Cindy doesn't sound like a Hillary fan on Hardball

Said she thinks Hillary would have invaded Iraq , just as * did.

She sounds very disappointed with dem leaders.

Thank you for showing CONSISTENCY.

She's all about one issue. Get out of iraq. Democratic or republican doesn't matter.

I keep waiting for one of those wimps to stand up and scream "This war was a lie and I am not going to take it anymore!!" She is right. They are all so busy covering their asses. We need a Dem to run on the Get Out Of Iraq NOW platform. They are all waiting to be convinced that public opinion has turned. Until they believe shrub's poll numbers are down for good, they are going to keep quiet. All politicians use public opinion to determine their political moves. BTW...Cindy was awesome on Hardball!!

from the beginning. 58% of Americans opposed the war in Feb. '03, before the invasion--before all the lies were exposed, and before the full horror and costs of it were known. Across the board in all polls.

That number dipped only once, during the few weeks of the invasion when U.S. troops were at maximum risk, then went right back up to nearly 60%, where it stayed throughout the election. It's over 70% today.*

So, tell me, how is it that we could not get a presidential candidate nominated who opposed the war? And how is it that, when the grass roots of the country acquiesced to a non-antiwar candidate, John Kerry, in order to oust the Bush Cartel, and to have a president who was beholden to the antiwar grass roots, we still couldn't get the perpetrators of this unjust war out of office--even with a Dem blowout success in new voter registration in 2004, nearly 60/40 (Dem/Repub), mostly accomplished by the grass roots (who also kept the Kerry/Edwards campaign competitive with the Bush Cartel money machine, by many small donations)?

And how is it that the Democratic Party leadership remained utterly silent while Bushite corporations were gaining control over the tabulation of our votes with SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code?

Are the Democrats insane?

I thought so for a while (gone bonkers with things like the Wellstone plane crash and the anthraxing of Democrats--and were living in terror of the Cartel). But I don't think so anymore. I think, 1) much of the Democratic Party leadership supported the Iraq war, but didn't want to take the rap for the deaths and the cost, and actually preferred to keep Bush in office, and so, they threw the election; and 2) bipartisan corruption in the $4 billion boondoggle of the new electronic voting systems, so that even Dem election officials failed to object to, or prevent, "trade secret" vote tabulation by Bushite corporations in the contracts they signed for their states or counties.

Dem support for the war has two components: 1) general corruption, of the "military-industrial complex" variety; and 2) specific corruption related to the Israeli lobby and U.S. supporters of Israel's rightwing government (big campaign contributions).

The Dem failure to stop Bushites counting our votes behind a curtain of secret programming has to do with these companies' lavish lobbying of state/local election officials and other reps (week-long junkets at the Beverly Hilton, for instance--as recent as this August--sponsored by Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia), and future job offers, etc. Venal corruption on the part of many Dems.

Diebold and ES&S is a goddamned warmongers' plot--with the collusion of both parties, and helped along by the more minor corruption of people who have ceased to care what happens to our right to vote.

And, of course, all of this was abetted by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, who, late on election day, actually DOCTORED their own exit poll data (Kerry won) to "fit" the "official result" derived by Diebold's and ES&S's secret formulae (Bush won)--thus depriving the American people of major evidence of election fraud, and squelching protests and calls for investigation.

Also, of course, they never informed the American people of the egregious non-transparency and unverifiability that had infected and thoroughly corrupted our election system.

All the undemocratic forces in our society--the Bush Oil Cartel, U.S.-based and other global corporate predators and war profiteers, criminal, lying, hypocritical Republicans, corrupt and collusive Democrats, the super-rich, and the corporate news monopolies--all came together to force this war down our throats, against the repeated and express desires of the great majority of Americans.

And so, to your statement that "They (the Dems) are all waiting to be convinced that public opinion has turned," I say, no, that's not it. Neither they, nor, of course, the Bush Cartel, gives one hoot about public opinion. None of them are beholden to us any more. They are beholden to Diebold and ES&S and the far right wing that owns and controls those companies. Diebold and ES&S will choose our president in '08--probably a War Democrat (for various reasons--one of them being to get a military Draft, which Bush cannot do). We will have no say in the matter...

..unless we successfully attack this problem where it can be solved--at the state/local level--and throw these election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor'!

-----------

*Note:

For those who think that Bush may have won on other issues--that people put aside their hatred for this unjust war--I would point you to the issue polls, which have shown, over the last year, huge American disapproval of every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic, way up in the 60% to 70% range. You name it. The Iraq war. Torturing "enemy combatants." Social Security. The deficit. Women's rights.

Bush did not win on these issues. Although the war profiteering corporate news monopolies fail to heed their own polls, and fail to comment on or reflect majority American opinion, these polls nevertheless show an astonishing progressive MAJORITY that has obviously been disempowered and DISENFRANCHISED.

That progressive majority AVERAGES out at over 60%!!! --a number that must include many Republicans (the ones who are still in their right minds, I guess).

And that's not even to mention Bush's dismal approval ratings--so low, before the election, that Zogby said he could not win, and probably under 30% today (given the tendency of pollsters to weight the polls toward rightwing views--a factor in almost all the polls that means that all of the above numbers are probably even more anti-Bush than they appear).

I repeat: The Dems are not waiting on public opinion. Most of them LIKE the war. They are just waiting to see who will be tapped to continue it, and to help the war profiteers and the super-rich consolidate their gains. They are in a contest for who can best reassure our Diebold/ES&S overseers that nothing much will change, while giving some little veneer of democracy to it all (f.i., they will NOT loot Social Security).

We can take advantage of the Dems' need to give lip service to progressive values, by pushing hard on election reform--at the state/local level(--keep it out of Congress--ye gods!) That's the only advantage I see in this probable 2008 scenario. As for '06, we might make a few gains--but those will be aimed at preventing election reform, and shutting up those of us who object to Bushites counting our votes in secret. We won't come close to overturning the Bushite "pod people" majority--unless we are able to achieve transparent, verifiable elections by that time--not a hopeful prospect.

that what the people don't know can't hurt them, but that's silly! the war cost too much even if there were wmd.....a $ billion bounty on saddam would have taken care of that (or just give saddam the goddam billion to disappear for a few years!)...it just seemed that there needed to be a shooting war regardless of the facts (was it possibly to buy bushinc a couple years time, and to further corrupt political process/media? powell knew the UN act was bushit, and to think otherwise is plain stupidity) but surely someone in power thought about what's best for the people, long term and short! NOOOO! hillary clinton and kerry etc are being careful to not get the people too excited about bushinc; but in underplaying their cards versus bush, they are abetting the criminality, and must know it...AND can you imagine a guy who acts like he's huckleberry finn's pappy, is going to get his supreme court nominee through? that's because roberts can't just be bush's choice; he's really the choice of the pigs who are ruining this planet, and they're using bush to mock us....
meanwhile the democrats act like they're stoned or something, and nothing really makes sense in the bigger picture...the dow jones ia has gone up all week, despite the fact geeb (brother of john ellis bush, or 'jeb') truly looks these days like a mean dronk! and the cost of katrina/rita still haven't been assessed, while the pigmedia downplays the economic effect, and still the dow rises!

pro-war politician. it only makes sense.