I'm voting for Clinton, but not because of any negative feelings I have for Obama. I'm voting for Clinton because she's stronger (to me anyway) on the issues I care most about.

I'm not NOT voting for Clinton in the primary because of screwball nastiness I see directed her way in commentary on this blog, on Daily Kos, yadda yadda yadda.

I'm not voting for Clinton in the primary because I've concluded that in the day-to-day business of government, and particularly at time of crisis, she just would not be the person I want in the White House.

I'm voting for Obama in the primary for reasons that are hard to pin down, I suppose. In the final analysis, it comes down to my sense that he is serious about bottom-up democracy in a way that I do not see (at all) with Clinton.

But if Clinton is the nominee, my vote in November is a no-brainer: Clinton.

Kinda frustrating that Barack is asked for a summary "in a nutshell" -- and he fully understands what he's asked for because he clarifies that "what you want are the bullet points" -- but then goes on for 5 or 6 minutes. Thanks to Pete above for compiling the points that Obama should have memorized and should be able to put out in 15 seconds.

The primary reason for me, peace and war, -Obama believes in diplomacy with enemies. Clinton doesn't. She attacked him for saying he would meet with Iran's leaders. Obama says he wants to not only end the Iraq war but end the mindset that got us there. Clinton accepts the Bush/Lieberman premise about pre-emptive war and regime change in the Middle East and elsewhere. I believe if she were president she would take a political calculation to get us into a wider more devastating war with Iran.

Other reasons, Clinton has said that lobbyists and special interests should have a place at the table, belong in the process. Obama says not. She has accepted more money from drug companies than all other candidates combined, Dem and Repub.

Clinton believes in top-down decision making. Obama believes in process, that is inclusive, bottom up, and reaches across boundaries.

Another reason among many, Obama has a better shot at beating McCain in Oregon. From Rasmussen today: Obama 48- McCain 42 McCain 47- Clinton 41

How much longer must we listen to the insufferable Clintonistas whimper about sexism and unfairness when confronted with the fact that their candidate is merely a spoiler at this point?

How can anyone respect supporters of a candidate whom insist on calling those favoring Obama "sexist" or "naive"?

How can any Democratic voter support a candidate that claims that the Republican opponent is more qualified than her fellow Democrat?

How can the Clinton camp run such a loser campaign and be taken seriously? To go from the "inevitable nominee" to a pathetic hanger-on whose actions serve to harm the Democrats' chances in November makes the Dukakis and Kerry campaigns appear effective.

Dear Hillary - you've lost. You're out. Show some class and stop acting like the pathetic high school football star who can't move on.

You'll make a fine Senate Majority Leader.

Now close up shop and take your scorched earth campaign with you. And tell Geraldine Ferraro to pick up a history book and try reading it.

I went in to this election season as a 'Edward's or who ever else won' supporter. However in the past month and a half Mrs. Clinton and her campaign surrogates have persuaded me that I really am an Obama supporter. I am closer to Mrs. Clinton in age and am a supporter of women in the workplace and in politics, so demographically I should be solidly in the Clinton camp. But, I'm not.

Her, "It's me, me, me, or I'll destroy the entire Democratic Party" approach to the nomination just reeks of narcissism to me. I just don't have any desire to see the "Clinton Soap Opera in the White House Part II", thank you very much.

She started out the campaign with all the advantages: money, staff, name recognition for better or worse, party support and yet, after that huge head start, still trails in popular vote, number of states won and delegates. It's time to start facing reality and think about how much farther she wants to extend this. At some point fairly soon her chances are going to go from slim, to none.

I'm for Obama because he's the Democratic nominee for President. And I sure as heck ain't voting for McCain.

And since I'm too young to remember Bobby Kennedy, this is the first chance I've ever had to vote for a President from any political party who actually made me feel good.

No lesser evil.

No, "Oh, I suppose I'll go with that one."

Someone who actually makes me believe that America and the Human Race just might make it after all.

That's something so new to me that it takes my breath away!

Last Friday I was released from jail after having been arrested for participating in a demonstration at the military recruitment office on Broadway and 14th.

One member of the jail solidarity group that met me was a woman who had recently moved here from Arizona. During a discussion of the presidential race, she told us that she was leaning toward McCain because, even though she is an anti-war activist, she sees McCain as the most honest of the three candidates in his position on Iraq/Iran.

I am not a McCain supporter, and I find him to be just as vile now as I did 4 years ago when many Democrats were salivating over having him as a running mate for their "liberal" candidate John Kerry. But McCain is straight-talking about foreign policy, and Obama and Clinton are obfuscating. And everyone who sees that the emperor is wearing no clothes also sees that Clinton and Obama are obfuscating.

If you can't move either of your militarist candidates to the center, you need to consider replacing them with a legitimate centrist/progressive at your convention. I would have worked for a Kucinich candidacy, and I would have voted for Edwards while holding my nose, but I and many like me will not vote for corporate-dominated militarists like Obama and Clinton.

This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around.

Harry, the mere fact that you were arrested for exercising your right to free speech and your right to assemble should make you hesitate to vote for the status quo, or worse....which is what I believe McCain represents. You must remember that the candidates in a primary election are not privy to all the facts and intelligence a sitting president has. I think it's a good thing that a candidate not yet have a completely clear plan of action where matters or war and foreign policy are concerned.

For the same reasons, I think McCain is a dangerous man....he's already decided he wants to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, and seems unfazed by the will of the people..... that America bring an end to corporate interest/shareholder benefit driven war and occupation.

Unrepentant Liberal: [I] am a supporter of women in the workplace and in politics

Gee, thanks. I don't know what you meant by this statement, UL, but can you read it and see that it's condescending?

Her, "It's me, me, me, or I'll destroy the entire Democratic Party"

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that HRC has never actually made any such statement. This kind of hyperbole does, however, serve the GOP rather well.

Get Real sez:How much longer must we listen to the insufferable Clintonistas whimper about sexism and unfairness

Actually, there was absolutely nothing in this thread prior to Get Real's comment that brought up sexism or unfairness. (Have a look if you need to.) So what's the point?

I am an Obama supporter. Early and ardent.

Wherever possible, we need to be hugely respectful in the advocacy around this primary. (For example...even if an Obama supporter feels Hillary/Mark Penn has been nasty, don't respond in kind -- that's also the problem in the Middle East -- both sides feel the ohter party struck first. Hillary folks certlainly don't feel un-attacked).

We need to acknowledge the pain and emotions faced by women (and all of us) who have been waiting all of history for a woman president. Wounds from this election could last -- particularly if we don't bend over backwards to come from a place of our basic frame -- "We are stronger together that we are apart."

There are smart, caring, non-hacks, non-dittoheads who felt a subtext of sexism in this campaign -- if unintentional, if not by Obama (more by Limbaugh/Chris Matthews).

Something to consider: the ultimate terms of derision for African-Americans are now culturally bankrupt (thought still wounding and unextinct); indeed, uttering them can be a fireable offense. On the other hand, the ultimate terms of derision for women (from b to c words) still get uttered -- at very least on cable. I think this habit of language has an impact on our thinking, and an impact on our ability to accomplish our historical necessity of electing a woman president. Maybe defer to Lakoff here (but he is probably an Obama guy).

For our party to have a chance of governing -- and for us to manifest our values -- we need to honor the history that Hillary is trying to make (even at the risk of repetitive redundancy).

Hillary has oodles of traits to recommend her for office.

We need to continue to show respect, even as we hope that whomever wins the delegate count before the nomination will push for an elegant, non-scorched earth ending to this lengthy election conversation.

1968 gave rise not only to Nixon, but helped give rise to the entire "politics of me" era of over the past 40 years.

If we are to be peacemakers, we must make peace here. Regardless-and-Irrespective (irregardless isn't a word) of who was wounded first.

Jamie Daves (former administration guy turned social entrepreneur now in Manhattan at Platform Equity), has a great idea for a viral video. It's not for me to out it yet.

Think Suffragettes vs. King Jr. -- both must win.

Think Rodney King's wise words. Think Middle East. Think 1968. Think Ralph Nader and 2000. Think big picture. Think "better together." Think Jesse Jackson: "we need both of our wings to fly."

she told us that she was leaning toward McCain because, even though she is an anti-war activist, she sees McCain as the most honest of the three candidates in his position on Iraq/Iran.

Well, that's one way to spin it, I guess. The guy wants to invade Iran, outsource jobs and have more deregulation and upper-income tax cuts, and they admire him for his honesty.

I suppose if he boldly promised to abolish public schools, criminalize the teaching of non-faith-based science, bring back Jim Crow laws and impose mandatory prison sentences for voting Democrat, they'd admire his honesty even more. After all, we'd all know where we stood! (or knelt, in the case of those of us without Gold Card citizenship)

MCT said: "I think it's a good thing that a candidate not yet have a completely clear plan of action where matters or war and foreign policy are concerned."

Ask yourself how you would feel if Russia invaded and occupied the U.S., destroyed all our civil institutions, tortured and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of us, and then said, "But it would be irresponsible of us to leave, even though 80% of the population wants us to leave, and even though a majority of the population thinks it's a good idea to attack us." That's the Obama/Clinton policy on Iraq.

You're right about McCain, and I hope you felt the same way 4 years ago, when most Democrats loved him, but it's difficult for me to see the difference between his "bomb, bomb Iran" and Obama/Clinton's "all options on the table for Iran".

And MCT, the Iraq occupation is not a war. One reason why it is important to call it an occupation is that, under international law, an occupier is responsible for the welfare and safety of the citizens; therefore, all deaths of Iraqis above what would have been expected before the invasion are our responsibility.

The Nazis called their invasions of Holland and Czechoslavakia "wars" against terrorism. A "war" has a sentimental meaning to many, and it is "winnable" by definition. Occupations cannot be "won", they are always illegal under international law, and they cannot be spun by hatemongers. The neocons are incensed by the use of the word "occupation" by centrists, and they insist that it be called a "war". Furthermore, Bush/Cheney's claim to unchallengable power is based on their being a "war-presidency".

Perhaps this is a familiar scene for you, too. I’m standing my son's school hallway, talking (OK, gushing) among other mothers who are, like me, totally sold on Barack Obama. We are getting a little obnoxious, really. There’s more to life, right?

For all others who are "gushing" over Obama and claim to be progressives, it is time to come down to earth and get real. Or did he walk across the Willamette River instead of driving over one of its bridges when he visited Portland? I'll probably vote for Obama, but if we really want to have an improvement over what we have had these last 27 years - Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II - we need to recognize that Obama comes up short on many of his positions, which means "deja vu" will be in the future instead of "change." And, if all the Obamaniacs are like the Clintonistas thinking he can do no wrong then there won't be enough people to hold him to his promises - stated and implied. To cite one example, his position on Palestine has apparently changed to fit what his campaign consultants have told him to say if he wants to be elected president. Just as Kerry and Clinton voted for the war because their campaign consultants said that was necessary if they wanted to become president. How immoral and amoral can people be that they would sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars for a shot at living in (and defiling) the White House? Obama needs to talk with the Reverend Wright to be reminded of the crimes against humanity being inflicted on the Palestinians by the Likud and Kadima parties that he is apparently willing to be an accomplice of. If the Reverend is not taking his phone calls then Obama should get in touch with Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy, Amira Hass, Jewish Voice for Peach and Tikkun. Tikkun has a very interesting article on The Obama Phenomenon.

I'm voting for Clinton, but not because of any negative feelings I have for Obama. I'm voting for Clinton because she's stronger (to me anyway) on the issues I care most about.

May we presume you don't care about Hillary reneging on her oath to defend the Constitution or the Constitution itself?

Ooops! "Jewish Voice for Peach" should be "Jewish Voice for Peace."

I notice on page 2 of today's Oregonian that General Tony McPeak got in hot water for, what else, speaking some truth about the Israel/Palestinian problem. I hope if Obama becomes president he will pay attention to McPeak and Brzezinski who apparently have the guts to face reality on this issue.

Still voting for Clinton, even though I'm less than delighted with my choices. If you have no problem with Obama's lack of experience or his general social ideology, then I gotta question your mental well being at this point. We can downplay his religious ties and call it guilt by association or Republican talking points. We can gush about his speech on racism. That doesn't impress me, but then I'm probably just another "typical white person".

This thread makes me so sad for my beloved Democratic Party. We have two great candidates. Slams on women, Jews, and "Clintonistas" have me thinking that for the first time in 20 years, i will not be giving my time or money to the Democratic nominee. Let it play out, folks.

Kristin, it's not a question of "giving Clinton supporters the floor" when talking about sexism. Yes, sexism is alive and well in this race and in the US.

The floor is muddied by Clinton supporters when they chide Obama supporters for de facto sexism simply because they aren't supporting Clinton.

Perhaps one of the reasons Obama has been so impressive is the fact that he's not partaking in victimization rhetoric? Far too many Clinton supporters appear to believe that it's productive to argue that the mainstream media and this country's voters are more sexist than racist.

While it's probably difficult to prove empirically either way, the hypothesis that women have been more oppressed than black men in this country isn't one that appears evident to most.

Some of the reasons people might NOT support Clinton include: 1) She can't pickup the necessary independents to beat McCain; 2) She's run a divisive campaign; 3) She supports NAFTA and claims otherwise; 3) Voters would like to live in country that isn't ruled either by a Bush or a Clinton for once; 4) She supports a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning; 5) She failed to show collaboration in her healthcare reform failure.....

One could go on and on.

The Clinton campaign would do well to quit pointing to sexism and realize that it's also about who this particular person (who happens to be a woman) is.

And it's also about the attraction voters have to Barack Obama.

Get real, it's really hard to take anything you post at this point seriously after the whole "insufferable Clintonistas whimper about sexism and unfairness" rant.

Part of the problem with your argument is that Obama has not had to deal with these issues because the media is right there, ready to do it for him, every step of the way. Imagine the uproar in the media if audience memebers had shouted "shine my shoes" at one of his events. And yet the "iron my shirt" shouters got little more than a wag of the finger and a side giggle from most.

I think it's just pretty baffling to a lot folks, Clinton supporters or not, why there isn't more attention paid to such obvious sexism in this election. I have yet to hear one person say that an Obama supporter is sexist simply because they support him.

Katy obviously does it what I post seriously as she made the effort to respond.

Right, Obama hasn't had to deal with the bullshit about his pastor. Obama doesn't have a not-so-underground campaign against him that he's Muslim.

If Obama had less melanin in his skin perhaps 1 out of 10 voters wouldn't believe that he's a Muslim? Is that not racism?

Perhaps not by your measure; nor Geraldine Ferraro's.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 Chomsky replies on Zcom sustainers forum about Barack Obama Reply from NC,

I think he’s basically presenting himself as a blank slate, on which you can write your wishes. Hard to find much to be hopeful about. He is energizing a lot of young people, but I don’t see much reason to expect that for that reason his presidency would be more responsive to public pressure.

Overwhelmingly, the public believes that the government should be responsive to public opinion. But that’s such an unpopular elite view that the press won’t even report the polls showing this. A more realistic possibility, perhaps, is that those who are energized by the candidacy will devote the energy to something constructive after the likely disillusionment.

NC

God, I am so sick of the Clinton and Obama camps attacking each other while McCain continues to get a free pass.

While I would love nothing more than seeing a President who happens to be a woman, now isn't the time. We desperately need a leader who has the ability to bring our broken country back together, and restore our reputation around the world. And after everything I've read and observed so far, I truly believe that Obama is the only candidate in this race that can do this.

Apparently in the minds of some people commenting above if you criticize a woman you are being sexist and if you criticize an Israeli you are an anti-Semite or anti-Jewish. These positions are as intellectually bankrupt as those of racists or other bigots who define a group of people by the actions of one or a few of its members. There are plenty of women opposed to sexism who are critical of other women when it is justified, and there are many thousands of people of Jewish faith and heritage who level valid and thoughtful criticism at some members of the Israeli government. Were the prosecutors of Lenora Helmsley sexist when they charged her with tax evasion? Did the FBI go after Jack Abramoff because he was Jewish or because they believed he violated the law?

sharonabd: Opposition to U.S.-Israel crimes is not anti-Jewish. Failure to oppose such crimes IS anti-Jewish, both because they are contrary to traditional Jewish values, and because international rage over them will eventually destroy the Jewish state (and possibly the U.S. as well).

Bill B: We don't need to speak truth to power; we need to speak it to each other. Obama, Clinton, and McCain do not "need to be reminded" of the crimes that WE (the U.S.) have committed against the Palestinians through our political, economic, and military influence. They already know.

For more than forty years almost all U.S. policy makers have supported the Israeli occupation because they see the value of having an unimpeded offshore military base in oil-land. Israel is a strategic asset to the likes of Obama, Clinton and McCain, and their support is ideological as well as political.

"Were the prosecutors of Lenora Helmsley sexist when they charged her with tax evasion? Did the FBI go after Jack Abramoff because he was Jewish or because they believed he violated the law?" I dare to say that the COVERAGE of Helmsley was extremely sexist, whether the prosecuter was or not. Hello, Queen of Mean. Puh-Lease. And what does Abramoff have to do with the Arab-Israeli confilict? Your very reference is antisemitic.

<hr/>