Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore
January 2, 2008
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 Senator 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. Senator 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 Senator 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)
Just use the following template to decide, borrowed from the late great Mike Royko. Picture the three candidates. Now picture yourself asking them for a large sum of money you promise to pay back to them in the future ( while deep down you have no intention of honoring this debt ). Which candidate looks like they'd do nothing about it? Thats your winner.
I like what he has to say and agree with him on many points, but on the other hand, I'm quite grateful he didn't endorse anyone. Because we all know that while he tries to be honest, he usually comes off as biased and extremist to even regular progressives.
shoot... as long as huckabee, giuliani or romney dont win i think i could survive the election. though i have been very liberal for a long time, im more desperate than ever for at least a moderately liberal president... if we end up with another republican, especially one of those mentioned above, i have a real fear for the direction of the us.
honestly, i believe Moore is good at what he does. but i dont really believe his opinions are particularly enlightening... as a matter of fact, this letter is pretty shallow, and the points made aren't any deeper than what you might find on typical news talk shows. the caricature of him in Team America seems to be closer to reality... he seems like a bit of an idiot to me...
That being said, he plays an important role because he understands the power of emotion and fear just as well as his conservative adversaries.
If i were in iowa, id caucus for Biden i think.
LB - I think the point Royko ( A staunch Democrat ) was making during the 1994 Dole/ Clinton is that America's going to elect the guy who will mortage the future the most. I believe he said dole wouldnt win because he's like the grandpa who makes you eat your vegtables - Edwards would be the guy least likely to repay ( possibly Hillary, ARK remember) because of the 3 hes the one from a leech state - those states that take in more than they send to Wash. Obama and Hillary come from states that pay the most % of the tax revenues and get less back in return.
yeah - .77 on the dollar while these hillbillies send it to some freakin village half way around the world. Ever notice the 6 of the last 7 presidents have been southern or western?
We got our shithole 3rd worlds in Chicago LA and NYC, stop spending it on people who dont give a crap and wont return the favor anyways
Yknow I love Michael Moore but he can be such a fathead sometimes. Sometimes it seems like him and Marcos are so blue in the face they cant see through their own bullshit to real solutions. Take Edward's healthcare plan. I mean hes reinvented himself in the last 8 months with this this tinny im-gonna-fight-the-corporate-greed, corporations-get-no-seat-at-the-table rhetorical blubbering, but what does that even mean? I mean lets really think this through for a minute. Whats he gonna do? Hold his breath and stomp his feet? Punch them in the face? I mean at a certain point this stuff has gotta pass congress and youre either going to have to talk to these people to make a workable solution or sit in the oval office and pout.
I'm Still waiting for Nader and Lebierman to toss in their hats as the
United Front U S Party ! They have my vote as long as they promise to put McCain in as Secretary of Defense and the guy who hangs around here as Secretary of the Interior...
i like michael moore's opinions. i will take his letter seriously as i learn more about the candidates. at this point though my vote is pretty wide open.
Hmm, I've always liked Michael Moore despite his very biased opinions/viewpoints. I'll definitely keep these opinions in mind though as the primaries in my state draw closer.
i have always railed against these early events being held in iowa and new hampshire. two less than diverse states with small populations and with little national prominence beyond their stature as being one and two in electing the next leader of the "free" world. by the time the primary hits my state the stage is set and my candidates have usually had to drop out because of lack of money. since, this is the case i don't pay much attention to these early events. i do research the candidates etc, but have little interest in watching politicians pander for votes while scarfing down high calorie high fat food ( a campaign issue?) and listening to (your talking head here) recite some poll numbers.
personally, i am interested in free healthcare, free education and resolving the iraq quagmire. and if i am not presented with a candidate who will do that when the indianastan primary rolls around, i am not voting. since i have been able to vote i have only two of my votes cast were for the winner. and i didn't vote for clinton in either primary as i see him as too mainstream. this time around, i am not going to compromise. if i don't get who i want. i am staying home.
Gail Collins in today's New York Times: The Slice of the Sliver Speaks
"People, ignore whatever happens in Iowa. The identity of the next leader of the most powerful nation in the world is not supposed to depend on the opinion of one small state."
Well I hope Im not stating the obvious, but really Iowa doesnt really matter, or wouldnt, except for the shape of things this year. Because Obama and Hillary are basically tied in 3 of the first 4 states to run primaries who ever wins Iowa gets the rollover effect through the following few states and thereby the whole lot. It matters to the republicans too, (although much less so, the hype this year is ludicrous) just because the crop of candidates is so mind-numbingly mediocre the party is in utter disarray. If republicans had any sense whatsoever theyd pick McCain, but it seems the bible-belt social conservatives are perfectly happy to drag their platform of veiled bigotry to political Jonestown.
What should really happen is the federal government should step in and mandate the the schedule so every state had a chance. They could pick a different state at random from each national district to start things off and run in blocks like that for a month or two. And for gods sake, push that stuff back till April, presidents are important but we dont need to spend 3 whole fucking years picking one out.
I think this is the first time ever where Michael Moore and I agree on something...at least partly. If Hillary is elected I fear she'll be a war hawk in the ilk of Douglas MacArthur.
She knows that if she's elected and then goes soft in the Middle East the right will use that against her. And I believe the Clintons are greedy with power and would do next to anything to keep that power.
Similar to how Hillary hijacked the NY state democrat party to run for senate.
(Bush on the other hand I see as a theif that will swindle the country for all it's worth and then flee once everything comes apart.)
As usual, another election where all the "mainstream" canidates are just more of the status quo. The only people that might make a difference one either side are "fringe" canidates and hold little chance. My only hope is that something big happens that can shif the tables out from underneath the likes of Hillary, Romney, etc.
This gives them the opportunity to experience what it is like to be a New Yorker or Californian all year round.
-gail collins, new york times
haha, i love new yorkers and californians taking gas (or at least under the delusion that they are taking gas). does iowa really matter? well, yes, ask howard dean.
So tonight, even though it’s very cold — even though it’s Hokies vs. Jayhawks in the Orange Bowl — the sturdy Iowa voters will pull on their parkas and go out to fulfill their historic destiny.
for those of you who didn't know, gail will be going to the opera tonight on sunny 64th street.
i think the real question may be, "does the opinion of new york and california really matter in this country of 300 million college-football-lovin', corn-feed boobs?"
And going to the opera is a bad thing? Only in the mind of a corn-feed boob.
I guess the people in the three largest American cities should just sit back, shut up, and see who the NASCAR crowd elects as our next president. It's worked so well in the past.
LiG, i'm ruffling your feathers because i know i can. there's nothing wrong with going to the opera. i'm just saying the cornfed boobs have as much right to express their opinions as the opera-going snobs. in fact the cornfed boobs might be more representative of this great democratic country of ours.
While the outcome of the primaries may leave me without a candidate I want to vote for, there will no doubt be, on one side or the other, a candidate whom I will want to vote against.
And remember vado, and everyone else who is thinking of not voting: If you don't act on your right to vote, then you lose your right to bitch about the results.
Iowa's opinion is prob more diverse than NYC's - NYC is about the most predictable default mid 20th century form of liberalism I can think of. LA doesnt represent the country much either and Chicago, well they'd elect a dictator or King if they had the chance, so I'll trust the good folks in Iowa. I lived there 2 years and it is more diverse and open to new ideas than its given credit for, as I suspect the rest of the square states are too. Thats why the candidates start there - you'd never be able to get any momentum out of New York - it would be Empire State backed candidates every 4 years - thats great for wall Street and Banana Republic sales staff but bad for main street in Muskatine, IA.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans now live in urban areas, and are probably at least as likely to go to an opera, symphony, or art museum as they are to a college football game.
But thanks to the lopsided primary schedule, the Electoral College, the Senate, and the concentration of powerful lobby groups (think defense, agri-business, and oil), the "corn-feed boobs" have had the cards stacked in their favor for decades. They're free to express their opinions, but they shouldn't be making policy decisions for a population they don't represent.
And LIG - NASCAR is about the coolest thing to happen to popular culture in a long time - merging of skill, speed, power and technology. Many of those hillbillies are more technicaly minded than any of the architects on this board. we should celebrate the skill involved as uniquly American spectacal.
n_ i am totally with you on that one...
the sad thing is i took a class where Kunstler books were recomended... so i bought a few and now they sit, shamefully on my book case.
as for these primaries... ahem...
i dont agree at all with the notion that the major candidates are all mainstream and boring. I personally think Hillary Clinton is the only mainstream democratic candidate. Obama was a complete unknown 4 years ago, and his politics are radical relative to those that have been practiced for the past 8 years.
Moore is also right on with Edwards. When was the last time we heard a politician on either side talk about the evils of manipulative corporations rather than the evil of countries who dare oppose us?
Look at Chris Dodd and Joe Biden! Both life time politicians well known by most people who have even a small knowledge of legislative politics. Both brilliant and well respected, hardly radical, and politically smart... yet they are the fringe candidates?
i decided to ignore iowa - or just wait and see what the results are rather than really listen to anything going on there - after i heard a couple of the candidates speeches. total rot, even from those candidates i favor. all the candidates brains seem to have turned to mush during the process of figuring out how to appeal to those-who-might-caucus.
personally though... i really want to see an Obama/Biden ticket.
i would be happy to vote for that. Or and Edwards/Dodd. either would be pleasssssing to me
why can't we all vote for candidates in both parties? that way we will get a moderate who is electable and washington gridlock will be ended.
the guy that scares me the most is guilliani - and I will certainly vote against him. i was in nyc on 9/11 and his only claim to fame was that he showed up. he was more incompetent and negligent in running the city then bush was at running the country. just read the new yorker article and be scared, be very scared if guiliani gets any votes.
I think Rudy is polling somewhere in the single digits in NYC... That should tell you something about how much people liked him as mayor here.
I actually like Bloomberg a lot, and it seems like most New Yorkers like him as well... Unfortunately, if he were to run for president as an independent, he'd probably end up being a spoiler that would result in some idiot like Huckabee ending up in the White House.
A Letter From Michael Moore
as seen at michael moore dot com:
Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore
January 2, 2008
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 Senator 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. Senator 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 Senator 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)
[email protected]
MichaelMoore.com
so far, i am leaning for john edwards too.
Just use the following template to decide, borrowed from the late great Mike Royko. Picture the three candidates. Now picture yourself asking them for a large sum of money you promise to pay back to them in the future ( while deep down you have no intention of honoring this debt ). Which candidate looks like they'd do nothing about it? Thats your winner.
evilp, I totally don't understand. I should pick the candidate who I most want to screw over?
Not only am I leaning towards Edwards, so is my far-right war-mongering Republican dad! Hallelujah!
I like what he has to say and agree with him on many points, but on the other hand, I'm quite grateful he didn't endorse anyone. Because we all know that while he tries to be honest, he usually comes off as biased and extremist to even regular progressives.
shoot... as long as huckabee, giuliani or romney dont win i think i could survive the election. though i have been very liberal for a long time, im more desperate than ever for at least a moderately liberal president... if we end up with another republican, especially one of those mentioned above, i have a real fear for the direction of the us.
as always, an interesting and erudite OPINION from MM. he will be chastised for this like everything else he says, as will any who happen to agree.
just saw SiCKO this past week. made me so angry!
i need to look more into moore's comments about the differences between obama's and edward's respective health care points.
anyone know a good, concise resource?
honestly, i believe Moore is good at what he does. but i dont really believe his opinions are particularly enlightening... as a matter of fact, this letter is pretty shallow, and the points made aren't any deeper than what you might find on typical news talk shows. the caricature of him in Team America seems to be closer to reality... he seems like a bit of an idiot to me...
That being said, he plays an important role because he understands the power of emotion and fear just as well as his conservative adversaries.
If i were in iowa, id caucus for Biden i think.
i don't think moore is claiming that letter to be anything more than his opinion. what is wrong with that?
LB - I think the point Royko ( A staunch Democrat ) was making during the 1994 Dole/ Clinton is that America's going to elect the guy who will mortage the future the most. I believe he said dole wouldnt win because he's like the grandpa who makes you eat your vegtables - Edwards would be the guy least likely to repay ( possibly Hillary, ARK remember) because of the 3 hes the one from a leech state - those states that take in more than they send to Wash. Obama and Hillary come from states that pay the most % of the tax revenues and get less back in return.
excuse me, 1996 im getting old dam
the logic goes for foriegn aid too - what shithole can we send money to so they can bitch to the UN abouts us 5 years from now
A leech state? Sheesh, ep, you make it sound like NC is less than a state... or anyone from NC is less a person.
SC - nothing wrong with the peoples but they got some same politics there
i guess he is from NC - either way hes the breakdown - see who really gets the pork
link
wow no wonder the cta is such crap...
yeah - .77 on the dollar while these hillbillies send it to some freakin village half way around the world. Ever notice the 6 of the last 7 presidents have been southern or western?
We got our shithole 3rd worlds in Chicago LA and NYC, stop spending it on people who dont give a crap and wont return the favor anyways
Consider how much of that federal money consists of defense spending and farm subsidies, two major cash cows that overwhelmingly favor the red states.
my student loans are at 8%........
the irs will put me in jail for owing them $500 in taxes from 2003...but wait a minute...hmmm.......
when was the last war ever fought on US soil.....
this government is so quick to start shyt .... we have our issues here...poverty/homelessness/etc..... fix this place first......
are there any big issues in canada?.....
b
Yknow I love Michael Moore but he can be such a fathead sometimes. Sometimes it seems like him and Marcos are so blue in the face they cant see through their own bullshit to real solutions. Take Edward's healthcare plan. I mean hes reinvented himself in the last 8 months with this this tinny im-gonna-fight-the-corporate-greed, corporations-get-no-seat-at-the-table rhetorical blubbering, but what does that even mean? I mean lets really think this through for a minute. Whats he gonna do? Hold his breath and stomp his feet? Punch them in the face? I mean at a certain point this stuff has gotta pass congress and youre either going to have to talk to these people to make a workable solution or sit in the oval office and pout.
I'm Still waiting for Nader and Lebierman to toss in their hats as the
United Front U S Party ! They have my vote as long as they promise to put McCain in as Secretary of Defense and the guy who hangs around here as Secretary of the Interior...
bloomberg?
maybe we need a billionaire businessman to fix what the bankrupt/drug addicted/religious fanatic broke?
i like michael moore's opinions. i will take his letter seriously as i learn more about the candidates. at this point though my vote is pretty wide open.
Hmm, I've always liked Michael Moore despite his very biased opinions/viewpoints. I'll definitely keep these opinions in mind though as the primaries in my state draw closer.
i have always railed against these early events being held in iowa and new hampshire. two less than diverse states with small populations and with little national prominence beyond their stature as being one and two in electing the next leader of the "free" world. by the time the primary hits my state the stage is set and my candidates have usually had to drop out because of lack of money. since, this is the case i don't pay much attention to these early events. i do research the candidates etc, but have little interest in watching politicians pander for votes while scarfing down high calorie high fat food ( a campaign issue?) and listening to (your talking head here) recite some poll numbers.
personally, i am interested in free healthcare, free education and resolving the iraq quagmire. and if i am not presented with a candidate who will do that when the indianastan primary rolls around, i am not voting. since i have been able to vote i have only two of my votes cast were for the winner. and i didn't vote for clinton in either primary as i see him as too mainstream. this time around, i am not going to compromise. if i don't get who i want. i am staying home.
Gail Collins in today's New York Times: The Slice of the Sliver Speaks
"People, ignore whatever happens in Iowa. The identity of the next leader of the most powerful nation in the world is not supposed to depend on the opinion of one small state."
Well I hope Im not stating the obvious, but really Iowa doesnt really matter, or wouldnt, except for the shape of things this year. Because Obama and Hillary are basically tied in 3 of the first 4 states to run primaries who ever wins Iowa gets the rollover effect through the following few states and thereby the whole lot. It matters to the republicans too, (although much less so, the hype this year is ludicrous) just because the crop of candidates is so mind-numbingly mediocre the party is in utter disarray. If republicans had any sense whatsoever theyd pick McCain, but it seems the bible-belt social conservatives are perfectly happy to drag their platform of veiled bigotry to political Jonestown.
What should really happen is the federal government should step in and mandate the the schedule so every state had a chance. They could pick a different state at random from each national district to start things off and run in blocks like that for a month or two. And for gods sake, push that stuff back till April, presidents are important but we dont need to spend 3 whole fucking years picking one out.
i'm a liberal and even i think this sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare ... AND a influence-peddling scandal waiting to happen!
.. and it isnt now? I guess thats why I say random. Like theyed literally have to roll dice to get any fairness at all.
But yea Im sure were fucked either way.
I think this is the first time ever where Michael Moore and I agree on something...at least partly. If Hillary is elected I fear she'll be a war hawk in the ilk of Douglas MacArthur.
She knows that if she's elected and then goes soft in the Middle East the right will use that against her. And I believe the Clintons are greedy with power and would do next to anything to keep that power.
Similar to how Hillary hijacked the NY state democrat party to run for senate.
(Bush on the other hand I see as a theif that will swindle the country for all it's worth and then flee once everything comes apart.)
As usual, another election where all the "mainstream" canidates are just more of the status quo. The only people that might make a difference one either side are "fringe" canidates and hold little chance. My only hope is that something big happens that can shif the tables out from underneath the likes of Hillary, Romney, etc.
-gail collins, new york times
haha, i love new yorkers and californians taking gas (or at least under the delusion that they are taking gas). does iowa really matter? well, yes, ask howard dean.
So tonight, even though it’s very cold — even though it’s Hokies vs. Jayhawks in the Orange Bowl — the sturdy Iowa voters will pull on their parkas and go out to fulfill their historic destiny.
for those of you who didn't know, gail will be going to the opera tonight on sunny 64th street.
i think the real question may be, "does the opinion of new york and california really matter in this country of 300 million college-football-lovin', corn-feed boobs?"
why the hell would iowans care about the orange bowl? they prolly care about their loss to i.u. last night on the hardwood.
How do you guys feel about this statement:
Michael Moore is to politcs as James Kunstler is to urban planning.
And going to the opera is a bad thing? Only in the mind of a corn-feed boob.
I guess the people in the three largest American cities should just sit back, shut up, and see who the NASCAR crowd elects as our next president. It's worked so well in the past.
LiG, i'm ruffling your feathers because i know i can. there's nothing wrong with going to the opera. i'm just saying the cornfed boobs have as much right to express their opinions as the opera-going snobs. in fact the cornfed boobs might be more representative of this great democratic country of ours.
While the outcome of the primaries may leave me without a candidate I want to vote for, there will no doubt be, on one side or the other, a candidate whom I will want to vote against.
And remember vado, and everyone else who is thinking of not voting: If you don't act on your right to vote, then you lose your right to bitch about the results.
when do i ever complain about the government?
Iowa's opinion is prob more diverse than NYC's - NYC is about the most predictable default mid 20th century form of liberalism I can think of. LA doesnt represent the country much either and Chicago, well they'd elect a dictator or King if they had the chance, so I'll trust the good folks in Iowa. I lived there 2 years and it is more diverse and open to new ideas than its given credit for, as I suspect the rest of the square states are too. Thats why the candidates start there - you'd never be able to get any momentum out of New York - it would be Empire State backed candidates every 4 years - thats great for wall Street and Banana Republic sales staff but bad for main street in Muskatine, IA.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans now live in urban areas, and are probably at least as likely to go to an opera, symphony, or art museum as they are to a college football game.
But thanks to the lopsided primary schedule, the Electoral College, the Senate, and the concentration of powerful lobby groups (think defense, agri-business, and oil), the "corn-feed boobs" have had the cards stacked in their favor for decades. They're free to express their opinions, but they shouldn't be making policy decisions for a population they don't represent.
And LIG - NASCAR is about the coolest thing to happen to popular culture in a long time - merging of skill, speed, power and technology. Many of those hillbillies are more technicaly minded than any of the architects on this board. we should celebrate the skill involved as uniquly American spectacal.
Ive sucked on a few Iowa corn fed boobs - Theyre Greeeeaaaat!!!
n_ i am totally with you on that one...
the sad thing is i took a class where Kunstler books were recomended... so i bought a few and now they sit, shamefully on my book case.
as for these primaries... ahem...
i dont agree at all with the notion that the major candidates are all mainstream and boring. I personally think Hillary Clinton is the only mainstream democratic candidate. Obama was a complete unknown 4 years ago, and his politics are radical relative to those that have been practiced for the past 8 years.
Moore is also right on with Edwards. When was the last time we heard a politician on either side talk about the evils of manipulative corporations rather than the evil of countries who dare oppose us?
Look at Chris Dodd and Joe Biden! Both life time politicians well known by most people who have even a small knowledge of legislative politics. Both brilliant and well respected, hardly radical, and politically smart... yet they are the fringe candidates?
i decided to ignore iowa - or just wait and see what the results are rather than really listen to anything going on there - after i heard a couple of the candidates speeches. total rot, even from those candidates i favor. all the candidates brains seem to have turned to mush during the process of figuring out how to appeal to those-who-might-caucus.
ps, nascar is idiotic
dude - you cant be serious
personally though... i really want to see an Obama/Biden ticket.
i would be happy to vote for that. Or and Edwards/Dodd. either would be pleasssssing to me
dude im totally serious
Obama/Biden is something I could get excited about.
why can't we all vote for candidates in both parties? that way we will get a moderate who is electable and washington gridlock will be ended.
the guy that scares me the most is guilliani - and I will certainly vote against him. i was in nyc on 9/11 and his only claim to fame was that he showed up. he was more incompetent and negligent in running the city then bush was at running the country. just read the new yorker article and be scared, be very scared if guiliani gets any votes.
I think Rudy is polling somewhere in the single digits in NYC... That should tell you something about how much people liked him as mayor here.
I actually like Bloomberg a lot, and it seems like most New Yorkers like him as well... Unfortunately, if he were to run for president as an independent, he'd probably end up being a spoiler that would result in some idiot like Huckabee ending up in the White House.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.