Michael Moore trashes Hillary... and Obama... and Gore! But he loves him some John Edwards

[wyldwolf]

C'mon, Mike! I enjoy your movies and I respect your decision not to endorse anyone...but you have to be kidding when you say "Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man (Bush.)" Your decision to endorse someone in 2000 contributed to this mess.

After reading your letter to Democrats (Iowa voters?) I wonder if anyone would be perfect enough for you? If Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, and Paul Wellstone (RIP) were the top three contenders in the race for the Democratic nomination, would you trash them with equal vigor? It seems to me you believe the mark of "true" progressive is to trash anyone not as pure as you.

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 have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate...

Barack Obama... 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'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.

For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long... 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?"

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=220

[SaveElmer]

1. Nader and Moore....

Well this ought to help Edwards....

:sarcasm:

[chimpymustgo]

37. Great endorsements. They fight for the people, too. And I'd rather have them ON the team,

than not.

They've chosen wisely.

[Clark2008]

2. What bothers me is that he obviously hasn't read Edwards'

health care plan (he's only listened to the rhetoric, apparently). It's not any different than HRC's and only slightly different than Obama's.

[frazzled]

3. Moore's endorsement was the kiss of death for Wes Clark

An endorsement from both MM (whom I like, by the way, but won't listen to his endorsement, of anyone) and Ralph Nader spells disaster. Just saying.

I thought Moore was smart enough to stay out of it this time. Not that anyone is listening. And not that he's showing up at a rally that the media can spin into a negative story. But still.

[Horse with no Name]

4. Do you really believe that?

Because if you believe that he has THAT much power in the political process...then I have some swamp land in Arizona to sell you.
It sounds to me like you (as well as others that might take this opportunity to bash Edwards OR Moore) already had some pre-existing issues with either one of them.
For Chrissakes, look at some of Obama's or Hillary's "fringe" supporters.

[frazzled]

19. It was a big story (and I was there)

I worked on Wes Clark's campaign in New Hampshire. The rally was a big deal and attracted 3,000 people. And then Michael Moore made some statement about Bush being a "deserter"--and the press went batshit crazy about it, and held Clark accountable for it, and Clark had to go on all the news shows to hem and haw about the details of that statement (an unpretty position for any candidate).

So yes--it had a very serious impact, at the last minute, on Clark's candidacy in NH (remember, he didn't do Iowa). It wasn't the only thing that dropped him to third there ... but it allowed the Kerry momentum to take over in NH (after all, Kerry was originally the "favorite son" there, as well as Dean ... their both being from neighboring states), but his low poll numbers everywhere until Iowa were also low in NH).

[comradebillyboy]

23. M. Moore is a loose cannon

and is a dangerous friend to have, as is Ralph Nader.

[Tesha]

28. Truth tellers always are. People who stick to the programmed lies are more predictable. (NT)

[mtnsnake]

9. Yup, I've said the same thing many times. nt

[Colobo]

5. Obama > Moore. Hillary > Moore.

[mod mom]

6. He DIDN'T trash Gore but asked "where are you?" and whether he'd make a

statement as strong as Edwards: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?"

[Cha]

30. Michael Moore didn't trash

anyone except bring out the truth and ww can't stand the truth about hillary's being led around by the nose with the bushits holding the leash.

[truebrit71]

7. Are you going to be around tomorrow? I hope so. I will have some crow for you to eat...

...

[wyldwolf]

13. yes, I believe your statement was "Hillary will have her ass handed to her in Iowa."

Barring any goalpost moving or redefining what that term means, I'm assuming you think she finishes third or worse and you want me here so you can gloat.

Correct?

Or will second place qualify to you as having her "ass handed to her?"

Or will you try to twist a first place finish into having her "ass handed to her" if it's close?

Never can tell with you.

[truebrit71]

22. That is correct. Third or worse = "having her ass handed to her"

...Second = "getting her ass kicked"

...First = "stupid goddamned Iowans" ( :-))

[wyldwolf]

24. ok, then, we've agreed on your statement and how it is defined.

Now, what crow do you think I should eat, and why, if Hillary's performance sinks to the level of "having her ass handed to her?"

[harun]

8. As usual, Moore is right ! (n/t)

[gene430]

10. Why do we listen?

Why do we listen to this man? Who is Paris supporting?

[lisainmilo]

12. :)

kudos'!
:patriot:

[ronnykmarshall]

31. Kerry

she voted for him in 2006.

[mtnsnake]

11. The last thing we want is Micheal Moore stumping for Hillary or Obama if one of them gets the nod

If MM wants to TRULY help fix our country, he'll stump for the Repuke candidate.

[NoPasaran]

14. Interesting that Hillary's vote for the IWR was "disasterous"

But apparently Edwards' identical vote is not so troubling. What---ever.

[SaveElmer]

17. But he said sorry...

Well not really...but he says he did.....

[NoPasaran]

33. Love means never having to say you're sorry..

[cascadiance]

15. Why would we trash Bernie Sanders, DK, or Paul Wellstone?...

That's not really an equivalent question.

What he's doing is stating who he feels best represents his values and what he feels Democratic core base values are. And I think he's right too. We can do better than Clinton and Obama to do some REAL needed change! They are more of the corporatist status quo.

[wyldwolf]

16. did anyone say "we" would?

[cascadiance]

18. So who is the "you" you are referring to then?...

Perhaps you are taking care not to identify with the core Democratic base, which I'm including myself in when saying "we".

[wyldwolf]

25. I believe your answer is the second word of my OP

Democratic base? What's that?

[phillyliberal]

20. hes right on

everything he said was correct. hes right.

[Lerkfish]

21. dumping on Michael Moore does not win over progressives

so I'm not sure where you want to go with this.

A great many celebrities have endorsed various candidates.

:shrug:

[comradebillyboy]

26. That may be true but Michale Moore alienates

a lot more people than he attracts and his support is more of a liability than an asset. he is way too prone to embarrass the candidate he supports by his careless and inflammatory rhetoric. Besides his (or Nader's) self-righteousness gets old pretty fast. No one is pure enough for him. Well saints don't normally seek political power.

[Lerkfish]

34. he alienates republicans

not sure why that's a problem with progressives

:shrug:

[BenDavid]

27. wyldwolf, I agree that moore contributed to this mess by

backing nadar in 2000. Now all of a sudden we are to believe he knows who is the better candidate? How is it that if edwards was damn attractive (politically) why did he not become the nominee in 04?

For the last couple of months, Senator's Obama and Edwards has suggested that being president of this country was, to a certain extent, about character, America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free". I've known Obama and Edwards for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason obama and edwards devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that they simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Obama and Edwaeds problem isn't that both doesn't get it. obama and edwards problem is that they can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, obama and edwards are not the least bit interested in solving it. They are interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character. And you scream about patriotism and you tell them, Hillary and Bill are to blame for their lot in life, and you go on television and you call her bush lite. Hillary Rodham Clinton has done nothing to you, Barack and John. She has done nothing but put herself through school, represent the interests of public school teachers, and ;ow income childrens health and for the safety of our natural resources. You want a character debate,John, Obama?

We've got serious problems, and we need serious people, and if you want to talk about character, barack, john, you'd better come at me with more than I tend to galvanise the other side,or john, question me about iraq. If you want to talk about character and American values, fine. Just tell me where and when, and I'll show up. This is a time for serious people, johm and barack, and your fifteen minutes are up. My name Hillary Rodham Clinton, and I will be President.

Thanks to the movie The American President that I have taken and used words somewhat different.

Ben David

[PurityOfEssence]

29. Real progressives like Edwards

Perfectionists have problems with him. People with allegiance to other candidates have problems with him. Many of his supporters have problems with him, but still see the basic through-line of the man and trust him.

Those who don't believe what he says have problems with him, and that's understandable; the many factors that go into believing a person or not are quite complex and often not understood by the person him/herself. That doesn't make those who believe that he's sincere suckers or those who don't creepy.

I will say this, though: if his platform and proposals are believed, it would be very hard for anyone who's truly a liberal/progressive/populist to not support or at least respect the man. The only real argument would be that he doesn't go far enough, and this is largely a question of how drastic changes can be to be allowed and effective. For many of us, Kucinich proposes things that simply can't be brought into being so abruptly, and for some of us, some of his policies (like immigration) are simply too far to the left.

Anybody knotted up with ire at Edwards is really missing the point: he would move boldly on many truly populist issues; he's literally spelled them out in great detail. They should also thank him for taking the lead with specific proposals on things like health care to force the other top contenders to commit to something when they were seemingly hoping to skate with vagueries.

A simple look at his Senate record shows that he really stuck out his neck for the little guy/gal, and doing so from a red state like NC was done at considerable political peril. From then, he's only gotten more vigorous in advancing their agenda.

[paulk]

32. Moore needs to trash Dems,

it's how he makes his money.

And I seriously doubt if having Moore dis you is gonna hurt Hillary or Obama. What Moore's acolytes don't realize is that most of America despises the guy.

[laureloak]

35. Excellent. Now there are 3 that "get it" and have the courage

to say so.

[GreenTea]

36. Right Hillary won't answer questions now & killed Moore's story. Hillary's a moderate

Edwards is a progressive....Moore is a progressive so who should he or any liberal support some fucking moderate?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/02/michael-moore-weighs-in-o_n_79208.html