Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThere are moments when you see a slow-motion disaster unfolding before you, and you can only yell out and hope those around you notice in time. Now is such a moment for Democrats, and "in time" means before the Super Duper primaries this Tuesday in Minnesota and across the nation.
Hillary Clinton is a fine U.S. senator and has deep symbolic importance as our first viable female presidential candidate, but three factors represent crippling structural flaws for the Democratic ticket this November if she becomes our candidate.
First is the nightmare we saw once before. Ralph Nader has just declared his decision to form an exploratory committee for 2008 and will certainly wage another presidential campaign hammering the Democrats. Under ordinary circumstances, Nader's inevitable next candidacy would be unimportant, given his meteoric fall from electoral relevance. Thanks to voter resentment over his impact in 2000, and to efforts including our "Ralph Don't Run" campaign opposing Nader's candidacy, his vote total fell from an election-tilting 3 percent in 2000 to 0.38 percent in 2004. As we wrote on this page in 2004, Nader's votes always come at the expense of the Democratic candidate. While Nader was not a factor in 2004, Hillary's weakness among progressives -- millions will never forgive her vote authorizing the Iraq war -- means that he will crawl back up into the low single digits. We saw in 2000 the carnage low single digits can cause.
Second, after his victory in Florida and endorsement by Rudy Giuliani, John McCain is the presumptive GOP nominee. McCain's greatest appeal will be to independent voters, a large vital block of the electorate that is Clinton's great weakness. Clinton is a highly polarizing candidate, which damages her among independents. As Time magazine's most recent polling indicates, she has the deadly combination of very high negatives (41 percent unfavorable) plus a deeply fixed voter impression (91 percent say they know enough about her to form an opinion). The latter figure means those numbers are not going to change substantially, and McCain will almost surely win independents. This should be a deafening alarm bell for Democrats.
Finally, Hillary has an ironic power shared by no other candidate: From the wreckage of a broken, dysfunctional Republican Party with deep rifts among its factions, she would create sudden GOP unity. If Clinton is the Democratic candidate, the Republican base will come out in numbers that have nothing to do with John McCain and everything to do with Hillary and Bill Clinton. As GOP pundits are now openly admitting, they want Clinton this November. They fear Barack Obama.
Even in a year when Democrats are in great position to win in November, if Clinton unifies the Republicans, loses independents and loses the progressive left, her chances of winning the general election are slim indeed.
Let's look at the alternative. Obama inspires Americans across the political spectrum, with his greatest strengths supplanting Hillary's greatest weaknesses. He unites independents, the young, minorities and progressives alike. He will not unify the GOP, and indeed will take Republican votes. That same Time magazine poll shows that among those who have an opinion, he has astounding 70 percent positives. Yet 51 percent of voters don't yet know him enough to even have formed an opinion. With his power of ideas and remarkable personal charisma yet to be fully seen, his upside is enormous.
In 2004, we had our regrets about having to fight the often-admirable Ralph Nader to oppose the reelection of George W. Bush. We beseech Democratic voters this Tuesday to make such an effort unnecessary in 2008. Obama can unite progressives, independents and Democrats, and discourage rather than unify Republicans.
John Pearce and Kathy Cramer were founders and directors of Ralph Don't Run, a progressive citizens' campaign opposed to Ralph Nader's candidacy in 2004.
© 2008 Star Tribune
130 Comments so far
Show AllGuess not, ___ just how serious are you prof?
Number 39 of 132. Well, there are 87 other threads here I didn't blog on, so that should make ya'll happy. Good to see at least ten progrressives blogged on the ones concering our enviroment.
No more questions Serious Professor?
What was the reason for your friend's question? ___ The evidence is self evident.
One of my friends asked the question, "
"What evidence is there the Democrats want to win."
Notice he asked for evidence, not a protestation of faith or recitation of catechism from ninth grade Civics.
I'm so sick of you Democrats complaining about Nader. For one, the amount of people who vote for Nader isn't much more, if at all, than the Libertarian ticket. Do you hear the right bitching about whoever the candidate is on the Libertarian side? Secondly, maybe you should come up with candidates that appeal to the LEFT, not the moderate we don't have enough passion for any issue to take a strong stand/corporate controlled candidate (who can't possibly have your interests at heart even more than the some of the other candidates in your party you shunned during your primaries) but someone who actually has a chance and a passion for the stances you SAY you have on the issues.
If Clinton is your nominee most on the left's first thought is that if SHE is your best option you party isn't worth a snot anyway, the Republicans are worth less. Their second thought is that if you want such things as single player universal healthcare why vote for the candidate who takes in more insurance money than all the others? If you want someone who opposes the Iraq war, and whatever other violent attack the war profiteers have next, why vote for the candidate who voted for the war, still funds it and hasn't attacked the CPA for imposing it's economic policies and the Iraq oil privatization (both of which the majority of Iraqis opposed and both of which has lead to increased Iraqi resistance to US forces)? If you want a candidate who will fight corporate power and powerful private special interests…you get the idea.
In short, if you want the left to vote for your candidate get someone to head your party, for once, that wants to actually implement the policies the left, and now the public according to polls, wants to be implemented. If you don't you only have yourselves to blame for electing such a non-inspiring candidate…again.
You want the left to vote for your candidate but give them little to vote for. Who the hell do you Democrats think you are? Before you respond by asking if we want a Republican president you must first ask yourself if the problems facing this country will be SOLVED, not moderately altered to make enough people happy that radical change is stopped, by Clinton, or even Obama. The problems themselves are a necessity in the long run and neither candidate is going to radically change government policy to solve the problems. Why is solving the problem always the future generations problem to fix? The left, at least the ones I talk to, are tired of you "moderates" always trying to avoid solving problems because solving them requires more radical stances. If you don't appeal to the left, who want to solve the problems we face not superficially alter them, don't expect them to come to you.
Number (37) There are some good articles about our enviroment here, whch haven't been buried in the archives yet, __ if anyone is interested.
If progressives actually wished to become active on our MOST serious problems, they'd offer their opinions on which candidate they feel is the the best choice and why they support thier choice and then concentrate on the issues which are the MOST deadly serious, for our children, their children and the atmosphere and oceans of our bio-sphere.
We have daily articles here at Common Dreams about the enviroment, the acidity problem of our oceans, the pollution of our atmosphere, which is causing the global warming and the eventual release of billions of tons of methane gas into our atmosphere. There are articles about the dangers of atomic energy and the spread of deadly atomic waste,__ DU.
When those articles apppear, the normal response from we "progressives", is from ten to twenty posts, and many of those are from neo-con types who deny the problems even exist, the rest are usually from the same progressives, who often offer excellent opinons and links, which give even more education on the subject. But when an artile about a candidate, or Bush, Cheney, or impeachment shows up, we get anywhere from 50 to 150+ comments.
If we progressives were really progressive, we would be having shit fits about the issues that are killing this planet ad insurng our children and grand children are not going to have any life. So argue Hillary, Nader, Obama and have fun expressing your knowledge filled opinions. Forget that the Arctic's methane gas is going to errupt into th eatmosphere in a very few short years and you nad I won't be typing our bullshit, rather useless opinions. And your children your grand children may ask you, why you didn't do something about it.
edit?
Finally ~Serious Professor~ I have the opinion that who is elected to the presidency this time is very important. I don't wish to see any of the Republcan candidates win. They are all bad choices. Of the two left in the Democratic race. I believe Hillary will do a better job than Obama. I will vote for whichever one is the candidate. Right now, it's a tight race and I think Obama has the momentum and the money to buy the necessary votes needed. It's several weeks till the Demo convention and a lot can occur between now and then. If Nader jumps in he can swing enough votes to insure a Republican wins, that's my opinion, because there are several million in this country who think like you do.
I think like the many more millions who disagree with you.
~SERIOUS PROFESSOR~, I don't deny any the things you stated. What has transpired during the past seven years is bad history. I didn't vote for Bush, I wanted Kerry and Edwards to win. So why you question me on those questions is beyond me. I don't like what our Congress is doing, Republican or the Democrats. They should have impeached Bush and Cheney years ago. I don't like the two party system either, why don't you change it for us.
As far as your "least worst" question. For me, there has always been a choice of two viable candidates and I've always voted for the one who I felt was the BEST choice. I don't think of which one is the worst of the two and then write in King Kong or vote for someone who can't possibly win. We disagree on that type of opinion and thinking. That's Okay with me, you can think and do however you desire.
KEM PATRICK, I'm usually not interested in personal comments. Ideas are the thing.
Refer to my posts of February 4, 8:36 pm and February 5, 8:04 am. The second of those posts lays out the questions in a fairly straightforward way.
You ask me for the exact point of disagreement. It is your second comment here (Feb.4, 2:36 pm) and paragraphs 3 and 4 of your 4:11 post that afternoon. Yes, it's your opinion, but it is also a demonstrably false claim.
Every argument has underlying assumptions. My questions to you go to those underlying assumptions. For your convenience, the questions I wanted you to answer are excerpted below.
-----------------
If I were to believe anything so facile as "funding source = candidate's identity," then wouldn't I have to believe the same thing about the Democratic and Republican candidates?
Do you disagree that Democrats have spent a great deal of time, money, and energy keeping Greens and Nader off the ballot?
Between mischievous funding and removal from the ballot, which do you find more (harmful) to democracy?
Do you deny that Supreme Court appointments have been used in presidential elections to pressure lefties and liberals into voting for conservative Democrats? Do you see any inconsistency between (campaign postures and their actions) when in office?
Do you deny that Democrats generally have been for Bush's wars, offering technical critique instead of principled opposition?
Do you deny that Democrats generally have favored the institutions of economic globalization, such as the ones I listed above? (e.g. - NAFTA, IMF)
Do you deny that Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the USAPATRIOT Act?
See, it's irresponsible to resort to what one wishes one heard ("they're identical!") instead of what was actually said or written. Among the VAST (sic) differences that you see between the mainstream parties, I have serious doubts that they include the points I raised.
And finally, how has that "least worst" (election) strategy been working this past generation or so?
Obama did real good, even if Hillary is ahead, it's getting interesting. I'm glad McCain won big. He'll be far easier to beat. If he selects Huckaberry for his running mate, it will be trouble again from the right to lifers, evangilical born again idiots. I hope he selects Julie-oni.
You're right, KEM, I do have a lot of ifs there. The thing is that in politics, ifs are almost all we have.
Well right now, it looks as if they are gonna have to face her. The Republians are gonna lose, ___ big, and in the house and senate too.
1) the author is absolutely incorrect that Nader cost
Gore the election in 2000. (and that's assuming Gore didn't win, which he did.)
2) the author is dead on that Obama scares the cr#p out of the Republicans, but they would relish facing Clinton.
I don't have any argument with that ~Ticonderoa!. You do have a few important of "IFs" there.
IF congress were limited to a single eight year term and IF lobbying were illlegal and IF campaign cotributions were limited and striclty controlled and IF TV ads for congressional races were not permitted. If Congress had the same health and welfare benefits we have and IF they had no special perks and retirement packages for them and their wives, We'd have a lot of progressive Congress people in Washington DC and the two party system wouldd evaporate.
I understand what you're saying, KEM, but if everyone in American voted for who they really wanted (and if they bothered to find out who that was), maybe who they wanted would garner a lot more than 3% of the votes. And maybe we'd have some big changes.
But if everyone in America voted for who they sort of wanted, all we're ever going to have are little bitty changes.
So, until we all figure out how to get together on progressive issues, maybe our votes are going to be wasted, no matter what we do. You wanted Edwards and I wanted Kucinich, but neither of us is likely to get what we want. But we probably won't get what we want if we vote for Hillary or Obama, either. But at least we will have our votes.
Hey ~Serious Professor~ tell me exactly what opinon I gave that you disagree with, I'll be glad to discuss it, if you don't accuse me of being a low life creatin, or write something I never wrote, or make assumptons about me personally, as a couple of others did.
I get the opinion, that the vast majority don't agree with progressives. I agree with progressive issues, because they make good sense. I just don't agree to vote for anyne who is going to garner 3% of the vote. I was and am, a strong suppoter of John Edwards, yet lots of progessives here didn't like him at all. Therefore, some wrote I was a demo lover on one thread. Actually, it is quite amusing to me to read some of the comments.
I wasn't avoiding you ~Professor~ Sorry, I honestly don't understand what you are asking me there. I don't know how to reply to your opinions on that post. I gave my opinions and don't expect everyone else to agree with them. I may agree with you, except your word usage went way over my head.
Holy Moly!
Liberal versus liberal, progressive versus progressive. The eff word and everything. Oh well. That's why the conservatives win so much, I guess.
My opinion about this article? The writers of it are probably right. Hillary is more polarizing than Obama. Obama does have a better chance of beating the repubs. Nader didn't cost Gore the election.
The article seems to be yet another "let's support the dems at all cost" article, instead of a "let's get a real progressive elected" article. There's a ton of these out there, and they keep on helping the MSM convince the progressives that only the democratic party can do anything for them.
What would happen if all the progressive writers and activists and celebrities got together and used their clout to convince people to vote for a real progressive, instead of using it to convince them to vote for the lesser of two evils, like they've been doing for so long?
Got us a self-fulfilling prophecy, don't we? Just like we've had for just about forever.
Hey, should I have run my post through a grammar checking program before hitting "submit," or is my spelling and punctuation good enough?
Yes, all those posts, and you, KEM PATRICK, have dodged my direct questions repeatedly.
I realize that I can't force you to respond, but you might want to think quietly to yourself about why you feel the need to duck my pertinent queries. Ask yourself how avoidance factors into your political framework. Other readers are seeing it, have seen it; you are now playing catch-up. Best of luck.
# 26 for those who are counting. Of course I don't believe it's fair to call it Kem's blog, anyone who wishes can blog as many posts as they desire. If some nut case hadn't started a row, I would have posted twice.
Your right ~One love~. Of course that's number 25.
107 comments. 23 by KEM, and 21 responding to him. That's over 40%. Welcome to the KEM blog.
Hey, we are all entitled to our opinions, but "Can't we all just get along?"...
It's ok to discuss issues, take a side, make a stand, but please!!
If you have to make repeated posts responding and explaining and justifying your posts, then try to do it civilly and in one or two posts.
With that said, I believe that it will be a mistake for the DEMS to nominate Hillary. Her and Bill's egos have gotten in the way of what is best for the Dem party and the nation. Like it or not, right or wrong, she carries enough negative baggae that many will not vote for her. And remember, the Electoral College votes for Prez, we really don't. I do not think Hillary would win enough states in the Electoral College, even if she somehow managed to win the popular vote. Remember Gore in 2000?
Peace.
I wasn't taking about you, it was the other Patrick.
Kem: Do you know the parable of Mouseland? Did you click the link? What you thought was an insult was an educational opportunity.
~KANGZHI~ I see you wish to get into the shit fight with me.___ ( A fight which was started for no good reason by someone other than I.) ___ That someone who calls me a liar, and wrote several things here about me that are absolutely untrue and only becaue I expressed my opinions on a political issue.
In your opinion, I should not have replied in kind or told the person off. In my opinoion I should have and I did.
I wasn't looking for sympathy from anyone as you state. I don't give a shit if anyone like yourself doesn't like what I post either. Being legally blind has nothing to do with it, no one is going to attack me in person here, this is a computer discussion. I don't worry about duels in the sun. You must be rather childish in your thinkling, you sure do show that you are.
Golly, I never dreampt I'd be hit on for my opinions on this subject as hard as I have been here. I just do not understand why ANYONE would junp into the presidential election, knowing very well that they have absolutely NO chance of winning the election, not even coming in with 2 or 3% of the total vote. What purpose does it serve? Kucinich and Edwards, the best of the bunch by far, dropped out, when they knew they had no chance. Why didn't they stay in and send a message?
Okay, Ralph Nader sends a message and allows him to express his opinions on issues and gives us someone to vote for if we don't like the other top runners. So if Joe Blow runs and I vote for Joe Blow, I've voted against everyone else and made a statement. I feel good about it, even if the winner, is the one I really didn't want to win.
I never intended to bash Nader, and have said here at least twice that I like him and like what he has done for society. I just believe he can help the Republican candidate if he enters the race. I believe that and that's my opinion. I don't want the Republllican to have any help. Lots of people other than many posting here believe that.
Maybe Nader didn't ever change the outcome of an election, but sometimes every vote does count and maybe he did. There are some who prove he did, some prove he didn't. Who do I choose to believe? __ Oh, of course, the ones who posted here on this thread are the smart ones. __ My hat is off to you.
One person posted it wasn't Nader who did it in Florida, it was some other person who got 1,800 votes, that person screwed Gore and us by running. I see, that one made a difference but Nader's votes didn't. __ Hmmmmmm, interesting.
Anti nader people care more about him than they do about Republicans suppressing the vote in Florida.
That says it all.
Run Ralph run!
Kernel, thank you for your response.
You may be aware that most of our representatives didn't even read the USAPATRIOT Act before voting on it. To simply believe the Bush regime inspires no confidence at all.
To be cowed into doing exactly the wrong thing out of fear that your political enemies will call you a bad name also inspires no confidence at all.
You explain the motivation, but I already understood that, and there's still no excuse. Cheers.
PeaceCzar__ Telling someone to piss off with their mealy-mouthed pleas does not impress me as showing real integrity.
Better learn some real words before you start putting others down. Your shit candidates expression shows real thought.
seriousprofessor__ Many in Congress voted for the Patriot act for two reasons, one was everyone was caught up in the threat of terror, thanks to Bushco blab, and two, all who did not go along with their scare tactics were immediately labeled traitors, which most people fear being called. Also at that time few realized we had a criminal dictator for president.
tucsonlib__You are exactly right with the fact that the corporate media threw out the candidates we wanted and installed the two they wanted to run against. If we are half as smart as they are we will unite behind one of those two Dems and get them elected, and stop all the nonsense about voting for some fringe candidate or not voting at all. I suspect the Repugs are doing their best to cause a big split in the Dems voting to benefit their candidate. Why, for instance, is their so much criticism of the Dems right on CD when they are the only chance this year for a change?
I'd wager that anyone who reads Molly Ivins' column on Hillary Clinton will never vote for Clinton--including many staunch Democrats.
http://freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304
If it's McCain v. Clinton, I see McCain coming out on top, regardless of whether Nader runs or not.
What's with you, John and Kathy Cramer, so called progressives who state Nader running is a nightmare. Perhaps you should call yourselves democrats instead.
Kangzhi, Kem frequently comments and most times I tend to agree with him but not today. I guess I just will not lower my standards when it comes to voting. This is not a horse race or a game of chance, although the media sure plays it that way. Be true to yourself.
I'll go tonight and see what is going on. Here in MN we have a senate seat coming up and I plan on supporting Al Franken.
John & Kathy:
Don't lump us progressives with real integrity with your shit candidates.
If Hillary's the Dem (and perhaps Obama as well), watch me NOT VOTE.
If not for candidates of merit like Nader, McKinney, Gravel, whoever--we won't even turn out.
Therefore, piss off with your mealy-mouthed pleas.
Oooo, ooo-- tell me how Obama's going to unite the progressives, too!
Kem, it just occurred to me, you seem to be competing for the egocentricity prize that was placed onto Nader. I think I've seen you around in Common Dreams before, personal attacks get you nice and excited, and you play the victim card every time (who will fight with a dude with glasses or is "legally blind"?) Darn it, I'm feeding into this crap too! Anyone else seen this guy around?
Gee, KEM PATRICK, despite all your posts after mine that responded to people who addressed you directly, you still didn't respond to me (8:36 pm).
Somehow, you find Nader-bashing relevant in this discussion of Hillary Clinton's electability crisis. OK, then, I'm sure that you have some reason that backs up your good reflexes.
So far, though, I haven't seen one. Receiving money seems to be your single piece of hard evidence. When you look at it in context, though, it vanishes against the enormous sums that the wealthy and powerful funnel to mainstream candidates. If I were to believe anything so facile as "funding source = candidate's identity," then wouldn't I have to believe the same thing about the Democratic and Republican candidates? A principle applies to all, you know, not just selected instances.
Do you disagree that Democrats have spent a great deal of time, money, and energy keeping Greens and Nader off the ballot?
Between mischievous funding and removal from the ballot, which do you find more antithetical to democracy?
Do you deny that Supreme Court appointments have been used in presidential elections to pressure lefties and liberals into voting for conservative Democrats? Do you see any inconsistency between citing the dire importance of such appointments during campaigns, yet assent to those same noxious nominations when in office?
Do you deny that Democrats generally have been for Bush's wars, offering technical critique instead of principled opposition?
Do you deny that Democrats generally have favored the institutions of economic globalization, such as the ones I listed above?
Do you deny that Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the USAPATRIOT Act?
See, it's irresponsible to resort to what one wishes one heard ("they're identical!") instead of what was actually said or written. Among the VAST (sic) differences that you see between the mainstream parties, I have serious doubts that they include the points I raised.
And finally, how has that "least worst" strategy been working this past generation or so? Proceeding from evidence is important to me, and we have quite a lot of evidence of doing things in the way you advocate.
I'll check back later. No doubt you have excellent answers.
Did Ralph Nader cost Gore enough votes in Florida? That is the relevant question.
The person that may perhaps have made a difference in the 2000 election is Monica Moorehead of the Workers World Party, not Ralph Nader. Monica polled over 1800 votes in Florida. None of those votes would have gone to the GOP and most of them would have voted for Al Gore had Monica not put her hat in the ring
I really think the voting should be very simple.
Everybody has to understand two basic principles:
1. Vote. The one way to waste your vote is if you don't vote at all.
2. Vote against the Republicans. The second way to waste your vote is to vote for the people who would be in power anyway if democracy were to be abolished.
I don't think American's voting rights are worth very much, because the political elite is constantly trying to crush them and it is clear that they really have utter contempt for anything that the general population comes up with. Also, your voting rights are not worth very much if you don't have a real choice at all and if, in practice, you don't have a say in the issues that impact on your life. But at least Americans have a right to vote against their kings and emperors of the Republican party. And I think that that is what matters most. Make use of that right. It does not matter for whom you vote, assert yourself as a democracy and stop blaming Nader or Clinton or whoever. Just practice your democratic rights !
I support the Obama-wing of the Clintonite-DLC party.
KATHYODAT: check out their choices for foreign advisers in the article "Behind Obama and Clinton" and then get back to me on where they each stand re the military.
Yes, check them out! They BOTH are surrounded by the Democratic MIC establishment; BOTH tied to the entrenched DLC/Clintonite neoliberal-militarist strategic elite. Hillary as Albright, Obama has Lake; Hillary has Holbrooke, Obama has Brezenski; Hillary has Indyk, Ob Obama has Ross...and the list goes on and on. Same Democratic MIC establishment split between two MIC candidates. (For a good list, cf. The War Over the Wonks Washingtonpost.com Wednesday, October 2, 2007
Cf. Allan Nairn: "Barack Obama's top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement -- the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. ... Another Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, was the main force behind the U.S. invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton-years during which they brought back [Jean-Bertrand] Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.
"Another key Obama adviser is Dennis Ross, who for many years under both Clinton and Bush II oversaw U.S. policy toward Israel/Palestine. He pushed the principle that the rights of the Palestinians, the rights recognized under international law, must be subordinated to Israel's desires to do whatever it wants in the Occupied Territories. And Ross was one of the people who led the political assault on former President Jimmy Carter when he was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. ETC."
Sounds as if my luck ran out. BTW, by good in bed, means I don't snore or fart.
Hey ~Kathy~ I believe you misunderstand me.
I didn't EVER say I wanted Hillary to win. I just believe she will. I also don't want any Republican in the White House. Therefore, I will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general. We can't vote in the primary in our state, unless we're registered Repug or Demo. Under the present circumstances, I'd vote for an idiot against the Republican candidate. __ I've done that on other occassions come to think of it.
A month ago, the polls showed McCain was a dead duck, __ he'd quacked up. The polls in October will be more reliable.
It is undeniably true that Hillary Clinton is the most vulnerable of the Democratic candidates, and that her nomination would be a dream come true for the Republicans. But I would disagree that the Repugs fear Obama. He is, sad to say, the second weakest of the original Democratic candidates, and thus was ranked just behind Clinton as the Republicans' opponent of choice. With the help of the DLC and the Corporate Media, the Republicans neatly disposed of the candidates they really feared - Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson and Gravel. Don't buy it? Then tell me - How did it happen, exactly - a full 10 months before the election - that the race had come down to a choice between Clinton and Obama? Who crowned them the winners? It sure as hell wasn't the will of the voters.
Yes, I'll cast my vote for the Democrat in November, whoever he or she may be. But even if we wind up with President Clinton or Obama (and not, God forbid, President McCain), this much is certain: The Iraq war will go on and on. There will be no universal health care. The erosion of our civil liberties will continue. In other words - Business as usual. The 2008 Presidential Election is over. The good guys lost.
Hillary the hawk, and now as of today, a teary-eyed hawk. Oh yuck! Do you notice she always cries for herself? I can't even imagine her crying for dead Iraqis for instance.
Kem, polls show Clinton losing to McCain and McCain losing to Obama. When we had Edwards, polls showed McCain losing big time to him. But hell, what do polls have to do with who counts the votes?
Maybe you don't give a damn that Hillary wants to garnish everyones' paychecks to give to her insurance cronies but I care. I can understand that if you're on Medicare it's not your problem. After all, she owes them something for all that money they gave her and heaven forbid it should come from the people who have some. Thanks to the fiscal policies of Bill and George most of us don't.
kathyodat
Why is Common Dreams printing garbage like this which perpetuate the 2-party system? The Democrats used all sorts of dirty tricks to keep Nader off the ballot in 2004. Given this, can we really say there is a substantial difference in the cynical behaviour of the 2 parties?
I don't think so.
Run Ralph run. Run hard.
I'll mull it over, Kem. And if Nader wins the election, you might get lucky.
I've been advised by experts, that I'm still good in bed ~Ruthie~. Hell, I once took Jeanie Rose out to dinner at the Tachikawa officers club. We were tossed out after cocktails and the salad. How can you lose?
After watching the Republicans debate and the Democrats debate, ___ how on Earth, can anyone possibly believe, there is no difference in the two party's candidates?
The Dems and Repugs are WORLD'S apart, all of them, __except Ron Paul, who has no chance whatsoever. I swear, the Republicans will not vote, many that do will vote for the Democrat nominee. They are so ashamed of themselves for supporting Bush, the vast majority won't even go to the polls, that is already self evident.
I still get a chuckle out of those who think Mr. Obama is more viable in the General Election than Ms. Clinton. Yep if anyone can blow a sure thing it's the Dems.
We shall see, the end of the empire is neigh at hand. Who ever gets this mess from w has their work cut out for them. I suggest you all start working on those local networks. Can you get all your real needs met within a 50 mile radius of your home, how about a 15 mile radius?
Wait a second. Aren't you old enough to be my grand dad?
Ok ~Ruthie~, the loser has to sleep with the winner.
McCain never voted once for a pork barrel ammendment for Arizona ~DON~. He did insure Arizona kept the big military bases, Fort Hauchaka and Davis Monthan, which were both on the last big hit list. Hillary won't beat McCain because of popularity, that's for sure.
She'll win because of voter turnout by the Democrats. I doubt it will be close enough for voter frauds or third party votes to matter. We'll know by tomorrow night who will be the top hog. One thng is, Hillary is the only candidate who has Secret Service protection, ___ not sure if that's good, or not so good.
Kem - I do not consider voting for a party who's platform truly speaks to me, voting my conscience, to be throwing away my vote. Indeed voting for someone with whom I disagree on most issues would be a bigger waste of my vote.
Like I said in another thread, the Democrats have lost their sole, and should be put out of all our misery, that is my opinion.
I believe that Sassysue has it right, we shall see.
I have read that there is no evidence for the common statement that Nader "cost" Gore Florida: The voters who voted for Nader, by and large, would not have voted for anyone if he weren't on the ballot. Clearly, just from reading these posts, you can see that a huge swath of people who vote for Nader would never turn out to vote for a centrist DLC democrat. So, from an empirical point of view, it's just wrong to say that Nader cost Gore Florida (besides all the other reasons already listed above....)
Kem - "Would it be better to have a Republican, John McCain or Romney for instance, than Hillary."
Here's my crackpot theory - You may have heard some crazy rumblings about money supply growing out of control (~15%/yr at this point) and that some nasty combination of hyperstagflation and diminishing lifestyles are coming down the pipe, regardless of who should be president...
In the event that the US has to go through some painful, hungry, cold, thirsty, etc. times in the near future, it could go a long way towards destroying the party of the president at the time. Do you want the democrats to be saddled with the blame for what the fallout from the last 35 years of parabolically increasing madness?
Our so-called "Conservative" party in Canada was once so unpopular that they won a total of 2 seats in an election. They then sold the name to the Oily Western Gun Totin Party, and haven't been seen again since. Not an improvement, I realize, but a profound change, nonetheless.
Perhaps, in the greater scheme, were an R party President to preside over the fallout of the mess they made/helped make, they would be pummelled into oblivion by voters who finally see the light - and have to lose the name to a bunch of sensible folks like RP, DK, RN, etc...
Along the lines of, they broke it, they should have to pay for it.
And some proper alternative party should be being nurtured now, so once the fallout has fallen, there will be a strong, viable alternative up and running to pick up the pieces.
I'm not always right ~Chunga~. I'm not afraid to speak my mind and I won't ever throw away my vote for personal reasons, or for self satisfaction.
Kernel - "rather than insisting on taking votes yet again from the Democratic candidates."
CD bloggers attacking Democratic candidates may have something to do with the last seven years of total betrayal. Or have you been awake for the last seven years? Democrats are no longer the opposition party in the 21st Century.
Would it be better to have a Republican, John McCain or Romney for instance, than Hillary. If that's so, please do give me your collective wisdom, so I can decide who to vote for in November.
Corporate Democrats make me want to Ralph, or spew Green.
If the Dems are worried, they've had 150+ years for electoral reform and Range or IRV. What's been the hangup, Dem apologists?
Cyotita - What if there hearts and Minds tell them to vote for Ms. Clinton, Old School or not? What it their hearts and Minds tell them that Mr. Obama is a poser? What if their hearts and minds tell them that the Democrats are fundamentally no different than the Republicans, and they should support a third party?
Will that be ok with you?
As mentioned earlier in another post, Hillary Clinton is OLD SCHOOL. That means that she is doing business as usual when the young people of this country and most of their parents and grandparents know as well, that we must see dramatic change in the way our government and our party politics are run. We have no length left at the end of our rope! Hillary Clinton presents to us the end of the dinosaur era, when politicians such as was seen with George W. Bush, say one thing, but mean the opposite. Here Hillary garners in endorsements because of what she seemingly is "owed," one case in point is Rangel and Delores Huerta. But shouldn't these two Americans be supporting the very best candidate, and not repaying political favors? Isn't the future of our children and this great country important enough for them, and not politics as usual?
As Barack's wife said, this country's soul needs mending and the next president must have the moral authority to lead us to begin to mend our collective soul. I encourage all the Latina mothers who pray so fervently that their sons and daughters come back from Iraq with their body and mind intact to vote on super Tuesday in California, New York and all over the south for Barack Obama. Follow your heart and your minds, and not those Latina's who are stuck with OLD SCHOOL politics.
Ya know Kem - I don't mean to get picky with you, but Al Gore lost the 2000 election all on his own, ok he had lots of help from Joe Liebeman.
I mean your entitled to your opinion, but you are also enitled to be wrong ;-)
In my opinion, and yes I am entitled to be wrong too, an incumbent Vice President in economically prosperous times really has to screw up to loose, especially to a mush mouth like w. But Gore played it like a centrist, and did not show any of the enthusiasm he showed a few years later, and he failed to excite the electorate. So w got a pass from the media, and got the right wing Christian conservatives all excited, and got close enough to steal the election in Florida. Blame Ralph if you like, but that misses some good lessons.
By the way, I voted for Nader in 2000, I lived in PA and it was a safe vote. I will admit though that at the time I saw Gore and Bush as not all that different. Boy was I wrong.
~BUNNY~ Third party "sometimes" works at state levels. If we want a third pary, or a forth party system for congressional and presidental elections, we have to change the system so that congress people and senators only serve no more than eight years, an election every four.
They also should only be allowed to have a certain set amount of money to spend on campaigns with NO TV ads allowed. NO free lunches, or free health care, Congress should have to pay into the Social Security plans and no special perks or retirement pay. Supreme Court justices should have to retire at age 67. Eight years and out the door for Congress. Then eleminate ALL lobbying. Then we can have a true democracy.
~BILDAD~ you did spout insults at me, read your post. You started with a lying insult and ended with, "I live in mouseland." Shove it.
In my opinion, Nader cost Gore Florida. Nader and others deny it, but the numbers are there to see, they don't lie. And no matter how well or how poorly Gore some say Gore ran his campaign, or what other states he won or lost, Florida and or Ohio were the key to his win or loss. Voter fraud in both states cost him the election andwe got Bush. Some pople can't admiot they may have voted fo rNader an got Bush as their prize. Had Nader not been in the race, (one he knew he could not possibly win, therefore he was nothing but a spoiler) Gore would have taken Florida, regardless of the vote fraud.
I'm a registered independant Bildad, not a Democrat. If any wish to vote for themselves, their pet cat, or for Nader, or write in Sam Spade, that's none of my business. I write my opinions and don't start shit fights, or insult others who offer their opnions. ___ I will reply to insults to me.
If Nader didn't recieve most of his money from Republicans, I was wrong on that statment. I knew he recieved a lot of it from corporations that supported Bush. __ Wonder why? I do not try to disrupt this forum, that is not even sensible to suggest and I am offended by that remark. We all have opinions and to attack someone for theirs is rude, childish and done by mean spirited people. Debate is fine, rude insults are not.
It's as if the stars have contrived to hinder poor Hill - she has lost her voice. While ago on Countdown I heard her giving a speech today and she sounded like Wavy Gravy at Woodstock.
KEM, if you don't mind, there are some folks who want to vote for someone who represents them, and it may not be Clinton or Obama.
I would love to vote for Clinton, but she hasn't convinced me she will represent me at all. I don't like Obama's or Clinton's healthcare pitch, for one thing.
To get a third party in this country, sooner or later we have to vote for one?!
I would never tell anyone what to do with their vote either ~Kathy~. I offer my opinions that's all. I supported Edwards and if someone else supported Hillary, or Obama, or Kucinich, that was their perogative, no hard feelings with me.
I offered reasons why I supported Edwards. I will offer opinions of why I bleieve Hillary is a better choice than Obama. They are close on some domestic issues, but Obama is more of a Joe Lieberman or a Bush on foreign policy. check it out. I don't want another Bush type and for those who state Hillary is a Bush type, is just not so in my book.
I am finally here (boos? cheers?) and have missed much invective.
Even ignoring the stealing of the election, just going by election results, we have the following:
In 2000 Gore could not manage to win his own state.
He couldn't win Clinton's state.
Either win would have been sufficient, and neither loss was due to Nader.
200,000 Florida Dems voted for George W. Bush.
But it's easier to blame someone else than to take responsibility for one's own failure, eh?
How come the Democrat apologistas aren't mad at the Socialist Worker's Party? They took enough votes away from Gore in Florida.
So did the following parties:
LIB, LAW, REF, SPF, CPF, WWP
KEM PATRICK, one obvious point that you have missed in the anti-Nader orgy is that Republicans believe a lot of the same inaccurate things that Democrats do.
Yes, their sending money to Nader is calculated and nasty, although not quite so nasty as the Democratic efforts to keep Nader off the ballot.
I have lived long enough to experience the Supreme Court used as a bludgeon to make progressives vote for conservatives. I'm done playing that game. The VAST (sic) differences between the two pro-war, Scalia (et al)-approving, WB/IMF/GATT/WTO/NAFTA-loving, USAPATRIOT Act-ratifying, corporate parties who join hands to censor other voices just don't resonate with me.
I need to vote for a candidate who approximately represents my interests, not one that causes slightly less carnage. Perhaps I'm insane by your standards.
Incidentally, that "least worst" strategy has been used for at least a generation now. How's it working out?
LeeAnn, sorry left out an apostrophe in my last post. We're all in a hurry, the NSA is scanning our inboxes.
Well ~TEXAS~ anyone who actually 'sensibly' studies the issues and the candidates, will realize that there are VAST differences with the Republicans and the Democrats. There will be three nominated for the Supreme court in the next few years. That Tex is the biggee.
Some who write commments such as yours on this site are Repubican neo-cons, who realize their party or desires are sliding down the slope and will do whatever they can to disrupt sites such as this and attempt to alter others views on serious progressive issues.
I'm not saying you are one of those, but you are writing as such. If you wish to vote your conscience and or waste your vote, which is your right, why bother to even post a commment here? Those who do that are similar to a person from another country, whose vote here is meaningless. I just have a different opinion from yours. will never waste my vote, nor stop attempts to have our constitution restored.
Kem, Ralph had no plans to run if we had a progressive to vote for. I don't know if he would run against Obama. If he does, I will vote for Obama anyway. Some won't. That's their choice. Ralph did say he would run against Hillary. I say good. Gives me someone to vote for if she's the Democratic candidate. I will not vote for a scheming lying war monger. I don't vote against people, I vote for people. If I vote for someone I don't want to win, I feel dirty. That's me. You do what you think best as will I. Whether or not they count our ballots, so far they haven't taken away our right to choose who to vote for. I may consider you misguided, I may wish everyone would vote for who they really want and let the chips fall where they will, but I would never dream of trying to tell anyone what they can or can't do on their ballot.
Peace, kathyodat
First, thank you Heavyrunner for the correction. Of course I meant Newspeak (although "doublespeak," i.e., "language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth," is not so far from the truth in this instance.
Kem: I don't think I insulted you. Your circular reasoning is absurd and your political bigotry is obvious, that's all. Your comment that "He gets most of his his campaign money from the Republicans," is simply a lie. Of course, IF you can provide links with references to prove your assertion, I will apologize.
Although a few very stupid Republicans may have sent him some money in the idiotic notion that they would get more bang for their buck doing that instead of giving money to real Republicans--and of course giving people such as yourself some disingenuous misinformation to attack him with--they certainly didn't donate that money to help him spread his anticorporate, anti-imperialist agenda of social justice, consumer protection and (lowercase "d") democracy.
How idiotic is it to donate money to a candidate (or party) who will use it to dismantle your entire political/corporate agenda? Come on, man, think.
And for your information, I am a Green, who was a Democrat for over thirty years. I quit in disgust after seeing the party move farther to the right election after election, year after year. Are you so addicted to the duopoly that you you think that anyone who is not a Democrat MUST be a Republican? There are people with views outside the narrow range of ideas acceptable to the Democratic and Republican parties. There are libertarians. There are socialists. There are members of the Constitution Party and the Peace & Freedom Party. There are independents. And there are Greens. There are millions of people who are neither Republicans nor Democrats, who vote for the party or candidate that represents their views--and don't vote for those who do not represent their views. I am surprized that you are unaware of this. Just don't misidentify us all as Republicans. And please stop trying to disenfranchise us, by spreading DLC propaganda.
I'm waiting for your documentation. Put up or shut up!
Kem--- as far as I can tell, Nader has never made any indication he would like to see a Republican in the white house???
I think Nader believes what is probably the truth which we don't want to believe. Today, as it stands, our country has let big business go apeshit, thanks to both Republicans and Democrats. We are conducting an illegal war, where business profits, spending most of our money and our future on it. There is widespread corruption and lack of accountabilty thanks to both parties paralyzed inability to enforce the nation's laws and constituion.
I think Nader sees a lot that needs to be dealt with and sees neither Hillary or Obama is going to really deal with it. As much as I would like to see a woman as president, or even like to see a woman being taken very seriously as a candidate, the two Democratic candidates seem too invested in things as they are.
We can't keep up what we've got going now, "trade agreements" that have industries set up sweatshops across the Texas border in Mexico that pay starvation wages, not to mention in Asia and India, without any regulation of working conditions, for one thing.
I can't support businesses getting rich off others misfortune or poverty. It makes me sick.
I guess they just loove their malls there in Minne.
Kem,
Ralph Nader raised roughly $300k from confirmed republican sources: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31...
In 2004 Individuals contributed roughly $2.5million to his campagn: http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00000086
Every exit poll indicated that Nader's presence on the Ballot helped Gore more than it helped Bush. Bizarre as it seems, many Republicans actually like Nader's small government, conservative fiscal policies. Bizarre as it seems, a true progressive voice running for president really motivates progressives to go vote, even if they decide not to vote for said voice. Bizarre as it seems, the information fed to you by the mainstream media may not be an entirely adequate substitute for undertaking meaningful study of an issue.
KEM,
Democrat, Republican... same thing. So why should I care which gets elected?
I'll vote my conscience:
As Ghandi said: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
Where did I ever say only certain people could run for office Patick-shit-for-brains? That's a damn lie you are attempting to spread about me.
And BILDAD, I do believe Ralph Nader is a spoiler when he runs for th epresidency. Hell, he gets most of his his campaign money from the Republicans, they love it when he gets into it. __ How come?
I like Ralph Nader as a person and appreciate the good things he does. When he lets his inflated ego act up, he can spoil an election and insure a Republican is elected. I am not the only person here who feels that way about Ralph Nader. I think you are a closet Republican who is sent here to stir up shit. Take your insults about me and shove them up your ass.
Hillary voted against banning cluster bombs - which mostly kill children. Obama voted to ban them. This was an amendment they voted on, no effect on the budget bill. An opportunity to vote their conscience. We can see where Hillary's is. She doesn't have one.
Kem, check out their choices for foreign advisers in the article "Behind Obama and Clinton" and then get back to me on where they each stand re the military. There's a good article from the NYT about Obama;s record in the Illinois state Senate and I believe that's worth considering. Anyway I'd rather vote for someone who spent his youth as a community organizer than someone who was kissing up to Wal-Mart - and still is. And she and Bill finished themselves off with their despicable race attack on Obama. I didn't need it, but one thing they did was cost themselves half of the Black vote they had previously had and serves them right.
My oldest son, who is very astute, pointed out that Hillary would cost the Democrats the moderate independent voters, the progressive voters who generally don't vote for Democrats (like himself and like me), a large part of the Black voters (thanks Bill) and would invigorate the rabid Cointon-hating conservative base like no other candidate could possibly do. That base is currently depressed and apathetic, but Hillary could bring them out of the woodwork in a hurry. As my son said, only the Democrats are capable of losing what should be a slam-dunk election. He nailed that. And it certainly wouldn't be a first for them. Actually, it's their MO.
Her base is shrinking daily.
kathyodat
1) Don't hate the players, hate the game. We see what happens to politicians who attempt to represent we the people--they end up like Kennedy, Kucinich, Wellstone, Nader, MLK, Malcom X etc--assassinated or marginalized.
2) Elections are determined by whoever rigs the votes--last I checked, national elections are still rigged to favor economic elites. So discussions of relative candidate electability are irrelevant.
If the ticked had been Gore/Nader instead of Gore/Leiberman they would have won by a landslide.
Orwell wrote about newspeak and doublethink, but not doublespeak.
I voted for Obama already. I live in California.
If Clinton gets the nomination I will probably vote Nader like I did in 1996 and 2000.
This editor is really annoying. I gotta get better at proof reading before I hit submit.
If Nader runs I hope he runs as an independent. I am a registered Green, and now that there is no chance of the Democrats putting up a progressive candidate, I can go back to the business of supporting my party. But I have no desire to vote for Nader, I did that in 2000, because he ran as a Green, but he did not do that so much to further the Green party as to further his own agenda.
While I do not blame Al Gore's loss on Ralph, I really do think he has out lived his relevance in the presidential arena. He needs to step out of the limelight and into a supporting role, let someone else take the mantle of Spoiler, the losers in the Democratic party will be more than happy to spread the blame around.
Unlike others here, I do not believe a Dem win in the General Election is a given. I think that if you really want a Democratic President you should support Hillary Clinton.
I believe Barack Husein Obama is unelectable. But that is only my opinion, based on only my direct experience of what motivates the just-plain-folk in the good ol' USA. But that's ok y'all go ahead and nominate him, maybe I will be presently surprised twice. First if he gets elected, and second if he lives up to even 1/4 of the high expectations his starry eyed supporters have.
I certainly have no illusions about the Green candidate taking the General Election this year, I'll be happy if we can pull in enough progressives, libertarians, geo-libertarians, and others seeking a real alternative to get 5% of the vote.
bdrube, I fear you have blinded yourself
you all think Obama is this progressive beacon?
he surely is NOT
He is maybe a tad more liberal than Clinton, he voted yes on 300 billion for the war, yes on the patriot act, and of course, no vote on Mukasey. Clinton shares these positions but the difference between her and Obama is that she is honest and open about them and doesn't CLAIM how liberal she is.
I don't like a lot of things she says. I was a huge Richardson fan so the war is one of my biggest issues, but I am tired of all you good progressive liberals blinding yourself with Obama's empty rhetoric
Kem Patrick's twisted Orwellian doublespeak above is really quite telling when he says, "If Ralph Nader want's a Republican to win, he may enter the contest."
Let's see. If we vote for someone whose entire life's work has been in opposition to the things that comprise the neo-con Republican agenda, we're voting FOR the Republicans. If we vote for a Democratic someone whose opposition to the neo-con Republican agenda has been mere lip service, coupled with overt support or subtle enabling of that agenda, we're voting AGAINST the Republicans.
There's a died-in-the-wool corporate duopolist for you, telling us that the only way to get what you want is to vote for what you don't want. Kind of like E.V. Debs's "It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it," in a Bizzaro Universe sort of way.
Sorry, Kem, but I think you are living in Mouseland.
http://www.tommydouglas.ca/mouseland