“I tend to think that liberals are comfortable with imperialism and genocide if it’s a Democrat doing it.”

I don’t feel that’s fair at least in regard to what I said. I’m not comfortable with the imperialism or genocide committed by Democrats. I believe that the imperialism and genocide committed by Democrats is of a lesser magnitude.

Earlier the site kept eating my comments and I gave up trying. One of the things I tried to say is that I would like to hear the case for alternative options. What should we do in regard to electoral politics? Vote Green party? Abstain? Violently rebel? I’d like to know how any of these is tactically more effective.

“Killing thousands of Iraqis indirectly through sanctions is better than killing them outright in an invasion. And nation building with benevolent or benign intent is superior to nation building with malevolent intent (and if you’re going to argue that Kosovo and Somalia were malevolent exercises, they certainly were not moreso than Iraq).”

I tend to think that liberals are comfortable with imperialism and genocide if it’s a Democrat doing it.

And when it comes to times like Somalia, there’s no one more red, white, and blue…so love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal.

And I do think Republicans

Clinton ’s support of welfare reform was an aberration from his party, and here again he was still better for poor people than the Republicans. The Republicans supported the reforms as much as he did, but they certainly didn’t support the healthcare plan and other proposals Clinton might have been able to get through if he had greater support in congress.

Clinton wanted to let gays serve openly, indeed he had campaigned on that… but military leaders put up a lot of resistance. But what he got done was still a very significant improvement, prior to his presidency gays were just banned period.

More often than not it seems to me that Democrats don’t go far enough to solve the problems, rather than being the ones that caused them. And to the extent that they do contribute to problems, I can’t see how you don’t think they are at least an incremental step in the right direction. We are faced with a choice between bad and worse.
And we certainly aren’t obliged to put “faith” in anybody. Just to push for the best we can get. And I do think Republicans

I share most of your grievances with Clinton. But while he was very pro-corporate (moreso, I’d note, than the majority of his party) he was not their best friend, only their second best. I submit to you that for every grievance on your list, a Bush or Reagan would have been worse.

First, Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, Bush later withdrew.

I don’t understand understand how Clinton’s participation in the Somalia conflict supported corporations. Kosovo, perhaps, because of its proximity to economic partners. But Somalia, if misconceived, does not strike me as malintentioned. And in Kosovo we were at least mostly successful in ending the genocide.

Killing thousands of Iraqis indirectly through sanctions is better than killing them outright in an invasion. And nation building with benevolent or benign intent is superior to nation building with malevolent intent (and if you’re going to argue that Kosovo and Somalia were malevolent exercises, they certainly were not moreso than Iraq).

Clinton may have pushed patent rights, but the Republicans support patent rights every bit as much, and did much less to fight AIDS. Reagan wouldn’t even talk about it. Bush pushes Abstinence only education. AIDS victims are better off with a Clinton presidency than a Republican presidency.

At best, Democrats are dedicated to preserving some semblance of a middle class in the United States, and possibly provide some support to the nation’s poorest. But they all still endorse the power of corporations, the right of Americans to have comfort at the expense of all peoples of the world, and the right to impose our will by force on any part of the globe.

Yes, we’ve got to start somewhere, but putting our faith in a millionaire endorsed by billionaires seems a foolish way to go.