D
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Guest
MICHAEL MOORE ON THE FENCE: 'I am not endorsing anyone at
this point'
Wed Jan 02 2008 07:32:44 ET
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 Sen. 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. Sen. 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 Sen. 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)
More at:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
this point'
Wed Jan 02 2008 07:32:44 ET
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 Sen. 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. Sen. 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 Sen. 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)
More at:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.