Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

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


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Michael Moore: Who Is the Best Dem Candidate on the Issues?

By Michael Moore, MichaelMoore.com. Posted January 2, 2008.


If you cut through the media coverage on the Dem candidates, John Edwards' positions on health care, Iraq and corporations shine out.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Michael Moore

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.

Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us ... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked me up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."

So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: barack obama, hillary clinton, iowa

Michael Moore is an Academy award-winning filmmaker and author of "Dude, Where's My Country?"

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:
On Edwards
Posted by: EncinoM on Jan 2, 2008 2:14 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A candidate who says things like this: 'I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy.'"

Yet after leaving the senate he goes and works for a hedge fund.

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

» Absolutely! Spot on Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: On Edwards Posted by: CatDad
» RE: On Edwards Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: On Edwards Posted by: CatDad
» RE: On Edwards Posted by: CharliePatton
» Reality check Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» Ron Paul's success!?!?! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Ron Paul's success!?!?! Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: On Edwards Posted by: 1gma
» RE: On Edwards Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: On Edwards Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: On Edwards Posted by: babs
» RE: On Edwards Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: On Edwards Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: On Edwards Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: On Edwards Posted by: CatDad
» RE: On Edwards Posted by: EncinoM
» Edwards reamed 'em where it hurts Posted by: scheherezade
» Not at all true - Posted by: PaulC
» RE: In fact Posted by: rage
Just one more step!
Posted by: sandramore on Jan 2, 2008 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on Michael, it's obvious that you know who the Democratic nominee should be. Don't just stand on the threshold, step through the door - endorse John!

Michael Moore gave reasons for supporting John Edwards. Here are a few more:

- Edwards is the ONLY candidate who has NEVER taken money from Washington Lobbyists or PACs. For his senate race, Obama accepted over $1.2 million from them. The only reason he's not accepting that money now is because John Edwards made it an issue.

- It wasn't until after Edwards publicly asked them to that Senator Obama and then Senator Clinton declared their support for raising the minimum wage to 9.50$ an hour.

- Senator Edwards was the first candidate to release a detailed plan for rural recovery.

- Senator Edwards has driven the debate on Universal Health Care. He had the first plan out and he is the only Democrat who has committed to standing up to politicians who would guard their own health care, but not pass health care for every American. A few months later, under pressure Senator Obama released a plan that is not Universal. A few months after that, Senator Clinton released a plan that is a lot like the Edwards plan. This is odd considering that at the same DNC Winter Meeting of 2007 at which Edwards called on the party to stand for Universal Health Care, Senator Clinton explained that she would only try to improve health care if she were to receive a second term.

- Edwards was the first and only of the "big 3" candidates to publicly support the 2006 Kerry-Feingold Amendment to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton voted AGAINST it.

- First candidate to call for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales.

- John Edwards has the strongest plan to protect the environment and reduce global warming. Both Obama and Clinton support the liquification of coal, which will double the rate of global warming. John Edwards opposes it.

- While everyone else was offering platitudes after the death of Benazir Bhutto, John Edwards actually *did* something by picking up the phone and calling Musharraf.

How can there be any question who to support? And if you want to know more about where his passion comes from, try this NYTs article:

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

» Great post sandramore! Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Vote Edwards!!!!!!!!! Posted by: MeridaLady
» RE: Vote Edwards!!!!!!!!! Posted by: clvngodess
» EDWARDS/OBAMA 2008 Posted by: HistArch
» RE: DWARDS/OBAMA 2008 Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Just one more step! Posted by: Tishijo
Moore discounts Kucinich
Posted by: peacelf on Jan 2, 2008 2:29 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kucinich, as Moore points out, is THE candidate, who fits his and the progressive agenda best. Then why for Christ''s sake can't he be elected by the so called progressives and liberals who want his ideals to be america's ideals?

Principled, honest (even that he saw a UFO, and who hasn't?), compassionate, just and a builder of hope! What more can we ask for?
Iowans, vote Kucinich next week!

peace

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

» RE: Moore discounts Kucinich Posted by: left_libertarian
» RE: Moore discounts Kucinich Posted by: carbon-based
» America is progressive Posted by: sliver
» RE: Moore discounts Kucinich Posted by: profedwards
» Voting Kucinich tomorrow Posted by: nobody4prez
» RE: Yea Ames, Iowa Posted by: Ripcord
» dennis, dennis, dennis, dennis!! Posted by: undrgrndgirl
the stage is set
Posted by: thelostsailor on Jan 2, 2008 2:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MM reminds us that we're in trouble yet again. The media is riding Clinton and Obama, the two candidates whom more people are disliking everyday, for very good reasons. So the stage is set for another Democrat, who no one wants to write home about, to face a close election with some Republican meathead. Sound familiar??
Our two party system, buying your way into the White House with big campaign dollars, and the all powerful media are 3 huge problems that have already sunk this country's morale and the world's approval rating of this country to as low as it can go....

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

It's obvious that Alternet is biased towards John Edwards, but this is really pushing it, guys
Posted by: Wexler on Jan 2, 2008 3:13 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many anti-Obama stories are you planning to run today? You got your heads handed back to you on the first one, so now you call out Michael Moore?

When was the last time you added a new opinion piece in the middle of the day? You must REALLY hate Obama.

On to the piece.

Michael, you're movie about 9/11 is one of the most moving films I've ever seen. I loved Sicko, too. But to use your own phraseology, who are you besides a guy who can make a good movie? No one to tell me that I should be voting for Edwards over Obama, that's for damn sure.

Regarding the "electability" issue that you raise, I'm surprised that a man who has spent his life taking on the big corporations in semi-Quixotic gestures, I'm amazed to read you say that you think Edwards is more electable so the Dems should choose him over Obama.

Is Edwards more "electable"? Really? In 2004 he couldn't even deliver his own STATE. Really.

I like Edwards, in fact I like him a LOT. But I think Alternet is really showing its bias today. Jonathan must be on vacation.

-Wexler

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

» RE: No need - he came in second Posted by: UnEasyOne
Edwards Edwards Edwards
Posted by: g50 on Jan 2, 2008 3:57 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me comment on the logic of this article, first. Now, I think Michael Moore is a great filmmaker, but there is a relatively clear flaw in this article. His indict on Obama is that all he is known for is giving a speech. Then he goes on and praises all of the things Edwards says. That is the flaw.

Notice he doesn't say what Edwards has done. That is because in his whole career, Edwards has never done anything that would match up with what he was saying now. More to the point, Edwards has never even said any of these kinds of things until he tried to win Iowa in 2004 & now again in 08.

I know you want to believe in someone who will "stand up to the corporate interests." But Edwards is not that guy - all he will do is say what you want to hear.

The man is a phony. And even though I tend to suck it up and vote for the Democrats, I would have a real hard time swallowing as phony a candidate as Edwards.

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

» RE: Edwards Edwards Edwards Posted by: CharliePatton
WE NEED A PRESIDENT NOT A FILMMAKER
Posted by: milldude on Jan 2, 2008 4:11 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great analysis, Michael...if you were picking the successor for Michael Moore (we all create our gods in our own image, don't we?). John Edwards' current incarnation would make a decent filmmaker provocateur; but it is unlikely he would do much to end the Rovean gridlock of polarization in this country. I know the cynics among you think you have to fight fire with gasoline, but where does it stop? When will be have the courage (dare I say, the audacity) to pursue idealism through dialogue rather than ultimate compromise following the same old predictable binary politics? It's not just a dream, Obama has done it. Try to believe, or we just become the liberal version of the status quo.

Obama '08

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

» Well, ... Posted by: PaulC
» RE: We need a bright, honest (wo)man Posted by: peacefullaim
Edwards and the Hedge Fund Issue
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 2, 2008 4:26 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With Edwards on the Hedge Fund Issue, he really was one of the first to support these funds being taxed at a higher rate. Also, as I recall, Edwards pulled his money out of the hedge fund when he found out they were connected with sub-prime mortgages being issued to Hurricane Katrina victims.

I think the severity of the judgement of those who criticize Edwards on the hedge fund issue is a bit harsh. You've got Hillary and Obama receiving gobs of cash from these funds, and, daughter Chelsea has been working for one. And, I don't see Edwards saying anything now that the hedge funds and the corporations would find all that agreeable.

Now, you may question Edwards sincerity. But, I really don't see where he has demonstrated a lack of sincerity on his behavior with this issue. He seems to have quickly responded, again with the Hurricane Katrina victims issue, quickly when he found out what was going on. He is also not getting money from corporations. Therefore, just because the guy went to work for one (hedge fund) for awhile, to me, does not say a lot. He's not getting money from them now, but most all the other Dems. and all the Repubs. are.

Finally, unless you are a Kucinich supporter, there simply is no other candidate able to articulate the viewpoints that we on the Left find so important. Hillary is a corporation, pure and simple, Obama, a fast talking, used car salesman deeply in hock to the banks and big business. As for Kucinich, he is simply unelectable.

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

» rps has a point Posted by: PaulC
John
Posted by: margo1 on Jan 2, 2008 4:27 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is obvious that Kucinich is the best candidate. However,there are so many people out there who that are looking at who is the most electable. Back in 2004 I saw MM pimping John Kerry and it made me want to puke. 2008 needs be the year of change. The man has dominated every debate( when they do not ask stupid questions of him) and he has the experience and guts to stand up for what is right. Grow some balls people and support the best candidate! It is Dennis by a long shot. Hillary will bring more of the same, Obama will not win because Americans are too racist to elect a person of color, Edwards could win but does not have the voting record of DK, Biden is an insider and will fold like a cheap tent and the rest are just OK and bring nothing special to the table.

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

» RE: John Posted by: lisaisalefty
» Kucinich is the best candidate Posted by: thelostsailor
I Like Edwards, But....
Posted by: Libertine on Jan 2, 2008 4:51 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I want the candidate who has the best chance of being elected and avoiding the nightmare that would a Huckabee or Romney presidency.

I like what Edwards stand for, but I'm not sure if he's the man who can save America from four more years of religious fundamentalism.

I'll vote for whomever the Democrat candidate happensn to be.

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

» RE: I Like Edwards, But.... Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: I Like Edwards, But.... Posted by: Jersey Devil
Edwards all the way!
Posted by: Robba29 on Jan 2, 2008 4:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After seeing him speak on issues of poverty and race in America 3 years ago, I know that there is no other candidate that understands what the real issues (aside from Iraq) are that threaten our country. Any real progressive should stand firmly behind him! (or Kucinich, but sadly he doesn't have a chance)

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

» RE: dwards all the way! Posted by: left_libertarian
For The Love Of God
Posted by: hellofriends on Jan 2, 2008 5:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If people like Moore WOULD talk about Kucinich he wouldn't have to say "let's not talk about Kucinich." the problem is the self-fulfilling prophecy of saying he isn't electable. take the nation, he wins the nation poll, but the magazine refuses to endorse him. i'm sick of hearing "kucinich, amazing, unelectable." is there really THAT much of a difference between the top three tweedle-dees that people can't try for once to think without gerrymandering their fucking souls away? it's the primaries for christ's sake; we elect the best democrat, and anyone with eyes, ears and a progressive consciousness should know that that is Kucinich.

he's not resigned to winning, anyway; iowa is just a caucus state and i think he probably realized that if Hillary Clinton took Iowa she'd have a better chance of rolling over the rest of the states. he's trying to keep the election alive...my theory.

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

» RE: For The Love Of God Posted by: hellofriends
» Exactly correct! Posted by: PaulC
» No offense, but that is ridiculous Posted by: newmoonnaturals
Look at France
Posted by: european on Jan 3, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is something I don’t understand about progressive politics in countries with a two-party system (like the US) or election processes that whittle down candidates to two in the end. It seems to be always the same kind of story : instead of voting for the candidates really representing our worldview, we calculate who of the not so bad candidates might just win. Which discourages progressive voters to go to the poll and renders progressive politics untrustworthy and incapable of winning any election.

The result, time and again, is that the right wins. Look at France: there is a quite vigourous - and, sadly, not united - left with capable candidates having a meaningful track record and saying just the things we'd like to hear. Then, as the presidential election is one that lets the people only choose between two candidates, most of the left votes for a lukewarm pseudo-left candidate, Ségolène Royale, just because she's the only one who might make it against the right.

Well, what do you know before having tried something else? This kind of calculation has never worked. And what happened in France: she lost anyway because she scrambled to be even more centrist than the formerly eliminated centrist candidate Bayrou. Now the socialist party is disintegrating or, more properly said, imploding, and no one is left to defend left values and positions.

To my mind everyone should vote for the candidate who best represents their political position. If more people voted for candidates like Kucinich in caucuses, this would force the more mainstream candidates to adopt more progressive positions.

But well, who am I but a frustrated European who just doesn't get it how US politics could ever become an expression of what the people really want. And why US Americans still put up with it.

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

» RE: Look at France Posted by: richholland
» RE: Look at France Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Look at France Posted by: EncinoM
Resigned to losing?
Posted by: EKSwitaj on Jan 3, 2008 4:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last I checked, giving up on Iowa doesn't equate with giving up on the whole election.

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

This time I'm voting with my own values and morals not theirs
Posted by: warrior woman on Jan 3, 2008 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I support Edwards, hands down. I believe that he is walking the walk and talking the talk. He's got the courage to speak out against the corporate hold that is on America, Clinton and Obama do not. Period.

In the past and here on the posts, we see comments about voting for the least "worst" candidate. I'm not doing it this time. Even though I've been a Dem all my life, I could give a rat's ass about voting for these faux progressives just because they bear the label. I used to buy into this argument, no longer.

Over the past few years I've seen "my" Dem's vote for the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and the Protect America Act. I will not now or in the future support these turncoats of Democracy or our Constitution. I will hear or accept no appologies on these matters. If I can figure it out (as Michael said about the war) then these folks who are our elected officials should have been able to do the same.

Damn it! They are supposed to be reasoned, educated people. Instead, they've sold their damn souls to the devil time and again. I will vote for Edwards or no one in the Democratic party. They have just pissed me off too much to buy the argument that they support my values when the f***'d me/us every time.

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

» RE: Great Post!!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by: MeridaLady
Agree with Moore's View But.........
Posted by: drricklippin on Jan 3, 2008 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary is the most electable Dem candidate

And call me sexist but I want a woman in the whitehouse-our first-in my lifetime and I am 62 years old.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

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

» When all things are equal Posted by: sliver
» RE: When all things are equal Posted by: drricklippin
Barack Obama's honesty Vs John Edward's Phony tactics
Posted by: jkojs on Jan 3, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NO more Clinton dynasty, Mc Cain's politics of fear, Edwards Phony tactics and corrupted Health Industry.

Also its time to end 20 years of Clinton/Bush political dynasty.

!!! ITS TIME FOR CHANGE !!!

BARACK OBAMA WAS RIGHT ON IRAQ.

BARACK OBAMA WAS RIGHT ON IRAN.

BARACK OBAMA WAS RIGHT ON PAKISTAN.

BARACK OBAMA HAS RIGHT JUDGEMENT FROM THE BEGINNING.

BARACK OBAMA's JUDGEMENT TRIUMPHS OVER HILLARY's WRONG EXPERIENCE.


!!! VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA !!!

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

» RE: No WAY!!!!!!!! Posted by: MeridaLady
» Yes, way! Posted by: jmooney
If...
Posted by: jonnymil on Jan 3, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you (the Big YOU, not necessarily "you" specifically) aren't willing to vote your idealism, then why have it?

Kucinich is still electable IF people elect him--and that won't happen unless they (we) vote for him. Nader did not cost Al Gore the election. Al Gore, by all counts including Florida, won the election. From 2000 to the present and beyond, I am glad and optimistic that I will never again vote "pragmatically" or against anything or anyone. I will not hold my nose in a voting booth. I voted for Nader (in a state Gore easily won) and I will vote for Kucinich when my time comes.

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

» Thank goodness for people like you! Posted by: newmoonnaturals
» RE: If... Posted by: Doubtom
We all know the ticket we really want, Kucinich/Paul 08
Posted by: Missing Piece on Jan 3, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know they could shake up the election like no other independent ever has. This is where I am putting my energy if neither one can win there party.

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

Reason for Edwards
Posted by: US Citizen on Jan 3, 2008 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Edwards might be a good candidate, because he wants to be President so bad that he will scream the loudest when the Bush family oil and their other business interests install their puppet as President by any deceptive or brutal means necessary.

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

Primaries are a Dog and Pony show
Posted by: mom'z the word on Jan 3, 2008 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What part of the Rolling Stones deal did you not understand? You asked Hillary if she wanted to be interviewed. Her answer was the sum and substance of the interview. She said NO. It is o.k. to just say no but to deny the other two (and what about Kucinich?) a say allowed her to speak for everyone. That was a bad decision on Rolling Stones part and you went along with it.

O.K. Michael lets talk about the candidates from your point of view. First, the Kucinich thing. If someone said they were touched by an angel or saw the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast so what? Oh please, at least Kucinich is being honest and upfront. If he didn’t say anything about a UFO sighting we would give him a hard time and if he says something we give him a hard time. You can’t win for losing. Second he is the only one that has actually done anything about the impeachment process. Actions speak louder than words. He has the power of his convictions and that is what it is all about.

What has Hillary done? Voted and funded the war time and time again. She can’t do it right as a Senator. So why would being president be any different. This is a no-brainer for me. She got a bum rap on the Health care thing but you know what that is what politics is all about. It sucks and she failed. So what would she do different if she was president? Claim executive privilege and get a health care bill passed? Use all the illegal unconstitutional powers Bush invoked to get things done? Not good enough by a long shot. You got this right.

Obama is a really nice guy, very charismatic, some good ideas and he could certainly win the ‘most popular’ vote. But again, as a Senator what has he done that he could or would do different as President? Is he going to change the Constitution and put it back to the way it was? Or is he going to use the power Bush stole to put his good ideas into effect? If this is the case then there is no real change taking place here.

Edwards. Again very charismatic, the hair helps. What Edwards says about corporate America is true and it is wonderful to hear someone admit that corporate is a big problem. However saying and doing are two different things. None of these people can do anything they say alone. Once they get elected it is all about whom they appoint to key cabinet positions, advisory roles, etc. Have we forgotten who Bush appointed and where that got us? Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfsburg, Gonzales,…….!

So lets ask these candidates who they will appoint to be Attorney General, Department of Defense, Secretary of State, etc.

Stop whining about Gore. He had his chance. And when he didn’t fight to the death to get every vote counted in Florida he lost it for good. He is doing just fine where he is right now. He can do more good talking about the environment so let him be.

And just one last thing. We want to take back America? Well, playing the primary game where nominating a person becomes as important as electing a person is not the way to do it. Primaries are the dog and pony show put on by the most partisan, self-serving corrupt segment of the population, the parties. A democracy is not about nominating it is about electing. People casting a vote on a ballot on Election Day is what it this is all about. I am not going to let anyone tell me how to vote. If Kucinich is not on the ballot then I will damn well write his name in as my choice for President. I believe he is the best person for the job and to say or do anything else would be a lie. I am not going to lie on my ballot no matter what the caucus goers say.

Good to hear from you Michael. Keep up the good work. Love ya. Momztheword.

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

Englishman's advice
Posted by: UKcitizen on Jan 3, 2008 1:05 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
obama plain and simple is the future, clinton the past and edwards is for the dreamers... trust me im english we lose nearly everything


you can create some bubble about edwards but reality check he wont win, his PR is crap and while more moralistic than Kerry is no more appealing and if i forgot Kerry lost to Bush and forget about the "he was robbed" he should have walked it. If Kerry is Carl Lewis, Bush is stephen Hawkins and that makes Edwards a guy in ER with two legs broken being fed thru a tube

Obama is a winner and im fucking english

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

» Your "logic" Posted by: Ellie1
» Englishmen helped to fram America Posted by: satanshalo
THE PEOPLE'S CANDIDATE
Posted by: outrider on Jan 3, 2008 3:45 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards has whipped the insurance companies in the courts where he has won large compensatory and punitive damage awards for people like you and me. Of all the candidates he is the only candidate that is ready, willing, and able to take on corporate America and its shadow government, the industrial/military complex.

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

Dennis Kucinich & Ron Paul
Posted by: jmooney on Jan 3, 2008 4:41 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
News Flash People: Dennis Kucinich is not and will never be nominated or elected president. That's just the reality. Ron Paul is not and will never be nominated or elected president. That's just the reality. All pontificating about how they should have a better opportunity to make their case is just a bunch of ongoing blather.

Regardless, what ails this country won't be addressed by the election of a single man or woman as president. We need a Constitutional Convention to change our founding document to remove its anti-democratic tendencies and pave the way for getting big money out of politics. That's what we need to campaign for. Of course, one could say that ain't going to happen, but it is better to work for something that would make a real difference as opposed to electing a couple of weird dudes president.

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

» RE: Dennis Kucinich & Ron Paul Posted by: CharliePatton
Democrats Would Increase Military Spending
Posted by: left_libertarian on Jan 3, 2008 4:52 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton:

To help our forces recover from Iraq and prepare them to confront the full range of twenty-first-century threats, I will work to expand and modernize the military so that fighting wars no longer comes at the expense of deployments for long-term deterrence, military readiness, or responses to urgent needs at home.

John Edwards:

I will double the budget for recruitment and raise the standards for the recruitment pool so that we can reduce our reliance on felony waivers and other exceptions. In addition, I will increase our investment in the maintenance of our equipment for the safety of our troops.

Barack Obama:

To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. . . .

We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. . . . We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. . . .

I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.

We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.

http://tinyurl.com/2y4zs8

Do not vote for these war hawks!

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

Very refreshing!!!
Posted by: graffen48 on Jan 3, 2008 5:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr Moore, a very excellent post!! Although unlikely, there is some little thing in the back of my head that scares me half to death, and that is, what if somehow, the Republicans win again in November?? Oh god, I shouldn't have even said such a blasphemous thing, but it is an honestly scary thought.

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

You were expecting maybe...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jan 3, 2008 6:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any front runner to say otherwise? Come on... look at the polls... amuricuns LOVE this stuff. They love guns, the death penalty and until it gets messy and involves THEIR kids, pre-emptive war. I can't imagine anyone advocating halving the military budget or REALLY bringing the troops home now getting anything other than the Rush/O'Reilly treatment on radio and being the butt of jokes on Leno and other late night "programs"...

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

Two Party Sham
Posted by: satanshalo on Jan 3, 2008 7:05 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Edwards comment, continue to read before arriving as to the why.

The Democrat, and Republican parties are devisive instruments implimented and manipulated by self intrest agenda groups. I have heard many reasons, spin, arguments in favor for their validity,and contrived ideology as to the reason their parties should be the representative for the populace of the United States into the next century.
I hear regurgitated spin "this is the best system in the world", "It is the only system we have, improve on it", spin, spin, spin.
"Come up with a better idea", yeah right, as if independent thinking out side of the special intrest, ear mark, propaganda box, could exist on the merits of real values.
Wake up people look at the facts. The voting system is made to appear early on that "The People" with their "caucuses" are in control and have the real say. Eventually it is not the popular vote but the electorial college that decide the outcome, and in the last elections the system has been undermined by corrupt voting procedures and systems.
Having stated my opinion of our current system and having listened to both republican and democtratic canidates, being thats the only evils to choose from, I would like to see the John Edwards philosophical concepts put into ac