An Obama Fable–It’s All About the Mood, Dude
The Obamarama Campaign Express was roaring down a New Hampshire highway near Nashua when an aide spotted the sprawling No Holds Barred Sports Bar. “Let’s stop the bus,” she urged, “and do some random schmoozing.”
Obama and his entourage poured out of the bus and headed for the front door, over which hung a large sign: “HOME OF THE POLI-BEER: WHERE BOOZE, POLITICS AND SPORTS MIX IT UP!”
Inside the packed bar, the guys and gals were gathering for the Big Game to start. Before the game, however, there was an hour for political talk time. Their eyes widened in amazement when they saw Barack, bounding through the doorway with his secret service detail.
The bar had a big pit, with a huge crackling fireplace, where the patrons have their regular give and take. Obama was ready for some of that.
He started: “I stand for change. They said we set our sights too high in Iowa. They said now is not the time. I proved the cynics wrong in corn country and I’ll prove them wrong in the granite state. To show you I mean it, no speech, go at me. Our time for change has come.”
Guy number one-”Ok, Barack, you’re going for the power in the Big House, the big companies already have the power, how ya gonna make us little people powerful?”
Obama-”Stay tuned. One leap at a time. We are one people. Get me there first.”
Gal number one-”You say, CHANGE, well how are you going to cut the bloated military budget full of vast waste, fraud and abuse, when you’ve specifically said you’ll ‘expand and modernize the military?’ Why, it’s already half or more of the government’s operating budget, squeezing programs for children, health and all that. I’m an accountant and I know numbers.”
Obama-”Exactly. Our time for change has come. I’m going to change the old weapons with new weapons and the old soldiers with the new soldiers. That’s real change-at the grass roots.”
Guy number two-”You don’t seem to have any rough edges, Barack.”
Obama-”It’s all about the mood, dude.”
The crowd was getting agitated and the questions came faster and faster.
“Why are you for nuclear power with taxpayer guarantees?”
“Will you oppose Congress getting pay raises, pensions and health insurance until the American people get the same?”
“Do you favor repealing the anti-union nightmare-the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947?”
“How can you talk about change and take gobs of campaign money from the big corporate lawyers and bosses?”
Obama, smiling: “It’s ALL about the mood, dudes. All the rest are details you can look up on my website-obama_is_us.org. We are choosing hope over fear.”
Gal number two-”Ok, answer this one that probably isn’t on your website. When are you going to meet with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and campaign in the black ghettos-say Harlem or Watts?”
Obama-”Whoaa, give that tough lady a Poli-beer on me! We are one nation.”
Guy number three (with an Obama face mask)-”I’m the old Obama, remember me? I was for single-payer, full medicare for everyone. I was strongly for Palestinian rights and for replacing NAFTA and WTO, not for tweaking them. I was for taxing the super-rich and defending class actions. I was for capping credit-card and loan shark interest rates. What happened to me?”
Obama-”Well, didn’t I tell you that I stand for CHANGE?”
Gal number three-”You seem to be for everyone, but not everyone is for everyone. Some are against everyone. Tell me, are the big corporations, the greedy defense contractors, drug, oil and insurance companies, starting to quake in their boots at the thought that you are now the front-runner?”
Obama, lifting his chin-”Well, Ma’am, we haven’t ordered our seismometer yet.”
Oooohs and boos float around the pit. A few start drifting away.
Guy number four-”You’re one of those smart Haavard lawyers, Barack. You were a constitutional law teacher. You were against the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. So, why aren’t you putting two and two together-impeachment of the war criminals in the White House followed by conviction in the Senate?”
Obama-”You don’t understand (testily), impeachment talk is just more of the same old Washington politics. I stand for change. No need to point fingers. We are one people.”
Gal number four-”Hello, Barack. I’m Hermaphrodite and I luv your blended politics of harmony.”
Obama-”Great! Then how about a quick dance around the bar before we have to leave,” he said, humming to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic-”We are choosing unity over division, we’re sending a powerful message, that change is a coming to America, it is all about the mood, dude…”
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.
Nader is right. These are all good questions. But somehow I believe Obama will be a great President, He makes me feel like I did back in college in 1960 when JFK was running. And after 48 years of the military-corporation ruling class and endless war and corruption, I am going to vote for Obama. The People Yes!
Brilliant insights condensed into a fictional Obama appearance. I’m afraid Mr. Nader is correct. Obama is mostly fluff… vapid drifting fluff like the kind that falls from cottonwood trees and clogs up your window screens in the summer. Where is the “there” in Mr. Obama? There’s no “there” there. It’s all like an offshoot of that weird cultish thing promoted on Oprah’s show. Like everyone is supposed to “manifest” love and goodnesss now that Obama has arrived. That’s how we’ll solve the world’s problems. Through more magical thinking. Meanwhile the same corporate machinations continue unabated just below the surface of American society… undermining our nation, eating us away, hollowing us out from within so the corporate logo can be branded onto our core. So we can forget ourselves completely, forget the aspirational qualities of America, forget the Constitution and the humanistic principles of the Enlightenment, forget forget forget until we find ourselves wondering why no one stopped the work camps, no one stopped the arbitrary arrests, no one stopped the amassing of all power into the executive-corporate branch of the government. Whither America whither have you gone?
Barack is better than Hillary; can’t think of anything else to say on his behalf.
i am beginning to think nader is one of the moderators , here. obama promises change , are we certain that is a good thing ?the right wing wanted a return to ‘christian’ values and got a killing spree of the non-christian. are we sure we want the change obama offers ? personally , i don’t think we can handle it . so far , the worst thing on our shores is probably the event of 9/11 .we will not know what kind of change obama is really talking about ,until it is too late… i am betting the left will do no better than the right , and probably much worse.
pax4all , i don’t agree.
ah yes, those wonderful years of the Bay of Pigs,
green berets and advisers in Viet Nam,
activating reserves to Germany.
reminds me more of “I Like Ike” and “Time for a Change”
(”after 20 years of treason”) in 1952 prior to overthrowing
democracies in Iran, Guatemala…or Reagan, as the slaughter
in Central America accelerated…
does anyone ask how we can compensate the people for the
wrongs inflicted on them? screw this feel-good politics
which is just another cover-up.
Luther, snap out of it! Your comment is a neat and nightmarish encapsulation of everything that is wrong with grassroots politics in America. “Somehow” you believe Obama will be a great president? Even though you agree that he hasn’t honestly and clearly answered any of the “good questions” in Nader’s comment? Really? Huh? Why do we check our brains at the door like this? Why are we so willing to fall for these carny barkers? What the hell is wrong with us?
Excellent piece Ralph!
Maybe it’s because ther’s nothing left to do but laugh to keep from crying, but you should show this witty side more often!
This is admittedly a lightweight article, but does raise a few important points. Namely, Obama never says jack-sh*t about (as “Gal number three” said) “the big corporations, the greedy defense contractors, drug, oil and insurance companies.” He also is running away from impeachment, just like Nancy Pelosi.
The Dem Party loyalists will protest, “But he needs to get elected before he can do anything!! If he goes after impeachment or the big corporations now, he’ll lose! Then where would we be?”
A quick look at the history of recent decades tells you exactly where that kind of thinking leads. As readers of Robert Parry (www.consortiumnews.com) understand, the Dems let Reagan off easy in Iran-Contra, then Bill Clinton let the Republicans get away scot-free with numerous scandals including Iraq-gate, the October Surprise, residua of Iran-Contra, & other matters. This constant Dem pattern of looking the other way from Republican crimes served only to strengthen the rightwing, & ultimately spawned the GW Bush regime. If the Dems had exhibited principle, and brought down the Iran-Contra criminals, the Bush dynasty might well have been defeated before it ever got started. And in any case, it is hard to argue that the Dems’ refusal to pursue Republican crimes has ever produced any positive result whatsoever, considering the last 7 years, where we’ve actually seen the Bill of Rights go up in smoke.
We see in Obama the typical Dem Party intention to continue in this pattern — cozying up to corporations, & sacrificing principle for electoral expediency. If Obama is elected, it seems unlikely that the result will be any different than the Bill Clinton presidency, whose results were on balance a huge victory for corporatists, & a defeat for progressives. And it’s entirely possible that an Obama candidacy that’s too full of empty happy talk — and too timid to take on the corporations — might simply lead to President McCain.
Obama vs Huckabee would be the election of the funny name politicians.
I presume that Luther was being sarcastic…
Wake up. He’s popular because Republicans want him to be. They are caucusing for him. They want him to be the nominee. His mentor was Lieberman, need I say more.
atruepatriot. , yes , that is why, barak has gained strength , oprah hasn’t hurt either , she is as giddy as a young nubile neophyte=in love….. my esteem level is going up in notches for hillary , as i watch the republican machine scrambling around behind the scenery , pulling the strings to form a noose for poor hillary-believe it or not….
heh-heh
Obama says what he has to say to get elected. If he espoused left-wing policies, the corporate media would fall on him like a ton of bricks. And that is because the election process in the US has become completely broken as the economic and cultural descent has continued.
All the voters can choose in the current USA is a form of lottery ticket, hoping that the candidate is really bamboozling the corporate oligarchy and not the common people, against great odds. Given Obama’s past and his racial background, the chances that Obama will doublecross the oligarchy are probably as high or higher than the odds for any other candidate with some prospect of winning (with the possible exception of Edwards), but still are lottery odds.
luthervanummersen - yes, it’s all about the way you *feel* dude.
He makes me feel - giddy! - yes, he-he-he, so, so young and un-baby-boomer-like! I’m voting for Obama! yes! I said it! I feel so *good* now! - hope! change! free beer for everyone!
Barack Obama is going to be President of the United States.
Ralph Nader never will be.
This article shows why.
Nader whines that Obama isn’t shooting himself in the foot with a list of talking points loaded with enough specifics that nearly nearly every potential supporter will strongly disagree on some point or other.
That’s how Ralph ran his campaigns, and see how well it worked.
As president, Obama will have the opportunity to do some of the things Nader would do if he were president.
If he wins a strong mandate, Obama will be able to do many of the things Nader would do, including really big things that will generate lots of opposition from conservatives and corporations.
So what are you going to do, Ralph?
Act out of spite or out of hope? The choice is yours.
I’ll tell you what to do, Ralph. First, support Obama for president. Then, when he’s in, help to organize the grassroots movements that will be needed to demand really big changes like single-payer health insurance and nuclear weapons abolition.
Push President Obama and the Democratic Congress from the streets, but first let them get into position to respond to the pressure.
Flashback to 2000
Ralph Nader: “We need to end corporations as we know it!”
Guy 1 “What about all the tens of millions of people who work for corporations?”
Ralph Nader: “They’re bad people they work for corporate greed I have no allegiance to their jobs, their livelihoods, their families.”
Guy 2 “I am afraid voting for you will lead to a nightmare of a Bush presidency!”
Ralph Nader: “There is no difference at all between Gore & Bush, it is the same thing, the two parties are identical.”
Guy 3 “Why are you such a cranky jerk?”
Ralph Nader: “I was born in 1934, so I am an old old old old old old old old man. I don’t like newfangled things I don’t understand.”
Barack Obama is going to be President of the United States? No. He’s an inspiring speaker, and I love it that he won the white-bread Iowa caucuses. Race relations usually improve at a snail’s pace in this country, but I sense that Obama is a unique kind of breakthrough figure.
That said, he is hopelessly beholden to the very forces that are destroying working families in the U.S. (just as Hillary is — corporations, insurance cos., banks, etc. etc.) I suppose that’s because he thought he couldn’t raise enough money without hitting up the plutocrats, but it means I absolutely cannot support him, and Edwards gets my vote.
g50 - all for change? How about a diaper change?
Nader2000, Exactly.
Yeah Nader never did no good for nobody - who is he anyways? Like he’s so old man, he don’t know nuthin. Whatever. Dude. Were’s my gameboy? I’m bored. This is all so, whatever, you know?
Not the first time I’ve heard “there is no ‘there’ there” about Obama. This fable is sadly too true. “I’m for change, damn it, trust me!” Just like people trusted Bush to be a “compassionate conservative” (another empty, meaningless phrase, like “audacity of hope.”)
The “sheeple” want hope more than they want a fight, and we, the ones paying attention, will end up with President McRomneyBee, and heaven help us.
John Edwards is speaking the truth, truth to power if you want the cliche, but people like the feel-good quality of voting for the empty vessel (the color of which just happens to be a shade darker than the others) and thinking that’s “change.”
It’s good to see so many here can see through Obama. I just wish the word had spread beyond these pages. Here in NH, I will continue to work for John Edwards until the polls close. It’s been nice having Hillary take on Edwards’ message (talk about or fight for change instead of hope for it) but it’s also pathetic to hear her talk about herself as the candidate of change.
Here are some other subjects Obama and the candidates don’t discuss because they aren’t asked at debates. How would they feel about new workday rules: 12 hours on, 12 hours off. Make it the law. That’s an issue that never comes up. I’m writing this on a fourteen hour shift.
Here’s another, why not make election day a FORCED HOLIDAY - No sales, no Walmart, nothing, only hospitals and police.
Where’s Ralph on these consumer issues?
Obama is campaigning as a feel-good liberal who avoids taking scary positions. For many white voters, he is the anti-Sharpton, which allows them to feel comfortable supporting him. As a political strategy, this makes eminently good sense. Whether or not Obama will revert to his earlier progressive self should he become President is an open question. Personally, I prefer Edwards and Kucinich, but I will give Obama the benefit of the doubt. The election of an African-American President would surely be a watershed event in American history.
Thanks Nader2000, now I finally understand. In order to be a Progressive candidate it is necessary to avoid, at all costs, sounding like a Progressive! It’s all clear.
I wish I had known that when Carter and Bill Clinton were running. Little did I know they would implement great left wing policies once they got elected. The left wing policies that most polls show that most Amreicans support.
A Democratic candidate just can’t talk about them. We just need to trust that they are, deep down inside, in their heart of hearts, true Populist/Progressives. Just like Jimmy and Bill.
Obama-mania is another bunch of Charlie Browns knowing, for sure, this time, make no mistake, that Lucy is not going to pull the football away. AARRGGHH
Nader2000 (1:41 pm): “Barack Obama is going to be President of the United States.”
- You are too impressed with this phrase, which doesn’t really mean that much. Remember Bill Clinton? He was POTUS too — & what did he accomplish for progressives? Zero. On the contrary, he accomplished a great deal for corporatists & for the MIC. During his entire 8 years, he never so much as made the reining in of those forces part of the “national dialogue.” All that was kept completely “off the table.”
As Adele points out (2:01), Obama is beholden to the very forces destroying working families. Why should anyone expect him to be meaningfully different from Bill Clinton, even if he’s elected? Why should anyone expect any better result than the Pelosi-Reid Congress has produced?
And why should anyone expect that Obama can win any Southern states? His winning the primaries might easily be a precursor to another Republican victory in November. Edwards, by contrast, at least makes some of the right noises, & could very conceivably run strongly in the South.
Things are shaping up as they invariably do in US politics: a choice between a real rightwing beer-hall brawler, and a Democrat who won’t even try to challenge the rightwing. This is all the 2-party system allows.
>> But somehow I believe
“Faith” isn’t the way to vote. You look at the record of their votes on important issues.
Nader has likely saved more lives than Bush has taken out with his wars. That’s no small feat, and it requires no “faith” or “hope” or beliefs. He did the work because he saw an injustice.
Saying “I’ll make change” is different from making change.
Check this link out at MotherJones and you’ll see that ALL the candidates are getting their money primarily from Finance, Real Estate, Insurance companies and Law firms.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/01/campaign-contributions-by-industry.html
Who needs writers for sitcoms when we have Ralph. Obama is no more than a made-for-TV fraud. But as was said above, he’s better than Hillery, which says a lot about how much a bigger fraud she is. At Znet today are two items, one by Street, the other by Rothschild, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=14670 and http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=14663
Clinton promised Hope and Change. Bush promised Change and Unity. Obama promises all three. As Nader’s piece points out without saying, Obama is like a ballon–empty on the inside.
Major - Making Election Day forced holiday would just give people another excuse for a BBQ and beach day. You can’t make anyone vote, I know I have been trying. All I hear is how no matter who you vote for , nothing changes, they do what they want anyway.
I can’t say I disagree witht them , I just keep telling them to have hope that one day, one of these people will actually care about the people paying thier salary more that the Corps. lining their pockets.
The concern with Hillary was that she is just god awful, poor leader, a polarizing figure, and a corrupt politician.
The concern with Obama is that it’s appearent he is a politician like all the others. But the large concern with him is something we don’t really find in any of the other canidates; and that is the fact that he is a great Orrator and Rhetorician. His tone of voice, body language, the rhetorical tactics he uses - all things considered, he’s by far the best speaker, one of the best I’ve seen in quite awhile. And that (and to some extent his looks) goes a long way in influencing people into voting for him - though of course very few will bring themselves to admit they’re influenced by it - it’s the same attitude as in my field, Market Research, something like 80% of people say Advertising works and is influential, but just not on them; people think everyone else but themselves is influenced by advertising. Political Advertising is no different. As I said before, when a canidate says “I will tax the rich to pay for this,” that’s not an answer at all; it’s a rhetorical glittering generality, propoganda that manipulates the voters.
Thus, it is clear that Obama is nothing more than and elegant political advertiser, and a manipulator of the masses with his cunning Orration and propoganda.
So i’d like to hear what Obama voters think?
Nader has done a lot for this country
Please do not take that away from him
A sports Bar where folks think about stuff?
OK I guess it could happen in a Dream…
Just as a reminder about how politicians that win don’t talk about Details and stick to gleaming generalities (sound familiar Ralph?) Look what honesty did for your turnout!
Just remember JFK didn’t talk about one thing that he got killed over.
That’s politics… and you know that Ralph.
yes , i was kind of gung ho for ron paul for about two weeks , just long enough to get myself in trouble.then i saw him on meet the press and altho i cheered what he had to say , he seemed quite mad, a mad-hatter , a cross between robin williams and howard dean (i do have respect for both williams and dean )but one worries what might happen if they went off their meds or if they don’t take meds , a fear that they might start taking them. anyway what was i thinking ..i don’t care what color a man is , men have done a piss-poor job of running the world. seraphicmom , i thought that was a funny and perhaps astute observation about nader…there was a poster here at cd awhile back ,that i really enjoyed and looked for her postings and the last thing i saw her post was some very unkind thing about nader , something to the effect that he had sold his soul to the devil , and i have never seen her , again. so , mr. nader you are my favorite human , i loved your article and i wish you were president. p.s. and you are very handsome , too.
The Pied Piper of ‘Hope’.
Barack Obama keeps talking about ‘hope’ to get people to hope he will make things better; lots of people, especially young people, wanting to believe him, are going along.
Talking about hope to get people’s hopes up, as a way of getting them to vote for you, may seem clever to some; to people looking for a candidate who will give them good reason to be hopeful, it’s just deceitful.
To people looking for change, it’s no change.
America is drowning in her own bullshit; not ‘simulated drowning’, real drowning; if she drowns she’ll take the rest of the world with her. Americans need to stop feeding themselves and each other bullshit.
Tell your friends, especially your young friends, in case they don’t get it; tell them to sober up, this could be the last chance to save their country.
Thank you again, Ralph Nader!
Quoting directly from Nader’s article above:
>>> Guy number three (with an Obama face mask)-”I’m the old Obama, remember me? I was for single-payer, full medicare for everyone. I was strongly for Palestinian rights and for replacing NAFTA and WTO, not for tweaking them. I was for taxing the super-rich and defending class actions. I was for capping credit-card and loan shark interest rates. What happened to me?”
You see, Nader himself knows Obama’s strongly progressive roots. Yet he fails to appreciate the need for Obama’s current moderate rhetoric in order to get where he needs to be to make any of that real. Instead, he mocks Obama for being an intelligent political strategist:
>>> Obama-”Stay tuned. One leap at a time. We are one people. Get me there first.”
Exactly.
Ralph, that was great of you to say good things about Edwards,,,
I think he has a good chance too.
Happy New Year!
edwards sounds great , but i remember bush saying he was against “nation building” and he would help the environmentalists…bush’s first day in office he threw out clinton’s national park, forests and wildlife protection bills. i just think edwards is a poser. nayoibi , that is interesting , it could be just a coincidence .
All I know is what I see on this screen (not) but I just got this in the Mail :
Judge Him by His Laws
By Charles Peters
Friday, January 4, 2008; A21
People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama’s bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability.
Since most of Obama’s legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there — and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. (Another factor is reporters’ fascination with the horse race at the expense of substance that they assume is boring, a fascination that despite being ridiculed for years continues to dominate political journalism.)
I am a rarity among Washington journalists in that I have served in a state legislature. I know from my time in the West Virginia legislature that the challenges faced by reform-minded state representatives are no less, if indeed not more, formidable than those encountered in Congress. For me, at least, trying to deal with those challenges involved as much drama as any election. And the “heart and soul” bill, the one for which a legislator gives everything he or she has to get passed, has long told me more than anything else about a person’s character and ability.
Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced — by beating the daylights out of the accused.
Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.
This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama’s bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to “solve” crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.
Obama had his work cut out for him.
He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that “Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics.”
The police proved to be Obama’s toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, “This means we won’t be able to protect your children.” The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought — successfully — to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.
By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.
Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.
Obama didn’t stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state’s first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois “one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure”). Obama’s commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who “bundle” contributions for them.
Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a “unique” ability “to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people.” In other words, Obama’s campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric.
I do not think that a candidate’s legislative record is the only measure of presidential potential, simply that Obama’s is revealing enough to merit far more attention than it has received. Indeed, the media have been equally delinquent in reporting the legislative achievements of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, both of whom spent years in the U.S. Senate. The media should compare their legislative records to Obama’s, devoting special attention to their heart-and-soul bills and how effective each was in actually making law.
Charles Peters, the founding editor of the Washington Monthly, is president of Understanding Government, a foundation devoted to better government through better reporting.
I have nothing but respect and admiration for Mr. Nader. And I agree that there are many serious questions Mr. Obama needs to answer. Unfortunately we Americans don’t like our politicians to be too serious about anything. We love our myths and will continue to support them, reality be damned. I will probably vote for Obama because he is a very inspirational speaker and I do believe he has the kind of charisma that can move people to act. All major political movement comes from the bottom up not from the top down. People need to be emotionally engaged. It may not be too late to turn this ship around.
i believe that if we fail to impeach bush/cheney , before they leave office…this ship may sink. seraphicmom , that was what i thought , so i asked a friend of mine to sign up to be a poster , so that he could find out what happened to her . he posted here about a week and then inquired about her and poof , he was an instant casualty in cyberspace. i don’t want to make waves ,so sorry i mentioned it , because i like it here..(.please , don’t kill me , ralph)- i love you , really i do .. (been taking lessons from our government)
Good one, Ralph! You should bring back “SEINFELD” and write episodes about nothing, since that fits in with most of your activities during the last decade. Obama does indeed consist of empty platitudes, but the best even his worshippers can say about him is that “He’s better than Hillary!” Gee, what a record of achievement!
Ralphie-boy, open the window the next time you want to pass gas!
Anyone but those Republicans. Truthfully, I’d love to see a decent person in there unlike Bush and Bush and Reagan. Someone who at least shows a little compassion, a little feeling for people. All of the Democrats seem like decent people. I mean, what choice really do we have. I’m tired of writing letters to the White hOuse. My world view is like diametrically opposed to theirs. they have no room in their hearts for a liberal. hell they didn’t even respond when MILLIONS of us marched against the war in Iraq,BEFORE IT BEGAN. One other reason I’m glad it’ll either be Edwards or Obama rather than Ms. Clinton. She said if she got the right intelligence…cmon. I’d be proud to have an African American president like Mr. Obama, even if he does sidle up to a few corporations. Thats the reality of power politics
Are all of these Nader slanderers forgetting that in 2000, Bush was actually to the left of Gore on some issues - and never mentioned foreign policy much less a global oil war. Remember VP Gore was already compplicit in the deaths of 0.5 to 1.0 million Iraqis.
With these two choices, damn right I voted for Nader.
Or, on November 6, 2000, did you have some kind or clairvoyant powers?
I look forward to the democrat candidate once again positioning himself in full agreement with whatever looney republican get the nomination - all in the name of doing away with “partisanship”. What a laughable FARCE!!!
news tonite, republican machine already projecting obama/mccain as winners………..any evil fool can deliver a beautiful speech….any evil fool can lie and sound sincere…but the unguarded and emotional real hillary i heard today, cannot be faked.congratulations , you are gonna do it again , and your monster is gonna be worse than the right wing monster…cause now, with two wings , right and left this beast is really gonna soar. i don’t care if you tear my words apart , i’m gonna tell you , hillary has been playing ball with the devil , to try to help us….
Rico, well, you better be ready to march again when Obama invades Pakistan and perhaps, Iran.
Obama seems to falsify the status quo by repeatedly stating that “The US senate is now divided & I am going to unify all of them”. What in reality we have is a unity that cuts across both party ranks when it comes to supporiting the corporating kleptocracy, supporting war in Iraq, marginalizing the poor and the middle classes. Where does Obama see a division in the ruling powers?
What we need indeed is a house divided - between the incumbent rulers who have sanctified corporate kleptocracy & war histeria at the expense of the american commoners & a new body of elected representative who can stand agaist those vested interests. So far, Obama has not measured up to the latter.
Hari
Hari
Republicans are secretly supporting Osama since they know he will be defeated and their guy will win.
I just have to say as an independent voter who is still weighing the Democratic field: I can’t believe the shallow depth at which Nader(who I voted for), Michael Moore and most people on here discuss candidates. Why doesn’t everyone take 3-4 hours and do some research outside of reading daily kos, commondreams and whatever news articles.
I think it is very dangerous just to base your vote on one issue like the war…That displays the same level of thought as those folks in kansas who went to the polls to persecute homosexuals…then vote for bush
Look into this:
Overall Obama has a more liberal voting record than Kucinich! (basically a statistically meaningless difference)
How do we know that Kucinich has not swung to the far left simply to claim a slice of progressive fame? He used to be pro-life.
Do you really think Edwards is going to “fight” the corporations? The reason wealth continues to prevail, is because the middle class and lower classes are divided (red,blue) we will never properly regulate and tax the elite until we lower classes quick bickering about diversion issues like cultural wars.
Edwards has a abysmal rating from the league of conservation voters. (which is consistent with that clear-cut where he placed his sprawling mansion with 10 bathrooms) do you really trust this guy, a populist talker living in a huge mansion? You will just take him at his word?
Barack has a 100% score from LOCV and Hillary is in the 90’s.
Thoughts?
More Poli-beers all around! Everyone is drunk on image, terrified of taking on reality. Yeah, Yeah Change! Yeah, Yeah Rahm Emmanuel!
Gravel, Kucinich, Paul. So the rest of us don’t have to deal with your hangover in the morning.
Obama is the status quo: nuclear power, merit pay, standardized testing, free trade, no universal health care, etc.
Been there, done that.
This guy is as Paul Street says a master triangulator.
We don’t need this.
Walk up, sheople.
New Orleans groups endorses John Edwards saying he will “kick Republicans in the balls”
http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/01/new-orleans-gro.html
HA!
indyvoter2000 (6:17 pm) - I don’t think anyone here really has illusions about Edwards. But the primaries are underway, & only 3 Dems are still in the running. So, the more astute observers here are recognizing a dangerous situation taking shape. Namely, that of those 3, only Edwards is making at least some of the right (anticorporate/antimilitarism) noises. At the same time, he’d be more likely to win the fall election. Yet it seems that Obama will be the candidate. This suggests that — thanks to the gullibility of Democratic voters — McCain will wind up as the next president. That’s why you’re seeing expressions of “support” for Edwards here — not because of any deep faith in him.
Your comments about Kucinich are off the mark. An assertion like “Overall Obama has a more liberal voting record than Kucinich!” is meaningless. One of them is outspoken against the war & corporate power; and pro-impeachment. Obama has consistently voted to fund the war, runs away from impeachment, & snuggles up to big corporations.
[Rolls one progressive polito-dice (2d6), scores 3,2]
“Obama/Clinton ‘O8 GO!”
*barf*
I dont wanna play anymore.
Nader’s hit the nail on the head with two points: (1) Obama doesn’t say much of substance but mostly speaks in platitudes about “change” and “unity” and (2) voters (the dudes) seem to lick it up!
When I hear Obama supporters speak, whether in person or as interviewed on radio or television, in response to the question of why they support Obama, they give the same silly response without fail. Something along the lines of: “Because he’s about change and we’re ready for a change” or “Because he can unify the country and America is ready for unification.”
Puh-lease! Inspiration is not reason in and of itself to elect some shmoe president! If it were, then I would nominate self-help guru Anthony Robbins! Or to make it more interesting, Richard Simmons! The same is true for this funny idea about unity — it’s not necessarily a presidential qualifier. And for the record, I, for one, don’t want to be unified with the right or even the center because that means COMPROMISE. Ah-ha! Maybe that’s the new slogan: Obama — The Candidate for Compromise.
Anyway, I’m disappointed that so many voters — those who are “educated” and those who aren’t — are so hung up on Obama’s insubstantive platitudes. Partly to blame is insufficient public education in which we don’t learn a lick about real politics, economics or, dare I say, Political Economics. The other part? Perhaps the media for such simplistic reporting. But those two components can’t excuse everyone.
Traditional political campaigning is just useless masterbation designed to control the masses. It absorbs their energy with no guarantee that anything will change once the new leader gets into office.
There’s no reason why candidates have to wait until they’re in office to act. There’s no reason why the candidates can’t be now leading marches, sit ins, civil disobedience, encouraging people to STOP BUYING, etc.
That they don’t act now leads one to question their true motives. It may all be just reality tv.
That Obama is taking large donations from corporate sponsors is not a good sign.
If Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi were alive today, they wouldn’t be “campaigning”. They’d be in jail.
Obama has a CONSISTENT record of taking CONSISTENT PROGRESSIVE positions on the death penalty, racial profiling, lobbying reform, the Iraq War, nuclear proliferation, Pakistan, single transferable voting, transparency in government, and full disclosure of bundlers. That’s not soft, that’s change.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/12/obama.death.penalty.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262_pf.html
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
http://obama.senate.gov/press/060523-lugar-obama_bill_to_keep_weapons_out_of_terrorists_hands_heads_to_senate_floor/index.html
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event&event_id=269510
http://fairvote.org/?page=1755
Hmm.
What proof do you have that Edwards is not pandering to the gullible far-left? That he took a last minute strong stance towards troop withdraw out of desperation? I mean, I am geniunely looking for some concrete differences between these two guys.
It seems like you are saying we should not vote for Obama because he is less electable? Lot of good that did last election with Kerry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act_of_2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html
All three of the candidates don’t seem to stand for very much that is concrete. Obama is very charismatic and voted against the war. Edwards says he’ll kick corporate butt yet he votes for the war (which is being fought basically for the profit of corporations) and helps pass the Patriot Act.
It’s impossible to tell what they’re going to do if any of them were elected because in their campaigns they’re all trying to appeal to everybody. Not to mention there is such a thing as a congress to contend with, unless of course they are going to go the route of Bush and just override congress.
I’m one people with a bunch of war mongers? sorry Obama I’m not feeling ya.
indyvoter, it’s also not true
Zogby Poll. Dec. 12-14, 2007. N=1,000 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.2.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
Edwards loses to McCain and Giuliani in this poll. Obama is the only candidate to beat all 5 Republicans. Go figure.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3969318
Dennis Kucinich: “In answer to your questions about why I didn’t support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty.”
maybe I am just delusional from so many years of bush, but the 6 or so pieces of legislation that bush vetoed all looked pretty decent. (higher fuel efficieny, tax on oil companies, green jobs, troop withdraw) It seems safe to say that obama, edwards and even clinton would have signed this stuff.
We need a democratic congress and president BIG time!!!
btw, did anybody check and see if Nader actually wrote the above essay? The writing is rather childish/amateur for a person of his intelligence…
“I’m afraid Mr. Nader is correct. Obama is mostly fluff… vapid drifting fluff like the kind that falls from cottonwood trees and clogs up your window screens in the summer.”
You don’t know that he’s correct, and neither does he.
Time will tell..
seraphicmom January 7th, 2008 5:44 pm. ” hillary has been playing ball with the devil , to try to help us….”…. NO ONE can be this naive…. not even an angel…I hope you are not serious! If Hillary is playing ball with the devil, she is playing with herself. Good lawd almighty!
Obama has replaced George Bush as the guy most American voters would like to have a beer with.
Wanting another beer and still suffering the last hangover? That’s alcoholism.
I’m drinking alone in future.
PJD: Bush was never to the left of Gore. What nonsense. Anybody with a brain could see before the election that Bush was a oil friendly fool from Texas, who would never have gotten anywhere without a former President father.
Anyone could see that Gore was an environmentalist. Everyone talks about the “new Gore” as if the “old Gore” was really bad. Gore is the same. the difference is that people are finally seeing that he was correct all along, so his message is received better. Also, he appears to have decided to act more jovial and less serious because that is what we Americans like–the Buddy President.
This is a ridiculous and offensive article by Nader. Now that he has endorsed Edwards, Nader is busy inventing a false personality for Obama. Obama has many shortcomings, in my opinion, however Edwards is so clearly insincere, and desperate to be elected, he is hardly trustworthy. How strange that Nader could manage to endorse Edwards, but could not manage to avoid sabotaging Gore.
This article by Nader is a complete fabrication.
Gawd I like this guy. He always hits the nail right on the head.
I can tell what we’ll get from Obama. I can watch Obama and listen. I can use my brain to see what he says. Like with all Democrats, I can try to separate actions from words, since words are so often lies. With a politician with remarkably little office holding record, sometimes you have to look at proposals for action versus just words. But either way, stop and listen and ask yourself what is this politician really saying? What is he really proposing?
With Obama, I hear long, long streches of words with remarkably little content. The man can talk for a long time, and sound good doing it, but never say a thing. That’s what Mr. Nader nails so exactly in this piece. The difference between fluff talk that sounds good and real actions and real proposals.
The truly bizarre thing is that the nation would ever elect a President because of fluffy talk that sounds good. But instead, that seems about all we do. We got a dangerous idiot doing that the last time. I wonder what we’ll get this time?
I’d say look at which corporations are backing his campaign, and which Washington insiders are serving on his campaign, but then the Obama-lovers would flame me.
One could point out that anyone who is running for a powerful office and doing so my trying to mislead the people with fluff talk while avoiding telling anyone what they’ll do in office should be thought of in a rational society both as insane and dangerous. Insane, because what rational society would ever give high office to someone who doesn’t say what they’ll do. Dangerous because there is a great deal of power in the office and giving that to someone who hasn’t clearly stated what they’ll do with that power seems to be inherently dangerous.
Hey, we could have had as President an experienced lawyer with a 40 year track record of saving lives and working to protect the people from dangerous crap that corporations wanted to sell and make money. But Americans are way too stupid to ever vote for that guy.
So the Democrat position is that once someone endorses a candidate they should not make any more political statements about that race? That’s the only way I can take the comment about Nader already endorsing Edwards.
I wish the Democrats would believe that. Then, since all of them have already endorsed someone, they’d all have to sit down and shut up. And a day without hearing a Democrat speak\lie is surely a very sweet and lovely day.
Oh well, I’d love to scroll back up and see what the Evilcrats (they proudly claim to be a party of evil, just a lesser version) are saying to slam Mr. Nader, but I’ve got a football game to go watch.
In 2000, Mr. Nader said the vote was between Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee. Well, we got Tweedle -DUMB and I perceive a slight difference. Again, though, we are left to vote for the lesser of evils, as all the candidates, Dem and Repug, have now been shown to be dog-poop in one regard or another. Which is why over half the nation doesn’t even vote for President.
I believe Obama is change simply because he is not another white guy, and yet he is a terrific, smart, front-man, which is what a president really is supposed to be, not a CEO/King as Dubya and the Dick seem to think. His election also gives a fantastic curveball to the world… the world will be scratching their collective heads… President Obama?!?
Edwards was my second choice, but he has the very lowest score of all Democrats in the League of Conservation Voters Assessment of Environmental Voting, and even his latest environmental plans do not even come close to Obama’s or even Hillary’s, according to the LCV. This would usually disqualify him in my book. But on top of that, he also got his head handed to him by Cheney in the 2004 VP debate, which was a shock to me, and I think a bigger factor in helping Kerry lose the race than realized. He also is a partner in a Hedge Fund Operation, and fumbled and dodged as he tried to explain away this hypocrisy in one debate. His 26,000 sq-ft home is not a humble abode. And so on. So while he talks the talk, will he really walk the walk, especially since, as a slick lawyer, he may not always believe what he thinks he has to say to win his case?
And Hillary is taking economic marching orders from Bob Rubin of Citibank, and corporate-issue marching orders from that corporate-mole group the DLC. And she is taking foreign affairs marching orders from AIPAC, and political marching orders from that old triangulator, weaselworder, backslapper, backstabber Bill. Which is why she is not acceptable. As well, I don’t think Americans want a 36-year-straight White House run of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. That ain’t ‘change’!
So what does that leave? Same-Ole-same-ole-Senator Dodd/Biden? Not-a-chance Kucinich/Gravel? Both Kucinich and Richardson threw their voters to Obama. They must know something, don’t you think? If they support Obama out of the top three, then Obama is OK with me.
I’m sorry he is not Kucinich, my choice but generating no passion so no sale. Maybe Kucinich can serve an Obama Administration, and get more of his program done behind the scenes than he could even as President.
We will see what kind of Congress we get as well. Remember, the Senate has 2 and only 2 seats for each state, EVEN the small one-horse states, so that means the ‘red’ states must be in play to capture the Senate, or NO Democratic plan, especially one like Kucinich’s, will get through anyway. So Mr. Nader, O-bama is O-K. And he seems to be shrewdly playing his cards close to his vest. The rest is Hope snd Optimism.
i’ve been saying that the republicans want obama to win , cause they want a man to go in and talk the africans out of their uranium.tonight on the world news(what a joke) was a little item on how barak obama was already working with the state department ,and working on establishing relations with kenya , (his fathers birthplace ) i told you this is just a dog and pony show , obama is already hard at work for the bank accounts of the new world order . geo. w. delivered the oil ,meet obama king of uranium..i don’t want to live anywhere that gets it’s power from nuclear , always wanted to live in the south of france , not anymore . obama will be selling us nuclear energy , so one day we can all end up new world briskets…..
willybill , maybe seraphic mom was just moved by hillary’s tears today or maybe she is naive .whatever, i also see some pretty good reasons for needing bill and hillary.i was just saying on another thread that i suspect that the evil bush/cheney may try to take our arsenal with them or just disable our defenses when they leave office ,they are evil and might want to get revenge on us or maybe they just want to take them to dubai ,like they did halliburton .bill and hillary know where all our arsenal eggs are hidden , obama knows nothing !!!he’s probably never even been on air force one or camp david or the pentagon…he’s nothing but a pretty front man to deal with the african uranium and he knows zilch about where the goods are-bill and hillary , do…………
I really hate to agree with Nader2000, but I do. Not that Obama will be president (he might be), but that he’s a decent man and would be a president the left could negotiate with. No, I don’t agree with Obama on everything, but something he once said made a big impression:
So, we’re preparing, and one of my staff said, “The thing you gotta understand is, this isn’t on the level.” And I think that really strikes to what people are frustrated with in politics is that so much of what we talk about in politics, so much of what we say — it’s not true, people know it’s not true, all the insiders understand that we’re just game-playing, and in the mean time you’ve got these hugely serious problems which are true.
From my perspective that’s a deeply radical statement, not as obvious to the politically “aware” as it should be, and to make it on television is important. I’m willing to vote for a candidate who would say that kind of thing publicly, even if they were conservative on some issues. I’d prefer a conservative that honest to a pseudo-progressive neoliberal like Clinton.
This article by Nader is, frankly, stupid.
you know this is an odd article for nader …no numbers , no fiscals , no blah,blah, blah no oldguard economics……where are all his money gods ?? i am surprised all the savers and speculaters aren’t here , raising hell….i may not agree with ralph’s tactics in politics , but i do admire his economic savvy….and commondreams is an odd and maybe very deceptive place…i’m gonna pack up and leave it soon.too spooky…
I wanted to like Obama…really I did. My sister, who I adore and respect is so happy that we may have Obama for Prez. The world will view us in a much better light, she said. So, I listened to his speech and was so disappointed. Every other word was ‘hope’. Like he was preaching in church…the opiate for the masses type of preaching. Hope is nothing. It is vacuous sentiment with no substance. He did not speak to any of the issues that concern me: the war, health care, aging and poverty, living wages, workers rights, climate change, oil, the environment, education reform, the middle class, immigration…on and on. Yes, I wanted a Black Prez in my lifetime..but Ralph pegged it per ususal. What we need is a Black Ralph Nader…then I’d be happy.
I posted a quiz on a CD thread recently that was supposed to decide which candidate you are most in tune with. I was surprised to see that for me it was Obama. Now I’m thinking I’ve been had by the Republican friend who emailed it to me.
nayoibi January 7th, 2008 9:00 pm ..Don’t mistake my disdain for Hillary as a vote for Obama…His corporate sponsorship and voting record long ago turned me off. I’ll vote DK, on the ballot or not.
Nader/Gore (Green and Greener)
No Species Left Behind!
I wanted to like Obama…really I did. My sister, who I adore and respect is so happy that we may have Obama for Prez. The world will view us in a much better light, she said. So, I listened to his speech and was so disappointed. Every other word was ‘hope’. Like he was preaching in church…the opiate for the masses type of preaching. Hope is nothing. It is vacuous sentiment with no substance. He did not speak to any of the issues that concern me: the war, health care, aging and poverty, living wages, workers rights, climate change, oil, the environment, education reform, the middle class, immigration…on and on. Yes, I wanted a Black Prez in my lifetime..but Ralph pegged it per usual. What we need is a Black Ralph Nader…then I’d be happy.
Obama is going all the way. Get used to it.
Clouds: I suggest reading or listening to major speeches and essays by all candidates. Don’t just listen to one victory speech and make a judgement. All three candidates spew out a media friendly campaign slogans during a speech. They are designed for that. Gore and Kerry were excellent at discussing the finer points of policy and our A.D.D. country gave them the boot. You should be happy that all 3 dems have learned their lessons.
I would like to see Nader (or whoever kidnapped him and is writing in his stead) actually write some coherent response to Obama’s in-depth speeches. What the heck Nader-imposter?
Your side asks a bunch of in-depth questions and then you plug in one of his campaign slogans? A high schooler can do that.
my vote for the evilest of the evil is al gore…i voted for him in 2000, but now i see thru him…so see,there we go again..no one can agree.
Ahh,
I like to be slowly boiled in the pot. It is refreshing. Obama is the perfect stirrer. Everytime you think that it is becoming a little uncomfortable, he stirs the pot by reminding you that he is for change. Soon you will all be cooked.
I’m not sure if Edwards is any better, but how can you act in a certain way if you can’t even say it.
Obama has said that he supports unilateral attack of Pakistan (but its okay, its to get terrorists).
peace, not Obama
John Edwards/Nico Toscani 2008
“You guys think you’re above the law. Well, you ain’t above mine.”
indy,
You make a valid point_”I suggest reading or listening to major speeches and essays by all candidates. Don’t just listen to one victory speech and make a judgment…” I was quick to react after hearing only one speech. But, I truly hope we aren’t a nation of idiots, who can’t listen to anything but slogans, as you say. And you are right, this doesn’t really sound like Nader…could it be a fake?
FC
Take the OBAMA QUIZ … see how you do …
Pick what you consider to be the 5 most critical challenges facing the country. Got ‘em? Good … now, in as much detail as you can provide, explain exactly how Obama, or any other candidate for that matter, will help us make progress on those problems. How’d you do? How do you think most people would do?
The point is that the whole damned election is a big game. It’s no different than watching the football playoffs. Who’s ahead. Who will advance to the next round. It’s all horseracing all the time. Nader is, of course, dead right about the Obama campaign. The real tragedy is that what he said about Obama is true about most of the other campaigns as well. For the most part, we as voters know almost nothing about what these candidates would do if they’re elected. The few candidates who choose substance over style are nowhere in the polls. That’s not how America’s electoral game is played.
Oh, and my top 5 issues?
1. cut the defense budget by 50%, close all foreign US bases and bring all US troops home
2. end the war and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately and end the pursuit of empire
3. recognize that quality health care is an inalienable right of every human being as in “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” - It doesn’t say you’re entitled to LIFE if you can afford it.
4. restore power to the American people by kicking the corporate boys out of Washington and by decentralizing the mass media
5. reduce CO2 emissions by 50% by the year 2020
All of the candidates are promising change but the details are sorely lacking. I’ll promise you we won’t see any change at all if all we focus on is horseracing.
In response to the comment about Kucinich being in an Obama administration:
Just think of the supreme court justices that Obama, a constitutional law professor, would appoint. Think of actually having a REAL head of the EPA.
The power of the presidency has far reaching effect and one we all live with for a long time after the administration is gone (think Samuel Alito).
Also, if ANY Democrat wins OUR job has only just begun. Part of the problem with Clinton was that many of us (me included for the most part) sat back and assumed his administration would ” do the right thing.” Power corrupts.
Democracy is a constant working out. It’s kinda like “getting in shape.” You don’t get in shape and then say, “OK. Now I’m in shape and I can stop all this exercising.”
As the grandpa said in “Cider House Rules” — “You’ve got to get obsessed and stay obsessed.”
At least Ralph is showing his true colors: he attacks the Democrats leading candidate. Just like before, Ralph carries water for the Republicans. Why Ralph? For the money? For the publicity? To sell your book? Do you really want to elect another Republican like Bush?
Ralph: in the name of those that died during the Bush presidency, the thousands whose blood is on your hands, in their names, please stop.
nayoibi January 7th, 2008 8:42 pm
Interesting point…
And you know Africom also begins this September.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_military_bases_in_the_world_2007.PNG
Wake up people. We’ve been an empire for quite awhile. Just like how we’re already in a recession.
“Obama-mania is another bunch of Charlie Browns knowing, for sure, this time, make no mistake, that Lucy is not going to pull the football away. AARRGGHH”
That was fucking funny.
I am so sick of all this anger directed toward Nader for coming out in 2000 and saying things Gore refused to. Perhaps if Gore had been a better politician he would be president. Perhaps if the supreme court didn’t put Bush into office he wouldn’t be president.
Who knows? But do we know how many folks have died or how many nations have been fucked over during Democratic presidencies.
Probably pretty comparable with the Bush presidency I’d say.
What about environmental standards. Suddenly all these emissions were released right after Bush was elected right? Bush was elected and species just started dying off just like that.
I am so sick of this anti-bush mentality shrouding out all common sense.
First off, if the Republicans stay in power and continue to fuck things up, versus the Democrats obtaining power and continuing to fuck things up, who will take the heat for the continued destruction of the country? The conservatives! If Obama wins and starts doing the same old same old and the country goes further down the shitter, especially economically, guess who has the losing philosophy in the media? Liberals!
It’s all a crock and we all know it, and all you folks who think getting a democratic president will change one lick of shit about the way this country does business need to get a clue. But in four years I’ll be laughing and still voting Green.
And what’s all this Obama will be as great as JFK… JFK sucks too.
A salesman walks onto a crowded bus and proclaims he got the cure for all that ails.
O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: I got a little bottle of O-Balm-A ointment here in my hot little hand that can cure anything that ails you from arthritis to asthma. It was selling on TV for $25 a bottle but if you buy it today I’ll let you own it for only$10!
Guy 1: Okay but I have rheumatism can it cure that?
O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: Of course and many more things.
Gal number 1: “My joints hurt when it gets cold can O-Balm-A Ointment help that?”
O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: “Yes of course it can.”
Guy 2 (CEO of a major company) “Look, my testicles have been bitten by a spider or something can O-Balm-A Ointment help me with that?”
O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: Yes sir, of course O-Balm-A Ointment will never bust your balls.
Gal number 2: “My mom’s hair is starting to fall off can O-Balm-A Ointment cure that?”
O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: “Yes of course madam, O-Balm-A Ointment can cure that and many more things.”
Guy3: “Okay, O-Balm-A Ointment is great but will it stain my clothes?”
O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: “Never! I tried some on my wife’s blue dress and it didn’t stain it at all! It’s stainless!”
Kid 1: “Oh Bullshit! O-Balm-A my Ass!”
O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: (Mishears the boy because of a passing plane) Sure kid, you can rub some O-Balm-A Ointment on your behind because it’s colorless and odorless too!
O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: “Now who wants some O-Balm-A Ointment? Buy it and I’ll let you have for $5.00!”
A chorus rings out: “I’ll take two bottles! yells a young lady. “I’ll take three bottles! yells the CEO. One guy nervously pushes his way to the front yelling for a bottle. “Hey don’t forget us in the back of the bus! We want some too! And so on and so forth until the O-Balm-A Ointment salesman runs out. The kid doesn’t buy a bottle and laughs.
Then the O-Balm-A Ointment salesman looks satisfyingly at his wad of bills and hands a few bucks to the driver and gets off at the next stop. The bus drives away with the passengers busily applying their new wonder-cure-all! The O-Balm-A Ointment salesman flips them off as they drive away and calls them suckers under his breath. As he takes a last look at the bus he catches a glimpse of the kid flipping him off too.
“Also, if ANY Democrat wins OUR job has only just begun.” (kelleysurf)
Choose someone who will fight with you .. for America, for Democracy.
thedeed has offered the best explanation yet of this Obama bashing.
It is hard to imagine that someone has falsely put Nader’s name on an article that he didn’t write, and it made it all the way to the CD website.
A more likely explanation is that Ralph Nader (like John McCain) is showing signs of dementia.
welshTerrier2:
Your ideals in a candidate, some quick answers.
Mike Gravel will reduce our military budget by 60% and give us a stronger military. He says we can get off of gasoline in 5 years, and off of carbon in 10.
Read about the man, and read what Noam Chomsky has said about Gravel:
http://www.gravel2008.us/content/noam-chomsky-applauds-senator-gravels-past-and-present-accomplishments
auspiciousbunny ..
“All three of the candidates don’t seem to stand for very much that is concrete.”
About healthcare, Edwards ..
“Widely praised plan covers all Americans. If Congress fails to pass a comprehensive plan in his first six months of office, he will take away their plan.”
ron paul is on leno,right now…he is shooting from the hip and talking straight (unlike obama who just says ‘change’ over and over and over) i do like him , maybe i will vote for him ,after all…he’s pretty genuine, warm and extremely open….
You need not be a fan of Nader to recognize that he’s not “carrying water for the Republicans.”
Peace Czar:
Thanks for the Chomsky link about Gravel. Gravel has been great on a number of issues I care about. The way he’s been treated by the press, the networks, the other candidates and his own party has been an affront to democracy. There’s plenty I disagree with Gravel about but I also know he “gets it” regarding empire and the corporate stranglehold on Washington.
I really hate his tax program though. Gravel calls for a modified national sales tax (exempting certain necessities). He would abolish the income tax and the IRS. In my view, taxation should be based on ability to pay. If those who have billions in the bank don’t spend, they would pay no tax under the Gravel plan. To me, that’s crazy. Spending does not necessarily reflect a taxpayer’s ability to pay. Gravel’s FAIR Tax is a really, really bad idea.
The key point I was trying to make in my post was that Mr. Nader’s point about there being no substance in Obama’s message was pretty much true for most of the other campaigns as well. Blame the candidates; blame the parties; blame the media; blame the electorate. Our collective ignorance and our failure to demand real answers to real problems make meaningful change impossible.
Typical of Nader to show up in the 5th inning and try to make a joke out of things.
About time we had a TRIAL LAWYER for president, he will drive the Repubs crazy!! Wait, they already are, but it will be fun to listen to them whine. Edwards may be the only one with the ability to combat the swiftboater crowd so forget the big house and the haircut and go with the best bet.
ron paul was left out of the debates, i’m gonna vote for him…nader is a republican in a green suit…i’m not gonna vote for him…..hillary should be minding our store,but i probably won’t get the chance to vote for her….and obama is already diddling around in africa and oprah…not gonna vote for him…i had a sleazy/lawyer encounter w/edwards….can’t vote for him. color doesn’t matter to me-but content does…..all week i have only heard obama say one word over,over and over…change…and i am afraid of the change he might bring to our table……….can he keep all our new enemies from sneaking over the walls ? goodnight……….sara
Obama reminds me of Robert F Kennedy. He reminds me so much of RFK that I hope he doesn’t exit any podiums through any hotel kitchens. I have a bad feeling. I don’t know if we have progressives that represent real change, but I can’t help think of 1968 when we saw the two top agents for change, Martin Luther King and RFK gunned down in short order. I don’t think he will be gunned down, but I won’t be shocked if he is. Stay Tuned.
Third-party-voting progressives will be the thorn in the side of the capitalist beast yet again in 2008, to cause much more squealing than we ever heard in 2004 or 2000.
When progressives write in Nader or other third-party progressives and cause a Repuk to be elected, the beast’s rapid self-destruction will proceed on schedule toward the progressive revolution.
And if the Demoks lurch left to earn our progressive votes, we will have wrestled a puppet string from the beast toward some progressive reforms.
But giving the Demoks free votes is totally out of the question - that’s like feeding our fingers to the beast for snacks.
Jim Glover, your copy of Charles Peters’ story on Obama’s legislative accomplishments in Illinois is informative but mostly serves to illustrate that the system is rotten to the core and requires a complete overhaul, not incremental reform.
The article suggests that we allow the brutal “special” interests to continue stomping all over the public interests, and pin all our hopes on dear leaders with special talents at walking the “special” interest tightrope.
Progressives intend to cut that rope down and put common sense back on the table - so average joe can serve in public office, if he wants to. In the case of the videotaping, everyone knows it’s in the public interest. Listen to REASON. Forget the “special” interests and the liberal extremism that lends them false legitimacy.
Obomber is a Republican tool, just like Senator Coward was in 2004. He’s a corporate dream.
I agree with those who are casting doubt about the authenticity of the article. Not just the tone, but also the atrocious punctuation and grammar point to someone other than the usually punctilious Nader as being the author…
John Edwards is the best candidate right now. Unfortunately, people are still falling for the celebrity version of a political candidate for President and just want to jump on any bandwagon the media talking heads care to name. It would be great if the VP choice of the Democratic Party could be Dennis Kucinich, but no one has the guts for that, I suppose.
I suspect Democrats like to obsess on the blood on Nader’s hands because they don’t wish to look at the blood on their own hands, blood that is on every law-abiding American taxpayer’s hands.
I’ve read about half of the postings on this subject.
Sorry, but I came late and time is short.
RICH M……IS EXACTLY CORRECT, IN MY OPINION, about Obama.
Obama is a corporatist, DLC/DNC politician in the mold of Bill Clinton.
In other words he ain’t gonna do shit for the working class.
And given that the working class is almost all of us that means he is the enemy.
The fact that he is wowing the public is simply a symptom of the irresponsibility of the American electorate.
Folks……the American people don’t deserve democracy and that’s why we are losing it, or have lost it already.
Obama’s vague platitudes and promises of change are as cheap as GW Bush’s $300 tax break for the poor.
I astounds me how little a politician actually has to do to win the support of people.
I may for the first time in my life vote Republican.
I think that would hasten the inevitable collapse of this system and that might well be the best thing that could happen.
I’m disgusted right now…….
smendler,
Maybe Nader’s writing is atrocious and he’s just been blessed with good editors up until now.
Maybe it’ll come down to an Edwards/Kucinich ticket. Probably enough centrists, liberals and progressives would go for it. If it comes down to an Edwards/Liebermann ticket, then we know we’ve been had again.
The likelihood will always be there, until we have a modern parliamentary style democracy with Range or IRV, without winner-take-all, without electoral college, etc.
Yet another reason why I voted for Nader.
But to the article and the comments that followed: Our needed debate today is STYLE vs. SUBSTANCE.
Legislation and democaracy CANNOT be packaged… which is what is happening with tv dominated politics.
i firmly believe that if every single american read CD or something like it, and were able to lend their voice and know it would be heard (dicard the the trolls and blowhards), then you would hear that most americans are not retarded, they have a brain and an opinion, they can get it, they want to govern themselves.
2 biggest needs to bring us back on the path of the great experiment called democracy: media reform and election reform.
The argument that “of course Obama has to say safe things now to get into office, but with luck he’ll do the right thing once he’s in” is a loser, in my book. As Rod Serling pointed out time and time again, you sell your soul to the devil, and it’s mighty damn hard to get it back. Say it’s true that Obama believes he can have big corporate backers but dump them once in office. Once in office, he’ll need to please them to get re-elected. So he “plays it safe” for 4 years, and owes them even more, or has totally forgotten the things he once, long ago, believed in. We’ve seen it over and over again. I think Edwards knows that this game is nothing but self-deception. Anyway, I want to know what a candidate believes in and plans to do NOW, not guess and project onto him/her what I would do if I were president.
There’s a new video on the web. It’s disturbing. It’s cynical. It’s accurate. Two big thumbs up. Way up. Gravel talks about the corporate stranglehold in Washington. He talks about corporate personhood. He talks about empire. In short, Gravel totally “gets it.”
I’m not a Gravel supporter but check out this video interview he did today: http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=777&thisview=item
Gravel’s analysis of the top 3 Dems and our entire political system is dead on the money.
Oh, Ralphy boy is just mad cause he ain’t BLACK!
Few things in this world are so hopelessly stupid as a Democrat that’s still mad at Nader.
barak + michelle obama’s magnetism invigorates all of us.
However he looks better as Spielberg’s substitute. Michelle has a radiant future as a screen star…
The white house would be a cage for them. Their energy is what counts.
!!! (VERY LONG POST WARNING)!!!
— (but you’ll love it, I swear) —
————————–
On this commentary thread and several others:
Try to remember: You are not voting for King.
Of course, Obama is fluff hiding Corporatist ambition.
Of course, Edwards COULD be full of shit.
THAT DOES NOT MATTER
SOMEBODY will be elected President this November, SOMEBODY will share that “ticket” and become Vice-President.
Whether it’s Right or not, whether it’s Unfortunate or not, these Somebodies will almost certainly be from the Democratic, or Republican parties.
These Somebodies will almost certainly be from amongst the T.V.-designated “front-runners” in these two “Major” party’s Delegate-Elections.
Fine. Good. Groovy. Whatever.
I think we could gain some semblance of a “reality-based” thinking process if we would remind ourselves that the “Party Primaries”, or just “Primaries”, are Falsely, Purposefully, Misleadingly named.
These Delegate-Elections are only “Primary” if one is a member of these Parties.
These Parties which are PRIVATE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.
So, yes, ALL the Candidates being offered (or surpressed) by the FLAWED ORGANIZATIONS are Flawed.
Is this really so uncertain or controversial, as to merit this Day-in-Day-out discussion?
——————————
On Nader and this Article:
I think Nader’s article is a surprisingly (haven’t read this kind of thing from Ralph before) funny piece, from the pen of a man who’s flat-out intelligence seems to be aided by a viscious, acerbic wit.
Nader, however, seems to me sometimes to be like Chomsky, in taking it for granted that when people have Bullshit pointed out to them they will cease to believe in it.
Unfortunately, neither of these two well meaning, and masterful Thinkers seems to see that many people - perhaps MOST people, now - in the U.S. NEED this kind of bullshit, that without it, they would be forced to face the Truth that their stress, depression, and body fat are trying to tell them:
-Something, Somehow, Somewhere along the way, got F.U.B.A.R. big time, and now were all screwed.-
Unless we start NOW, choose co-operation over competition, choose reality over myth, choose Local over Distant, and choose Smart Effort over Stupid Action.
(see platitudes are so easy, even I can utilize them!)
—————————-
On the Election and my Withrawal:
So Somebody will be President.
I wish it were not so, but they never ask me, do they?
That’s the reason I don’t fret overmuch as to the horribly distracting question of “who?”.
Sure the Dems, even Clinton seem just plain less creepy than the Reps.
But this isn’t that interesting since this has obviously been chosen as a “Blue Year” in the whole “Take ten steps away from the Constitution, then PRETEND to take three steps back” Game that’s been going on, well, my whole life.
Personally I don’t think that we’ll see much in the way of Mr. Obama’s change, until a significant minority of people realize that what’s needed goes beyond even a new “National System”, but rather a new way of thinking about “Nations”.
In other words, it’s not just that our Team Members are not playing right, and it’s not just that our Coach sucks, or that the Owners are greedy, or that the Fans have no interest. It’s that the whole Game was a bad Idea to begin with, and everyone would be better off leaving the Stadium entirely, in as orderly a fashion as possible, finding a Few Friends and a patch of grass to play a Whole New Game, where Everyone has fun. We could get together in larger groups to have tournaments every once in a while. That way we’d know what was going on in other folk’s Games, and Adapt ours accordingly.
But to get away from Painfully Overwrought Metaphors:
As I’ve written in this part of the Ether before, what matters in a President most is promises he/she can be pressured to keep by the People or their Congress and State Governments.
So on that note:
Edwards great.
Obama good, but vague.
Clinton bad.
Republicans scary.
I hope those in the Democratic Party voting to assign Delegates to their National Convention are of the same mind. But I won’t be knocked off kilter if they are not, or if they cannot overcome the Oligarchical Interests entrenched in their Organization.
The person who sits at the Head of the Executive for the U.S. will have to be dealt with by those seeking Needed Change, when this happens their Personality and Beliefs will matter less than their Office.
We won’t really know, more precisely, who we’re dealing with till the Spring, or just before, so see you then when there’s something to discuss.
But first.
—————————-
Unsolicited Advice.
Edwards people:
Your Candidate should easily trounce any Republican, but to come out on top of the Dems, he needs the “economy” to start tanking sooner rather that later. So if your looking for Johnny the Lawyer to get the nod, STOP BUYING STUFF RIGHT now. You could restrict it to just stuff from large, Oligarchical Corporations, but definitely cut down as much as you can, even with Mom n Pop, Local Larry, and Farmer Joe.
Remember, your Consumption is the only thing keeping this P.O.S. ship afloat.
Obama People:
Vote Edwards in your “primary”!…Umm, please?
Listen, IT MAKES SENSE: Barack’s for really real now, he’s on the Dem “ticket” one way or another. But if the DLC and the Corporatists in the Party and in the “MSM” succeed in marginalizing Edwards you’re gonna find yourselves Voting for Hillary Clinton. You’ll be lucky if its Obama/Clinton, too. Don’t forget, in politics, “knowing where the bod