Reply #44: Neither one. Please stop pushing false choices.

[radio4progressives]

Boxer has finally grown a spine and she's been a great and fierce fighter. But her communication abilities are not quite as erudite as i want in a president.

Hillary is very erudite. And there are times even as recently as last week when i watched a very terrific talk she gave i think it was in Minnesota, (it was broadcast on C-Span) when I'll almost forget that she is a Neo Liberal to the core, instead of an honest to goddess progressive or at the minimum a traditional Liberal.

Last weekend, I was almost spellbound with her incredibly articulate, and passionate speech against this administration and for the all issues she's been fighting for, which she's dedicated her life for the past thirty years - issues that I care about deeply. In fact, i choked up at a certain point and I know she did to, but she recovered with extraordinary skill.

The problem is that her support for the Iraq war, scares me. If she thinks, (like the DLC does) that the Dems must demonstrate and PROVE that we are just as concerned about "Security" as the fascists Repugs are - what we'll have is more endless wars, because the Dems will think they will have to "outdo" the Reeps on this ground.

I hate that. That's what Kerry thought he had to do and it did NOT help his campaign. Apart from massive election fraud, one could argue correctly in my view, that Kerry's position(s) on the war is what lost him the election.