Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore

[il_lilac]

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)
[e-mail]
MichaelMoore.com

[Donnachaidh]

1. K&R! n/t

[Justyce]

2. Wow -- sure sounds like he's going to endorse Edwards! nt

[eridani]

5. I think he learned something from endorsing Clark last time n/t

[Ninga]

3. It certainly can not hurt to K & R this OP. Anything that will make good thinking people think

is a good thing.

But what else would you expect from me????

[il_lilac]

4. I thought it was a great letter

He echoed my progression right up to "Where are you Al?"

[desi]

10. "Where are you, Al Gore?"

Ironic that he should ask that question in 2008. Al might return the favor and ask Michael "Where were you in 2000 Michael Moore?"

[TexasBushwhacker]

13. Where should Michael have been?

Gore won. The GOP stole the election (with assistant from the Supremes). THEN 9/11 happened and Michael made a movie about it.

[desi]

14. That's a question...

for Michael....to answer.

[Highway61]

6. K & R

[pnorman]

7. Thanks for reposting that! Here's my take on another candidate.

I first encounter Dennis at an anti-war rally in Seattle, several days before the Iraq Invasion. He was on foot and "working" the crowd before the speeches. Later, he appeared on the speakers stand, along with several others, including (my) Congressman Jim McDermott. Cut whatever slack you will, for all those other candidates who voted FOR that Resolution. They were LIED to, and by those they were conditioned to trust. But Dennis (and Jim) were told the same LIES, and made the CORRECT (but "politically unsafe") decision.

pnorman

[bunkerbuster1]

8. Pretty much my take on things these days, too.

MM the actual guy vs. MM the Scary Shrill Leftist of MSM lore sure are two different folks, aren't they?

I haven't really decided yet who'd be the best choice and I may not decide until my state's primary (Feb. 5), but like MM, Edwards seems to hold the edge, these days.

[OneBlueSky]

9. "I am not endorsing anyone at this point" . . .

good . . . what with RFK Jr. and my Congressman (John Hall) endorsing Hillary, and Kucinich effectively endorsing Obama, I'm really doubting the value of celebrity endorsement anyhow . . .

[Daveparts]

11. Give me more of the same or give me moderation!

Gee, why wouldn’t Hillary sit down and talk with Michael Moore? I don’t know? Maybe its because all her positions are just a shade away from George W’s and she knows Mike doesn’t like W. Mike says some nice things about Hillary, of course in politics you have to say nice things even if you hate their guts. Here in the South you can say anything you want about someone as long as you end it with, “bless their heart.”

Hillary isn’t a bad person, there are nice things to say about her, bless her heart. She has the proverbial fire in her belly; she wants the job and knows how to play the game to go about getting it. To me that is her damnation, she’s playing the game and after eight years of George W. it has all the earmarks of Lucy holding the football telling us the electorate collectively, “Come on! You can trust me!”

But we can’t, we can’t play the game again. Our trust is battered our finances are shattered. It’s change that matters!

I think Mr. Obama is a fine fella, an attorney, a Harvard graduate, President of the Harvard law review, does that sound like the vehicle for change to you? A man that’s played inside the system his entire life? Another Ivy league lawyer to change our direction, so smart as to apologize for voting for the war but not smart enough to vote against it in the first place? As Mr. Moore so aptly points out there were millions of us who saw through the President’s smoke without a Harvard education.

I couldn’t care less about Mr. Edward’s hair, it’s not what’s on his head it’s what’s in his head. I think Mr. Edwards is a fine candidate and a fine man, bless his heart. But his spring tour of American poverty came across as contrived, a populist message to separate him from the herd. A populist message designed to benefit his campaign instead of the populace.

When Harry Truman ran as a populist in 1948 he amazed farmers at state fairs by being able to determine a horses age by looking in it’s mouth. He had been a farmer; he knew the questions to ask because he was of the people not pretending to be of the people. Franklin Roosevelt’s polio stripped him of his upper class shield, it forced him down into the dirt with the poor and working class and minorities. He realized on an emotional level that there was a tragic flaw in America and on a pragmatic level that if it wasn’t fixed Capitalism was doomed in America.

I see the coming election as 1932 redux, we cannot continue down this path it is not an adjustment that we need but a change in direction. 2 Million homes in foreclosure in 2007, 165 billion dollars of investment capital that fled the country last year, 7 trillion dollars in national debt. A currency that has lost 40% of its purchasing power with stagnant wages to boot.

Here is a little tidbit omitted by the MSM the tragic murder of Mrs. Bhutto in Pakistan drove the price of oil up, of gold up, the Euro up, the Yen up and the dollar down. For the first time since the rise of the dollar as the worlds reserve currency a world crises drove it’s value down, the world no longer sees the dollar as a safe harbor or even as a safe investment.

We have ensconced those who benefit most from the system in power and we are told by them and the media that we should do is to conciliate and moderate to the most mainstream candidate. That it is no longer about fighting for what’s right but instead to negotiate for what’s least wrong? Give me liberty or give me prolonged negotiations? The only thing we have to fear is stepping outside the mainstream?

A candidate with Kucinich policies and Truman’s fire,

“I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who’s hitting you? These Republican gluttons of privilege are cold men. They are cunning men… They want the return of the Wall Street economic dictatorship.”

“ I’m not asking you to vote for me, Vote for yourself,”

“Something happens to Republicans when they get control of the government… Republicans in Washington have a habit of becoming curiously deaf to the voice of the people. They have a hard time hearing what the ordinary people of the country are saying. But they have no trouble at all hearing what Wall Street is saying. They are able to catch the slightest whisper from big business and special interest.”

“You don’t get any double talk from me, I’m either for something or against it, and you know it.

Give ‘em Hell, Harry! “I just tell the truth and they think its hell!”

[paulk]

21. maybe she wouldn't sit down with him because he endorsed

Nader in 2000?

[jberryhill]

12. "For Whom" not "Who .... For" /nt

[Pachamama]

15. Great letter....MM summarized exactly how I feel and why I as a Feminist & anti-Iraq War person can

not support Hillary (I don't think we can handle a Maggie Thatcher and her refusal to admit her mistake on the Iraq War Resolution etc.), why I then went from an "Obama Mama" who was mesmerized by his speeches I saw and thinking how great he was to also wondering "Who is Barrack Obama really and yes, that the Republicans will eat him for lunch" to finally realizing that when I too could get past the great hair and really white-bread male WASP look of John Edwards, that this man and what he stands for is truly going to be what this country needs if we are going to recover from the disaster Bush and the Neo-cons have put us in.

And, like Moore, I love Dennis, but there is no chance and Dennis knows it too. And my first choice all along has been Al Gore. I had a "Gore '08 - Save the Planet" bumper sticker on my bike trailer and my car long before any candidates had even announced - back in early '06.

Moore hasn't endorsed anyone, because he also knows it might be a kiss of death for the candidate (Mike has been known to be a bit polarizing). But if you read his letter and you don't even know its from him, you realize its a very fair description of all three leading contenders and that the choice should be very obvious. John Edwards.

:kick:

[TexasBushwhacker]

17. You're right about his non-endorsement

"because he also knows it might be a kiss of death for the candidate (Mike has been known to be a bit polarizing)"

Indeed, he's either preaching to the choir or pissing people off. I don't think he's really one to woo voters.

[mzmolly]

23. I'm an Edwards supporter but I believe that feminists and those who are anti-war

can support Hillary. If she wins the nomination, I certainly intend to. ;)

[Pachamama]

30. Then we agree...I'm an Edwards supporter who will support HRC if she gets the nom...

:hi:

[mzmolly]

32. Good to know!

:hi:

[johan helge]

16. "Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man"

Incorrect - "we" does not include MM, who supported Nader in 2000. If not for Nader, Bush would never have happened.

[pberq]

18. Thanks for postin - Mike has some good points as always

How sad is this?

"Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues . . . But let's not waste time talking about Dennis."

[Pachamama]

19. Sad but true...

I love Dennis...I have been donating to his campaign, knowing full well he has no chance, but to show him my support and for him to keep on talking and putting the pressure on the others...

But, when the CA primary is here, as much as my heart is with Dennis, I'm voting for Edwards, because if I vote for Dennis, its one less vote for Edwards and one step closer for Hillary or Obama to win California.

I ofcourse will support whoever is our nominee, but I'll say it now - I believe with all my heart, that if either Obama or Hillary win the nomination, then they will not win the general election. All it will take is another neo-con war (Iran, Pakistan escalation etc.) or a terrorist attack and the Republicons will have so much fear going that the GOP will come out in fearful droves and say if the Republican nominee is McCain, then even fearful moderates would vote for McCain, not Hillary or Obama. And don't forget the GOP will be using sexism, misogyny and racism to their advantage to beat Hillary or Obama. Make no mistake and it will work because like it or not, this country is still seaping in racism and sexism. I seriously believe the only one who can win at this point is Edwards. Biden probably could too, but he wont'/can't get the votes for a nomination. Hmmm....What about an Edwards/Biden ticket? :eyes:

[MissDeeds]

20. K & R

Great letter! :kick:

[mzmolly]

22. I admit to reading with trepidation at first. But as an Edwards supporter

I likes! :P

[rjones2818]

24. Barcolounger Iowa???

Too much corn, stretching for too many miles!!!

:evilgrin:

:hide:

[Catchawave]

25. Yay Mikey !

The best NON-endorsement I've ever read :loveya:

[Kolesar]

26. "She(Clinton) knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher"

That is an interesting political theory, Michael :rofl:

[cosmicdot]

27. a year, ago Rupert Murdoch's London Times ran this piece

The Sunday Times January 21, 2007

Hillary runs for the White House as ‘new Thatcher’

Sarah Baxter, Washington

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.

~snip~

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2558085,00.html
"This website is published by a member of the News International Group"

[Kolesar]

28. Michael Moore probably read it then and now recalls it subliminally

"This next song is dedicated to the Tory administration and all the shit they're getting us into" --from a concert by the Specials.

[onehandle]

29. Edwards! nt

[Kablooie]

31. I'm in California and have a month yet to decide.

I haven't been paying a lot of attention so far.
After the New Hampshire primary I'll start listening for real.

I figure that the pressures created by Iowa and New Hampshire votes could cause the messages to be more focussed.
I'm curious if any of the candidates will change their angles based on this.

And if they do, they won't get my vote.