Oct 25, 2007
I think the main responsibility of a voter is to try to encourage ethical practices in all the candidates. I am now focusing on Hillary Clinton. Will she be capable of leading ethically? I think that remains to be seen.On healthcare Hillary is demonstrating that she has the collective good of all Americans at the center of her health policy initiative. Good going Hillary.
Iraq? Not so good Hillary. You did not vote your conscience. You did not vote your intelligence. Instead you voted a pro-Zionist agenda because you need to appease your New York electorate. You have expressed no humane concern for the sufferings of the Iraqi people. You have not shown that you have a better grasp of geopolitical relations in that area of West Asia and North East Africa that the US pretends(following the language of the imperial Brits) is the Middle East. Middle of what? East of where? That region is part of Asia and Africa.
Iran? I have not heard you say anything or do anything that would separate you from the neocons and the Christian Right or anyone in the Bush regime. As far as I can see you are a white Condoleezza, a muted version of a female Cheney.
Palestine? Do you support a two-state solution with Israel giving back what it stole in 1945?
South Asia, Latin America, Africa and the rest of the world? Under your leadership, is the US going to meddle in everybody's business, manipulate other nation-states, devour their resources -- or is the US under your possible presidency, going to learn with humility to be a responsible, non-supremacist, less racist, less genocide-prone global player?
I am going to try to give you a chance because you appear to be just a tad more credible than the sorry truckload of abysmal candidates all of whom appear to be significantly lacking in an ethical leadership stance, locally and globally.
http:/
The comments on this particular topic (see below) were generated on another blog:
http://connect.hillaryclinton.com/blog-entry/Chithras-Blog/Ethical-Democracy-Hillary/400009785&#msg400015332
2 comments:
Ethical Democracy -- Can Hillary pass the test?
Oct 25, 2007
I think the main responsibility of a voter is to try to encourage ethical practices in all the candidates. I am now focusing on Hillary Clinton. Will she be capable of leading ethically? I think that remains to be seen.
On healthcare she is demonstrating that she has the collective good of all Americans at the center of her policy initiative. Good going Hillary.
Iraq? Not so good Hillary. You did not vote your conscience. You did not vote your intelligence. Instead you voted a pro-Zionist agenda because you need to appease your new york electorate. You have shown no humane concern for the sufferings of the Iraqi people. You have not shown that you have a better grasp of geopolitical relations in that area of West Asia and North west Africa that the US pretends if the Middle East. Middle of what? East of where?
Iran? I have not heard you say anything or do anything that would separate you from the neocons and the Christian Right or anyone in the Bush regime. As far as I can see you are a white Condoleezza, a muted version of a female Cheney.
Palestine? Do you support a two state solution with Israel giving back what it stole in 1945?
South Asia, Latin America, Africa and the rest of the world? Under your leadership, is the US going to meddle in everybody's business, manipulate other nation-states, or is the US under your possible presidency, going to learn with humility to be a responsible, non-supremacist, less racist, less genocide-prone global player?
I am going to try to give you a chance because you are just a tad more credible than the abysmal truckload of current candidates who are significantly lacking in an ethical stance, locally and globally.
http://www.EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
Posted by chithra Oct 25, 2007 2:28 PM EDT
* Edit
* Edit Attachments
* Delete
* Report Abuse
6 Comments
Beyond your and my concerns about Hillary's Iraq vote, we can't ignore the electorate at large and how the thing will play in the general election. If the Democrats hope to unseat the Republicans from the White House, Iraq is going to play a major role in that. But Bush won't be up there, some new GOP haircut will be spouting about strength and victory and taxes are bad etc. So the Democrat points out that they've led us into a stupid mess of a war that is killing people for no reason, running the country broke and actually making us more vulnerable not less. With Hillary they shoot back, "Well, you voted for the war." And we're right back where we were with John Kerry. Only worse because it won't even be Bush up there who did start the war. It will be some new haircut that the independant and swing voters associate less with the past ten years than they do Hillary Clinton. It's a bad formula unless you want another Republican president pretty much the same as Bush.
After Kerry, what is plainly needed is a candidate who has been clear and candid about their positions from the start. Someone who didn't just oppose the war in private and wait until after they launched it to criticize it. People seem to forget that we've tried that already and it doesn't make much sense to the public at large. Because it reveals a level of political cynicism that the public at large is never supposed to perceive in a candidate. We don't have to try to defend that this time. We have a very good, very candid and talented candidate who opposed the war and predicted its outcome BEFORE it was started.
by
Iowafirst
Oct 25, 2007 2:52 PM
* Delete
* Report Abuse
Dear Iowafirst,
My primary concern (isn't it yours?) is that we elect a deeply ethical candidate who is NOT beholden to any vested interest. I think Hillary cast an unethical vote to go to war against Iraq, a sovereign state that had not been proven to have WMDs.
I have to hold her responsible for that vote, don't you? Millions of us demonstrated in New York City against going to war in Iraq. Hillary did not listen to her constituents. She pandered to or at least appeased a powerful Zionist lobby.
I have already stated that Hillary appears to be more credible than any other candidate who's running, Democrat or Republican. I want to be able to vote for Hillary Clinton. I admire her experience and political shrewdness.
You are partisan, I am not. Because Hillary is a candidate and I am a potential and highly concerned voter I think my primary responsibility as a citizen, even before I am a voter, is to challenge our elected leaders to be completely ethical in their dealings both at home and overseas. I see that as my responsibility all the way until Election Day 2008.
Ethical democracy is the need of the hour.
http://www.EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
by
chithra
Oct 25, 2007 4:34 PM
* Edit
* Edit Attachments
* Delete
* Report Abuse
I guess I'm just not clear on how she is the most credible as you say when you recognize that her vote on the war was neither ethical nor responsible. I've made the point many times myself that she left us high and dry in the streets because we needed our leaders to lead and she chose to tow the line with the administration. There were millions in the streets across the country and the world and we were laughed off as being just a bunch of irrelevant liberals who were out of step with the rest of the country. That wouldn't have been the case if our leaders stood up for us.
As for being partisan, we've just gone through one of the most unethical Republican administrations I could even imagine. The Republicans don't seem intent on changing any part of the Bush doctrine so I'm defititely looking to get them out of the White House. If a party acts in such an unethical manner, it's vital that they pay for it at the ballot box. If they keep getting rewared with power, it vindicates whatever villiany they choose to perpetrate.
And besides, I'm an Iowan and I've had the chance to check out the candidates face to face. I've heard their speeches and read their books. I've found Barack Obama to be very intelligent, principled and more candid than any politician I've known this close to the White House.
Again, I'm just not sure what it is that is qualifying Hillary as the most 'credible' candidate for you. Do you just mean she's leading in the polls? And when our concern is ethics in politics shouldn't we be very wary of mistaking shrewdness with cynicism?
And as for being beholden to interests, you should note that Hillary's campaign has raised much of their money from big special interest groups. Barack Obama hasn't accepted a dime from a single PAC and instead has matched Hillary dollar for dollar through small donations. A completely grass-roots campaign. I guess I'm just not clear on why you want to be able to vote for Hillary so bad. It seems to run counter to all your stated concerns.
Sorry that I'm the only one responding here. It would probably be more interesting if Hillary supporters chimed in. It seems the "Let's have a conversation" campaign isn't the chattiest of places.
by
Iowafirst
Oct 25, 2007 6:15 PM
* Delete
* Report Abuse
Barack Obama lacks foreign policy and domestic policy experience. Period. He may be ready in eight years. I'd like to see him do some real time in the House and/or in the Senate. I want him to earn the Presidency. On merit.
Hillary has varied political experience going all the way back to Watergate. She's earned the right to be seriously considered for the Presidency.
Barack "talked tough" saying he would authorize strikes inside Pakistan. As a deeply concerned U.S. citizen of South Asian descent, I was perturbed by Obama's statement. He sounded like a white supremacist male to me. I call that "performing whiteness" on my EthicalDemocracy Blog.
Are you being paid by the Obama campaign? Why are you putting words into my mouth by saying i am mistaking shrewdness for cynicism? Hillary is politically very shrewd. That is necessary in politics. She is not a statesman but a hardcore politician with some idealism . Hillary doesn't sound cynical at all. Her healthcare initiative which she first offered during the first Clinton admin, demonstrates her longstanding optimism on behalf of the poor or the unemployed who cannot afford and are not assured of decent medical care.
I am sincerely trying to develop ideas for myself and anyone else who is trying to do the same thing, about what constitutes Ethical Leadership. after despairingly witnessing 8 years of saber rattling followed by invasion, occupation, murder of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, corruption, and more.
I would choose Kucinich over Baraka but he doesn't have a chance. Hope Hillary hires him IF she's elected
Can Hillary Clinton pass the Ethical Leader test? I'm still mulling the possibilities of having an ethical leader at the helm is the U.S. More than ever, this is the core concern I have.
http://www.EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
Dr. Chithra Karunakaran
by
chithra
Oct 25, 2007 11:02 PM
* Edit
* Edit Attachments
* Delete
* Report Abuse
Paid by a campaign? That would be nice. No, I've just been suffering in the trenches for a couple of decades. Been fighting for Democrats in presidential elections since before that sweet year when the gov from Arkansas took out the Reagan machine.
Your post just genuinely confused me. I don't understand the correlation to holding Clinton accountable for the Iraq vote and then calling her the most credible.
I think the politics of the day have become incredibly cynical. I think the Democrats have fed into that by trying to play along with the GOP and beat them at their own game as it were. But their game is crooked and wrong. And the longer we play it, the worse it gets. Because by doing things like "Being shrewd and playing it smart" by voting yes on things like the Iraq resolution, we are ultimately vindicating their violent and criminal behavior.
They clearly wanted to invade Iraq. What they were doing was inherently racist in that they confused people about Middle Easterners on purpose. Attacking Iraq made sense to people because they are Middle Eastern like the 9-11 bombers. That is hideous. The Bush administration took advantage of it. We, millions of us, marched in the street and our 'leaders' like Hillary Clinton left us high and dry. The pundits laughed at us on television and wrote us off as irrelevant liberals simply out of step with the country. But we were right. And Hillary knew we were right. And she left us hanging. If that's 'shrewdness' or 'seasoning' I don't want any part of it.
Barack Obama was warned by the party that he could jeapordize his shot at the Senate by criticizing the war before it was launched as it was so disgustingly popular. "Euphoria" I actually heard a newscaster say as we started bombing our fellow human beings. Obama went ahead and said we shouldn't start "stupid" wars and pretty much warned about everything that has in fact happened. So when I start hearing about 'seasoning' and who is naive, it actually feels kind of personal to me. I've been around these candidates face to face, shook their hands, heard their speeches and watched them work the crowds. I've also read their books. And calling Barack Obama "naive" or not a leader is simply beyond belief to anyone who knows these candidates. It reminds me of a line Bush would have used. Absolutely ridiculous.
by
Iowafirst
Oct 26, 2007 12:35 AM
* Delete
* Report Abuse
Dear IowaFirst,
I was wondering if you would respond to my concern about Obama's relative lack of domestic and foreign policy experience. Would that not be important at this critical juncture?
And would you say your political stance is partisan ? You have said (please correct me if I am mistaken) that you support Dems BECAUSE they are Dems, not because they have proven that they are capable of being ETHICAL. I think Kucinich is eminently ethical. Unfortunately his populist stance has not helped him with the Dem party machine.
What I am saying IowaFirst, is that I pretty much have my gag reflex activated at the cynicism and corruption of the partisan politics of both the Republicans and the Democrats. The Dems are preferable however, because they have some candidates who are less cynical, somewhat less warmongering, and a tad less corrupt.
The Dem frontrunners Obama and Clinton are each less cynical and corrupt than Cheney-Bush-Rice. Fortunately the latter team is on its way out. Between Clinton and Obama, who is realistically more electable?
The U.S. foreign policy stance (whether Dem or GOP) has been abysmal for the past 40 years or so. I am pleased you brought up that Hillary comment about Obama being "naive" That is typically a strategically political comment that is made in an election year, because she is playing on Obama's weakness ie his lack of foreign policy AND domestic policy experience.
But i was disappointed by Obama's reply. Instead of sticking to his comment about meeting certain world leaders without pre-conditions (an admirable stance) he backed off and said he would be a preemptive striker (not his actual words) in other sovereign nation states! He lowered the substance of the debate and devalued his own position. At that point I became concerned whether his lack of experience would have him compromise his stance when he is in office. I think his lack of experience is a drawback. And the perception as well as the reality on the ground is that he is inexperienced. He has even less experience than Bush!
The invasion of Iraq was unconscionable. Millions of us not just in the US but all over the world, protested that war BEFORE it happened and neither party paid us any attention.
All the Dems are feeding at the war trough, afraid to distance themselves from the warmongering of the Republicans, afraid that the American public (increasingly disinformed) will see them, the Dems, as weak and unable to govern.
I am still exploring the ethical stance of each of the candidates and I have a year to make up my mind. That is all I am doing on this blog. I want to see both Hillary and Barack and whoever else to develop a more ethical stance both at home and overseas.
Now, on more specific recent foreign policy development -- I am wondering if either Hillary or Barack will have the courage to condemn as the continuation of a failed policy the recent Bush-Cheney-Rice orchestrated decision to issue sanctions against the Quds of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. What do you think?
Will either Barack or Hillary or both show their ethical courage? Frankly if they showed their ethical courage, they would be pilloried as weak by the media and the pollsters and their political opponents.
Ethical courage, the ability to negotiate and persuade and see the other's point of view and to ourselves act ethically and fairly towards other nation-states and towards groups within the U.S. (example the working poor, the racially oppressed) is seen as weakness.
That is the American dilemma. That is the American nightmare.
Best,
Dr. Chithra KarunaKaran
http://www.EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
I think we are partisan pretty much in the same manner. I'm a Democrat in that they are a better choice than the Republicans particularly at this point in time.
The line about his lack of experience sounds like empty political rhetoric to me. It's basically a good trick by the Clinton campaign to get people to look the other way. It's fundamentally a fallacy though, not a real argument. There is of course is no experience that would truly qualify you to be president besides being president. If we require that someone has already been in the White House in some other capacity (like being first lady or the son of a president) we risk becoming stuck in political dynasties forever. America is supposed to be a repudiation of the aristocratic model and creating a requirement of 'experience' in the way the Clinton campaign is implying flies in the face of that. We have already had nearly 20 years of the same two families in the White House and this is where it has gotten us.
In terms of foriegn policy, what I have seen is that Barack Obama has consistently shown good judgement in his decisions. In the biggest foriegn policy move of our time, he didn't buckle to popular sentiment but stuck to what he knew was right. That experience right there implies to me that he is more qualified to be president than Hillary Clinton. Where she shows the calculations of a politician, he has shown the judgement of leadership. He has also outlined his first days as president and how he would begin setting policy. All of what he says has been sound and yes, based on solid ethics, not political pandering to American xenophobic impulses.
I don't have to rely on TV to get to know these candidates. As an Iowan I have been around them personally. What I see with Senator Obama is a man who listens to questions and thinks about them before he answers. He isn't just fitting the proper sound bites onto various scenarios like most of the candidates do. He really listens, considers other positions and answers with intelligence and candor. The thought of him suspecting a voter to have been 'sent' to make him look bad for asking a difficult question as Clinton has done is unthinkable. She said, "Let's have a conversation" but he is the one doing it. That is someone I would be proud to send abroad to speak with foriegn leaders. I know he will do it with intelligence and respect. And they will respect him and listen to him as everyone who comes into contact with him does.
As for that debate with Hillary, I think you should go back and review the whole thing again. Senator Clinton was the one who betrayed her own past statemtents. She was the one who used the debate stage to essentially echo the Bush Doctrine that she herself has repudiated. That's cynical politics and it's somewhat unforgiveable. It has the effect of vindicating the Bush Doctrine over time which is costly to the world. All in the interest of scoring political points on an opponent.
That's why I made the comparison between percieved 'seasoning' and cynicism. She pulled a rhetorical trick worthy of Karl Rove. It was a classic straw man. Obama said he would be willing to meet with any foriegn leaders friend or foe. As they say, 'If you don't negotiate with your enemies, who are you going to negotiate with?' After the debate Senator Clinton intentionally misrepresented his words to imply that he would be somehow beholden to those foriegn leaders and not just willing to speak with them as he had said. He essentially took the same position on it that she has before and after the debate and then she called HIM naive for saying it.
For me, behind all of this political calculating there is always the desire for more ethical government. We have been on a back and forth cycle with the Bush Republicans and Clinton Democrats for 20 years. And we are doing things at this point that are absolutely shameful. I don't want to win one round of this political war between left and right. I want to dodge it altogether with a new leader not part of these dynasties and these old deals. Here we have a man who came out of Harvard Law and chose to become a community leader in the inner city. A man not beholden to a single PAC or any special interest for money. A man who inspires a grass-roots movement that raises as much money from individual voters as the big established inside candidate in the person of Hillary Clinton. She is tied to more old favors and deals than we could ever know. He has been running purely on the engine of citizens who have gotten to know him trying their best to get him there.
by
Iowafirst
Oct 26, 2007 11:10 AM
* Delete
* Report Abuse
Dear IowaFirst,
I have learned much from your comments. I really have. I want you to know that I have cut and pasted this conversation on ethical democracy onto my main blog. Hope that is OK. I'm really not interested in promoting so-called "traffic" to my blog or to any of these sites where I am listening to what others have to say and also posting my evolving analyses of the unfolding events of Election Year 2008.
I know for me democracy is a continual ethical process. I'm sure I stumble many times in my own political practices as a teacher, parent and public citizen, but I find it necessary to pick myself up again and try again (and yet again) to listen, agree, disagree and be fair in these conversations.
To me this is the practice of authentic civilizational discourse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BE the change you want to see in this world
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
My life is my message.
Mahatma Gandhi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would that there were more of our candidates who might at least attempt to live up to such (to my mind) highly practical and productive ideals.
Cheers,
Chithra Karunakaran
http://www.EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
Post a Comment