The "Vote For What You Believe In" Campaign

Senator Hillary Clinton's army of political aides, strategists and tacticians has spent an inordinate amount of time in recent months worrying about the Democratic primary challenge that their boss faces from anti-war candidate Jonathan Tasini. The Clintonites maneuvered mightily to keep Tasini out of the spotlight at the state Democratic convention in May. They did the same when the small but influential Working Families Party pondered its endorsement. They discouraged Democrats from supporting the petition drive that eventually got Tasini's name on Tuesday's Democratic primary ballot. And they made it clear that Clinton would not join any debate that included Tasini.

None of this is particularly inappropriate. Incumbents aren't usually inclined to aide their challengers. But the extra effort by the Clinton camp with regard to Tasini, a relatively unknown labor activist who got into the race without much money or many prominent backers, illustrates the extent to which the senator and her high-powered staff fear the main thing that Tasini has going for him: clear opposition to an unpopular war that Clinton has consistently backed.

On the eve of the primary, Clinton's team was still spinning against Tasini, spreading the word among Democrats and pundits that they did not expect--and certainly did not want--to see the challenger win more than a single-digit percentage of the vote.

In setting such a low bar for Tasini, however, the usually-savvy Clinton camp could be misjudging the depth of anti-war sentiment among the Democratic electorate, and the extent to which Tasini may have tapped into it.

It should probably come as no surprise that Progressive Democrats of America, the energetic national grassroots group that has had the guts to push the Democratic Party to back a timeline for Iraq withdrawal and to support moves to impeach President Bush, is backing Tasini's run.

PDA is all about pushing the envelope in a party not known for taking risks and thinking big. And PDA activists in New York--who have formed a half dozen chapters around the state -- well understand that the best way to get a message to Clinton before she starts campaigning for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is in the 2006 Democratic Senate primary. The same goes for the three New York State chapters of Democracy for America -- the group founded to maintain the spirit of Howard Dean's 2004 presidential run--that have endorsed Tasini.

Perhaps even more significant is the support that Tasini has earned from the "reform clubs" of New York City.

Among the groups backing Tasini in his campaign to hold Clinton to account in the September primary are the Village Independent Democrats, a reform political club with roots going back to the days when Eleanor Roosevelt and Adlai Stevenson were its allies and mentors in struggles to break the grip of Tammany Hall on New York City elections. Also backing Tasini are New York City Democratic clubs such as the Downtown Independent Democrats, Brooklyn Democrats for Change, Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats and the Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club, a group named for a legendary gay rights activist that was formed to back Democrats who are strong defenders of LGBT rights.

The Democratic Progressive Action Caucus of New York backs Tasini's energetic-if-underfunded challenge to Clinton, as does the New York Democratic Socialists of America chapter

Individual endorsements for Tasini, the former head of the National Writers Union, have come from prominent New York progressives such as author and social welfare specialist Frances Fox Piven and actress Susan Sarandon, as well as national figures such as author Barbara Ehrenreich and peace activist Cindy Sheehan.

Of course, endorsements don't elect candidates. But the support Tasini has garnered did build the base of volunteers needed to gather the more than 15,000 signatures needed to place his name on the primary ballot. And it has helped him maintain an energetic campaign against one of the most recognizable politicians on the planet.

That attention has reminded New York State Democrats that, on the fundamental issue of the 2006 electoral season--the question of whether to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq--Tasini is more in tune with them, and the American majority, than Clinton. The same goes for a host of other issues--from federal trade policy to gay rights--on which Clinton has disappointed liberals. As the primary approached, the Gay City News, a widely circulated weekly publication in New York City that is well regarded for its political commentary, editorialized that: "Clinton has ducked fair dialogue on where she stands on the most pressing foreign policy question facing the nation. Just because she can get away with it does not make it the right thing to do. Clinton has also bobbed and weaved this year on gay rights. Activists have pressed her on her opposition to gay marriage--and come away disappointed that she did not even speak out on the dignity of gay families on the Senate floor when Congress debated the ugly Marriage Protection Amendment." The editorial concluded: "Hillary Rodham Clinton needs a wake-up call. Help Jonathan Tasini place that call."

Clearly conscious of the need to more closely identify herself with the anti-war sentiment that prevails at the party's grassroots, Clinton has in recent months made moves to alter her image as a Bush administration fellow traveler--primarily by lambasting Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, but also by backing Connecticut Democrat Ned Lamont in his fall race against pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman. The fact remains, however, that Clinton continues to side with the White House in debates about withdrawal. As recently as June, the incumbent opposed a Senate proposal by Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold and Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry to set a timeline for bringing the troops home, although Clinton did back a milder call for the administration to discuss exit strategies with the Congress.

To the extent that Clinton has edged off her militantly pro-war position, Tasini deserves a good deal of credit. Even if she does not fear a primary defeat, all indications are that Clinton fears the prospect that Tasini will garner a credible vote.

You will not find any pundits seriously suggesting that Tasini's fervent anti-war stance--as well as his more-liberal-than-Clinton positions on a host of other issues--will be enough to win him the nomination Tuesday. But there should be a reasonable measure of enthusiasm among savvy primary voters for the challenger's "Vote for What You Believe In" message. Pollster John Zogby, who got his start in New York State, told reporters several months ago that he thought a properly-framed and financed anti-war candidacy could take more than a third of the primary vote against Clinton. "There is real palpable anger against Hillary for her stance on the war and for the fact that she is not backing down," Zogby said. "It's conceivable that an anti-war candidate could still get to the mid- to high-30s against her."

Tasini has framed his campaign properly. He has not had the necessary financing. But his energetic and creative campaign, as well as support from Progressive Democrats of America and reform clubs in New York, none of which make endorsement decisions casually, ought to count for something more than a single-digit finish. And if it does, then by the standard the Clinton campaign has set, Jonathan Tasini will have done a commendable job of delivering the anti-war message of his brave and necessary campaign.

Comments (49)

1. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/10/2006 @ 5:03pm

   I seriously doubt Loserman will win.

   But even if you are correct, America needs leaders, not political hacks.

   I doubt many Americans would care if both the democrat and republican parties lost ground...and lost favor. Some of us view this as our only path out of our current decline.

   Eric

   Posted by Malcontent at 09/10/2006 @ 5:13pm

2. Lets see, if you place these groups..

   "Progressive Democrats of America,New York State chapters of Democracy for America ,Village Independent Democrats, New York City Democratic clubs such as the Downtown Independent Democrats, Brooklyn Democrats for Change, Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats and the Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club, a group named for a legendary gay rights activist that was formed to back Democrats who are strong defenders of LGBT rights, social welfare specialist Frances Fox Piven,actress Susan Sarandon, author Barbara Ehrenreich, nut burger and peace activist Cindy Sheehan....oh, yeah, this is a great name,,Working Familys Party( My personal favorite..I am a member of a family who is working...)...

   And this bold statement..

   " Tasini is more in tune with them, and the American majority,..."

   My God,.. I can't imagine the American Majority being anywhere near these groups of left wing kooks...this defines the lefty fringe.....hillarious..

   Don't worry, Hillary will recover from this huge threat and be the nominee in 08. Who will fill her senate seat when she runs ? Or can she keep it and still run?

   Posted by john maasch at 09/10/2006 @ 6:21pm

3. "I doubt many Americans would care if both the democrat and republican parties lost ground...and lost favor.."

   At this point I tend to agree.

   Posted by john maasch at 09/10/2006 @ 6:22pm

4. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/10/2006 @ 6:22pm

   At last. A point we can agree on.

   Even though you and I would build radically different parties in their place, I think now is the time for righties to disown the non-conservative 'neo-cons'....and the left to admit, that replacing the neo-cons with a democrat would be only a slight improvement.

   This is why, even though I am a big time liberal, I support the upholding of the second ammendment. I read between the lines of said ammendment and think the time for (possibly, armed) revolt draws near.

   Why is there no constitutional party, which uphold the entire constitution and all of it's ammendments?

   Eric

   Posted by Malcontent at 09/10/2006 @ 6:33pm

5. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/10/2006 @ 6:40pm

   All well and good....but, don't you think it is time America got something better than a bush or a clinton?

   When did Americans lose their distain for legacy, royalty and dynasty. Where did the independant thinking dissolve to? Does anybody remember where we came from?

   Eric

   Posted by Malcontent at 09/10/2006 @ 6:52pm

6. "She has to be elected first, before she can put the policies of the progressives into place, which I beleive she will."

   That is why she will lose the national election. No body wants the leftist crapp.

   Posted by john maasch at 09/10/2006 @ 7:17pm

7. "Tonight will be the kick off of the most dirty and negative campaign season in our nation's history and that's saying something. I say tonight because ABC will be presenting it's comedic farce of the path to 9/11 which will place Clinton and the democrats in the most unflattering light possible."

   Is ABC campaiging for someone? Frank, have you already seen this or are you just following a plan like a left wing ditto head to the mantras and worship at the alter of Clintonistas? You are a big independent thinker, there, aren't ya, big fella?

   Posted by john maasch at 09/10/2006 @ 7:23pm

8. Nope..nobody..just the kooks...and polls aren't even needed...even the Dems in the Congress are more left than the dems voting..if they win, and they should in an off year election, should win big,if they can't in this atmosphere they should disband..but if they should and the kooks are happy, then the Dems will be blown out in 08..accross the board...and no polls needed..

   Posted by john maasch at 09/10/2006 @ 7:26pm

9. ". They straightened out the messed up policies of 12 years of Reagan and Bush 1."

   Actually, history shows all the balanced bugets and turn arounds started with the advent of the Repub congress..

   Posted by john maasch at 09/10/2006 @ 7:28pm

10. Actually, history shows all the balanced bugets and turn arounds started with the advent of the Repub congress..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/10/2006 @ 7:28pm

    it's interesting how fiscal sanity in this country over the last twenty years begins and ends with president clinton

    Posted by Will C. at 09/10/2006 @ 9:30pm

11. Where is "Move On.org"?

    Where is "Democracy Now"?

    Where are the blogs and "pure progressives" that supported Ned Lamont?

    And why are they scared of the Clintons, in a way they weren't afraid of taking on Lieberman?

    Markos Moulitsas Zuniga....remains silent as well.

    Posted by Mask at 09/10/2006 @ 11:06pm

12. Posted by MASK 09/10/2006 @ 11:06pm

    hillary wasn't geting all huggy kissy with chimpy like joe quagmire did

    Posted by Will C. at 09/10/2006 @ 11:19pm

13. Actually, history shows all the balanced bugets and turn arounds started with the advent of the Repub congress..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/10/2006 @ 7:28pm | ignore this person

    Shooting from the hip again Maasch........like so many of your idiotic bretheren you throw around rhetoric like this as if it's fact. Please elaborate on how Republicans have been the party of fiscal responsibility. I have yet to find one conservative republican that feels bush has been responsible with our tax dollars.

    This is typical of your posts. Throw around bullshit statements and then call progressives and the left looney. I've said it once and I'll say it again.......you are only in touch with the corn vote in the midwest......your narrow viewpoint is in no way representative of America, and increasingly the intellectuals in your own party are abandoning the stupid rhetoric that you cant seem to live without.

    Posted by jpolston at 09/10/2006 @ 11:20pm

14. Actually, history shows all the balanced bugets and turn arounds started with the advent of the Repub congress..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/10/2006 @ 7:28pm

    it's interesting how fiscal sanity in this country over the last twenty years begins and ends with president clinton

    Posted by WILL C. 09/10/2006 @ 9:30pm

    It doesn't take a genius to observe that the Republican Congress is still here and Clinton isn't. He's gone along with the budget surplus- and all we're left with is these Charlie McCarthy Republican moths flitting around The Nation.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/10/2006 @ 11:25pm

15. Posted by MASK 09/10/2006 @ 11:06pm

    MASK, I will take this up in detail later. Right now I have to watch some paint dry.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/10/2006 @ 11:27pm

16. Is ABC campaiging for someone? Frank, have you already seen this or are you just following a plan like a left wing ditto head to the mantras and worship at the alter of Clintonistas? You are a big independent thinker, there, aren't ya, big fella?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/10/2006 @ 7:23pm | ignore this person

    As Media Matters for America has pointed out -- and nearly everyone from 9-11 Commission members and members of Congress to prominent conservative pundits and executives at ABC has already acknowledged -- Disney-owned ABC's upcoming "docudrama" The Path to 9/11 is a fabricated, inaccurate, and misleading portrayal of the events leading up to 9-11, one which Disney and ABC deceptively marketed as a documentary-style film based on the 9-11 Commission report.

    It has become apparent in recent days that Disney's production is rife with factual errors, inaccuracies, and omissions, and it relies on scenes that even those involved in its production readily admit are fabricated. The movie's premise, reportedly, joins the cause of right-wing conservatives in blaming former President Bill Clinton for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks while simultaneously letting President Bush off the hook.

    But ABC's corporate parent, The Walt Disney Co., appears to be employing a double standard. It refused to distribute Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, which was highly critical of President Bush, even though it was produced by a Disney subsidiary, Miramax Films. Disney representatives also reportedly threatened to sue the publisher of James Stewart's book DisneyWar if it contained inaccuracies.

    It does not speak well of Disney's credibility when it refuses to distribute a progressive movie and threatens legal action against some inaccuracies, and yet will stand silent while its ABC subsidiary spends millions of dollars making a miniseries that distorts history to falsely blame President Clinton for the 9-11 attacks.

    Posted by jpolston at 09/10/2006 @ 11:31pm

17. the nation was done a dis-service tonight. ABC should be ashamed.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/10/2006 @ 11:21pm

    Think maybe there's a remote possibility that ABC will now have better access to the Bush administration? They'll scoop everyone else by being the first to get the lies right from the horses mouth.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/10/2006 @ 11:32pm

18. You are a big independent thinker also arent you John..........lol. Of course Disney has some kind of agenda.........they are one of the largest corporations in the US. THINK for a change.

    Posted by jpolston at 09/10/2006 @ 11:34pm

19. Is ABC campaiging for someone? Frank, have you already seen this or are you just following a plan like a left wing ditto head to the mantras and worship at the alter of Clintonistas? You are a big independent thinker, there, aren't ya, big fella?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/10/2006 @ 7:23pm

    Maasch, why don't you go away? Americans now realize that they have been severely betrayed by the Republican Party, the truth is out, and your phantasmagorical days in the sun are over.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/10/2006 @ 11:38pm

20. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/11/2006 @ 12:25am

    you can't ever stop lying can you.

    and it's sunday

    Posted by Will C. at 09/11/2006 @ 12:30am

21. but then you probably lie more on sunday

    Posted by Will C. at 09/11/2006 @ 12:31am

22. During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/11/2006 @ 01:12am

    if you listen to the tape. Clinton never says that sudan offered him bin laden. He says sudan released bin laden.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/11/2006 @ 02:02am

23. " Clinton wanted to balance the budget."

    Name which year he proposed a balanced budget on his own or before the country fired the Dems in Congress..he vetoed many of them and then finally ran out in front of the parade and signed one from "Newty"...

    Posted by john maasch at 09/11/2006 @ 02:05am

24. JP,

    I saw the episode tonite and I don't see what the Clintons were so worried about...I didn't see anything that really showed him or Bush at fault, rather, I saw a bloated government machine too top heavy to make a decision ..on the spot...no leadership or faith in the field..compilations or not..sounds like we had some great guys in the field who need backing up...not cutting funds and sending in the lawyers..

    Posted by john maasch at 09/11/2006 @ 02:09am

25. RIO BRAVO

    Extradite him for what? bin-Laden's first involvement in acts against the US was the embassy bombings in '98, two years afterwards when he was in Afghanistan. Incidentally, the 9/11 Commission stated [tinyurl.com] that--

    "Diplomacy had an effect. In exchanges beginning in February 1996, Sudanese officials began approaching U.S. officials, asking what they could do to ease the pressure. During the winter and spring of 1996, Sudan's defense minister visited Washington and had a series of meetings with representatives of the U.S. government. To test Sudan's willingness to cooperate on terrorism the United States presented eight demands to their Sudanese contact. The one that concerned Bin Ladin was a request for intelligence information about Bin Ladin's contacts in Sudan.

    These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

    Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all.

    U.S. officials also wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan. They knew the Sudanese were considering it. The U.S. government did not ask Sudan to render him into U.S. custody.

    According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy national security adviser, the interagency Counterterrorism and Security Group (CSG) chaired by Richard Clarke had a hypothetical discussion about bringing Bin Ladin to the United States. In that discussion a Justice Department representative reportedly said there was no basis for bringing him to the United States since there was no way to hold him here, absent an indictment. Berger adds that in 1996 he was not aware of any intelligence that said Bin Ladin was responsible for any act against an American citizen. No rendition plan targeting Bin Ladin, who was still perceived as a terrorist financier, was requested by or presented to senior policymakers during 1996.

    Yet both Berger and Clarke also said the lack of an indictment made no difference. Instead they said the idea was not worth pursuing because there was no chance that Sudan would ever turn Bin Ladin over to a hostile country. If Sudan had been serious, Clarke said, the United States would have worked something out. However, the U.S. government did approach other countries hostile to Sudan and Bin Ladin about whether they would take Bin Ladin. One was apparently interested. No handover took place." (emphasis added)

    By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.

    Unindicted suggesting that a grand jury didn't have sufficient information to indict but wanted to enter statements by him without running afoul of the hearsay rule. That sounds like a firm basis for extradition doesn't it? Especially since Yousef was an independent who hadn't been linked to bin-Laden yet (his contacts here were acolytes of Omar Rahman).

    Posted by brunowe at 09/11/2006 @ 04:40am

26. hillary wasn't geting all huggy kissy with chimpy like joe quagmire did

    Posted by WILL C. 09/10/2006 @ 11:19pm

    WILL may have answered why Tasini is ignored by the Blogosphere Left....Hillary didn't kiss Bush.

    Other than that, it's "okay" with them, if you have identical views on the war in Iraq...as long as you don't like Bush.

    How about THIS for another reason "Move On" isn't going after Hillary by supporting Tasini?....

    What was "Move On" founded for?....or more importantly, for WHOM?

    Posted by Mask at 09/11/2006 @ 07:05am

27. Other than that, it's "okay" with them, if you have identical views on the war in Iraq...as long as you don't like Bush.

    Posted by MASK 09/11/2006 @ 07:05am

    That's not what I said. I said "hillary wasn't geting all huggy kissy with chimpy like joe quagmire did." Getting all huggy kissy with chimpy made him the darling of the hamster right.

    We don't need the darlings of the hamster right in the democratic party. The republican party exists for that.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/11/2006 @ 08:53am

28. Oh just get off the fence and endorse Hillary already! Sheesh. It's getting boring - watching The Nation hem and haw and wiggle and wobble over this primary thing. Hell, you endorsed "Send More Troops!" Kerry and signaled your support for the Iraq Bloodbath. What could possibly be the matter with "Bombs Away!" Hillary?

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 09/11/2006 @ 08:57am

29. Posted by WILL C. 09/11/2006 @ 08:53am

    Again, fine, WILL. To re-phrase, as long as the "hamster right doesn't like you"....a politician's views on the war in Iraq AREN'T the issue, else Tasini would be getting the Lamont treatment....but Hillary is hated by the "hamsters", so she gets a pass,huh?

    Posted by Mask at 09/11/2006 @ 09:12am

30. (Speaking of Lamont...who's running his campaign?...kids?)

    (Hartford-AP, Sept. 9, 2006 9:00 PM) Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont, who recently denounced Sen. Joe Lieberman for his public scolding of President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, lauded the senator at the time for his eloquence and moral authority.

    Lieberman's staff on Saturday called Lamont's recent criticisms hypocritical in light of a 1998 letter sent by e-mail. However, Lamont said he stands by his position that the public rebuke exacerbated the situation.

    The Lieberman Senate office released copies of the letter, which Lamont sent to the senator shortly after Lieberman took to the Senate floor to chide Clinton in September 1998.

    "I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end," Lamont wrote.

    Lieberman's rebuke made him the first prominent Democratic lawmaker to openly criticize Clinton's conduct with Lewinsky, once a White House intern. The boost to Lieberman's national profile helped him to secure the party's nomination for vice president in 2000.

    Lieberman, an 18-year incumbent, is running as an independent candidate after losing the Democratic primary in August to Lamont, a Greenwich businessman critical of Lieberman's support of the Iraq war and perceived closeness to the Bush Administration.

    Lamont criticized Lieberman earlier this week for his handling of the Clinton matter, telling reporters and editors at The New York Times that Lieberman should have discussed the matter privately with the president rather than creating "a media spectacle."

    "You go up there, you sit down with one of your oldest friends and say, 'You're embarrassing yourself, you're embarrassing your presidency, you're embarrassing your family, and it's got to stop,"' Lamont said.

    Lieberman was unavailable for comment Saturday because he was observing the Jewish sabbath. His campaign manager, Sherry Brown, said in a written statement that Lamont's hypocrisy "knows no bounds."

    "He has run such a negative campaign up until this point that he had to reach back eight years to find something new to attack Joe Lieberman about -- and in this case, he was so desperate to lash out that he didn't seem to care that he was completely contradicting himself," Brown said.

    Posted by Mask at 09/11/2006 @ 09:18am

31. Republicrats like Hillary and Lieberman are the reason that the Democratic Party is doomed.

    Posted by philbq at 09/11/2006 @ 09:25am

32. Posted by PHILBQ 09/11/2006 @ 09:25am

    Curious, PHIL....did/do you consider BILL Clinton a "Republicrat"?

    Posted by Mask at 09/11/2006 @ 11:40am

33. Go to huffpost.com

    Frank, most of us have seen her on various TV shows..greast comedian and looney..imagine waking up to that voice evry morning...probably drove her rich republican ex into the gay community for some calm...One wonders why you chase her skirts continuiously here and yet berate Limbaughs followers...as far as I many concerned..they have the same audieneces on different sides...you are a Huffington ditto head and buy her shit as much as you say others buy Limbaugh...you are part of the same coin..just the other side..face it.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/11/2006 @ 1:12pm

34. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/11/2006 @ 11:36am

    And no word from Rio Cobarde.

    Posted by brunowe at 09/11/2006 @ 1:12pm

35. Republicrats like Hillary and Lieberman are the reason that the Democratic Party is doomed.

    Posted by PHILBQ 09/11/2006 @ 09:25am

    They are both committed to America as a hyperpower hegemon which, fiscally and socially, precludes any significant progressive development in this country. They apply superficially liberal icing to camouflage the underlying reality of effective plutocrat dictatorship. That's the DLC/New Democrat program.

    What's the point of supporting that? It would only serve as a static placeholder on the political heights until the Republicans can regain power and resume taking us further backward.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/11/2006 @ 1:34pm

36. I'm really curious about the real reason for taking Saddam out and inflaming the passions of the terrorists. Especially since Saddam's rull was a check on Iran. The evidence shows that there was no connection to Al Qaeda and there were no WMD's so why was this war started? We definitely are not safer for it.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/10/2006 @ 11:58pm

    The israel lobby has for years been applying pressure for an attack against Iraq. Take a look at the public statements and activity over the last fifteen years of "liberal Democrat" Congressman Tom Lantos*, for example, whom the Democrats chose to place on the House International Relations Committee(!). Add in the saliva-drooling hunger of the defense industry for the hundreds of billions of dollars that it is now gorging itself on and you have a perfect storm of government malfeasance and treason.

    *During the run up to the Gulf War, Congressman Lantos played a prominent role in fostering the Nurse Nayirah hoax, which helped create an political atmosphere in support of an invasion. Lantos used his Congressional Human Rights Caucus to host a well-spoken young Kuwaiti woman identified only as "Nurse Nayirah". The woman told of horrific abuses by Iraqi soldiers, including the killing of Kuwaiti babies by taking them out of their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold floor of the hospital. The televised testimony immediately became a part of the heated rhetoric in support of a declaration of war on Iraq, was cited by President Bush on at least six occasions, and convinced many members of Congress to vote in favor of war.

    This story was, in fact, a complete fabrication, as reporters eventually discovered after searching in vain for evidence of any hospitals, witnesses, or any parents who had lost infants in Kuwaiti hostpitals.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos

    (Don't get anywhere near his car, he'll run over your foot.)

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/11/2006 @ 1:53pm

37. What's the point of supporting that?

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/11/2006 @ 1:34pm | ignore this person

    Butbutbut we have to elect democrats! After we take back both houses (which are OURS BY RIGHT!!!) we'll have enough influence to get an 8% break in college tuition! In 30 or 40 years...depending on the weather...if we wish really really hard...um...ANYBODY BUT BUSH!!!

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 09/11/2006 @ 1:55pm

38. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/11/2006 @ 1:34pm

    Question for you....who are the Non-"hyperpower hegemon... effective plutocrat dictatorship" Democrats with a shot at the Presidency in 2008?

    love to know

    Posted by Mask at 09/11/2006 @ 1:56pm

39. Love the way you wingers like to rewrite history. I seem to recall Newty shutting down the country because Clinton wanted to balance the budget.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/10/2006 @ 7:40pm | ignore this person

    Check the figures before and after the clinton admin. Read 'em and weep. Then come out of your denial and for GOD'S SAKE, turn off Limbaugh, he's rotting out what's left of your mind.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/10/2006 @ 7:42pm | ignore this person

    Check the record indeed. Other than two years, prior to '94 it was a Dem Congress and Rep President. Afterwards it was a Rep Congress with Clinton. So if you are going to blame politicians for the down time or praise them for the good economy, you have to do so to BOTH parties.

    And honestly... who cares if they had a balanced budget if the idiots turned around and deviated from the budget. Eisenhower was the last President (I think Congress was Dem in both houses at the time, but not positive) to preside over an ACTUAL decrease in the nations debt.

    Posted by John B at 09/11/2006 @ 3:08pm

40. One wonders why you chase her skirts continuiously here and yet berate Limbaughs followers. Probably because I've caught Limbaugh in hundreds of lies and I haven't caught Huffington in any yet.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/11/2006 @ 1:18pm | ignore this person

    John........you are quite right that there are many here who are just Limbaugh listeners on the other side of the aisle. I'm certainly not trying to insinuate that Frank is one of them, because I've read enough of his posts to know thats not the entire story.

    I'm not a big Huffington fan......and I'm certainly not a Limbaugh fan. However, there is a pretty big distinction between the two in my eyes. Limbaugh spoke for years and years about how drug addicts should be in prison, and shouldn't be given any breaks. He wasn't an advocate for any kind of rehabilitation..........just throw them fuckers in jail was his attitude.

    When it turned out that he had a problem with addiction he hired the best lawyers around........sued to keep his records private.......lied when necessary to keep his ass out of jail. Hypocricy at it's finest; condemn others for their actions, but when it's you........it's just not applicable.

    I'm not stating that Rush is a bad person because he is an addict. However, the hippocracy that he showed in this instance speaks volumes about his character.......which is obviously lacking.

    While you are right that there are many Republicans and Democrates that just regurgitate the talking points that they hear from their particular media choices.........some of these media choices are more credible than other. Comparing Huffington to Limbaugh doesnt do either any justice. It would be like comparing Coulter to Michael Moore............one does their homework and the other doesnt.

    Posted by jpolston at 09/11/2006 @ 3:17pm

41. I seem to recall Newty shutting down the country because Clinton wanted to balance the budget.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/10/2006 @ 7:40pm

    FRANK, I'm a Clinton fan...but that's not EXACTLY what went down. Mostly it had to do with him vetoing a CR (continueing resolution) that had Medicare premium hikes in it.

    Posted by Mask at 09/11/2006 @ 3:22pm

42. Back on-topic again....

    I'll just reiterate my feelings as to why "Move On.org" hasn't championed Jonathan Tasini....and that's because of WHO "Move On" was originally created to defend.

    I also have a suspicion that the Kos and Democracy Now guys are "laying low" because they suspect that She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed (H. Rider Haggard ref) will, despite everything and everyone, be the nominee in 2008...and they don't want to be "on the outs".

    Posted by Mask at 09/11/2006 @ 3:27pm

43. MASK: Yes, of course Bill Clinton was a republicrat. From his attack on welfare mothers to NAFTA to his signing of the Telecommunication Bill (which was a gift to the huge media conglomerates hungering to gobble up more assete), everything Bill Clinton did benefitted large corporations as if Clinton was a Republican. If you can't see that, you aren't paying attention.

    Posted by philbq at 09/11/2006 @ 4:37pm

44. Mrs. Clinton can't afford too much of an anti-war position. She'll be dismissed as a a woman. It'll be said she's weak. She knows.

    So-called "centrist" positions she's taken on other issues are more disturbing, unless she's hedging her bet and, failing to be nominAted for president, wants to be majority leader of the Senate. perhaps a long shot.

    Villard

    Posted by Villard at 09/11/2006 @ 5:36pm

45. a politician's views on the war in Iraq AREN'T the issue, else Tasini would be getting the Lamont treatment....but Hillary is hated by the "hamsters", so she gets a pass,huh?

    Posted by MASK 09/11/2006 @ 09:12am

    A politician's views are always important. But liberals are not a monolithic group, a concept which from your responses appears to be lost on you. We're the circular firing squad baby. We disagree with each other all the time. And a lot of liberals disagree with Hillary. But because she has been honest in her views, we hear her out. Lieberman on the other hand, in getting all huggy kissy with the chimp displayed to all of us that he was getting cozy with an administration that is rooted in blatant dishonesty. That dishonesty was smeared all over him with ever sickening smooch. It's a shame, I happen to like Joe quagmire. But he's a big boy. Nobody made him do what he did. But his actions disgusted people who might have otherwise stood with him

    And he had to go. It's really just that simple.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/11/2006 @ 9:47pm

46. Posted by JOHN B 09/11/2006 @ 3:08pm

    Jesus Christ, get off it! Clinton left a huge budget surplus that your party cratered. The line that the surplus was due to the Republican Congress is unmitigated horse manure. The Republican Congress is still here and it's going to take half an f'n century to pay off their profligacy- a profligacy whose primary expenditure was for destruction rather than something creative. Doubly, if not triply negative. S***!

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/11/2006 @ 10:12pm

47. Hillary has my vote! The Iraq war is only one of many wars that the repulsiblicans are waging on American's right now. They're waging war on our Constitution--and the repulsiblican "congress" as abandoned it's role as accorded to them in the Constitution. It is nothing more than a lapdog to King George's whims. That's wrong...disgustingly wrong!

    They've abandoned science for religion...as the battle for Emergency Contraception so adequately shows. I saw first hand that it was ONLY THE WOMEN IN CONGRESS THAT STOOD UP FOR MY RIGHTS AS A WOMAN!!! So it's important, since women are half the population, that there are women in Congress to represent and stand up for the rights of women...and to fight those who want to take those rights away. Fighting the war against women's rights in this country is more important to me than the war in iraq. Sorry if that offends you, but it's the truth for me.

    Iraq is lost...we took a secular place and installed an islamic theocracy, there's no "win" there. You can't have peace when religion reigns..just death and hatred. Like we have here at home with the republicans in charge.

    Posted by dicarroz at 09/12/2006 @ 11:37am

48. Hillary may have a brilliant strategy going, one that is more in tune to winning the Presidency in 2008 than winning the senate in 2006, but she is the wrong candidate for the Democratic Party at this time, unless you want a Republican in the White House again. She will be able to get a sizable percentage of the Democratic voters, but will galvanize the extreme right and get them to the polls in larger numbers than she will get from the moderate right she so desperately wants to appeal to.

    Posted by calvet at 09/12/2006 @ 12:15pm

49. Ranking Presidential candidates [tinyurl.com]

    This gets you near the top of the list:

    The Senator for New York and former First Lady supports moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

    And this gets you in the toilet:

    The Senator for Nebraska believes that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to Middle East peace.

    israel doesn't have a "partner for peace", right?

    Expect Barack Obama to do whatever it takes to get to the top of this list.

    Posted by fromredbird at 09/12/2006 @ 2:35pm