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.

War on Iraq

There's Not a Dime's Worth of Difference Between Hillary and Obama on Iraq

By Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report. Posted January 26, 2007.


Rep. Maxine Waters aims to stop Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from tip-toeing around the issue of Iraq and says it's time for them to get serious about an exit strategy.
01262007story
01262007Story
Advertisement

"No more nuancing and tip-toing."

Barack Obama will need another layer of Teflon if he intends to continue talking mush on Iraq withdrawal. Speaking on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Rep. Maxine Waters warned that she and other leaders of the 75-member Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus will soon journey to early Democratic primary states to determine "who is nuancing and tip-toeing" around the issue. Asked directly if she were referring to frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Waters said "they both have to prove themselves." There isn't a dime's worth of difference between Senators Obama and Clinton on the war -- both harp on the Bush regime's "mistakes" and mishandling of the nearly four-year-long carnage, while twisting like contortionists on the question of when and how the U.S. will leave Iraq. Both call for "troop caps" to, in Obama's words "bring this war to a responsible end" -- "responsible" being the escape clause that allows him to fudge the terms of exit. Clinton's "cap" include pressures on Baghdad to meet certain, amorphous "conditions" or lose undefined amounts of U.S. financial support. Neither senator threatens the war's author, Bush, with a cutoff of funds -- just a "cap" on a troop escalation that is already underway.

Barack is trickier than Hillary. In December, Obama told a corporate foreign policy conference he favors "a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq on a timetable that would begin in four to six months.... Such a timetable may not need to begin in 2007, but begin it must." Thus, Obama mouths the words "redeployment" and "timetable" -- throwing in "must" for masculine effect - while leaving in limbo the date for this fantasy schedule to commence; he doesn't even insist that the four to six month countdown start sometime this year.

"Barack is trickier than Hillary."

"The way to stop this war is to stop funding this war," Rep. Waters told CNN. The Black California congresswoman and other leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, more than a third of whose members are African Americans, are pushing legislation "that would wind us out of Iraq in six months."

Out -- not "on the way out." Out.

The "Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act," introduced last week by Rep. Lynn Woolsey and fellow Out of Iraq Caucus founders Waters and Barbara Lee, leaves no room for Clinton-Obama-esque wiggling.

"The Congress has already appropriated funding that will support our troops and keep this occupation going for at least another six months. That funding instead should be used to finance an aggressive withdrawal plan that brings our troops home to their families," said Woolsey. "Our bill would do exactly that." Iraq War is a Black Issue

Five of the Woolsey-Waters-Lee measure's original co- sponsors are Black. Twenty-six of the 42 members of the Congressional Black Caucus - 62 percent - are also part of the Out of Iraq Caucus. African Americans have been overwhelmingly opposed to the war since before the invasion. In the run-up to "Shock and Awe," pollsters from the Zogby organization found that only seven percent of Blacks favored war if it would result in the deaths of "thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians."

Since the invasion, six hundred thousand Iraqis have disappeared from the face of the Earth.

Black America is a peace bloc, for the best historical and contemporary reasons. Having been lied about for generations, African Americans are always skeptical of the veracity of those in power. Understanding full well that the racist justifications for colonialism and war are the same rationales that underpinned slavery and Jim Crow, African Americans reject U.S. adventurism in the non-European world. And, as the group that has waited more than forty years for a real War on Poverty and Marshal Plan for the Cities to materialize, Blacks are painfully aware of where the nation's treasure is invested: war.

"We want the money directed towards domestic needs."

"I am absolutely prepared to not support more money for this war," said Rep. Waters. "There is plenty of money in the pipeline" to fund a withdrawal. "We want the money... directed towards domestic needs."

At $8.4 billion dollars per month, money spent on the Iraq war could fund a renaissance of urban America and the nation's infrastructure, creating real jobs anchoring real families in an economy that is not fueled by the U.S. weapons of mass destruction industry. Every lawmaker and candidate that employs "nuancing and tip-toeing" to avoid bringing the Iraq war to a quick and definitive end, is objectively opposed to domestic American renewal -- and to world peace.

Democratic primary voters will not speak for a year - all the chattering to date comes from corporate pundits, working their horse-race sheets. However, Barack Obama's cynical maneuvering presents a serious problem for the Black political class, most of whom are anti-war, as are their constituents. Where will they stand, in the face of corporate media-generated Obama mania -- when the presidential candidate is determined to stand nowhere at all?

Maxine Waters has made her choice. Her next stop is the January 27 "Peace March on Washington," expected to draw as many as half a million people. After that, "I'm going to work on Katrina. ..."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, barack obama, hillary clinton, maxine waters

Black Agenda Report Executive Editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! 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:
Complicit or directly involved in war crimes?
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jan 26, 2007 3:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Every lawmaker and candidate that employs "nuancing and tip-toeing" to avoid bringing the Iraq war to a quick and definitive end, is objectively opposed to domestic American renewal -- and to world peace."

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

RE: No wonder
Posted by: robchapman on Jan 26, 2007 3:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Surge is heating matters up in Washington. The Dems have begun a full scale assault on Cheney, while the GOP might write its dissenters out of the party. News briefs below give a sample of these tactics.

Continuing resistance to the war is imperative. In my view, it is ever more important to reach out to people who changed their minds from supporting to opposing the Iraq War, cultivating their support and finding out their concerns.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY




n. Levin: Cheney ‘off the wall’ and ‘not vice-presidential’

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said Thursday that Vice President Dick Cheney was "off the wall" and "not vice-presidential" in telling CNN that congressional resolutions objecting to the imminent commitment of 21,500 more troops in Iraq would not stop the Bush administration from moving forward.



Conservative bloggers have initiated a pledge to deny campaign funds to Republicans who vote against President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

Led by Townhall’s Hugh Hewitt, “The NRSC Pledge” states that if the Senate passes any resolution critical of the troop increase, donors would not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. They also would not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) absent a commitment from Chairman John Ensign (R-Nev.) to not spend any committee money on those senators who are up in 2008.

As of Thursday afternoon, it had nearly 10,000 signatories.

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

Black America is a peace bloc
Posted by: ISlamIslam on Jan 26, 2007 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh really? Drive through the 'hood sometime in any major American city (if you dare) and tell me how "peaceful" they are.

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

» RE: Black America is a peace bloc Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Black America is a peace bloc Posted by: Conservasaurus
Thanks to Mr. Ford and Alternet
Posted by: Wexler on Jan 26, 2007 3:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks to Mr. Ford for an intelligent and articulate piece in the wilderness of same-old same-old. And thanks to Alternet for putting it up.

In the tradition of "triangulation", Obama and H. Clinton are trying to be tepid rather than hot or cold. This leads one to conclude that when you strip away their rhetoric and the public image they cultivate, underneath you find a calculating political animal whose main calculation is how to get elected.

Unfortunately for America, we have progressed past the point in our Iraq crisis where electability calculations are appropriate. Our situation is passing through "critical" to "emergency". What we need now is less politiking and more statesmanship. (Of course, that's what we've always needed).

Hats off to Maxine Waters and those who have joined her for their courage to say what the rest of them cannot.

W. W. Wexler

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

» RE: Truth and Wexler Posted by: bassman
How not to stop the Surge
Posted by: robchapman on Jan 26, 2007 4:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Senators Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) and Baral Obama (D., Ill.) are among the first Senators to oppose the US deployment to Iraq.

Clinton in particular has been consistently both critical to the Invasion and Occupation and determined to end the conflict without injuring American security interests.

We got into Iraq because of the us vs. them, simplistic mentality of conflict on the Right.

It would be a shame if an us vs. them, simplistic attitude of resistance on the left prolongs our involvement.

Public support for Bush and for the conflict has fallen precipitously; half of the electorate have changed their minds about the war and President Bush.

It is time for the anti war movement to accept its success and start listening to the people who changed their minds and to work with them in the next phase of the struggle: stopping the surge, getting out of Iraq and beginning a War on Terror.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

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

» RE: How not to stop the Surge Posted by: srjenkins
» Reality check. Posted by: brad
» RE: Surreality check. Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: Surreality check. Posted by: Lauren
» RE: How not to stop the Surge Posted by: oregoncharles
» So In Other Words.... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: So In Other Words.... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: How not to stop the Surge Posted by: edgar_michel
The Problem with Clinton and Obama
Posted by: murfcat on Jan 26, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both of them advocate continued US involvement in the affairs of the middle east and both have talked tough about Iran. As long as we are involved in the affairs of the middle east, we will be inciting acts of terrorism against us.

We need to start NOW with an intensive effort to get us off middle eastern oil. Oil and the belief of many that we need to protect Israel and fight their battles are the only reasons we are so heavily involved in that area. I refuse to believe that a country which went from no space program to putting people on the moon in 12 years at a time when technology was primitive compared to what we have now cannot end its addiction to middle eastern oil in a relatively short time.

Any politician who advocates for our continued invlovement in the affairs of the middle east is advocating for continued threats to our security and should be prosecuted under the unPATRIOT Act which many of them advocated and voted for.

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

ACCOUNTABLILITY, AT LAST
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 26, 2007 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary and Obama came along just in time. The war in Iraq is the sole property of Bush and Co. Not only are the Dems supposed to come up with a quick fix but now it's become their fault in the first place. Interesting. Thanks, ANNA

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

» RE: ACCOUNTABLILITY, AT LAST Posted by: edgar_michel
ACCOUNTABLILITY, AT LAST
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 26, 2007 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary and Obama came along just in time. The war in Iraq is the sole property of Bush and Co. Not only are the Dems supposed to come up with a quick fix but now it's become their fault in the first place. Interesting. Thanks, ANNA

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

» RE: ACCOUNTABLILITY, AT LAST Posted by: opeluboy
Clinton/Bush Dynasty pick or Barack Hussein Obama
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jan 26, 2007 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what will be the choice? How about Kucinich or Ron Paul the only people that were/are truely against the war, are not the current pick of a ruling family dynasty, were not named to honour militant islam, have not been involved with any corruption, vote against things on principles and don't waiver, and are against foreign entanglements and big banking interests.

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

» Why do you say this? Posted by: bassman
Re: "No Wonder"
Posted by: canadianlefty on Jan 26, 2007 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why hasn't this racist, misogyinst non-comment been deleted by the editors?

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

» RE: e: "No Wonder" Posted by: canadianlefty
» RE: e: "No Wonder" Posted by: unitedstatesofstupidity
» RE: e: "No Wonder" Posted by: morticia
» RE: e: "No Wonder" Posted by: socialgranado
» RE: e: "No Wonder" Posted by: Jayzer
Truth, common sense and smart ideas: all on the endangered species list.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 26, 2007 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When talking about our supposed leaders, using the words "politician" and "mush," as in mushy thinking, in the same sentence is being redundant.

Of course, when you realize that the majority of our politicians' waking hours are spent raising money for their next election cycle – often by kissing a lot of unsavory butts – is it any wonder real thinkers are not drawn to the political process? We are on a downward spiral, consisting of ever more inaction and malfeasance the public will tolerate from politicians, and ever fewer real solutions those politicians will bother to deliver. We have become a nation of show business, where appearance is everything and substance is often ignored.

It has been said that a population gets the government it deserves, so we'd better keep our eyes glued to "American Idol" or "WWF Wrestling," and not look too closely at ourselves in the mirror, either.

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

There needs to be a third party- forget Hillary and Obama
Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale on Jan 26, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There needs to be a third party - someone who speaks for many of us and who is not beholden to rich, corporate sponsors. Hillary REFUSED to debate Jonathan Tasini (another Dem) in the NY Senate race for the simple fact that she would have withered under his populist ideals - ideals which used to be voiced by the Old Democratic party. She and her kind (think Lieberman) would have been exposed for corporate whores they are. Not only did they vote for the war and some of the unconstitutional laws that followed, they also voted in favor of the "Bankruptcy Reform Act" in 2005- a law which bankruptcy judges and others have described as a gift to the credit card companies, because it severely restricts Chapter 7 and makes it much harder to wipe out debt. These are the same companies who are able to lawfully charge me 31.92% interest after I was late on ONE payment under my 0% interest for one year plan. How am I possibly going to escape from that trap? I live in an economically depressed area.

I was recently talking to someone who dealt with the Mafia in the 1970's and he said even loansharks did not have such high interest rates back then. Thanks to our corporate whores in Congress, companies like First National Bank of Omaha have become legalized loansharks.

The Dems refuse to debate the Greens. I saw plenty of news in the alternative media about how Greens just were not allowed on the stage in October to offer their views and debate the corporate-sponsored Dems. The Dems fear them and rightly so. If their message were to reach a mass audience, people would be quick to leave this traitor-to-the-working people party.

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

» where is the green machine? Posted by: antiapathy
» We have one party Posted by: vangogh69
RE: No wonder
Posted by: pmaxon on Jan 26, 2007 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
n****? Racist?

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

Sold a bill of goods
Posted by: ScottP on Jan 26, 2007 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's rather amazing that some don't realize that now that the parties have changed, the dynamic has changed. Votes are no longer "protest votes" or "sympathy votes", they're now real votes. Those who vote for funding will be the proud new owners of the war. I'm not sure they get it, that just like Nixon took over ownership of the Vietnam war and paid the price in the end, they are preparing to follow in his footsteps.

Buyer beware!

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

RE: No wonder
Posted by: JCR on Jan 26, 2007 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's nice to see that you have managed to use the correct form "your" in this post. That is apparently a big achievement for you based on what I have seen of your other posts. Big Gold Star for you temporary! BTW, aren't you the one who spells certainly as "surdenly"?

"then it surdenly shows how low America in the 21's century has gotten!"

Gotta love dipshits like you calling people losers while demonstrating the spelling capacity of an 8-year-old. LOL!

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

» RE: No wonder Posted by: kryptx
Whatever
Posted by: gjames on Jan 26, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barack is the man, Glen Ford is wrong. Barack is actually making the withdrawal policy happen, by senating, governing, politicking, advocating - Glen Ford is writing shitty hit pieces.

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

» Thanks Posted by: bassman
» RE: Whatever Posted by: usonian
Two Faces
Posted by: Arvy on Jan 26, 2007 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The vice president doesn't know what he's talking about," Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Fox News last Sunday. "He has yet to be right one single time on Iraq. Name me one single time he's been right. It's about time we stop listening to that ideological rhetoric."

Note the last sentence: “It’s about time we stop listening…”

So, it’s “about time”? Is that because most of the heavy work in Iraq has already been done?

I think, given that the Democratic and Republican parties are basically just alternative managers of the same (corporate) system then it’s reasonable to assume that both parties have their collective eye on the control of Iraqi oil.
And Iranian oil.
And African… etc.

If you take the American system as a whole, then one hand (dems) realise that the other hand (repubs) are going to make a grab for foreign resources in a gung-ho, unilateralist, agressive, illegal way. This suits the dems as the repubs become the scape-goat, so by the time the dems get back into the white house they find themselves in control of Iraqi oil without any of the blame or dirt attached to themselves.

In short, America “wins” (if you define winning as stealing!).

There are no good guys or bad guys, just national interests. Is this national interest morally justified? If not, then change the whole system (I know, it’s easy to say!). I don’t think a change of party will make much difference; maybe only in style.

I hope I’m wrong but how many times have we pinned hopes on a new government only to see them morph into their opposite once they get into power?

We’ve already been warned that the Cold Wa…sorry, the “War on Terror” will last another 50 years. A statement recently parroted by a cabinet minister here in the UK, John Reid (a kind of ‘Rumsfeld-lite’), someone who used to be a socialist. We (pinko-liberals) danced when Thatcher was put out of power, followed a few years later by her government. Tony Blair promised that his government would be “whiter-than-white” as a contrast to the previous Conservative sleaze-bags but ask most people in the UK today and you’ll find that he’s seen as being sleazier than they ever were!

I am beginning to feel that Anarchy is the way forward since it offers order without government / power systems; (yes, that’s the classic definition of anarchy - not the new one which defines it as smashing the windows of a McDonalds!) Remeber: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

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

Is this the best the democratic party has to offer?
Posted by: GenErik on Jan 26, 2007 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is little public support for escalation. There is no political support from the left and the right is dwindling. Even if Hillary and Obama ARE simply political animals would it be such a bad political move to get serious about withdrawal?
The fact that the democrats are not pressing this issue at a time that seems ideal is very suspicious to me and if these likely candidates can't step up and get things done then in my mind they would not make worthy presidents.

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

Jim Webb Offers the Democratic Response . . . to Hillary and Obama
Posted by: rwa on Jan 26, 2007 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by Jeff Cohen

If you watched freshman Virginia Sen. Jim Webb deliver the Democratic response to Bush’s State of the Union speech, you witnessed something historic -- a Democrat on national TV unabashedly ripping into six years of Bush rule for an uninterrupted 10 minutes. With no O’Reilly or Hannity to disrupt or out-shout him. Webb offered a populist, anti-corporate stand on economics and a blunt attack on Bush for “recklessly” dragging our country into the Iraq war -- a sharply-worded address that must have startled millions of TV viewers accustomed to Democrat vacillation. It was the kind of stirring appeal, both progressive and patriotic, that could win over voters at election time -- including swing voters, NASCAR dads, soccer moms, even Republican leaners. The new Senator -- a novelist and former Secretary of the Navy -- reportedly discarded the speech handed him by Democratic leaders, and wrote his own. But Webb’s speech was not just a rebuttal to Bush. It was also a pointed response to the tepid pablum that comes out of the mouths of mainstream media-anointed Democratic presidential candidates: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama...

full article

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

» Webb owes the nation an appology Posted by: Conservasaurus
» "attack the office of the President" Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: Webb owes the nation an appology Posted by: gonzoskismet
Maxine Waters for President.
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jan 26, 2007 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now THERE'S a bandwagon I could get on.

& that's the price of getting me, and many others, back to the Democratic party.

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

Political PUNditry...
Posted by: Carl Street on Jan 26, 2007 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that Rumsfield's minnie military strategy has proven to be both mickey mouse and full of bugs we have to ask oursevles was he daffy or just plain goofy... And, will he take responsibility or will Donald duck?

BTW, BTW, BTW...that's all folks.... :)

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

On the contrary: Obama and Clinton occupy opposite poles...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 26, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...when it comes to our 50% +1 takes-all electorate.

To elaborate, Clinton has better hair, but Obama ia taller and looks better in a bathing suit.

What? Policy?

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

The answer is to take back the Democratic Party
Posted by: truthteller on Jan 26, 2007 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Third parties don't work in this country because of our winner-take-all system. You can't have a successful multi-party system under these circumstances. Our best hope, maybe our only hope is to get enough of the active and committed in the Democratic Party to stop listening to the "Conventional Wisdom", that so-and-so can't win, so don't even consider supporting them. If enough people follow their hearts and principles and support people like Dennis Kucinich, we can change the tone of the debate. We can get Rep. Kucinich taken seriously as an alternative to DLC corporatists like Clinton and Obama. We need to stop listening to supposedly "progressive" Trojan Horse voices like Ed Schultz who are total tools of the DLC, selling Hillary as hard as they can.

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

Democrat vs. democrat
Posted by: willymack on Jan 26, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The hype we see on TV , the newspapers, and on internet blogs is but a preview of the dogfight to come. The Democratic Party (to the delight of the rethugs) seems incapable of learning from history, and will continue with their petty infighting right up to November of 2008. In the meantime, you can bet the retards will make the most of this. What's needed is pressure on our REAL enemies, the crooks on Capital Hill and in the corporatocracy in the way of exposing their crooked ways. This can fit quite nicely into the Democratic campaign strategy if the infighting can be brought under control, and a unified front challenges the crimes of the bushie gang.

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

» RE: Democrat vs. democrat Posted by: Lincoln fan
Candidates for 2008 courting Jewish support By RON KAMPEAS / JTA
Posted by: rwa on Jan 26, 2007 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a Washington ritual as reliable as the cherry blossoms, if nowhere near as pretty: Midterm congressional elections are over and aspirants for the most powerful job in the world are throwing their hats into the race for the US presidency.

Another ritual within the ritual is lining up Jewish support, and this year is no different. Some candidates are acting immediately: This month, US Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) plucked Jay Zeidman, President Bush's popular Jewish outreach official, to lead his Jewish campaign.


Burning Issues #22: Will candidates' Iraq stance affect coming crisis with Iran?
Sometimes it's even sooner than immediately: For the past two years, Ann Lewis, who has been prominent in Jewish causes since she served as the Clinton administration's deputy communications director, has been sounding out Jewish support for Clinton's wife, US Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Here's a glance at the candidates and where they stand on issues of concerns to the Jewish people.


The Democrats


US Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
You probably won't hear all about Clinton's Jewish step-grandfather this time around. That's because she won't need to grab at Jewish straws after six years of support for Jewish causes that activists across the spectrum say is stellar...

She won solidly that year, but with less-than-enthusiastic Jewish support. By 2006, however, Jewish support for Clinton was overwhelming and spanned the religious spectrum. Much of the money she has raised - some analysts expect her to bring in $500 million by election time - has come from Jewish donors.

Pro-Israel lobbyists say Clinton's voting record on issues related to funding for Israel and isolating its enemies, including Iran and Syria, has been top notch, and she has visited the country multiple times since becoming a senator...

US Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill)
... Obama has cultivated a solidly pro-Israel record, and he visited the Jewish state last year. He has developed close ties with Chicago's Jewish community, and some of its major donors backed him among more than a dozen candidates - some Jewish - in the 2004 primaries.


Sen. John Edwards
The appearance by the former Democratic senator from North Carolina at last year's American Israel Public Affairs Committee's policy forum was the first substantial sign that he was considering another run for the White House ...

He drew loud applause when he endorsed AIPAC's trademark issue: isolating Iran as long as it resists nuclear transparence.

"For years I have argued that the United States has not been doing enough to deal with the growing threat in Iran," he said. "While we've talked about the dangers of nuclear terrorism, we've largely stood on the sidelines as the problems got worse. I believe that for far too long, we've abdicated our responsibility to deal with the Iranian threat to the Europeans."

Such talk has helped draw major Jewish donors to Edwards' campaign...

jpost.com

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

Extension
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 26, 2007 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is not a dime's difference between them and many of the Republicans in the Senate.

Nothing like DLC DINOs.
Democrats
In
Name
Only

In 2006 we targeted the NeoCons. In 2008 we are coming after Republicans in Democratic clothing.

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

» DINO ... exactly!!! Posted by: azanian_man
A Wolf That Wears Sheep's Clothing Becomes a Sheep
Posted by: edgar_michel on Jan 26, 2007 12:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of us perhaps believe that these politicians are just playing the game to get in a position of power so that once in power they can show us who they really are. But I'm afraid that expressing your honest feelings on bad policy at all times in pursuit of position is what tempers the metal and makes a leader. Without being true to your character you become a caricature of a leader. If instead you only want position for personal satisfaction, then you have no character in the first place.

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

Alternet = full of racists?
Posted by: mmeetoilenoir on Jan 26, 2007 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the hell has happened to this site? I wish I could say that all of the nastiness is coming from trolls, but it's not. I have to say, I was living a happy life full of love and peace...until I found out that I was hated because I'm Black.

This is the first place that I've ever really encountered open racism. No, I'm serious. And I grew up going to a very, very Caucasian school, and live in a very wealthy neighborhood.

This site made me shake my head before, but now it's just rife with stupidity, tinhat lovers, and crackpot radicals.

Thanks for nothing, Alternet :P

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

Forget Hillobama
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Jan 26, 2007 1:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forget Hillobama, think about Ron Paul. Don't look at the party, look at their voting records.

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

RE: No wonder
Posted by: etyler on Jan 26, 2007 2:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's pathetic to read posts that are so lacking in anything other than anger. Like a neglected child screaming for attention, the only way it gets noticed is to be the first in line and to offend anyone who reads it. I can only assume that you aren't American, and living proof that we aren't the only ones who are "screwed-up".

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

Hilary & Obama
Posted by: pfm on Jan 26, 2007 2:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only should Hilary and Obama be held accountable for their votes as well as the totality of their positon on Iraq, but so also should every elected Senator and/or Representative. We need to hold each one of the accountable as well as responsbile.

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

» RE: Hilary & Obama Posted by: bassman
» RE: Hilary & Obama Posted by: Lauren
exit strategy
Posted by: jlable on Jan 26, 2007 3:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maxine Waters, and all of us, should continue dogging Clinton and Obama on matters of exit strategy (must include a timeline). That's all I ever want to hear about the war - period.

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

Let's give the terrorists what they want...
Posted by: Carl Street on Jan 26, 2007 4:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only fools believe terrorists are interested in hurting them. Actually, they are REALLY only interested in hurting our so-called leaders -- and then, only because these jerks have spent a lifetime raping other countries to make a buck.

What fool would put his A$$ on the line to protect George Bush and his creepy friends from what they so richly deserve???!

Let's give the terrorists what they REAllY want -- pack up George Bush & Company and turn them over to the terrorists to do with whatever makes them happy -- Talk about reality TV!!

I bet within a week gas would drop to 30 cents a gallon and the world would hail us as heroes!

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

Exactly.
Posted by: opeluboy on Jan 26, 2007 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton & Obama:

Both supported the Iraq war.
Both do not really want it to end.
Both support the idea of attacking Iran. With nukes.
Both supported the destruction of Lebanon.
Both support Israel's continued slow-motion genocide in Palesti