ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

Kenley,
As I am out of town next week, I have already cast my vote for Obama, but I encourage you and all others to still make your vote count in November. While I prefer Obama for many reasons, hope and change among them, I am respectful that Hilary’s gender is working against her. In some ways it seems easier for some to vote for a black MAN than a woman. Note also the way the press delights in printing frumpy pictures of her or commenting on her style. Also her “Clintonness” works against her. Yet she is an intelligent, capable, organized, informed person, miles above our current leadership. She has the skills to do a good job.
That said, I observe that a pathetic percentage of voters under 30 bothered to vote last time. I believe that Obama’s candidacy will bring them out. The key to the November election is for every young voter to register and to get their friends to register and to get the vote out in the fall. The Supreme Court would have never had the opportunity to hand GWB the presidency if young people who could have voted had done so. There is nothing that might more please the Dick Cheneys of the world than for young people to continue seeing democratic system as too screwed up to bother with or for them all to vote Green. I too was registered Green for some years and then decided to make my vote count.

Whew! Finally a side by side, issue by issue comparison of the two main Democratic candidates for President of the United States. This should put to rest all the arguments about where the candidates stand. Bottom Line, if you are a progressive, liberal--Barack Obama is your candidate. If you want the Democratic Party to return to the issues that matter for the vast majority of people in this country--vote Obama. If you like the "new Democrat", "middle way", DLC Democrat, corporatist, Bush Dog wing of the party that has managed to lose the last two Presidential elections against the worst President and dumbest candidate in the history of the US--Vote Clinton. Simple as that, in black and white. Here's the breakdown.

“In some ways it seems easier for some to vote for a black MAN than a woman”.

Dennis, unfortunately, you may be right. There are reports of many voters in South Carolina (both black and white) who have no problem stating the fact that because the Bible says men should lead, they were casting their votes for Obama. Now how those same voters ended up in the Democratic Party is beyond me, but it’s a staggering (and depressing) testament to just how much Hilary has to fight just to try to stay on a level playing field.

Dear LTOR,

I'm sorry to keep sounding a one-note theme, but you and others keep forcing the issue by insisting that gender and race are the main inequities in this contest. I concede that those are both factors, but you really should acknowledge that gender cuts both ways for Hillary. Her main base of support happens to come from women like her -- white, and over sixty. That is a demographic fact.

But all of this is secondary to the much larger fact that she happens to be MARRIED TO AN EX-PRESIDENT fer crissakes. That fact makes the playing field so un-level IN HER FAVOR that all the talk about prejudice against her just sounds like so much self-pitying, wimpy, victimization!!

(O.K. I'm not going to make this point any more. I've said it enough and am tired of repeating myself.)

Hello Everybody,

I've been supporting Barack Obama since his announcement of candidacy a year ago on the steps of the Springfield Capitol before 30,000 people standing in freezing rain. I realized then that he is the kind of gifted leader who only comes along perhaps once in every 50 years.

He has a superb creative intelligence and gift for empathy. Each one of his major speeches is different from his other speeches--always original, graceful, and philosophically challenging, rather like Martin Luther King's.

The best piece on Obama I've read is "Barack Obama's unlikely political education. The Agitator." by Ryan Lizza, The New Republic, Issue date: 03.19.07. It explores his years as a community organizer in Chicago's South Side, a job he took instead of one of the $500,000 corporate positions offered top Harvard Law School graduates.

I came away from reading that article in a state of awe about the man. It concentrates on his years as a community organizer when he excelled at inspiring demoralized communities and became the best local grassroots organizer in living memory. During his successful run for the state senate, he demonstrated that he had a spine of steel and unerring political instincts.

The South Carolina primary has shown that, in a groundswell, more and more Americans are recognizing his presidential capacities, even his authority. I hope and pray he stays safe for our sake and the sake of history.

During the campaign, Obama, a strong supporter of Israel, has spoken sympathetically about the Palestinians, running the risk of antagonizing the pro-Israeli lobby.

He has even more directly defied another powerful lobby (anti-Castro Cubans) to say he will meet with Castro once he's President.

Obama is the only one of the candidates except Kucinich to have spoken out against the war before the occupation of Iraq. I support him partly because of my own antiwar principles.

Some of hls more recent statements on the Iraq war and on the Middle East in general, however, have disappointed me and his health insurance plan is not as strong as I would like it to be (single payer). And, although he has refused to take money from corporate lobbyists, raising millions of dollars from ordinary people online, he does not seem to recognize the criminal nature of U.S. corporate foreign policy (see John Perkins's Confesssions of an Economic Hit Man).

But my policy disagreements with Obama have not prevented me from understanding that he has become an extraordinary presence on the political landscape, a force for good; that he has come to us in the midst of MLK's "fierce urgency of now"; that his transformative gifts are just what we desperately need after the dreadful desolation of the Bush years; that, in journalist Laura Flander's words, he has the capacity to be a "charismatic optimist" as president, just like FDR, who began as a moderate but, through his sympathetic connection with the people, was able to carry out the most radically significant legislation in U.S. history.

Blessings,

Clive

David, alas I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, as they say. But I would suggest that you go back and re-read my entries. And then read yours. "Nuff said"?

spk, two responses to this link. 1. Whatever happened to thinking for oneself? Critical analysis? 2. For shame!

First, you post a link to the editor's conclusion that Barack is "more liberal" than Hillary.

Here's the link to the actual votes that the editor compared to draw that conclusion:

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/votes.htm

The actual votes show something people do need to understand: Hillary and Barack are virtually identical as far as their Senate voting records.

The editor's conclusion favoring Barack is patently ridiculous, however. If you look at the actual vote comparisons, Barack "did not vote" on a very few items where the editor says Hillary joined conservatives. For example, Hillary voted yes to "[e]xpress the sense of the Senate that the Iranian revolutionary guard should be designated a terrorist organization." Barack DID NOT VOTE at all on that. The National Journal counts that as a vote against, and favors Obama.

Abstaining is not the same as voting against. While Hillary's vote on that particular issue was scary and terrible (and that's the reason I pick it as an example - but in fairness, take a look at others, you will see she took a stand on the right side in several instances where Barack did not), Barack just stayed away. Took no position at all.

That's leadership?

What this side-by-side comparison makes me worried about is the following: What would Barack do if he didn't have Hillary leading the way? From his Senate voting record, he basically follows her, or abstains. If he's the guy in the White House, he's not going to have her out front anymore.

Second: For shame! You have got to stop following Repugnican blogs and Faux News and accepting them as the gospel. Do you know who the "National Journal" people are? The same ones who released a similar study during the 2004 elections labelling Kerry the "most liberal senator." The Repugnicans jumped on it and pumped it, and Kerry had to waste precious time pointing out how the analysis was flawed and ridiculous, which it is, leaving him open to having his base wonder why he was denying being a liberal. Which he then answered by proclaiming he was proud to be a liberal. (This "study" is classic Rove Repugnicanism: What they do is lay out a load of crap, and use it to proclaim a conclusion that does not follow. The candidate who responds is stuck: If he said, I'm proud to be the "most liberal," they would point to the flawed crap they used to draw that conclusion, leaving the candidate to flail away in explaining particular votes nobody understands that are easily painted as flawed votes. If the candidate calls the study out as crap, they send emails out to the base saying "see? Kerry denies he's a liberal".)

For shame, spk. Don't let yourself be so easily led.

(What this does show is that the Repug attack machine seems to be gearing up for Obama. By releasing this now, they hope to influence the primaries, resulting in Obama as the candidate. In the general, they will then use this as they did with Kerry. As has been said before, people should be worried when the right wing wants Obama over Hillary. Which they clearly do.)

Kenley, I am interested in what draws you to conclude Barack is less warlike than Hillary. From everything I have seen, he is a true believer in Bush's "Global War On Terror." He has even threatened to invade Pakistan, if he thought he had "actionable intelligence" and Musharaff didn't jump high enough in obeying orders.

Seems to me they are both equally war candidates. And equally more temperate than the Repugicans, who unbelievably were trying to outdo each other last night over which one will put MORE troops into Iraq, who will stay LONGER, who will start the NEXT war first.

By the way Kenley, if you look at the links to the actual vote tallies in spk's "study" referenced above, you will see that Hillary has voted in favor of environmental measures in several instances, while Barack has abstained.

Combine that with the Clintons' pretty strong environmental record while in office, and it seems to me if your issues are war and environment, then Hillary is your candidate. Whatever else you may dislike about her personally.

As far as not voting at all if Barack is not the candidate, that is an awful thing to do and an awful thing to encourage. Barack and Hillary are virtually identical on the the things that matter. They are both far less than ideal candidates. But the whole world is depending on us getting rid of the Repugnican warmongers. We've got to do it, not just for us, but for everyone. Join this, with your nose tightly clamped if you must, but join this endeavor.

One more from me, the anonymous: Clive Leeman's piece is the kind of writing in favor of a candidate that I'd given up on in this country. For pragmatic reasons - that we need to get rid of the Repugs, and we don't have a real progressive peace candidate to choose - I think Hillary really is the better candidate. I think she and Bill know how to win an election in a way that Gore, Kerry and Obama do not, and I am comfortable enough with what she would do as President, esp. given the Repugnican alternative. And, I think when this country revisits the old Ronald Reagan question - "Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?" - a bridge back to the Clinton years will look pretty attractive to people.

But the reaction Obama draws out of people is inspiring. And maybe he would be a real change, a new kind of leader. I don't know. If he is the nominee, I can say this: I look forward to getting as enthusiastic and inspired as Clive is.

A couple of minor things:

1) David, I should have said "With regard to who brought up gender issues, first...blah, blah,blah" . I was in no way trying to imply victory about the Hilary/Obama debate going on here...I just know I wasn't the one to first bring it up and I guess I slightly bristled at what I thought you were implying.

2) Anonymous: You wrote "What would Barack do if he didn't have Hillary leading the way? From his Senate voting record, he basically follows her, or abstains. If he's the guy in the White House, he's not going to have her out front anymore". Just a little observation a CNN reporter made after the State of the Union Adress that I am reminded of now. She said that at least at one point (after Shit-For-Brains made a statement) she observed Obama looking over to Hilary to see if she was rising in a standing ovation. Realizing she was, he then stood up. I find that extremely cute in a way, but also perhaps - very telling.

Can't wait for the Debate tonight. Happy watching everyone!!

Friend anonymous; thank you for writing and taking the time to highlight different angles. I do appreciate it.

My war position simply said that Obama "seems" more critical of war -- this is based on the Iraq invasion position. Of course, regardless of who is president, that person will need to be strong militarily. This is unfortunate, but it seems to be what the majority of Americans want in a president. This has been one of my sticking points with presidential politics in general.

The same goes for the environment. Neither candidate satisfies me in this arena and what we need is a strong, radical shift at the top (to bad for Al Gore and is late awakening). Again, we live a duopoly where we only get to choose between two candidates. Another one of my sticking points with presidential politics.

I don't know Hillary Clinton personally, so I can't base my vote on that. And before my next statement, I would like to acknowledge that husbands and wives don't always agree politically. That said, it was because of Bill Clinton that I said I would never vote for another major party candidate again because they don't address the real issues and they don't represent me and my world view. This was in 1996. Now, eight years of George Bush has whooped me good and I am considering voting mainstream. I can't vote for Clinton, not because she is a woman, but because she is married to the former President Clinton. A fallible argument of course, and I speak only for myself and my conscience. For all these reasons, Obama seems the most palatable.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/votes.htm

Anonymous: Thank you for clarifying this and directing readers to where they can go to see for themselves the voting record of each candidate. And unless I'm missing something here, the fact that (as you say) they used his non-votes as being definitive of a liberal position is extraordinarily mis-leading!!! Out of around 99 bills, I counted 16 more times that Obama abstained than did Hilary. Some just trivial housekeeping measures, but some on issues of labor, the environment, Iraq, Iran...

I'm not trying to attack Obama here (many a Senator has an atrocious attendance record) but using something like this to bolster a false argument against another candidate is beyond maddening!

Two items:

Yes, you can...make a difference video. Laugh out loud.

Once again Santa Barbara City College has been selected as a site to host a 2008 presidential election campaign event. Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Democratic candidate Senator Hillary Clinton, will meet with students and the community on Friday, February 1, at the SBCC Mesa Campus, Campus Center at 2:15 pm. The visit is part of Ms. Clinton’s “Our Voice, Our Future” college tour and is being co-sponsored by the SBCC Student Senate. As part of our ongoing civic education commitment, SBCC is proud to offer our students opportunities to meet first-hand with presidential candidates or persons involved in their campaigns. PLEASE NOTE: SEATING IS LIMITED AND WILL BE AVAILABLE ONLY ON A FIRST-COME BASIS.

Kenley, it looks like Ralph Nader might run yet, as he has mentioned an exploratory committee has been extablished. There could be your choice.

As for me, I've already voted in this primary. Also, I plan to vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election. Many democrats might feel like their republican counterparts as to the need to pinch their noses when voting in November.

Another interesting posibility is that Mayor bloomberg will likely run giving the repugnants some other choice. If he does run, I believe he will hurt the republican nominee more than the Democratic nominee. If Ralph Nader runs again, he won't have any practical affect at all this time around.

I think that it is going to be Romney vs Gore after the conventions. I really don't think McCain is going to be able to stand the scrutiny he will get between now and the convention. He's a loose cannon. He's bound to say something really stupid sooner or later. And I don't think the democrats will ultimately go with Obama slimply because of his inexperiance.

I'm working around the clock trying to entertain bovine America here in Phoenix, so I'm not up to my usual research and vetting process.

The National Journal IS the same publication who called Kerry the dreaded "L" word in 2004. That much is true Anon #9. But let's use just a little bit of logic here and see what this really means. You and LTOR have made a good case that Obama votes very closely with Clinton, except for the votes mentioned by the National Journal. It was those votes that caused that publication to say that Obama is more liberal than Clinton. And it's also true that a missed vote is not a no vote, but that fact does nothing to change Clinton's YES votes. Being more liberal than Clinton is not particularly difficult, as I've pointed out in previous posts. Gotta' love alliteration. Anyway, the National Journal is not a right wing hit-piece publisher. It claims to be "non-partisan" and has received awards and acclaim along those lines--whatever. I'm not here to defend the NJ. That's besides the point for now. The man who owns the NJ however, David G. Bradley, is a right winger. Or at least he used to be. He interned in Nixon's administration alongside his bosses at the time, Don Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney. He's a huge big business, free trader.

Now you folks are probably thinking, "AH HA! See. SPK quoted a Republican!" But that's not the crux of the matter either. Here it is. In 2004, the DLC strategists who ran the weak campaign for John Kerry were horrified when the National Journal, correctly, called Kerry the most liberal Senator in Congress. The DLC, 'middle way", strategists panicked that their candidate Kerry would be labeled a Liberal because George H. W. Bush had made it a dirty word. They forced Kerry to adopt a DLC pose that turned off the base of the Democratic Party and paralyzed their own campaign making it impossible to correctly respond when hatchet jobs popped up like the Swift Boat abomination. These are the same wizards who had previously lost the executive branch to the idiot Bush only 4 years earlier by making Gore into a piece of wood and actually telling him not to talk about his signature issue, global warming. Something about upsetting the big money donors I seem to recall. Those strategists are out of touch with the electorate. The mid-terms in 2006 proved that when most of the DLC candidates lost overwhelmingly and most of the progressives won. It was the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that was responsible for the party recapturing the majority in both Houses of Congress. That is the mood in this country. I'm not even going to bring up the behavior of the DLC lead leadership in the congress and their failure to challenge this President or the Republican minority. Suffice it to say that Bush should already be gone by now.

Back to David G. Bradley of the National Journal for just a second. There's no way I'm voting for this Republican's favorite candidate in this election. Who's his favorite?

In the 2008 U.S. presidential primaries he has donated $4,300 to Hillary Clinton and $2,300 each to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.[5]

The DLC and Hillary are out of touch. Cue the You Rock Barack"song. Pay particular attention to the chorus.

Come on Anon. Have a little hope and be the liberal I know you to be. Don't vote for Hillary.

Hey...that rhymed

I could maybe support McCain if there was a John McCain / Jeb Bush ticket.

Who saw the debate?

The ticket will be Hillary/Barak.

As far as policy differences between these two, if anyone saw one, pray share it with us. These two appear in lockstep as far as what they want to do and how they will do it. Who will do it better? Who knows?

Barak makes one hell of a good point on electability. His inexperience may be a virtue in the general election. Since he was not actually in the Senate when the original Iraq authorization came up, he was not there to vote for it. Thus, he did not vote for it. And, he made a speech against preemptive war. (If anyone believes that his speech against a preemptive war at the time means he would not have voted with Hillary if he had actually been in the Senate - the same way he has followed Hillary's lead on how to vote while he has been in the Senate, except of course when he abstained - I've got a wonderful bowling alley over on East Ojai Ave to sell you...)

Hillary really screwed up in 2002. For some reason I cannot fathom - poor judgment is what I chalk it up to - perhaps she and Bill actually believed Saddam could possibly be a threat of some kind.

But when Bush asked for the authorization, I think she gambled. I think her and Bill were thinking of nothing but this election, and how her vote would play. And I think they believed, first, that Bush would get his authorization, with or without her vote. Second, they calculated. What's the best case if she authorizes? Bush blusters with this authorization, inspectors go back in, some further U.N. stuff goes on, Saddam negotiates an exit. Bush trumpets victory. Hillary demonstrates her "wisdom."

Worst case? I think she figured the Bush apple does not fall so far from the tree as this Bush apple does. Worst case, she figured Bush wrangles at the U.N., marshals a coalition, goes in and removes Saddam, grabs the oil and gets out, maybe even to Iraqi cheers. After all, Bush I - with Cheney as the Secretary of Defense - had been able to pull off a competent invasion. Bush II had Colin Powell, the architect of the "Powell doctrine" of overwhelming force, get in and out quick. She calculated if she voted against, Bush would be a hero and her Presidential ambitions would be over. If she voted for, she champions her foreign policy cred, and demonstrates her "strength".

One of the problems with this kind of calculation is, its politics, not leadership.

The bottom line is that this vote was so indefensible, for whatever reason she made it, that she deserves to lose as a result. It was monumentally bad judgment. In the debate, she tried to say that she believed as a Senator that she should authorize the President in order to put some force behind his diplomacy, and that she didn't know he would so badly abuse the authorization.

I.e., if she had been the President, she would have asked for the authorization, and expected to get it, but handled the whole situation afterwards differently, and we would all be peaches and cream today.

But if she is going to be the President, she has got to be a better judge of people and policy than that. It was obvious at the time that Bush would abuse any authority to go to war. It was obvious to any schmoe reading the newspapers. Bush and Cheney were itching for war from day one. Hillary's miscalculation was that Bush would be "successful" with an Iraq invasion, the way his father had been with Kuwait (which I think most of us on this Post would not have authorized).

That vote probably should cost her the nomination. But if it doesn't, she is still the better candidate than Obama, IF she can do a better job explaining and repudiating that vote when she's facing a Repugnican.

Is it enough for her to say, "as a Senator, it was the right decision to authorize the President to use force if Saddam did not comply with our demands. Anything less would have weakened the President in a matter of critical diplomacy. The wrong decision was made by President Bush. He abused that authorization, and never should have invaded the way he did, and I've been one of the leaders trying to clean up the mess ever since. And if I am your President, I will clean it up, and bring our troops home in a responsible manner."

Is that good enough?

McCain/Bush!! That is a great ticket. Jeb Bush could pull enough votes away from McCain to ensure the kind of loss that will send the Repugnicans to the swamp for a generation. Meanwhile, putting a Bush on the Repugnican ticket would help turn out all the reluctant Democrats, Greens, Independents, Libertarians, etc. and get them down to the polls to vote for Hillary, Barack or anyone but.

Brian, how do you like the Repugnican platform this year? "More war, less jobs" (as summed up by Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough),

Do you find that inspiring?

"Who saw the debate?

The ticket will be Hillary/Barak."

Exactly! And going further, can I just chime in my thoughts:

Those of us who watched were all looking at the next President and Vice President of the United States!

And p.s. - Thank you, SPK for your response.

I saw the debates! I think it's the first presidential election that I've not missed a single one! It's the perfect time for yoga!

I DO like when they both get along. Combining their individual strengths would be great. But are you sure the ticket won't be Barak/Hillary?

Personally Suza, I don’t see it coming down to that, but there are others here much more politically astute than I am and hopefully they will chime in.

I would hope, however, that ALL of us will do WHATEVER IT TAKES when the time comes to ensure that NO ONE from the other side gets anywhere NEAR a victory. We already know that they have the willingness and the ability to steal an election when numbers are close. I would hope that any Democrat thinking about sitting out this election (for whatever reason) would think that over very carefully. If we get any combination of McCain, Guilliani, Romney or Bush, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. I have said that I would give up Hilary in a heartbeat if that’s what I thought it would take. Hopefully when the time comes we will all come together (bite the bullet, plug noses and swallow some pride if need be) and TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK!

A McCain / Jeb Bush ticket would set Jeb Bush up for a presidential bid in 2016 or maybe sooner if McCain only went 4 years. By that time the wisdom of this adminstration would be in sharp relief and would be on our way to a hydrogen economy.

A McCain / Jeb Bush ticket would set Jeb Bush up for a presidential bid in 2016 or maybe sooner if McCain only went 4 years. By that time the wisdom of this adminstration would be in sharp relief and we would be on our way to a hydrogen economy.

Dear LTOR et al.,

I found it kind of amazing that this silly debate spent the first forty-five minutes on the single subject of health care when there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two candidates on this subject. But they each made a mountain out of that molehill of difference, which enabled them both to strut their policy-wonk credentials, which I guess was the point.

Anyway, since the substance was SO BORING for all that time I tried watching and listening from a different perspective. I thought, what if a person did not know English and did not know ANYTHING about these two candidates as people or their backgrounds or anything else.... suppose you only knew they were running for high office, and you had to choose strictly on the sound of the voice and other nonverbal cues. That's when I finally figured out what strikes people so viscerally negative about Hillary. I thought she looked very good last night with her eyes and bright smile and she trotted out all of her answers like an A-plus student. But if you just listen to the sound of her voice without the content, it is painful. There is an underlying tense, strident quality that you don't quite notice if you listen to the meaning, but if you turn off the meaning of the words and just listen to the sound, it is very apparent. And so the negative effect operates viscerally, just below the level of conscious attention.

Then when Obama was speaking, it was also interesting to watch the expression on Hillary's face. It was very consistent -- a very sceptical, disrespectful, half-smile which spoke of arrogant hostility beneath the surface of pretended civility.

I'm not saying any of this is or is not a reason to vote for or against Hillary or Obama. But people here have been asking why so many people cannot stand Hillary, and I think this has a lot to do with it.

As for the debate itself, yes, Hillary is an A-plus student. But Obama has the gift of grace, and a touch of genius.

Absolutely, David I agree. Hilary has nothing on Obama in what you label the viseral qualities. Or his grace and the unbelievable inspirational "it" factor he's got going for him. The cadence of his voice (coupled with the obvious brilliance of his writing and/or his writing team and his obvious natural ability to win over a crowd) is nothing short of breathtaking! And in another 8 years the Presidency will be his for the taking.

But now, since this isn't a popularity or charm school / beauty contest, it's time for the brilliant, seasoned, tough-as-nails A-plus student to kick some Republican ass! And personally, I don't give a crap how annoying to some people she looks or sounds doing it!

David
Would you be saying those things about Hillary's voice (strident,tense, etc.) if she were a man? I don't think so.
In fact, I have hardly ever her the word strident used to describe a man's voice.
I think that what a lot of people feel is threatening about her is that the way that she speaks is very much like a "man".
I actually came away from last nights debate supporting Obama. Not because of Hillary's voice however. It wass her judgement on voting to empower the idiot in chief to start this hideous war in Iraq which makes me question her future decisions. Also,Obama said something that I have been waiting to hear, that we need to question going into these wars in the first place.
He also refused to scapegoat illegal immigrants (read Mexican). It is a stand that few pols have have had the courage to take.

And hey Brian, I never thought I'd say this but I actually welcome your predictions here. The idea of JEB BUSH in the White House is probably right now sending a collective chill down "our" spine and causing a rush of bile to coagulate in our mouths!!! If just the slightest thought of this possibility doesn't bring us together on a united front, I don't know what will. Keep it up, big guy!

Thought I'd get a rise out of you.

I'll try to return the favor as soon as I can. :)

President BARAK OBAMA, YES, V, PREZ , hillary, no, she is too mean to accept.or apologize,

Almost 300,000 people cast a vote in the moveon.org election between Clinton and Obama. If the Moveon.org vote is any indication (and I suspect many Californians are represented on moveon.org), this Tuesday could be very interesting.

Vote results
Obama: 197,444 70.4%
Clinton: 83,084 29.6%

It's case it's not clear, MoveOn is endorsing Obama.

Here are same figures as above:

Obama: 197,444
70.4%
Clinton: 83,084
29.6%

I'll copy part of the letter here:

Dear MoveOn member,
With hundreds of thousands of ballots cast across the country, for the first time in MoveOn's history, we've voted together to endorse a presidential candidate in the primary. That candidate is Barack Obama.

Something big is clearly happening. A few weeks ago, MoveOn members we surveyed were split. But with John Edwards bowing out, progressives are coming together. Obama won over 70% of the vote yesterday, and he's moving up in polls nationwide.1 As comments poured in from MoveOn members across the country, the sense of hope was inspiring. Here's how Christine Y. in New Jersey put it:

"I've never felt so strongly about any one candidate in my entire life. He's truly an inspiration to all of us—especially the younger generation. I will stand by him 100% for as long as he's willing to stand up and fight for this country!"

What does MoveOn's endorsement mean? People-power. Together, we are 3.2 million Americans who care about our country and want change. Half of us live in states with primaries or caucuses this coming "Super Tuesday."

Uh. I'm glad we've been having these discussions. They've been spirited but civil. No name calling and no real bad behavior. What I'm about to say is not meant an an insult, and I'm sorry in advance.

So LTOR and multi-anon. Looks like you have a new person on your team in support of Clinton. Ann Coulter.

Ann Coulter supports Clinton! That's it. I've made my decision. Obama!

I was dreading the first post about that, SPK! Thanks bunches!!! LOL

That crazy loon knows exactly what she's doing - and how much it's going to hurt Hilary (with people who are swayed by stuff like that.) Does anyone else agree with me that it's the first sign of the right-wing strategy to influence voters to get exactly who they want to run against? And as has been stated here before, that someone is Obama.

I checked out that clip on Fox News. Let's be clear here. What Ann Coulter is saying is she would rather vote for Hillary than for McCain. She is not straight out endorsing Hillary. She is just trying to make a point about how much she hates McCain.

Even at that, it is all just another case of Coulter-lunacy, self-seeking attention-getting drama.

Obviously she's not "endorsing" her; but just labeling her More- Republican-Than-A Republican is meant to do damage.

I say "Fasten your seatbelts, everybody!!

Occam's Razor: The rabid right likes Hillary because she is the corporatist candidate and they know they'll get more of the same they got under Bill. Seamless corporatist transition from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton. No need to invent conspiracies.

And your assertion that Obama would be easier to beat for the Republicans is dead wrong. Of course, we've already agreed to disagree. I just can't let you make that assertion as if it's true without calling you on it.

SPK:

Yep, I stand corrected. I meant to say "And as has been stated here before, some of us feel that that someone is Obama".

I don't buy it: That any in the Republican Party are rooting for anyone but Hilary. They want Hilary all the way to the general election. They really believe they can beat her. They have been suggesting for years that she would be the likely nominee and relish it. If you ever listened to conservative talk radio ect., not a day has passed in four years a comment that Hilary will be the nominee. It must boost their ratings and certainly the phones start ringing in the pit. Hilary is their "great white hope in the fall" to deliver even the most discillusioned repugnant to vote against her. I think they have missed calculated.

spk, I don't understand how you conclude Barack is some sort of "Great Liberal Hope" in a way that Hillary is not. Their voting records are virtually identical (though it appears that Obama is the follower rather than the leader there). Their platforms are virtually identical. Their donors and fundraising are nearly identical.

Repugnicans want Hillary because their base has been whipped into such an unreasoning hate for her that they think she will drive turnout their way. They have whipped up that hate because they believe she is a genuine threat to their so-called "interests".

They don't appear to believe Barack is such a threat.

But if he is the nominee, you better believe they will be able to whip their base into an unreasoning hatred of him twice over in no time. It's easy to get Repugnicans whipped up into a crazed state of hate and fear, esp over a black man whose middle name is Hussein.

Hillary is a woman and wife of Bill. That's all they've got, and they've thrown everything they can whip up at her already. We are presently looking at the worst it will be for her.

Barack is an African American whose middle name is Hussein. He lived abroad as a kid. He's light on national-level experience. He's got shady backers from Chicago under indictment. He has not done anything nationally except run for President - nobody knows him. He is easy pickings for the Repugnicans.

Repugnicans haven't gotten too crazed over Obama yet because they don't really believe he will be the candidate. For a Repugnican, a white woman, wife of Bill, is as far out as we can get. In their minds, no party would nominate a black man named Hussein.

If we do nominate him, is Ojai such a bubble that people cannot imagine just how ugly things are going to get? The Repugnicans will play race, they'll play Muslim terrorist, they'll play inexperience, they'll play dirty Chicago politics, alleged shady backers, alleged shady deals. They'll play "big government liberal with no real world experience."

But mostly, they'll play terrorist. And they will have registered Repugnicans in a fervor, believing he is actually an agent of Osama. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter will be all over the airwaves - "See? We told you these Democrats were terrorist traitors in league with Al Qaeda! My website has photos showing Obama training in Pakistan with Osama himself!" Fox News will duly report. "Obama trained under Osama!" The Bush White House will release email intercepts between Osama and Obama. Heck, if he's doing OK in the polls, they'll probably annouce he's plotting to dirty bomb the White House and send him to Gitmo. (Then, they'll say he's not a U.S. resident, and have him pulled off the ballots. Or, maybe they'll just use the excuse to declare martial law and suspend the elections entirely.)

Obama even rhymes with Osama.

What do you bet in Florida and Ohio ballots will actually read "Osama" instead of Obama?

(Oops, sorry, just a spelling error. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision will call it harmless error, and anoint President McCain. Who, unlike Hillary, is not just ready to lead on Day One, but ready to bomb China, Iran and Russia on Day One.)

Bill and Hillary can deal with that kind of crap and win. Can Obama?

Or is he another good guy who will follow in the footsteps of Gore and Kerry?

Seems to me since Barack and Hillary will do the same things as President, we ought to play it safe and stick with Hillary. Let Barack run in 2016, after Hillary's put Osama in jail and Al Qaeda is a distant memory of a dark time.

One thing no one seems to like to talk about but everyone can't help noticing is the aftermath of eight years of Republican rampage. In human terms it reminds of civil war reconstruction era or the aftermath of the dust bowl. Displaced men, women and children
can be seen in all large urban centers as the ragged evidence of failure of outsourced top down supply side economics.Why this fallout doesn't really register with many is unclear, but perhaps that most are so busy safeguarding their
place on the plank of the
busted American Dream. The expressin "There but for the grace of God go I" doesn't begin to explain how how we let things come to this. Not taking into account the Iraq War Veterans who will be returning to find their benefits gone. PL

Hillary Clinton Again Lies about Iraq
by Stephen Zunes

In Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton lied again about Iraq.

At the forum in Los Angeles, Hillary Clinton declared, “We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors.”

That statement was totally false. The bombing campaign had been planned for months and the inspectors were not thrown out. They were ordered out by President Bill Clinton in anticipation of the four-day U.S.-led bombing campaign.

The chronology, which is on the public record, is as follows:

In early 1998, the Clinton Administration began to raise concerns about Iraq’s refusal to allow inspectors of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) to visit so-called “presidential sites,” a liberally-defined series of buildings and grounds across the country that Iraq claimed were used by government officials. Even though subsequent evidence has revealed that the Iraqis had nothing to hide, since all proscribed weapons and weapons material had long since been eliminated, Saddam Hussein held firm. Given that a number of prominent American political leaders from both parties had called openly for assassinating him, however, the Iraqi leader’s reluctance to allow Americans into presidential palaces may have been a result of concerns that such access would make him and other top officials personally vulnerable. Furthermore, the Iraqis had complained that, despite a stated policy of avoiding staffing UNSCOM with experts from “intelligence providing states,” there was a disproportionate number of Americans involved in the inspections, who would deliberately prolong the process and could potentially provide information to the U.S. military. The Iraqi dictator also reportedly had an obsessive compulsive disorder which led him to order that his palaces be kept meticulously clean and made him particularly reluctant to allow large groups of foreigners to move about his homes.

The Clinton administration’s insistence upon raising this issue at that time was rather suspect: Such Iraqi restrictions on these “presidential sites” had existed since the beginning of the sanctions regime nearly seven years earlier without any concerns publically expressed by United Nations officials. Yet suddenly, in January 1998, the Clinton administration decided that it had become an intolerable violation of UN Security Council resolution 687, which called upon Iraq to verify its disarmament, and warned Iraq that the United States - despite the lack of Security Council approval as required - would engage in a sustained bombing campaign against their country if the Iraqis did not allow these inspections of presidential palaces to go ahead. By February, a large-scale U.S. military assault seemed likely. However, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan was able to broker a deal late that month that opened the presidential palaces to UN inspectors, but with an additional diplomatic presence in recognition of the sites’ special status.

The disappointment by Clinton administration officials that the bombing campaign would not be able to go ahead as planned was palpable. Clinton did not give up on its search for an excuse to attack Iraq, however.

At the end of October, Iraq imposed new restrictions on UNSCOM as a result of revelations that the United States was indeed illegally using UNSCOM as a vehicle for spying on the Iraqi government. On November 10, in response to pressure from President Clinton, UNSCOM chairman Richard Butler announced his decision to pull UNSCOM out of Iraq without the required authorization from the Security Council. Iraq then reversed itself and agreed to allow the inspectors to resume their activities. The United States, however, was eager to launch military action, particularly by mid-December in order to take advantage of overlapping American military units on rotation in the Persian Gulf, which made it a particularly auspicious time for major air strikes.

According to former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter, Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger - now a major advisor for Senator Clinton - met with Butler on November 30, when the UNSCOM director was instructed to provoke Iraq into breaking its agreement to fully cooperate with UNSCOM. Without consulting the UN Security Council as required, Butler announced to the Iraqis that he was nullifying previously agreed-upon modalities dealing with sensitive sites that limited the number of UNSCOM inspectors. He chose the Baath Party headquarters in Baghdad as the site to demand unfettered access, a very unlikely place to store weapons of mass destruction but one very likely to provoke a negative reaction. The Iraqis refused to allow the large group into their party headquarters, but did allow them unrestricted access to a series of sensitive military installations.

At that point, Butler and the Clinton Administration unilaterally ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq in order to remove them from the risk of being harmed by the massive U.S. air and missile strikes that were forthcoming. Back in New York, American officials then helped Butler draft a report blaming Iraq exclusively for the impasse in a late night session at the U.S. Mission across from the United Nations headquarters. As the UN Security Council was meeting in an emergency special session on how to implement a unified response to Iraq’s non-cooperation, the United States - with support from Great Britain - launched an unauthorized four-day series of sustained air strikes against Iraq in what became known as Operation Desert Fox. In response, Iraq forbade UNSCOM from returning.

Surely Senator Clinton knew all this, since she has emphasized as evidence of her supposed experience in foreign affairs her close consultation with her husband and his national security advisors during these crises. Her claims during the debate, then, that the bombing took place because Saddam Hussein “threw out inspectors” is a boldface lie to rationalize for a four-day bombing campaign that killed hundreds of people, many of whom were innocent civilians, and which gave Saddam Hussein an excuse to refuse to allow inspectors to return to Iraq for the next four years. A number of strategic analysts (including me) publically warned prior to the December 1998 attacks that launching such massive air strikes would result in an end to the UN inspections and would result in reducing Iraqi compliance from 95% to 0%. President Clinton clearly wanted the inspections regime to end, however, presumably because - as Senator Clinton has acknowledged - the administration had shifted U.S. policy from containment of Iraq to regime change. Indeed, the resulting absence of inspectors became the principal rationale for President George W. Bush, Senator Clinton and others to support an invasion of Iraq four years later.

Indeed, in Thursday night’s debate, Senator Clinton claims that she voted to authorize war against Iraq in October 2002 because “we needed to put inspectors in.” However, this was also a lie, since Saddam Hussein had by that time already agreed for a return of the weapons inspectors. Furthermore, Senator Clinton voted against the substitute Levin amendment, which would have also granted President Bush authority to use force, but only if Iraq defied subsequent UN demands regarding the inspections process. Instead, Senator Clinton voted for the Republican-sponsored resolution to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing regardless of whether inspectors returned. Indeed, unfettered large-scale weapons inspections had been going on in Iraq for nearly four months at the time the Bush administration launched the March 2003 invasion that Senator Clinton had voted to authorize.

This is part of a longstanding pattern of Senator Hillary Clinton misleading the American public about Iraq in order to justify her militaristic policies. It is important to remember that, back in October 2002, despite widespread and public skepticism expressed by arms control experts over the Bush administration’s claims that Iraq had somehow re-armed itself, Senator Clinton was insisting that Iraq’s possession of biological and chemical weapons was “not in doubt” and was “undisputed.” She also claimed, despite the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iraq’s nuclear program had been completely eliminated, that Iraq was “trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

This inevitably raises concerns that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will have no qualms about lying once again to the American people in order to justify going to war.

Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.

For comments see:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/02/6802/

Published on Saturday, February 2, 2008 by CommonDreams.org

Comment #45 is from Clive Leeman

I have no doubt that once faced with the situation Obama would use military force as well to protect the security of our country.