Saturday, August 27, 2005

The war, Democrats, and Hillary Clinton

"In June, I ventured a prediction: ``A Eugene McCarthy will appear soon to pressure and challenge Hillary Clinton in 2008, if Hillary does not convert herself into an antiwar candidate.''

Observing the Cindy Sheehan protest, I updated the prediction just last week: ''September could see the coalescing of an antiwar movement that . . . divides (the) Democratic Party.'' And so it has come to pass.

On Sunday's Meet the Press, Gene McCarthy emerged in the person of Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Monday, the top headline in The Washington Post read, Democrats split over position on Iraq war."
Miami Herald
Sen. Clinton should meet with Rend Rahim


Blogger Fayrouz said...

I read that 12 female senators, including Hillary, are pushing for the protection of Iraqi women rights.

I'm not sure what they're doing, but we definitely need their help.

6:30 PM  
Blogger madtom said...

Well if there going to do something they better do it now.

You know I read a comment that said something to the effect "this is a better constitution as they have in the region, it's good enough for them" or words that sounded to me to be to that effect. And I just want to know, what makes some fool sitting in Miami different from some other fool sitting in Basra. When it comes to the fundamental human rights, what different where a fool sits.
Why is there good enough for them, and something else is good for us. When, when will we all look around and see something other than them.

6:58 PM  
Blogger Fayrouz said...

That's exactly why I'm mad. How could it be a great constitution when women's fate will be under the mercy of shria courts.

8:42 PM  
Blogger madtom said...

I only wish I had an answer to your question, or that I could somehow make it look not so bad. But you and I both know I would be either lying to you or to me.
Actually I quite amazed by some of the people that I see out there trying to put a good face on all this, I ask myself, who the hell are they trying to fool. How would they like it. I want to ask them which freedom do they have to spare, if they could only keep 75% of their rights, which exactly would they like to give up, which do they feel are just extra baggage. I may actually do it as a blog, take a poll or something. Or course the answer will be the same, It's enough for them, it's "better" than what they had under saddam, like if the whole world was some comparison to life under saddam. If it's not free then who cares how it would compare to saddam or not. That's all just hogwash to me.

9:34 PM  
Blogger madtom said...

To cheer myself up I'm watching "The Pianist" on DVD, cable is out around here, strange but we had it all through the storm and now it's out.

9:46 PM  
Blogger madtom said...

To anyone that interested I have been discussing this subject here

11:30 AM  
Blogger madtom said...

I have also been discussing the constitution here with Mad Canuck

10:24 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home