Jen's Green Journal

Now that Dennis Kucinich had been ousted from the presidential race, I'm not sure who I am voting for. Nader just announced his intention to run again, and it's possible I may vote for him. I  also will be taking into consideration who the Greens nominate (Cynthia McKinney's chances look pretty good).

Whether I vote for Nader or not, I'm finding myself irritated by the knee-jerk "if you're not with us you are against us" from Dem apologists. Dems still want us progressives to vote for their candidates after ousting their most progressive candidates? Dems want us to support their candidates when the two remaining ones continually vote to fund the Iraq war? Dems want us to support their candidates after Pelosi's "Impeachment is off the table?" C'mon guys. You gotta give us something or at the least understand why we can't keep supporting such a disfunctional status quo.

So Apologist Dems, are you willing to earn our votes, or are you just interested in bullying us to keep supporting the corporate candidates that always seem to end up in your top tiers these days? If it's the former. I offer you some some comments I found on the net about Nader's that might give you an insight into what we will support:

_________________________________________

(dustinchicago on Common Dreams) the stakes are ALWAYS high. But if you believe in nothing you will fall for anything. I like to think it’s not all about winning (short term) but sometimes about believing. Yes you have to be realitic. But what of long term buiding of a stong belief structure? you know, like the Consevitive Revolution did? Power is ultimitley from the people, and though diluted, still will resonate their beliefs- and I want them to believe in personal power.

(peace coup on Common Dreams) “Only under our failed electoral system is a good candidate like Nader derided.”

(claudius on Common Dreams) I stayed away from the Ralph Nader War that seems to come up every time his name is mentioned. But after reading the threads of many of the Nader naysayers, I will try to follow your logic. Okay, Nader does not run, and Obama wins. The Democrats are in. What will change? How many of you who regularly post on CD will be happy with the Dems when they control politics? Sure, they may slightly be better than the Repugs, I will give you that much. But will things in this country really get any better? I seem to recall many of you saying the Dems are not that different from the Repugs. Have the Dems done anything noteworthy in the past seven years that has helped this country? So now they fully are in power. Will they stop the illegal occupation of Iraq? I think not. Will they repel corporate influence and interest over ours? History clearly shows NO!!! So Nader enters the race. Does it really matter?? We spend lots of time and interest writing on these threads about CHANGING THE SYSTEM. We talk about how great it would be to have third, fourth, and even fifth parties. Are the Democrats really going to bring about the change Progressives want? I doubt it. If we REALLY want change, when will it happen? Who will that person be who successfully rebuts the traditional monoparty - dualfaction system?

(MetalDog on Common Dreams) Ever since the 2000 election, the issue of Nader has been a very easy way to separate liberals from Democrats, the Wellstones from the Liebermans. Many Democrats are still angry about the theft of the 2000 election through fraud, and many of those very same people blame Nader for it. It is completely illogical.

If nothing else, Nader’s candidacy is a vivid reminder (to anyone who actually listens to his message) of how unprincipled and ineffective the Democratic Party has become.

Democrats still just can’t understand what Nader meant when he said there’s very little difference between the two parties, even after the last 7+ years of complicity. The fact that even after regaining ‘control’ of Congress, Democrats still refused to impeach Bush for his many crimes against the nation and humanity is all one needs to know about the sincerity of Democrats’ claims.

(Jaded Prole on Common Dreams) Having a consumate consumer activist in the discussion can only be good. At very least it will put the heat on the corporate candidates making them more accountable as well as education the voters.

 

I told a fellow liberal that the cheerleaders were thinking of protesting at the Hillary event (where Bill Clinton was speaking) at the U. -- we never ended up going.

She asked me why I would want to protest Hillary. I was surprised, because it's been obvious to me for a number of years that Hillary really isn't all that progressive. George W. Bush has been so horrifically awful that maybe by comparison Clinton looks like a progressive, peaceful candidate.

From The American Prospect: "We've now spent 15 fraught but hard-fought years with the Clintons as national Democratic leaders, during an era animated by a truly vicious and extreme Republican Party. It was often said that Bill Clinton was fortunate in his enemies, but if anything, this is even truer of his wife. The personal ugliness and fury of the right's obsessive attacks on Hillary Clinton have naturally served to bond liberal Democrats to her in defense, as does the often notably irresponsible treatment she (like her husband) has received from the mainstream press. " (emphasis mine)

Or it could be something that was written about in article by Normon Solomon last year:

" . . .the people who "do consider Hillary progressive" could mostly be divided into two categories -- those who are Fox-News-attuned enough to believe any non-Republican is a far leftist, and those who are left-leaning but don't realize how viciously opportunistic Sen. Clinton has been. " (emphasis mine)

(Why Pretend That Hillary is Progressive? - Common Dreams, June 12, 2006)

Here's a short list of what is wrong with Hillary:

Pro-death penalty
Pro-"free" trade
Has a problem with free speech (anti-flag burning and on the internet)
And the biggest reason of all - Pro-War Hillary who voted for the Iraq War and is supportive of war with Iran and now has the largest contributions from the Defense Industry of any candidate:

Defense Industry Embraces Democrats, Hillary By Far the Favorite


Hillary had to say this about her pro-war vote to support GW when I went to visit her with Code Pink contingent back in 2003 just before the Iraq War started:



Articles of Interest:

Hillary's No Liberal
Hillary Clinton not polarizing enough, actually
Hillary, War With Iran Is No Laughing Matter
Hillary Clinton for president? An American Prospect Debate

Is it that she has the little "D" by her name that bugs them, or the fact that she might be the first woman president?

She voted for the war they wanted -- and still they don't like her. Her husband helped move the Dems further to the right, but they still hate her. And now the weapons industry is backing her. What's not for a neo-con to like?

And why do so many Dems like this warmonger? Is it because she might be the first  woman president?

While most of the Dem candidates pussyfoot around the War On Terrorism/Iraq etc. issue (Dennis Kucinich being the notable exception), one Republican is speaking the kind of truth that most politicians fear.

From Common Dreams:

“We’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican,” plus 14 other permanent bases in the Middle East. “What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.”

(snip)

“Bin Laden attacked us in 1993, 1995, 1998 and 2000. Throughout that period, and again just after 9/11, he stated his motivations: the ‘infidel’ presence on the Arabian peninsula, the economic sanctions on Iraq that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children in the 1990s and our support for Israeli expansionism.”

(snip)

“If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were - if other foreign countries were doing that to us?”

Republican Ron Paul

While there are many scary things about Mr. Paul (anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-income taxes, pro-Mexican border wall, and pro-health care for only the rich) it is refreshing to see a conservative treat this particular issue in an honest way instead of jumping on the "U.S. never does any wrong" bandwagon.

I've been reading a lot of frustrations at the Dems in congress on blogs these day. I saw a post on One Utah tonight about how the Dems aren't willing to do what it takes to get us out of Iraq. I read on deadbeatwriter's blog her frustrations with the similar positions that the Dems have to Repubs and the secret deals the Dems are making with the White House.

The momentum that swept the Dems to the majority last November is going to evaporate by the next election if they don't get to work and start to act like an opposition party to the Repubs.

I heard a statistic this past weekend that I think is relevent here. According to Dan Jones, 49% of Utahns are Repub, 18% are Dem, and 33% are independent. That 33% is very telling. It means that there's a growing number of people who don't feel represented by either party.

On the nationaly level, the Dems keep trying to paint themselves as an opposition party to the Repubs, but as the years go by they look more and more like the Repubs. If you are craving the color yellow and the only choices you are given are black and charcoal grey, how long before you stop picking the charcoal (just 'cuz it's slightly closer to what you want) and insist that you get a yellow option or you aren't playing anymore?

The sad thing is that the Dems do have a few really good people playing on their team. But those are the people who will get marginalized by the national party. Case in point: Dennis Kucinich. He's by far the best Dem that's running for president, but you likely haven't even heard that he's running; and the nomination will most likely go to Hillary Clinton -- who's probably the most center to right of any of the Dems running for president.

From Kucinich's website:

"End Fake Politics . . .

The American people want this war to end and the troops to be brought home. Why then is this house preparing to capitulate to the Bush White house and let the war continue?

We learned today that the democratic compromise with President Bush is to make withdrawal timetables "non-binding" (meaningless). We have the power to end the occupation now. It is time support our troops by bringing them home by enacting HR1234, the most comprehensive plan to secure Iraq and stabilize the region.

US presence in Iraq is fueling the insurgency. High level officials estimate the HR1234 transition of US, out international peace keeping and security forces in, is possible within three months of Congress cutting funds."

Yes, Hillary is Pro-War. Yes, Hillary was wrong about Iraq as I witnessed first hand here

And for her, no option, including nuclear war with Iran is "off the table". Are we willing to elect someone who would use a nuclear weapon against innocent people just because she is a woman and a Democrat (in name only)? She was wrong about Iraq -- are we willing to murder hundreds of thousands for another mistake? Or is this beating of the war drums an attempt to win over the Repubs that dislike her so much?

The following very important piece was written by Anne Miller of New Hampshire Peace Action:

"I first heard Hillary Clinton speak some sixteen years ago when I was a student at Wellesley College. At that time, she was stumping for her husband’s first presidential campaign and also speaking passionately about the need to protect and nurture our most valuable resource: children. I liked her then (she was a Wellesley woman, after all), voted for her husband, and can still remember the sense of elation I felt on that Tuesday evening in November 1992 when Bill Clinton won the U.S. Presidency.

On Saturday afternoon, I pressed into the Concord High School gym with hundreds of others to see and hear what Hillary had to say about her own presidential vision.  As I found a seat I pondered an idea that could make any feminist giddy: For the first time in U.S. history, there could be a woman president!

During the program, she said some things I really liked.  She was adamant about keeping abortion “safe, legal and rare,” and mentioned the need for conservation twice during her speech. (That said, she had a black glossy SUV waiting for her outside that I’d bet gets less than fourteen mpg.)  However, she had nothing of substance to say about Iraq. And she did not commit to do the one thing that the Senate can do within its constitutional power to end the Iraq occupation – vote against the $100 billion supplemental budget request when it comes up for a vote later this spring.

Afterwards I joined the throng surrounding her – most were people who wanted books signed and pictures taken, for she really is like a rock star – to ask her about a statement she made last week about Iran in which she said “no options are off the table.”  I asked her how she could threaten nuclear genocide on another nation’s children. She told me that we cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, for it would be an “existential” threat to the U.S., and repeated that all options are on the table. When I tried to ask her about the very real role the U.S. is playing in spurring proliferation with our repeated threats and actual nuclear arsenals, she said she didn’t want to discuss it and turned away stiffly.

Now I’m really glad that I majored in philosophy at Wellesley, so I have at least a cursory grasp of concepts like “existential.” It’s interesting that Hillary used the word, because it’s not a term used much in American political vernacular.  It’s much more common in Israel, where the term is used to describe possible, rather than actual, threats. For instance, from Israel’s perspective, the whole Middle East is an existential threat.

Yes, Hillary, we do need moral leadership. We need candidates from both sides of the political aisle who are staunchly committed to solutions for international challenges grounded in diplomacy, international law, and human rights, instead of military power and the threat and use of nuclear weapons.  It’s not Hillary’s being a woman that is a problem - it’s her humanity.  Never again can the U.S. use nuclear weapons on another nation’s children. And we, the good citizens of New Hampshire, must not support any candidate who believe that the use of nuclear weapons can ever be an option."

 

It's now official. As an anti-war, pro-peace person, I will not be able to support Hillary, as much as I'd like to see a woman president.

Back in March of 2003, just a couple of weeks before the war started, I was fortunate to be involved in the Code Pink events in Washington D.C. About 50 us were able to meet with Hillary Clinton to express our views of the war.

Thanks to Kirsten Michel, who filmed the meeting (about 16 minutes), I'm able to post the video on this blog. It's a good reminder that just because someone is a Democrat, they don't always have progressive values.

(Thank you to Kirsten Michel for the video, and thanks to my friends Rex and Rene who gave me their frequent flyer miles so that I could attend these events)

Dennis Kucinich announced his candidacy for president today. Kucinich is the only Democrat that I've ever given money to (when he ran in 2004 -- I also contributed to the Green Party Candidate, David Cobb and the independent Nader campaign that year), and the only Democrat I would have voted for president when I was a member of the Green Party. Unfortunately, even the anti-war Democrats threw more support to Pro-War and Occupation Kerry than they did to Kucinich, who has been a leader for Peace in the House. So I voted for the Green Party's David Cobb.

Pro-war Hillary Clinton is too hawkish in my view and too willing to compromise progressive ideals to get herself elected. There will be no support from me for the Democratic candidate if Clinton is the nominee, no matter how badly I'd like to see a woman as president.

I like Obama, but I'm concerned about his immigration votes. I feel that Kucinich also has more experience, especially on issues of peace. I'd be fairly likely to vote for Obama if he were the nominee, depending on who the Green Party runs.

As a newly declared progressive independent, I feel like I have a lot more freedom to support the best candidates regardless of political party. I'm not sure who else will join the race, but my support for now will be directed to Dennis Kucinich.

Kuncinich's 10 Key Issues:

1. Universal Health Care
2. International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in
3. Jobs and Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
4. Repeal of the "Patriot Act"
5. Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K Through College
6. Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65
7. Right-to-Choose, Privacy, and Civil Rights
8. Balance Between Workers and Corporations
9. Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy
10. Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms

Many more issues are addressed at http://kucinich.us/issues



Photo that I took of Dennis Kucinich (in suit) talking to Howard Lyman when he was is Salt Lake City for VegFest 2005