The reality is that either the Democrat or Republican nominee will be the next president. Those enamored with the independant, "populist" messages of Edwards and Obama forget the most recent example of a truly principled Democrat outsider who was able to marshall the support of a disillusioned American electorate. However, lacking the kind of experience and network that a Hillary Rodham Clinton would bring to office, Jimmy Carter was quickly marginalized, even though his fellow Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
Americans who fail to comprehend the calculations and expediencies required to gain the Presidency in today's fundamentally compromised political system are naive and unrealistic. Recall that FDR's success was dependant upon alliances with segregationists, corrupt ward bosses, and demagogue union bosses; nevertheless, his vision of an invigorated and more equitable society managed to carry the day. Hillary Clinton's status as the first woman president, and "co-president' in the last successful Democrat administration, could assure unparalled accomplishments for a true "uniter" at a time of historic opportunity.

Greengal,

This is NOT a protest action. Changing registration is a LEVERAGE tactic likely to achive some real results right away. It is to put pressure on our congress. After the primary, the chosen candidate could care less what the progressive community thinks.

Putting it off until AFTER the primary diminishes the effect on influencing our Congress, and diminishes what it could do to help the progressive candidates chances.

Just remember to switch registration with enough timeto vote in the primary (if that is what you want -- usually 6 weeks is enough. Check with your state).

Think about it.

alank:
Maybe after the next dem primary. I want to replace Al Wynn, a DINO of the worst kind who was corrupted by the money that started to flow when he got good committee assignments. To be able to vote for Donna, I have to remain a registered dem. In campaigning for her, I am promoting everything we as greens care about. http://www.donnaedwardsforcongress.com/ Check it out. I received a move-on email today polling whether they should support dem primary challengers. I not only voted yes, I told them they need to back her.

Agreed, Greengal, it's not just about the "labels," it's the people that matter, the agenda that counts. Labels shouldn't be determinant, but they can, especially if they obfuscate.

Today, corporate party politics IS about the labels, for it's about BRANDING. They HIDE their real intent behind the labels.

But Green politics is more than a label: it is a holistic vision and set of Values and practices, that, if employed, would lead to a sustainable future — for that IS the goal.
It necessarily involves a new social-political awareness, one that is sorely needed.

So here is where labels DO matter: When Dennis with great ideas runs as a Democrat, in that party that, as I have said has done a lot of stealth (and not so hidden) damage, he gives a bright face and hope for progressives, but really builds the DLC base. The money and volunteer energy ends up in the same pot.

Work for Dennis, but get Hillary. It's classic bait and switch.

Greengal, you said:

At some point, I'd love to see a bunch of our green dems formally change their affiliation to the green party and see all their supporters follow them by continuing to vote for them in the next election, even though they are no longer dems but greens.

There's an idea.

The problem is, the danger is upon us, we have little time to act even as we plan future electoral strategies. The best thing to do right now, today in fact, is to Register Green, a tactic that registers your concerns (and goals) in public, and puts immediate pressure on Dems in Congress to change their act — and their votes.

To truthteller & others,

Registering Green right NOW has as much or MORE impact than even a vote. Why?

Because it is a significant, meaningful public statement -- you are registering or declaring a series of values and positions that virtually no voting situation gives you the chance to do.

It says (in statistics that parties read), that you want to:

• END this illegal war
• impeach Cheney and Bush for multiple crimes
• re-establish the ground-rules for civilzed behavior
• restore respect for rights
• set up single-payer health insurance for all
• truly reform election laws (public funds, proportional representation, etc.)
• remove corporate money from political decisions

When was the last time you voted for a candidate who wanted THAT? Sooo...now "vote" with your Registration! Make a public stand for the values you care about. it lasts longer than standing with a sign on the side of the road.

Unlike other parties, the Green Party is also a Movement. Greens exist in over a hundred countries. Greens act not only in elections but also in communities. Greens exist as a political party to give VOICE to your voice, to say out loud what no one else will. This is essential for any change.

Growing Greens numbers can only help ALL progressive candidates because it is the *one sure way* of making our political positions known. Elections and polls don't do that. Affiliating with a party that has a sustainable, future-focused vision and clear values does. Progressives can show those statistics to bolster their stands. Kucinich, for example, would benefit greatly within his own party by a large Green registration BEFORE the Primaries. It would give him ammunition and proof of where voters want to go. What other registration can do that? If you feel you have to, Kucinich folks, you can switch back to Dem *temporarily* for the primary, and give him a double boost. Don't forget to switch back -- to keep those Green numbers up!

How you vote can be important, but what you do in the pollbooth for 20 minutes every 2 or 4 years, does not matter nearly as much as what you do with ALL those OTHER minutes. Just because you might vote for a Democrat, does not mean you should float that sinking ship any longer. Every ounce of energy you can muster (and every dollar - Greens take no corporate money) should be used to help grow a real political alternative like the Greens, no matter how you voted. Soon you will begin to see many worthy candidates that stand for what you want and we need.

If you can't register Green in your state, then do the next best thing: affiliate with local/state Greens and *inform* your representative that you have done so. *It is important that they know*. They need to see the handwriting on the wall, that people want meaningful politics, and they'll do whatever is necessary to get away from the hypocritical BS served up today.

Green registration/affiliation can be the progressive's "hidden benefit": an overlooked but highly important political tool -- perhaps even the most important we can use now, kind of like Cindy Sheehan's stand on steroids. You can see more on how this works by visiting switch2green.org.

You can make any day Election Day, by "voting" with your Registration! The numbers count...and can shake things up in ways no one expected. We need that.

alank: You make a great argument and it is food for thought. I think that the right person is more important than the label. Yes, Donna Edwards (see my earlier post) stands for everything in your list and more. So does Dennis. Any person who gets into office accrues some amount of power. As that power grows with seniority and committee assignments, more money starts arriving from lobbyists and interest groups and many people who started out good are corrupted. We have to find people we believe will be incorruptible and get them into office, regardless of the party label they bear. Then we have to watch how they are voting, to make sure they are not being corrupted, regardless of their party affiliation. The advantage of eliminating the incumbent at the primary is that there will be no split votes in the general election, because the incumbent's machine will have been largely neutralized by the primary loss. (Hopefully defections like Joe Liebermans will not become routine.) At some point, I'd love to see a bunch of our green dems formally change their affiliation to the green party and see all their supporters follow them by continuing to vote for them in the next election, even though they are no longer dems but greens.
dcb: The fact that so many dems and repubs are terrified of Cindy warms my heart also, because it means she's effective enough to pose a serious threat.

ALANK: Excellent analysis! You nailed it all!

alank -

Thank you for your excellent insights!

Part of me would like to encourage the handful of decent dems like Dennis Kucinich and -- in her run against House Speaker Pelosi -- Cindy Sheehan.

The fact that Democrats and Republicans alike are terrified of a Sheehan candidacy makes my heart warm.

Your argument, however, that an interminable battle to win the party back from the moneyed clutches the Democratic Leadership Council is quite true. We'd be spinning our wheels, wasting tons of energy and time when we could more successfully boost a third party, such as the Greens, into national prominence. At the same time we'd be working with likeminded people and offering a compelling alternative to Americans who otherwise would have no reason or interest to vote.

I'll stay Green. No more compromises for me. Best to have INTEGRITY rather than corporate compliance as my party's principle reason for existence.

I wonder why Sheehan doesn't run as a Green. I think she's getting really personal here with Pelosi's insulated and inflated perception of herself. I think it would be more painful for Pelosi to lose to a Dem than to a Green. How could the corrupt machine that has given her so much power let her down? :-)

You Go Cindy!

Cindy is correct. Run on the OUTside.

Again, what I wrote is not just abut slamming Dems because they are bad folks, but it is the the actual structure of the party, its real purpose that must not be further reinforced: it is part of a nasty trap we are in.

It is not enough to replace individual bad Dems with good ones. That Party itself must be replaced. You have to start sometime.

It is not an easy answer. There are none. There are fascists knocking at the door and the "savior" party hasn't even brought up the subject. It's finished. Game over. There's no saving it -- AND, worse,...no POINT in saving it.

The amount of energy spent in trying to pry the party from DLC hands would be enormous. Even if by some miracle progressives won (and they've been trying for decades now), then the DLC's, if they hadn't first done everything to send you to jail, would take the money and run, leaving nothing but tatters. You would have spent years getting an empty shell, and still offering no direction to the American people -- at a time when we need it the most. Hell, progressives, they won't even give you the gavel. What proof do you still need?

It's THEIR party, get it? They won't ever say so (or rarely). Thinking otherwise is a costly, painful illusion.

America is bleeding from a thousand places. Spending time trying to convince a party "leadership" (ownership) to create a new vision for America, one that empowers the People, only keeps progressives exhausted and broke, and the people screwed.

As much as folks may hate to hear it, your time is FAR better served in building a party that already HAS sustainable vision and direction and just needs to grow to fill the empty space left by our two corporate parties.

Cindy was right to challenge Pelosi from the outside. That is the only thing they will understand. And while it does make sense to continue to try to influence those Dems already/still in power, building a new structure not tied to corporate money and the death-wish, race-to-the-bottom corporate view of life, society, humanity start grooming and electing people who already stand for what you want.

That is, IF we ever have any free or fair elections again. WE need a human vision to prepares us for whatever lies ahead. US "electoral politics" as currently played (and paid for) does not do that at all. to the contrary. It is smoke-and-mirrors played to enrich and favor the status quo.

So -- as whacky as it might sound to some die-hard duopolists or nostalgic Dems -- there are actually much better odds (though it might not seem so on the face of it), MUCH better odds to succeed in bulding a new party because: 1- you know where you are trying to go, and 2- you are working with others with a sustainable, people-centered view of the world, all pulling in the same direction.

For those who say this is pie-in the sky, I say we were not expecting cameras on all corners and people reading your email and listening on your phone, and your tax dollars going to torture people either Yet it has come to pass.

Someone wasn't looking, right? Dems in and near power either did NOTHING or acted powerless to do anything. The structure and leadership didn't mind so much, and the campaign dollars kept rolling in.

The Democratic Party, when faced with the most ruthless crimes and rampant abuses FAILED miserably to do anything useful before or during. SORRY. Game over. It is ugly for some to admit, but there IS no way to go back.

We must become citizens again and try new ways. I and others will work to build the Green Party, one whose vision of sustainable politics and real democratic empowerment, whose concern for the well being of individuals within the context of a multicultural world, one with members in a hundred countries at least gets us going on the right track.

There may be other answers, but this is the single best out there now.

Those who want quick fixes, painless solutions ("win in '08 and everything's great)", it is waaay too late for that. Even if you "win," what do you get?? Clinton had 8 years, remember, and left us hurting, the rich richer (and greedier), and the poor squirming.

Easy mortgages, credit cards, junk food, junk pharmaceuticals, junk in our air and water got us Me-Centered, compliant and complacent.

Uh-uh, noooo...we will pay the price for not caring, much less paying attention, and doing something sooner. Too late. Any good answer needs to start from the heart and move outward. For as small (yet growing) as they are, Green politics is about heart, understanding and working with and within the web of life on the planet. It is about exploring cooperation and sharing, not hoarding and control.

If you find something better than this say so, and I'll be listening. But we are on the edge of the precipice and we can only ally ourselves with people (such as Greens) who are saying "Turn around. Go the other way."

greengal - so i should change my registration from green to dem so that i can have a say in ridding the dims of DLC types? then vote green once the moneyed dims are in place?

it would be great to see cindy and dennis in there. hopefully none of the rightwing wackos or hired mercs will shoot them.

sometimes i think that the reason why goodman and chomsky are still around is that their public personas are fairly reserved. perhaps it is best to do our progressive without obvious pleasure or glee, and thereby avoid inflaming the rightwing neanderthals among us.

The reasons Dems in Congress have a hard time even against a minority, is basically the same as the Netroots being unable (or afraid) to touch Hillary. It's about the money, baby!

Netroots and progressives in general serve the DLC-brand of the Democratic Party because...it's the only brand there is! They own the coffers and the loudspeakers are locked up in their office, so only THEIR words come out.

I know many people don't like to hear about it -- or think about it -- but the problem IS the Democratic Party.

They prevent the ENTIRE NATION from doing anything serious about this seriously disastrous cabal running roughshod over our Constitution and nation.

As a people, we can't find answers, because the Dems neither have nor offer any, and their Big Thing is touting that THEY are the only Answer to our problem.

Went to war? Elect a Democrat. Got no job? Elect a Democrat. Need health insurance? Elect a Democrat. Vote didn't count? elect a Democrat.

Every single soul in America who believes that, is also part of the problem.

This situation - this suspension of DISbelief -- IS a problem, for it leaves us defenseless. DLC's got the money, they set the rules: WE are the Fools.

Dems for the most part make SURE only middle-of-the-roaders getting into office, people who wouldn't recognize a problem of average and poor Americans if it bit them, because they either refuse to or are incapable OF defining or changing the underlying problems of our society. They say they are just going for the middle because of the voters. It's really because the FUNDERS say so.

You and I, progressives in general, Dems take our vote then take us into the alley and beat up on us. It is a cycle that is only getting worse.

Dem loyalists like to point out the Bill Clinton was there for eight years, and the economy was bubbling....Oh, wrong word, sorry. Every one of those years only bought time for the right wing putschists and got us closer to the brink as he supervised the greater concentration of media to the point of: NO CRITICAL THINKING at all in the corporate press.

Any WONDER Rupert Loves Hillary?

The Clinton years actually set us up to be on the brink of political and social disaster, but few wish to acknowledge it. Besides the media concentration already mentioned, he championed all SORTS of concentration...of wealth. His pushing for NAFTA, WTO, and FTAA, and so on has weakened democracies the world over, making it harder, if not impossible for people to participate in their own governance. He made HUGE strides into making this a Corporate State.

WORST of ALL, for this nation, and the world, the Democrats with Clinton at their helm, sailing the smooth waters of instant millionaires and IPO's, never ONCE stopped to reflect on what was going on around them or to tell the people of the dangerous moves going on on the Right. We see now, even as Democrats hold (theoretical) power in (a so-called) Congress, they have become so much of the "Go along to get along" crowd, and have so compromised their legislative possibilities (not to mention their souls) with the money the take/make, that hey are a mockery of themselves and cannot serve the people, even if some of them wished to. They are TOLD what to do.

Yes. Yes, indeed, it's a disaster to really have to say out loud that the Great Dem Hope of all these years and generations is in fact NO hope at all.

The situation this illegitimate Regime, has put us in is ruining our nation and murdering for profit across the globe.

But the inability of our supposed representatives to recognize crime and abuse or do anything about it is just as much a crime.

In Texas a man who sat in a car during a robbery is serving a life sentence; he was almost put to death, and but for a rare pardon, is still breathing today. What do you say -- or DO -- about close to 600 men and women sitting in the car while the nation, its laws, its youth, its Treasury, its Constitution, and its reputation, its credibility and its security is assaulted and robbed.

The answers aren't easy. The picture isn't pretty, in fact it's downright ugly. And in large part it's because we became lazy about knowing or participating in the real events of our lives.

Our laziness was greatly facilitated by a sold-out corporate gang masquerading as an opposition "workingman's" party even as they slashed unions and froze salaries -- or lowered them (they never freeze prices). Believe in us, elect us and we will get you out of this. Right!

We have been duped. We are being duped again. Right now. By moving the Primary cycle up ahead by months the smoke-and-mirror machines will keep us from seeing all of the things they are letting this Administration get away with.

Classic Bait and Switch: Come on in for the Kucinich, but what you're really buying is a Hillary, and Rupert's pleased as punch.

Democrats lead us off the very same cliff that Republicans do, albeit at a slower pace. We re witnessing a War ON America, and both major political organizations are on the other side from the people.

We are hairsbreadth away from totalitarian rule, and the Democrats? Talking about Iran and Pakistan, while no one can figure out what to do in Louisiana.

Again, there are no easy answers. They all require People participating. I will require new political organization. There are still some very good people inside yet, but there are no answers in the Democratic Party. It is a sponge, meant to sop up your energy and ring it into the gutter.

It is too far compromised for the saving. It already has half a century of looking away and hiding critical truths from the American people when we really needed them. They are an indispensable part of those ruling the nation, for they keep those losing side from figuring out what is going on, and and trying to do something about it.

KATHY DOT: Thank you much for being placed in the same sentence as the enlightened Mr. Kucinich! And for that, you have rubbed the genii and get some insight into the 2012 Mayan question. From Jane Robert's quite intriguing books, The Seth Material/Seth Speaks/The Nature of the Psyche, etc she explains that modern persons face a complete loss in trying to recognize the TYPE of sentience that our ancestors (way back) were endowed with. One example given was that there was no definitive language to separate the object from the observer, as consciousness was more diffusive. I am prefacing my comment with that statement because the clairvoyants and shaman of yesteryear were endowed with a range of sight and sentience that truly would stun our imaginations. I have made the case quite often that education and its academic branches train the empirical species of thought which is important, but is hardly the full Gestalt of intelligence. Thus the Mayans who began to work with numerical systems and learn to discover correspondences between their small mundane world and the greater cosmos recognized that profound cycles of time were part of the formula. Is this so difficult to place credence in? Does the reader question why water freezes at 32 degrees, why September 23 marks the general autumn equinox, that our earth takes 365 days to orbit the sun. There are NUMBERS built into SYSTEMS and these obey "laws" of our universe and its blueprints. The Mayans, like the Hindus, recognized very powerful shifts embedded into time itself; and these were understood to accord (this is something like the way biorhythms are calculated for individuals) with overlapping cycles. 2012 is such a "number." As an astrologer, I can also say that Uranus, the planet that "rules" Aquarius will be in Pisces (sign of Neptune, the planet ruling the now closing Pisean Age) until 2010; and Neptune, now in Aquarius, will move into Pisces in 2012. Its orbit is 165 years and it spends 14 years in a sign. I call this "the cosmic changing of the guard" because if Uranus, the planetary ambassador of Truth (that which is sacrosanct to the 11th sign kingdom, Aquarius) is crossing Pisces (kingdom of Neptune) while Neptune is crossing Aquarius (kingdom of Uranus). In other words the planet of truth is IN the sign of deception and dual fish/blurred vision/fog, etc while the planet that represents that murky, nebulous realm (Neptune) is in Aquarius (sign of truth). The evidence is so clear... look at our media, drenched in lies, with the vast majority unable to "separate the wheat from the chaff" the density of deception is so thick!!! In any case, long answer... I hope it was invited!
Another omen, there is an eclipse on September 11... remember, Shakespeare used the eclipse to signal the death of Caesar in his play by that name. Eclipses always darken the light/life line of specific leaders... let's see what transpires.

Nietzsche, I also have a sense of humor, although it doesn't always show up on these threads.

Nietzsche, clearly, instead of in a fog. I also believe that we are moving into a transition where people will be forced by circumstances to reevaluate their priorities and values. The migration of wealth to the top is forcing an economic crisis, global warming is forcing an environmental crisis, we only need one more crisis to create a perfect storm.

I'm very curious about what the significance of 2012 on the Mayan calendar is about. We'll find out. I also believe that people are evolving into a higher state of consciousness (some faster than others, as is always how it goes). People such as Dennis Kucinich and Siouxrose are lighting the path. I don't feel stressed about the condition of the world, sad as it is. I can't control how things turn out, I can only do what I see that needs to be done, and trust the outcome. Peace.

Kathy, I love you but how do you deal with this world sober?

KIVALS: Love your explanation for tipping point(s). GREENGAL: Thank you for reminding us of the facts of food/life.
Taking the perspective of the LOGOS, there truly are trends that move mankind through discernible historical cycles. Although contested as to its planetary status, Pluto has acquired a reputation (this is based on empirical data collected by astrologers) for bringing total breakdown eventually followed by a phase of rebuilding. It is the planet of death and the underworld, of endings and new beginnings, or Shiva and Vishnu, of Hades. Pluto was discovered when atomic power was harnessed. As the "upper octave" of Mars, the war-god, it definitely has surpassed the old god's power for making war in its capacity to split the atom, "and tear asunder what no man should tear asunder." My point is that the astrological paradigm lends unfortunate strength to those agencies of government as corporations over the next decade plus. Capricorn represents the state and forces of repression and Pluto is about to enter that sign for its first visit in 248 years. In addition, Capricorn opposes the U.S. July 4 Cancer sun, and the opposition of Pluto points to many disturbing things like: 1. the boomerang of karma hitting home. For all the trespasses across history that lent to this increasingly martial nation a false sense of impunity, crimes chronicled by the likes of Howard Zinn. 2. Breakdown and rebuilding of infrastructure as a direct result of empire expansion at the cost of necessary investment here at home. 3. Forces of nature, a/k/a global warming. The ultimate hubris of this society and its bonfire of the consumer vanities with respect to driving profligate vehicles of waste, added to what it's doing to the global atmosphere in the way of unapologetic climate destabilization. 4. Money: we got none, as in, all that wonder of becoming an indentured servant debtor nation, all to further the disgusting wet dreams of the Mars rules viagra warriors who have seized power, aided and abetted by a legion of narcissistic fools. 5. MANY prophecies of end times, which really represent the END of a way of life, plausibly the end of oil and the type of engine, capitalist red-ant like utter resource depletion model that it gave rise to. 6. OTHER.

Siouxrose: You mention money as item 4. As a parting gift to the investment and banking industry, Bill Clinton signed into law in Oct 1999 the Financial Services Modernization Act, repealing the part of depression era legislation that prevented banks that lend money from also being involved in investment, but leaving the FDIC insurance in place. This paved the way for the massive banking/investment corporate consolidations, but ensured that the taxpayers, and not the corporate officials, would be responsible for the stupid risks the corporations take -- meaning that when all is said and done in the collapse of the mortgage market, the Clintons will deserve some of the credit for that crash as well. See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

If it hadn't been for the MSM crucifying Dean after he announced his plan to re-regulate the media (using the bogus "scream" as their hook), he would have trounced Bush.

Wrong candidate in 2004. The MSM and DLC convinced people that Kerry was "electable."

Hoo boy.

If 2004 taught anything, it's that it matters mightily who the nominee is.

Yes, if we'd nominated a Republican, we wouldn't have had to hear about how "French" our nominee was.

There's a lot of good stuff in this article, but:

1. MoveOn.org was formed originally to promote censure of Bill Clinton as a triangulation between impeachment and doing nothing. Don't expect them to be "the prorgressive leadership".

2. I get hinky when people tell me that 2004 was about "the nominee". Yes, I think he was the wrong nominee and had the wrong advisors, but I also think what the media told us about him was what mattered, and that had little to do with who he was.

3. I'm still not convinced that Bush won that election. You can shrug that off as conspiracy theory if you like, but the evidence is pretty strong, even if you don't count the fact that the Republicans have worked very hard to make sure that the votes don't actually get counted. The exit polls said Kerry won. There is absolutely no reason to think those polls could not have been correct. You lose credibility with me when you take for granted that that this is not the case.

4. Kos is just a guy. Really. I don't care what his opinion is. He never makes me do anything.

greengal: Just ad those outrages to the laundry list of reasons not to vote for the "electable" Democrats. Just because Kucinich doesn't breath fire on the podium doesn't mean he is not passionate. I think he has to be careful, since he's so diminutive that it would be easy for him to be portrayed as a little Hitler if he was too animated in his public speaking. Besides, I'm sure he's got a lot of passion to keep his hottie young wife happy - she'd be the best First Lady since Jackie Kennedy!

One thing truthteller overlooks, and so does everyone else, is that while Hillary was creating a major diversion on health care, the Clinton admin was quietly bringing unlabeled GMO products into our food supply. Thanks to the Clintons, they are now in, on or associated in some way with everthing not certified organic. rBST was approved in 1994, after 14 years of controversy and lobbying by Monsanto, with more GMO products to follow. Netroots should check out Hillary's connections to industrial agriculture, starting with The Rose Law Firm, and press her on whether she plans to stop The Terminator, require GMO labeling and stop the patenting of heirloom seeds by Monsanto and the other giants seeking to control the world food supply. I predict a cool reception to these proposals. In fact, I'd like to know what Edwards and Obama have to say about this. Only Kucinich can be trusted on these issues, but he suffers from a lack of fire and passion.
I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. Also overlooked is Al Gore's support for biotech, including GMO food, while he was VP_.

alank: so if you are not sitting in the car, what are you doing? what do you recommend that we all do? I think we need to focus on the dem primaries and replace the DLC types with progressives. case in point: MD 4th Cong Dist. last election we put a real scare into Albert Wynn, who came within a few thousand votes of losing the primary to Donna Edwards, who only entered the race to challenge him 4 months before the Dem primary. she's back in and we are working now a year in advance to get rid of him. more power to the people trying to replace Pelosi with Cindy Sheehan.

Articles like this one, from such a brilliant analysist (doing the research on the demographics of guests on "Nightline" and other "news" programs) and a truly caring guy (I have met Jeff and we have sparred on the very topic of Dems/Rep. vs third party candidates prior to the '04 election) and I am amazed that he STILL cannot see the obvious truth here..... there is one party controlling our govt....the CORPORATE PARTY. To even acknowledge that there is a difference between Obama, Hillary and John is to blindly shut one's eyes and try to play a part of the lying game.

I am sad....sad not only for well-meaning people who would do better if they knew better (possibly) but sad for Jeff for continuing to want to see something better in a party that is nothing more than the mafia! To grapple with the way things should be vs. the way they REALLY are is a fate worse than death! My wish for Jeff (and all those who WANT desperately to hold onto the idea of what the Democratic party should be..but in reality are not) is that all of us open our eyes.....let us all awaken from this nightmare we are living.....and re-evaluate how our actions and our words are keeping us in this declining state (in our individual lives as well as in our community) and admit that we have to live differently in order to have a healthy and well-adjusted society (ultimately this will positively impact the world which is what they are all hoping for).

Let us all stop playing the game and get honest with ourselves. The sooner we do this the sooner we can make the hard choices that will ultimately free us from our own slavery.

peace!

Al Gore will announce after he picks up the Nobel, Oct. 12.

Gore/Obama will sweep the election.
The net polls that include Gore have consistently shown him doing well and the main impediment to wider acceptance is his stated reluctance to run.

But he's changed his stance from "Not running," to "The election is a long way off."

The fear of Gore is the reason that the MSM continually beats the Hillary drum -- insisting that she will be the candidate. It's true that many Republicans would be comfortable with her as President, but I suspect it is equally true that they believe she will be the easiest for any of them to defeat.

Just like everything else the "so-called" net roots have been hijacked by big money interests that know if used right it can be an un-stoppable force.

The best thing to do is ignore MoveOn and the Dailykos. Look for localized political web pages, the real "grass-net-roots"

They're out there, you just have to look.

Unless Clinton formally repudiates her stance on a flag-burning amendment, I will not vote for her. Maybe a write-in vote for Nader or Bill Moyers instead.

I'm the netroots, and I'm against Hillary Clinton. Edwards/Obama look much better to me. And yes, I too am talking to those I know about how important it is to elect a team that will represent the people and not corporate gluttons. Some women I know say they will not vote for Hillary, even though they are feminists; a few others say dreamily how great it would be to elect a woman president, as if that is the only thing that matters. I counter by pointing out her macho war stance. Makes them think.
Yea, I am the netroots and grassroots and Edwards and Obama are looking pretty good to me.

Clintonomics---Unfooled Around With Since The 90's -- Is it time to get "hateful" or-- should we let Repubs do it for us?

Welfare reform was needed. But, marching arm-in-arm w/blacks while working hard-right extremes behind the scenes...that's kind of chilling. Trouble is the middle/ working-class are just as mis-guided and George never had to lift a finger or modify Clintonomics-- unfooled-around with since the 90's and the introduction of the WMD follies. But, something HAS changed-- the failed "Clintonomics" --the heavy-handed lawless NAFTA and the universal chaos it precipitated has forever after been renamed to "Rubinomics." You know Hill won't change much about the war. Her husband, "Desert -Fox, " was in it up to his eyeballs.

"For the Democrats, the danger is the greatest because the Republicans are clearly holding their fire until Clinton is nominated. All morality aside, to nominate Clinton is lousy politics". Sadly, the writer, Sam Smith, fighting to out the Clinton's staggering! sense of entitlement-- for decades, ends his article this way: "Without much hope, we rest our case".

A big part of the problem is We Don't Know Where! To Start!!: The sheer numbers of associates taking the 5th--among them Hillary herself-- 200 times plus, was stunning, in itself stacking up ,even lethal, casualties among those readying to expose the Clinton's criminal activities way! beyond Whitewater. The violations are so voluminous, the figures so over the top, most of us don't know where to start and the rest don't have the time, resources, energy --or GUTS, to address it.

The media, most of it owned by multimillionaires who use it to project the ideas that support their interests are having a party since they took over the Free Press in the 90's. Not wanting to bite the hand that feeds! them, they only go where they're invited --by the Clintons. And that would be the bedroom-- perish the thought, the boardroom or the backroom where they made
p-o-l-i-c-y. I mean inquiring about those!! things would be "hateful." It is through the newspapers and TV channels that the fallout from reckless corporate de-regulation & lawlessness (Clintonian extremism) has been kept hidden from the people. It's every fascist's dream/mission: the Campaign For Ignorance --Stupid!

The Progressive Review 8/28/07
"Hillary haters." The term is a second generation of the phrase "Clinton haters" used so successfully in the last administration to make criticism of one of the most corrupt presidents in history sound as despicable as denigrating blacks or Jews - thus adding Clinton and his wife to the category of oppressed peoples." For more than 200 years, people who criticized the president were known as opponents or critics. To transform them into haters is Orwellian manipulation of the first order and any reporters who use the term ought to have their press pass revoked".

I dumped MoveOn.org after that poll they took. Hillary doesn't have a chance.

"While progressives desperately want a Democratic president"

This is untrue ... no self-respecting Progressive would want a democ-rat in the whitehouse. It really comes down to how you define Liberal or Progressive or Conservative or Whatever.

The U.S. Supreme Court is extremely important and Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Stephen Breyer - two outstanding justices. And all the ranting here has produced not one iota of evidence that Hillary would appoint right-wing justices to the court, and there is nothing in her history to suppose that she would. It's simply intellectually dishonest to say that there is no difference between Hillary and the Republicans. She has a long, public record of supporting abortion rights, public schools, and even universal health care, for example, unlike the major Republican candidates. (Please don't bore me with a rant about her botching health care, because it is Congress that makes the laws, not the "first lady." Political will could have resulted in health-care legislation with or without her input. )

But maybe bloggers here will get some perverse pleasure from losing elections for the right reasons. Many Republicans likely believe that such losses are a virtue that will lead them to heaven and eternal life. But what do ABHers and Naderites hope to gain by losing elections?

"Vote for whomever you like in the primary.
Then vote for the candidate who wins the Democratic nomination. Otherwise, your vote is going to the Republican. If you stay home and don't vote, your vote is going to the Republican."

Or, to rephrase it, "you're either with us or with the terrorists". The same anti-political binary bind, which forecloses political action or political options.

The Democrats -- apart from Kucinich and other 'delusional' types -- have no choice but to continue to run the military-corporate state. They'll just do it 'responsibly'. They will continue to maintain troops in 100+ countries. They will continue the 'war on terror', only 'responsibly'.

Right now Sonny Corleone runs the family; the DLC and the Binaricrats just want Michael to run it -- because he'll run it better. It won't be any less criminal; no one, under a Hilary admin, would ever be brought up on war crimes -- nor will any memeber of the ideo-tainment bureaus ask whether the candidates plan to bring up any member of the Bush regime on war crimes -- but it will be 'responsible'.

"Paul/Edwards???"

You gotta be kidding me, right?

I'm with all the other posters who have stated that Clinton (or Obama) will never get my vote, in either the primary or the general election. If Clinton is selected as the presidential candidate, then I will definitely be supporting and voting for the Green Party's candidate.

To hell with the DLC!

sorry i've got nothing substantive to offer tonight, though i am with COMarc, kivals, rebel farmer, and others RE cause for pessimism (bullets and money hold too much sway), tipping points (some serious shit is going down, and the incompetency and soon to be felt insolvency of the US administration is unparalleled, leaving a gaping hole open for something different and hopefully better), and strategies (give Kucinich some support if you feel the Dems are redeemable, but probably it is best to put most of your energy into third party, maybe drafting a gore/nader/kucinich/edwards/ or someone to implement a populist platform that would never fly with the corporate DLC).

damon13 - what's your problem? you engage a lot of personal attacks while offering little of substance to the dialogues. at least in the handful of posts i've read of yours. kathyodat made some excellent points. what do you have to say specifically about them? your ad hominen thing is like that of a precocious 13 year old. someone who is bright but not wise. i don't see a fundamental respect for others. maybe you need to be around a few more years to develop that. listen up around here, you do have things to learn. having respect for the knowledge of others more informed than you is necessary for maturation. (our president could use some respect and wisdom, too.)

maybe kathyodat WAS on a bit of an enhanced stream of consciousness here. so what? her points are still valid.

Yuck. Kathyodat, you sound more drunk than usual. Maybe it's beddy-by-time.

dux, if you think voting for Hillary is an improvement, you're the delusional one. There is no question about who she would answer to. Not us. The same ones Bill answered to. No thanks. I don't care if a Republican does get in if all we get is Hillary. If you're getting f***ed, are you going to care if it's a Democrat or a Republican? Bill lied about NAFTA and sold us out, passed "welfare reform" and pitched millions of children from poverty into dire poverty, accelerated the transfer of wealth to the richest 1% faster than any Republican ever did, and ruined the Democratic party, and lost Congress. Hillary would be a disaster for the shreds of the Democratic Party. No thanks. It's people like you who have helped create this disastrous state by continuing to vote for the dsyfunctional Democratic Party. It's like giving alcohol to an alcoholic. Thanks for helping. If we had withheld our votes earlier, we might have been able to take back our coopted party, but cowards like you kept giving them what they wanted, and making them even more powerful. Now look what we have. A corporate war hawk candidate even more corporate and warhawk than the Republicans. And a brazen liar besides. Telling the voters she will get us out of Iraq and telling the NYT she won't. Well, which is it? Guess.

I also think we should promote framed in memory of 9/11 a shopping free day every month on the 11th. Keep telling people and use bumper stickers, letters to the editors and street corner signs. I'm also pushing for boycotting Christmas. Hit them where it hurts. After 9/11 Bush told us to go shopping. He may be a sociopath, but he knows where the butter for his bread comes from. Our economy is 70% consumer driven. That gives us power, and even small changes have large effects. So use it and start a movement. It's not easy, our country is addicted to shopping. But the way the money is flowing to the top is making it hard to do. I think we can do this.

What we can't do is fight the corporate elite on their own grounds. We need to create our own grounds. They own the media. They've got the political parties wrapped up. It's pathetic that the best we could hope for is Edwards. His idea of universal health care is to force us to pay insurers.

I think things will have to get really grim to wake up the populace, and they probably will. As a nurse, I know that compensating mechanisms are built in for failure, and that's what the government is doing right now to stave off disaster. They will run out of compensating mechanisms. The question is, who will be holding the bag when that happens, because the public always blames whoever is holding the bag. Maybe that's why the corporations are so pro-Hillary. In addition to her being so compliant toward them. A win-win for them.

Wal-Mart is very tempting, but the poor won't come on board, they are too broke to pass up the prices. Wal-Mart must come later to my mind.

I think we need to work on getting the National Initiative passed, and that we also have the power of the purse - our own. Some have talked about choosing a company to boycott. I favor GE for several reasons. They own 80% of NBC, so if we boycott NBC, advertisers will abandon them, accelerating their downfall. They are a huge defense contractor and make crappy appliances, so they deserve to be a target. Whirlpool is a competitor with their Magic Chef line, so there is an alternative for low income purchasers.

You're all delusional.
Vote for whomever you like in the primary.
Then vote for the candidate who wins the Democratic nomination.

Otherwise, your vote is going to the Republican.

If you stay home and don't vote, your vote is going to the Republican.

The result is the same.

It's that simple.

O.K. Kids,

I think I agree with most of the posts here - except the freemason thing - but I also still think we have a chance with this thing called an election. That of course assumes that we are going to have an election.

Kival made a very good point - tipping points.

A lot can happen between now and the primaries. Where will the candidates stand if Bush attacks Iran? How are they going to vote on Iraq funding and timetables? What about the new NAFTA like trade deals with Peru, Columbia, et al being pushed for passage by the big money guys? And I'm sure there are a lot of rats in Hillary's closet that haven't been seen the light of day yet.

So, here's what I think I'm gonna do. I'm going to continue to support Kucinich for now. I'm going to watch the primaries REAL close. I'm in Oregon, so I get to see what most every other state is doing before they get to me. Then I'll put my primary vote where I think it will do the most good.

Then, if Hillary gets on the ballot, I think that an Edwards/Nader or Gore or somebody that can attract both Repugs (they're none to happy with their choices either) and Dimms should be drafted as independents or Greens. Wouldn't that be sweet? And ya know, I bet that ticket could win in '08. Maybe even Howard Dean could be drafted.....Maybe. Oh, I don't know....There is that marshal law thing and the possibility that there won't be an election.....guess I'll just wait and see....

Paul/Edwards???

Edwards/Paul???

Paul Bramscher

Reigning in the MSM will only be possible if we have the appropriate laws. But that will not happen until we can elect the right politicians. So, to me getting free and unbiased media is one of the outcomes of other steps I listed above. Of course once we have free and unbiased media, it will help preserve our democracy.

Term limit for Congress will hopefully reduce influce of lobbyists.

Clinton I was a republican dressed up in democratic clothes. Clinton II is more of the same. She will extend NAFTA-like trade treaties with more and more countries in order to keep all of us in line for the corporate masters of the US.

I will never, under any circumstances, vote for a republican like Clinton.

hellodarling, you're no offense intended, but you're a twit. If you really think Freemasons run the country, you're sadly deluded. Freemasons are having trouble keeping their doors open much less secretly running anything. Take your meds, go talk to a therapist, do something.

whatever! the aristocrats in america own everything, well not EVERYTHING, they leave 1% for the rest of the 99% of everyone else! what makes anyone think that the office of the president, the most coveted position on the planet, would ever be dictated by the public? voting is a scam. america is a scam. when the current president opened his desk drawer in the oval office after becoming president, he found a letter addressed to him by his father, congratulating him on becoming president. the job of president is too important of a position to be determined by mere commoners. hillary will be the next president and i won't even have to vote. why? because the free masons want to see her in office. i've already been told that if she ran for president, she would win GUARANTEED!!! let's see if they're right.

You mean Hillary Bush?

When I show up in that proverbial location and it is frozen over is the day I will vote for this person.

I don't understand her appeal to the electorate. In my area, I know of no one except the Silicon Valley CEOs who support her. Of course these are the same people who gave megabucks to Bush and off-shored lotsa jobs. Maybe they're expecting more tax cuts for the rich.

I gotta agree with margalo. The easiest example of the truism "follow the money" is now electoral politics. I noticed, if no-one else did, the beginning of the defection of corporate money to the dem. side of the column on or about the November '06 election. Carl Rove was pleading at the bleeding when he denied the coming defeat before the election. Capice?

Corporate money does not support principle, conviction, or values, it supports electability. Find out who's electible and go out and buy them, fer cryin' out loud. A simple business deal.

I imagine they are all secretly shitting in their pants at the prospect that she might really be UN-ELECTIBLE, but hey, they'll easily gather in the forlorn Rebuglican survior.

There is only one political party in the nation now, the Business party. Virtually all national-level political figures are rank and file members. Of course, they craft their statements to appeal to their particular voter demographics but they exist to serve their real constituency. Although attempts are made to disguise this through rhetorical flourish, it becomes patently obvious through the bills and measures that they propose and support.

Netroots was a good idea, but just like everything else, it relies on centralized organizers and "personalities" rather than real activism. Once you start seeing YearlyKos with celebrities bloggers giving keynotes, the shark has been jumped. Even good people can be suborned and enticed into a docile state if one can discern the proper inducements and it isn't hard to see that the key to their compliance is notoriety and becoming a part of the established political system.

If netroots wants to be something more than another component of contrived public discourse, they need to realize that celebrity and things like 'controlling the message' are the enemy of real progress. The Internet is only a force multiplier for real activism on the ground, it can never be a substitute.

No matter how much the Dem leaders want to rig it , the Primaries require winners to get the most votes. So far Hillary has not won any electoral battles with real voters. Hilary is solidly on record for the war machine and for the religion of corporatism and that is why the media love her. The heart of the anti democratic influence is the corporate media. This is the true battleground for the future.

TO THE COMPOST HEAP WITH MOVE-ON. MOVE-ON SOLD OUT THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT (WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THEIR SUPPORT) MONTHS AGO. THE PREMISE WAS FLAWED . THERE MAY BE A FEW ANTI-WAR DEMOCRATS, BUT THERE WILL NEVER BE AN ANTI-WAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Awaken,

Experience suggests that significant changes often come unexpectedly and dramatically, though that does not mean the likelihood is independent of the presence of destabilizing factors. The same processes repeat themselves for a period, reinforcing themselves and strengthening or disentegrating and losing momentum, and eventually the processes reach a tipping point and dramatic change occurs, in ecosystems, in societies, and in governments. There are many possible sources of dramatic change in the US within the next few years and a tipping point could well be imminent.

C'mon, folks! This simply will not do! Go do something concrete and consequential that will make some small positive difference and stop indulging in the luxury of fatalism. You sound like you're ready to hand the whole world over to the fashists.

Clinton/Lieberman ?

DREAM DEMOCRATIC TICKET FOR 2008 ?

Unfortunately, that is a formula for more bombing of the innocent.

Given their base, I would expect them to nuke Iran and then the Palestinians, as part of the "war on terror" of course.

The corporate DLC and the M$M will get Bush-in-drag nominated. On election day I will vote for Dennis Kucinich. If the democrats lose, maybe they will run a more progressive candidate the next time. There are lots of third parties that have been around a long time. We hardly ever hear anything about them. The M$M has way more power than the netroots.

Read about Hillary's right leaning religious convictions in the current issue of MOTHER JONES Magazine. She is not triangulating. She is a true believer---in power for the elite and in their God-given right to rule.

Dennis for president!

fuck Moveon.org ...it's an easy way for guilt-ridden bourgeoisie progressives to clear their conscience from a safe distance.

It's interesting how cozy relationships with "the powers that be" are destroying the netroots movements.

In contrast, the people's localism movement does not develop cozy relationships with any "powers that be", but rather, we starve them into submission to the public will, by denying them our exchange/association.

Moveon and the other netrooters are playing the same tired old game of triangulation - pretending that they can gain the dual support of two mortal enemies - the people, and the people's oppressors.

The people don't need these triangulating schemers.

I'm with truthteller.

I won't vote for Hillary.

Based on anything like what I've seen to date, I won't vote for Obama.

And I'm sure as hell not gonna vote for anybody the Repugs are likely to nominate.

I'll most likely vote Green. Call it a protest. Or, call it a misplaced hope that enough other folks will vote Green for the pols to get the message.

It's still true that, unless you're part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Lots of whining and self-excusing going on here! Take it from this long time Dem activist now a committed Nader voter:
Hillary will be nominated, and the Republicans will again take power in the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office. Bush is right now pulling the anti-war rug out from in under the Congressional Dems, and is moving to lead on the immigration issue. If the Dems were either smart or competent they would have seen this coming.

This is truly the land of DENIAL. Nobody on Common Dreams remembers when commenting on any article that we still have massive voter fraud in this country. And, because of the coming on line of even more touch screen-no printout machines, even more fraud in 2008. Thank the Goddess that at least in California, Sec'y of State Debra Bowen has banned the damn things. It is as if there were no voter fraud in the primaries, which is complete baloney. Reports on Democracy NOW! in 2004 of fraudulent voting in the Iowa Caucuses are still in the archives, if you care to look them up.

Yes, the MSM has huge power in persuading people to go their way, but absent election fraud in 2004, never mind 2000, the voters selected the Democrat not Bush. The election day polls of people who just voted showed the vote going for Kerry, but the MSM squelched that fact, and the public accepted the MSM/gov't line that Bush won legitimately. (Ohio still has 2004 election fraud cases in court.) Yet our government supported a second election in December 2004 in the Ukraine because of the vote of November 2004 having had the same type of problems that we had ourselves in November 2004.

Yes, it is likely Hillary will be the Democratic nominee and even the winner in the general election. Why? Because she is the chosen candidate of those people who fix the elections. How can one tell? Because the big contribution money is flowing to her, and the Republicans are down in total contributions from the past two elections. In other words, the Big Boys are going for her. She is the best Republican-leaning Democrat running, just as Jeff Cohen states so well. And she will govern in the interest of her contributors not the voters.

[Sen. Wyden has sponsored S979, with co-sponsors Kerry & Obama, a bill to make all federal elections 100% by mail, like Oregon's high turnout system. The companion House bill by Susan Davis is HR1667, with co-sponsors: Barney Frank, Eleanor Holmes Norton, James McGovern and Shelley Berkley. 100% mail voting does not cut out all the possible fraud, but it does cut out intimidation at the polls and touch-screen machines. It would be up to us to properly oversee the handling of the ballots between the USPS and the count to be sure there were no substitutions and that the counting software were legitimate.]

Clearly Obama should drop out. He's an arrogant prick with no real political experience and thinks a nice speech about worshiping an "awesome god in the blue states" at the 04 convention actually ment anything in substantive terms. Edwards is the Democratic Party's best hope. Save Kucinich and Gravel, He has more courage than the rest of the feild combined.

Dean proved that money can be raised to wage an insurgent campaign against the power brokers. The power brokers proved that they can take an interloper out through sheer manipulation of the levers of power. In this case, the media bombarding the public with the "Dean scream", characterizing him as some raging loon. The tactic of framing any true representitive of the people's interests--Nader, Sheehan--anyone who steps out of line, is a successful tactic.
The candidates running ABH are not as successful at generating excitment or $ because they are compromised in one matter or another.

Time? Let's see it's been something like 35 years since Viet Nam. Any real change?

I don't think time makes any difference at all.

Time? Let's see it's been something like 25 years since Viet Nam. Any real change?

I don't think time makes any difference at all.

Truthteller says "...make it next to impossible for a serious 3rd Party effort to get off the ground."

This is true. It would take an enormous amount of time, organizational skill, committment, media savvy and, of course, money to build an alternative.

It would also take those same things to "take over" an existing party that has no intention of being taken over and, as COMarc so astutely points out, is NOT a Democratically run organization.

I think it might actually be easier to build a 3rd Party. It would free up time/resources that would otherwise be spent fighting the leadership or even having to deal with the likes of the grotesque Hillary Clinton.

The only way the Dems might reform is for them to LOSE.

PaulMagillSmith,

Thanks for the kind words. I am extremely pessimistic about the future, particularly with a Republican or Hillary in the White House (acknowledging that "Hillary in the White House" appears far-fetched). I think it likely that the US faces hard times in the next few years and that will create extra pressure on the governing elites. Given the evolution of the Republican Party, and Hillary's apparent evolution, if such hard times do occur with a Republican, or Hillary, as president we face a very significant probability of hard fascism in the US and more resource wars, quite possibly leading to worldwide thermonuclear war. So I would support an Anybody-But-Hillary movement within the Democratic Party, though I know such a position is not popular with the CD crowd, particularly since an ABH Democrat would most likely allow further consolidation of corporate control.

We need time most of all and ABH might give us that. Real change in the US will require a much greater awareness by the general population that will take time to develop, through the Internet and other means (likely accelerated by economic hardship, if the Internet and free speech survive). And whether one believes that the future lies in the Green Party, or in taking over the Democratic Party, or even in building an international labor movement, time is necessary, and if time is allowed, all manner of social and political evolution is possible.

I'd offer this instead:

1) Whether public financing or no, we need to reign in the MSM. Entertainment, sports, celebrity "news", etc. should be free game. But the line should be drawn with science, government and politics at the very least. No more propaganda passing as news. Even if we were to limit every candidate to the same $X dollars, some would be given extraordinary air time, whereas others would be totally ignored. As one person accurately concluded: the Fourth Estate is the Fifth Column.
2) We have term limits already (at least, for the executive). you mean for Congress also?
3) Range is better than IRV. But I'll concede that IRV is better than no change at all.

As for Netroots, it certainly has been a paper tiger. Bush, and his father and Reagan before him, have proven that power does indeed issue from the barrel of a gun. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but the gun is mightier than the pen. We should be so lucky to be even paper. At least that still qualifies as bricks & mortar.

Most blogging is an exercise in navel-gazing. The problem is that blogging doesn't actually change anything. The only way to change ideas on a mass scale is through collective struggle--not posting one's rants online (yes, I see the irony of this post).

The ideas in our heads are shaped by our material circumstances. You're not going to convince a CEO that he should give up his millions for the sake of his workers, the environment, etc... Mere words won't convince a single mother working two jobs that she should vote for a do-nothing Democrat. However, when you get people organized and they fight for their demands, ideas can change rapidly--especially during the course of the struggle when the ideas in our head butt up against reality. When the authorities crack down on protesters, or politicians betray a movement it opens people's eyes to the truth in a way that no blog post can ever hope to achieve.

These progressive columnists are running a business themselves, just like Limbaugh and O Reilly. It was in vogue to attack Nader in 2004, and they quickly forget how Kerry caved in within 10 seconds of the vote. They spin the news their own way.

Your problem, Mr Cohen, is your affiliation with and expectation from Move-On. Move-On itself does not reflect the base via their own agenda and when we have publications like "The Nation" setting the stage and setting up attacks on Cindy Sheehan, there are few outlets to get the message out there when efforts to actually represent the interests of the majority of Americans are actually undermined by the "progressive Left".

I noticed this recent campaign anticipating the netroots to fold due to lack of alternative--or the alternative always cast as non-viable. Fool me once....ABB tactics won't work again. at least not on CommonDreams.

I've been railing against the Clintons and the corporatist duopoly with the Bushes for months now. I have also been loudly speaking in support of Kucinich and the effort to take back the Democratic Party from within. As commentators like Thom Hartmann are fond of pointing out, the way our system is structured makes it really next to impossible for a serious third party effort to get off the ground. We've seen serious efforts in my lifetime at third party/independent Presidential candidacies from George Wallace to Ralph Nader, and none came anywhere near getting 270 electoral votes, or more than about 20% of the popular vote. Most never garnered a single electoral vote.

Truly, the way money and politics work in the U. S. at the beginning of the 21st Century makes it next to impossible for a third party to even make it on a majority of the 50 state/DC ballots. The Democratic Party restructured their rules after the McGovern revolution in '72 to make sure the "adults" really controlled the nominating process, even as the nominating process became more diffuse. Since the Carter years, no insurgent Democrat has been able to get the Party's nomination for President. COMarc is generally right about the corporatist structure of the party.

However, I believe that stating the problem can be the beginning of dealing with the problem. We might not have a chance to control who gets the nomination in'08, but we can sure have a big voice in who wins the general election. By following our consciences, and refusing to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, we send a message that the same-old, same-old is not going to fly anymore. The Neo-Cons spent 20 years tearing down the GOP and remaking it to their liking. Now, I believe we don't have 20 years to achieve real reform if the U. S. is to survive as a viable, independent country. If the Democrats lose big next year in the face of an incredibly unpopular Republican administration, hopefully the power structure of the party can be weakened enough for a truly progressive grassroots insurgency to move in and take over - permanently.

I will not, under ANY circumstances, be voting for Hillary or Obama next year. I don't care if the most onerous Rethuglican running is their nominee, I intend to follow my conscience and vote for the Green Party candidate as a protest. Not voting is not an option to me. Registering dissatisfaction with the other candidates by voting essentially for "none of the above" sends a message that is loud and hopefully clear to the establishment. We MUST break the Bush-Clinton-Bush cycle once and for all if democracy is to have a future in the U. S.

The whole so-called progressive movement is a paper tiger. You don't get to be a progressive unless there is actually PROGRESS.

Sham campaigns and elections in the US are the ultimate Potemkin village.

Thanks COMarc & kivals for your very astute observations. Rather than just being negative in pointing out the obvious shortfalls of Clinton II, what positive constructive advice do you have? I'm serious here. I've seen a huge amount of posts between the two of you, and value highly your styles & opinions. We need workable solutions now, though, so what would you suggest?

Yes, netroots is a paper tiger.

Hillary is a republican, in my mind. She takes money from corporate-owned media giant Murdock; she takes money from health insurance companies. Two bigger enemies to progressives do not exist, and don't think for a minute that they don't expect payback.

Just for these two reasons alone, I am anti-Clinton.

And as an aside, it seems to me that this nation has had enough of the Bushes and Clintons in the last two decades. Their power, influence, and enormous wealth is just a concoction of poison for progressives.

What Kivals says is true and as the wingnut hate machine cranks up their attacks on Hillary, liberals will side with anything she does to defend her against the right and any real movement for change will shrivel. It's a "good cop bad cop" scenario that worked well for the corporatocracy before.

If we're serious, we need to build a real alternative party and support it's candidate. The Dims aren't going to run a progressive and we, netroots or not, can't "take them over." They are already owned.

get naked and occupy the halls of congress

Jeff, thanks for jogging our memory of the dreadful eight years of Clinton. I remember screaming abuse at them every single day at the time. For another example, he subsidized the Detroit auto industry for the vague promise to produce more fuel efficient cars "on their own" - which of course never happened.
I wonder how many viewers of Michael Moore's Sicko will remember the scenes on Hillary who started out with a (flawed) health initiative, then shut up for 7 years, and is now the 2nd highest recipient of campaign donations from HMOs, apparently rewarded for not touching the subject ever again.

DREAM DEMOCRATIC TICKET FOR 2008? Clinton/Lieberman

Need anyone say more? A sure winner. Experienced and Tough!

What is predictable about Hillary is that if/when she gets the nomination, and the right begins a continuous and heavy bombardment, she will take step after step to the right to try to placate the fascists who run the corporate media and the rubes in or influenced by the rightwing echo chamber, to no avail. So by the time of the general election I expect Hillary to be to the right of the Republican candidate, while still being pummeled from the right, even though by then she will have alienated everyone to the left of Dick Cheney. It is going to get very ugly for the Democrats, for the nonwealthy of the USA, for the constitution, and for the peoples of the world.

I wish I had a dollar for all the print\electronic space that's been wasted trying to talk about the influence of the 'netroots'.

It is what it is. Every time the world something goes the way the 'netroots' wants, its not a sign of a massive political revolution. And every time something doesn't go the way the 'netroots' wants, it doesn't mean the netroots is a useless imaginary thing that can't do anything. Geez, I'm tired of the whole manic-depressive thing about the netroots.

The real problem is this, in order for the 'netroots' to have an impact on the Democratic nomination, the Democratic Party would have to be democratic. What's incredibly obvious by now is that the Democratic Party is not democratic.

Whatever you might think of Hillary, you'd have to admit that the one thing she is is a skilled player and operative at the highest level of the Democratic Party. Having already been at the top of the pyramid once, she knows exactly how it works. You watch her campaign and its very well designed to take advantage of the way the Democratic Party really works. She's concentrated on getting the backing of the major powers and leaders in the party, and of the major money behind the party. Hillary pretty much ignores the netroots, because she knows that in an undemocratic race like the Democratic Party, it doesn't count for much.

In the Democratic Party of today, the only impact the netroots could have would be if it could suddenly raise more money for a candidate than the oil industry, the trial lawyers, the nuclear industry, the defense industry, the big pharma companies, the insurance industry, etc, etc, etc. That's because the only thing that counts in the Democratic Party is money. The whole Party structure is built on that.

Now, if there was really a democratic Democratic Party out there where putting together ideas, small contributions and time and energy could combine to make a powerful race, then the netroots would count for something. But in the Democratic Party of today, where money talks and everyone else walks, the netroots can't really compete against the deep pockets Hillary has already lined up on her side.

This is why the Kucinich campaign is a waste of time. And why trying to work within the Democratic Party is a waste of time. The Democratic party is a top-down party and the top only listens to big money. If you want a party that the netroots might influence and make a useful contribution to, then it ain't gonna be the Democrats. As long as the netroots tries to work within the Democratic party, they are always in the trap of trying to outbid the trial lawyers or the oil industry or the other big funders of the party. It ain't gonna work.

When her husband was in office, Hilary Clinton never spoke out against criminal embargo Bill led against Iraq -- it killed more than 500,000 children.

When George Bush was about to invade Iraq and millions of people around the world were protesting the illegality and immorality of such an act, Hilary Clinton provided support for the invasion. It has now led to the deaths of about a million people, at least half of them children.

That's the tip of the iceberg of the vileness that is Hilary Clinton.

I just thank God I am addicted to Impotent Rage.

Whew, what a bunch we have on this blog. FREEMASONS! Hellodarling, I really think you need to rewrite your hard drive.
But the Clinton coronation is a major problem to America's future. I will not argue that she isn't a Republican, she is, as was her husband. And Kucinich has the ideas, but no major sponsor. Surprised? I'm not. This country is owned by the corporate elites, there is no difference in the parties, yada, yada, yada... But this goofy government cannot last long in its current state. IT has made itself obsolete. What will follow it is anybody's guess. I have read that the Canadian Maritime Provinces wanted to join the US a few years back, now maybe the Northeastern and Great Lakes States may wnnt to consider joining the Canadian provinces instead. After all, we have the water, maybe a quarter of the world's fresh water and we let it go tto sea to help some importers? Not a drop should go out the seaway!!
But it is only a dream. It should be on the progressive platform though. WE HAVE THE FRIGGIN' WATER!!!!
I added the above because there is nothing we can do to block Clinton coronation and if a blogger can bring up the Freemason's, anything goes on this blog.

I bailed on MoveOn after they sent out their phony poll about which 'Out of Iraq' strategy to support in Congress. I don't, however, feel that Hillary is a lock. Edwards could win in Iowa. Instead of whining why not get on board with his campaign and do some local volunteering? It would make a difference. From Edwards website blog today...

Yesterday at a Labor Day rally, The United Steelworkers (USW) and the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) endorsed Senator John Edwards for president. Following the Thursday endorsement of Edwards by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners in America, these two endorsements give Edwards the largest bloc of union support so far--combined, more than 1.8 million members and retirees--among any of the presidential candidates.

I had stuck with MoveOn may be for a year. It became pretty clear to me that they are Dem-enablers, who in turn, are Bush-enablers.

Why aren't Republicans fielding a real strong candidate?

Because they already have Hillary running.

What's the difference between a Hillary and a Republican? Zero.

Neither the Democratic Party nor the US is democratic. It is all about money. Not 1 person = 1 vote, rather $100,000 = 1 vote. If anything, we have the "best democracy money can buy".

Solution?

1) compete public financing of election
2) term limit
3) instant runoff voting

Long Live the Pessimists! They alone can see what's happening. Cynics like Hillary Clinton and Obama control the Democratic party. Behind them are the Pigs at the Trough who are single-minded in their selfishness as well as heavily armed and will put the blast on anyone who makes a peep about the peep. Registered Democrats are indeed stupid enough to nominate Clinton who will then get 50 feet burned off her tail by the pimps of the MSM. We will then be stuck with some knuckle dragging strutz like Giuliani or Romney. As the Bedouin keep noting in the film 'Lawrence of Arabia', "It is written."