Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWith Iraq a key issue and the Democratic primaries unresolved, isn't it time for the peace movement to get off the sidelines and become more engaged? Shouldn't we be doing everything possible to make the candidates compete for the peace vote? Think of the battlegrounds ahead where the peace vote is up for grabs: Washington on February 9, Maryland and the District of Columbia February 12, Wisconsin February 19, Rhode Island, Vermont and Ohio on March 4, and other states like Oregon and Pennsylvania through May.
On one side it appears that the pro-Democratic groups with millions of dollars are sitting out the primaries, saving their energy for the coming battle with John McCain. That plan just got delayed for many weeks as the primaries go on. On the other side are the grass-roots peace coalitions that generally forsake political engagement and busy themselves with plans for civil disobedience while 13 more states are voting.
Meanwhile hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters will make up their minds on which of the candidates is best on ending the Iraq war with little involvement by peace activists in the debate.
There are differences that matter between Clinton and Obama, not as great as between the Democrats and McCain, but significant nonetheless. They are these:
Obama favors a 16-18 month timeline for withdrawing US combat troops. Clinton favors "immediately" convening the Joint Chiefs to draft a plan to "begin" drawing down US troops, but with no timetable for completing the withdrawal.
Obama opposed the measure authorizing Bush to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, widely regarded as an escalating step towards another war. Clinton voted for the authorization.
Obama opposed the 2002 authorization for war that Clinton voted for. Clinton still calls that decision a "close call" and refuses to say it was a mistaken vote.
It's true that both candidates support leaving thousands of "residual" American troops behind for a likely counterinsurgency conflict that we should all oppose. Peace activists should demand a shift to peace diplomacy beginning with a US commitment to end the occupation and withdraw all troops.
But Obama's position is clearly better than Clinton's, and both candidates should be encouraged to see that the strongest anti-war position wins votes. The primaries are probably the last opportunity to push for a tougher stance, before the debate shifts to criticizing McCain/Lieberman/Podhoretz/Petraeus and whomever else in the general election. If one is a Clinton supporter, she should be pressured to keep catching up with Obama's positions. Instead, she is floating a demand to make Bush bring any Washington-Baghdad military pact before Congress, which is a fine idea but avoids whether and when to end the occupation. If you are an Obama supporter, he should be pressured to connect the drain of the Iraq War on our economy and any possibilities for funding national health care. The point is to push the peace position forward on the promise of winning close primaries.
If nothing is done now by the peace movement, consider this scenario: with Bush promising to withdraw 25,000 troops this summer, Gen. Petraeus comes to Washington in March or April to announce "progress" in Iraq with lavish media attention. If MoveOn, perhaps understandably, avoids direct engagement with the general, which peace advocates will step in? Will Obama or Clinton or the Out of Iraq Caucus be prepared to confront him with an educational counter-offensive, or will McCain obtain a polished halo for being the Petraeus candidate? These are deadly serious questions. Is anyone discussing them?
In the immediate context, it seems to me that a group like MoveOn has to consider whether its endorsement of Obama now deserves a blast of anti-war energy in places like Seattle, Baltimore, Madison, Vermont, suburban Ohio, Providence, and Portland. Television, radio and media advertising still can be purchased for peace voices. Progressive Democrats at the grass-roots level might flood these decisive areas with questions to the campaigns and informational leaflets designed to educate swing voters. Signs and banners asking "Peace By When?" might be seen at rallies and media events.
The new reality is that the primaries will grind on, the percentages will remain extremely tight, and the Iraq War can be made into a tipping issue over which the candidates compete. It takes a peace movement now.
Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [2007].
103 Comments so far
Show AllThere is an online petition asking the DNC to choose the candidate with the most votes and delegates rather than take the chance on a secret backroom deal.
Please sign the petition and pass it on to your friends.
Petition http://www.petitiononline.com/Superdel/petition.html
Here are the candidates we currently have to choose from: Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabee and Paul. That is a simple fact.
Obama, Clinton, McCain and Huckabee will continue the warfare state without missing a beat. The military industrial complex already have them sized up for strings.
None of them EVER talks about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. None of them has made any comments about how our rights have been legislated away since 9/11.
There is only ONE anti-war candidate who has had the GUTS to tell the truth about our illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, about the fact that our economy is teetering on the edge of collapse and about how we have lost our civil rights with the votes of Republicans AND Democrats. Everyone "going along to get along" with a criminal, fascist cabal. And who is that candidate? Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2GQcBtroTg
And, just for the record, he clearly stated in a letter he sent to supporters yesterday that he is ramping up his run for re-election to the House AND staying in the race for POTUS up until the convention. He said he is going to continue to fight for delegates in the primaries and caucuses. The "Ron Paul r3VOLution" is alive and well in spite of a total media blackout and his probably exclusion from up-coming Republican debates.
And memo to Tom Hayden: If you only KNEW how the Democrats like Pelosi, Harman, Schumer, Feinstein, Reid etc. are LOATHED by Democrats. Just one example for you Tom. Who do we have to thank for Mukasey being confirmed? Feinstein and Schumer. The Democrats had control of that confirmation. When Mukasey REFUSED to answer their questions about waterboarding they had the PERFECT opportunity to dump him. Instead they gave him a green light and now we have another A.G. who is WORSE THAN GONZALEZ!!! I'll leave everyone with this interesting little primer from a DOG!!!!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUWaffZCjhI
There's only one way we're ever going to get out of the mess our beloved Politicians, at the behest of our beloved Big Corporations, have created, and that's if the American voters get over their collective phobia of voting for a candidate who will really do something good for them (and if they also get over their collective phobia of trying to figure out which candidate that might be).
And it wouldn't hurt if the American voter got over his or her mistaken belief that war is some kind of football game, either. Of course, as long as people keep on writing songs and making movies that glorify war, that's probably not going to happen.
Hey, vote for Woodrow Wilson. He's promised to keep us out of the war in Europe! What? This is 2008? Well, then, vote for Obama. He's promised to bring the troops home immediately.
When someone like Obama only throws out pollster tested words like 'hope' and 'change', but can't say exactly what he'll do, anyone with any sense should be able to spot the BS and the con and stay far, far away.
The Dem party is built on lies. They have to lie. They have to mislead. They have to because what they do for the big money that supports them is exactly the opposite of what their voters need. So they have to lie.
You look at the Obama campaign, and you see big amounts of corporate money pouring in. Lots of Wall Street money. Lots who've contributed at the max levels that no ordinary worker could do. Lots from the nuke industry. Pretty much typical Dem in that regard.
Then you see him standing up there tossing out polling tested words and stealing the speaking rythyms of a black preacher. But there's nothing behind it. There's no specifics. He can't tell you what change he'll bring.
All of that adds up to a big con and lots of BS. All you Obama supporters are going to be very disappointed if he makes it to the White House because you are not going to get the change you are imagining now.
UnionGuy 8:48 pm, You rock!
There's a lot of lonely, desperate isolated misery, defeatism and despair in this letter column, pretty hard to read sometimes, but you make it worth it.
The future is unknown, that is a fact. We can faintly discern its outlines by studying the past and the present, but it is only in being in action to shape the future that we can gain the experience to understand the past with any real power. We may have our tactical and strategic differences, which may seem like mountains to us now, but if we are in action, pushing forward in the company of people who share our vision of a future of peace and social justice, we will be part of how history works. We will help make that history, and just where we are going and how it is going to work will be revealed to us by it.
So buck up all you cynics and defeatists, shake the wool off your eyes and the gloom from your hearts, find a place to volunteer where like-minded people are doing something and trying to be effective, and get back in the fray! Among other things, it's a wonderful cure for depression.
When an old soul such as Obama, speaks unity, inclusiveness and oneness, the Heart hears and Remembers!
When someone, such as Obama, offers Hope and points the way to a better, brighter future, spoken from the innermost point of Truth or Soul,... the Heart Hears and Believes!
When Obama calls each of us to action and participation to Duty, we are reminded of our Responsibility to our common destiny.
As Obama states so poignantly, "We are the Ones, We Have Been Waiting For!
Um, Obama wants to pull everyone out in pretty short order, and has pledged no permanent bases.
As long as there are bases, there is an occupation, e.g. there's war. I'd say the difference between him & Hillary is more than stylistic.
Our country may have to look like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, etc. with the same proportionate amount of casualties before the survivors come to the conclusion that militarism is not a virtuous path for a so-called civilized nation to pursue. This government of Republican and Democratic oligarchs is dismantling 200 plus years of checks and balances.
Now torture ( water boarding ) is exceptable. You ask so many times, "where is the outrage?"
When you have an ignorant, uneducated, selfish population that still believes in the boogyman, and have declined to participate in democracy, it is easy for tyrants to take over. The majority of the population still doesn't have a clue. Talk with average people and you'll see what I mean.
Tom Hayden is a bit too cozy with the Democrats. He was a brave and couragous fighter for civil rights and against our atrocities in Vietnam. Tom, you need that same 'oomph' displayed in the sixties.
The General Strike to shut this country down until the tyrants are brought to court and tried for war crimes and treason.
It's too late -- we were sidelined by the Janus heads of the corporate party before the sham selection process started. If you still want to play that shell game, Obama is our best bet. If you don't, we can push and alternative candidate or even better, an alternative movement with candidates and a progressive agenda. I know, "the Greens" will chime in about Cynthia McKinney and though I'd vote for her, she really has no chance of getting even 1% because she's already been stripped of credibility by the bourgeois press.
It is indeed a sad conundrum but whether we run and independent or not, if we can keep Clinton out we will have accomplished something because McCain will beat her and he's running on a platform of war and more war.
What happened to you, Tom, and the anti-war movement???
All of the sudden it has assumed that there are only 2 candidates to choose from?
The mentality has slid right back to the best of two worsts.
Vote 3rd party, vote for Cynthia Mckinney...she is supported by Cindy and Ralph and those who are truly thinking anti-war.
What's up with you guys, anyway?
http://www.runcynthiarun.org/
Libertarians/the anti-war right see Obama as the most favorable among the frontrunners of either major party. With a possible Ron Paul candidacy on the right peeling votes from McCain in the general election, Obama could win big.
From (libertarian) Doug Bandow, "What's a Peacenik to do?" on www.antiwar.com 2/8/08
"Among the major candidates, Obama seems the least bad, since he opposed the Iraq war from the start. None of the original Republican contenders – other than Rep. Paul – got this issue right. Neither did Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war resolution. Moreover, her vaunted experience as First Lady includes pushing President Bill Clinton to inaugurate war against the Bosnian Serbs and then Serbia for alleged national interests that remain impossible to discern. Indeed, her brilliant handiwork in Kosovo is about to explode yet again, with potentially dire consequences for the West's relationship with Russia. On Iran she has attempted to trump administration chickenhawks. Alas, the Republicans are worse. John McCain – an angry, erratic, and tempestuous man who cares little for constitutional constraints – is a nightmare for anyone who believes war, especially aggressive war, is rarely in America's interest . . ."
....Continuation of previous post, sorry hit the submit button before I meant to
Article I Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution
Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
If the House which holds more than a one person majority in the House refuses to let a bill out of committee then there is nothing for the Senate to filibuster nor for the President to veto
The Democrats could have prevented Roberts and Alito from being appointed to the Supreme court
But they didn't do that
The Democrats could have filibustered the nominations. An act which their Republican counterparts are very adept at.
The Democrats could have impeached Bush and Cheney
But they haven't done that, in fact Pelosi took impeachment off the table before she was even elected Speaker.
The House again has the sole right to originate bills of impeachment. Once voted on and passed the Senate has no choice but to conduct the trial.
The Democrats could have supported the working class poor and the middle class.
But they didn't do that
Bill Clinton and a Democratically controlled Congress passed NAFTA which got the ball rolling on eliminating middle class jobs and the middle class.
Lobo Gris
"Vince Lawrence February 7th, 2008 2:53 pm
Not defending the Democrat's feckless attempts to slow down Bush, but neither party at this time controls the Senate. A one-seat majority when one of them (at the very least) is really a Republican????
Get serious, get real."
I assure you that I am both serious and real.
"The Democrats could have already ended the war by refusing to fund it. They control the committees and don't have to let anything out for a vote that they don't want to
But they haven't done that"
Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution
Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
If the Democrats, who hold a more than one person majority in the House refuse to allow a funding bill out of committee then there is noting for the Senate to filibuster nor for the President to veto.
Lobo Gris wrote:
"The ONLY thing politicians understand are threats to their incumbency."
"So who to vote for? IMO anyone but a Democrat, and everyone should be vocal and express to their "representatives" the reason why they are not voting for them."
Ah! the classic things must get really bad before it can get better approach. This has merit, but assumes that it is okay to let someone like McCain go off and kill a few thousands more in his mad quest for Vietnam closure.
I'd say write the letter telling the politicians as suggested, but consider voting for Obama if he is the nominee (unlikely, as the machine is against him). Otherwise, any choice is likely the same in many respects.
No, I am not a fan of Obama (see my previous post), but he is the only one whose rhetorical "slips" do not quite add up to just plain old politics, and I am yet to figure out why Kucinich asked his supporters to go to Obama.
"Vince Lawrence February 7th, 2008 4:34 pm
But like Kernel pointed out, we can wring our hands and gnash our teeth all we want that the process is again so transparently only for show, but who are you going to vote for?"
The fact is that at one point or another all of us have protested, written our elected "representatives" (and I use that term very loosely), made phone calls to same, expressed our dissatisfaction at the polling place (we've seen the results of holding our noses and voting in more Democrats in 2006), all to no avail.
The ONLY thing politicians understand are threats to their incumbency. Until they start losing elections because of their failure to reflect the will of their constituents they will continue to ignore us.
Will the short term results be pleasant? Most certainly not, but there is no alternative if long term objectives (true representatives of the will of the people)are to be achieved.
So who to vote for? IMO anyone but a Democrat, and everyone should be vocal and express to their "representatives" the reason why they are not voting for them.
Lobo Gris
Funny, I was surprised to find the first synthesis idea of having both a short term strategy going beyond the Either/Or divide several posts down the line (Current Thread: Earthian February 7th, 2008 8:33 pm). A successful movement requires both its purists and its prgamatists.
The rest of this post is pretty much a repeat of what I posted on another thread.
There is one thing that many people seemed not to have picked up about Obama's argument. He is willing to state that we must change the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
"Change the mindset" - this is critical to any sort of change in government policies. This is the crux of Obama's campaign - not the oft-quoted, or bashed, "Change" without a subject, or the objectless "Yes we can" phrase. Obama, being a smart politician, is sending cues to the progressives. Adopting unabashedly open progressive policies is political suicide. Look at what happened to Dennis Kucinich and what is currently happening to Mike Gravel. In the current political environment there is no support for overt progressive policies. Is this why Kucinich told his supporters to go with Obama (If there is any politician's judgement to which I give serious consideration, it is Kucinich)?
Hillary, at best, may change some policies. To be fair, There are some reports that point out that she was against NAFTA and fought hard against its adoption - but I am yet to see any concrete evidence of this. However, there is still the problem of obligations to too many special and big corporate interests.
Adopting a progressive agenda requires a change in mindset - a change in approach and frameworks. The questions are only whether Obama really means what he implies - that he is a progressive biding his time, working behind the "iron curtain," and whether he will be strong enough to remain one once he gets the reins of power.
I am not a fan of either Obama or Hillary. Their votes in congress are enough to make me so. However, the questions remain: 1) Why is Obama the only one signalling the requirement for a change in mindset, and 2) Why did Kucinich ask his supporters to go with Obama?
Thank you RichM and The Truth Faerie for your cogent thoughts.
It's insulting to us in the peace movement to hear Tom Hayden upbraid us about not doing enough. For years, we've been ignored by our representatives. Writing letters didn't and doesn't work. Protesting doesn't work. Our candidates never make it to first base. Our fellow citizens have not swelled our ranks, even after seeing us for years on the same street corners, holding the same tattered signs.
Where was Tom Hayden, over these years? He was writting essays from Malibu or wherever. He wasn't on the front lines with us. Now he wants to rally us to serve his illusions.
It's not 1968, Tom. You joined the establishment at some point, but you don't seem to have a clue about how to move the Democratic Party toward peace, despite your experience. Obama funded the wars - that's a war supporter, not a peacenik. Obama is no George McGovern. What are you thinking? The Democratic Party ignores us now, and it'll ignore us should Clinton or Obama win. There is no functioning democracy anymore. There's no functioning republic.
We can only try to support a third party - that's it, and hope the votes aren't stolen. Maybe stop paying taxes.
Please, everyone - stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. They pull the same three-card Monty game every election year, getting you to vote for the corporate cash-stuffed candidate, and thinking that it's your own free choice to do so.
And wake up, Tom. Wake up and join the Green Party.
Explorelife; Great posting, Dr. Bernard. You summed up Hillary very well. And the website is inspirational!
Oh sweet bullshit! Why on Earth would a person interested in peace EVER vote for the sold out Party of the Bend-over_crats? Their leader in the House has taken impeachment off the table (Pelosi) and informed bush he can break as many laws as he wants without so much as a whimper from the Dims. bush gets ever bolder because he knows the Bend-over_crats will do nothing. Legal experts have said if ever there was a case for impeachment this is it.
While Obama and Clinton claim they are going to end the war they are only saying this to get votes. If they were against the war why the F*&# did they always vote to fund it? Please, give me a break. Don't listen to lies designed to win anti-war votes. Look at how Obama removed his anti-war message from his website after he got elected to the senate. You want an anti-war candidate vote Greens. They will keep troops and bases in Iraq just watch.
Bend-over_crats will not commit to bringing all the troops home and closing all the bases. Why? They are sell-outs to the military industrial complex and Mr. Tom Hayden is an apologist for the continuance of empire. They just want to put a kinder, gentler face on torture, murder, and occupation.
We need to unite all the 3rd parties into the real party of peace. Screw the Dims! Dump the Dims! They ain't worth a bucket of warm spit! GO GREENS or Socialist Equality Party!
"truth faerie, that was absolutely brilliant"
hmmm... no post showing from the truth faerie. Did he/she say the wrong thing?
David Grayling; I talked to many people about a general strike of the working class to shut the country down, but few are willing. It is much easier to complain on the computer rather than taking action as the situation worsens. The majority of Americans just aren't interested in positive, constructive change if they have to do something or make sacrifices. The ruling elite know this. The Un-United States is imploding.
Because the Democrats are complicit in all the death and destruction that is being inflicted on the civilians of Afghanistan and Iraq, they should never be supported. They continue to fund what are obviously illegal occupations of 2 sovereign countries. Yet they lie to the American public by creating fantasies of getting out of Iraq(no mention of getting out of Afghanistan of course). Are we out of South Korea yet?
The Democrats should be condemned for their blatant dishonesty.
Vote Green Party, Socialist Party or some other party that at least has an ounce of integrity.
After participating in most of the 'anti-war' marches, rallys, calling my two U.S. Senator's offices, sending e-
mails, talking to my Congressional Rep., standing around with
signs and waving to the people who honk their horns and give us the thumbs up or the peace sign, calling talk radio stations, more letter writing and so on and so forth, the conclusion I've drawn is not a reassuring one for progress in this country. "Record turnouts" on 'Super Tuesday' meant about 52% of eligable voters participating in the Primaries. Look around, folks. Every other person you meet doesn't care enough to even vote! Not even for "the lesser of two evils." ( A joke ) So what the hell are we supposed to do...those of us who care?
truth faerie, that was absolutely brilliant
The cynic in me has to add that The Republicans represent the darkness that is eagerly awaiting the batteries in the flashlight to run out
Thank you Truth Faerrie for that "burst" of light. Shine on...
Look above. Truth.
Super sham the masses Tuesday. Super bullshit Tuesday. It's all an exersize in futility at this point. More years of fascist rule.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080101.htm
I've been seeing an interesting trend among the likes of Daniel David and Nader2000 over the past week.
They are no longer merely asking us to merely vote for these war-crazed stooges of the $1.1 trillion military madness that is destroying out country. But now the want us to shut up and at start agreeing with them. Daniel David even seems to believe, in his twisted mind, that even Kerry, the murderer of the Mekong, cost the election for being too far to the left.
No we will not shut up.
Martial law, rioting in the streets, there will be blood? Am I reading a horror novel?
Hey, guys and gals, there are 300 million of you or have you forgotten? No government can keep 300 million people enslaved or downtrodden or controlled. These elite groups, the ones pulling the strings for their own benefit, they can only do it if you let them.
Why do you let them?
www.dangerouscreation.com
I would like to invite protesters to spoil the soup on what, at present, is going Daniel David's way.
unionguy February 7th, 2008 8:48 pm:
Most tigers don't change their stripes. You list 2 out of over 40 presidents, and I would say the transformation our society needs is much larger that what was effected even at the times of Lincoln and FDR. The story that we the people can always bring about thoughtful transformation in a president if we really apply the pressure - well, that's a comforting story. The people's movement hasn't wrung much change from the current Democratic leadership in Congress. They mostly value other interests whom they are beholden to.
The truth is that progressive thinkers are surrounded by large majorities of sheep, idiots, and/or greedheads. We're being asked by some of us to accommodate typical centrist policies, accept the lowest common denominator, just in the choosing of a Democrat candidate, basically because that's whom so many of our countrymen will buy into. Now ponder - there are millions of people in this country who think that electing McCain or some other Republican is a fantastic idea - even now, after all that has happened. But we don't talk about accommodating those candidates' policies, because they're the bad guys, and we pretend we're having this election battle.
Progressives should view very lukewarm candidates like Obama and Hillary as the bad guys also, and not bank on miracles; and the gullibility of the public is endless, or at least stretches down a very long road. Not very cozy and populist of me, I know. The likely future: there will be blood.
An antiwar movement may be moot soon anyway. The economic news is dire and gets worse every day, see Margaret Krome's article today here on CD. There may be no money left to fund a war regardless of who ends up as the imperial lapdog, and National Guard troops will be called home to quell the probable street rioting that an economic collapse may engender.
Obama should raise the issue of Billary Clinton and the
$20,000,000 that he has coming from his investment in
Kazakhstan and his $1,000,000 as a consultant for Dubai Ports. The money flowing in the pockets of the Bushco and the Clintons from the Iraq War should be exposed by the
candidates if the are serious about pulling out of IRAQ.
Where is the Press? Where is Nader?
The fact that Hillary is donating $5,000,000 to her movement is an indication that she is loaning it to the campaign..
Where does she get all that dough? Are they really worth
each $50,000,000?? The Democrats are losing the White house again...
There is no "peace movement"... just a few people waving signs on the corner, and a couple of minivans that honk as they drive by.
webwalk (9:07) - very good comment, especially "Whenever an article on Common Dreams reports on persons who engage in such tactics of direct resistance, the comments are supportive. But only a tiny minority of comments ever discuss how to build a strategy of direct action, focusing instead almost exclusively on how to support one candidate or party..."
I certainly believe that a strategy of direct action & resistance is needed
-------------
Nader2000 (7:00 pm) exhibits his reflexive contempt for anyone who won't sell out to the Democrats. He writes "...It's so depressing to see the regurgitated hatreds of the lifestyle leftists (Hey, look at me, I'm a Trotskyist!)..."
You see, for Nader2000, the only conceivable explanation for someone's refusal to sell out to the Evilcrats is irrational "hatred." Similarly, the only conceivable reason for appreciating the wisdom & insight of the WSWS, Marx, and Trotsky is "lifestyle" egotism.
Why is that, Nader2000? Is it your contention that no one is permitted to appreciate wisdom and insight, unless it's officially approved by the DNC?
Here is Nader2000's position, in his own language: "Hey, look at me, I sold out to the corporate Democrats! I don't care how many times they betray me -- I'll vote for them anyway, and tell everyone else to do the same!"
------------------
A passing observation: A funny thing about Internet posting is how easy it is to accuse all one's opponents of "sitting on their ass and whining." One constantly sees this kind of argument -- sometimes on both sides of a given dispute in the very same thread.
Webwalk wrote: "i think it is equally important to also include strategies and tactics of direct resistance to the corporatism and militarism that have so poisoned our political culture and led our society to the brink of world war and ecological collapse."
I couldn't agree more Webwalk. Progressives need a comprehensive mix of strategies and tactics. Direct resistance can be buycotts, boycotts, disruptive actions, tax protests, and many, many more actions that help progressives, hurt targeted opponents and adversaries, and get in the news.
Hayden's article is good. And your idea is good, and I think crucial. More than anything, we need a forum or group for planning. The anti-war coalitions could morph into planning groups for direct (non-violent) resistance. PACs like Progressive Democrats of America could also participate in such planning. I'd love to see progressives from the Green Party and the Democratic Party and independent progressive leaders like Hayden (who as earned great crediblity in my view) and many others come together and make plans for progressive movements, progressive direct actions, and progressive politics—together.
At this point, the choices for President are McCain or Obama or Clinton. If all three of those died, Huckabee went gay on live tv and Mitt introduced his other wife, a black bisexual. Ron Paul would still not be President nor would my choice, Kucinich.
We are now in the position of surviving or thriving with one of the three remaining. God help us!
Being antiwar will be interpreted as being naive. Don't bet on Obama making progress with this angle.
Earthian,
i appreciate your call to "abandon either/or thinking" and support both short-term tactics and principled strategies to transform US political culture and achieve progressive goals.
i think it is equally important to also include strategies and tactics of direct resistance to the corporatism and militarism that have so poisoned our political culture and led our society to the brink of world war and ecological collapse.
i vote, and i believe candidates and elections are worth paying attention to. But our "movement" needs organized direct action to challenge business as usual - especially given the depth and immediacy of the crises we now confront.
Whenever an article on Common Dreams reports on persons who engage in such tactics of direct resistance, the comments are supportive. But only a tiny minority of comments ever discuss how to build a strategy of direct action, focusing instead almost exclusively on how to support one candidate or party or another.
Until our "movement" expands beyond party politics, or symbolic marching, and begins to directly disturb the functioning of the war machine and the corporate power structure, we will continue to be ignored and sidelined as the worthless "focus group" that George Bush so famously derided.
Reading some of the comments on this blog is making me disgusted, sick to my guts!!
Whine, whine, whine, etc! With absolutely NO direction. That is what Tom Hayden, (who has actually paid some real dues in the struggle for peace and democracy in our nation) has attempted to deal with in his well thought out article.
Tom proposes, and I could not possibly agree more, that it high time for the peace movement to develop some type of electoral strategy. At a time that over 70% of the American people express their opposition to the war and occupation, at a time that the American people are the most engaged in politics that they ever have been, at a time that the youth (overwhelmingly opposed to the war) are beginning to get involved, bringing real enthusiasm into the electoral arena, and, it is also a time when the media, the pundits are saying the war "isn't an issue," and the candidates are generally avoiding the issue---at this time, as at every time there has been an election since the war began, the Peace Movement's electoral policy is----"Let's sit on the sidelines, whine that our issues aren't being put in the center and throw verbal rocks at everyone!"
Great policy!! As a TV personality likes to say; "How's that working for ya?"
I'll answer that rhetorical question! It didn't work before, it isn't working now and it will not work any better in the future!
Besides Tom's positive, engaged proposal, I would raise the issue of the tremendous enthusiasm that the Obama campaign is generating, and what that can bring about IF it is connected with the organized People's Movement. FDR is reviered, loved among working folks for his administration's accomplishments (Social Security, Labor's Right to Organize, first Civil Rights steps, CCC, WPA, Unemployment Comp, Overtime Pay, expansion of Health Care, etc.). However, when he ran for President, he did so on a very moderate program, raising merely the need to change the tariff policies. It was the massive People's Movement that had a real influence on him, his administration. He responded positively and our people made tremendous gains.
Likewise, Abe Lincoln was viewed as too moderate, only running on a program of not allowing slavery to expand, and letting it be where it existed. However, as we know, events, and the huge People's Movement of that day changed the situation. Slavery was ended and the Union was saved, the civil war was won!
In one case the Democratic Party, with FDR at its head, responded to the people's needs. In the other, the old parties didn't and the (at that time) revolutionary new (Republican Party was born to carry out the demands of the people.
In either case, as in today's crisis, it required a People's Movement that was active, fighting and enguaged. Besides, a new political party will not spring, full bloom, out of the sky. It will come from the demands of the people, organized into struggle. If a government is elected to bring about change, that can create the conditions nessecary for the birth of a new party, IF that government does not respond to the people's needs. Sitting on your ass, whining that nobody is my "perfect" candidate, doing what I want right now, just will not do it!
There is a real and active People's Movement today, made up of the Labor Movement, with its allies in the movement for health care reform, Women's Movement, the African American and other minority people's organizations, the GLBT movement and the movement for real democracy in ouor nation. What, unfortunately, is missing, is AWOL in this time of crying need, of great crisis, is the Peace Movement! United and active we can help elect a government that is put into office for real change. Of course, it is true, that is not the guarantee of change. It will regard a continued push by the People's Movement to force health care for all, real labor law reform, an end to the war, etc. By sitting on our asses and whining will not do it!
The historic time is NOW! Let's get involved, and help fight for those needed changes!
The Peace Movement, if it really gets 'in the mix,' can really change the nature of this election. The majority of the American people would welcome this. History's ship is coming in. What will we tell our children, grandchildren, if we sit on the dock and miss it?
This is a quote from the blog at http://vealetruth.com, in case you are still defending her original vote for war:
"She (Hillary) swallowed Cheney's case for war without reservation, a lapse in judgment, given his history, that it is hard to overstate. Cheney and his crew have made no secret of their imperial designs since "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was published in 1998. Having presided over the theft of an election in 2000, one must ask why Cheney's words would be the ones you would mimic as you proclaim your vote for the use of force. There is an answer to that quandary: Hillary Clinton is a tool of empire who believes in the projection of American power around the world every bit as much as the neo-cons that now have that power." This is a quote from http://vealetruth.com
We need to abandon either/or thinking here if we progressives are ever to create coherent action. Hayden's article is about short-term tactics to make a difference. It is sensible, but is only one view. There are other options. Some posters who oppose his tactics, such as RichM's and COMarc's superb comments, (and those of many other posters) are also sensible, and represent core progressive values and principles. I prefer staying out of either/or approaches. EITHER we focus on short-term tactics OR focus on principles. EITHER we support the Democratic Party and transform it OR we support the Green Party and independent progressives like Sheehan. But there is an alternative to the paradox of lesser-evilness and helping the opposition and the electoral system denial inherent in absolute principled approaches.
We can do both/and thinking. We can BOTH support Hayden's short-term progressive, movement-based tactics, AND pursue long-term strategies based on progressive values and principles. We can BOTH support the transformation of the Democratic Party (as a kind of take-overable political container) AND support and strengthen the Green Party and progressive independents. We can BOTH pressure Obama and Clinton to change policies and rhetoric, AND we can pressure Ralph Nader and the Green Party to run a strategic campaign that allows the Democrats the option of accommodating progressives with real concessions rather than losing swing-state votes. Not either/or but both/and thinking and communication will help us create coherent action rather being a progressive Tower of Babel.
Here is a good example by Paul Street of that kind of thinking on the same topic—what to do in this election cycle and beyond:
http://www.zcommunications.org/blog/view/1328
http://www.digthewig08.com
nader2000,
nice post...but i disagree.
Why not just say we hate your freedom.
Did anyone else hear that Romney gave Hillary's campaign $30 million today?
http://www.digthewig.com
RE: - The candidate who wants my vote MUST oppose the war on drugs. I cannot, therefore, vote for any of the four main candidates, and I won't.
Men in glass houses, men in glass houses. He who has used cocaine in the past may not wish to make his past drug use an issue by starting an end to the "war on drugs" during an election campaign.
My guess - you are a Marc Emery fan?
RE: - Of course, this isn't really a war, but an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation (which was SECULAR, btw, where women were treated as human beings
True enough. I take note of your use of the word "were" and wish to add that America's attack on Iraq was unprovoked UNLESS one considers the nationalization of oil wells a provokation ...
RE: - But they didn't do that, instead they passed NAFTA
Reagan/Bush/Clinton from the US and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney from Canada. Now what has Brian Mulroney been up to lately? Oh yes ...
Mulroney's testimony on Thursday December 13:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071212/mulroney_te...
I wonder if any of those envelops filled with cash that he was getting from various people had anything to do with the wording of FTA/NAFTA.
RE: - Obama is hands-down the stronger anti-war candidate
Compared to who - Clinton and McCain/Huckabee? Romney, sure. Definitely not Edwards!
So you think Cain and Huck will be running mates? I can see the debate now:
Obama: you are McCain and I am Mc ready willing and able!
RE: - To Flatlanders, three-dimensional persons like yourself indeed come across as deranged or sinister.
So it wasn't an attempt at humour - Romney, the leader of the Flatlanders was actually being serious! He ranted against homosexuality and single parenthood (ie Obama's upbringing) and then called the Taliban evil for agreeing with him.
RE: - And for those Charlie Browns who are still thinking that the Obama could be their savior, I have one word for you- Sucker.
Hey, if I was Charlie Brown, I would trust Franklin with the football over Lucy any day! Bad metaphor but point taken.
Poor kid (in picture) - wish their hospitals had pain killers.
RE: - Edwards would of been proud of me
Probably. Why would they boo you for not making up your mind? Seems a bit like coercion to me.
I may be naive but isn't this election about getting rid of patriotic correctness and keeping our leaders honest!
RE: - Again, there is a slight-but-real difference between Obama and Clinton on matters of war and foreign policy
Slight-but-real is still slightly real (or is it really slight). I trust Obama a bit more on rendition than Clinton, that is all.
And I don't think that it will take Obama too long to learn that Canada doesn't have a President. I wonder how long it will take Danny Williams and the rest of the Council of the Federation to ambush Obama and teach him everything he needs to know about Canada - including the fact that Santa Claus lives in Canada and, as President, Obama be able to recognise that the North West Passage is Canadian property.
RE: - Why does the Military speak out only after they retire?
This same rhetorical question applies to other whistle-blowers - they can't fire you, demote you or otherwise make your life miserable (more than they already do) if you are already retired.
RE: - Another significant difference between Obama and Clinton is in HER SUPPORT for the continued use of cluster bombs. / Obama voted AGAINST cluster bombs.
How many American soldiers have been killed through the use of American manufactured cluster bombs? I presume that at least a few have been. Does she care any more about American soldiers than she does Iraqi children? I don't know if Obama cares - but, at present, I don't know that he doesn't.
RE: - This discussion has become pointless and if many want to vote for Daffy Duck, Seymour Butts
Kucinich did a Daffy duck impression on 22 Minutes and Bob Rae went skinny dipping with Rick Mercer on the Rick Mercer Report (one would seymour butt if he wasn't wearing those digital swim trunks).
It is not my riding, but if it was, I would vote for El-Farouk Khaki over Bob Rae any day.
RE: - As one (perhaps tired) example, Martin Luther King Jr supported the right of blacks to vote. He also promoted direct confrontation with the machinery of segregation. By the end of his life, he supported direct confrontation with the machinery of war.
And his son backed John Edwards.
Thank you Tom Hayden for reminding us that this is the key issue for most of us. We are a nation that let Bush start this war and continue it even though most say they want us out of Iraq. Obama will make that happen because he will hear the people. Hillary is about Hillary and her need to be in control. She said recently she supported the war because of what Bush had told Congress leading up to it. She obviously is unable to take the time to go search out the truth because it was there on the internet with lots of information showing Bush was lying to make his case. I found out is just several hours of reading around the internet direct evidence in contradiction to Bush.
I for one am:
1. Tired of being lied to politicians that want us to be just sheeple
2. Tired of these people who want to lead this country, unwilling to say they made a mistake
3. Tired of the endless profits of those benefiting from the war while our soldiers die and Iraqis are murdered by us
4. Tired of being feed an endless pile of misinformation
5. Tired of being talked to as if we are all ignorant and they are doing what is for our good.
6. Tired of the use of fear to manipulate the people of this country
7. Tired of the use of terror to rationalize all their sick, control desires
8. Tired of all the power they give to this small band of fanatics(terrorists not Bush) as if they have control of the world
9. Tired of Congress not doing their job and providing any kind of checks and balances on Bush
10.Tired of Bush being allowed to do whatever he wants with zero consequences
11.Tired of the lack of courage in what is suppose to be an opposition party
12.Tired of the "money" party being in charge and no one looking out for the people
13.Tired of hearing the profit motive rationalize so much unacceptable behavior
I could go on and on but I want to stop at 13 hoping for it to be a lucky number and that we all wake up and take back this country. Are you ready to do what it takes? Are you ready to say this is our country and we want it back from all those who think they can buy power and influence? Are you ready to walk the hero's journey toward a courageous involvement and a compassionate activism? Are your ready to find your own peace, then you can be a positive force for world peace?
I am, how about you? Lets meet in our groups immediately, think outside the box and come up with some solutions that will save Democracy and the planet.
Peace and inspiration to you.
Joseph
Joseph Bernard, Ph.D.
www.peace-together.com
www.ExploreLifeBlog.com
It's so depressing to see the regurgitated hatreds of the lifestyle leftists (Hey, look at me, I'm a Trotskyist!) so aggressively on display here in the face of good news about at least one of the contenders for President, which must be ridiculed and second-guessed to death in order that nothing disturb the perfect paradigm of corporate power, conspiracy and evil at the highest levels of everything. The final expression of which will be political displays under the banner of the Green Party if not the Red Party, resplendent in their futility and delusion.
Meanwhile, a great deal hinges on the outcome of Clinton vs. Obama, not the least of which is the outcome of McCain vs. The Future, of which these Calibans can say nothing since they are unable to see any differences, or anything at all past their hatred of the successful and powerful.
Obama has also said US troops will still be in Iraq at the end of his first term in 2012.
Remember, when the Dems talk about 'withdrawal', they really mean their plan that has massive loopholes that keep tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq after they've completed their 'withdrawal'. The Dem loopholes include 'fighting terrorists', 'training the Iraqis' and 'protecting US forces and interests'. If you went to the Pentagon today and asked what are the missions of the current 150,000 troops in Iraq, they'd list exactly those three items. I've seen estimates that at the end of the Democratic 'withdrawal' plan, there'd still be 70,000 US troops in Iraq.
And, the Dems 'withdrawal' plans also always have meant an increased reliance on US airpower against Iraqis. Which means increased 'collateral damage' (ie, the murder of innocent people). That's the humane Dem plan.
And the one thing you'll never ever hear either of these two, or any other leading Dem say, is that its none of the US business to tell the Iraqis what to do with their country. They both accept as a given that its the US' right to go into that country and make sure that the Iraqis are doing what we tell them to do. All Dem 'withdrawal' plans really speak of 'redeployment' to other places in the region, and its probably not hard at all to get either Obama or Clinton to talk about sending US troops back into Iraq 'if required'.
Basically, the Dem position of both Obama and Clinton is that they can be better managers of the Evil Empire than Bush and the Republicans. They talk about poor tactical decisions in how Bush has managed the Evil Empire, and say they can do better. This is how both Clinton and Obama present their 'withdrawal' options for Iraq ... as better ways for the US to achieve its goals.
That the United States, as a free and democratic country, should not be even acting as an empire in the world, that you'll never hear Obama nor Clinton nor any other leading Dem talk about.
Good job Tom Hayden! I excised my "wishful thinking" political participation process in 04 with Kucinich, worked hard, got nothing. Voted for Nader when Kerry was obviously safe in CA in the general. Now, it's Obama, all the way, for one simple reason you forgot to mention Tom: Hillary is the #1 recipient of military contractor donations and of lobbyists. End of story. She's dead to me, now and in Nov.
Obama's got the people's clout, almost three-quarters of a million and counting, donating from $1 to 2,300 - the vast majority nowhere near the 2300 threshold. There's also Obama's Open Govt Technology Plan, with direct links between donations, legislators and all their pet projects, and earmarks. Hillary hates that legislation and website.
There's also the little matter of ending media consolidation, thereby pulling the media out of war-endorsements and rationalizations for imperialism. With that is the itsy bitsy matter of public airwaves for community radio and television that Obama promises. And cheap/free broadband from the poorest ghettos to the most isolated rural areas so everyone has access to compare health insurance plans (including feedback from subscribers) and legislative/donation/earmark info.
Wake up people. The means to change this nation's culture from its militaristic imperialist fantasies is within reach! Get on barackobama.com, click on Action Center, and start calling upcoming states' voters, unless you enjoy wallowing in the futility of it all. I am done with wishful thinking and bitter analysis paralysis. I'm gonna go call Washington voters and make sure they get that they have to caucus this Saturday or their vote for Obama won't count on their largely-ceremonial primary day.
I'm not letting a DLC OR Republican military industrial complex candidate into the White House, not this time!
Very interesting--the Progressives have now morphed into Repugs just because their favorites, Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul did not make it. My fave was John Edwards but he threw in the towel also. That does not mean that I am going to throw my vote away or in a fit of rage, vote for the 100 year war man, McCain.
I refused to vote for Bush-Cheney both times as I did not truat their campaign promises. If a few more could have done the same, we would be in much better shape today. A vote now for Nader might make someone feel good but will do absolutely nothing to stop the war as he has no chance of election.
Voting for McCain for the purpose of making things as bad as possible to bring change is about like the fundamentalists waiting for Armageddon to be saved.
Here are two pieces of political analysis I'd strongly recommend to anyone really desiring insight into these things. Both come from the WSWS (World Socialist Web Site).
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/obam-f04.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/tues-f07.shtml
WernerS (4:44) asks that I present a scenario for a solution. On the surface, that seems a fair thing to ask. But it would be truly astonishing if I could jot down a little paragraph here on CD that would miraculously offer a "solution" to a problem the size of the one we're facing. No one can really do that -- not even deep thinkers & great peace activists like Chomsky, Parenti or Zinn.
A good answer to this problem requires a whole book, or series of books. It requires a whole theory of the way society is organized. The Iraq War can't be seen in isolation from the structure of US society, and its distribution of wealth and power. Since WWII, far more than most people realize, our society has undergone a process of relentless militarization. None of this was for legitimate "defense" needs. All of it resulted from the shared needs of transnational corporations.
Essentially, our society has become a big machine that does 2 things: we consume, & we make war (or commit aggression in other less blatant forms). The 2 things -- consumption & warmaking -- are inextricably interlinked. Both have everything to do with corporate power. In turn, corporate power has everything to do with the political system. The former drives the latter, not vice-versa (though we're always led to believe it's vice-versa).
When lightweight nitwits like DD & Kernel screech fearfully about the Republicans, trying to scare people into voting for Democrats, they are accepting the US political system as having much more legitimacy and permanence than it has earned. They are assuming that the 2-party system is a "given" -- fixed, permanent, & more or less unchangeable, & that the only choice we have is to accept what this system offers us, and to work within that framework.
However, that framework is unacceptable. It's harmful to the interests of most of us. The rulers of US society want us to believe it's "democracy," but it's really just a sophisticated means of social control. Once a population accepts the framework, it's pretty well controlled. One of the main mechanisms of control is through party politics, where for all intents & purposes, only 2 parties are officially permitted. "Working within the Republican Party" is another name for actively trying to subjugate the bottom 90% of the population to the interests of the top 1% (and buying off the other 9%, in return for helpful services rendered). "Working within the Democratic Party" is another name for collaborating with those who control the Repub Party, but with a special twist: you pretend to be on the side of the 90% -- without ever fighting a serious fight on their behalf, & while betraying them at every turn.
Anyone who consents to this kind of game has already lost. Just like in Las Vegas, the house always wins -- and it's no accident. Mr Kernel said yesterday, referrring to those of us who refuse to vote for Evilcrat warmongers, "all some can do is gripe constantly about people that could bring about change and salvage something." How comic!! Mr Kernel thinks Hillary or Obama could "bring about change"!! // And in any case, believing that the Democrats will ever stick up for the interests of the 90% over those of the 1% that finances their campaigns, is just as "smart" a bet as going to Las Vegas, & believing you're going to clean up.
Or even better (under the circumstances), McCain/HUCKABEE.
Kernel, you asked who we should vote for, and I'm going to tell you.
At first, I was going to say that IT DOESN'T MATTER; that on the issues that do matter in the short- and especially long-term (that is to say, peak oil and global warming, or, to put it another way, global warming and peak oil) NO ONE will do close to anything effective in the time frame we need them to. And as for a less major issue, NO ONE will pull us out of Iraq, ever. (Do you have any idea how much money is being made on the seventeen military bases "we're" building there and the fortified embassy that is larger than the Vatican?)
Isn't it obvious by now that ALL the "major" candidates still around are beholden to their corporate puppeteers (who are themselves controlled by organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group)? That the last several "elections" have been managed and stolen for the benefit of these sinister entities? Why do you feel so hopeful that those who stole them in the past will leave this one to be decided simply on the relative merits of the remaining candidates? Where are Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel these days anyway?
Then, Mr. Kernel, I was going to suggest you cast your ballot for whomever would make your heart feel glad (in my case, a ticket of Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, or maybe Bill Moyers and the Dalai Lama). At least you could sleep at night, and I am concerned about your health.
But then, it occurred to me that since none of the remaining Great States-people will do a damn thing but further cement the status quo (I guess that's what the mean by when they tell us they're all for Change- we'll MOVE EVEN DEEPER into the shit.), I am recommending that we all vote for John McCain. NOT because he's who we deserve for being chicken-shit little sheeple and not doing a damn fucking thing to take back our rights and dignity when we had the chance (although we probably do).
Because, by electing either of the Dems, most of their supporters, the kind and good but do-nothings will be lulled back to sleep (or back to their addictions) while believing that, "Whew! We've just dodged a bullet.", and that "Our long national nightmare is over". Unfortunately, the truth is in actuality tragically far from this scenario. At least with McCain and the neocons still at the helm, maybe more and more of us will somehow find our balls and/or our ovaries to where we might finally make some change before it is really too late. (Or, more probably, to begin to work cooperatively to minimize the inevitable damage.)
So, VOTE MCCAIN/LIEBERMAN in '08. Our future depends on it.
Hayden is dead-on right. 70% of the American people want an end to the war in Iraq. While Obama is better on issues of war and peace, both he and Clinton are wishy-washy on the war in Iraq and both support continuing American military domination of the world. It is foreseeable that whichever of them secures the nomination they will shuffle to the right on the war issue to try to take the "middle ground" away from McCain, ignoring the fact that they are already to the right of the middle ground of American public opinion. In doing so they will place a more militaristic stamp on their administration if victorious. More likely they will throw the election to McCain, as the public, given two pro-war candidates to choose from, will choose the one who will do it best. Our job now, in 2008, is not to decide whether it is a good thing to elect a Democrat, but to organize and mobilize the people to oppose war and militarism and to thereby force a change in policy. Without this nothing good will come of supporting or not supporting a Democratic, a Green or a Wobblie candidate.
The time to put the pressure on Clinton and Obama to shift toward the anti-war middle is now. It won't cost them the election and might even save them.
Hi all,
i think the idea of a "peace movement" as portrayed by Hayden (and by almost everyone in this thread) is deeply flawed.
A "peace movement" doesn't focus on candidates or parties. A "peace movement" focuses on stopping the war.
Yes, it is time for the "peace movement" to take center stage - by disrupting the functioning of the war machine, by closing down recruitment centers, by blockading arms shipments, by not paying taxes to the United States government, by disrupting the ability of the US economy to function.
Just to be clear, please read the above paragraph carefully - it is NOT a call to violence. It is a call to directly interfere with violence.
i'm sure others can think of other tactics that a "peace movement" might use to disrupt the "war movement".
Any social movement that restricts itself to the tactic of appealing to political leaders, hoping for political leaders, working for political leaders, despairing at political leaders - and then bitterly recriminating against others whose particular tactics of seeking and promoting political leaders are seen as "incorrect" - is not actually a social movement.
A movement against war, that does not confront and resist war, is not a movement against war.
i think most Common Dreamers know this, even if we forget this in the excitement of analyzing political parties and candidates and votes.
As one (perhaps tired) example, Martin Luther King Jr supported the right of blacks to vote. He also promoted direct confrontation with the machinery of segregation. By the end of his life, he supported direct confrontation with the machinery of war.
i think the reason most of us do NOT promote direct confrontation with the machinery of war is that we do not want to suffer, or be jailed, or die. It would be so much easier if a hero would save us. But in the long run we will all suffer and die no matter what we do. The question is, how will we live?
Daniel David and Rich M:TOO Super clever and on target BUT Can nilhism and hopelessness give you positive results? Don't you have a responsibility to present your scenarios for a solution instead of telling us so accurately what is so very wrong!
RichM's 12:24pm post is right on, and I don't think that anyone who is really paying attention can deny his analysis. Is it not obvious to all that the democrats have consistently snuggled up to the republicans and their war mongering corporate agenda, over and over, all the while paying lip service to their constituency.
"Oh no sweetie I'm not having an affair, you believe me don't you?"
"Well I'd like to, I just don't know why you and the neighbor are always pulling your pants up when I came home."
Sorry for the lack of clarity. I did not mean to imply that Hayden is a triangulating clintonite; that remark was directed at Daniel David.
Like many here, I view all of the remaining candidates as falling far short of exemplifying solid and consistent progressive credentials, and all are soiled by merely being successful professional politicians. Doesn't have to be so, but today in America it is so.
But like Kernel pointed out, we can wring our hands and gnash our teeth all we want that the process is again so transparently only for show, but who are you going to vote for?
This discussion has become pointless and if many want to vote for Daffy Duck, Seymour Butts, or somebody that enunciates your beliefs, then please do so, because in December it probably won't make a damn bit of difference and I won't blame you for "throwing" the election. That was done months ago.
It's time for our ship of state's scuppers to run red.
Amen, Werner
Kernel; Please don't give up. We, ( and I can only speak for myself ) are not against you. We're all in the same boat, Kernel. Some of us disagree with each other from time to time but we all want the same basic thing that RichM stated in his ending paragraph. Our numbers are few, and we are losing the battle. It's just a longtime disappointment over Democratic Party politics. Things could have, should have, would have been better for working men and women if the Dems were really sincere.
CommonDreams Readers!! ... Scroll up and read Rich M for the best analysis.
Rich, I'd like to see your views expressed in an article here on CD. Your opinion would be far better than what's been coming from ol' Tom Hayden, bless his bygone era soul.
Another significant difference between Obama and Clinton is in HER SUPPORT for the continued use of cluster bombs.
Obama voted AGAINST cluster bombs.
This came up last year in an amendment sponsored by CA Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Look it up.////
Clarity, conciseness and rationality about Tom Hayden's article is at AN ALL TIME CD low today. Name calling between posters who seem to know each other serves little purpose. Calling him a Clinton Triangulator is obtuse. He put his life on the line during Vietnam War and still believes in- your-face protests. Repression, fear politics and severe punishments for "dissenters" or the THREAT THEREOF has ratched up tenfold since 1969-1974. The tendency to attack good people who are actually in "our camp" has become a virulent poison reflecting a nilhist culture of alientation, irrationality, violence and doom.The performance of Democratic legislators in Congress since 2006 election thus far has been abyssmal.How can voting for Gravel, Paul or Nader get the worst of them replaced???? We got to go with whom is "running." Either Obama or Clinton appear to me a sea-change improvement over a McCain regency that might propel a partially Fascist nation into FULL AUTHORITARIANISM. It CAN HAPPEN HERE and it is later than we think.We have to "unite" even if we don't agree totally on the opinions of others left-of-center. Lock step conformity is usually the domain of the rabid right, although simplistic labelling always muddies the waters.We have got to get the majority of our military leaders to believe noviolent outcomes are actually in their best interests. 21st Century thinking has to be get beyond, i.e.: Doctors are supposed the heal patients and the Military exists suppposedly to fight "to protect the Homeland against our enemies." General Smedley had it right. Ultimately Dwight Eisenhower spoke truth to power. Why does the Military speak out only after they retire? The radical concept of Preventative War by the US will ultimately hasten our destruction if Global Warming does'nt do it first. Pardon a 76-year old arthritic the excessive gloom fellow posters!
Alright,RichM and others, I give up. From what you all say, the Dems are cowardly, lying, defeatist, worthless, stupid morons and crooks.
Now, lets have the answer to who we are going to ELECT, not just vote for, to stop this insane war and occupation. We know now to not vote for a Democrat under any circumstances but no one seems to know who to votwe FOR. Just wondering what the grand solution is to getting a peace president elected.
For what Obama won't say about Hillary and maybe shouldn't.
www.vealetruth.com