ENTER YOUR RHYME OR REASON
I absolutely agree with Moore. Especially his assessment of Hillary.
I will vote for the eventual Democratic nominee, and do so in good conscience. But Hillary would make that awfully hard for me.
I heard the same question from an undecided Dem in the family just this weekend - 'who is Obama?'. A lot of people who haven't paid attention will be asking the same question. And there's not really much of a reassuring reply.
Moore is spot on with Edwards, in my opinion. Including and especially the media disdain for a man who probably primps a lot less than the press cretins assigned to his campaign.
I think his instincts are to ignore the consultants and go with his own convictions. I could be wrong...it's sure happened to other candidates.
"Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost"
Exactly. Though I would omit the word "will".
It's a fine overall summary, written in Moore's pleasantly jocular style, but I have one misgiving. Her name is Hillary Clinton. I truly believe her establishment record is of great harm to the ambition of seeing Bush not only summarily booted from office but also investigated thoroughly once he is gone. My heart is with those who call for impeachment, but I do not think the status quo will allow for it or any serious investigation until a different kind of executive power is before us. And I am convinced by Robert Parry's analysis concerning Hillary's and her husband's complacency, both past and potential, with respect to crimes of previous administrations, that she will not provide a different kind of executive power. Parry spells those out in the Democracy Now! interview that aired yesterday.
http://www.democracynow.org/
2008...on_signals_free
Like Moore, I am moved by the mere possibility of their being a female president. But that ambition must be assessed with respect to the individual running. Should Condoleeza Rice one day run for the presidency, surely it would remain the furthest thing from my mind.
That Hillary Clinton would not speak to Moore is illustrative of the point Parry makes and that I would make, too. What does she need to conceal from public exposure any more than her consistent support for the crimes of George Bush Jr.?
We need a president who does not have such a personal burden.
andante and terrette, I agree with most of your statements. I am a priori committed to the Democratic nominee in November, but Hillary is not my top choice, for the reasons everyone has mentioned. That said, I will vote for her if it comes to that: the consequences of a Romney or Huckabee presidency would be too dire. A Hillary Clinton presidency would, I presume, be a lot like the Bill Clinton presidency was: triangulating, corporate-driven, too inclined toward war, but respectable on social issues, international matters and the reintroduction of facts into the bureaucratic structure. (I'd give a lot to have scientific results released without after-the-fact ideological editing.)
Obama troubles me a lot. His knowledge of international affairs seems sparse and his declaration about Pakistan seems ill-advised. And all his bipartisanship crap is just that... crap. I believe it was Krugman who pointed out that FDR was as aggressively partisan as he needed to be in pursuit of social programs we depend on to this day.
terrette, thanks for the link. I have considerable respect for Robert Parry, and I don't get around to hearing Democracy Now! nearly as often as I should. Parry is correct: Hillary will let bygones be bygones, the Bushists will skate free, and the next GOP president (or maybe the next Dem) will feel free to try the same crap again. Not good.
Added: I'm beginning to lean toward Edwards for my primary vote. If everything is a done deal by the time I vote in (sigh) March, I'll probably vote for Kucinich as a personal fuck-you toward a process that is grossly unfair to Texans of any party. If Edwards is still effectively in the race, I'll vote for him. I'm withholding my endorsement, not that it makes any difference, damn it all.
UPDATE: I have just learned (via CEWDEM's mailing list) that Kucinich has been removed from the Texas Democratic primary ballot. The reason is regrettably a valid one, though I sympathize completely with Kucinich: he refused to sign a "loyalty oath" which would have required him to support the ultimate Democratic nominee in November.
I'm pretty sure a party is legally bound to observe its bylaws, and the oath has been a requirement here for decades, introduced originally because of a rash of DINOs who bolted and endorsed the GOP candidate in the general election a few decades ago.
Kucinich refuses to vote for anyone who supports continuing the Iraq war. I cannot blame him for this; if I weren't long since committed to the Dem nominee in November, I'd have reservations myself. But several people have suggested workarounds... e.g., attaching the equivalent of a "signing statement" to his application... that I wish Kucinich had considered first before wrecking his chances by refusing outright.
This greatly diminishes (in fact probably eliminates) the possibility of his use of Democratic venues in Texas to advance his positions. I regret that very much.
And there is no point in writing him in on a ballot that does not contain his name, considering he has already been removed for cause... a legally valid cause, whether or not I approve.
And so it goes...
if your primary vote is going to be a protest, i don't quite understand why you can't write in kucinich.
hipparchia, of course I can. But then my vote may literally be thrown out; I don't know the rules about write-in votes for someone who has been tossed off the ballot. Rather than discard my vote altogether, I'd rather choose a viable candidate I can live with, e.g., Edwards, Richardson or Dodd. If Edwards is still in the race by March 4, I may vote for him anyway; his populist message holds great appeal for me, after eight years of the fuck-you, who-cares-what-you-think Bushists.
ah, got it.
i'm still torn. kucinich is probably still the closest to my ideals but, imnaaho, edwards is the one with the clearest view of the enemy [the big-money corporations] and what it will take to tackle them.
the fact that he's recently committed to a definite time frame to leave iraq may be what tips me irrevocably in his favor. it'll probably depend on what he says between now and jan 29 about keeping a residual presence in iraq.
Commenting by HaloScan
