Nader 2008!

Instant Runoff Voting -

Here is website with info about Instant Runoff Voting and campaigns around the country.

http://www.instantrunoff.com/legislation.php

John Edwards is not a populist. He has in the past sponsored policies like H-1b expansion that were highly unpopular-and never retracted them.

I honestly think that Edwards is concerned about poor people. I just don't think he understands the situation of folks really struggling to stay middle class.

Democrats may be given a real chance the next election to control both houses and the presidency. The question is long will they keep it? The GOP can run on pure image-because of their money advantage. Now, if the Democrats could just put serious campaign finance reform into effect the next time they are in power-that would contain things just a bit. However, the US two-party system tends inherently to leave a lot of folks out politically.

If the present GOP implodes, there are a lot of folks around that might pick up the pieces. As bad as Nixon was, Bush has made Nixon look good. So, either the democrats get it right the next time around-or expect something even worse in a few years.

If Lani Guinier's campaign reform propositions were seriously considered, the GOP would be split into at least 3 different parties. When you combine that with campaign finance reform, the power behind the GOP would be seriously contained. I doubt very much the Democratic leadership has the courage to make a move like that.

iwarrior writes:
"My problem with [John Edwards] is that he just seems too much like a "nice guy". He doesn't seem strong enough in his stances, like Obama and the Clintons. The things Edwards does propose, to me, don't go far enough.

Edwards just screams "Mainstream Democrat" imo. And I think we need more than that."
-----
Today is John Edwards' birthday -- as good a reason as any to go to johnedwards.com and read around. (Meanwhile, after reading your comment above, and having gone to YOUR site, it occurred to me that you might have been busy being young the first time John Edwards was a Democratic candidate for president -- and I urge you to look up material from that time.)
It COULD be that Edwards is holding back some this time during the early candidate-calls on teevee -- possibly pacing, possibly to make it difficult for the "media", who are running what passes for debate, to pounce on him as they did on Dr. Dean. Had he not been bushwhacked by the media, Howard Dean would have been elected president: the DEMOCRATIC nominee is more important to the right than the Republican nominee. If they can do it, the right (and the "liberal" media) will conspire to set up another contest in which the WORST Democratic candidate -- Obama or Clinton, neither of them likely to prevail over whomEVER the Pentagon Party puts up.
Among other things, Edwards has proposed cancelling subsidies to the oil companies, and restoring taxes on the mega-rich -- ideas no OTHER "Democratic" candidate will even touch -- to help pay for health care for everybody.
Meanwhile, the media concerns itself with the size of his house, the price of his haircuts -- out of all proportion to any such stories about OTHER candidates. And get a load of THIS:
More Signs Edwards Is Doing Something Right (David Sirota)
http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/06/more_signs_edwards_is_doing_so.html

Don't worry about image and bluster of the right-wing Democrats, who will say anything, and do nothing: Edwards is a populist, and he's the only one of them who IS. That he's also the smartest of them, and a lawyer, doesn't hurt. (One of the reasons the corporados were so determined to knock off Dr. Dean is that he wouldn't have taken any "socialized medicine" guff about draining the swamp of the so-called American "health" system. Edwards is similarly well-armed with professional expertise.)

Navarro, I apologize if it seems like I was badmouthing John Edwards. I actually like the guy and admire him partly because he was able to come out of poverty and become so successful. That's what I meant by "meager". I'm a poor kid too. He's inspiring to me. I would think that his poor upbringing would make him empathize with poor people and that he would want to do what he can to pull them up. My problem with him is that he just seems too much like a "nice guy". He doesn't seem strong enough in his stances, like Obama and the Clintons. The things Edwards does propose, to me, don't go far enough.

Edwards just screams "Mainstream Democrat" imo. And I think we need more than that. I feel the same way about Al Gore.

Navarro, Mr. Kucinich didn't spend his entire adult life in political office. For sticking to his principles, he got thrown out and ignored for 15 years until a Cleveland city auditor discovered his integrity had saved the city of Cleveland $100 million. So he was called back and from then on, he has been in political office, and media-wise, a pariah.

I do agree Edwards is the only decent option of the "major" contenders, although he's no Dennis Kucinich. But an Edwards/Kucinich ticket would be acceptable to me.

Bush senior and Barbara's marriage has also survived the death of a child, so I guess the less time you spend together the easier it is for a marriage to survive such a tragedy. But that brings my mind to how many parents Bush junior has rendered childless (and not just Americans - he's setting a record in Iraq) and my outrage kicks in.

We do need to change what's happening, but Irenaeus Gandhi's daydream, pleasant as it is, runs into the stone wall of the media, which is more effective than the USSR's Iron Curtain in controlling the flow of information. So go to www.nationalinitiative.us to make that change happen. And tell everyone you know to do the same and tell everyone they know.

iwarrior writes:
"The only reason I'm registered Dem is so that I can vote in the primaries, and my vote will go to Kuchinich. If he doesn't get the duke, I may vote Green ...
Navarro, you would think that John Edwards would be a good bet considering his meager upbringing. But I get the feeling that he'd just end up being wishy-washy in the debates and get beat. Although he is a good-looking chap. Women might vote for him."
-----
Well, THAT's nasty. Being born un-rich (which also applies, I believe, to Mr. Kucinich, who's spent his entire adult life in political office) doesn't indicate a "meager upbringing" -- or at least it didn't for the WarBaby and baby boomer generations growing up in the 50s and 60s. (Not being rich DOES usually indicate not having been raised in same-sex prep schools, which is certainly a plus.)

(Besides, if bluster in "debate" -- those teevee things are not debates -- were the deciding factor in elections, jive Joe Biden would be a shoe-in ... and yet somehow, vanity apart, he's not even really in the running . . . )

John Edwards certainly didn't carry on as an amazingly-successful lawyer -- the only Democratic candidate whose life work has been in opposition, rather than submission, to the corporatization of American culture -- by being "wishy-washy" -- but through discipline and strategy. When the time comes, it's Edwards -- certainly not Clinton or Obama, the corporate media favorites -- who has the stuff to wipe up the political floor with milita-Mormon Mitt Romney, urban mobster Rudy Giuliani, or whoever else the Pentagon Party puts up.

Edwards IS "good-looking": goodness shines from him in a way it doesn't from the others, buffed and polished and made-over and hair-dyed and plasticized as they are. And Edwards is clearly more of a feminist than Clinton (whose idea of defending her sexual-predator husband from a dose of public reality, lest we forget, was to class-bash Tammy Wynette, of all people, on teevee). And Edwards' thriving marriage, remember -- as most don't -- survived the death of a child.

I expect women WILL vote for Edwards! Men had better, too.

Peace Warrior writes:
"we're going to have to establish a 2 party system in America.
The Corporate Party isn't going to allow that without a fight"
-----
ezeflyer writes:
"[consensus] is by far a much more democratic way to make decisions than to leave things up to a self-serving representative or clique."
-----
As it turns out, consensus takes SO much time that it doesn't really work: ONLY the central committe types will sit there until the end, so it comes down to the same ole thing.

The US green movement, which began as a protest to the Democratic Party's self-perpetuating rules and regs, has been running for years and years. The RESULT of it is the ever-more-rightward stance of most of the people left as "Democrats".

I was an enthusiastic Green, helped prepare foundation documents including consensus, blablabla. It DOESN'T WORK: we were WRONG -- the same statement nobody in REAL-politik is EVER ready to make -- to leave the Democrats, and should return TO the Democrats, and do whatever's necessary to change the structure from the bottom up.

Remember that it was John Edwards -- the DEMOCRATIC candidate for those with ANY left, green, or anti-fascist convictions -- who broke the "I was wrong" barrier on the Iraq war. If we don't go in the same direction now, the "Democratic" nominee -- barring, of course, something completely unpredictable -- is going to be Clinton, the candidate still holding out for the virtue of her pro-invasion vote.

The "worst" that can be said about Edwards is that he's made a LOT of money. This is woefully unacceptable to the corporate-control wing, but it resonates well with the working classes from which he came. We outnumber them all to pieces: so be brave.//

If the country is going to swing left we'll need a political party

So we're going to have to establish a 2 party system in America

The Corporate Party isn't going to allow that without a fight

baska said:
"I am not a Green, am critical of some of their specific moves, and think they are limited as a party by their limited contact w/working/poor people."

Please explain why you feel this way. You may have had a negative experience with a person(s) in the Greens, but since decisions are made at the grassroots by concensus, you can't condemn the entire Green Party for not agreeing with your views on some matters.

In Green meetings, you will have strong opinions and sometimes a person will resent that his proposal is not adopted, causing resentment. But concensus is by far a much more democratic way to make decisions than to leave things up to a self-serving representative or clique.

gmkaake:
I think the best way for you to evaluate a third party is to check out their website and attend a meeting. They all have schedules on their sites.

I like Ted Rall, but he's a little too enamored with the Dems. They haven't shown me much either. Both parties are completely out of touch with the American people. Rall is right about that. The only reason I'm registered Dem is so that I can vote in the primaries, and my vote will go to Kuchinich. If he doesn't get the duke, I may vote Green.

We do need a Third Party of some sort. If not the Greens then another viable alternative.

Navarro, you would think that John Edwards would be a good bet considering his meager upbringing. But I get the feeling that he'd just end up being wishy-washy in the debates and get beat. Although he is a good-looking chap. Women might vote for him. :)

Hell, I wanted to give my vote to Obama simply because he's not a WASP, but he's proving that he's same-old, same-old also. Hilary Clinton I wanted to vote for simply because she's a woman, but see Obama.

I thought John Kerry might be more sensitive to the horrors of war being an actual vet, but he dropped the ball.

baska,

if you are willing to share, I am wondering what political party you have chosen to become affiliated with? Maybe there is a better option than the Green Party?

gmkaake June 7th, 2007 3:40 pm
"did not mean to come across as hectoring or dismissing anyone..."

Thanks for reply. No reason to apologize, actually - I conflated your response w/a common one among Democrats and one camp of progessives to bash/ridicule/blame Nader and/or Greens. For example:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/05/1667/
clyde paige June 6th, 2007 8:02 pm
"Ralph Nader is a selfserving traitor to the democratic party."

Briefly, this is where I am coming from: Though I briefly joined the Green party to vote for Nader in 2000 - in a 'safe' nonswing state - and have worked w/them on a few issues, I am not a Green, am critical of some of their specific moves, and think they are limited as a party by their limited contact w/working/poor people.

Nonetheless, Greens and Naderites represent a large number of voters alienated from the Democrats, and a large part of the progressive community. IMO, they - or variants of them - will be a durable part of the American political landscape and of American progressives. As such it is in the interests of both progressive tendencies - those drawn to the Nader/Green camp and those unwilling to vote third party - to find ways of working together rather than engage in internicine wrangling and recriminations.

As stated above, I don't think Nader threw the 2000 election, and I don't think third party votes necessarily hurt progressives or strengthen the right. That is debatable, of course. And it should be debated.

The third party question is a key one for American progressives, and - though it surfaces continually on commondreams and other progressive threads - should really be worked out in a rigorous debate framework.

baska wrote:

"And hectoring or dismissing them is not likely to move their choice in the direction you might like."

Baska, I did not mean to come across as hectoring or dismissing anyone - I deeply apoligize if I did. I appreciate yours and all the comments here and was just trying present my own point of view. Here on Commondreams, it seems to me, that we all basically agree on the kind of world we are trying to create. We may have different approaches but our basic values are the same. And there is no other place where I have found such a rich discourse, and my point of view has been deeply affected by the folks here. My thoughts are my own, and were only offered as one approach to help bring a more progressive agenda back, while realizing the practicality of the situation we find ourselves in. In the end, everyone must make up their own minds about how to approach the issue, and this is as it should be.

gmkaake writes:
Of the "frontrunners", Edwards is clearly the most progressive. I am planning to vote for Edwards in the primary, hoping that Edwards will get the nomination. It doesn't seem very likely either but it's simply the best chance to get a more progressive agenda out there, at this moment in time. After the primary, I will switch to the Green Party. I just want my primary vote to count towards Edwards.
-----
The Green Party "platform", at this point, is about as real as the Real Story Book. And all those cute little adjustments from actual democracies -- Instant Run-off and whatnot -- have not a snowball's chance in Hell of coming to pass in a politiscape in which the Democratic Party is left to the right.
Instead of a platform -- Senator Feingold has pointed this out rather forcefully -- the Democrats have a collection of candidates, most of whom represent ONLY their corporate sugar-daddies, who compete in an American Idol-like farce, on teevee, for the nomination.
Short of armed struggle, ONLY struggle within the Democratic Party -- I assure you I hate it at least as much as anyone -- will make any difference in changing the present authoritarian takeover of "our" government.
We should put the most effort into electing Edwards -- mounting a write-in campaign for the general election, should he not prevail in the primary.
When the government -- and the problematic VOTING system -- is reclaimed from the neocons (including Clinton and Obama), and democracy an actual possibility, would be a better time to tinker with the other stuff.//

Ted Rall needs to get out more. Those yellow-ribbon-shaped car magnets are most definitely NOT disappearing in the American "heartland."

In terms of the bigger picture, baska expressed it concisely upthread.

RE: IS THE U.S. ELECTORATE TOO CLOSELY DIVIDED TO RISK A THIRD PARTY VOTE? I DON'T THINK SO.

gmkaake June 7th, 2007 12:44 pm
"While I agree that a third party adds incredibly valuable and meaningful discussion to the political process...right now, with the country so closely divided, there is a very real risk of electing another Republican...if the liberal vote is split."

1) Adding "valuable and meaningful discussion" is, well, valuable - but a a purely discursive politics - where thought is cordoned off from any possibility of electoral action - is likely to be dispiriting and lead to deeper alienation and withdrawal, imo. I'm thinking of a- or anti-political cultural resistance in the 50's (as opposed to the 60's) as an example of this.

There's got to be a potential hook-up with practical politics - even if it's not acted on, it will do what I said above and vitalize the whole progressive mentality. As opposed to a hard and fast interdiction putting progressives in the position of 'internal exile.'

2) Pre-election polls are clear enough for progressives to make practical choices. In non-swing states - whether red or blue - voting third party is no more a risk now than it was in 2000; in swing states, potentially progressive voters can pressure Democrats to modify their positions up to the day of election, and then make their own choice about whether to be pragmatic or vote their conscience.

In my view, Gore's 2000 positions caused him to lose votes that went to Nader, but voters who chose not to vote Democrat in 2000 can make up their own minds about what to do when it comes to the clinch. And hectoring or dismissing them is not likely to move their choice in the direction you might like.

baska -

While I agree that a third party adds incredibly valuable and meaningful discussion to the political process (after all real change comes from outside the parties in power, since the powers that be are interested in maintaining the status quo - to them change = risk), right now, with the country so closely divided, there is a very real risk of electing another Republican by default, if the liberal vote is split. IRV would mitigate this problem substantially. Push for IRV! In the meantime I think joining a third party and working to grow a third party is very valuable work.

Nik Klaatu -

The Green Party Platform lines up with Progressive values quite nicely imo. The ten key values are:

1. Grass Roots Democracy
2. Social Justice and Equal Opportunity
3. Ecological Wisdom
4. Non-Violence
5. Decentralization
6. Community Based Economics
7. Feminism and Gender Equity
8. Respect for Diversity
9. Personal and Global Responsibility
10. Future Focus and Sustainability

Green Party Platform
http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/2004platform.pdf

RE: THIRD PARTY VOTE - WASTE OF A VOTE THAT WILL ONLY PUT THE RIGHT IN POWER? NOT NECESSARILY.

peacemaker June 7th, 2007 10:27 am
"A third party in this country can never win an election! So where is the point in voting for them? Other than putting your vote where it doesn't count for anything and deluding yourself you have done something good...it is a waste of time and a vote...All those who vote for a third party will do is put another Republican in the White House."

No, a third party vote cannot win at the national level. But short of electoral success, there is a "point in voting for them." Third party platforms and votes have power. Third party votes:

a) articulate the left flank of American politics; and - besides establishing a progressive community - this has the effect of

b) communicating that message to the greater electorate;

c) challenging Democratic Party platforms and actions - in any debate situation, forcing them to stake out their own positions;

d) in strongly Democratic-leaning states, communicating to elected Democrats that their (potential) electorate will allow them to go further left; and, finally,

e) in more contested states, pressuring Democratic candidates to adopt more progressive positions in return for the progressive vote.

Third Party ~

What would be the platform of this third party? Specifically, would it be a Progressive party? Would it be a Green party? Would it be a Socialist party? Would it be a Anti-Con party?

Consensus is the road to electability and that's a commodity hard to come by sometimes.

If you could design a platform from scratch, what would that platform be?

peacemaker:

By joining a third party like the Greens, you don't have to vote for their presidential candidate. You are joining like-minded progressives that can unite to form a voting block to vote for any candidate, Gravel, Kucinich, Paul, Edwards or whoever and be able to determine what issues will be addressed by the duopoly in return for the progressive vote. As a token Democrat, progressives have no say in the Dems corporate agenda.

For this next election, I think we need to be realistic. I would love for Kucinich to get the Democratic nomination, but it doesn't look like he has a chance, with 1-2% in the polls. Of the "frontrunners", Edwards is clearly the most progressive. I am planning to vote for Edwards in the primary, hoping that Edwards will get the nomination. It doesn't seem very likely either but it's simply the best chance to get a more progressive agenda out there, at this moment in time. After the primary, I will switch to the Green Party. I just want my primary vote to count towards Edwards.

That being said, there is very little chance a Green Party candidate will have much chance to win in 2008. And unless Instant Runoff Voting is implemented as mentioned above, there is a very real risk of splitting the liberal vote and electing a Republican candidate by default. I still feel that the Democrats are better than the Republicans, so without IRV, I will vote for whichever Democrat nominee wins the nomination.

The Green Party platform is the party most in alignment with my ideals. I want to get involved in helping that party grow and will be very active in trying to build it. If hard work is put into building it by enough of us, perhaps the Green Party will be viable by the next election in 2012.

I am optimistic about the future. I do think that the American people as a whole are beginning to wake up and that the country is starting to lean more towards the left. I hope that we can begin to unite around our traditional American values as well as common sense and what's good for the planet. I wholeheartedly support Poet's platform for reform. Let's also push for Instant Runoff Voting!

Paul B said:

"ezeflyer: I'm probably more influenced by Marx, and a larger geographical/historical perspective. Liberalism is a rather center-right bourgeois ideology in an ordinary political spectrum. It's not left in ours: we simply lack a left."

I'm talking about "liberal" as it refers to the behavior of groups of people, not the definition of a term that changes when it suits one group, or is mistakenly used.

"But in any case, we should frame it as the politics of self-determination, decentralization, local economies, bioregionalism, communitarianism, intellectual anarchism, etc. on the one hand — and the politics of oppression, centralization (whether statist or corporate), homogenization, etc. on the other. This is arguably up vs. down more so than left vs. right (two different authoritarian ideologies)".

You made my point. Your first group is liberal and your second group is conservative.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of mankind's oldest pursuits: to find a moral justification for greed".
John Kenneth Galbraith

A third party in this country can never win an election! So where is the point in voting for them? Other than putting your vote where it doesn't count for anything and deluding yourself you have done something good. Which is why most of us don't waste our time voting for a third party candidate. Because it is a waste of time and a vote. Most American's will not back up a third party enough for it to win an general election. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Until it happens nothing is going to change. All those who vote for a third party will do is put another Republican in the White House. This country can not stand another 4 to 8 years of another Bush! So I will vote for the least of the evils! A Democrat regardless of who they run.

"The mainstream media has gone underground in its attempt to edit the Gravel campaign" said Presidential candidate and former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel, as evidenced by the June 3 debate in New Hampshire sponsored by CNN, the Hearst Corporation's WMUR-TV, and the New Hampshire Union Leader. During the two-hour, commercial-free debate, Senator Gravel was asked 10 somewhat irrelevant questions and then allowed only seconds to answer before being cut off by the moderator. In total, the Senator was afforded only five minutes and 37 seconds of time during the entire debate. The candidates with the most donations from corporate special interests were asked the serious questions, were allowed to speak at length, and were allowed time to respond to criticism.

Adam D. Krauss, the Democrat staff writer for Foster's Online, a Dover, New Hampshire-based news site, echoed the contention that Gravel and others were being excluded by quoting Dean Spiliotes, director of research at Saint Anselm College's New Hampshire Institute of Politics, who said, "It was interesting how those three candidates were presented. I can't imagine that that was random, with Hillary and Edwards and Obama, and then Kucinich and Gravel out on the end."

The placement of the candidates on the debate stage exacerbated the inequities of the time allowed to some candidates to respond to questions. For example, Senator Obama was given one full minute to answer each of 16 questions, while Senator Gravel was allowed only 30 seconds each to answer 10 questions. CNN's Wolf Blitzer and his producer appear to have selectively enforced time guidelines. "Prominent talk show host Arnie Arnesen labeled CNN the debate's 'loser' because it 'made a decision for the rest of us that they (Clinton, Obama and Edwards) were going to remain the top-tier' candidates," Krauss added. Despite the best efforts of CNN, WMUR-TV and the Union Leader to exclude Senator Gravel, his brief comments quickly became one of the most-watched videos on YouTube.com, which receives millions of hits each day. It also became one of the top-rated videos in news and politics.

Senator Gravel, a resident of Virginia, is a former two-term U.S. Senator from Alaska with a distinguished record that includes successfully ending the military draft with a five-month filibuster. He also released The Pentagon Papers, risking both prosecution and jail; played the leading role in making the Alaska pipeline a reality; and ended nuclear weapons testing in the seabed off Alaska. He is the driving force and author of the National Initiative for Democracy, a proposal to allow Americans to participate in making laws at the federal level on issues that affect their lives though a federal ballot initiative process-already proven in many states as an effective and necessary check on unresponsive representative government.

POET says: Restrict personal civil rights to flesh and blood Homo Sapiens. All corporations revert to non-animate business ventures!)

This is the MOST critical action needed. This would require some very clever legal work because it's actually not even law..it's a clerk's error which has taken on legal status. How in the hell do you correct that?

I'm convinced that it will take another revolution and another constitutional convention. In other words, this system is irreparably damaged. We need to start over.

Good start Poet June 6th, 2007 6:18 pm, and there are many additions to be sure. It's nice to see someone suggesting positive directions instead of negatively slamming the status quo. It does no good to tear down a system unless there is a better system to replace it, right?

Even tonight I was commenting to friends how ironic it is I have seen drunks at a bar come up with more reasonable, logical, and practical solutions, to the many problems facing us, than our elected representatives are able to come forward with. What's wrong with this picture? When I consider the billions spent by the Whitehouse on controlling drug use in the US I wonder if it wouldn't be better spent if it was aimed at government employees (especially presidential nominees), and congress, since they seem to be living in some sort of alien 'Alice in Wonderland' drug induced fantasyland completely removed from the demands/wishes of the American populace in general.

Yes, the pendulum eventually swings back, but whose head does it chop off when it does?

This government is so out of control, and so un-responsive to 'we the people' I even wonder if a Washington demonstration of 5 million citizens angrily in the streets would be effective.

What alternatives are there? After hearing Pelosi state, "...and impeachment is off the table", I hate to admit it, but our best chance at getting what we (rational patriotic citizens) want is overwhelmingly electing democrats in the next election cycle, then booting out the ones proving contrary to the wishes of our citizens in the following cycle. The system is rigged against the common/average citizen so change must be incremental; it is possible though, but only if we hit them where it hurts...financially.

The problem as I see itis this: The Republicans were never for the people. They have a long history of not being for the people. We used to think that the Democrats were for the people but recently their disguise of incompetence invented by Jimmy Carter has worn too thin and now they can be seen for the self serving polititions that they aparently were all along. Between them they have run this country into the ground. The elections are less than two years away. Who do we vote for? IT DOSEN'T MATTER! Since most of us agree that there is no real difference between the Dems and the Reps, the only other choice is the Independent party, except that they can't win and we mostly all agree on that also. Even if by some mirical they did , do you think the folks at Diebold would let that happen? I can't help but think that this is all going to end very badly and not that far from now. As it turnes out, fear is actually the opiate of the masses. What better then (the self inflicted) 9/11 to do that. Check mate.

ezeflyer: I'm probably more influenced by Marx, and a larger geographical/historical perspective. Liberalism is a rather center-right bourgeois ideology in an ordinary political spectrum. It's not left in ours: we simply lack a left.

But in any case, we should frame it as the politics of self-determination, decentralization, local economies, bioregionalism, communitarianism, intellectual anarchism, etc. on the one hand -- and the politics of oppression, centralization (whether statist or corporate), homogenization, etc. on the other. This is arguably up vs. down more so than left vs. right (two different authoritarian ideologies).

Populists tend to have a short lifespan in American politics, Paul Wellstone perhaps being the last.

In any case, it's populism that's lacking in the American landscape. I'm fairly certain both "liberalism" and "conservatism" have long outlived their utility in our landscape. Let's return power to people and to hell with the autocrats, whatever hat they wear.

We need a political party, not "left" or "right", but one that can address the objective problems that face us. We seem to think the world is purly subjective. Can any party, tied to multinational corporations, by a thousand threads, address the objective, qualitative changes in tecnology?

Labor-replacing technologies cheapen the value of labor power as robotics and automation make the same commodity for a fraction of the cost of human labor. Whether working or not, human beings, and therefore human life, is becoming worthless within the capitalist system. Layoffs, declining wages, the growth of slavery, and the spreading social ills – all are expressions of this process and affect a wide range of the American people, regardless of party affiliation.

We need a party that understands, and can address the total ramifications of these objective changes.

RE: CRUXPUPPY ON RALL'S FALSE "POLITICAL PENDULUM"

cruxpuppy June 6th, 2007 7:00 pm

"That pleasant metaphor [of a political pendulum] is not a law of the political universe....There is no going home again to cherished Constitutional guarantees and a functioning republic....That's why talking about pendulums feels good. It feel so good to be talking about Bush and his gang of sociopaths being swept away by the law of a political universe."

Nice. I wondered if someone else would focus on the pendulum metaphor - you've pointed to what motivates it.

However, I think you're wrong when you write "It is now a recipe for complacency." Rall is a progressive and an activist in his writing, art, and presumably other activities. There is no reason to think he will be complacent in the sense of letting some automatic movement of history do his work for him. Rather, I imagine the pendulum is important to him because it it permits him to act with some sense of hope in a dire situation. Whether or not hope is justifiable is, of course, debatable.

Paul B. said:

Liberal vs. conservative is not good either, since "liberalism" in America is often erroneously applied to a whole range of ideologies: labor, left, green, socialist, marxist, social democrat, libertarian, communitarian, etc.

"Liberal" and "conservative" are erroneously applied but is that a reason not to apply them correctly? Labor, marxist and many libertarians tend to be conservative (authoritarian). Green, socialist, social democrat tend to be more liberal. Though libertarians and sometimes labor tend toward the right, all the rest tend toward the left.

One can draw conclusions from these two ways of defining groups. Conservatives tend to be more violent and the liberals more peaceful, for example. Defining people in terms of left and right often places them erroneously at the extremes.

Poet: one of your best and most inspired postings ever. Here's MY election idea. Before you pick "the leader," you have to vote on a list of relevant issues. Based on your calculated responses (to the ISSUES) the computer matches your responses to a candidate who actually represents those positions! That would take the celebrity out of it, and maybe give citizens the leaders they do deserve, not talking heads with expensive PR people who coach them in how to present themselves, with all semblances of integrity false fading away upon coronation. This "method" would force voters to become informed and KNOW the issues that as citizens of a vibrant (my hope) republic it would be their responsibility (not pre-fab faux Fox "news") to apprise themselves of. Well... you know this idea is better than hanging chads or touch screen "voting" that seems to have its own pre-programmed agenda.

"Turn off the television and look out the window, Ted. See those wierd lines in the sky? Watch them disperse into cloud-like stuff and completely obscure an otherwise clear blue sky."

I see them too, and it is interesting to hear about them here, as at our recent raw food vegan potluck, I overheard something about the chemtrails; thank you for reminding me to look them up.

First, I think one of the most important points made here is that we need to push for Instant Runoff Voting.
Second, let me daydream just a bit about what I'd like to see happen:
A meeting attended by Kucinich, Gore, Edwards, the Greens, and numbers of others of the "non-Right", whether Democrats or Liberals or what they might like to call themselves, let's say all of those who do not think this country and the world ought to be ruled by the Big Rich and the corporations as a sort of a NeoRomanEmpire...
I would like those attending that meeting to agree that there is one supremely important goal: to get the swine out of power, whether they are Republicans like Bush, Rove, ... or whether they are Democrats who serve the same corporate criminal masters. To that end, first, identify the swine and tell the public in very clear terms why they are being identified as swine. Denounce them loudly, making it plain that this is not "partisan", but across-the-board denunciation of unfitness for public trust, whether that unfit one is a Dem or a Rep or an Ind or even a Lib or a Green... Find good examples of their lies - the examples abound - and be prepared with convincing refutations of those lies.
Then, let them all pledge together that if the Democrats nominate, say, Obama, that they will all band together in a common message to the American public that the "anti-Right" thing to do is to write in [*whoever they believe has the best chance*]. Then, just for example, the Green "candidate" (in quotes because, unfortunately, no Green as it is right now can really be a viable candidate) communicates with his base and explains to them that for the good of the nation they should follow his example if they really support him, and vote for (just for example) Edwards;
that the glue holding all this motley alliance together is the pledge of "common cause" - in other words, in terms of the example case, the expectation would be that in return for that support Edwards would be bound by promise to appoint greens to offices such as Interior Secretary and a socialist-minded person to the Health and Education, ... that sort of thing.
The idea being to convince the American people that the political situation in this country, bad as it is, is not hopeless, and that there is some reason to believe in the power of good people banding together.
I don't agree that there is a "swing to the left" going on, nor do I think that "pendulum" analysis ever did have any validity; but I do think the people are waking up to the evil that is corporate fascism, even if only dimly, and what is definitely clear is that they are sick and tired of the Big Lies about the socalled war on terror and the war on Iraq.
One final note about Obama. Ask yourselves why the corporate media are so eager to select him as the Dem candidate. It's because they know that racism is alive and well in the good ole boy U.S.A., and once having installed him as the Dem candidate, they can laugh all the way to the White House, where their corporate masters will handsomely reward them, as they commonly do reward them for misleading the public.
I could say something similar about Hilary, but I won't even bother.

Excuse me, Mr. Rall? You forgot something: the crazies have A YEAR AND A HALF LEFT! Remember? If this were the UFC, it'd only be Round 2 - and this band of lunatics will never submit, never tap out, never give up. A knockout is the only way to win - and I defy anyone to point out a Dem with the balls and right hook needed before the bell rings...

The fascism in America will not change until Americans hit the streets. The criminals in the white house have done so much damage that only a revolution will bring us our country back.

In the land of Never Before those who look for precedents in the past can't read the writing on the wall.

It spells clearly "NEVER BEFORE".

Doesn't matter that pendulums always used to swing from left to right and back again. That pleasant metaphor is not a law of the political universe.

It is now a recipe for complacency.

There is no going home again to cherished Constitutional guarantees and a functioning republic, not after the stolen 2000 election, the synthetic terror of 911, the Patriot Act, etc, etc.

Politics as usual is finished.

Turn off the television and look out the window, Ted. See those wierd lines in the sky? Watch them disperse into cloud-like stuff and completely obscure an otherwise clear blue sky.

Ever seen anything like that before in your whole blessed life?

I can answer that for you. No, you never have. Furthermore, you don't know who's doing it, and you can't be sure why because you haven't got a clue who's running your government and spending your money.

All you've got is some naive faith in a political pendulum and a completely corrupted political process that is almost completely disconnected from its Constitutional origins.

Let me tell you what's real. A global environmental crisis is real. This is purely Never Before and we don't know how to cope. A militarist/coporatist political culture is real, a wolfish beast thinly disguised in constituional sheep's clothing. We don't know how to cope with this, either.

That's why talking about pendulums feels good. It feel so good to be talking about Bush and his gang of sociopaths being swept away by the law of a political universe.

Wake up, Ted. The God of our Constitutional process is critically wounded on life support. One more "national diaster" and he'll be dead.

Nothing is going to happen. The Republicans have got to be aware the liberal buzz is indicating a welcome split in the progressive vote, so they've got nothing to worry about. No impeachments, no accountability, and yet another four years of power, at the least -- if I was Karl Rove, I sure would be grateful for all the liberals who think now is the time to back a third-party. Hell, I'd be cackling with glee.

Re:Navarro

You'll never see dear, ole Rupert pour money into a Kucinich or Nader campaign!

staroftheresa: "The only hope is to support Kucinich."

Best thing I've seen written on this page so far. Watching them debate, they're all so snide about supporting the war, sleeping with big business, being tough enough to nuke Iran, etc. I understand Gravel's passion and anger, but he seems too unreasonable. We need reason now, badly. Kucinich or Third Party!

Ted Rall writes:

"America's experiment with neofascism is coming to an end. He came to office in a coup d'état and consolidated power after 9/11. George W. Bush may be our worst president in history–certainly in recent times–but he is also one of the most important. Imposing his sweeping vision on everything from the tax system to why we wage war to eliminating your right to an attorney, his legislative and stylistic legacy will long outlive his administration.

He has been wildly successful at getting what he wanted. The irony is, his radical achievements have set the stage for a dramatic political shift to the left."

Nope, sorry Ted but you are eith4er Rip Van Winkle's Ichabod crane awakening after a century nap or deluisional.

American imperialism got started in a really big way back during teh McKinley Adminstration's Spanish-American War.

Our flirtation with fascism has been around since at least the 30's as a response to FDR's New Deal on the part of the oneyed class who not so secretly yearned to see hitler and Stalin bleed each other white so that they could walk in and pick up the pieces of what was left.

Unless ypou want to forget things like the anihalation of American aboriginal people, the permanent enslavement of African Americans, the Jim Crow/KKK terrorism against Blascks, Jews, and roman catholics, teh Palmer raids against newly arrived immigrants whose sympathies were with socialist and anarchist political movements, etc.

In a veruy real way the U.S. ended up adopting the command economy of the fascist military powers we militarily defeated. This consensus is both Republican and Democratic, Liberal and conservative.

The sad truth is that by 2008-2010 we will still have the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Agency, Enemy Combatants Act, State of Emergency Executive Orders, no Habeus Corpus Rights, the Gulag of privatized prisons and torture camps, (we knew those old abandoned military bases would be good for something!).
Blackwater, KBR, Haliburton, and other mercenary paramilitary organizations, consolidation of media ownership of the public airwaves, in all liklihood no net neutrality, no industrial manufacturing base, no source of wealth other than weapons manufacturing and agribusiness factory farming totally dependent on pertoleum- based mechanized equipment, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.

NAFTA, GATT AND WTO will be as firmly entrenched as ever and the only difference will be that now we can blame Democrats instead of Republicans for the ongoing mess.

Poet's platform for reform for whoever wins the 08 election:

Close 100 military facilities a year every year and (for those in the U.S.) deed the land back to cities, counties, or states for non-military use only.

Single payer, government run health care for all Americans.

Cut the defense budget 10% a year.

Reinstitute tariffs as both a revenue source for the US treeasurery and a way to protect domestic manufactuiring.

Restrict personal civil rights to flesh and blood Homo Sapiens. All corporations revert to non-animate business ventures!)

All religious organizations will pay property taxs and income taxes on their earnings. No rights to itemize tax deduction for contributors to religious or any other philanthropic non-profit entity.

Build state of the art national and regional passenger rail service and light rail for mass transit within cities.

Reinstitute tax credits for all who adopt wind, solar, geothermal, or any other form of renewable, non-polluting, and decentralized energy source.

Dismantyling of all WMD's and reinstituting of serious talks on outlawing them.

Okay, I know none of it will happen but would it really be a worse world if any or all of the above masures were adopted with the same fevered itensity as the Afghan-Iraqi wars?

It is quite astonishing to me that anyone in the Progressive ranks these days still hasn't figured out that the vast majority of the Democrat ( I refuse to call it democratic) Party is no alternative for anyone who believes in Truth, Justice, and Peace.

As chillingly evil as are the Cheney/Rove creation in the White House today,( inside and out) at least with them, we can see them for what they are. Because the truth is, they don't give a flying f--k what anyone in this nation thinks. They have stolen the reins of govt and they have no intention of relinquishing it no matter how much we scream and holler that they are criminals. The Dems' version of evil is just evil-watered down, but no less destructive of our values and our hopes. They pretend to care about Truth, Justice and Peace, but in fact, most of them have sold their souls to remain placed in the corridors of power. They pretend they are fighting this cabal but in fact they are simply stalling, and hoping that we'll all feel nourished by the crumbs they throw us---blah blah blah,
Leahey is soooo inscensed he's threatening THREATENING!!!! to issue some sub peonas because of the White House's stonewalling. Give me a break!!!!

Folks, give it up. The only hope is to support Kucininch. Who says you have to back a winner???? he is the only beacon of hope out there!
And if/when he is continually marginalized by his Party, we have to start the move to coalesce our support around a new party. DOn't lisyen to the naysayers. It is clearly in their interest to keep the staus quo. Who the hell in their right mind wants anything to do with the staus quo???? Let's do this for the generations to follow. It's better to fight the good fight and lose than it is to stand by and do nothing! And finally, whatever your beliefs, call on the angels--they really are waiting to help us restore the Light.

This is the worst form of wishful thinking imaginable\ What makes anyone think that just because we've turned against the war, and there's a different party leading in Congress that we have rejected any aspect of fascism. No one in power except Kucinich is questioning the need for never ending increases in military spending. No one but Kucinich is talking about getting for profit insurance companies out of the unhealth uncare business. No one is talking about repealing the BUSH TAX CUTS. No one is talking about conducting the radical restructuring of our energy infrastructure that will be necessary if we are to have a future. So what part of our dance with fascism is over, I'd like to know.....

What kind of an article IS this? The last sentence makes all of the rest totally irrelevant.
I agree with those supporting the development of a viable
third party. Let's do it. Someone tell me how.
I can't tolerate the arrogance and progressive inactivity of those leaders who call themselves Democrats anymore.
Having a third party won't be immediately successful in terms of winning elections, but ( maybe ) after a period of time, the DINOs will finally understand that they can't win without us ( the third party folks ), that they need us
more than they need swing voters.

We must define the 'left'. Traditionally the left and right referred to government control of society where as "more to the right" meant less government while a "move to the left" signalled more governemnt. Using this model the GOP has failed miserably. The Republicans have increased the size of governemnt to record proportions to the point that any Libertarian (Libertarians believe in a minimalist government used only for the judiciary and self-defence)can't even fathom a connection between the Republican Party and small government.
Unfortunately the Democrats haven't been much better. Clinton expanded govermnent budgets, particularly with hand-outs to the defence industry while ingnoring the real 'liberal left' ideologies that promoted a social safety net and strict enforcement of laws to prevent corportate abuse.
What we have instead is a perverse hybrid that pretends to promote the concept of small government while creating a massive bureacracy to help support a handful of corporations. This ill defined, new type of corporate serving model is also self-sustaining (through the two party system and corportate donations) and supported by the mainstream media, educational system and 230 year old cultural legends that try to make connections between the founding fathers and our current state of affairs.
The truth is our founding fathers could have never imagined such a system of checks and balances that would actually work to PRESERVE the corportate system rather than dismantling it.

I don't think either the Democrats or Republicans are worth a damn.
2 criminal gangs trying to rob the same bank at the same time and each trying to focus the cops' attention on the intentions of the other -- but NEITHER gang wants the bank to go unrobbed.

TIme to dump these parasites.
Pissed off enough to do it. See my website.
SJ

www,spartacusjones.com

FDR's Democratic coalition lasted a long time but it's gone and with it, the hope of Progressive change thru the Democratic Party. That coalition consisted of:
1) The Solid South
2) Organized Labor
3) The Liberals
4) Minorities
Today the South is Solid for Republicans. Organized labor is a shell of its former self. The Liberals are hopping mad over Iraq and corporatism. We all saw how hard the Dems fought for accurate vote counting in Minority precincts.
I ask: Does this sound like a Political Party with a future?I think we should actively advocate a 3rd Party on the left (Greens) and a 4th party on the right.We know that a lot of Conservatives (nativists and old Goldwaterites) are not happy with the Republicans. We should be encouraging them to support the Libertarians. Also, there's Mayor Bloomberg talking about a self-financed campaign so there's a possible 5th party!
Democracy means more choices friends,not fewer.
Oh yeah, there's also a Populist Party that looks like it's trying some kind of up/down coalition. Great. A possible 6th party.
As to the charge that 3rd parties haven't contributed anything, remember the Republicans came about because the Democrats supported slavery and the Whigs wouldn't take a stand. The Populist Party (of Bryan's era) and the Progressives were responsible for bringing true reform into the political arena, as did the Socialists.
As far as reform goes today, the Democratic Party is the place it goes to die.
Lets have a big election party in 2008 with lots of Parties and let the partying begin now! No more despair.
rtdrury is right on the money. "The way IS clear and the future IS bright"

Navarro June 6th, 2007 2:46 pm

One hundred percent correct. The Repugs (including low-grade human filth like Rupert Murdoch)are pouring money into the Hillary and Obama campaigns. Why? Neither one of them has any chance of winning.

Hey Mendo Chuck! We need a third party all right, but we need a Evangelist to help split the Republican vote! Kucinich meanwhile embodies everyhting America needs to recover from years of corporate designed political agendas.
As for Mrs. Clinton, she claims she was 'duped' into supporting the war originally. Well I wasn't and if she got duped so easily, then I don't want such a fool running our country! Anyone who voted for the war, should automatically exlude themselves from entering the race.

I doubt the country is moving left. Most Americans are angry that we're not "winning" the war. Ideologically, I don't think they'd have a problem with how we wound up in Iraq if we were in control and dominating. So, turning left? No. Until most of us pay attention to, and consider what the leadership in this country is doing in our name; and unless we consider the corporate control of government and media not to be in the best interest of most of us; we the people will continue to tolerate and occasionally cheer the imperialist activities. In America winning is everything. We vote against our best interest if the ad campaigns are good enough. We will believe black is white and war is peace, if you promise to keep the oil flowing and gas prices cheap(ish). Good of humanity? What's in it for me?

The opportunities today for Progressives are fantastic. There are no roles for the Democrats and Republicans. Progressives are working to De-Democrify, De-Republify, De-Corporify, and De-Militarify the US government. It's purge time. The way is clear and the future is bright.

Paul B wrote:

Let's say the bottom 90% wage earners, their problems, realities, struggles, etc. and the policies created by the remaining 10% which, in some cases, are responsible for the division. That's not a left/right thing..."

It isn't?

Last I checked, "left" represents the intersests of the former grouup, the "right" represents the interests of the latter. This has been the vocabulary of politics since at least the 1700's. I see no reason to change this terminology any more than we should change the terminology developed by Newton around the sme time.

I usually hear such "let's do away with left/right" from people who are trying to advance the muddle-headed notion that there is some kind of common ground between the interests of capital and the worker - between the aspring slavemaster, and the would-be-slave. There are no such common interests.

ezeflyer: Liberal vs. conservative is not good either, since "liberalism" in America is often erroneously applied to a whole range of ideologies: labor, left, green, socialist, marxist, social democrat, libertarian, communitarian, etc.

Dualistic framing grossly over-simplifies the landscape, the nuances -- so I suggested up/down instead, and this can be quantified objectively by various metrics or qualitatively by other means. For instance, who owns/controls what, are they local to a community or not, etc.

Arguably, "liberalism" is a little more than liberalized mechanics of capitalism -- not a particularly progressive stance. Indeed, it can be argued that the liberal elite merely liberalized the mechanics of capitalism (government-run squatting camps, for instance) to further profits of the elite -- as opposed to simply letting them starve. The argument was likely that a happy/healthy workforce is more productive for the elite than a turbulent/hungry one. But it's a stance which is from the elite's perspective in any case, not to be confused with populism, communitarianism, green decentralization, intellectual anarchism, libertarianism, and others.

So, again, I think these dualistic frameworks and metaphors are grossly inaccurate. I think what we're all basically hoping for is a people-based government, one that answers to those below -- rather than above, a bottom-up emergent political power structure.

If a critical mass of Americans would just wake up to the realization that you fall into two major camps -- social democrats and libertarians -- you might have the basis for two new parties that could push the Republicrats right off the electoral map.

Worst article today! The war is 50% Republican-owned, 50% Democrat-owned. Whether liars or suckers, they share the blame. All the hyperbole comparing Republicans to Pol Pot or Democrats to Jesus (or vice versa) just makes me disgusted with both more. Watching the debates, it seems we ought all to be ready for more heartbreak ...not a pendulum swing to the left (whatever the hell the left is supposed to be). Where do all these twits come from, anyway?

There is only one political party in America so stop thinking that changing parties will change the system. Our government stopped working for the people when they found they could get richer by working for corporate interests. Money now rules the political world, not honesty intelligence. In D.C. everyone is in the same party. The party of Greed.
Hoa binh

Third parties have a wonderful history in this country of allowing many people to feel good about themselves and their votes without changing anything. They have generally served as little more than an opiate and will continue to serve as an opiate until we have a constitutional convention and get some proportional representation and get rid of the electoral college. Now third parties on the left occasionally raised issues (with the help of an independent press) that the Democratic Party took up later and did something about, but today there those issues could be raised directly in the Democratic Party.

I would think that progressives would be better served by focusing on how to take over the Democratic Party rather than spending their efforts on third parties. That is what Kucinich is doing. It sounds hard and it is, and one can see just how difficult it is, but that is better than wishing like little children that some miracle or some magical genie is going to somehow make a third party viable under the current system.

We'll be bombing Iran between now and next July; or there'll be another 9/11, at which time Bush will use his self-appointed power to declare Marshall Law because of the "Catastrophic Emergency;" he'll cancel the upcoming election, and life will continue in the way "they've" planned for it to go. Another "puppet," or maybe this one of the leaders of this gr(c)oup, will replace Bush, and he can go drown himself in booze like he's probably been wanting to for awhile now, and people will finally start waking up.

"Old School Conservatism... the Goldwater perscription..." is neither dead nor dormant. It has simply been abandoned by the majority of the Republican Party in this country. It exists, live and well and thriving, in the Libertarian Party and its supporters. Where it will remain, until the very last one of us is dead.

Ted Rall gets it wrong in his first sentence and never finds his way back to the truth: "America's experiment with neofascism is coming to an end."

Wishful thinking maybe, but just one more terror attack on the "homeland" will be enough to unleash the very real fascism that lurks just beneath the thin veneer of "democracy" in Amerika.

This is no time to relax or celebrate some imaginary turn to the "left" when even the most Liberal are just to the left of Atilla the Hun.

Paul B.:
I find it helps to frame problems as a conservative vs liberal thing rather than a right and left one because you have conservatives on both right and left. Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and Bush -- conservatives. Ghandi, Einstein, Jesus and Jefferson -- liberal.

err .. not the "hijacking strategy" again .. RichM debunked it sufficiently in his comment on Haydens piece ...

Good article Ted. But instead of mentioning the corporate candidates, let's start giving more ink to the good candidates like Gravel. The corporate chosen Dems don't need more publicity. Let's not play into their hands.

"A third party presidential candidate acceptable to the left would just insure another republican victory."

We can switch2green.org to consolidate progressive power and still vote for progressive Dems. But the Dem Party will no longer take us for granted.

Switching to Green Party AFTER the nomination may not be a good idea. The corporate Dems are going to nominate their candidate regardless. We can better influence the Dem nomination if we switch to green NOW and decide in a block what progressive candidates we are going to vote for.

Left/right has become increasingly problematic in political analysis and problem-framing. Both bring an awful lot of unexamined baggage and assumptions. It's a skewing of the real issue by 90 degrees, the interjecting of smoke & mirrors. The source of great confusion, and masking essential underlying power dynamics. In doing so, there are no good guys. Statists vs. Corporotists: and both want a piece of you.

I say toss that whole framing of the problem into the dustbin of history. The new analysis -- in a corporo-government hybridized world -- is up/down. You can even pin numbers to it, to make it somewhat objective. Let's say the bottom 90% wage earners, their problems, realities, struggles, etc. and the policies created by the remaining 10% which, in some cases, are responsible for the division. That's not a left/right thing. The fact that our framing has been skewed by 90 degrees is probably why Americans are so confused, and everyone seems to be doing his share of entertaining some political views contrary to his own class interests.

Rall, in one of his more lame articles, wrote:

"The irony is, his radical achievements have set the stage for a dramatic political shift to the left."

Bush is not a "radical". "Radical" does NOT mean "extremist".

"Radical", of the same origin as "radish" or "raiz" (Spanish) means "one who get to the roots of a matter". I've never met a conservitive who ever desired to examine the roots of anything, even the limitles depths of their own greed. The left distiguishes itself clearly from the right in that it does look into the roots of injustice or other intolerable conditions. As a leftist, I proudly call myself a radical.

But Bush? The proper word is "reactionary extremist".

tyler durden writes:
"This is more of the same claptrap that Tom Hayden wrote in common dreams a few days ago"

By golly, it IS! But then Durden closes with "the futility of persiting in the 2 party system," blablabla.

Might as well, at this point, talk about the "futility of persisting in" gravity: ANY third party will split the vote of the non-right, and -- as in the gubernatorial debacle in California, in which Green Party scalawag Peter Camejo played such a revolutionarily-clueless part -- elect the candidate LEAST likely to be an improvement over the right-wing corporate "leadership" of the Democratic Party.

What we should do in the PRIMARY election, boys and girls, is vote for John Edwards. If we decide on that NOW, we can move on to other things, such as organizing a rebellious write-in for Edwards in the GENERAL election, in case the right-wing Dems prevail in the PRIMARY. If all the bla-bla and wheel-spinning over third parties goes into THIS instead, we will win. (I'm under no illusion that Mr. Edwards is a perfect politico, so please don't bother pointing it out -- John Edwards is the best there is, which is the important thing (and is the reason the corporate media and the Democratic right are united, as they were against people's candidate Howard Dean, in trying to knock him off).

Since Rall's piece really IS a re-run of Hayden's, here's some recycled commentary:
-----
kitty_tc writes:
"If the Green party and its supporters were serious about getting their issues and goals accomplished, they'd disband the party, register as Democrats and challenge the DLC scum in every primary in every state."
—–
Yeah, they would. And if the corporate "leadership" manages to anoint another Clinton as the nominee, we'll do well to write in John Edwards for president, hoping enough Republicans defect from the Pentagon Party to avoid the final ascendance of a Mormon military state.

THEN, should a people's write-in not carry the day — and without paper ballots, all the election talk may be moot, which is a good reason for Congress to resort to principle at ONCE: pull out the troops, impeach Cheney and Bush — Ronald White [see comment above] has it right: leave 'em to it, go to Cuba (and try to avoid getting a ticket to Gitmo)."
-----
See http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/03/1625/ for Hayden AND comments to Hayden.

As long as democrat politicians are bought and paid for by corporations, they will always be psuedo-liberals

We aren't going to get viable third parties unless we institute Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) as our de facto process for elections. Whether some progressives like it or not, many people want to pick a "winner." Just look at all the "electability" rhetoric thrown around at election time.

IRV will allow the electorate to vote for a Kucinich or a Ron Paul without fear that an 'undesirable' like GWB or HRC will get elected because of their first preference. Further, we won't have to worry about the massive number of primaries the Republocrats hold just to select a candidate to go on the ballot.

Please lobby congress for IRV.

Call it a shift right, left, up, down, whatever. The bottom line as some responders have argued is that the two-party system has hit a brick wall (by kowtowing to corporate interests). And it simply underscores James Madison's admonition in the "Federalist Papers" that if you are going to have a political party system, have a bunch of parties or none, because if you have two, it will bifurcate the country. Certainly the Populist Party challenged that notion in the Election of 1892, but could only drum up a little over one million votes. The Framers of the Constitution gave us simple instructions. Perhaps it is time to follow them!

America is definately tired of Bush and his damned war, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the Republicans will lose the presidential election in 2008. As the previous commentors have pointed out, no one in government has shown any real courage in the matter, corporations and big money run America with the complicity of both parties, the electoral system is screwed and rife with potential for manipulation and outright fraud, and none of the current crop of candidates inspire hope, trust and confidence. A third party presidential candidate acceptable to the left would just insure another republican victory. But more than that, no one is putting forth a plan to get out of Iraq that makes any sense. It may be just as immoral to leave Iraq precipitously as it was to go to war in the first place. Many Americans still hope for some result in Iraq that salvages a little respect for America - "defeat with honor", if you will. No one knows what will happen between now and election day in Iraq. The republicans may yet find a way to make the democrats look like weenies, or even pin the blame on the dems for America's defeat.

RE: 1) RALL'S IDEA THAT THE COUNTRY IS MOVING LEFT; 2) THE 'PENDULUM THEORY' OF HISTORY TO EXPLAIN THE SUPPOSED SWING LEFT

1) The reaction against the right wing mega-f-up invasion of Iraq must be measured against the longer term shift to the right - the decline of big industry and hence unionized labor, NAFTA, the DLC-led shift of Democrats to the right, the coalescence of anti-New Deal right wing groups.

The mindboggling disaster of Iraq has certainly undercut support for the right, and, in a closely divided, right-leaning electorate, tipped the scale marginally back to Democrats. But there is little evidence that this is a durable shift, and no coherent rise of liberal/left alternatives.

2) The 'first one group is new, then its ideas are old and the ideas of an opposing group are more appealing' pendulum analysis is unhistorical - as mentioned above, the long term pic' is darker, for reasons that are not susceptible to rapid, event-led reversals.

Fool US once, shame on Bush; fool US twice, shame on DEM!

This is more of the same claptrap that Tom Hayden wrote in common dreams a few days ago (see http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/03/1625/). There was ample discussion in the comments on that article about the futility of persiting in the 2 party system.

Granted, the Republicans are at the extreme end of the ideological spectrum (very narrow spectrum, might I add), but the Democrats aren't too far behind. The Democrats have proved again and again that they are as complicit in the war (as Republicans). Also, Dems refuse to fix the health care problem by supporting National Health care inspite of public demands to do so.

This is hardly a move to the Left (strongly agree with the comments from purvis ames).

Both parties are slaves to their corporate contributors. Its too late for the Democrats to restore people's trust in them. The 2-party system is a dead-end as far as real change goes.

So when we get ridiculous comments such as "The question is whether the Democrats will rise to the opportunity to lead them." in the above article, my response is ....the Dems have had ample opportunity already and any fool can see that they don't give a damn about what the public thinks. Wake up !

What is this dumb-ass smoking. He thinks this is over?

Get ready for another Republican in 2008 unless we do something about those Diebold computer voting machines. Any hackers out there want to come up with a virus to disable voting machines? Let's hear it for paper ballots!

What do you mean by "moving left"? The two so-called parties are bought and paid for by the permanent corporate administration. It has a right wing and an extreme right wing. It's no joke that the Chimp honed his skills as a cheerleader because that's exactly what he is now. It just happens that his team is on a losing streak and he has to be replaced by the angry fans. If that's what you call "moving left", well...

The time is here . . . Lets get a third party going . . . Any sort of votes for ANY Third Party Candidates right now will bring about a lot more change than putting any more "Republcrats" back in office.
At least that is my opinion and I'm sticking to it all the way into the voting booth.

The question is whether the Democrats will rise to the opportunity to lead them? And the answer is:(hand me envelope please) NO!