Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore

[graywarrior]

January 2, 2008

Friends,

A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.
Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."

So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?
Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...
Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.
But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there's John Edwards.It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.
And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil -- including the root of global warming -- is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Yours,
Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)

[CherokeeDem]

1. MIchael Moore...

continues to be a sane and reasonable voice of the people. After seeing Sicko and also currently being without health care (I was laid off a couple of months ago), I don't want the insurance companies to "have a place at the table". It is very sad that some of our candidates don't feel the same way.

[cyclezealot]

42. Go to the Edwards health care plans on his web site.

Health care is our huge Issue.!. He talks about "Health Care Markets." Sounds to me as if Edwards is too chicken to take on the insurance lobby. Michael Moore infers as much. He says the Edwards plan is not all he wishes for./ We want the insurance racket out of my wife's health dilema... .. Our vote stays with Kucinch. Because we have had the same problem from which you presently suffer. We find US style HMO's life threatening. No Thanks. The Edwards link provided for your convenience. FIrst time this Michigan family has ever had to part ways with Michael Moore.

$$$$$$

The Edwards Plan achieves universal coverage by:
Requiring businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.
Making insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.

Creating regional "Health Care Markets" to let every American share the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.

Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/

$$$
Edwards' last two planks we find totally unacceptable.

[Der Blaue Engel]

48. His plan is the best option from the viable candidates

Not perfect by any means, but if/when Kucinich is out of the running, I hope people will realize this.

[kenfrequed]

57. Bah

If Kucinich is out of the running, then quality healthcare is out of reach.

After that I have to look to other important issues, and on matters of trade and standing up to the big corporations, Edwards might be as good as we can get. Sadly.

[cyclezealot]

60. Trade. and Edwards. just rhetoric too.

I doubt that too. Edward's trade promises compared to Kucinich's is equally weak. Want to effect trade concentrate on the Congress. Races such as Kucinich , Marcy Kaptur

[cyclezealot]

58. Its our issue

and the Edwards plan is Unacceptable. If, Dennis is out of the running our interest goes to the Congressional races, not the presidential race . As they say, when the people lead, the politicans will follow. Right?

[Der Blaue Engel]

68. Who is meant by "our"?

Are you speaking for a particular group?

[cyclezealot]

69. No our

other than my wife and myself.

[Hepburn]

2. K & R

As usual, MM gets to the heart of the matter and makes a ton of sense.

Thanks for posting this! :hi:

[Clark2008]

3. Except that's wrong.

Edwards plan is the same as HRC's.

[Donnachaidh]

7. oh do tell us how they are EXACT.

We'll wait. :eyes:

[Raster]

26. And still waiting....

Perhaps she went to go gather her data?

[movonne]

45. will you hillary supporters really get the message...or are you paid

to come on here?

[emilyg]

83. I'm paid.

They promised me .59 after Xmas.

[cybermon]

95. response to your thougtful post

whoa excuse me; i hadn't realized this was arianna coulter's website and hillary was the embodiment of all evil here.
and so my first post on this site...and totally unpaid, finds me a long time hillary supporter...unpaid...where do you go to get the money btw?
i was just sorta hoping that people had some visceral idea as to how much the Constitution has been trashed and how much imminent peril is at our hands by what the nywhoretimes called "this new enemy" in it's new years editorial...they meant the bfee but didn't include themselves for their virulent pro-iraq war coverage; and you can't have fascism unless the media joins hands with big business and the political monster controlling the military in power...
and how much true danger we are in as a society and culture.
and how much the country is still split by a very narrow margin as to these things in a general election sense...

and it's the general election that tells the whole story.
I'd like to see Hillary in the office. Barack sounds like every other politician with a bit of the frisky pup in him, if you've been through enough of these general election things...
when i was born, truman was in his last year in the white house. his 'new' grand world of change really sounds like bland oatmeal if you read his policy papers...Edwards, like Barack, has a good heart, and more experience and genuine passion and lot less the traditional showbiz crapola Barck's marketing. too bad nobody really stands up for Dennis.

Obama's entire pitch is that Hillary voted for the war, which is snaky and sneaky if you read her actual statements at the time. She owes no one an apology; and that's why she won't mea culpa to YOUR special interest, which is not so much 'anti-war' as it's hate for Hillary because she's not your pop star.

If he actually said anything on the issues that was anywhere near solid, like Kucinich, he'd be a 'change-agent'...
If he could work both sides of the aisle (which a puppy cannot)and we get a landslide Democratic Senate, (which a puppy couldn't control) the changes could be swift and permanent.

Anyway, it's been sad to see so many lefty 'liberal' 'progressives' empower, ala michael moore and nader in 2000, the very people they protest so much against.
Mike couldn't have made those cool movies without dubya in the picture...
i'm willing to bet it's just his stupidity and not intentional greed...but let's remember, if the Nader people JUST IN THE SMALL STATE OF NH, had voted for Gore, who was "just like bush," in their vicious and stupid rhetoric, then Florida would not have even been an issue in 2000. Let's try to remember that, as the "left" "hero" types show up with their thoughtful letters.

My question is, how many Democrats are here? How many people will vote for the Democratic nominee, and not turn Leiberwhore and seek an indie candidate if their personal rock star doesn't make the cut???
I will hold my nose and vote for Obama, with great fear, should he be the victor at the end of this short primary season. Will you do the same for Hillary? YOu seem to resent even having someone who supports her show up on 'your' website.
Will you vote for the Democratic nominee yes or no?
Question asked in complete good faith?
I'd really like to know. Moore seems like he will, but I don't care much what Moore does politically; i've seen the fruit of his 2000 efforts: Bush got close enough to steal the country and bilk it dry...
... tho I admire his documentary work immensely.
Yeh I'm a Hillary supporter. No, I'm not getting paid; can you provide a link where i could get paid to counter the same old silly points that "progressive democrats" use to beat her with?

What I have seen is a remarkable phenomenon of women who hate other women; I say this as a male observer. I have never seen the kind of vitriol Hillary gets from women, especially "Progressive liberal Democrat" or 'independent' women; it's worse than any Republican hit squad.

So if you're not going to vote for Democratic Party nominee, by staying home or voting for an "Independent" third party candidate; you are essentially effecting the culture in the same manner as Rush Limbaugh. So apart from the cheer leading etc...answer honestly, those Hillary haters, male and female, will you hold your nose and vote for her if she wins the nomination? Unconditionally?? As I will do for Senator Obama, who scares me every bit as much, if not more, than any of your worst fears of Senator Clinton.
Well are people here voting Democrat or not in the general?

[gtar100]

124. I'm voting Democratic in the general, yes. And if it's Senator Clinton,

I'll be crossing my fingers that she's hiding her progressive side as a strategy when I pull the lever, punch the paper, make the X or touch the screen.

Because of her voting record, her sources of revenue, and her clear ambivalence towards labor issues and free trade (NAFTA, et al), and weak health care plan make it very difficult to support her wholeheartedly. Her family's close ties with the Bushes is also alarming - very alarming.

All this adds up to the fact that Senator Clinton is *NOT* the right person for the Presidency at this time. I only wish that she would get that as well. But I've listened to her talk and I hold out hope that she would make things better. It's just that she's got all the markings of being compromised by big money and back room deals. I'm sick that crap and would sincerely appreciate somebody other than her.

And calling Obama a "puppy" is simply childish. I agree that he doesn't appear as seasoned as other candidates. But he does strike me as a person who would take the responsibility of the presidency seriously *and* use that power for all he can in a good way. So I'd be crossing my fingers if I vote for him as well, but for different reasons. For Obama, in hopes that his character rises to the challenge; for Hillary, that she's not really as bought and sold by corporate interests as she appears to be.

But we may not have to worry about either one since Edwards could very well pull ahead of both of them.

[madokie]

4. Thats a good read and I agree with him

except'n of course I have decided to vote Edwards already. I'm not saying I can't or won't change my mind in this next month but as It stands now its John Edwards for me. I came to DU a big hillary supporter if that tells anyone anything about me it has to say I learn and am not afraid of saying I change my mind because of that learning. Dennis would be great but Edwards can win where as not so sure with Dennis as he in mostly in it for the exposure of his ideas etc. or I've heard him allude to that anyway.

[onehandle]

5. Good letter. I'm glad he didn't endorse Edwards yet.

The MSM would smear him with this for weeks.

Thanks, Michael!

[DeeDeeNY]

6. Excellent points made by someone I respect, and maybe this is a dumb question, but. .

What is the sofa reference?

[rodeodance]

8. Davenport, IA (??sp_

[Mira]

10. THANKS - I needed that - was just about to get a map

I sent the letter to people who might not otherwise see it. I think Michael hit it perfectly.
Especially of course, the part about Gore polishing the Oscar....
He would have been our slam dunk.

[wryter2000]

63. I agree with his statement about Gore

Lord, how I wanted Gore to run. But, it takes a bit of chutzpah for him to be chiding Gore after the way he talked about him in 2000.

[LaStrega]

59. yup ... been there, bought a t-shirt

no really, I have and did.

Michael Moore so kicks ass. Thanks much for the post.

[IDemo]

9. Davenport?

[sk8rrobert2]

86. Davenport Iowa

Its on the eastern side of Iowa about 2 1/2 hours out of Des Moines or about an hour south of Dubuque

[City Lights]

11. K&R eom

[Yael]

12. Saw this in my email this morning and just skimmed it

First day back after work. On a deeper dive, THANK YOU, Mr. Moore. This is what we have been saying all along is the differentiating factor:

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.
HR 676 is the ultimate goal, but it is languishing in sub-committee. THIS plan is the ONLY plan that will start the process.

[rodeodance]

15. yup--most times I do not include the USA in civilized societies---lack of health care is primary.

[Yael]

18. Whoops -- messed up the quote

"HR 676 is the ultimate goal, but it is languishing in sub-committee. THIS plan is the ONLY plan that will start the process." -- those are my words, not those of Michael Moore.

Sorry if I misled anyone -- I have reported the post and asked the mods to correct.

[Joe Chi Minh]

39. After all those points in favour of Edwards, Michael still can't bring himself

to endorse a candidate. Who is he hoping will appear whose merits would exceed those of Roosevelt and Truman, as he virtually implies? With all due respect to Al Gore, he's not a populist (compliment, not insult, of course), and doesn't seem as economically left as Edwards, or as the situation surely demands. And, each one to his own, but I do think Edwards is stellar. Not perfect, of course, but stellar.

I defer to no-one in acclaiming the work Michael has done to expose to the light the worst aspects of US society that are the by-products of so many years of far-right rule, but when it comes to the big picture, the insight which enabled him to so astutely and thoroughly analyze those outrages seems to lose its coherency. He can be all over the place. What was that the last time, about his endorsing Wes Clark? Where's the similarity between Kucinich and Clark?

[Yael]

40. Perhaps he knows he can be (is) polarizing

and doesn't wish to hurt Edwards' candidacy this early in?

It was a reaction to DK asking people to support Obama, IMO.

[Joe Chi Minh]

43. I see what you are driving at, but polarizing is good, when it is to correct an already clear

and present polarization to the extreme detriment of most Americans.

There are surely enough American people, who know their survival is on the line, to vote of John. There was a class war and they lost, and soon, God willing, they will be able to begin remedying the situation.

[Yael]

46. The first vote hasn't been cast yet though

and this is a game of chess with marbles.

[Joe Chi Minh]

56. Yes, I suspect, I'm missing technical stuff.

[colinmom71]

41. I'm also quite glad that Mr. Moore pointed this out...

SInce I can't remember where on earth I found the article, I always hesitate to mention an excellent article on the history of how the current French medical care system evolved from the wreckage of recovery from WW2. I don't usually like to discuss the subject of an article unless I can properly cite it, especially when it's been a while (year or so) since I read it. But, from what I can remember of the article's substance, Edwards' plan is extremely similar to how the current French system began..

In the first few years after the war, French insurance companies had begun to run amok, escalating premiums all the while denying claims on arbitrary reasons (sound familiar?). Finally enough people had been defrauded and they began to demand action and regulation. The French legislators responded with sweeping reforms that would be implemented over a period of about 3-4 years, IIRC. The first step was pretty much what Edwards is proposing - mandatory coverage, either through an employer or through the government's supplemented program. Shortly thereafter, another program was initiated that helped employers provide coverage through government sponsored supplements, with the stipulation that coverage was also to be equalized and further regulated so that all citizens could be guaranteed comprehensive coverage based solely on medical need.

In other words, the insurance companies were forced to provide good quality health care coverage in exchange for the guaranteed revenues that mandatory, supplemented coverage would provide. The profit motivation wound up being excised from health coverage through this staged regulation. Over time, the system became centralized to the point that health insurance practically ceased to exist...

Folks, the insurance companies here know all this and it's why they spend so much money to fight even just a government supplementation of health insurance premiums for lower income working families. Edwards is right when he says that giving insurance companies a "place at the table" will achieve nothing. And he's the only one of our current Democratic candidates who is truly acknowledging this...

[JDPriestly]

53. Rest assured. Edwards did his homework before proposing this plan.

Edwards speaks with such conviction and confidence -- because he has learned over many years to do his homework before speaking.

[spartan61]

13. (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)

Another name for a sofa is Davenport.(As in Davenport, Iowa) That's what my mom always called a sofa. Not sure if that is really a brand (like many call a refrigerator a Frigidaire.) Hope this helps.

[GirlinContempt]

20. Yes, it was a brand once

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davenport_%28sofa%29

[Tesha]

14. Hear, hear! (NT)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

16. K & R, this has now become my all time favorite Michael Moore missive

What an eloquent essay of his own views and feelings about our candidates.

:kick: MKJ

[crazylikafox]

17. K&R

[peekaloo]

19. My MSN account blocked his e-mail with a warning "may contain dangerous content"

:D

I loves Mr. Moore.

[sk8rrobert2]

87. HAHA more of the MSM blocking what should be said HAHA

[KoKo]

21. Thought provoking.......

and expresses the feelings of many of us who hoped so much Gore would come in. But, this is what we will be voting on...one of these three unless some of us just do a "write in" figuring voting our conscience is more important than whom the media picks.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

22. I lost respect for Moore when he threw Nader under the bus in 04

Sorry Moore is an opportunist who will turn on you in a minute if it will make him some green..

[Swamp Rat]

70. Kevin Leffler, is that you?

:D

[Two Americas]

72. what does he gain?

What would he gain by throwing Nader under the bus or anything else? He can't be called an opportunist if there is nothing for him to gain, and he can't turn on you when he owes you nothing and doesn't even know you and is not involved in government.

He doesn't "make green" doing this. He makes green from his films.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

133. One can act shamefully while gaining little

He was spot on in 2000 when he said:

"Here's the thing that I got to say, and I really want to say this to the young people here who are voting for the first time. If you don't vote your conscience now, when will you start?....if in the very first election of your life you start to settle for less, how does that move us forward?" - 10/13/2000

That is principle something he abandoned when he got behind someone who would have been far less desirable than Gore would have been in 2000 (Kerry in 2004). I respect alot of what Moore has done but 'evolving' into a party hack kinda puts him out in my book..

[Two Americas]

139. private citizen

He is a private citizen and can say whatever he wants. He isn't an opportunist if he isn't gaining anything. I cannot see how someone expressing their opinion can be characterized as "acting shamefully."

Now that he is "out in your book" what will change in the real world?

[defendandprotect]

111. Well, I forgive him, but I just sent him an e-mail which included

commenting on how ridiculous that was --- !!!

I think that election and the scapegoating of Nader shook his confidence ---

Nader has endorsed Edwards ---
Granny D has endorsed Edwards ---

I think it's the way to go ---

Hillary --- NO, NO, NO ---

Moore also didn't mention DLC, which I commented to him about ---
he should!

[johan helge]

23. "Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man" -

Incorrect, MM supported Nader in 2000. If not for Nader (and people like MM), Bush would never have happened.

[Raster]

27. Bullshit! Nader was NOT the problem in Florida (S)Election 2000.

The problems were jeb bush and katherine harris. Oh, and throw in the rethuglican felonious five on the SCOTUS. The Nader obfuscation--deliberate obscuring of facts--is a smokescreen. The News Consortium found that just about any way the votes were counted Gore won Florida. And then when you factor in the the rethuglican electoral dirty tricks--purging, caging, rigged machines and outright voter harassment--it becomes very clear that Gore's win in Florida was MUCH LARGER THAN CONVENTIONALLY BELIEVED. No, Nader was not the reason. Educate yourself. The truth will set you free.

Wake up America!:kick:

[johan helge]

30. There were lots of reasons Bush "won", of course -

one of them was Nader. Nader got 97 000 votes. Bush "won" with 537 votes. If not for Nader, most of those 97 000 would of course have voted for Gore. This isn't difficult.

[MattSh]

33. Without Nader, they still would have stolen it

You think they didn't have some sort of plan in case Nadar dropped out?

They plan to do this kind of thing. It's who counts the votes that matter.

[johan helge]

35. Perhaps they would -

no one knows this. (But it's a fact that they didn't or couldn't steal the 2006 election completely.) But that doesn't change the political effect of Nader's candidacy, of course: It made it possible for Bush to "win" or to not have to cheat even more to "win".

[gtar100]

125. If it makes you feel better, be mad at Nader

But Gore didn't lose. What more needs to be said? Democracy is scary shit when somebody almost tips the applecart. But Nader didn't. Gore had more votes. They just weren't counted. And that's a whole other can of worms.

To me, Nader's not worth hating. He's done too many good works and says too many of the right things about the corporate state we live in. And he didn't steal anything. He played fair and square.

[johan helge]

126. The Repubs used every dirty trick in the book -

and that gave Bush 537 more votes than Gore. If not for Nader, those tricks would not have been sufficient to "win".

Without Nader, the Repubs perhaps had been able to steal even more votes. But no noone knows this. And, so what, it doesn't make it right to vote Nader.

[Orangepeel]

44. the plan was to steal every vote they could

don't you think that if they could have stolen enough votes to make the win "clean" and NOT have to go to the Supreme Court, they would have?

They disqualified everybody they could disqualify. They intimidated everyone they could intimidate. They blocked as many votes in Democratic precincts as they could block. It was still barely enough to steal it.

Nader was a factor in Florida. People who voted for Nader in Florida did play a part in reducing the margin to enough so that it could be stolen. That doesn't mean that they didn't have a right to -- people have the right (even the obligation, some would argue) to vote for who they think is best, even if others think that they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. There's no sense in denying it.

[defendandprotect]

113. Maybe it was the other way around . . .

That Nader's votes complicated the steal for them ---?

And that's why 2000 got so noisey --- ???

[johan helge]

nt

[johan helge]

127. And maybe it was a good thing that Bush became President ...

You never know, you know.

[defendandprotect]

141. Only if you agree with steals and the Gang of 5 involvement in it --- ???

and criminals in the White House --- ???

However, Nader had nothing to do with Bush's steal ---
before or after ---

[gtar100]

148. Very possible. The true face of conservatism has been unmasked

for horror that it is. Not everyone needed to learn this the hard way that we have, but for better or worse, we're all in this together.

[Fire Walk With Me]

49. Ding!

:applause:

[defendandprotect]

112. PLEASE SEE VOTESCAM ---http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

PLEASE understand these computer steals have been going on since the mid-1960's ...
it didn't begin in 2000!!!

2000 was simply a very noisy steal ---

[Raster]

34. No, not difficult, but FAR too simplistic.

Who is to say all of those Nader voters would have voted for Gore if they had not voted for Nader? Perhaps they would have voted for bush*. Perhaps they would have voted for Buchanan. And I suppose you did not understand when I said that the News Consortium found that if all the votes were counted, Gore won. Nader or no Nader. Place the blame for 2000 where is squarely belongs: the electoral fraud perpetrated by jeb bush and katherine harris, and then the illegal decision by the SCOTUS. Those that voted for Nader had every right to do so. That was their choice. To blame them and Nader for bush* is disingenuous at best.

[johan helge]

36. Well

"Who is to say all of those Nader voters would have voted for Gore if they had not voted for Nader?"

- I'm not saying "all", but "most" ...

"And I suppose you did not understand when I said that the News Consortium found that if all the votes were counted, Gore won. Nader or no Nader. Place the blame for 2000 where is squarely belongs: the electoral fraud perpetrated by jeb bush and katherine harris, and then the illegal decision by the SCOTUS."

- That's among the other reasons Bush "won". He could not have "won" without Jeb, SCOTUS etc., and not without Nader.

"Those that voted for Nader had every right to do so. That was their choice."

- Yes, in a democracy, they had even every right to vote for Bush!

"To blame them and Nader for bush* is disingenuous at best."

- The fact is, if they had voted for Gore, Gore would have won (or the Repubs would've had to cheat even more to "win", and no one knows whether they could have done that). It's shameless to not admit this fact.

[rgbecker]

52. Truth is if Buchanan hadn't run, or if any of the other 10 guys on the Florida

Ballot hadn't run, Gore would have won by even more than he did. Why pick on Nader supporters? The culprit is clearly the Republican machine that disenfranchised the Voters of Florida and Ohio.

[johan helge]

62. I think it's a very good thing that Buchanan ran,

just like the Repubs love that Nader ran. If I had been a Repub, I would have criticized Buchanan supporters.

But there's a difference in damage: Buchanan got only 17 000 votes (and Browne, the Libertarian, 16 000 votes), compared to Nader's 97 000 votes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida%2C_2000#Final_certified_vote).

If not for voter disenfranchisement, Bush would never have happened. And if not for Nader, Bush would never have happened.

[kenfrequed]

77. Look

We can sit around and blame Nader all day long, but what was Nader making all this noise about anyhow?

Why was he a factor? What was he saying? And who was it having an effect on?

Simple math thinking pundits scream about how "It's all Naders fault" but most staticians deny this, pointing out that Nader actually DID avoid going into battleground states and put most of his campaigning effort into Democratic "Safe States."

As far as the individual voter, it is foolishness to suggest he "cost" Gore the election as none of us can assume the intentions and mentalities of the individual voters.

But for the sake of argument, let us pretend that he did "Cost" Gore the election. How did he do it? What was he saying that would have convinced hard core Democrats to vote for him?

There are only a few memes that were in operation during the Nader run. Possibly the most damaging meme would have been "There is no difference between the Democratic and Republican party." Of course this is rather a over-simplification of what Nader actually said, and he usually said there was "Little" difference between the parties.

But who would be seduced into voting for anyone based on this meme? Hard core Democrats? Liberals? Not as likely.

The only people likely to be affected by Naders statements are: Non-voters, independents, and a population of left leaners that feel the Democrats weren't doing enough.

Now once you vector Green voters down to those lefties you have to stop and ask how they, and a large font of populist independents were sucked in and how it could have been fixed.

How much energy was put into tamping down Gore and positioning him to the right? Surely VP Lieberman was more than a nod to the right wing. But why? The Democrats were expending massive work towards trying to convince people that would sooner cut off their left arm than vote 'fer a libral commie Democrat.' Or trying to convince the Goldwaters 'extra-chromosonal republicans' into switching sides. And how many were even remotely convinced? How many right wing evangelical Christians came running over to join us? How has Lieberman been working for us Democrats by the way?

It took a war to shake the faith of a few of these Christians in the effaciacy of religious government, and it took a never ending parade of republican sex scandals to make some of them question their leadership a bit. And even with this there are still a bunch of Koolaid drinking Bible Camp freaks running about citing Leviticus, calling for crusades, and counting the days until the rapture.

Of course the triangulators will never admit that maybe their ideas and policy plans are so completely backwards that most Democrats and Americans want Nothing whatever to do with them. The great victories of the republican leaning DLC and Mr. From are a couple of presidential pluralities that used rather progressive language.

And look how the media and the the "democratic pundits" treat the liberal candidates of the party. They exclude them as often as possible and speak completely dismissively of them. They are shunned and ignored and then, after hyping the ever living crap out of the corporately acceptable democrats they are polled out of existence and denied access to a fair share of the podium.

Now imagine these liberals who have had their voice ignored and marginalized constantly, while other democrats try to play at adopting the loser-language of republicans. Reminding voters of how much liberals suck every tiem they utter the words "fiscally conservative."

Where do these liberals go? to Hell? Or to someone that is willing to talk to them?

[HooptieWagon]

89. Wow. Greatest. Post. Ever.

[kenfrequed]

97. Thank you.

Though I think my explanations are kind of incomplete, I do get tired of the 'Nader is the Antichrist' attitude some people have. Honestly some of the sharpest critics I find of him here also tend to be the most conservative of Democrats, people that back the most conservative democrats they can find.

Sad really

[Two Americas]

143. excellent points

The alternative to blaming Nader would be to admit that it is the positions of Nader that people are opposed to, not his affect on the elections. There would be no Nader problem if it were not for the determination that some have to keep pushing the party away from its historical economic positions and toward the right on all but a few cultural issues, most of which disproportionately help the better off at the expense of the rest of us. Blaming Nader keeps the real problem hidden from view.

[Raster]

99. Thank you! A nice interjection of COMMON SENSE!

The cold, hard, fact of the matter is that certain factions would make sure that Gore NEVER set foot in 1600. There was layer after layer after layer of electoral sabotage designed to thwart the legitimate will of the people. And quite frankly, how the flip do we know that Nader really received the number of votes credited to him? The Florida electoral morass is a veritable sewer. Florida politics AND Florida elections have been dirty for the last 50 years. There was a reason lil bro jeb was Governor of Florida, and there was a reason Cruella de Harris was the Secretary of State that ran the electoral infrastructure. Another bush* in the White House was signed, sealed and delivered.

I thought we got over the "Blame Nader" crap years ago.

[newburgh]

102. Thank you. Well said!

[johan helge]

105. No one says "It's all Naders fault"

- But, of course, it was partly his fault.

"Nader actually DID avoid going into battleground states"

- What kind of point is this? That he just wanted some votes, not give Bush the victory? Well, he took the risk of giving Bush the victory, and did exactly that.

"As far as the individual voter, it is foolishness to suggest he "cost" Gore the election as none of us can assume the intentions and mentalities of the individual voters."

- What is this? Bush "won" with 537 votes, so of course no individual voter could have cost Gore the election. But, of course, everyone who did not vote Gore, did not contribute with his/her vote in the fight to stop Bush.

The rest of the argument, I don't have time for it.

[kenfrequed]

130. Plenty of time for blame

Of course you have plenty of time to blame though, don't you.

I suppose ignoring inconvenient elements of any argument makes things somewhat easier.

Alright though, I will bite.

I encounter at least two people that STILL have, as their icon, on this board, "%$*k nader." If that isn't blaming it all on Nader, then I do not know what is.

If you are unable to ask WHY people voted for Nader I don't know how you ever expect to convince anyone of your arguments.

[Selatius]

122. You can't blame Nader voters without equally laying the blame on the doorstep of Jeb/Harris

For that matter, you can't lay blame anywhere without also laying it on Gore as well for failing to convince the left why they should vote for him. The problem is the system as a whole, not players in it.

[johan helge]

128. I blame Bush, Jeb/Harris - and Nader -

all of them.

I blame the fire (the Repubs) and the people who refused to help in fighting the fire (the Greens) - but I don't blame the firefighter (Gore), for not being more clever. Gore did his best, the Greens did not.

If not for "players" like the Greens, Bush would never have happened. So such "players" ARE a "problem".

[Selatius]

146. Not true, Gore himself admitted he ran a lousy campaign. That puts that to rest. n/t

[defendandprotect]

114. And, again --- what has the Democratic Party done since then re our voting problems?

We don't have what most other nations have --- Instant Run-Off Voting
We still have highly questionable computer voting --- steals going on since mid-1960's
See VOTESCAM -- http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

There were investigations but with very little emphasis on what was found ---
no follow up by Democratic hierarchy --

Gore chased Jesse Jackson out of town where the butterfuly ballot flew ---
he didn't want demonstrations!!!

Gore failed to support a challenge to the vote --- !!!

And, Gore would have given us Liebermann --- !!!
What about all those worried about theocracy --- ???

What do you think Liebermann is about ?

[newburgh]

100. Never one to take the facts into account, eh?

Beyond all the disenfranchised voters who were struck from the roles and the supremes and the uncounted votes, I've yet to hear anyone going back and revisiting their vote for Gore/Lieberman. Oh, I guess no one could know what a neocon Lieberman was/is. But he was a Democrat, yessiree bob. And you know we should support all Democrats no matter how neocon they may be- because they'll be, uh, Democratic neocons...

All the people I know who voted for Nader wouldn't have voted for Gore. Do you know about a poll I don't? This argument is boring and a straw man- it ignores the real reasons that election was stolen and legitimizes the counting.

:boring:

[defendandprotect]

115. When people wake up from the Nader did it myth, we might start getting somewhere --- !!!

[johan helge]

121. Well, if they wouldn't have voted for Gore -

they wouldn't have done the necessary thing to stop Bush. That's like not fighting Hitler in 1940 because of this or that.

Are you saying voting for Gore/Lieberman was wrong? Amazing.

[defendandprotect]

109. No -- if it were not for Nader, most of those people would not have come out to vote at all ---

and when they came out they voted for Democratic candidates ---

[johan helge]

120. Well, no one knows for sure what "most" of them would have done

without Nader. But assuming Gore would not have benefited substantially more than Bush, is of course an insult to these people.

[movonne]

47. The problem you are forgetting is that Gore won the election..the

last 2 elections have been stolen and just maybe this one...it was not nader..it was going to be bush whether nader ran or not, the powers to be saw to that one...

[johan helge]

71. Gore won in reality, but not in the official election result.

If not for Nader, Gore would have won both.

No one knows whether the Repubs could have stolen more votes than they did. But if they could have stolen more, don't you think they would have done so, to make the victory less controversial? And we know that they couldn't or didn't steal the 2006 election completely.

But suppose you are right - that the whole election was a total fake. Does that make it any more right to vote Nader? Voting Gore then at least made sure that they had to cheat to "win". But splitting the votes enough between Gore and Nader, would just have made the Repubs' victory legitimate.

[defendandprotect]

110. Are you also counting the Libertarian vote -- or other 3rd party votes . . . ??

This is nonsense . . . we know that finally the Florida recount was down to something like a
70 or 60 vote difference -- and Bush was not going to end up the winner.

How about the GOP fascist rally outside Miami-Dade Election HQ's which stopped the vote count with mob violence? Think that had anything to with the results?

Did Nader do that ---?

And what has the Democratic Party done since to STOP Votescam --- if you don't know what that is
go to this website ---

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

These computer steals aren't just going on since 2000 --- they've been going on since the mid-1960's . . . !!!!

[johan helge]

119. If not for dirty tricks, SCOTUS, etc., Bush would never have happened

And if not for Nader, Bush would never have happened. This isn't difficult.

Of course, perhaps the Repubs could have stolen the election also without Nader. But no one knows this for sure. And that wouldn't make voting Nader any more reasonable.

[DutchLiberal]

80. Let's just suspend elections and force the people to vote for your guy then.

If Gore had been a better candidate, Bush would never have happened.

[rosesaylavee]

88. Gore WAS an excellent candidate... certainly far better a candidate than the MSM

would have us believe. Earlier this year, Rolling Stone broke the story that the MSM in 2000 (specifically named journalists) intentionally made the race close as it made more money for their employers. They didn't want Gore to have a cake walk... so that's why all the lies and contortions of what he actually said and did, and why he appeared to be a less than adequate candidate.

Our media is corporate owned here unfortunately and whatever sells their product is what is presented now. Many of our corporate media also have interests in profiting from the industrial military complex.

[DutchLiberal]

90. I know all about the MSM... But *still*: If Gore had been such an 'excellent' candidate...

...he would have had no problem attracting voters who turned to Nader. Those people are usually not the ones who are easily misled by the right-winged corporate-owned media. They are informed. Gore just didn't appeal to them. So do you want to blame people to vote for whomever they want? Or do you blame the candidate who wasn't able to persuade them?

[Tarc]

92. Naderites get the blame

for voting for a 3rd party fringe candidate who never had a chance in hell of winning.

[DutchLiberal]

94. Then do as I suggested: cancel all elections and force your guy upon them.

Apparently, that's the only way your guy can win. If people don't vote for your guy, you "blame" them for not doing so. In my opinion, this is not only very undemocratic, but very childish. Like those votes automatically 'belong' to your guy. Get informed about democracy, will you?

[Tarc]

96. How pathetic

Plain old common sense tells us that the president is going to come from either of the two major political parties. Whether you like it or whether it is ideal or not is pretty much irrelevant, so wake the fuck up to that reality, son.

Would I like to see a viable 3rd party emerge? Sure, as I find aspects of both parties' candidates this year to be disappointing. But the way it is now is that those that run for 3rd parties are just doing so for a protest vote, and to force one of the main parties to adopt some of their positions.

When a viable 3rd party gets going...and that means starting at the bottom and building on up to win and hold local, state, and federal offices...I'll be all for it. As it is now, the Naders and such are not legitimate votes. You delude yourself if you think otherwise.

[Selatius]

123. That's not an argument in favor of "common sense"

That's an argument for several electoral reforms to break the two-party system.

[DutchLiberal]

135. You delude yourself if you think only votes for your guy/party are 'legitimate'.

I know very well what the reality is, but that doesn't mean you're right in bullying other people to vote for your guy "--or else...!"

What you say is basically this: "Candidate A can only win if candidate B drops out of the race. Therefore, candidate B must drop out." Instead of wasting time on crying about the people who still vote on principle, and instead of trying to sabotage the democratic elections, you should invest time in improving your candidate A so he can take in the votes that normally would go to candidate B.

[rosesaylavee]

144. Oh, right. Nader supporters ARE all-knowing.

Silly me.

[defendandprotect]

116. Gore won--!! But he also would have given us Liebermann --- !!!

[defendandprotect]

117. misplaced

misplaced

[DiverDave]

101. HUH?

repeat after me, the rethuglicans STOLE 2 elections...has nothing to do whatever with your comment.

[DutchLiberal]

136. Oh, I agree with THAT 100%! I just don't agree Nader should be blamed.

So why you are replying to me is a bit of a mystery to me.

[johan helge]

129. Yes, if Gore had been even more clever that he was,

he would have won. But he did his best. The Greens didn't.

The candidates who don't win the Democratic nomination, should not run. If they do, they split the anti-Republican vote, and that way help the Repubs.

[DutchLiberal]

137. You should invest in pro-democratic instead of anti-republican votes.

I think that's a better tactic.

[johan helge]

145. I don't know what you mean (nt).

[Liberal In Texas]

24. Yeah, what he said.

K/R

[AzDar]

25. K & R...

:kick:

[Tejanocrat]

28. I thank god for Michael Moore

[Kurovski]

29. K&R.

This Michael Moore guy is a compelling sort.

[TacticalPeek]

31. "Do you want a President who is so easily misled?"

It's not the best rhetorical technique to use a sword so easily turned against oneself.

Of course I see where he pre-forgives and rehabilitates Edwards' being 'so easily misled'. But to start with the Eyerack war position being this be-all end-all thing, and then switch to it being something to say 'oops - sorry' and move on from . . . well, whiplash of the mind is probably not covered by any policy, even single-payer.

That said, I might vote for Edwards in a primary because that's the direction in which I hope the party moves, but I'd be surprised if there's still a contest by then.

[Nate_in_Iowa]

37. Cheers to Davenport!

Well said, Michael!

[wryter2000]

65. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[cosmicdot]

32. link to Michael Moore's letter

in case anyone needs one

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008
Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=220


still one of my favorites, Grayw.

[GreenTea]

38. I'm happy Moore is supporting John Edwards!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/02/michael-moore-weighs-in-o_n_79208.html

[femrap]

50. Moore's opinion of the Dem field

is so very similar to mine. Damn, I hope those Iowans select Edwards.

And would someone tell me why the media is saying that the one who comes in third is OUT??? Iowa doesn't represent our country by any means. And I don't think people who live in other states are going to let Iowans tell them who to vote for in their primary.

[Inspired]

51. Sounds like an Edwards endorsement to me. Or close to it.

[ooglymoogly]

54. always a rec for MM

[JFN1]

55. There's a LaZBoy, Iowa?

I never knew...!

[NNN0LHI]

61. LOL n/t

[Maat]

64. As usual,

Michael Moore echoes my thoughts.

[Prophet 451]

66. One thing I don't understand

It must be obvious to everyone except pond life that state-run universal healthcare, funded from taxes is the cheapest and most efficient way to go. Yet, with the exception of Kucinich, all the candidates want to keep the insurance companies involved to some degree, often by actually forcing people to pay them (did the American Revolution start for similar reasons?).

Is this just fear of the money the HMO industry can throw around or have Americans been so programmed by decades of anti-socialist/government-is-the-enemy blather that they see communism in EVERY program for the common good? Someone help me out here because on this one, I approach "Linford's Lunchbox" levels of not getting it.

[Two Americas]

75. a little of both?

It is a mystery to me, as well. There could well be fear of the money the HMO industry can throw around. But I do think Americans have been so programmed that they do see communism - or whatever it is they imagine communism to be - in any and all programs for the common good. I have been red-baited here for advocating the ideas of Lincoln, TR, and FDR. The politicians fear backlash from that. Nothing good can come from cowering and caving to it, though, and sooner or later it must be confronted.

[Swamp Rat]

67. k&r

[Yuugal]

73. K&R nt

[cutlassmama]

74. I want Michael Moore for President!!!!!!!!!!!! K&R

[orpupilofnature57]

76. Remember he uttered Gore first , worth mentioning.

[mdmc]

78. Thank you for your input Mr. Moore

peace and low stress and God bless:kick:

[DutchLiberal]

79. Wow, Edwards is really good...

...if he even has Michael Moore believing his shallow anti-corporate hot air.

Yes, Michael, you ARE easily misled, if you fall for Mr Hedgefund.

[Two Americas]

82. which?

Is it talk that is opposes corporate corruption and excessive power and deregulation that you find "shallow" and to be "hot air," or something about Edwards, or both?

Who do you find to be speaking for economic justice whom you would not characterize this way?

[DutchLiberal]

91. His rhetoric is shallow. He talks the talk, yet he does not walk the walk.

The only one who is truly anti-corporate and who has shown this time and time again not in words, but in deeds, is Mr. Kucinich.

[Two Americas]

106. walked what walk?

No one has walked this walk since 1932. Very, very few have talked this talk since then.

Yes, Kucinich has talked the talk, and to some extent walked the walk in the House of Representatives. I am a long time strong and dedicated Kucinich supporter - not sure how long you have been or even if you are. Are you?

What do you call "deeds" exactly. Running a chaotic and ineffective campaign that finally drove the most talented volunteers away from the Kucinich camp in utter frustration? I have no criticism of Dennis's positions and speeches and statements. Yes, that is nothing but talk, mostly, but talk is powerful and important.

"Having" and speaking for New Deal positions is fine. But that is a long way from communicating them effectively to the public, which is the first step to getting them done in the real world. Yes, the media ignores Dennis; yes, he doesn't have the money. The excuses for his ineffectiveness are valid. And in a perfect fantasy world we could all just visualize Dennis in the White House and something might happen. In the real world, he runs a quixotic and doomed campaign and then gives a ringing endorsement to and campaigns for the hand-picked candidate of the party insiders and corporate money players.

I finally decided that elections were not about me, me me. MY values, how I felt, what MY preferences were, how right I was for choosing Dennis. Looking around there are millions who are suffering. They deserve the best hope and the best shot. They matter more to me than my personal concerns and ideas do. Edwards gives the left behind, left out, the thrown away, the neglected and abused the best shot at relief; at dignity and justice.

We cannot continue to neglect the worsening conditions for the majority of Americans while we obsess over our personal choice for an ideal world. We need someone - anyone - to show up with a shovel and start digging to get the people out of the hole they are falling into.

Edwards showed up with a shovel. I am not going to worry about whether or not he is perfect, I am going to help him dig. I can hear human beings buried down there crying for help.

[balantz]

81. K & R

[IsItJustMe]

84. I feel that the time is getting very late for this country of ours, and if it's not gonna be Edwards

we are going to be in very very deep shit. Just my humble opinion.

[Prophet 451]

85. Agreed

To be honest, I think it's probably too late already but Edwards is the only one I think has a chance (not a big chance, he'll still have to fight like hell) to pull it back.

[Lindsey]

93. President Edwards, President Edwards, President Edwards...

my mantra.....

[nevergiveup]

98. President Edwards, President Obama, President Biden

they all sound good to me. President Clinton? been there done that and I don't care for the drama but I would still happily vote for her over any of the pathetic Republicans running.

[earth mom]

103. I love Michael Moore.

He's one of my heroes. I agree with everything he said, except that I've never liked Hillary.

[Danger Mouse]

104. gray, this is awesome!@

go Edwards!

[Nederland]

107. Welcome aboard Michael

I'm glad you now like Al Gore, but I can't help remembering what you said 7 years ago:

And each time, for the last 25 years, we have continued to settle for less and less, to the point where we have so depleted the political gene pool, the Democrats are now almost indistinguishable from the Republicans.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2000-11-07

Do you still stand by those words Michael? Do you still think there is no difference between Gore and Bush? Do you think we'd be where we are today if Gore were President these past 7 years? Like I said, welcome aboard, but I still remember...

[countmyvote4real]

108. Wow! That really works for me. Good HRC insight, too.

However, none of that will wash with the Michael Moore by-line for any of my Faux indoctrinated family. They don't think anymore. They have lost the power of reason when news is reduced to ridiculous celebrity scandals and fictionalized items masquerading as news. Sadly, I admit that they ARE that stupid. At the same time, they're very pleasant. I would love to have a beer with them only because they don't drink. Actually, I would like to get them off on a doobee, but I gave up that dream a long time ago.

I can no longer reach out or educate my immediate family. They are that far gone. I fear most of America is as well. I must say that I don't think that I have a superior POV. I 'm just trying to survive this Constitutional crises. (Admittedly, that approach goes nowhere, but it is the subtext of my message.)

I think that America is dead. And it was totally destroyed by the * regime and their compliant media, Hello FCC and FURTHER relaxed media consolidation. We seem to be on the wrong course even as we seem to redirect our path. Justice is all we want. Instead we are promoted appeasers from the media. Guess why? It gets them off the hook.

Oops. Head exploded.

[defendandprotect]

118. Let's remember our problems are with the DLC and DLC candidates --- and a year to go!!

[Enthusiast]

132. Michael is right on!

I fear no matter who the Democratic nominee the corporate media and dirty tricks will once again change the election results. If someone like Edwards would get elected I believe the powers would go so far as to assassinate him. It is no coincidence that all the American political leaders that have been assassinated over the years have been progressives. That said, I will support the Democratic nominee, even if it is Hillary.

[defendandprotect]

140. Agree with the violent political history of this nation --- something not everyone gets --- !!!

PLUS, we've had VOTESCAM --- The Stealing of America --- going since the mid-1960's ---
not simply since 2000.

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

Two journalists --- Jim & Ken Collier --- noticed what was happening in the late 1960's . . .
they wrote a book on this which was suppressed ---

You can scan the book or read it at their website --

[Enthusiast]

147. Thank you defendandprotect!

"Agree with the violent political history of this nation --- something not everyone gets --- !!!
PLUS, we've had VOTESCAM --- The Stealing of America --- going since the mid-1960's ---
not simply since 2000.

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

Two journalists --- Jim & Ken Collier --- noticed what was happening in the late 1960's . . .
they wrote a book on this which was suppressed ---

You can scan the book or read it at their website --"

[idiocracyhell]

131. How can you even think of endorsing Edwards?

I watched "Sicko" and thought it was a documentary every American should watch before the election. I just don't understand how you can even think of endorsing Edwards when his hedge fund Fortress is heavily invested in Humana! Kucinich is the candidate you should be endorsing. He isn't out of the race. His health care plan HR676 is the plan that will fix our health care crisis NOW! It truly baffles me why you haven't endorsed Kucinich. He's the candidate that will get the insurance middlemen out of health care, while the other candidates plans will just increase their profits.

[Strawman]

134. I'm thinking along those lines as well MM

On the issues it's Kucinich, but the guy couldn't organize a birthday party (the UFO comment about DK was kind of an easy, unfair cheap shot by MM, imo). My second choice is Edwards because I believe he will do more to take on corporate greed than Obama and Hillary. More than the other candidates, that's Edwards' focus. I think any of these candidates can be a good president if there is an organized movement of working and middle class Americans committed to social justice behind them. An editorial in the most recent issue of http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080107/editors">The Nation said as much. Without that, the sincerity of their conviction to help ordinary Americans with heath care, and financial security matters little. Without that, they will be overwhelmed by the corporate powers-that-be and will be able to do little besides fend off the worst elements of the pro-corporate elitist program and check the religious loonies along with a few minor accomplishments here and there, like Bill Clinton.

[rateyes]

138. Error: Can't recommend threads started over 24 hours ago.

:hi:

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

142. This is a lot of recs

for someone who uses a ton of words to explain his conclusion, which is: "I dunno".

Anyway, if he likes Iowa because it has a town named after a sofa, he oughta really like Iraq, formerly part of an empire named after a footstool.