communication would be to submit a 500 word essay on why they should be president. Of course, this assumes that most Americans can read and have an attention span of more than 10 seconds.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rocketman on Oct 3, 2007 3:56 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Christie on Oct 3, 2007 4:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» i wish, along with you
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: i wish, along with you: Gore/Kucinich
Posted by: Christie
» RE: None of the above
Posted by: rocketman
» "Clinton stigma"
Posted by: NWCrow
» RE: "Clinton stigma"
Posted by: peacelf
» hagio-Gore
Posted by: giles
» Well said, G....well said
Posted by: vox persona
» RE: hagio-Gore
Posted by: Intellect
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Leman on Oct 3, 2007 5:18 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[...] What do you get after a few months of this? A golem, the artificial, man-like creature of Kabalistic lore, a personoid incapable of normal responses.
It depends...
Her husband did not turn into a golem, did he? I will always remember him as not only a smart politician but also as a pretty cool guy. He could've skipped the whole "I didn't enhale" embarrassment - but other than that he was pretty far from "a personoid incapable of normal responses".
Anyway, the main reason I am posting is (as always) to provide a right turn to the discussion. I understand that both the author and the audience are not interested much in what's going on on the other side of the campaign fence at this point. But since we are talking about a possibility of electing a female President - why is it that nobody mentions one lady who is immencely more qualified than Mrs. Clinton?
Her career track included positions of the Federal Trade Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Transportation and a Senator. She was widely expected to become the Vice President in the current administration (except for sudden twist where You-Know-Who searched thoroughly and decided he was better qualified for that post).
So, every time we talk about potential female Presidents - why not be fair and mention Elizabeth Dole too?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: On the subject (sort of...)
Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous
» Age factor
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Age factor
Posted by: salmagundi
» elizabeth dole is a bush a**-polyp
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: elizabeth dole is a bush a**-polyp
Posted by: morticia
» Are you friggin' kidding me?
Posted by: vox persona
» Thanks
Posted by: Leman
» RE: On the subject (sort of...)
Posted by: Intellect
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kgosztola on Oct 3, 2007 5:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For instance, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel have shown that they can bring wit, heart, and intelligence to the campaign trail that Americans need to see in candidates. The two have shown how advantageous it can be to have a candidate that does not cater to the establishment or allow themselves to be a slave to the corporate interests or special interests.
I do not think Obama or Clinton suffers a "lack-of-personality" disorder because he or she cannot hack it on the campaign trail. I just think they are robotic and too much like clones to be interesting to the American people because they have to watch who they offend.
The test is this: If any of the Democratic candidates can appear on the Real Time w/ Bill Maher show and walk away having gotten laughs and applause, than he or she deserves to be president because he or she will have proven that he or she can be trusted and be loose, not tight, in front of the American people. So far, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich have proven they can open up to the American people and not hide anything by allowing Bill Maher to ask them tough questions Americans deserve to hear answered.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Some Have Been Able to Overcome That "Lack-of-Personality" Disorder
Posted by: afrothetics2
» RE: Some Have Been Able to Overcome That "Lack-of-Personality" Disorder
Posted by: Intellect
Comments are closed-
Posted by: glow on Oct 3, 2007 5:35 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this becoming just a silly provocative entertainment site or can we get real.
To poke fun at or to try to make an issue out of politicians because of their laugh or their caution on the campaign trail is just plain boring and corporate media redundant.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: glow
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: glow
Posted by: animalleaderisgreat
» RE: glow
Posted by: 1gma
Comments are closed-
Posted by: catullus13 on Oct 3, 2007 6:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's like a perpetual job interview, where you're being put under the microscope and asked over and over: What would you say your greatest strengths are? What would you say your biggest weaknesses are? Where do you see yourself in five years? What do you hope to achieve here?
Yi! I've gone through that all too much recently, but not continuously day after day, week after week. If our candidates seem a bit robotic, I give them points for even being able to stand upright after many months of this.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wrensis on Oct 3, 2007 6:52 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urstrly on Oct 3, 2007 6:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only Democrat who doesn't fit the profile is Kucinich, with whom I agree on almost everything but whose persona is already so deflated I can't embrace it. Gravel, Richardson and Dodd still have some spontaneity left in them, but you have to wonder if it's only because the DNC doesn't consider them viable. If we wind up with another Republican actor for president (and there are several in this race) maybe the Dems will finally ditch the consultants.
p.s. I delete all your emails, James Carville, and I'm not buying your books, Bob Shrum and Mark Penn.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Personality Drain
Posted by: Intellect
» Good point
Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: mick3
Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: mick3
Posted by: 1gma
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 3, 2007 7:39 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Nugeman on Oct 3, 2007 7:42 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This election stuff is nonsence. Bush will be king for life, so many of you have said because of his actions. So don't waste time on these presidential candidates, cause it ain't gonna happen, baby.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ight On Mick 3
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: etisoppa on Oct 3, 2007 7:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am going to assume that you are ALL like me 100% four-square behind the US Constitutionals our modern Democratic Western democracy civilization of individual rights freedom of thought, expression and congregation. We did not defeat the Totalitarian Communists just to become a Totalitarian society on ANY basis at all.
I am suggesting a campaign where we assert to these NWO people that we as still Western democracies with ALL our rights 100% intact. NOT one % point of our rights have been forfeited for ANYTHING.
So to make sure they understand this I am proposing that we start a campaign where on this November 23 2007 we are all as free citizens, going to talk about "mind assault technology" to each other , to the media, on the net any place we can, whether we believe in mind assault technology or not.
And for those who may not like to do this on that day, they can do it on November 24 2007. We have to let these NWO people understand that our full Western individual rights are still intact and it is something we are proud of. We feel proud of being part of this civilization which demands the best of qualities in each person.
WE WANT TO CREATE AN INTERNET "BUZZ" THAT WILL BECOME A FULL BUZZ.POST THE IDEA ON WEBSITES ON ALTERNATIVE NEWS SITE ETC. POST WITH PEOPLE KNOWN TO BE 100% BEHIND PUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN POLITICS , MEDIA, GROUPS WITH CONSTITUTIONAL VIEWS ETC.
AS to any who may have any belief-system reservations about doing this ( I sense thee may be some) just remember we must use as role models, those who have lived and are fully living, the Christian principles especially in regards to how they have treated others. To find such individuals, look where there are or have been Christians who have assisted others without regard to their faith or belief and have not tried or conditioned their regard, assistance, respect and treatment on being able preach to or convert others. And remember the lives of those who are from other belief-systems, cultures, religions ( or not) and who have lived just as exemplary lives as these other role-models.
NO one can convince me that usage of this mind assault technology is part of ANY civilized religious practices. And if anyone wants to build a religious practice around this technology, we are ALL protected from such abuses under the Constitutions of our Western democratic civilization!
I am sure no one takes their rights as BS . For psychological and other reasons we ALL HAVE TO DO THIS!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peacelf on Oct 3, 2007 8:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's why we have to ask, not if america is ready for a woman or black president, but if the candidates fit our ideals about furthering democracy in a thin or weak democratic nation.
Let's face it, whether we had/have a democracy is in question, because the people speak and know-it-all politicians pretend to listen, then ignore us. For example, the mandate in the last Congressional elections was "get us out of Iraq! NOW!" We all cheered when the Democrats regained control of Congress. Nearly one year later, the Iraq war surged, and the Dems continued funding the war.
Now, the Dems say they'll get us out of Iraq when they win the presidency in 08, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich who has voted against funding the war and plans an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces upon his election.
Hillary, on the other hand, refuses to set a timetable for withdrawing troops and has more than suggested a permanant U.S. presence in Iraq.
Robert Terry's essay on "The White Male Club" might shed some light on Hillary's role in american politics. Terry writes:
"A club is an organization of people which projects a distinguishing purpose(s) - different from other clubs, selects members in keeping with that purpose, bestows supposed material and psychological benefits on the membership for joining and keeping the membership in good standing, distributes influence and power among its members, establishes some form of organization in terms of institutional procedures, practices, and policies to carry out internal and external objectives and legitimates certain life styles and requires at least public acquiescence to them."
That we live in a white patriarchal dominated society (aka, "the club") is well known, so to explain Hillary's
poll-driven, lobbyist-influenced politics, they are rooted in her desire to be a part of the club. Obama, for the most part, seeks membership as well, but let's stick to Hillary.
Not that I want to blame them-- the rules for white male club membership are long established, and any candidate who seeks political offices either plays by the rules, or risks being marginalized by the corporate-owned white patriarchal media. Because, the white male club owns and operates everything to their benefit.
Every institution, from education to agriculture, corporations to state welfare, is designed to benefit the club. Enthusiastic membership in the club can gain one position and power, even riches. But, challenge the club's power and existence!...you're sure to end up like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X or Robert Kennedy.
Hillary became a full fledged member of the White Male club in 1994 when she backed down on universal health care. Eventually, childrens learn. Today, she supports neoliberal economic reforms that increase the profits of the health insurance industry by either government augmentation of health corporation profits for low income people and by forcing middle income people to buy health insurance.
Black, female, Latino, or caucasion; it doesn't matter; if you're not part of the club, you're part of the club's detractors, thus excluded.
But, membership is priceless!
peace
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hillary and the White Male Club
Posted by: 1gma
» RE: two thirds?
Posted by: peacelf
» RE: Hillary and the White Male Club
Posted by: Intellect
» RE: Hillary and the White Male Club
Posted by: peacelf
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Oct 3, 2007 11:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mewsician on Oct 3, 2007 11:10 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: WOULD IT BE TOO MUCH TO ASK
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: WOULD IT BE TOO MUCH TO ASK
Posted by: MAD
» RE: WOULD IT BE TOO MUCH TO ASK
Posted by: 1gma
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 3, 2007 12:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, what America needs is more actors. More entertainers, more likeable leaders--like Reagan. I admit that's a big part of what gets politicians elected. But it has zero,zip,zilch to do with governing. Plato tells us it is the fatal weakness of democracy. It gets George Wallaces and George Bushes elected.
Now I can understand, having heard you speak, Ehrenreich, how you are touchy on the issues, since you come across in the same way. Instead of telling a candidate how to look good, I suggest you find a way to deal with your own sense of inadequacy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: improperly_sedated on Oct 3, 2007 3:01 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our rulers have chosen the next president, and we shall now be led through the empty ritual that we persist in calling an "election." It's hard to find many actual Hillary supporters, and yet the latest "survey" always tells us she's our "choice." If she winds up being appointed by the Supreme Court, I will be unsurprised.
Be seeing you.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MAD on Oct 3, 2007 3:12 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's precisely why you won't get my vote you lying bitch!! God forbid we socialize medicine. God forbid we even insure children for the paltry sum of $5 billion a year. Oh well, that money is better spent making amputees out of Iraqi children.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Schieffer's question is ridiculous. Why didn't he ask her, "Who's on first?"
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Schieffer's question is ridiculous. Why didn't he ask her, "Who's on first?"
Posted by: Intellect
» You are correct.
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SamFox on Oct 3, 2007 5:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary & Obamma are both CFR. so Is Rudy the cross dresser & Freddy T.
Bush is skull & Bones. Another division of the New World Order crowd.
What we need more than any thing else in the US at ATM is a return to true Constitutional original intent government. That is where Ron Paul comes in. He has a 100% PRO constitution voting record. He wants to RE establish State's rights & personal liberty & responsibility. He wants to get back to the Constitution & Founder's advice regarding the relatively new US foreign policy of interventionism. He would prefer the US mind it's own business regarding other nations. Trade with them, dialog with them but quit meddling in their affairs.
None of the Dems & few of the Repubs will stop the war.
Here is part of where I am coming from.
Here is a bit about our rosy economy:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd288.htm
Hillary will end the War?
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin402.htm
A Christian Pastor takes on the religious right-
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin401.htm
Here are some articles on the CFR-
http://www.google.com/search?q=+CFR&btnG=
Search&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newswithviews.
com&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newswithviews.com
(Above is one link cut for space)
Here is why it was illegal for GWB to invade Iraq-
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin32.htm
Ron Paul-
http://www.newswithviews.com/Betty/Freauf107.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff151.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd272.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Takala/rudy19.htm
Here are some YouTube vids about Ron-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqlnl-T3Gxk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PTMgLTgiDY
Ron Paul & blow back-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjqGBBFiowE
A lady talks up Ron Paul-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn7Nq4Z2-Sg
That's enough for now. Check out Ron Paul. He is a great hope for the US but he can't do it alone.
SamFox
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: There are very few in the Prez race that are not
Posted by: 1gma
» RE: There are very few in the Prez race that are not: The issue is
Posted by: SamFox
» RE: There are very few in the Prez race that are not: The issue is-Here is another
Posted by: SamFox
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Oct 3, 2007 6:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Again, I applaud your awareness for nuance. The "Clinton cackle" and the actions of the Ambiance candidate cause me great concern as well.
I too am distressed by the lack of responsiveness her rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards demonstrate on issues of import. The soft response to Jena Six situation is among many malleable moments amongst the front-runners. The continuance of private programs, that the Big Three title Universal Health Care frightens me. I suspect if we sustain the status quo, as the three think apt, all will worsen.
I wish I could blame the weak stances of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on the length of the campaign, the food they ingest, or sleep deprivation. I do not. I think if we focused on other than image, the months available to meet and greet the candidates would be grand. I believe this could be a wondrous opportunity to engage authentically with the Presidential aspirants.
As I assess the campaign, I feel as though I am at a high school dance. Most of the boys look for the "girl' who will make the best impression on their chums. Fellows yearn for a strong woman, one that stands above the crowd. Chaps crave the popular cheerleader type. She understands the need to fight for what is right. If her friends and family are powerful, all the better.
The female types who wish to dance want to hang with a winner. The women also take a long look at the guys. Tall, dark, and handsome is appealing. Sincerity is sweet. A gentleman who adores his family is fine.
I share my reflection and invite your review . . .
Democrats Dance United; Kucinich Differs. Exit Iraq, 2007 or 2013
Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ArthurTHimmelman on Oct 3, 2007 6:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: herbal on Oct 3, 2007 10:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary addressing AIPAC (3 min.):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVWagtd8uwM&mode=related&search=
Hillary's "No options left on the table..." nuclear threat.
Then consider the company she keeps at AIPAC:
Rev. Hagee the self-described Christian Zionist. rapture cultist: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDRxmqOn7x4&mode=related&search=
Will US foreign policy continue to be directed by AIPAC under Hillary Clinton? All the candidates need to be asked if they have accepted donations from foreign agencies and lobbies like AIPAC. It is time to join with the Jewish peace activists here and in Israel, and not fear the Lukid zionist backlash of AIPAC. Israelis are deeply divided over war and peace issues; we simply don't get their news past the US corporate media censors. Hillary Clinton represents a travesty of an added 4 to 8 years of the same world hegemony as Bush Jr. Let us not forget her perfect Bush agenda voting record up until the day her campaign began! There should be no options left on the table to defeat Hillary Clinton in the Primaries. We certainly must remember the Republican media campaign to declare all candidates as "unelectable" with the exception of Kerry (Yale, Skull and Bones, Wall St.) in 2004. This article seems to be cast in that mold that we see being cast in the TV "debates"; downplaying the most progressive candidates while focusing on the least threatening to the status quo. What do Carl Rove, Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton have in common? Invasion of Iran fixation.
Hillary AIPAC video address:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVWagtd8uwM&mode=related&search=
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drblack on Oct 4, 2007 1:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeanne on Oct 4, 2007 6:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: american on Oct 5, 2007 10:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(Because they get the most money and coverage from the plutocracy vs. the other candidates who essentially have the same "views.")
Cynical? No, I wholeheartedly wish this weren't so.
But, again and again, these politicians do the same things that, again and again, are unsucessful.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rune on Oct 3, 2007 12:35 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is time to put it to the Democrats. Either force the party to stand up for the major concerns of the majority of Americans that are within the power of the Democratic majority in Congress to insist upon (if not force outright) or leave the party before the primaries start if you want the votes of those of us who stand anywhere to the left of neocon and fascist drivers of current legislative and policy trends. Anything less is just a recipe for perpetuating the most serious abuses of the Bush administration--though not necessarily with as much overt enthusiasm (oh, there's that candor thing again!)--which continues to get its way on most matters just as surely as when the Republicans held the rubber stamp. Either the party most come back to its roots or its candidates must turn their backs on the party and embrace the people they claim to represent if we are to have leadership that progressives and liberals can support or vote for in good faith.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: But can the country endure any more Democratic "leadership"?
Posted by: Sparks56
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vox persona on Oct 3, 2007 1:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Where do we turn?
Posted by: efficacy
» RE: Where do we turn?
Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: Where do we turn?
Posted by: christastropher
» Joe Biden....Are You Kidding???
Posted by: CatDad
» Now you see why I'm so disheartened
Posted by: vox persona
» RE: Where do we turn?
Posted by: Intellect
» RE: Where do we turn? Around. I hope.
Posted by: SamFox
» RE: Where do we turn?
Posted by: Joe
Comments are closed-
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Oct 3, 2007 3:07 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as far as hillary herself. competent. driven. and probably would do a good job except for those anti-clintons, who would see nothing good in her at all. does she also have a personal agenda? now who's being naive? each and every person seeking that office has a personal agenda. a to-do list. most effective as a president, a good chance at being so, but not, however, my choice. at this point.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: wrong on hillary
Posted by: maestra
» RE: wrong on hillary
Posted by: Basenjis
» yes, the reasons i don't like her
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: wrong on hillary
Posted by: JonA
» RE: wrong on hillary
Posted by: 1gma
» RE: imperialist hillary
Posted by: peacelf
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 3, 2007 3:38 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for gender and race, our obsession with a meaningless milestone of having our first female or black president seems to subject those candidates to a separate standard. Is Obama too white to be the first black president? Does Hillary lack the warm nurturing qualities to be the first female president?...And does this article suggest that black/female candidates must be less boring than white males?
Maybe we should have a new way of picking a president. They're all sequestered and subject to a gag rule for the entire campaign, and nobody is allowed to know the color or gender of the candidate. Their only communication would be to submit a 500 word essay on why they should be president. Of course, this assumes that most Americans can read and have an attention span of more than 10 seconds.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rocketman on Oct 3, 2007 3:56 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Christie on Oct 3, 2007 4:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» i wish, along with you
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: i wish, along with you: Gore/Kucinich
Posted by: Christie
» RE: None of the above
Posted by: rocketman
» "Clinton stigma"
Posted by: NWCrow
» RE: "Clinton stigma"
Posted by: peacelf
» hagio-Gore
Posted by: giles
» Well said, G....well said
Posted by: vox persona
» RE: hagio-Gore
Posted by: Intellect
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Leman on Oct 3, 2007 5:18 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[...] What do you get after a few months of this? A golem, the artificial, man-like creature of Kabalistic lore, a personoid incapable of normal responses.
It depends...
Her husband did not turn into a golem, did he? I will always remember him as not only a smart politician but also as a pretty cool guy. He could've skipped the whole "I didn't enhale" embarrassment - but other than that he was pretty far from "a personoid incapable of normal responses".
Anyway, the main reason I am posting is (as always) to provide a right turn to the discussion. I understand that both the author and the audience are not interested much in what's going on on the other side of the campaign fence at this point. But since we are talking about a possibility of electing a female President - why is it that nobody mentions one lady who is immencely more qualified than Mrs. Clinton?
Her career track included positions of the Federal Trade Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Transportation and a Senator. She was widely expected to become the Vice President in the current administration (except for sudden twist where You-Know-Who searched thoroughly and decided he was better qualified for that post).
So, every time we talk about potential female Presidents - why not be fair and mention Elizabeth Dole too?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: On the subject (sort of...)
Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous
» Age factor
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Age factor
Posted by: salmagundi
» elizabeth dole is a bush a**-polyp
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: elizabeth dole is a bush a**-polyp
Posted by: morticia
» Are you friggin' kidding me?
Posted by: vox persona
» Thanks
Posted by: Leman
» RE: On the subject (sort of...)
Posted by: Intellect
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kgosztola on Oct 3, 2007 5:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For instance, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel have shown that they can bring wit, heart, and intelligence to the campaign trail that Americans need to see in candidates. The two have shown how advantageous it can be to have a candidate that does not cater to the establishment or allow themselves to be a slave to the corporate interests or special interests.
I do not think Obama or Clinton suffers a "lack-of-personality" disorder because he or she cannot hack it on the campaign trail. I just think they are robotic and too much like clones to be interesting to the American people because they have to watch who they offend.
The test is this: If any of the Democratic candidates can appear on the Real Time w/ Bill Maher show and walk away having gotten laughs and applause, than he or she deserves to be president because he or she will have proven that he or she can be trusted and be loose, not tight, in front of the American people. So far, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich have proven they can open up to the American people and not hide anything by allowing Bill Maher to ask them tough questions Americans deserve to hear answered.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Some Have Been Able to Overcome That "Lack-of-Personality" Disorder
Posted by: afrothetics2
» RE: Some Have Been Able to Overcome That "Lack-of-Personality" Disorder
Posted by: Intellect
Comments are closed-
Posted by: glow on Oct 3, 2007 5:35 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this becoming just a silly provocative entertainment site or can we get real.
To poke fun at or to try to make an issue out of politicians because of their laugh or their caution on the campaign trail is just plain boring and corporate media redundant.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: glow
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: glow
Posted by: animalleaderisgreat
» RE: glow
Posted by: 1gma
Comments are closed-
Posted by: catullus13 on Oct 3, 2007 6:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's like a perpetual job interview, where you're being put under the microscope and asked over and over: What would you say your greatest strengths are? What would you say your biggest weaknesses are? Where do you see yourself in five years? What do you hope to achieve here?
Yi! I've gone through that all too much recently, but not continuously day after day, week after week. If our candidates seem a bit robotic, I give them points for even being able to stand upright after many months of this.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wrensis on Oct 3, 2007 6:52 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urstrly on Oct 3, 2007 6:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only Democrat who doesn't fit the profile is Kucinich, with whom I agree on almost everything but whose persona is already so deflated I can't embrace it. Gravel, Richardson and Dodd still have some spontaneity left in them, but you have to wonder if it's only because the DNC doesn't consider them viable. If we wind up with another Republican actor for president (and there are several in this race) maybe the Dems will finally ditch the consultants.
p.s. I delete all your emails, James Carville, and I'm not buying your books, Bob Shrum and Mark Penn.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Personality Drain
Posted by: Intellect
» Good point
Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: mick3
Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: mick3
Posted by: 1gma
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 3, 2007 7:39 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Nugeman on Oct 3, 2007 7:42 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This election stuff is nonsence. Bush will be king for life, so many of you have said because of his actions. So don't waste time on these presidential candidates, cause it ain't gonna happen, baby.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ight On Mick 3
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: etisoppa on Oct 3, 2007 7:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am going to assume that you are ALL like me 100% four-square behind the US Constitutionals our modern Democratic Western democracy civilization of individual rights freedom of thought, expression and congregation. We did not defeat the Totalitarian Communists just to become a Totalitarian society on ANY basis at all.
I am suggesting a campaign where we assert to these NWO people that we as still Western democracies with ALL our rights 100% intact. NOT one % point of our rights have been forfeited for ANYTHING.
So to make sure they understand this I am proposing that we start a campaign where on this November 23 2007 we are all as free citizens, going to talk about "mind assault technology" to each other , to the media, on the net any place we can, whether we believe in mind assault technology or not.
And for those who may not like to do this on that day, they can do it on November 24 2007. We have to let these NWO people understand that our full Western individual rights are still intact and it is something we are proud of. We feel proud of being part of this civilization which demands the best of qualities in each person.
WE WANT TO CREATE AN INTERNET "BUZZ" THAT WILL BECOME A FULL BUZZ.POST THE IDEA ON WEBSITES ON ALTERNATIVE NEWS SITE ETC. POST WITH PEOPLE KNOWN TO BE 100% BEHIND PUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN POLITICS , MEDIA, GROUPS WITH CONSTITUTIONAL VIEWS ETC.
AS to any who may have any belief-system reservations about doing this ( I sense thee may be some) just remember we must use as role models, those who have lived and are fully living, the Christian principles especially in regards to how they have treated others. To find such individuals, look where there are or have been Christians who have assisted others without regard to their faith or belief and have not tried or conditioned their regard, assistance, respect and treatment on being able preach to or convert others. And remember the lives of those who are from other belief-systems, cultures, religions ( or not) and who have lived just as exemplary lives as these other role-models.
NO one can convince me that usage of this mind assault technology is part of ANY civilized religious practices. And if anyone wants to build a religious practice around this technology, we are ALL protected from such abuses under the Constitutions of our Western democratic civilization!
I am sure no one takes their rights as BS . For psychological and other reasons we ALL HAVE TO DO THIS!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peacelf on Oct 3, 2007 8:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's why we have to ask, not if america is ready for a woman or black president, but if the candidates fit our ideals about furthering democracy in a thin or weak democratic nation.
Let's face it, whether we had/have a democracy is in question, because the people speak and know-it-all politicians pretend to listen, then ignore us. For example, the mandate in the last Congressional elections was "get us out of Iraq! NOW!" We all cheered when the Democrats regained control of Congress. Nearly one year later, the Iraq war surged, and the Dems continued funding the war.
Now, the Dems say they'll get us out of Iraq when they win the presidency in 08, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich who has voted against funding the war and plans an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces upon his election.
Hillary, on the other hand, refuses to set a timetable for withdrawing troops and has more than suggested a permanant U.S. presence in Iraq.
Robert Terry's essay on "The White Male Club" might shed some light on Hillary's role in american politics. Terry writes:
"A club is an organization of people which projects a distinguishing purpose(s) - different from other clubs, selects members in keeping with that purpose, bestows supposed material and psychological benefits on the membership for joining and keeping the membership in good standing, distributes influence and power among its members, establishes some form of organization in terms of institutional procedures, practices, and policies to carry out internal and external objectives and legitimates certain life styles and requires at least public acquiescence to them."
That we live in a white patriarchal dominated society (aka, "the club") is well known, so to explain Hillary's
poll-driven, lobbyist-influenced politics, they are rooted in her desire to be a part of the club. Obama, for the most part, seeks membership as well, but let's stick to Hillary.
Not that I want to blame them-- the rules for white male club membership are long established, and any candidate who seeks political offices either plays by the rules, or risks being marginalized by the corporate-owned white patriarchal media. Because, the white male club owns and operates everything to their benefit.
Every institution, from education to agriculture, corporations to state welfare, is designed to benefit the club. Enthusiastic membership in the club can gain one position and power, even riches. But, challenge the club's power and existence!...you're sure to end up like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X or Robert Kennedy.
Hillary became a full fledged member of the White Male club in 1994 when she backed down on universal health care. Eventually, childrens learn. Today, she supports neoliberal economic reforms that increase the profits of the health insurance industry by either government augmentation of health corporation profits for low income people and by forcing middle income people to buy health insurance.
Black, female, Latino, or caucasion; it doesn't matter; if you're not part of the club, you're part of the club's detractors, thus excluded.
But, membership is priceless!
peace
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hillary and the White Male Club
Posted by: 1gma
» RE: two thirds?
Posted by: peacelf
» RE: Hillary and the White Male Club
Posted by: Intellect
» RE: Hillary and the White Male Club
Posted by: peacelf
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Oct 3, 2007 11:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mewsician on Oct 3, 2007 11:10 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: WOULD IT BE TOO MUCH TO ASK
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: WOULD IT BE TOO MUCH TO ASK
Posted by: MAD
» RE: WOULD IT BE TOO MUCH TO ASK
Posted by: 1gma
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 3, 2007 12:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, what America needs is more actors. More entertainers, more likeable leaders--like Reagan. I admit that's a big part of what gets politicians elected. But it has zero,zip,zilch to do with governing. Plato tells us it is the fatal weakness of democracy. It gets George Wallaces and George Bushes elected.
Now I can understand, having heard you speak, Ehrenreich, how you are touchy on the issues, since you come across in the same way. Instead of telling a candidate how to look good, I suggest you find a way to deal with your own sense of inadequacy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: improperly_sedated on Oct 3, 2007 3:01 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our rulers have chosen the next president, and we shall now be led through the empty ritual that we persist in calling an "election." It's hard to find many actual Hillary supporters, and yet the latest "survey" always tells us she's our "choice." If she winds up being appointed by the Supreme Court, I will be unsurprised.
Be seeing you.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MAD on Oct 3, 2007 3:12 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's precisely why you won't get my vote you lying bitch!! God forbid we socialize medicine. God forbid we even insure children for the paltry sum of $5 billion a year. Oh well, that money is better spent making amputees out of Iraqi children.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Schieffer's question is ridiculous. Why didn't he ask her, "Who's on first?"
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Schieffer's question is ridiculous. Why didn't he ask her, "Who's on first?"
Posted by: Intellect
» You are correct.
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SamFox on Oct 3, 2007 5:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary & Obamma are both CFR. so Is Rudy the cross dresser & Freddy T.
Bush is skull & Bones. Another division of the New World Order crowd.
What we need more than any thing else in the US at ATM is a return to true Constitutional original intent government. That is where Ron Paul comes in. He has a 100% PRO constitution voting record. He wants to RE establish State's rights & personal liberty & responsibility. He wants to get back to the Constitution & Founder's advice regarding the relatively new US foreign policy of interventionism. He would prefer the US mind it's own business regarding other nations. Trade with them, dialog with them but quit meddling in their affairs.
None of the Dems & few of the Repubs will stop the war.
Here is part of where I am coming from.
Here is a bit about our rosy economy:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd288.htm
Hillary will end the War?
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin402.htm
A Christian Pastor takes on the religious right-
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin401.htm
Here are some articles on the CFR-
http://www.google.com/search?q=+CFR&btnG=
Search&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newswithviews.
com&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newswithviews.com
(Above is one link cut for space)
Here is why it was illegal for GWB to invade Iraq-
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin32.htm
Ron Paul-
http://www.newswithviews.com/Betty/Freauf107.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff151.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd272.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Takala/rudy19.htm
Here are some YouTube vids about Ron-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqlnl-T3Gxk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PTMgLTgiDY
Ron Paul & blow back-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjqGBBFiowE
A lady talks up Ron Paul-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn7Nq4Z2-Sg
That's enough for now. Check out Ron Paul. He is a great hope for the US but he can't do it alone.
SamFox
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: There are very few in the Prez race that are not
Posted by: 1gma
» RE: There are very few in the Prez race that are not: The issue is
Posted by: SamFox
» RE: There are very few in the Prez race that are not: The issue is-Here is another
Posted by: SamFox
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Oct 3, 2007 6:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Again, I applaud your awareness for nuance. The "Clinton cackle" and the actions of the Ambiance candidate cause me great concern as well.
I too am distressed by the lack of responsiveness her rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards demonstrate on issues of import. The soft response to Jena Six situation is among many malleable moments amongst the front-runners. The continuance of private programs, that the Big Three title Universal Health Care frightens me. I suspect if we sustain the status quo, as the three think apt, all will worsen.
I wish I could blame the weak stances of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on the length of the campaign, the food they ingest, or sleep deprivation. I do not. I think if we focused on other than image, the months available to meet and greet the candidates would be grand. I believe this could be a wondrous opportunity to engage authentically with the Presidential aspirants.
As I assess the campaign, I feel as though I am at a high school dance. Most of the boys look for the "girl' who will make the best impression on their chums. Fellows yearn for a strong woman, one that stands above the crowd. Chaps crave the popular cheerleader type. She understands the need to fight for what is right. If her friends and family are powerful, all the better.
The female types who wish to dance want to hang with a winner. The women also take a long look at the guys. Tall, dark, and handsome is appealing. Sincerity is sweet. A gentleman who adores his family is fine.
I share my reflection and invite your review . . .
Democrats Dance United; Kucinich Differs. Exit Iraq, 2007 or 2013
Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ArthurTHimmelman on Oct 3, 2007 6:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: herbal on Oct 3, 2007 10:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary addressing AIPAC (3 min.):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVWagtd8uwM&mode=related&search=
Hillary's "No options left on the table..." nuclear threat.
Then consider the company she keeps at AIPAC:
Rev. Hagee the self-described Christian Zionist. rapture cultist: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDRxmqOn7x4&mode=related&search=
Will US foreign policy continue to be directed by AIPAC under Hillary Clinton? All the candidates need to be asked if they have accepted donations from foreign agencies and lobbies like AIPAC. It is time to join with the Jewish peace activists here and in Israel, and not fear the Lukid zionist backlash of AIPAC. Israelis are deeply divided over war and peace issues; we simply don't get their news past the US corporate media censors. Hillary Clinton represents a travesty of an added 4 to 8 years of the same world hegemony as Bush Jr. Let us not forget her perfect Bush agenda voting record up until the day her campaign began! There should be no options left on the table to defeat Hillary Clinton in the Primaries. We certainly must remember the Republican media campaign to declare all candidates as "unelectable" with the exception of Kerry (Yale, Skull and Bones, Wall St.) in 2004. This article seems to be cast in that mold that we see being cast in the TV "debates"; downplaying the most progressive candidates while focusing on the least threatening to the status quo. What do Carl Rove, Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton have in common? Invasion of Iran fixation.
Hillary AIPAC video address:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVWagtd8uwM&mode=related&search=
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drblack on Oct 4, 2007 1:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeanne on Oct 4, 2007 6:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: american on Oct 5, 2007 10:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(Because they get the most money and coverage from the plutocracy vs. the other candidates who essentially have the same "views.")
Cynical? No, I wholeheartedly wish this weren't so.
But, again and again, these politicians do the same things that, again and again, are unsucessful.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




