Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A
Letter from Michael Moore
January 2, 2008
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
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
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.
Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a
town named after a sofa)
"It's the War," Says Iowa to Hillary -- And a "Happy Blue Year" To All!
...from Michael Moore
January 3, 2007
There was no doubt about it. The message from Iowa tonight was simple, but
If you're a candidate for President, and you voted for the war, you lose.
And if you voted and voted and voted for the war -- and never once showed any
remorse -- you really lose.
In short, if you had something to do with keeping us in this war for
four-plus years, you are not allowed to be the next president of the United
Over 70% of Iowan Democrats voted for candidates who either never voted
for the invasion of Iraq (Obama, Richardson, Kucinich) or who have since
admitted their mistake (Edwards, Biden, Dodd). I can't tell you how bad I feel
for Senator Clinton tonight. I don't believe she was ever really for this war.
But she did -- and continued to do -- what she thought was the politically
expedient thing to eventually get elected. And she was wrong. And tonight she
must go to sleep wondering what would have happened if she had voted her
conscience instead of her calculator.
John Edwards was supposed to have come in third. He had been written off.
He was outspent by the other front-runners six to one. But somewhere along the
road he threw off the old politico hack jacket and turned into a real person, a
fighter for the poor, for the uninsured, for peace. And for that, he came in a
surprise second, ending up with just one less delegate than the man who was
against the war from the beginning. But, as Joshua Holland of AlterNet pointed
out earlier today, Edwards is still
the only front-runner who
will pull out all the troops and do it as quickly as possible.
tonight was brilliant and moving.
What an amazing night, not just for Barack Obama, but for America. I know
that Senator Obama is so much more than simply the color of his skin, but all of
us must acknowledge -- and celebrate -- the fact that one of the whitest states
in the U.S. just voted for a black man to be our next president. Thank you,
Iowa, for this historic moment. Thank you for at least letting us believe that
we are better than what we often seem to be. And to have so many young people
come out and vote -- and vote for Obama -- this is a proud moment. It all began
with the record youth turnout in 2004 -- the ONLY age group that Kerry won --
and they came back out tonight en force. Good on every single one of you!
As the only top candidate who was anti-war before the war began,
Barack Obama became the vessel through which the people of this Midwestern state
were able to say loud and clear: "Bring 'Em Home!" Most pundits won't read the
election this way because, well, most pundits merrily led us down the path to
war. For them to call this vote tonight a repudiation of the war -- and of
Senator Clinton's four years' worth of votes for it -- might require the pundit
class to remind their viewers and readers that they share some culpability in
starting this war. And, like Hillary, damn few of them have offered us an
With all due respect to Senator Obama's victory, the most important news
out of the caucus this evening was the whopping, room-busting turnout of
Democrats. 239,000 people showed up to vote Democratic tonight (93% more than in
'04, which was a record year), while only 115,000 showed up to vote Republican.
And this is a red state! The Republican caucuses looked anemic. The looks on
their faces were glum, tired. As the camera followed some of them into their
caucus sites, they held their heads down or turned away, sorta like criminals on
a perp walk. They know their days of power are over. They know their guy blew
it. Their only hope was to vote for a man who has a direct line to heaven.
Huckabee is their Hail Mary pass. But don't rule him out. He's got a sense of
humor, he's downhome, and he said that if elected, he'd put me on a boat to
Cuba. Hey, a free Caribbean vacation!
Bottom line: People have had it. Iowa will go blue (Happy Blue Year,
Hawkeyes!). Whomever your candidate is on the Dem side, this was a good night.
Get some sleep. The Republicans won't go down without a fight. Look what
happened when Kerry tried to play nice. So Barack, you can talk all you want
about "let's put the partisanship aside, let's all get along," but the other
side has no intention of being anything but the bullies they are. Get your game
face on now. And, if you can, tell me why you are now the second largest
recipient of health industry payola after Hillary. You now take more money from
the people committed to stopping universal health care than any of the
Despite what your answer may be, I was proud to sit in my living room
tonight and see you and your family up on that stage. We became a bit better
tonight, and on that I will close by saying, sweet dreams -- and on to that
other totally white state of New Hampshire!
Click on a flag
/ Klik på et flag /
Klik op een vlag