oh for f's sake...

look, there is such a thing as gradations of difference.

obama = some better foreign policy advisors + some hawks + a moderately progressive voting record + dumb-ass statements about pakistan, etc. more or less corporatist, but doesn't always vote like one. *may* be the best we've got, or *may* be more of the same - and either way, *may* lead to some modest changes. and that's not an endorsement, it's pretty much just facts here.

clinton = hawks. some ok votes, some crap ones. definitely corporatist, votes like one too. she's also hated by the right (which is probably a good reason to vote for her), but otoh, that could also mean blowback - and for what exactly? hmm.

mccain = opposes guantanamo. also called to bomb iran (he even sang for it, ugh). occasionally a bit soft for a republican - but there you have it, he's a republican.

romney, huckabee? i trust i don't need to go there for CD readers. :)

ron paul? well, god. great and all, until he sounds like the flat earth society. then there's the border and abortion. bzzt! next.

am i endorsing here? no. what i am doing is pointing out that sometimes it's really hard to tell the difference between a principled stand, and sticking one's head in the sand. if you want third parties - build a base for one, don't just flap your lips when the presidential elections come around! god. as for the democrats - fucking hell, what did you expect? the system is flawed - being right is not going to change that, working to fix it is.

i don't understand the point of voting one's conscience in a primary that is narrowed down to one of two winners on the democratic side. if we were talking the green party nomination - or whatever emerges between now and november (which probably ain't gonna be much, but you never know) - i could understand the objections. but that's not where we are. why is that so hard to understand? sighs.

making principled stands that are nothing but symbolic gestures of one's right to vote *change nothing*, unless you are being disenfranchised from the right to vote - and for some reason, i suspect that most of the people getting all huffy about this are perfectly entitled to vote in this election. maybe i'm wrong, but i doubt it. yay! you pissed in the wind. now what?

" TheLorax February 5th, 2008 11:38 am

The Constitution doesn't offer stark contrasts. It's obvious that Mitt Romney hasn't read it.
I decided a long time ago to vote for Kucinich. That has not changed. I will not vote for Obama or Clinton because the candidate I support was plucked out of the race. ...

I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS A GOOD REASON; only, there's Cynthia McKinney, and her potential running mate Ralph Nader, though I'm not sure what stage he's arrived at yet in terms of actually running or campaigning. I most recently read that he has started to look into whether or not to try to run again this year; as opposed to having stated that he's running. So I don't know what he's further decided yet.

Either of them, or both together, also makes a valid choice, imo. But people sticking to the self-rule that TheLorax states are understandable, and any U.S. voters who are truly concerned about their govt providing a [real] democracy, and a real anti-war and pro-justice reality or position, should also and strongly care about Kucinich having been excluded from the debates; un- or anti-constitutionally and anti-democracy so.

That 'anti-' is not just about an 'instead of' (the Greek definition of 'anti') matter; it's in the ruthlessly, despotically, ... sense that Kucinich and his supporters have been treated. The first U.S. Supreme Court judge ruled correctly in favour of Kucinich's lawsuit against NBC (and therefore G.E.), while the appeal judge sided with hellbent despotism, ... and clobbered the excellent ruling of the first judge; damn s.o.b. that the second one was (as awfully usual).

NO other U.S. voter has anything at all to preach to Kucinich's and democracy's true supporters and defenders! NONE!

It's just that I think that McKinney and Nader also consitute a good choice; and if they were to be elected, which the U.S. unfortunately will make sure is again a non-eventuality or -reality, for they and the real and hidden ruling elites won't permit true candidates to have a real chance of winning the highest-level election in the country; well, Nader and McKinney might make sure that candidates like Kucinich, any candidates for that matter, are no longer excluded from debates by third or tierce parties. The candidates would only be able to exclude themselves, such as due to withdrawing, or illness or high-priority emergencies, say.

Quote: " cyon February 5th, 2008 11:53 am

Lorax:

You can squander your vote on a meaningless gesture of principle if you like, but I would urge others not to do the same. You may recall that Nader voters handed Bush a victory in Florida in 2000.

..."

That's NO squandering of vote!

CYON and likes need to GET OVER such infantile bs, for Nader never spoiled the 2000 election at all! It takes infantiles to come up with faulting Nader and his supporters; and it is awfully bs to think in such terms.

Who the hell unleashed such infantile "people" or "minds" upon Humanity! Go back to watching disneyland, cyon and likes!

SEE, cyon really illustrates that he or she is just another "American" who falsely pretends to be pro-democracy; for, f.e., 1), his bitching about Nader, is a wholly false "take" on what happened in 2000, and 2, people refusing to vote because Kucinich was [hellbent] excluded from DP candidate debates are right to demand that democracy being truly upheld, or else they refuse to vote and thereby be complicit with a very rogue, ... govt.

It's not Nader's campaign that did any harm (at all) in 2000! It's Gore and his supporters who were and remain guilty. They are the ones who concretely proved to be the anti-democratic, etc. He's the contender who blatantly and wittingly (it had to be witting, for he was aware of what happened and had put on a little stage act about supposedly trying to get the situation corrected) refused to do what he had the ability to do, and which was to make sure to fully press the demand for a valid recount of the votes; as well as additional election verifications that needed to be made. And his supporters stayed mostly silent about all of this.

Nader didn't cause any problems; YOU DID and to your so-called selves and so-called purpose, of trying to get Gore elected. YOU F*CKED UP; NOT Nader and his supporters! Morons that you all are!

What cyon is illustrating is that many so-called voters in the U.S.A. very clearly are very anti-democracy advocates, while falsely (and delusionally) pretending to be pro-democracy. They don't speak out of both sides of their mouths; they speak out of all four sides, plus the opening (for the whole "picture").

Pretending is bs; be [real], or else buzz off ..., grow up, become a [real] human being with [real] intelligence and responsibility; stop whining and falsely blaming others when you are the ones who f*ck up! And about that, I can elaborate in more than one way; and from personal, so first-hand experience and knowledge.

Anyway, both Billary and Obama are hellbent pro-Israeli govt hellship and anti-Palestinian victims, etc. They also are supporters of totally criminal threats against Iran, which has been and remains wholly within its legal and ethical, moral rights. And that would still be true even if Iran was seeking to possess nuclear weapons; for, and after all, no one of sane mind could think that Iran would be seeking this capability except for the purpose of deterrence, to more strongly be capable of deterring criminal wars of aggression against itself. It is an issue of real concern for non-nuclear armed states today, with the hellbent USA, et al, freely applying superpower status against states and with abolustely no legitimate justification.

Vote for either Obama or Billary, or any of the RP candidates, besides Ron Paul, and you are BEGGING FOR MORE CRIMES OF WAR AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY by the USA, et al.

Ron Paul is not good for tens of millions of Americans who have no adequate access to health care, f.e., but he's minimally stating to be opposed to U.S. foreign policies of war, and the extremely corrupt Federal Reserve, which he wants to have abolished. The FR might only need serious reformation, but it has to be either reformed, and very seriously so, or it needs to be abolished altogether. So Ron Paul is minimally right in terms of addressing the fact that the FR is a majorly crippling factor for the U.S.A. (and world, I'll add).

Like Kucinich says, Obama, Billary, and Edwards are all people who "speak out of both sides of their mouths"!! Duh; what does that mean? HYPOCRITES, LIARS, ... schmucks, charlatans, warmongering sh*ts who just pretend to not be warmongerers, pro-imperialists, anti-democracy, ..., but really siding with these evils. If they didn't really side with these, then they'd openly oppose them, but they do NOT do that at all; they are wholly pro-Israeli govt hell on Earth, and the therefore hellbent complicit USA.

And their so-called health care proposals are NOT good, either.

I hear Obama, and [read] 'no good]'; but if I didn't know what I already know of him, then he might possibly have me fooled. Well, I'm informed enough to be able to additionally listen to him and hear him for his real but presently denying, unspoken self; he's trying to "conveniently" have voters forget what his positions are against Iran and Palestine, etc. And I wouldn't try to help that become a conveniently, so easily, won deception on his part. Billary is no better; we have even more history that is indicative [against] her campaign.

"What's Left?
Jennifer Van Bergen", Jan 28 2008, originally posted at jvbline.org,

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/01/28/what_s_left

Quote: "With Kucinich out of the race, there are NO viable candidates left. - I'm sorry, I will not vote for somebody who compromises his or her morals and betrays his/her constituents and the US Constitution, not to mention international laws."

NOW THAT'S SPEAKING OF REALITY AS IT REALLY IS; like it, or not!

She says she's not referring to the Palestinian issue in that article, so she mentions it minimally in this way; while I wouldn't leave it unmentioned, for it's critically pertinent when considering Obama and Billary, both. However, I accept that what she says is still enough to illustrate that neither of these two candidates (nor Edwards and the RP candidates) are acceptable choices for [responsible], [intelligent], [spined], morally principled, ..., and well informed voters.

Only COWARD voters fold in these ugly, disgusting, sad, and tragic ways; pro-Obama, pro-Billary, pro-Giuliani, pro-McCain, ...! COWARDS who fear-for-their-lives of venturing where no one they know ever has; damn, lame-ass cowards. They're terrified of trying to experiment with something [new], strikingly different, and tremendously better than what they've known so far; and they should therefore be so terrified of doing something really right that they should never leave their homes, imo.

Cowards and worse will vote for Obama and Billary, etc. Courageous voters will not do this; they will honourably stand by sanely ethical principles, instead of making hypocrites of themselves, which the others repeatedly do.

"Breaking the Sound Barrier:
Democracy Now! Re-Hosts NBC Las Vegas Debate to Include Kucinich After NBC Wins Appeal to Exclude Him", Jan 16 2008,

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_democracy_now

If you wish to argue about whether he's right in the answers he provided us in that simulated debate, then we could carry on, for I don't have a confidence lack; but CD'ers only post comments in non-discussion (forum) format, only posting in pages specifically for articles. It kills the ability to hold real discussions or debates, which is something voters should work on forming; pro-debate forums.

Why morons still choose this very primitive format for holding discussions is beyond me, but it's what happens at CD.

DOES NOT MATTER; the prophets also were not listened to, either; not usually anyway. History's repeated and not over decades, but many ages.

I am voting for OBAMA (Kucinich voter here) because the thought of a Clinton vs McCain race is disturbing.

How ironic it is that if John McCain is the GOP nominee, the Bush/Cheney/Gonzales/Loo decision to officially authorize torture and gut the Geneva Conventions (a decision that was later rubber stamped by the Republican- controlled Congress in the immunity provisions of the Military Commissions Act) will almost certainly slide off into history without ever being raised by Democrats - even once - as a partisan political issue in a campaign.

In 2004, Kerry and Little George staged a full hour and a half debate on national security policy, Iraq, and the war on terror. Not a single question was asked or comment made about Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, rendition, or the Geneva accords.

The born again Christian who pledged in the GOP's 2000 Presidential campaign to "restore morality in the Oval Office" instead personally presided over the stacking of naked Muslim men in shit-stained homoerotic tableaus in US military prisons, and perching hooded detainees barefoot on boxes, with electrodes wired to their testicles, in order to soften them up for interrogation.

Mysteriously, the Kerry campaign stood silently by, saying nothing about the prisoner abuse issues that so riled the Arab street and incensed the international human rights community, as George the Lesser was returned to office with a smirk. Karl Rove then boasted how the reelection campaign had turned again on values issues, and American voters clearly sensed that the Democratic Party simply had no values.

How on earth could this have happened?

How did it become possible, in a democratic society, for the Bush/Cheney regime to escape unscathed through several election cycles, avoiding all political accountability for having created a torture gulag of sickening depravity in the name of the United States of America?

How ironic indeed if a John McCain candidacy serves to achieve this shameful end result by innoculating the GOP ticket from mere mention of the word torture once again.

Bill from Saginaw

OBAMA TODAY!!! CALIFORNIANS CAN DO IT!!!

The Constitution doesn't offer stark contrasts. It's obvious that Mitt Romney hasn't read it.
I decided a long time ago to vote for Kucinich. That has not changed. I will not vote for Obama or Clinton because the candidate I support was plucked out of the race. I will pencil his name in if I have to. Nobody tells me who I can and can't vote for.
It's scary how many people are jumping on the Obama bandwagon. Why? If they plucked out Obama and Clinton how many of you would be supporting Huckabee or Romney? YOU ARE BEING MANIPULATED TO SUPPORT A CANDIDATE YOU NEVER WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED AND BEING TOLD WHO YOU CAN VOTE FOR.
I am still for Dennis and I will vote for him regardless. My vote will always belong to me.
By the way Ann Coulter is ready to support Clinton so all you Hillary supporters better welcome her to YOUR team.

Lorax:

You can squander your vote on a meaningless gesture of principle if you like, but I would urge others not to do the same. You may recall that Nader voters handed Bush a victory in Florida in 2000.

I'm not being manipulated by anyone. I like Obama and will vote accordingly.

If you think there's no meaningful difference between Obama and McCain or Romney, you're just not paying attention.

Cyon,
You have lost any credibility you may have had with the tired old lie about Nader voters throwing the Florida election to Bush. Give it up man, Gore himself said it ain't so, and listed ten other reasons why he lost. Or was too spineless to fight for what was his. A lifelong Democrat, I wouldn't have voted for him and the Lieberclown if he was the last person on earth. Lieberman? Give me an effing break, what was he thinking?

I have never voted for a Republican in my life but I won't waste my vote on the 'lesser of two evils' crap the one-party-two wing system presents us with. Like Lorax, I have voted my conscience and voted for the candidate that best represents my views and vision the past few election cycles. That means I voted for Perot, and for Nader twice. And I will not, under any circumstances, vote for either Hillary or Obama. I'll stay home or I'd vote for Ron Paul before either of those two corporate shills get my nod. My vote will go to the Greens, or I'll write in Gravel. As long as people keep enabling this 'two party' system we'll be stuck with the same fascist Empire enablers, crooks and liars we've had in the past.

We need viable third, fourth and firth parties in thas country--Socialists, Libertarians, Independents, Greens...and we need people educated and rational enough to vote their conscience, and not fall for the silly 'throwing your vote away' shit you're pushing. In my eyes,you're not only throwing your vote away on Obama, you're part of the problem.

The political reality right now is that we have TWO candidates left standing. Your vote for someone NOT in the race means that you are opting out of the real choice. And you have the right to do so.

I too loved Dennis for his strong stands on issues I care deeply about. But he is now in a race to hold his congressional seat. If you really care this much about him, please log into his website and CONTRIBUTE so that he will remain a strong voice for peace.
###

Hmm, progressives have a choice:
(1) vote for a triangulating politico (although it would be great finally to have a woman) and get four more years of conservative Clintonism, or
(2) vote for someone who says things like "change; yes, we can" but little about substantive policy details (although it would be great finally to have an African-American). They both voted for hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars to continue the illegal Iraq war and to re-authorize the PATRIOT Act.

That's called democracy American style--we, as citizens, are denied the opportunity to make meaningful policy choices.

This week in Switzerland I voted to form a committee to consider changing the canonal constitution, whether to make the transportation system free or not, whether to ban smoking, whether to help small and medium sized business and whether dangerous dogs should be banned. Of course it is easier to hold votes every few months when you only have 7,000 citizens. In many cantons foreigners can vote on local issues because they pay taxes. I am so glad I moved and changed nationality. Probably the next series of votes will come up in May. Far from perfect, it is much closer to democracy. In past years the Swiss voted whether to buy planes for the air force. Imagine voting on what the Pentagon buys...whether to join the UN (yes) the EU (no).

cyon-
A meaningless gesture of principle? You mean Democracy?
So you want Obama? And what about when he's no longer viable? Clinton? Romney?
The fact is that you will vote for whoever they DECIDE you can vote for. Heck they could make you vote for McCain by just eliminating the other candidates.
Nader voters didn't hand bush a victory in 2000, the Supreme Court did. bush hasn't won an election yet.
I will not be manipulated by the system. If they say "either vote for these bozo's or you're out" well then I'm out. I WILL cast a vote though. I think that's still my right.

Clinton's repudiation of torture sounds much stronger than Obama's. Oh, I forgot. She's a middle aged woman. Ignore her. Middle aged women shouldn't say anything.

Where do all these 'JudeoChristians' get their ideas from? Where did cruelty and greed come from? Was it from the Fall in the Garden of Eden? Who were the Original Sinners? Who still inflicts a Jealous God on their neighbors? Just changing the faces in power cannot help America. Changing the Face of Power to human compassion is the only way.

Lorax and Cyon__ You two go ahead and vote for Kucinich, Paul, or Gravel. I plan to vote for Santa Clause on principle that he will give us everything we want.

josh__realize that if either Dem had voted against the Patriot Act and then we had any kind of terror attack what would have happened to them? TRAITOR Few people want to be accused of that, Sen Hagel was against the war and he paid for it big.

It's certainly true that we have denied ourselves real meaningful change by not supporting the candidates that supported us. However there is the truly repugnant choice of Hillary, and the strong possibility that Obama couldn't be as horrible as Hillary certainly will be. Also you can vote Obama now to help lesson the disgusting chance of more Clinton betrayal, and then vote McKinney in the general election to express your real feelings.
I voted Obama simply because the thought of Hillary in the White House again is more then I can stomach. In November, we'll see.

Thanks, dnelson.
Kernel, you are only strengthening my point. You seem to acknowledge that even the "liberal" members of the political class voted to shred provisions of the Constitution (e.g. the PATRIOT Act), not because their constituents reasonably want them to do so, and not because their conscience directs them to do so, but because they feel they have no choice in the face of the peer pressure and expected orthodox witch hunts by the punditocracy and the political class. That is, not only do citizens have little or no meaningful input as to basic policy choices that affect them, even their representatives feel irresistible pressure to vote against what the population reasonable wants and what their conscience tells them.

HUSSEIN OBAMA IS A WHITE CANDIDATE "left town when the Iran strike vote for the Senate was on the docket....." PHONY PERSON
HE HAS SAID ' I WANT TO INCREASE THE TROOPS BY 100,000'
helllllllllllllllllllllllllloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

SORRY BUT too many sheep either don't read the black agenda report

nor have viewed Democracy Now podcast(s) nor the internet site
nor cable tv nor link tv nor free speech tv MLK is turning in his grave same for MACOLM X , ROSA PARKS , RFK, MEGDAR EVANS.

Obama Today!!! California etc. can do it! Amen!

Pardon me, Cyon, I was referring to Lorax and emkay in my post.

josh__I am not saying that our two remaining candidates did the right thing by not voting against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, I am just pointing out that there were several hundred others that also were too confused, chicken, stupid,or whatever to do that. It is hard for most people to get out on a limb that could get sawed off behind them as could have happened in that case.

I do not believe the Dems have to take quite as much heat as they are getting for not sacrificing themselves for a cause that was hopeless. Lets put the majority of the blame where it belongs--on Bush and the criminals that brought these problems on us as well as the voters that helped put him in twice.

You must ask yourself "Where do you draw the line?"
If they remove Obama from the race who will you vote for? Clinton?
If they remove them both then who? At what point do you finally say "Enough is enough! I'm not casting a vote for any of those clowns you're offering!"
I never supported Obama and I'm morally compelled to reject Clinton. If I were to say "OK I'll go ahead and vote for Obama." then I'm a SELL OUT.
I cannot cast a vote for a candidate I do not believe in. If I did, I would join the seemingly endless ranks of hypocrites. Until I find ANYONE worthy of my vote, I will pencil in Kucinich.

This article has a number of errors. Obama and Clinton are NOT the remaining two candidates. Mike Gravel is still in the running. He has the MOST experience, best resume and best ideas.

Second, Hillary and Barack are NOT against torture. If so, they'd of filibustered Michael Mukasey when his appointment came before the Senate.

Last, the author says he'll wait to see how Obama and Clinton vote on the upcoming FISA legislation. WRONG. Their vote will only be part of the story. They'll need to stand shoulder to shoulder with Chris Dodd in support of his filibuster. They'll need to take advantage of the media that follows them around and scream bloody murder into every lens. They'll need to fight to the last breath to save the 4th amendment from total evisceration. If they won't fight for the 4th amendment then neither deserves to work in the Senate, even as a janitor!

Make them earn your vote damnit!

"My sense, since I visited just about every single prison in the Arkansas prison system, is that most of our prisoners would love to be in a prison more like Guantanamo."

Huckabee's sense: surely an oxymoron.

Is his mailbox daily packed with pleading letters from legally tried and convicted criminals from US jails?

As the Corporatocracy controls both sides of the House and Senate, I fear we can say or do anything we want. Whichever side gets in, they will continue to do what they are told.

We will see a slight change of lip service and a few breadcrumbs thrown our way to pacify us, then business as usual.

Remember four years ago when the Democrats "won." A bit of gas was passed as to "victory" and "change" and it was right back to business as usual and the rich got richer and the occupation got bloodier. Unfortunately, I fear that We the People have had it. We are the ones that are marginalized, and so it will continue.

First, Huckabee's comments say more about Arkansas prisons than they do Gitmo.

Face it, our democracy isn't a true democracy, and it never was. You are now faced with this choice: Vote for what you have to choose from. Your candidates are Hillary and Obama. To vote for another Republican should make a progressive's stomach turn.

And I know you are saying: But Obama and Hillary aren't real progressives! So go change it. Run for office in your State or help a progressive who is. That is real grass roots. This state needs plenty of help, because the Republicans as of this November, unless something changes, will run both the House and the Senate in Oklahoma. And they are bad, really bad for anyone that isn't a religious nut or greedy bastard. So I am knocking doors for our local progressives.

When it gets bad enough across the country, there will be a grass movement for change. I believe that is what we are beginning to see in Obama, and Hillary in part. People are getting fed up. Many of those who are really fed up now see those as the best for change because they LOOK different. Although that is shallow, it reflects the mood of many voters.

I liked Dennis K, I liked Edwards but today I voted for Obama. I voted the best I could. And if Hillary wins, you can be sure I will vote Hillary in November.

No, it isn't my first choice. But we have to change if we don't like it. Every one of us must become activists.

There's not much difference between Clinton and Obama. But there is enough of a difference between them and whoever the Republicans put up to justify the effort of voting for them. I will but I don't think I'm going to change the world by it.

The former Mayor of Cincinatti and the guy that said the Corvair was a crap car are not going to be on the podium in January 2009 with their hand on the Bible. One of those other people will.

It does make a difference.

What is pretty clear for anyone living outside the US is that the limited menu of candidates the ruling party has given you doesn't include anyone in favour of ending the extra-legal kangaroo courts, inquisitions and executions.

The candidates we hear about either supported, voted for or abstained on funding for the permanent bases in Iraq, Guantanamo expansion, and new "laws" making arbitrary detention, secret trials and firing squad executions of prisoners who were kidnapped and tortured but convicted of no crime, "legal".

I guess what I'm getting at is that, on these issues, who cares which of 'em wins? If McCain wins, so what, it's business as usual, a hundred years in Iraq.

If Clinton wins, she'll do…what about Guantanamo and torture? She voted to threaten Iran with attack. How does this make her different from McCain?

Obama is for change…I can't think of anything else to write except that like McCain and Clinton, he can't give Haliburton enough money to do…whatever it is that they do.

Oh, by the way, what do your Green Party people say about these issues?

I'm willing to vote for Obama. I won't vote for Clinton.

I have loved reading this forum. Thank you and agree with most of you intelligent thinking progressives out there, and can empathize with the situ. I've been living primarily in the UK for 8.5 years but vote remotely. I have always had an instinct on the Clintons, tho I know they are bought by the Devil. I watched the entire first 3.5 seasons of Prison Break in January, having been a Lost fan, and can safely say this is the 2000's X files. 'The Company' decides EVERYTHING, and THAT is how this happened, Bill from Saginaw. There is a very evil matrix in control, and it's self-evident. Now, maybe Hilary or Obama are pretending to play with them to become a double-agent. Think about it. If you were intelligent would you hope beyond hope to get in and tell it like it is, and be discredited by 'Them' or would you wait until you get it to make strategic moves. The reasons for all the death's in Bill's legacy was he TRIED to do it. The reason for JFK's death was obvious the same - his bootlegged daddy bought him in and he and Bobby weren't about to really sell out all the way once they got in. Tis CROSSROADS again and again here. And we are all co-creating this story. There is progression TOWARDS an end here, people! THE GIG IS UP and everyone knows it! The control freaks don't win. It looks like it though don't it, right now? When you look what has happened to the 4th, etc. However, there is a wave that is more powerful than 'Them'. And we are IT. I agree with okiegal - we each have to become activists, and call them on their sh*tte. And call ourselves for being complacent enough to let it happen. MLK Jr. and Ghandi were not perfect either, they had underbellies, but they inspired change. I can say that Obama and Hillary both do that, HUGELY better than the evil cartel who have been in power the last 8 years. Let's see how many of the New Dem White House they kill this time. I bet it will be LESS. And I bet incredible things will come, that will show, the evidence of the emerging intelligent collective consciousness, the future is now. The sheep are waking up. Thank God/dess Almighty!

The bottom line for me is that as long as it's still legal to vote I'm going to vote for the candidate I want, instead of for the candidate "they" want me to want. And if everybody else did that we could really change the country bigtime, instead of just maintaining the status quo.

Remember the old adage "curiousity killed the cat?" Well, what we've got in this country is the opposite: "The lack of curiousity killed the cat," with the cat in this case being the American citizen. Not enough people are curious enough to hunt around on the net, looking for someone to vote for, instead of letting the MSM tell them who to not vote for.

We've also got a situation where idealism is mocked and pragmatism is revered, at least as far as progressives go. Conservatives don't have any problem with idealism, do they? It's just what passes for idealism is far different for them than it is for progressives. For conservatives war is idealistic, especially when it takes place in the Middle East, the home of the final battle of Armageddon (according to the Bible), and so is torture and so is killing walking and talking children and so is destroying the world's ecosystem for the sake of profits.

Conservatives are idealistic as heck, and they use their idealism to get in and stay in power. So why can't progressives be idealistic, too? Why can't we somehow get together and do what we really want, just like they do?

ticongeroga wrote:

The bottom line for me is that as long as it's still legal to vote I'm going to vote for the candidate I want, instead of for the candidate "they" want me to want. And if everybody else did that we could really change the country bigtime, instead of just maintaining the status quo.

so the bottom line is your right to vote, not the outcome of the election and what may follow from it? i seriously doubt that's what you really mean.

also, you say *could* change the country bigtime. that's my point - it could, but it isn't. if we want to push from the left, we need to come up with strategies that actually work, not just allow us to sit on our high horse. being right (which you are) is not enough.

so what's your plan for actual change, which btw is going to take a lot more than electing a candidate, even a decent one like McKinney, Kucinich, Gravel, et. al.? i'm all ears.

Some CORRECTIONS for my prior post, and to try to make up for possible if not likely ambiguities (while skipping the syntactical, like unnecessary commas, and other minor typo. flaws in the post):

*) "SEE, cyon really illustrates that he or she is just another "American" who falsely pretends to be pro-democracy; for, f.e., 1), ..., and 2, people refusing to vote because Kucinich was [hellbent] excluded from DP candidate debates are right to demand that democracy being truly upheld, or else they refuse to vote and thereby be complicit with a very rogue, … govt."

Re. the second point, I think it's more accurately or clearly stated as: "people refusing to vote because Kucinich was [hellbent] excluded from DP candidate debates are right to firmly demand that democracy be truly upheld, or else refuse to vote and very much for the purpose of not being complicit with a very rogue, ... govt."

That's what I meant anyway. That is, I definitely did not mean to say that people refusing to vote because of the despotism against Kucinich and his supporters would be siding with rogue govt by making this choice (of not voting, unless it's for him).

*) As for the 2000 election being lost not due to Nader and his supporters, who definitely did not want to vote for either Gore or Bush anyway, FreePress has had plenty of articles posted at CD on this over the past several years; in addition to the rest of what FP has on the 2000 election.

READ FreePress and other good resources on that election, and WAKE THE F*CK UP!

*) True prophets spoke words of Truth and were ignored!

Little has changed; for the most part, we only have more technologically powerful means of ruling in evil, ... ways.

And U.S. voters evidently aren't going to be changing historical course anytime soon!

KERNEL- you wrote:

"josh__realize that if either Dem had voted against the Patriot Act and then we had any kind of terror attack what would have happened to them? TRAITOR Few people want to be accused of that, Sen Hagel was against the war and he paid for it big."

To me, this is just proof that people are not allowed to participate in government at the level of presidential candidacy if they are not on board with the elite agenda. In giving your votes to the candidates who play this game you are endorsing the game! How many democratic office holders have made big campaign promises only to flake after the election, from Bill C. to Pelosi? Some of them may want change, but they've elected to play a game where change is not allowed!

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
November 21, 1933
Source: in a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/franklin_roosevelt_quote_76bd

Those owners don't allow the players to benefit the people at the owners' expense :)

Thic Nhat Hahn, the revered Buddhist monk, was quoted as saying that the first thing anyone must do in order to change one's course is to stop - stop going on the course one has been traveling on.

Similarly, we, the electorate in the U.S., are left (once again) with a choice of going in the direction we've been going in, or changing directions.

There are those here who make a very good case for going along with realpolitik, and believe me, I am as trapped by the "reality" of the situation as others. However, I wish some of you good folks advocating for realpolitik would also show some integrity and tell the rest of us what you plan on doing after the lesser of the evils has been voted into office. You all have scolded us for doing no more than yapping about things instead of voting for the "reality" candidate then working to change things. Please tell us all what YOU do to change things. What do you do between elections?

Yes, restive, et al, I do care about the outcome of the election. However, I've come to realize that the outcome we get with realpolitik is minimal compared to what could be if folks had some courage and conviction and stuck by it.

Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton are terrible people. It's just that they are beholden people and the entities to which they are beholden are terrible, at least to democracy, freedom, justice, equality... No small matter. So, what you are advocating for is that we choose between several people who are beholden to corporate and wealthy interests to the detriment of life on this planet. Great choice - thanks!

A more colloquial quote that mirrors Tich Nhat Hahn's is this: If you always do as you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten.

Doesn't take much brains to figger that out!

Please tell us all what YOU do to change things. What do you do between elections?

Yes, restive, et al, I do care about the outcome of the election. However, I've come to realize that the outcome we get with realpolitik is minimal compared to what could be if folks had some courage and conviction and stuck by it.

I couldn't agree more. Please note that I am talking about the primaries only, not the election as a whole.

As for what to do: I do tons. I write, I organize, I make media, and have for many years. What do you do?

All due respect though, you're not really addressing what I said - which was about what follows *after* the first step. Some of us are going to vote for the lessor of two evils - *today* - and some aren't. Not forever, not six months from now - today, as in "the democratic primary" - as part of a larger process of social change. Flawed? Perhaps. But so is voting for someone who isn't even in the election anymore. Personally, I think relying on presidential elections to produce social change is not the way to go, regardless of the candidate, democrat, green, independent, whoever. We need movements then candidates, not the other way around. Without that, whoever ends up in office is beholden - if not by their contributors, by the system that will crush them like a bug if they don't have mass support (aka a movement).

That being said, it's really OK that people want to vote for Kucinich to take an ethical stand - but I mean, seriously, there are differences in the voting record between Obama and Clinton, and they're not minor ones, which is my point here, not "you should vote for x" - like I said, I am *not* endorsing here, and it sort of pisses me off that you say that I am. I am in no way endorsing the same old crap. What I am doing is looking the range of voting records in relation to who is running *TODAY*. Fucking god. :(

And yes, there's more. What bothers me more than anything is that some folks here don't even see that - which says to me that they're not even studying the candidate, they're just armchair pontificating. Not only does the article above spell that out, the publicly available voting records of both candidates spell that out. I'm just tired of people making up shit because they don't bother to articulate the larger issues (such as "hey, the entire system is broken, here's what I think needs to happen to fix it"), or even to so much as read a voting record, when they appear to care about the election, as well as being more than capable of articulating an opinion clearly. If anything, I'm pissed that people aren't building a third party. I am definitely not a shill for the democrats! If you actually knew me, or have read my posts here, you would know that. Mixing up the need for systemic change with support for a candidate - any candidate - means we end up with nothing. I also think that voting in this sham of a system, in this sham of a government, is hardly going to change shit all of anything long term. That being said, I think it's wise to assess what is on the table every step of the way, while we all keep our eyes on the prize long term.

As for Clinton and Obama: you say "they're both beholden", and I agree - but that is a problem with the office itself. (it's also a problem of them both being corporatist, but again, I'm talking about who is going to do the least damage, given the way things are configured at present – with Kucinich and Edwards both having dropped out, and Gravel so behind the eight ball that not much is gonna happen there – again, TODAY Let me say it again: Today.

In closing: voting for a more progressive candidate out of protest, as opposed to building enough of a base of support that they actually may win, along with substantial voting reform - is sort of, well, not the kind of "enlightenment" that I feel comfortable encouraging. We need to change the system, not just feel good about not changing it. You can call that real politik all you want (which btw, I find somewhat offensive, given that what I am encouraging people to do is think critically on a mass level, which is *never* the goal of realpolitik), but I strongly disagree.

Now, if you want to talk about building a movement…but that's not what started this conversation. :-)

Less than an hour ago I voted in the California Primary. Because I am non partisan I thought I wouldn't be able to vote for a presidential candidate. Although I would NEVER vote in a general election for a Bendovercratic, pro-war, pro-corporate sold-out candidate I thought it would be fun to vote in the Bendovercratic Primary. I was very pleasantly surprised when the poll worker told me I could actually vote for a Dim even though I'm not one.

I wondered which Dweedle Dee or Dweedle Dum candidate to vote for. I pondered about how I would feel if I voted for Obama as fire break against the slightly more odious Hillary. I thought to myself, how could I? I felt dirty, defiled, and demoralized. My body shuddered against it. I wondered how I would look at myself in the mirror. I hesitated as I walked into the booth and reached up to hold my nose and flip through the ballot.

Then YES! I couldn't believe it! They actually put DENNIS KUCINICH's name on the ballot! A big grin crossed my face as I inked a blot next to his name. I walked out of there grinning and thanked the poll workers for their service.

As I happily drove home I thought about how good I felt about the experience of voting for what you want instead of what you detest.

I'm sleeping good tonight. Hope you do to.

"As for what to do: I do tons. I write, I organize, I make media, and have for many years. What do you do?"

You do tons. Well, maybe, that depends on the definition of "tons." Not to take anything away from you - I'm glad you do something - just that what you do is purely subjective, as with anyone else.

Me? Oh, I've done a couple of things. I was a delegate to the convention for Jerry Brown way back in 1992. I worked with my state Green Party to build it up to a recognized party. I voted for Nader in 2000 to get the party national status (until the rats jumped ship and voted for Gore, who couldn't beat a maladpted frat boy). I worked on an Independent's campaign to try to beat a well-funded Democrat who voted for every bill to fund the occupation of Iraq (while crowing that he was against the war). I write letters to editors. I write emails to friends and peace people. I read about how this country never has been a democracy nor even close to it. I advocate for a velvet revolution if possible, a hard one if not.

As for voting in protest - I don't think you've been paying attention, my friend. Listen to what people are saying about their choices. Listen to the pain they feel. Listen to their truth. Listen as they explain, over and over and over, how their vote is not wasted because they vote for who they believe, rather than for the "realpolitik" candidate. Listen as they say that it is not, in fact, a protest vote, as you rather condescendingly put it. Listen with an open mind and you may hear something different from what you've heard.

As for voting in protest - I don't think you've been paying attention, my friend. Listen to what people are saying about their choices. Listen to the pain they feel. Listen to their truth. Listen as they explain, over and over and over, how their vote is not wasted because they vote for who they believe, rather than for the "realpolitik" candidate. Listen as they say that it is not, in fact, a protest vote, as you rather condescendingly put it. Listen with an open mind and you may hear something different from what you've heard.

actually, i feel no need to listen to someone who is being so condescending. glad you're getting some work done tho. ciao. :)

Must've struck a nerve.

Hi restive,

Do you think your vote, all on it's lonesome, is going to determine whether or not Hillary or Obama gets the nod? I doubt you do, although since I'm not you I can't say for sure. However, I don't think my lone vote will determine that outcome. All my lone vote will do is say who I wanted to be President.

So, yes, it's about my right to vote, about my right to vote for the candidate I want to be President. And if I vote for Hillary or Obama, I would be lying about who I wanted to be President. And if I did that, I really would be wasting my vote.

"partial drowning technique" not "mock drowning technique"

iammyself,

you sure as hell did. arrogant high-handedness = reason 3,497 why the left has had to spend decades recovering lost ground. like i said, later.

ticonderoga,

i guess that depends on whether or not you look at voting as an individual or collective exercise. my jadedness about the entire process aside, i think it's both collective and individual by definition. imho, what you appear to be saying is that the individual part of that doesn't matter, which is why you're asserting your individualism. :-)

I don't think it's lying to vote for the best choice you have in a primary - i think there are many times that are about making a solo stand, i just think that a primary that has already been bought and sold isn't a very effective one of them - my view is that if the crap system has forced out any truly desirable candidates, you make the best estimation you can of what is left, and vote accordingly. it's not about about conscience at that point, that comes before - it's about who is going to inflict the least damage. is that worth settling for? hell no. but fwiw, i never said that.

that being said, it is your right, and i'm certainly not advocating eroding that right, even in the slightest - just that a split difference between two candidates who are somewhat corporatist and somewhat progressive and very corporatist and not progressive at all is a substantial one, and in this specific context - not in general, this context - it may actually make a slight difference. I fail to understand why this is the hill you are making a stand for. it doesn't add up, other than as a statement of discontent to a system that, quite frankly, doesn't give a fuck how we vote, since the elections are bought, sold, rigged and thrown. Hence the need for organizing and actual change, of which voting is just the tip of the iceberg.

" Linda Sutton February 5th, 2008 12:25 pm

The political reality right now is that we have TWO candidates left standing. Your vote for someone NOT in the race means that you are opting out of the real choice. And you have the right to do so.

..."

YES, they have that right, only they also [are] right. Ms Sutton is talking nonsense in terms of "opting out of the real choice", as if there is one with the remaining candidates; when there is [NONE]! She's talking of making pro-Israeli govt hell against Palestinians, and more, and therefore U.S. criminal complicity, or also worse. She is also talking about demonizing Iran when it's wholly within its legal and moral rights; and that would apply even if Iran really is or was seeking nuclear armements, for it'd only be for the sake of use to try to deter aggression of nuclear kind by either or both the USA or Israel. One way or the other, Iran is NOT at fault at all.

And given that both Billary and Obama side with both of the crimes, they also support more; such as the continued cover-up of Bill Clinton being war criminal, also Mad. Al{bright?), and many others. The U.S. is extremely guilty of many also extreme crimes against Kosovo, murdering former President Slobodan Misolevic (yes, it was murder, and they knew it was!), African countries, Indonesians, and many other people.

There's something wrong with that sort of reality!

It's what the world gets when U.S. voters choose the worst and less [evils]; they're both evil. The difference is in the methods; while the results remain evil.

Restive, you're right, there IS a need for organizing and actual change. And voting IS just the tip of the iceberg. My point is that until people can overcome their fear of voting for who they really want, no amount of organizing will create any actual real change.

People are happy to organize like mad to support a candidate that they're told has a chance of winning (everyone likes to be on a winning team), but they're much less happy to organize to support a candidate that they're told doesn't have a good chance of winning, even if that candidate's ideas are just what they need.

So my "hill" is that before any real change can be made, a sort of psychological barrier has to be broken, a barrier that so many people have against making up their own minds without worrying about what those in authority tell them they should think and without worrying about what their chances of success are. Isn't that how revolutions start? With little people finally deciding to go for what they want, even if it's hard to do, instead of what their bosses tell them they're supposed to want?

"you sure as hell did. arrogant high-handedness = reason 3,497 why the left has had to spend decades recovering lost ground. like i said, later."

Well, maybe, but the other 3,496 reasons are at the crux of the problem.

Look, it came off as arrogant high-handedness, but really, how do you think hearing that one's vote for a candidate of choice, any candidate, is a wasted vote? This is something Democrats have been slinging at anyone who has voted outside the mainstream. I'm not calling you a Democrat (even arrogant, high-handed bastards like me wouldn't be that mean), just trying to make my point that what really splits us like nothing else (forget the other 3,496 reasons) is that slur of a wasted or protest vote. It's as if I accused you of wasting a prayer because you pray to a different god or are of a different faith. Yes, it is that personal! It's matter of personal belief and choice.

Godspeed.

"Restive, you're right, there IS a need for organizing and actual change. And voting IS just the tip of the iceberg. My point is that until people can overcome their fear of voting for who they really want, no amount of organizing will create any actual real change."

Well said.

So, there it is: Courage, conviction, taking a stance on one's conviction, and then following through with action. Works for me!

If rational thinking people will try to remember that both Obama and Clinton will restore our Democracy if they are elected, WE THE PEOPLE will be able to impress upon our congress and administration to abide by the U.S. Constitution, something which has been forgotten by most Americans currently.

Withholding support just because they don't say exactly what we want them to say regarding our country's current attitude of disregarding the U.S. Constitution is "straining at gnats." Does anyone think that a Republican or third-party candidate saying the "right thing" will mean anything other than 4-8 more years of George Bush kind of government? Even worse, will staying home on election day get us where we want to be?

Super Tuesday is over. It's time to gather support for the people most likely to appoint the U.S. Attorneys and judges we need in order to restore our broken judicial system. When in doubt--THINK!!!

Thanks for taking the time to actually respond.

It's as if I accused you of wasting a prayer because you pray to a different god or are of a different faith. Yes, it is that personal! It's matter of personal belief and choice.

Well...no. Look, I know that I'm on shaky ground here when it comes to saying something that could be taken as mirroring Dem operatives' attempts to shit-talk anybody who didn't vote for their pre-decided POTUS. "You must vote for the front-runners...whirr...click...beep..." etc. But...

I do have to take issue with how voting for a president is being framed here. To borrow from your analogy, I think voting is more sin than prayer if anything - and tying it up into values-based packaging is really dangerous, quite frankly. Looking at the presidential process as it actually exists in materialist terms is healthy - looking at it as a sacred bond is not. The Dem operatives are pretending to do that - but that's just it, that's a shady tactic they're using *against* people who are struggling to become informed actors in the political process, rather than for them. Actual empowerment at a grass-roots level is what the difference here is, in terms of intent. Just pointing that out.

As for taking a stand: oh come on. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be the one getting sanctimonious now, but if someone is so beaten down by the realities of life in the US that voting in a sham process for a less-than-legitimate system is the best one can muster to feel good about yourself, I think a lot more personal rebellion is in order! Voting is not a sacred duty, it's a tactic - which is not to say that voting for who has already been laid out for you is a smart tactic. In this case, given that the election has effectively already been stolen, well...you get the point. If that's depressing, well - don't get depressed, get angry! Righteous anger effectively channeled against a system that wants to destroy you is healthy. Voting isn't healthy, it's like driving a car to get to your job. It's not a "civic duty," it's not a "sacred right," it's lunch - *if* you have that right. If you don't, that's a different story.

iammyself, maybe it's not so much courage, but fear. That, coupled with historical perspective.

There's a poster here that keeps referencing Smedley Butler's book War is a Racket, which I've read myself. I don't mind telling you that this book is one of the scariest things I've ever read, because it points out that what is going on today has been going on for at least 80 years. The only real difference is that there's more money involved and the weapons are more efficient.

Maybe no real change will happen until the American people get scared enough to get curious enough to research their political choices on their own. All political revolutions, whether violent or nonviolent, begin with fear, and with the realization by the little people that if they don't wake up everything they have will be taken away from them.

But when enough is taken away from us, we'll wake up. It's about selfishness, really. When we finally feel the pinch bad enough, when our own interests have been completely stomped on, we'll say to heck with the mainstream parties, but not until then. Hopefully it won't be too late.

I don't feel brave. Just scared, scared enough to not be willing to vote for the same organizations that have been manipulating us for so many years.

If rational thinking people will try to remember that both Obama and Clinton will restore our Democracy if they are elected, WE THE PEOPLE will be able to impress upon our congress and administration to abide by the U.S. Constitution, something which has been forgotten by most Americans currently.

Nice try. :p Like I said, movements.

ticonderoga:

Read the Shock Doctrine, if you haven't already. It puts a context to the racket.