This Should Be Over

They say that a country gets the leaders it deserves, and if John McCain wins the election in November, it will because of a bunch of moronic Hillary supporters who will be protesting outside the Democratic convention. Having participated in protests in the past, I will unequivocally state they are an exercise in futility, unless, of course, you have the world's news media at your disposal looking to embarrass that arugula chewing, martini sipping, non-bowling elitist by any method available. The corporate media may have shown a bias (DUH), but it seemed to be against the Democratic front runner, not just Hillary.
These people are so Clintonatonic that they'd rather not vote and have McCain win than put someone more in touch with their mental faculties in the White House. My advice to them? Build a Goddamned bridge and get the fuck over it! Primary season is long over, your candidate has thrown her support behind the presumptive nominee, pissing and moaning about it isn't going to change a thing.
This election is still the Democrats to lose. However, I won't support a party full of people who seem more intent on fulfilling their own electoral fantasies than doing what's right for the country. That's why I'm voting for Cynthia McKinney.

Stop The Insanity!!

I have no problem with Hillary Clinton staying in the race. I even wasn't offended by her remarks of last week when she suggested she stay in the race because "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um you know I just I don’t understand it. There’s lots of speculation about why it is." It's not like she was Liz Trotta on Fox News, calling for the assassination of Sen. Obama.
If she wishes to go deeper in debt to try to win a lost cause, it shows why she would not make a good president, but it doesn't necessarily mean she's unqualified. Sure, the current asswipe-in-chief completely destroyed the dollar, another one so fiscally irresponsible would certainly finish it off.
I will admit it does irk me a tad when she suggests that all the rules of previous campaigns be thrown out because she won the most votes. If you count Florida and Michigan, two states that are being punished for bucking party rules and holding their primaries early. She doesn't even mention that 1)Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, or 2) she agreed to not count those votes along with every one else. Does that mean she change her mind on any other agreements? Like I said, not a good president, we already have an asswipe-in-chief set out to disregard every treaty the US signed, from the NPT to Geneva Conventions.
But what is most irritating is when Bill says stupid shit. yes, there's a "cover-up" Bill "I Just Learned How To Inhale"Clinton, or maybe you're just paranoid. I'm so tired of the Clinton campaign playing the victim card, I thought that feminism was beyond that. The only thing Hillary's a victim of is a poorly run campaign that was arrogant enough to believe that all she needed to do was win big on Super Tuesday and the nomination was hers. They have summarily dismissed all the small states Sen. Obama won while demanding that "every vote count".
Like I said, not a good president.

What's In A Name?

"I'm an American, our names don't mean shit"-Butch (Bruce Willis), Pulp Fiction
That's right. Most of the people I grew up with, all had Anglicized names-Bill, Tom, Rich, Andy or Dave, names given to second, third or fourth generation immigrants to conform to society's norms. My name was also meant to reflect my father's perceived ethnic heritage, since he was, like myself, and my children, an American mutt, too many mixed breeds to have a dominant hyphenated ethnicity, he chose the one he liked best, the Irish.
Then the hippies came, and "straight" names went out the window. This was followed by the great division of the civil rights movement, when everybody suddenly took pride in their roots, and named their children from the old country. (Now, names are chosen based on popular television show characters, or the names celebrities choose for their own children, until, as Butch so astutely points out, our names don't mean shit) Biblical names are always popular as well, especially among the Bible-damaged souls out there.
I like Barack Obama's name. To me, it sounds like a character from Star Trek, the wise leader of a dying planet. I believe it was chosen by his father as a way for his child to feel connected to his ethnic heritage, or at least half of it, so he may feel pride. I'm sure when he gave him Hussein as a middle name, Saddam was still a CIA stooge, working his way through the ranks to be an asset in the oil rich Middle East. But there are those who have their doubts about him, some solely because of his name. It's like anti-semitism, in reverse, which is a perfectly acceptable from of prejudice in America.
There are many reasons to vote for a candidate. His stance of policies and issues being the most important. Will they stand up for America, or will they let other countries make their decisions for them? A person's name should be way down on the list of reasons to vote for some one. But I do like Sen. Obama's name. Mainly because it isn't Bush or Clinton. Let's hope we never have to hear those names preceded by "President" again.

Partners In Denial

Dick Cheney is deluded. With the US economy in a recession, he claims it still is the envy of the world. That disconnect from reality is denial, a common trait amongst those within the Bush administration. It's the main reason the country is screwed over now, and why this election is important, so we elect a person who is in touch with reality.
Remember Dennis Kucinich? I know a lot of people who'd like to see him have been the Democratic nominee. But he dropped out when it looked like he wasn't going to get the nomination. Same with John Edwards. So why is Hillary Clinton sticking around, even though her support is waning? Is it because she's as out of touch with reality as the Bush administration, or their heir apparent, John McCain? She certainly has displayed herself to be as racist as a Republican. Perhaps omeone should inform her that the GOP has 1200 pages of dirt to throw at Hillary (which is why they hope she gets the nomination).

Way To Split The Party, Yoko!

If you look at this poll, you can see that as Barack Obama picked up more votes and delegates, he started to slip behind John McCain in the national polls. Does this make sense?
It does when you consider that once Sen. Clinton began to see her presumed destiny slip away, the attacks by her campaign against him began. If her aim is to win the nomination, it gets mathematically more impossible every day. There certainly is no reason for her to cling on another month until June 15. Her "big" win in Indiana yesterday owed more to the GOP dirty trick squad who are afraid to have the stronger candidate face off against McCain in November.
Wesley Clark, George McGovern and even my formerly Clintonatonic Brother James feel that Sen. Clinton should drop out of the race now, since it is all over for her now.
And yet, she still persists. Is her purpose, as has been suggested by many, to destroy Obama's chance of winning so she can nab the nomination in 2012? How could anyone true progressive or democrat stand behind her, if that is what her intentions are? Is she that deluded, or vain, to feel that four more years of Republican mismanagement are worth it to this country just so she can fulfill her "destiny"?
Contact Hillary Clinton and ask her, for the sake of America, to please drop out of the race.

Psychic Me (Not Really)

There's an old joke that goes something like this:
Bill: I can tell you the score of the Super Bowl before the game starts.
Ted:Can you? than what is it?
Bill: before the game starts the score is always tied 0-0.

But I can tell you who will be the big winner in today's Pennsylvania primary, even though at this time the polls will still be open for a few more hours.
Democrats hit polls; some voting glitches reported
Early Polling Issue Reported In Green Tree
Casting Confusion with sample Ballots
Tuesday's Election Will be 'Unrecountable, Unverifiable, and Unauditable'
Obama campaign officials tell MSNBC voting machines were failing in some of Philadelphia’s African-American precincts.
Caller to Stephanie's Show Said Some Ballots in Pa Don't Have Obama's Name
If you haven't guessed by now who I think will win big today, let me tell you it won't be Barack Obama. Sen. Clinton needs to win this and win big if she wants to stay in the race and continue destroying Sen. Obama. Her campaign is in debt and running out of money. A big win might draw more dollars dropped in to her war chest. A big win may temporarily quell any call for her to quit. It's New Hampshire all over again.

(picture lifted from Mr. Nasty @American Insurgency again)
Hillary has stated that she will totally obliterate Iran, proving to the military-industrial complex that she's as reckless as Bush when it comes to using America's military might. (While she did state that in reference to Iran attacking Israel, Iran, which has no nuclear weapons, has no desire to attack Israel, which does, no matter what lies the Iran war propaganda machine repeat incessantly).While I hope I am wrong about Pennsylvania, poll numbers have been all over the place in the last week as far as support for each candidate, which may have been a ruse to help disguise the vote fraud.

Hillary Channels Rudy

Invoking the spirit of the long dead Giuliani campaign, Sen. Hillary Clinton invoked 9/11 five times in ABC's televised "debate". She used that tragic day in an attempt to tie Obama to it along with his pastor and his remarks following that day that America was to blame for the attacks. The Reverend Wright blamed America because of it's lopsided foreign policy in the Middle east and was not nearly as damning as right wing Reverends Falwell and Robertson who blamed it on America's embrace of gay rights, among other things.
This has led to my formulation of what I like to call "Scannon's Law", a variation on Godwin's law, that a politician, when backed in a corner, will always try to align themselves with the forces of good by invoking 9/11, while aligning their opponent with the forces of evil that "attacked" us that day.

Hillary's Other Family

On the way home from work today, the right wing shithead on the radio was ranting about Barack Obama's statement of last week,( which was last week, asshole) trying to milk the dead cow for all it's worth because he knows that all the Republicans have is John McCain, who doesn't know Shi'ite from shinola. It must be embarrassing for these people to be in the same boat as Hillary Clinton.
Sunday, when a reporter asked Hillary when was the last time she attended church she replied

"That is not a relevant question for this debate," Clinton said. "We can answer that some other time. I went to church on Easter, so . . . but that is not what this is about."

Of course, a news report from Easter Sunday had this to say:

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama took a much-needed rest from their presidential campaigns on Easter Sunday as their tight race for the Democratic nomination looked set to drag on for months....
Clinton took Friday through Sunday off from active campaigning and was scheduled to resume events in Pennsylvania on Monday.

Obama, who campaigned in Oregon on Saturday, was taking a vacation with his family and would not return to active campaigning until Wednesday in North Carolina. A spokesman declined to say where he was spending his vacation.

One place he did not go for Easter was his Chicago church, Trinity United Church of Christ, which sparked controversy for the Illinois senator because of inflammatory sermons made by the pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The media, which has been so soft on Obama, made it a point to announce he wouldn't be at church while simultaneously reminding people of the last faux-controversy, statements his preacher has made.But it mentions nothing about Hillary attending church.
But if she did, she would be attending services presided over by her spiritual leader, Doug Coe, who has stated:

“Jesus says, ‘You have to put me before other people, and you have to put me before yourself.’ Hitler, that was the demand of the Nazi Party. You have to put the Nazi Party and its objectives in front of your own life and ahead of other people!”

“I’ve seen pictures of young men in the Red Guard of China, a table laid out like a butcher table, they would bring in this young man’s mother and father, lay her on the table with a basket on the end, he would take an axe and cut her head off.”

“They have to put the purposes of the Red Guard ahead of the mother-father-brother-sister—their own life !”

Doug Coe is the leader of the 'Fellowship', or perhaps more ominously, 'the Family', a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to “spiritual war” on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship’s only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has “made a fetish of being invisible,” former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God’s plan This from someone who called Obama an elitist? perhaps, he is not "elite" enough?
The whole idea of a secretive cult calling themselves 'the Family' conjures up images of Charles Manson and Co., apocalyptic visions of 'chosen people', doing "God's will" should scare the crap out of anyone who isn't blissed out on belladonna.And how a church of the elite isn't relevant to a member of said church who called someone else an elitist is anyone's guess.

Invasion of The Obama Bashers

While senators McCain and Clinton act like pod people from Invasion of the Body Snatchers, shrilly screeching because Obama dared to speak a little truth (Sen. Clinton coming out in favor of guns a position polar opposite to the one she held back when she was First Lady appealing for gun control. Will she change her position on the Colombian Trade Agreement once she gets elected president? Let's hope we don't find out), Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) was acting like a true progressive, linking the US recession to the Iraq war.

Bitter? Damn Straight!

Barack Obama's speech about 'bitter Americans' turning to God, guns or antipathy has resonated with both the Clinton and McCain campaigns who both seized the opportunity to label Obama as elitist, which, coming from a couple of fucking millionaires is as about as cynical as it gets. It also proved that not only are the Clinton and McCain people out of touch with the problems facing American citizens, it also shows there is really no difference between McCain and Clinton.
What do working people, not only in PA, but in the rest of the country have to be bitter about?
Four years ago, gas prices were fixed at around $1.20 a gallon. Ten dollars for gas would fill me up for the week. Today, that same ten dollars doesn't even get me half a tank in a car with a smaller tank and engine, and only gets me to work and back twice, with just enough to make it back to work one more time. I should be happy about that?
Four years ago, thirty dollars was enough groceries for me for a week, with enough food for during the week, plus on the weekends (and Wednesdays) when my children stay with me. I used to be able to feed my kids breakfast cereal on the weekends, now I can't even afford to buy a box to eat during the time they're at their mothers, because milk has to be figured in, and the price of that has gone through the roof as well. (As a side note, I will concede that the kids are better off without breakfast cereals and milk, both being not very healthy, and full of additives and rBGH)
In the last three years, my rent has gone up 14%, electricity costs more, and even phone rates have risen as well. While I used to be able to afford DSL, I now use Dial-in-for-free, which gets me on the internet, but is slower than a Bush governmental response to a natural disaster.
My taxes have gone up, and yet, I get nothing from it. The roads I drive on are crumbling under my wheels. Sure, I vote in elections, but my political influence is nil, since I cannot afford to donate thousands to any campaign. What do I get from candidates? Empty rhetoric such as

"If we start acting like Americans," Clinton continued, "and role up our sleeves we can make sure that America's best years are ahead of us."

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? I'm already working full time, now you fucking multi-millionaires want me to work more? Fuck you! That's why we have public servants, to act in the public good and do what's best for all Americans. Don't ask me to sacrifice any more because I don't have anything left to give to you blood suckers!!!!!!!!!(As you have probably sensed by now, I have turned to antipathy rather than God or guns, which is probably best for everyone)What the fuck are you willing to sacrifice?
As I said earlier, both Clinton and McCain have seized upon this truism as a way to distract the media from their favorite talking points, Clinton's continual lies and McCain's complete incompetence ( mentally, that is) when it comes to the facts. Fuck them both. Perhaps these two live in a dream world where if you hum loudly enough and repeat "It's alright, it's alright" enough times then things will be all better. Sure and click them ruby slippers together and maybe the good witch will take you home to Kansas, but guess what, Toto? We're not in fucking Kansas anymore!!!

List of Republican Criminals

So what if another Hillary campaign person is tied to the Colombian government's trade agreement?
Here's a lengthy list of Republican offenders. Enjoy!

Check Your Calendar, Know Your History

In a question and answer period on a campaign stop, Hillary Clinton stated:

“I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did. So, I’m well aware that his entire campaign is premised on a speech he gave in 2002 and I give him credit for making that speech. But that was not a decision.”

In 2002, the war had not yet begun. Millions of Americans were opposed to it then, but Senator Clinton voted for it. How can that be considered criticizing the war before Senator Obama?
This is the problem I have with Clinton, her whole campaign has been a slew of misstatements. How can you trust her to do anything she is promising when she keeps making these statements that when closely examined, prove to be entirely false?
While I would prefer to have Nader in the White House, if we are to have a democrat, why have one who's going to be a constant target of the right wing noise machine?

The Hypocrisy Of Some People

When Ralph Nader announced his candidacy, the cry across the "progressive" blogosphere was almost palpable. "Spoiler" was one term used, "determined to put the Republicans in the White House four more years" was another. But, more often than not, the term "egomaniac" was thrust upon him by people who take offense to negative labels. Sure, Ralphie's as unelectable as Dennis Kucinich, but who can argue against his agenda and still refer to themselves as "progressives"?

Adopt single payer national health insurance
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget
No to nuclear power, solar energy
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime
and corporate welfare
Open up the Presidential debates
Adopt a carbon pollution tax
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East
Impeach Bush/Cheney
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism
Work to end corporate personhood

All the above issues are "off the table" for the corpocratic candidates, Nader, on the other hand think these are more important than flag lapel pins, supporting a never ending expensive war, or any other "issue" either candidate has put forward.
But what I find most ironic is the label "egomaniac" being thrown at Nader by Clinton supporters. Clinton is trailing Obama in the most recent poll, the mathematical improbability of Mrs Clinton securing enough delegates to win the nomination, with Obama picking up more delegates in Texas, yet Sen. Clinton has vowed to stay in the race until the end. She has as much of a chance of winning as Nader, yet she is allowed to remain in the race unscathed by those brainwashed by the Clinton cult of personality?
These very same people have vowed to vote for McCain if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, a kind of 'I'm-taking-my-vote-and-going-home' from people who feel that despite having enjoyed the plush front runner status since 2006, the media hasn't treated Sen. Clinton fairly (like digging up video of her trip to Bosnia, which shows us she will be as able a liar as her predecessor if elected). I guess that makes them "determined to put the Republicans in the White House four more years", the very thing they have accused Mr. Nader of doing.
But don't get me wrong, I'm with Mr. Nader, who thinks Senator Clinton should stay in the race. Then, when your party's all broken and bleed ing by a real egomaniac, you'll have no other choice but to go with the only candidate who isn't all about themselves.

Pantsuit's On Fire

So Hillary lied? Er, I mean, she "misspoke". And then she told another lie. As far as we know, she's not an alcoholic and former (alleged) chronic cocaine abuser, so who cares if she keeps telling lies. She does have command of our native tongue, even though she has a problem with the truth. Am I sexist because I choose to choose to point out every lie? What's worse, a befuddled old coot who doesn't seem to grasp anything beyond his shoelaces or a pathological liar?
You would think she would have quit while she was ahead, but as it stands now, she's behind and won't quit. What she really needs is one good whopper.
(I know we were going to go after McCain, but you can't let one like this get away because we decided to go easy on the Democrats. And far as I know, Obama's not much of a liar and they worse they can dig up on him is his pastor speaks the truth,)

There Is An Answer

I'm sick of the religion pandering shitheels. And believe me when I tell you that Obama is no Messiah, Lew. He's like every other politician: dishonest as they make 'em. If you think he's much different from McCain or Clinton, you're fooling yourself.

That quote came from dbk in response to yesterday's post, and I will say it here: he is exactly correct. What with the Democrats ready to cave-in to Bush on immunity for telecoms who broke the law (under Bush's orders), the difference between the two parties is quite evident. The Republicans will come right out and tell what evil fucks they are and the Democrats will pretend that they care (just enough to gain your support) and then go ahead and do the will of the unitary executive.
I am not a Democrat. I do not support either Clinton or Obama, (although I will say I favor Obama, even though I know that if Hillary wins, I'd have more fodder for my posts, sort of like an unfunny comedian who voted for Bush because he's the type of idiot who's an easy target) because, as I have said elsewhere, when the Democrats win the White House (and they will, or hide their faces in shame forever for losing to John McCain), those on the left will be placed in the uncomfortable position of Defending their candidate, much the way that there are bloggers on the right who still defend Bush.
For the past seven years, we've had a politician who exploited the ignorant fears of the masses to institute despicable, immoral and unconstitutional agendas. I saw in Senator Clinton's statements about Senator Obama's religious beliefs the same cynicism. Is this the "change" she is claiming to bring to America? The previous post was satire, the use of mockery to ridicule something that I consider to be wrong. I was not defending Obama, nor do I drink the Obama Kool-Aid. I merely feel that in a democracy, for two families to control the executive office for nearly a quarter century is not much of a democracy at all. And if you really wanted to see change-

Vote Nader!!

Get Real

So now Hillary Clinton says she has proof of media bias towards Obama. She claims a skit on Saturday Night Live proves there's a media bias towards Sen. Obama.
Saturday Night Live? That show has been funny in a decade and hasn't been relevant since the 70's. Now she's claiming a skit that was written as a gag is proof of media bias for Barack?
Funny, when she was the front runner, and had all the media attention over better candidates (such as Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards), she didn't have a problem with the media bias, but now the media has dumped her like a dumpy girlfriend for a more attractive candidate, all of a sudden she's upset? Get over yourself, lady. The American people have spoken and they have decided they don't want you or your lousy-excuse-for-a-president-and-husband/life partner Bill.

If Hillary Had Fought Bush As Much As She's Fighting Barack, She Might Get My Support

Only one of us has spent 35 years being a doer, a fighter, and a champion for those who need a voice-Hillary Clinton

Ahh, the world of Hillary Clinton, one where she attempts to have it both ways. For instance at one point she says "My opponent has taken to attacking me on NAFTA. I've long been a critic of the shortcomings of NAFTA" forgetting the fact that when she was ensconced in the 35-year-period of change she keeps harping on, she was a champion for NAFTA. Like her vote on the authorization for the war in Iraq, she supported it then, but now, in retrospect, it doesn't seem like a good idea. How many truly awful and horrible decisions is she allowed to make before she realizes she isn't fit to be president?
Now Hillary is caught in the fight for her political life, she's come out swinging against Obama. Now she's fighting, but when the Senate was voting to strip immunity from the telecom bill, was she fighting then? When Bush used the Congress authority to use force to start an all out war, was she fighting then? Did she fight against the use of torture? Is she fighting for better conditions from our soldiers when they return home from the war? Is she fighting to end the war? No, no, no, no and no.
Is she speaking out for the Iraqi citizens, caught between warring factions and the US military? Did she speak up for the Lebanese people caught between Hezbollah and the IDF? Is she speaking out for the citizens of Gaza, caught between the Israeli government and the democratically elected Hamas fighters? Is she speaking up for the displaced residents of New Orleans, whose city is still feeling the negative effects of hurricane from almost three years ago? No, no, no and no.
Did she fight Bush on any of his Supreme Court nominees? Has she fought against any of his signing statements? Has she the Bush administration's various abuses as much as she's fought to have the Democratic Party convention rules so she can become the nominee she arrogantly assumes is her right and destiny?
No, she hasn't fought for anything except her own political future, placing it higher than the American people. She might make a better president than Bush, but only because he lowered the bar.

UPDATE- Over at Fred's I just found a link to this about Hillary voting for war with Iran. Tell us about how you're for change again.

Ouch, That Stings!

"Of course President Bush would attack the one candidate in this race who opposed his disastrous war in Iraq from the start. But Barack Obama doesn't need any foreign policy advice from the architect of the worst foreign policy decision in a generation," - Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
(Picture stolen from The American Insurgency)
George W Bush, in an unbridled act of arrogance (of which he is so proficient) has decided to attack Barack Obama. Of course, Bush knows from inexperience, Bush had no experience of foreign policy to speak of when he took office, just lots of plans to take it easy at Camp David, and look at the mess he made of this once fine country.
I hear the experience argument thrown around a lot recently, and really, no one running for president for their first term has experience being the leader of the free world. What we need to judge them on is there intelligence, not their opportunism. Their judgment, not the insincere apologies for lapses of judgment.
And so, the Obama campaign issued the above rejoinder, the first time anyone with in this campaign has dared to blame the great dictator for the mess he has made. And for that, he gets my respect. And if the Democrats have the good judgment to make him their candidate, he has my vote.

Like I Said, A Couple Of Posts Down

The problem inherent in backing one political party over another is obvious. The Republicans had this problem in 2000. many of them, unhappy with their candidate, simply held their noses and voted for him anyway, because in their mind, the alternative was worse. And so, vote fraud notwithstanding, they elected what has come to be known as the worst presidency in the history of the US. Of course, some of them, following a false flag "terror" attack on our country, were sucked in and began defending his actions, no matter how morally wrong or unconstitutional. They had to because he was their man.
When I started blogging, they were all over the net, responding to any criticisms with out logic, with out reason, with out sanity. Slowly, they began to see we were right. They ran to the comfort of their like minded set, grumbling about the "wing-nuts", but less and less, defending the presidency they helped wrought on this country.
And now, history is repeating itself, only this time, it's the Democrats. many of them have said they wil hold their noses and vote for a candidate who refuses to commit to a pledge to renew the Constitution. A simple pledge:

"We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people's phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power. I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from attack by any President."

Every other Democratic candidate has signed it, save one. Would you still vote for this person?

Hillary Clinton Is Just George Bush In An Ugly Pantsuit

Strange things are happening. Kenya's voting was rigged. How do we know? The exit polling differed from the final results. Funny, when that happened in New Hampshire last month, it was the exit polling at fault, not vote fraud.
All over, I read "progressives" talking about how great it would be to have a woman president, and I agree, as long as it was a great woman. That is not Hillary Clinton.
Why are progressives, so famous for opposing any unnecessary use of force, so happy to get behind someone who voted for the Iraq war? Someone who has chided President Bush for not being tough enough on Iran, a country who has yet to be proven has any nuclear weapon program? Who posed with children as Israel dropped cluster bombs all over southern Lebanon while stating "America stands behind you, Israel!"? Not only that, but she voted against the Feinstein-Leahy Amendment, which would restrict the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas around the world. Does this sound like a progressive?
The answer is no, and Democrats are deluding themselves if they think they are better than the Republicans they've been bitching about for the last eight years who blindly supported George W. Bush because he was their candidate. Hillary Clinton is George W. Bush in a pantsuit, not any one who would “discipline the corporate crooks and lobbyists and their corporate candidates."