Thank God Obama is Presumptive Nominee: Hillary's No Feminist

Check out this editorial from Buzzflash with the great title "Except for Her Anatomical Features, Clinton is No Feminist. But George Wallace Would be Proud of Her Today."

Does a true Feminist support "obliterating Iran"? Senator Clinton didn't
even discuss the complexities behind the whole notion of Iran hypothetically
attacking Israel, an ally with enough nuclear capability to "obliterate" the
entire Middle East on its own. In short, wasn't it more Texas macho (think Bush
and the Neo-Cons) for Clinton to offer her "obliterate" comment than reassuring
Feminist diplomacy?

Wouldn't it have been the more Feminist thing to do to answer by saying,
"As leader of the strongest nation on earth I would look at every effort to
prevent such an occurrence and I think that can be done through diplomatic
means. Look, we survived decades of the cold war without a nuclear attack
because we were patient and diplomatic. I believe that we can do the same in the
Middle East."
But, no, Hillary went Texan on us, and that's not Feminist.
In fact, Mary Matalin's uxorious husband, James Carville, boasted
the other day that -- and we are not making this up -- if Hillary gave one of
her three gonads to Barack Obama, they would each have two.
Now would a Feminist keep a high-testosterone male chauvinist clown like that on her staff?
Of course, wouldn't a Feminist have read the NIE before authorizing
Bush to proceed with the Iraq War?
Wouldn't a Feminist have voted for the banning of cluster bombs in civilian areas, instead of for their continued use in populated communities, where they particularly kill children?
Wouldn't a Feminist be supporting MoveOn.org's anti-war work and party activists for peace instead of denouncing them as extemists?
Would a Feminist have stood by and
said nothing during the slaughter in Rwanda?
Would a Feminist have sat back and let the Bush Administration run roughshod through our civil liberties?
Would a Feminist, today, May 8th, channel the ghost of George
Wallace and openly run as the candidate of "white" people "who are hard-working"
(as compared to those "other" non-white ones -- we are to assume -- who are
not).
We can go on and on about Senator Clinton's "male" positions on
domestic and foreign policy. Yes, she once worked for the Children's Defense
Fund, before becoming a corporate lawyer who also defended rapists, before
joining the Wal-Mart board which was crushing unions, before supporting a
"welfare reform" program which was vigorously opposed by the Children's Defense
Fund.
Progressives support positions that embetter our country, champion our
Constitution, and promote the equality of all. It is not a gender issue.

You can be a man, as Barack Obama is, and promote international
reconciliation and dialogue (the assumed Feminist position). Or you can be a
woman, as Hillary Clinton is, and basically be a war hawk who only came to
claiming to want to end the Iraq War once she declared for president.

You can be a man, as Barack Obama is, and promote racial healing. Or you can be a woman, as Hillary Clinton is, and exacerbate the racial divide by re-opening the wound of racial division.
You can be a man, as Barack Obama is, and promote a politics that doesn't depend upon character assassination and guilt by association. Or you can be a woman, as Hillary Clinton is, and run a campaign out of the Karl Rove-Lee Atwater playbook.
...
Certainly, blatantly pouring hot coals in America's festering racial
history is not "Feminist." To be a Feminist is to nurture and to heal, not
to render asunder a nation that is seeking to overcome its differences and
divisive history.
Hillary Clinton has employed the basest of political tactics. She has betrayed the accomplishments and advancements of the Civil Rights movements to become the "Great White Hope" of 2008.
Is it because she wants to wound Obama to the point that he cannot win and then she presumes that she will be able to walk into the Democratic nomination in 2012?
We are not mind readers, so we don't know.
But we do know this. George Wallace would be proud of her.

Couldn't have said it better. Thanks, Buzzflash Editors!

George McGovern backs Obama, Urges Clinto to Quit

From the Washington Post:

Former Sen. George McGovern, an early supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, urged her to drop out of the Democratic presidential race and endorsed her rival, Barack Obama. After watching the returns from the North Carolina and Indiana primaries Tuesday night, McGovern said Wednesday it's virtually impossible for Clinton to win the nomination. The 1972 Democratic presidential nominee said he had a call in to former President Clinton to tell him of the decision, adding that he remains close friends with the Clintons.

He's not a superdelegate, but the 85-year-old former Presidential
nominee expresses the general consensus that it's time to put the bickering
behind and unite the Democratic Party.

Realism rules.

Russert: Obama Undisputed Dem Nominee

"We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be, and no one is going to dispute it," said NBC channel's commentator Tim Russert.

Even though Hillary vows to press on, paying millions of her own money to do it, the general consensus is that Barack Obama is the Democratic Party's nominee after his decisive win in North Carolina and a virtual tie in Indiana.

Let's pray she comes to her senses.

Hillary Courted Racists for PA Win?

Check out this piece in Buzzflash which says, among other things,

"Clinton began her focus on the white vote in earnest during the South Carolina primary, when husband Bill famously equated Obama's campaign with that of an earlier black presidential campaigner, Jesse Jackson. The linkage was
immediately spotted as a clever way of labeling Obama as a "black" candidate, since Jackson has always been a lightning rod for white voters because of his active support for touchy issues such as affirmative action and fair housing laws.
She also made much during the Pennsylvania campaign of Obama's membership in a black church in Chicago, and of his relationship with the church's black liberation preacher, Jeremiah Wright (adding that she "would have left" such a church herself).

"...clearly some of her support came from whites -- men and women -- who, as Clinton Pennsylvania mentor Gov. Ed Rendell said, "will not vote for a black candidate."
And there in stark terms is the answer. There are white voters in the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania -- a lot of them, in fact -- who are simply racists. They will not vote for a black candidate for president. Period.
That is a far different thing from a black voter who votes for a black candidate, or a Catholic voter who votes for a Catholic candidate. Identity politics is not racism."

Then there are Hillary "backers" who claim that calling those people "racist" is wrong, since a vast majority (90%) of blacks voted for Obama, claiming that to be "more racist." The writer explains as above, but failed to mention that this is a constant neocon rant: the "reverse racism" rant. It's total bull, and indicative of the divisive and Republican-strategied power-at-any-cost strategies of Hillary, whose proven expertise as a consummate liar should give those who dislike Bush and his policies pause indeed.

I find the gap between her higher rhetoric and her lower standards too appalling. I'd rather have the first woman President to be someone I could trust.

Cool It, Ladies, She's Worse Than You Think: Hillary May Out-Macho McCain

They say "older white women" are Hillary's strongest supporters. Well, I'm sure all those Boomer Ladies wouldn't be so hot about her if they actually heard her take on war.

If you're thinking there isn't a hair's-breadth of difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, think again. And think hard. Hillary Clinton represents the same empire, military-solves-all mentality that threatens to put our country on the fast track to total collapse. Is this the "Democratic" candidate you really want?


Hillary wants to play warmonger with Iran at a time when those with greater knowledge say that would be the worst possible mistake:

The book All the Shah's Men (authored by Stephen Kinzer, interviewed for truthout by Maya Schenwar) reminds us that, when it comes to Iran, the backseat is probably where we should be sitting. The US was responsible for the 1953 coup that toppled Iran's democratic government, replacing it with the repressive Shah regime, which hastened the Islamic Revolution of 1970s, inspiring the rise of radical groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Yet the US has not yet taken its Middle East history lessons seriously. Kinzer noted
that our attitude toward Iran and Iraq is symptomatic of the US's overriding
tendency toward using military force to shape economic policy - in this case,
oil management - to its advantage.
Kinzer's most recent book, Overthrow, shows how the "regime change" model has developed over the past 110 years. In our interview, he discussed the motivations behind that empire-driven mentality - and why, ultimately, it's doomed to fail.

Hillary has joined John McCain and the Republican-led warmongers into another dangerous and obviously disastrous adventure in threatening Iran. Her interest, presumably to "look tough", and bodes more of same if she took office.

And then here on Keith Olbermann's Countdown, Hillary extended her "as macho as McCain" new look, or should I say, same old outlook. Check this great diary on that interview. Here's a sample from that interview:

And one of the ways of testing it is to make it very clear that we are not going
to permit them, if we can prevent it, from becoming a nuclear power, but were
they to become so, their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a
nuclear response from the United States, which personally I believe would
prevent it from happening, and that we would try to help the other countries
that might be intimidated and bullied into submission by Iran because they were
a nuclear power, avoid that fate by creating this new security umbrella."

To which author ab2kgi said on Dailykos,

This talks about using our nukes to defend an entire region, arguably the
most unstable in the world. Beyond the lunacy of offering our nuclear
arsenal to an entire region of the world, she misplaced a couple of facts along
the way. The most glaring of which is the last NIE(reported
on here) that stated that Iran suspended it's nuclear weapons program in
2003. She also seems to forget that meeting Putin had with Ahmadinejad(reported on here), where they stopped just short of "we will defend you if you are attacked."
It would seem that Russia is developing ties with Iran that would
certainly play into any nuclear intervention with Iran and would likely be our
demise should Russia attempt to launch nukes at us.

This kind of irresponsible machismo is exactly what women claim to be tired of and why we might like to have a woman president. But it does the exact opposite to exhibit the worst qualities associated traditionally with men in order to get their supposed votes. She promotes macho values in order to supposedly win as a woman. Possibly even worse yet, she doesn't even logically evaluate the absurd proposition that Iran could attack Israel with nuclear weapons. That kind of proposition is exactly the mindless concept held by many who still say "yes" to solving all the world's problems militarily. Are we going to take a giant step backward into neocon more-bang-less-buck land? Say "no" to Hillary and her nukefest-frenzied More of Same campaign.

It's the War Economy, Cupid!

While the candidates duke it out on SuperTuesday, the economy still looms as Issue #1. But we can't ignore the War on Terror as a major source of economic drain. Although it's not the only drain. Perhaps the candidates should bear in mind some advice from a Founding Father, one whose advice seems right on-the-money, yet basically trashed by the Republican/neocon dynasty.

In fact, it's the very sense of this trashing of values and at the same time being sunk in a dynastic chain of unbreakable power that gives Obama the edge, that gives the otherwise golden Hillary that let's-think-twice voter retreat. But all could use a dose of fatherly wisdom:

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of
fighting a foreign enemy. Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps
the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every
other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and
armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad."

-- James Madison

Here's some opinion on the subject of budget-screwing-n-skewing from DownsizeDC:

It is because the policies of both parties, and all administrations, on both economics and civil liberties, have combined to create a perfect storm that will manifest itself in an economic way. Foremost among the forces in the approaching economic storm will be the unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare.

There will be fewer young people working to create wealth, and more non-working people consuming an increasingly vast portion of what wealth there is. More elderly people also inevitably means there will be more sick people, demanding more health care. As a result . . .The federal government will lack the revenue to keep its Social Security and Medicare promises. The shortfall in funding is estimated variously at between $53 trillion and $80 trillion. We will have much more to say about this in the month's ahead. Suffice it to say that the spending policies of the federal government must change. They must change dramatically, and they must change now.

But they are not changing. President Bush has just proposed America's first $3 trillion budget. This budget projects near record deficits exceeding $400 billion dollars for each of the next two years, adding nearly one trillion dollars to the national debt in just twenty four months. And more debt means that more of your income taxes will go to pay the interest on the debt, instead of current operating expenses. The nature of the President's spending proposals also highlights the intersection between our government's war on our pocketbooks and its on-going war on the Bill of Rights. Our government has . . .

• Spent trillions projecting U.S. power around the globe . . .


• Provoking blowback in the form of terrorism, which . . .


• Has served as an excuse for the war on the Bill of Rights

The President's current budget proposal promises more of the same. It freezes most spending except for national defense, which will rise by 7% for the Pentagon and 11% for Homeland Security. The grand total for the defense budget is a whopping $515 billion, and this does not include spending for Iraq! But . . .

It seems to us that our defense establishment is perfectly tailored to fight enemies we do not have, and to create the conditions of occupation and aggressive forward projection that serve as a recruitment pitch for the enemies we do have. We are paying through the nose to make ourselves less safe, to hasten bankruptcy, and to shred our Constitution. Meanwhile, our economy crumbles.

Do You Really Want a Democratic President? Obamasize!

He's picked up the endorsements of over 100 notable feminists, CA 1st Lady Maria Shriver, Ted Kennedy, and many more - people you'd have thought would have backed Hillary. He has managed to keep the race tight against a powerful Clinton campaign machine, including its wafting aroma of spousal incumbancy success, and that sense of "inevitability" as well as that sense of Hillary being a "victim" whose woes we should somehow share, and assuage with the Presidency.

But Barack Obama's biggest selling point is his electability in the general election. Hillary is just too divisive a character, victim or not, capable or not, regardless...

Trey Ellis said it best:

I gave money three years ago to his senatorial campaign and personally have
never really considered voting for anyone else. I haven't yet advocated for
others to vote with me because despite the rancor from zealots in both camps,
Obama and Hillary are both centrists Democrats reading from the exact same
hymnal. I don't know any married couples who disagree on less. All this talk of
an historic battle for the future direction of the Democratic party is just the
same kind of hogwash HBO uses to hype prizefights.

What has become
clear, however, from the religious-like fervor of Obama believers and the
venomous hatred from Hillary haters, is that she has been so wounded by this
campaign that she will be too weak to lead us to victory in November.
Hyper-capable as she is, she's a hard woman to love. At least on her own.
Obama's breathtaking rise has at least already won him the VP nod but the
strength of his current surge will, I believe, eventually win him the
nomination.

Fairly or unfairly Obama has been christened the new Kennedy while
Hillary has been tarred the old Nixon. I just don't see how she recovers from
that.

Obama has unquestionably tapped into something profound and lacking in
this country. Let us gather around him now and get ready for the real push, the
real hard work, of wrestling power away from a handful of ultra-conservative
plutocrats who, for going on eight years now, have turned this nation into one
that we hardly even recognize.
Let's take it back with Obama.

Clinton Would Be More Effective Senator than President .. Or Would She?

Peter Dreier's interesting blog post proposes that Hillary should be the next Ted Kennedy - arguably the most effective progressive in Congress, even more effective in his office than his two deceased brothers were in theirs. It's the old ego vs. public good debate. Dreier believes Hillary to be a "closet liberal" who is "triangulating centrist" positions to position herself for the highest office in the land. Which could end up to be a failed ego trip more than a successful accomplishment on behalf of the poor, the disenfranchised, women and minorities. As President, she'd have to continue triangulating for the rich. Obviously, she's been willing to forego the liberal stance to get in the limelight and win over the powerful voices for the powerful.

But what about Obama? For a man with a much more liberal record than Hillary, he gets more conservative kudos than her - or at least, visibly. And the Obama win in Iowa was nothing less than electrifying, thirst-quenching. It's a great relief to know that the people do have some power, and are not swayed by pundits touting "inevitability". But would Obama have better luck standing for the downtrodden? That's a hard call - no wonder elections are won on guts.

OK, Hillary impressed me in the debates. She looks like she has a positive agenda on health care and "shared prosperity", economic measures aimed to bridge the gap, or gaping hole, between filthy ostentatiously don't-give-a-damnedly rich and we're-in-real-trouble-here poor. But it's foreign policy that tells the tale - just like with my great-eared hope, Barak Obama, who stood tall and firm with the War Without End Amen. Hillary got some boos in Washington's "Take Back America" fete for the following telling tale:

Sen. Hillary Clinton:
"The American military has done its job. Look what they accomplished. They got rid of Saddam Hussein. They gave the Iraqis a chance for free and fair elections. They gave the Iraqi government the chance to begin to demonstrate that it understood its responsibilities to make the hard political decisions necessary to give the people of Iraq a better future. So the American military has succeeded. It is the Iraqi government which has failed to make the tough decisions which are important for their own people.”

First, the American military - not policies, not negotiations, not gifts of infrastructure, food, housing assistance, humanitarian aid, not diplomacy, not advice, not any form of help whatsoever except military arms - is supposedly "giving" - tell me do, Hillary, how guns "give" anything but death to one side or another - "a chance"? So Iraq, according to Hillary, failed to take that "chance". But the "chance" was for elections. The "elected" government is accused thereafter of the "failure". Not failure to have elections for which they were given the chance. But failure to make "tough decisions".

How do military arms and personnel help a government to decide anything? This is pure doubletalk designed to get elected by a populace presumed "conservative" and duped into thinking it's true. "Conservatives" are extremely liberal with war, your tax dollars in warmongering, and liberal with restricting freedoms in favor of fear. "Conservatives" spend more money than "Liberals" who would rather spend your tax dollars at home on building a stable "Homeland" with freedom & justice for all than on foreign adventurist wars to promote neither freedom nor justice but only two things: corporate profit in the short run, and a thang called Israel in all runs.

Hillary is all about power, and I'm not convinced she'd be any better than anyone else at focusing on human issues, which is the big circle, not right and left, we all really face.

Meanwhile, some excerpts from Dear Amy Goodman, I love you, ... news:

Israeli Court Limits Entry of Wounded Gaza Residents
Meanwhile Israel’s High Court has rejected a motion for immediate entry of all Gaza residents in need of life-saving medical attention. Israel has allowed at least thirty-five Palestinians but some twenty-five remain stranded at Gaza’s crossing with Israel. Sari Bashi of the Israeli human rights group Gisha urged the Israeli government to allow them entry.

Sari Bashi: "Since Thursday Israel has closed the borders of Gaza, no one can leave. These are patients who if the they don't enter Israeli hospitals immediately their life is threatened. Because Israel continues to exercise control over Gaza's borders it has an obligation to let patients receive life-saving treatment outside of Gaza."

Our "democratic friends" in their moral hour of triumph.

True, what one Israeli said about the right-wingers of that land, sometimes it seems they care more about animal rights than the rights of human beings.

Make that "most of the time." Sorry, Ari.

Carter: US-led Boycott of Palestinians “Criminal”
Meanwhile former President Jimmy Carter has weighed in on the Bush administration’s role in the current crisis. Speaking in Ireland, Carter said the US, Israel and the European Union are trying to divide the Palestinian people. Carter also called the administration’s refusal to accept Hamas’ election win last year “criminal.” He said: “The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah.”

That's why Carter is always made out to look like a total failure and a disgrace to the office. Hillary knows what she's doing. You can't tell the truth without facing the consequences. We're in a government by liars with an agenda you can't easily know, because they are lying so much.

ACLU Sues for End to Drugging Immigrants Facing Deportation
And finally, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a class-action suit on behalf of two immigrant males who say they were drugged against their will as U.S. officials tried to deport them. One of the men is an Indonesian national seeking asyslym; the other a Senegalese married to a US citizen. Both say they were forcibly injected with psychotropic drugs. The ACLU wants a judge to block all drugging of immigrants facing deportation proceedings.

Did you know this was happening? We are getting more and more like Israelis: they're not people unless they're "one of us." And the category "subhuman" makes it OK to torture, to drug by force, etc. There are two moral codes: one for US, and one for THEM - whoever "they" may be - watch out! One day YOU may be one of THEM. And you won't know until you're blindfolded.

Battlestar Hypocrita

It seems the Buzz of the Day is an impending Battle between "heavyweights" Hillary Clinton and John McCain, something viewed as inevitable by a mysterious Consensus of Power Brokers, aka Powers That Be (God forbid). Yet no one seems particularly enthusiastic about either of them. Except those who partake of that Mysterious Rite of Conformity wherein the Resume ranks supreme, and character means Building a Power Base. But truth always bucks trends, and hypocrisy, contrary to popular belief, is a powerful people-repellent. Which is what's wrong with that impending much-hyped Battle. These two candidates are accomplished hypocrites.

And that's what the office of the President these days seems to be all about. It's about the race to be Hypocrite-in-Chief (HIC or hic). How would the "founding fathers" have fared in today's political environment? The answer - fallen flat. None of them had the proper Power Base. They couldn't please two opposites at the same time. They weren't adept at raising campaign funds - although Ben Franklin was a pretty astute, and successful, businessman. But they probably wouldn't have been fond of PACs or power lunches or influence peddling. They would have abhorred the idea of playing Policeman to the World, even more the idea of taking sides in other people's conflicts, unless there was a threat to our security.

Our meddling ways have led to 9/11, not some pre-existing Islamic agenda. The solutions may not be obvious, but the causes are - unless one loves wearing blinders. And that is precisely what all politicians - if they want to succeed in politics these days - must do. They must say one thing, and do another. They must promise the universe, and deliver black holes. They must make plans, and a cover story to hide those plans under. When they are exposed as liars, they must stick to the lie until death - political or otherwise - do them part. They must be all things to all people - in words - and nothing to all but a few favored folks or interests - in actions. And John McCain is the hypocrite par excellence. He is for whatever will make him look good. He is what he wants you to think he is, as long as the camera is on. Backstage, God only knows what he stands for: himself, of course! Hillary may seem more complex, but she, too, plays the same game. The good news is, expedience works. Hillary is hated as a wild-eyed liberal, except that she is not liberal at all. What was that Iraq vote all about? What was her stance in behalf of the Bush Administration's lies all about? Expediency. It worked. She's a "front runner."

The bad news is that people have brains. And something in the human soul hates a hypocrite. Neither of these candidates deserves even a nomination, let alone that prized election result. The bad news for them is good news for us - maybe. But then again - think about this: Bush got elected, fraud stuff aside, because he LOOKS like he's for real! He really came across to many of the common people as genuine - "shoot straight", he said. They bought it. The bad news is, inside was a load of crap. Better luck next time.

For God's sake, who's afraid of Barak Obama? He may be brilliant, eloquent, and he may have a short resume ... and he may not have the expertise in policy-making that politicos think we need in a president, but he does have a conscience. And he is not a coward. And he's not a hypocrite. And did George W's dad's mile-long resume get us what we want? What about Cheney's policy expertise? Did I say people have brains? So don't just pray for honest rain, for God's sake - vote!