By Nathaniel Gurien

From its kickoff TH meeting in Berlin, NH in February, 2007 to the present day, HRC's campaign has been, apparently by design, informed by its sizzle, not its steak, process over policy, script and pandering over leadership. I made this specific point to Gen. Wes Clark during a small gathering of local activists in North Conway, NH in December, 2007 in which he was pitching Senator Clinton's candidacy. He agreed with my observation but defended her "cautious" approach as necessary to avoid providing the "right-wing propaganda machine" with material.

This fundamental defect of her campaign struck me from Day One when during the aforementioned 02.07 TH meeting, she opened with remarks and then took questions. In front of a impressive contingient of regional, national and international media, she answered a few softball questions about health care and tuition assistance with numbing generalities. Disgusted, I raised my hand and asked her: "We all know that the Bush Administration are congenital liars. In the interest of demonstrating that your administration would be more honest and transparent than the Bush administration: What is the true reason(s) the US invaded Iraq? We know it wasn't because of WMD or Al Qaeda, so take this opportunity right now to set the tone of your campaign and future administration by telling us the truth." Her reply, as reported by Patrick Healy of the NYT was:

She responded by asserting that President Bush and his advisers came into power in 2001 with an "obsession" to oust Saddam Hussein and resolve the "unfinished business" of the first Gulf War of Mr. Bush’s father. "From almost the first day they got into office, they were trying to figure out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein," Mrs. Clinton said. "I’m not a psychiatrist – I don’t know all of the reasons behind their concern, some might say their obsession." "I guess they must have seen it as unfinished business, for want of a better term," she added. Mrs. Clinton then turned to criticizing the administration’s handling of the war, saying: "If you had been obsessed with doing this, as they apparently were, why were you so incompetent?"

Now, of course, with her security clearances, and those of her husband, she certainly knows at least as much of the truth as we moderately-informed little people. She chose instead an answer that translates as either: 1) No, my administration is not going to be any more transparent or honest than the Bush Administration, or 2) Condescending circuitous bullshit.

My question was followed by one from Roger Tilton, subsequently reported ubiquitously, who asked her if she was ready to apologize for her Iraq war vote. She answered no, based on a false claim of ignorance.

I and many other activists and citizens attended innumerable campaign events throughout the early months of the NH Primary, and one of the most common refrains was that most glaringly she, but also most of the other "top-tier" candidates WERE NOT ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS.

This ultimately led to my founding in October 2007 (along with Roger Tilton and other activists who felt that citizens deserved a responsive and substantive dialogue with candidates for public office) a non-profit, non-partisan organization called NH Asks to ask all the presidential candidates in NH provocative and tough questions in newspaper ads throughout the state. Their answers would then be rated for truthfulness, straightforwardness and responsiveness (STR) and published in subsequent newspapaper ads. As Executive Director of NH Asks, Inc., I can state with some authority that Senator Clinton rarely, if ever, supplied genuinely responsive answers to substantive questions, certainly at least when she campaigned in NH. Neither she nor her campaign ever answered NH Asks's questions.

The meeting with General Clark in North Conway, NH in December, 2007 was, for me, one of the most enjoyable and truly informative of the primary season. His candor and honesty was refreshing, and his respect for the intelligence of his audience was genuine. He stated that Hillary shared his progressive policy views, and that we could be confident of her similarly competent and progressive leadership.

I pointed out that whereas that might be true, she had given us no basis to know that. Her public interaction seemed all scripted and/or manipulative, as well as devoid of demonstrative leadership, citing examples including her support of the Kyle-Leiberman Amendment, and her failure to stand with Senator Dodd to defend the Constitution.

I suspect that the other side of the same coin that also doomed her candidacy was an excessive reliance on professional political advisors, rather than trusting her own instincts. However, my suspicion in this regard is largely circumstantial.

Notwithstanding, her campaign's most monumental blunder was a failure to demonstrate her ability to lead the nation with both her words and deeds. And she squandered numerous golden opportunities to do so.

The real shame is that she could have run an inspiring and historic campaign, and if she had shed all this baggage, she might have been a great president.

by Dave Jarvis

Well, it has happened. Warnings that I placed in my blog regarding some future documentary that will explode onto the political world like a chemical weapons attack is now in the works. Michael Moore will be releasing a documentary next year and every Republican should prepare for it by agreeing with its assumptions before it is even released. Get your vote for impeachment on record because after next year there will be no more credible chance to let the world know how much you dislike the Bush family.

The substance of the documentary is yet unknown but Moore is calling it toxic, dangerous, says it is both about Bush family politics and how our nation became an empire. The list of verifiable landmines in the Bush family history should make any conservative nervous. As has been proven often in history in difficult national moments the stupidity of one person or a small group of people can ruin a particular ideology forever. The Spanish now have a fear of religion because of Franco. The French and Russians have a fear of the Right because of idiotic authoritarians. The Germans fear a standing military because of Hitler. And now Americans will begin a long-standing fear of religious conservatives because of George Bush, that is unless religious conservatives wisely throw him under the bus while they have the chance.

What does Michael Moore have in his arsenal? Let’s take a look at the well documented facts:

Prescott Bush, Bush’s grandfather was basically Hitler’s financier in the United States.

Prescott Bush was part of a failed right wing coup back in the thirties.

George Bush Senior was one of the planners of the Bay of Pigs and even named the CIA operation after his oil company that had wells off the coast of the Bay of Pigs, Zapata.

George Bush Senior had a close friend, George de Mohrenschildt, who was Lee Harvey Oswald’s only friend in Dallas.

George Bush Senior had a close friend, E. Howard Hunt who admitted to being part of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

Richard Nixon had employed Jack Ruby while he was a Rep. in Congress.

George Bush Senior was debriefed by J. Edgar Hoover regarding the Kennedy assassination a week after it took place.

George Bush Senior’s friend, George de Mohrenschildt, wrote a letter to Bush while Bush was CIA Director apologizing for publicly claiming that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy, and asked Bush to call off agents who he claimed had been following him around. A couple months later, before being called to testify to the House Subcommittee on Assassinations, he died of a shotgun wound to the head.

George Bush Senior’s good friend and business associate had a son who almost made then Vice-President Bush the President of the United States by shooting and almost killing President Ronald Reagan.

George Bush Senior owned United Fruit, a sometimes brutal cover for CIA covert wars in Central America.

Iran Contra

Savings and Loan scandal

George Bush Senior’s role in brokering large scale arms deals.

George Bush Senior’s close relationship with the Saudi ruling elite

George Bush Senior’s close relationship with the father and brother of the planner of the worst terror attack on US soil.

First Iraq war, caused by a diplomatic mistake (Saddam asked permission to invade and Bush senior granted it)

Second Iraq war, caused by an intelligence mistake (we all know that story)

Bush family connections to Enron.

etc., etc, etc….

There is no way that even a fraction of these dangerous facts about the Bush family will not change peoples’ minds about our history, American politics, and the Republican Party specifically. I have not met a person who has heard them all, looked at the documentation, and not believed that we have an extremely dangerous lunatic fringe roosting at the uppermost limits of Republican policy.

At this point, there is only one way of saving conservatism in the United States…bend. In history, where other ideologies failed to bend they ended up breaking permanently, it is time for Republicans to bend and bend deep. Healthcare reform is our best place to bend because reform will happen anyway. If we get in and drive we will look better to the American people and we can claim to be a very different Republican Party. And if we don’t get in and drive a wave of anti-Republican sentiment will roll over us like a steam roller.

It’s a new world for Republicans beginning next year. Be smart and change now, while it still looks honest.

by John Clark

Last Sunday evening we were treated to a rare delight, the 'Keynote Speaker' at the Detroit NAACP Dinner.

Carried 'live' by two national TV networks, regular white folk were afforded the opportunity to be addressed by a leading Black Liberation Theologian who was speaking to 'us' rather than to his 'normal' congregation. Jeremiah Wright explained in a very lucid manner why he felt that color did indeed make people different, he went to considerable length to differentiate the cognitive reality perceived by black and white.

A speech with sufficient examples of both African and European origin thought processes to assure 'us' many times over that "Indeed Change is Coming".

In quite a different manner of Speech than those given within his Home Church, Wright left no doubt of the differences between the way he and his followers, including as stated last evening, the Nation of Islam, see what they wish our Country should be from the Country which predominantly white Europeans have built.

No recognition was given for the evolution and emancipation of the last two centuries, only "That Change is Coming" 

No inkling of fault being with anyone except the white majority who must accept "The Change which is Coming"

Given such a Speech, by Barack Obama's current Pastor ( until the end of May, according to his introducer that evening ) it is totally beyond my comprehension just how a President with the thought processes described in such detail by Jeremiah Wright could possibly represent ALL of the people, including those who 'think so differently'.

Especially a prospective President (and spouse ) who have been Wright's congregants and friends for twenty years.

Wright made no attempt to offer any exceptions to his 'Thought Process' paradigm, thus including ALL black people in his characterization.

Until this Speech a lot of white folk had no idea that the difference was so profound. Probably  a large number of both black and white folk, could and should, disagree with Wright's Speech and his reasoning, but now it is out there for Obama to suffer the consequence.

Liberation Theology has changed the political face of Latin America in the last four decades into a communist dominated society. "Change has Indeed Arrived in those Countries".

This Speech, without being specific, left little doubt as to the implied "Change" facing the United States of America. 

Thank You, Jeremiah Wright, for explaining so clearly !!

note: Please go to   www.socinian.org/liberty.html   for a basic definitive Paper on Liberation Theology

By Nathaniel Gurien

Bless her heart, which is certainly in the right place, but strategy and tactics matter. The effort she spearheaded to deliver an impeachment resolution from the NH House to the US Congress was doomed from the start. Not to mention the damage done not only to the impeachment movement, but to Democrats’ electoral chances in November, in both NH and beyond.

Let’s go back to July, 2007, when 50+ “fired-up and ready-to-go” activists, including this writer, met in Worcester, Massachusetts to launch what would come to be known as the NorthEast Impeachment Coalition (NEIC). Speaking for myself, it was a heady, exhilarating, and well-run several hours, where we broke into working groups, both by state (NH, VT, MA, NY, CT, RI, ME) and to discuss campaign tactics and opportunities. Much was accomplished and tentatively decided upon. Each state chose a spokesperson for the event to brief the assembled on what they hoped to individually achieve.

We discussed organizing a proper political issue campaign with fundraising, events, advertising, phone banking, building NH public pressure on our US House Representatives, et.al. We together conceived of a major culminating rally/teach-in at Dartmouth College on September 26, 2007 to capitalize on the Democratic Presidential Debate venue, and the intense international media that would already be on-site. Adding a roster of headline speakers and panelists to draw crowds and attention was also suggested.

We chose Betty Hall to report on our proposals for NH. Much was made of the opportunity of the NH Primary and its accompanying media attention to jumpstart our campaign.

I left the summit meeting energized and ready for the next step of a core meeting of NH activists to plan and implement our campaign.

It never happened.

Despite numerous requests to convene a meeting time and place, Betty put it off and unilaterally chose to focus only on the proposed Dartmouth event. We all exchanged operational suggestions in anticipation of holding our organizational meeting, but Betty ultimately refused to set a time or venue for it, stating flatly, “I understood at the Summit that I was the leader and coordinator by designation not election. If the pilot (me) doesn’t fly low and slow enough you can grab your parachute and jump if you wish.” “ If you can't work this way, please feel free to withdraw from the process.”

I decided to pick up my blocks and play in another sandbox. I’d seen this type of petty ego politics in other progressive activist quixotic campaigns, and understood that any energy invested would be ultimately squandered and ineffective.

No long-term strategic goals were ever set, and tactics were, as Betty wrote, “…flying by the seat our pants.” Building a substantial foundation of public support is a prerequisite for success in issue campaigns but this advice and requirement was inexplicably ignored.

So, they went on to produce a nearly invisible and poorly-attended teach-in at Dartmouth College two months AFTER the Democratic Presidential Debate had come and gone. Still without a proper campaign and the required grassroots advance work of building adequate support, Betty went ahead with re-introducing her NH House impeachment resolution (HR24). As a result , it had little chance of success by itself, and even less as a tactic to force the opening of impeachment hearings in the US House of Representatives.

The rally in Concord last week (April 14^th) was moving and inspirational – Dan Ellsberg, Jon Nichols, Granny D, Betty herself and everyone else were wonderful, but at that point a successful campaign would have turned out thousands not hundreds of attendees, not to mention high-profile national and regional media attention.

The effort attracted few new converts and failed to connect with and energize tens (and possibly hundreds) of thousands of potential sympathizers in New Hampshire.

A key observation of many NH State Reps was that most of the emails they received in support of the resolution were from out-of-state. Who can blame them for being unwilling to take a political stand with such thin constituency support? Properly implemented, this campaign could have built a robust movement in NH, and approval of HR24 would have blown through the NH House by a two-to-one margin.

But such does not happen in a vacuum, plus this specific initiative should have been part of an overall strategy, not a “seat of our pants” crapshoot. Just because an issue is true, important and right does not bring success. God helps those who help themselves. We have to do the footwork.

Political activists take note: If we want to win, whether elective office or issues, it requires strategic goals and a well-organized, well-planned, goal-oriented campaign.

The tragedy is that for freedom-loving patriots, across the American political spectrum, this was not just another issue, it is THE ISSUE. Unlike e.g., “flag-pins” and “flip-flops”, it is about preserving the foundation of our liberty - our sacred US Constitution and the rule of law.

The failure of this specific effort and of the impeachment movement in general may have historic consequences that we’ll all have to live with, perhaps for generations. Our American Republic is under assault and its defenders are inadequately organized.

And yes – I am also personally responsible and apologize for my own failure of resolve. Perhaps more could have be accomplished if I hadn’t taken no for an answer.

The fat lady has not yet sung, but she's clearing her throat.