Hillary = new Thatcher

[BreadBros]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2558085,00.html Bolds are mine.


HILLARY CLINTON is to be presented as America’s Margaret Thatcher as she tries to become the first woman to win the White House. As she entered the 2008 presidential race yesterday, a senior adviser said that her campaign would emphasise security, defence and personal strengths reminiscent of the Iron Lady.


It made the New York senator the instant frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. “She has the name recognition, the money, the glitz, she’s got it all,” McAuliffe said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070120/D8MPAEHO0.html


Recently, Clinton has clashed with many in her own party over the Iraq war.

Clinton supported the 2002 resolution authorizing military intervention in Iraq. She has refused to recant her vote or call for a deadline for the removal of troops. She has announced her opposition to President Bush's troop increase in Iraq and has introduced legislation capping troop levels.

EDIT: Whoops, Im not sure why I posted this in Learning instead of Politics, if someone could move it there for me it would be greatly appreciated.

[Black Dagger]

Eh, i think this comparison is a bit over the top... unless Hillary starts pushing hard-line neo-liberal economic policies (really the hallmark of thatchers reign).

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Oh weel if she wins we may see some gd Thatcher regime style riots!!!

[cumbia]

Shes not even in power yet, let alone been able to to any military action aganist any person or country.

[Hate Is Art]

Out with the old, in with the older.

[Dimentio]

She might have had a chance to win if it weren't for that most Americans associate her with the universal healthcare bill, Bill and the dress in the White house. She is very disliked.

What do you think about Obama?

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 21, 2007 06:15 pm
Out with the old, in with the older.
Exactly. I think the reason the youth stays out of politics is because they're constantly being barked at by the old.
The revolution should be for the young men and women and noone over 30 should poke their noses in.
Let's be the first generation not to turn into our parents.

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:39 pm
What do you think about Obama?

Obama seems like a guy pretty close to the center if you ask me. While we can all agree that Obama as president won't bring anything resembling socialism or even a social democracy like Norway to the U.S, I partially support Obama because he might bring some universal health care to the United States. Seriously, if you tell a laborer or a wage-slave that they'll have to use the emergency room as a gateway to healthcare because you are too dogmatic to support a bourgeois politician.

[Mikhail Frunze]

What do you think about Obama?

He's a right-wing neoliberal with an aggressively imperialist foreign policy. In 2004 he said that he would consider unleashing bombs on Iran.

He is an ardent neoliberal who supports the IMF terror in the third world:
“I would find myself in the curious position of defending aspects of Reagan’s worldview,” he writes. “I couldn’t be persuaded that U.S. multinationals and international terms of trade were single-handedly responsible for poverty around the world; nobody forced corrupt leaders in Third World countries to steal from their people.”

Obama is an ardent anti-communist who supported the terroristic counter-revolution in Afghanistan based on the lie of "Soviets invaded Afghanistan":
“Given the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, staying ahead of the Soviets militarily seemed the sensible thing to do.”

Obama is a militarist who has called for increasing fundsing for rockets and guns:
“Indeed, given the depletion of our forces after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will probably need a somewhat higher budget in the intermediate future just to restore readiness and replace equipment.”
http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/608/608_04_Obama.shtml

[Mikhail Frunze]

Obama, though also a minority, has a very good chance to get the democratic nomination
Barack Obama may be partially be considered to be black, but he surely is not an African-American for the following reasons:
1. He is mixed race and was raised by his white mother. His east African father did not play a relevant role in his life.
2. He was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia
3. He is not the descendent of slaves. He has partial east African heritage whereas most African-Americans have west African heritage

[Hate Is Art]

What does race have to do with Obama's politics?


Exactly. I think the reason the youth stays out of politics is because they're constantly being barked at by the old.
The revolution should be for the young men and women and noone over 30 should poke their noses in.
Let's be the first generation not to turn into our parents.

It's not even that, it's just this self-perpuating world of white, middle-upper class men, who have absolutly no connection to real life at all. I'd rather die then turn into my parents.

[which doctor]

I doubt she will win.


I'd rather die then turn into my parents.
Damn straight.

[Hate Is Art]

Workes of the world unite, else you will turn into your parents.

Karl who? Now that's a slogan.

[Purple]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:38 am
As she entered the 2008 presidential race yesterday, a senior adviser said that her campaign would emphasise security, defence and personal strengths reminiscent of the Iron Lady.
[/quote]
Defence and security equals bombs and war these days, as the current administration so nicely put on display. If they could only just tell us what their true motives were.... Damn propaganda machines...

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Mikhail [email protected] 21, 2007 08:33 pm

Obama, though also a minority, has a very good chance to get the democratic nomination
Barack Obama may be partially be considered to be black, but he surely is not an African-American for the following reasons:
1. He is mixed race and was raised by his white mother. His east African father did not play a relevant role in his life.
2. He was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia
3. He is not the descendent of slaves. He has partial east African heritage whereas most African-Americans have west African heritage
Not only is that irrelevant but its also ridiculous.

In the U.S. he would be discriminated against. If you are dark they don't care what part of Afrika you come from or where you where raised.

[Mikhail Frunze]

I disagree. I think certain Uncle Toms like Oprah Winfrey would be accepted into white America as long as they are subservient to white bourgeois culture.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Mikhail [email protected] 22, 2007 11:33 am

Obama, though also a minority, has a very good chance to get the democratic nomination
Barack Obama may be partially be considered to be black, but he surely is not an African-American for the following reasons:
1. He is mixed race and was raised by his white mother. His east African father did not play a relevant role in his life.
2. He was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia
3. He is not the descendent of slaves. He has partial east African heritage whereas most African-Americans have west African heritage
This is complete non-sense.

In a social context people would treat him like a black man, he is a black man.

Trying to break-down his 'racial heritage' and upbringing as a means to deny his blackness is disgusting.

[Cheung Mo]

They're both bigots, they both get turned on by the thought of censoring and banning things they arbitararily deem offensive, they're both big on personalism, and they both support trade deals and economic reforms that favour the global elite at the expense of workers, our environment, and those who are poor and marginalised by society's injustices.

[Janus]

I don't think that we can make such a comparison at this point especially since we haven't seen Hillary wield the kind of power Thatcher had. Personally, I think that Hillary is much more moderate than Thatcher though I certainly would consider her no liberal except on certain issues.

[Guerrilla22]

They're all completely worthless to our cause.

[Janus]

He's a right-wing neoliberal with an aggressively imperialist foreign policy. In 2004 he said that he would consider unleashing bombs on Iran.
He opposed Bush's Iraq plan back in 2002 and is seeking a US withdrawl this year as well as open talks with Syria and Iran.

[Mikhail Frunze]

In a social context people would treat him like a black man, he is a black man.

No, they wouldn't just like Oprah Winfrey is not considered to be a black woman because of how entrenched she is in suburban white culture.

Obama is obviously assimilated into white bourgeois culture. There is nothing black about him whether it be his upbringing, heritage, character or demeanour. If you are looking for a genuinely black politician refer to Sheila Jackson-Lee or Al Sharpton. Obama is about as black as Tiger Woods is Chinese.


He opposed Bush's Iraq plan back in 2002 and is seeking a US withdrawl this year as well as open talks with Syria and Iran.

I don't recall him speaking out when aggression was unleashed against Afghanistan. Obama furthermore supports the ongoing occupation of Iraq, is subservient to Zionism, and has justified brutality against the proletariat e.g Yugoslavia. Raimondo exposes Obama as an aggressive imperialist:


http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10181
His real loyalties are with the Democratic Party Establishment – the Democratic Leadership Council/Lieberman wing – and this came through in the party primaries, when his political action committee donated many thousands of dollars to defeat antiwar candidates. He supported Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, donating $4,200 to the eventual candidate of the "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party. He also gave $10,000 to defeat antiwar stalwart Christine Cegelis, who nonetheless came within a few thousand votes of winning against a decorated war hero.

Obama's position on the Iraq war was pretty much summed up by his comment, cited at Alex Cockburn's Counterpunch, as follows:

"On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute."

Stealing some lines from Hillary Clinton's playbook, Obama holds up Bosnia and Kosovo as a model:

"If one looks at the Balkans – our most recent attempt to rebuild war-torn nations – the international community, from the European Union to NATO to the United Nations, were all deeply involved. These organizations, driven largely by European countries in the region, provided legitimacy, helped with burden-sharing, and were an essential part of our exit strategy. Ten years later, conditions are not perfect, but the bloodshed has been stopped, and the region is no longer destabilizing the European continent

Like most congressional Democrats, he bowed before the Israeli war machine and praised the IDF's brazen aggression in Lebanon, going so far as to visit northern Israel during the war in a show of support. He opposed a cease-fire – "I don't fault Israel for wanting to rid their border with Lebanon from those Katyusha missiles that can fire in and harm Israeli citizens, so I think that any cease-fire would have to be premised on the removal of those missiles" – and absurdly averred:

"I don't think there is any nation that would not have reacted the way Israel did after two soldiers had been snatched. I support Israel's response to take some action in protecting themselves."

According to this logic, the U.S. should have invaded Iran when the Iranians took hostages at our embassy – and, come to think of it, he does endorse an attack on Tehran, as reported by the Chicago Tribune:

"U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs."

[Felicia]

I don't know how I'd feel if Hilary won. Given that she's running for the Dems she's automatically the lesser of two evils. She can't be any worse than bush... unless she's some kind of anti-christ...
as for what you guys are saying about Obama... I&#39;m more black than he is, and y&#39;all know I glow in the dark <_<

Fuck two party systems, fuck, fuck, who are the independents running for the 2008? Are there any? I&#39;ve only read the list of Dems and Pubs.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Mikhail [email protected] 26, 2007 06:00 am

In a social context people would treat him like a black man, he is a black man.

No, they wouldn&#39;t just like Oprah Winfrey is not considered to be a black woman because of how entrenched she is in suburban white culture.

Obama is obviously assimilated into white bourgeois culture. There is nothing black about him whether it be his upbringing, heritage, character or demeanour. If you are looking for a genuinely black politician refer to Sheila Jackson-Lee or Al Sharpton. Obama is about as black as Tiger Woods is Chinese.


He opposed Bush&#39;s Iraq plan back in 2002 and is seeking a US withdrawl this year as well as open talks with Syria and Iran.

I don&#39;t recall him speaking out when aggression was unleashed against Afghanistan. Obama furthermore supports the ongoing occupation of Iraq, is subservient to Zionism, and has justified brutality against the proletariat e.g Yugoslavia. Raimondo exposes Obama as an aggressive imperialist:


http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10181
His real loyalties are with the Democratic Party Establishment – the Democratic Leadership Council/Lieberman wing – and this came through in the party primaries, when his political action committee donated many thousands of dollars to defeat antiwar candidates. He supported Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, donating &#036;4,200 to the eventual candidate of the "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party. He also gave &#036;10,000 to defeat antiwar stalwart Christine Cegelis, who nonetheless came within a few thousand votes of winning against a decorated war hero.

Obama&#39;s position on the Iraq war was pretty much summed up by his comment, cited at Alex Cockburn&#39;s Counterpunch, as follows:

"On Iraq, on paper, there&#39;s not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. There&#39;s not that much difference between my position and George Bush&#39;s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who&#39;s in a position to execute."

Stealing some lines from Hillary Clinton&#39;s playbook, Obama holds up Bosnia and Kosovo as a model:

"If one looks at the Balkans – our most recent attempt to rebuild war-torn nations – the international community, from the European Union to NATO to the United Nations, were all deeply involved. These organizations, driven largely by European countries in the region, provided legitimacy, helped with burden-sharing, and were an essential part of our exit strategy. Ten years later, conditions are not perfect, but the bloodshed has been stopped, and the region is no longer destabilizing the European continent

Like most congressional Democrats, he bowed before the Israeli war machine and praised the IDF&#39;s brazen aggression in Lebanon, going so far as to visit northern Israel during the war in a show of support. He opposed a cease-fire – "I don&#39;t fault Israel for wanting to rid their border with Lebanon from those Katyusha missiles that can fire in and harm Israeli citizens, so I think that any cease-fire would have to be premised on the removal of those missiles" – and absurdly averred:

"I don&#39;t think there is any nation that would not have reacted the way Israel did after two soldiers had been snatched. I support Israel&#39;s response to take some action in protecting themselves."

According to this logic, the U.S. should have invaded Iran when the Iranians took hostages at our embassy – and, come to think of it, he does endorse an attack on Tehran, as reported by the Chicago Tribune:

"U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs."
Sharpton&#39;s a tool of the GOP. He&#39;s worked for George Pataki and Al d&#39;Amato. He talks a good game, but I&#39;d be surprised if he was even left of the Clinton&#39;s.

[dogwoodlover]

I would vote for just about anyone besides the Republocrats.

The US has a communist party or two don&#39;t they? (not like they&#39;re of any significance whatsoever)

[Janus]

The US has a communist party or two don&#39;t they? (not like they&#39;re of any significance whatsoever)
There&#39;s the CPUSA and the SWP (the two main ones) but both are politically insignificant at the moment.

[Jude]

Personally, I think it&#39;s great that we have both a female and a black candidate, as it opens the door to more diversity in the Oval Office, although I&#39;d have to kill myself if either got elected, from their political histories. Living in Buffalo, NY, I&#39;ve put up with the Clintons long enough.

I heard a rumour about Rudy running. He has my vote&#33;

[Janus]

I heard a rumour about Rudy running.
He&#39;s considering it and it&#39;s highly possible as he will probably be the lead Republican candidate.


He has my vote&#33;
For a Roman Catholic and Republican, Giuliani has some progressive views on abortion and same-sex marriages. However, he also supports the Bush&#39;s "War on Terror" and it&#39;s very likely that he will be more of a hawk than Bush. I don&#39;t see why that would be a positive thing at all.

[Jude]

I am completely against the war, and resent Bush for sending more troops in. BUT&#33; I also believe that a direct, large-scale attack on civilians is imminent if a complete retreat is ordered. We need to think rationally, and I believe that Rudy has already shown that he can manage a large population in a positive manner. I also believe that the only way we can avoid Clinton or Obama getting elected into office is with a figure that the American public has seen in action before.

[Janus]

I am completely against the war
Then you might wanna think twice before sponsoring Giuliani.


and I believe that Rudy has already shown that he can manage a large population in a positive manner.
In some aspects but not in others. It wasn&#39;t until after 2000 that his approval actually started to go up due to 9/11. Giuliani doesn&#39;t have much of a social or economic plan for the US and he certainly has no social security plan. I would imagine that things would pretty much be the same except for some tax cuts, his support for abortion and stem cell research but at the cost of maintaining and perhaps expanding the Iraq intervention.


I also believe that the only way we can avoid Clinton or Obama getting elected into office is with a figure that the American public has seen in action before.
See, this is the problem with bourgeois elections, you can only vote in terms of the "lesser of the evils"; you rarely get any true change.

[Jude]

The fact of the matter is that in America&#39;s two party system, people sometimes forget that they have the option to vote for Green party candidates. Perhaps if a member of another party were to get ellected, we could break the two-party system&#33;

[Clarksist]

Perhaps if a member of another party were to get ellected, we could break the two-party system&#33;

I just flat out do not see that happening.

The Green Party is not only just a more liberal version of the Democrats... they have no way of being elected. Without supreme amounts of money, connections, and a biography of corporate support, you will never be elected President.

[Jude]

I at no point stated that I foresaw such an event as occurring in the near future or at any point in time whatsoever. I simply stated that such an event would alter the political future of America. Hence concluding with the ultimatel paradox. It must have already been achieved to be initiated.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I would vote for the Socialist Party USA just for the hell of it, or not vote at all. There&#39;s such a plethora of flaws in the American political system that I doesn&#39;t seem worth it to allow a bucnh of wealthy oligarchs to make fun of eachother. Democracy in America is as phony as Communism in North Korea.

[BreadBros]

Democracy in America is as phony as Communism in North Korea.

I like that quote&#33;

What do people think about a campaign that would detach itself from participation in the two-party first-past-the-post electoral system and try to restructure US politics to have proportional representation and more direct forms of representation? On the one hand its reformist and hasnt done terrible good for Europe. On the other hand it would allow a working class politics to detach themselves formally from the Democratic party and press demands, not to mention it would really shake up the political and business world here in the belly of the beast which could have huge effects internationally as well. Just a thought.

[ComradeR]

Democracy in America is as phony as Communism in North Korea.
Never a truer statement.


The fact of the matter is that in America&#39;s two party system, people sometimes forget that they have the option to vote for Green party candidates. Perhaps if a member of another party were to get ellected, we could break the two-party system&#33;
That will never happen, the US elite goes to great lengths to ensure that anyone who dosen&#39;t support their interests will not get elected. And because it&#39;s a plutocratic system the people have no say at all in who gets elected, though they are given the illusion that they do.

[StartToday]

Why do you need millions of dollars to run (and have any chance)? I&#39;ve never understood that. How can they possibly spend a couple hundred million dollars campaigning? I mean, of course travel and advertising is expensive, but it seems like they&#39;re absolutely hemorraghing money. Shouldn&#39;t the news be required to cover all the parties equally, or at least somewhat equally, anyways?? I think a lot of people would vote for a party other than the Republicrats if they didn&#39;t have it in their mind that it would be a "wasted" vote.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 07:58 am
Why do you need millions of dollars to run (and have any chance)? I&#39;ve never understood that. How can they possibly spend a couple hundred million dollars campaigning? I mean, of course travel and advertising is expensive, but it seems like they&#39;re absolutely hemorraghing money. Shouldn&#39;t the news be required to cover all the parties equally, or at least somewhat equally, anyways?? I think a lot of people would vote for a party other than the Republicrats if they didn&#39;t have it in their mind that it would be a "wasted" vote.
Elections are not decided by votes from the people but by who can gain the most influence over the electoral college (basicly buying the electoral votes.)
The news is owned and run by the same corporate heads who finance the different candidates. They try to swing public opinion in favor of the candidate they are backing, though in the end it&#39;s the electoral college that decides who is elected, not the (working class) people.

[StartToday]

Originally posted by ComradeR+January 31, 2007 08:33 am--> (ComradeR @ January 31, 2007 08:33 am)
[email protected] 31, 2007 07:58 am
Why do you need millions of dollars to run (and have any chance)? I&#39;ve never understood that. How can they possibly spend a couple hundred million dollars campaigning? I mean, of course travel and advertising is expensive, but it seems like they&#39;re absolutely hemorraghing money. Shouldn&#39;t the news be required to cover all the parties equally, or at least somewhat equally, anyways?? I think a lot of people would vote for a party other than the Republicrats if they didn&#39;t have it in their mind that it would be a "wasted" vote.
Elections are not decided by votes from the people but by who can gain the most influence over the electoral college (basicly buying the electoral votes.)
The news is owned and run by the same corporate heads who finance the different candidates. They try to swing public opinion in favor of the candidate they are backing, though in the end it&#39;s the electoral college that decides who is elected, not the (working class) people. [/b]
Oh. Well that makes sense. I don&#39;t believe I didn&#39;t think of that.

[Jude]

All very true, but unless we get hold of millions, it will never happen. You cnot cater to the public effectively enough to get even 10% of the votes. And even if you did, the two parties would pool money to have you and your candidate assassinated.

[peaccenicked]

I dont really think it matters who wins. The question is about the power of the Presidency. Bush has almost made himself impeachable. However I hope we get him for war crimes if we cant get up on something now. The power of the President is not unimited. Although the power to singlehandedly start wars is an outrage, the sooner Congress sorts that out the better.
Beyond that awesome power , there is the base of the power.
ultimately that is considered to be the electorate but there is more to it than that.
Politics is the art of the possible. That tends to be governed by money. the economic crisis that is engulfing the US gets the bankers worried eventually and is them that ultimately pull the strings.
So what happens when you find that returns are shrinking and wars are becoming too costly. Power starts to erode. Thats why it does not matter who is in power.
American politics is mostly bipartisan, anyhow.
What then matters is US power in the world. If the empire is in decline, the alternative is to screw your own people harder. No matter what president is in power, you can bet your bottom dollar that is the name of the game. These are the economic conditions why the left might gain more influence. On top of that is the huge discrepency between Whitehouse lies and what people actually believe.
Yet there is a baggage that slows down progress, I think it is the Reagan/Thatcherite mentality. The cult of the self. http://www.scottishinternationalist.com/th...dam-curtis.html (http://www.scottishinternationalist.com/the-scottish-internationalist/2007/1/30/the-century-of-self-adam-curtis.html) If US capitalism cant recover, ie create a boom, then the polarisation between the haves and the have nots will start to manifest itself. Historically the recently dispossessed is a significant force.