Hillary "Karl Rove" Clinton

Despite Clinton's labor friendly base, she works her damnedest to disenfranchise members of unions who support other candidates. For instance, the Culinary Workers Union Local 226, Nevada's largest union, last week chose to support Obama. So how did Clinton's campaign react? According to Katrina Vanden Heuvel of the Nation:

“Two days later, the Nevada State Education Association – with ties to the Clinton campaign in its leadership – filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to shutdown nine casino caucus at-large sites created to allow both union and non-union shift workers to vote during the workday. (On any given day, it would be difficult for these workers to participate without these caucus sites. It will be even more difficult during the busy Martin Luther King, Jr. weekend.)”

This tactic smells of Karl Rove, or some other scoundrel. It's the kind of dirty trick only some bored, coked-up rich fucker would pull on his emotionally retarded children.

But these are the same swine who brought us the “Obama may not be pro-choice” e-mails in New Hampshire—which may have been the true secret to Clinton's win (despite blatantly concocted not-quite teary “Moment”). RJ Escow reported on Alternet:

“Her campaign spread flyers around the state containing a lie about Obama's record -- one they already knew was a lie. Their claim that Obama had abandoned the pro-choice cause by voting "present" had already been disproved. NOW's Chicago director, a Clinton supporter, described the flyers as "offensive" and added: 'I'm very disgusted at this tactic being used by the Clinton campaign.'”

Hillary's actions are divisive and deceptive. Clinton, who finds herself in a tighter than expected race, is clawing and biting her way through this election. The problem is, she's clawing and biting her fellow democrats. If she wins the primary, how many of these democrats, maimed and disfigured from her crooked teeth, are going to come to the polls to support her on election day?

Things Edwards needs to do to Improve his Campaign

1.Stop joining forces with Obama to Attack Hillary during the debates: The image of the two leading men beating up on the one woman in the race is disconcerting to all viewers. You win support for Hillary by doing this. Besides, Obama with his large amount of corporate contributors is just as deserving of your criticism. You need to remain consistent in your criticism, and right now you are not. Even I sometimes rethink my support for you when I see what appears to be your hypocrisy—they are both entrenched in the same old Washington corporate game (aka propped up and financed by corporate supporters and lobbyists who they will need to repay when in office).


2.Be more inclusive in you speech: please read Steven Rosenfeld’s article on Alternet “’Yes We Can’—the Secret Behind Obama’s Message” (http://www.alternet.org/story/73014/). He writes: “Basically, the other candidates are all saying, ‘I will do this,’ ‘I will do that,’ ‘I will be there in this way for you,’ as they recite the fine print of issues to show what they would do as president.” Meanwhile Obama “is not emphasizing the ‘I’ pronoun. He is all about we and you. ‘We can do this.’ ‘We can do that.’ ‘If we come together, we can achieve ...’ The former grass-roots organizer is making his candidacy inclusive.” The media is having a field day calling you the “angry” candidate (although, like the saying goes, If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.... or you’re the corporate media lulling us to sleep). If you use the language above, I believe it may transform your speeches enough to reduce this perception.

3.Learn form Kucinich: This may be counterintuitive, but recently Bill Moyer mentioned on his show that post-debate polls often favor Kucinich as being strongest in the debates. You’ve said you’re against corporate greed, but your arguments lack substance. Kucinich does represent the ideas of a good portion of America—he’s just a bit too wacky (seeing flying saucers and all) to have a chance. You have the poise and ability to take his message and give it more credibility. I predict it will help your standing in the polls as well.

4.Attack Obama’s claim for “Change”: Obama has aligned himself largely with the corporate friendly Democratic Leadership Council wing of the party. Despite his claims of being anti-war, he supported the candidacy of pro-war Joseph Lieberman over the anti-war democratic candidate, Ned Lamont in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race. He voted for the Peru Free Trade Agreement. He supports Nuclear Power (largely due to one of his largest contributors and supporters, Exelon—jump on that). He avoided voting against the resolution that declared Iran’s revolutionary guard a terrorist organization. He’s received the second most money form the health care industry of any presidential candidate. He has corporate lobbyists on his campaign staff. He does not represent any real change to the presidency other than race. (for more fodder see Paul Street’s article, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14612).

Obama is not 'the Change"

Obama is not "the change". Obama has received more corporate money than any other candidate except Hillary Clinton. He is also second to Clinton in money received from the health industry. As Michael Moore wrote this morning: "...[Obama] tell me why you are now the second largest recipient of health industry payola after Hillary. You now take more money from the people committed to stopping universal health care than any of the Republican candidates." It is no wonder he refuses to call for mandatory universal health care (which I can't really be universal if its not mandatory--I still don't understand why pundits keep calling it universal). If the wealthy don't have to buy into it, they won't and without their money it won't work. It is wonderful that a black man has won in an all white state. It is monumental for our country, but Obama, unfortunately, has yet to speak strongly against racism. He has not taken a strong stand on the Jena Six case (see : http://www.alternet.org/democracy/72713/ for more on Obama and race). Also, when most progressives were backing the anti-war candicacy of Ned Lamont against the hawk Lieberman, Obama was giving money to Lieberman. He said publicly that he did not know if he would have voted against the war if he was in the Senate at the time of the vote. He continues to vote to fund the war. How's that for your anti-war candiate. For more reasons why Obama does not represent real change in Washington please see:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=14612

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/3/91942/42408/515/429670

For those who want real change, please vote Edwards. Kucinich fans--I used to be one of you--Kucinch lost my support when he asked his supporters to chose Obama as second choice in Iowa. For a more complete and eloquent argument to abandon Kucinich (and Obama) see Normon Solomon's article: http://www.alternet.org/election08/72560/