For all the hype about generational and gender wars in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, we have a class war on our hands. And incredibly, corporate America’s preferred candidate is winning the poorer “us” versus the wealthier “them”-a potentially decisive trend with the contest now moving to working-class bastions like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
In most states, polls show Hillary Clinton is beating Barack.
Obama among voters making $50,000 a year or less-many of whom say the economy is their top concern. Yes, the New York senator who appeared on the cover of Fortune magazine as Big Business’s candidate is winning economically insecure, lower-income communities over the Illinois senator who grew up as an organizer helping those communities combat unemployment. This absurd phenomenon is a product of both message and bias.
Obama has let Clinton characterize the 1990s as a nirvana, rather than a time that sowed the seeds of our current troubles. He barely criticizes the Clinton administration for championing job-killing trade agreements. He does not question that same administration’s role in deregulating the financial industry and thereby intensifying today’s boom-bust catastrophes. And he rarely points out what McClatchy Newspapers reported this week: that Clinton spent most of her career at a law firm “where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards,” including Wal-Mart’s.
Obama hasn’t touched any of this for two reasons.
First, his campaign relies on corporate donations. Though Obama certainly is less industry-owned than Clinton, the Washington Post noted last spring that he was the top recipient of Wall Street contributions. That cash is hush money, contingent on candidates silencing their populist rhetoric.
But while this pressure to keep quiet affects all politicians, it is especially intense against black leaders.
“If Obama started talking like John Edwards and tapped into working-class, blue-collar proletarian rage, suddenly all of those white voters who are viewing him within the lens of transcendence would start seeing him differently,” says Charles Ellison of the University of Denver’s Center for African American Policy.
That’s because once Obama parroted Edwards’ attacks on greed and inequality, he would “be stigmatized as a candidate mobilizing race,” says Manning Marable, a Columbia University history professor. That is, the media would immediately portray him as another Jesse Jackson-a figure whose progressivism has been (unfairly) depicted as racial politics anathema to white swing voters.
Remember, this is always how power-challenging African-Americans are marginalized. The establishment cites a black leader’s race- and class-unifying populism as supposed proof of his or her radical, race-centric views. An extreme example of this came from the FBI, which labeled Martin Luther King Jr. “the most dangerous man in America” for talking about poverty. More typical is the attitude exemplified by Joe Klein’s 2006 Time magazine column. He called progressive Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., “an African American of a certain age and ideology, easily stereotyped” and “one of the ancient band of left-liberals who grew up in the angry hothouse of inner-city, racial-preference politics.”
The Clintons are only too happy to navigate this ugly cultural topography. After a rare Obama attack on Hillary Clinton for supporting policies that eliminated jobs, Bill Clinton quickly likened Obama’s campaign to Jackson’s, and the Clinton campaign told the Associated Press Obama was “the black candidate.” These were deliberate statements telling Obama that if he talks about class, they’ll talk about race.
And so, as Marable says, Obama’s pitch includes “no mention of the class struggle or class conflict.” It is “hope” instead of an economic case, bromide instead of critique. The result is an oxymoronic dynamic.
Obama, the person who fought blue-collar joblessness in the shadows of shuttered factories, is winning wealthy enclaves. But Clinton, the person whose globalization policies helped shutter those factories, is winning blue-collar strongholds.
Obama, who was schooled by the same organizing networks as Cesar Chavez, is being endorsed by hedge fund managers. But Clinton, business’s favorite, is being endorsed by the United Farm Workers-the union that Chavez created.
Obama, the candidate from Chicago’s impoverished South Side, is finding support on Connecticut’s gilded south coast. But Hillary Clinton, the candidate representing Big Money, is finding support from those with relatively little money.
As the campaign heads to the struggling Rust Belt under banners promising “change,” this bizarre class war may end up guaranteeing no real transformation at all.
David Sirota is a bestselling author whose newest book, “The Uprising,” will be released in June of 2008. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network-both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.
© 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
“The Clintons are only too happy to navigate this ugly cultural topography”
Reason enough to throw the Clinton sleaze out.
It would be helpful in this regard if Edwards endorsed Obama. We will see what is ultimately more important to Edwards–himself or the country.
Mr Gore?
In other words, the Clintons are vicious, ruthless & dishonest, and their real allegiance is to the ruling class.
Meanwhile, Obama is owned by corporate donations, and won’t dare say a word displeasing to his donors. Partly for this reason, & partly to preserve “party unity,” he can’t even tell the truth about the Clintons — let alone confront the rightwing.
Well, OK. That’s a reasonably accurate summary.
Sirota concludes, “this bizarre class war may end up guaranteeing no real transformation at all.”
- That’s precisely how the system is set up to work. If there was any threat of “transformation” — even a slight hint of it, which was what Edwards represented — the system would eliminate that candidate. What we now have is the entirely predictable result: the only remaining candidates run around invoking the rhetoric of “change,” but neither advocates anything that challenges ruling class interests in any way.
The process works like a huge filtering machine. You pour in an array of different candidates at one end, and the only ones who emerge from the other end are all suitably de-clawed and perfectly harmless, so far as ruling class interests are concerned.
And how is this different from the usual nonsense the Democratic National Party inflicts upon us? People do not think before voting or giving money. They use emotion. Many are still fans of Clinton - not understanding how he served corporate interests.
But, in all honesty, I do not get what my friends and I have started calling “the cult of Obama.” I fear the Republicans would eat him alive. He is just too naive.
But, I wanted Edwards.
And some of Obama’s critics have tried to diminish him for being long on “change”, short on “details.” This author is helping us to understand at least some of the reasons why, such as potential attacks from both the “right” and from the “Clintons.”
John Edwards is a good guy who has been too explicit on details and has lost twice. Obama is trying not to do that same thing in the same pattern.
What’s needed is for Mrs. Clinton to be a patriot and stand down. If she won’t, and she’s nominated, then we need to elect her anyway. We’re voting for policy if we care about our children.
The New York Times has a good graphic today showing how Obama’s financial support is a lot of small donations from lots of people while Clinton gets large donations from a few people (including her own recent donation).
Remember that this Presidential race is a game being played within the monopoly media machine. While politically active individuals like us can share information and motivation online, most voters make their decisions based on the horse race (and highly personal) coverage of the monopoly media.
We have to realize that people who speak the truth are ignored or destroyed by the monopoly media and the political establishment. Instead of focusing our dissappointment toward the candidates who try to navigate this game, we need to examine the process and media environment in which our “democracy” is taking place.
Hillary Clinton is more like George Bush than people realize. Like him, she lies to her base about her priorities, and her base believes her lies instead of looking at her record. She fights dirty, her tactics create divisiveness and if she gets elected, she will sell us out to the corporations. At least McCain wants to rein in military waste. He’s a flip flopper and brown nose but between them, he’s the lesser evil. Too bad I don’t vote for lesser evils.
I’m convinced that the reason Hillary voted against banning cluster bombs was to keep her financial supporters happy. So now progressives support a woman who considers corporate money more important than the lives of children who pick up bomblets and have them blow up in their faces. She has no honor, scruples or compassion. Sounds like Bush to me. And her policies create further migration of wealth to the top.
Obama has released his tax returns. I thought that was standard procedure for politicians, it used to be. But I guess I haven’t been paying close enough attention lately. It appears the Clinton camp is pretending not to hear his call for transparency. Maybe he should speak a little more loudly and clearly about it. What do they want to hide? How fabulously wealthy they’ve gotten? How little they actually donate to charity? We’re supposed to be electing public servants, not despots.
kathyodat
Daniel David, anyone who knows what Hillary is and would vote for her anyway has descended to her level of morality. She picked Madeleine 500,000-dead-Iraqi-children-are-worth-it Albright for her foreign policy adviser. I don’t want to see someone elected who will use the presidency to feed their ego, we’ve already had 8 years of that.
metamind on another post pointed out that Hillary is a closet Republican. Accurate observation. Too bad the electorate is so unobservant.
oeace coup, you nailed it.
kathyodat
As I’ve said before, Hillary Clinton is the candidate who’ll bring out all the republicans who would stay home if the race was Obama vs McCain, and change the minds of a lot of those who’ve switched parties because of Bush. They may not like McCain, but with Hillary, their feelings are visceral.
kathyodat:
Thanks for reminding us about Albright. That is one comment that we should never be allowed to forget as it gets to the core of Clintonism (and the attitude of too many — probably a majority — of the US population).
Whoever controls the media controls the country. Period.
The head of the FCC is as powerful as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Without a compliant, bought-off and CIA infiltrated press we NEVER would have gone to war In Iraq. One million innocent Iraqis would still be alive and two trillion dollars would be in our treasury.
Without a compliant, bought-off and CIA infiltrated press John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich would be the leading candidates for the Presidency.
The media monopolies need to be broken up. The airwaves need to be returned to the public. The criminals in the media who particpated in the selling of the war to the American people need to be tried for war crimes, just as the propagandists in Germany were.
I agree with Daniel David above that Hillary should stand down for the good of the country. If only she would say what Mitt the Twit said yesterday - that for the good of his country he was leaving the race. Now, I doubt that is his true reason but I sure would love to hear those words come out of Billary’s mouth.
Gee two Dems furthest to the Corporate right are left. I guess its just a coincidence that these got the most air time from Wolf Blitzkrieg.
Corporate Selection in 08!
Latest Time poll:
McCain 46%, Clinton 46%.
McCain 41%, Obama 48%.
As somebody said here on Commondreams a few days ago: Hillary Clinton is GW Bush in a skirt.
If the Democractic party would look to the future instead of just the next 4 years,it will
see the advantage of the hundreds of thousands of young people that Obama is bringing into the
democratic party. If it is very close and the convention gives it to hillary, these people are
going to be lost. I told myself many years ago that I would never vote for anyone in the two
major parties, but Obama will get my vote. With a Hillary- McCain choice in Nov., I will go
back to another vote to whoever is the candidate in the Green Party. As with the loss of those
thousands of young voters, it will take thousands of people like me who will look at the
democratic party and once again say “Never Again”.
I heard a Ralph Nader interview about why he was considering running and he said that the Democratic party is a corporation, and they can do what they want. If they don’t like your message they can make it virtually impossible to get on ballots and in debates. I don’t know that, but it sure is playing out that way.
And who cares about a primary with so many super-delegates? This whole thing sure backs up what Ralph was saying.
He said the only way they’d let anybody play is if they could bring in the contributions. Well, guess what that means: they’re all selling out. I think it was Give’em Hell Harry who said “If you can’t take their money and vote against them you have no business in politics.” Whatever happened to that credo?
In light of all this, it seems Ralph is the only logical vote. If DD would join along with everyone else that is worried about another conservative win, we wouldn’t have to worry if it was a republican conservative or a democratic conservative.
While I don’t advocate what I’m about to propose as one’s own personal mantra or as a good rule of thumb dictating one’s behaviour, what needs to happen is for us to take a play out of their rule book.
If you are asked to take a poll regarding politics, don’t decline, just lie, …like them. Tell em whatever you want. Make something up. Let them think that John McCain will get your vote no matter who the Dem is.
Or better still, tell them that you’d vote for the Huckster-bee, who is running for preacher in chief.
It’s like this: “They” (media, the authorities, etc.) only think they “know” what people tell them. So don’t tell them anything you think they can use!
I’m with you, Rudyjo. Hillary will lose the youth vote, the independents, and the left who generally don’t vote for Democrats. Of course, she doesn’t care, this is all about her, not our country.
kathyodat
i’ve voted Democrat all my life, but i’ll never vote for Hillary. Never.
i’m not sure i can hold my nose tight enough to vote for Obama.
The green party never “got back to me” as promised when I offered to host a garden party last summer.
So, unlike most of the posters here, i’m still planning to write in Dennis Kucinich this november.
In another post on another day, I mentioned putting hope for Obama on a possible repeat of “improbability” such as propelled him first to the Illinois statehouse and then to the U.S. Senate. The waters sort of parted for him, and that may not stop at the Clintons.
A few months ago we would have thought it impossible that the three extreme corporatists, Thompson, Giuliani and Romney, would already be out. I hate to use a Bushism (for real conversation), but the Obama movement may be “on the march.” OF COURSE we want him over Mrs. Clinton. And maybe we’ll get him.
But if we don’t, we cannot throw away the veto, the courts, law enforcement, the budget, the agencies and the bully pulpit just to SPITE the Clintons. SPITE gets your children nothing.
There is absolutely no way McCain will win, no matter which of the two Democrats is the Demo candidate. The Democrats are out voting the Republicans almost two to one so far, and that trend will continue.
This morning I saw Obama state, he takes NO money from Lobbyist backed corporations. That is just not so. __ Personally, I will wait to decide which of the two I will vote for, which ever one is the Demo nominee. Right now I believe Hillary will have John Edwards on her cabinet, possibly the Attorney General. Edwards was my choice, but as Attorney General, Edwards will have a great deal of influence with Hillary on several important issues. And didn’t Obama say he would use nuclear weapons on Pakistan if necessary? Anyone have a decent source for that question?
Yeah, Madeleine Albright is no gem, but neither is Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Hedge fund managers are for the most part no different than small business owners. Obama’s message likely appeals to their strong values for individuality as well as the notion that “Change” = $$$ (more volatility = more returns from their derivatives).
Describing donations to Obama’s campaign from these source “hush money” has the same affect as calling him the “black” candidate: you are marginalizing him.
Corporations, which are not the same as hedge funds/wall street bankers, like Hillary simply becuase she’s a “known product”
Kem Patrick: “And didn’t Obama say he would use nuclear weapons on Pakistan if necessary?”
No, someone got that backward. Obama said he would not use nukes on Pakistan and Hillary condemned Obama for ruling out nukes.
ABC News 8/2/07
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3441342&page=1
There was also an article in Counterpunch 8/4/07 about this. Sherwood Ross, “Hillary Counters: That’s Not the American Way! Obama Renouces Use of Nuclear Weapons”
You have to view the upper levels of our Federal Government (the Sentate, the Presidency, the leadership in the House, the Federal Reserve and to some degree, but more servant to really, the Supreme Court) for what it is - an Oligarchy. It’s the natural result of the maturation of our form of Republic/Democracy. It won’t be reversed by any election or political party but the Oligarchy will not last and we’ll slide towards a brief period facism or a kind of everyman for himself barely controlled chaos, followed by another violent revolution that will lead to god only knows what. The slide to a complete Oligarchy was completed years ago. What we’ve been seeing for the last 25 years or so is an attempt by the now failing Oligarchy to maintain the myth of a functioning Republic. But predictably, the Oligarchy has begun to believe its own myths. So you have this state of disconnect from reality that bewilders your average and at the moment powerless citizen or journalist. But the Oligarchy wants what it wants so it can’t resist its own worst tendencies so the disconnect from reality grows steeper and the acts become more and more overt and crazy (crazy to one who isn’t party to the morality destroying wealth of the Oligarchy that is). Finally, desperation sets in as the Oligarchy itself begins to feel the results of it’s own failed policies and years of neglecting good governance. Then, the Oligarchy unconsiously switches from trying to maintain the myth of a functioning Republic via some level of self-control and some policy consideration for the masses to trying to passify the masses with circus and beer (another rebate check anyone?). But this act of desperation only buys the Oligarchy more time. But time for what? It has no ability for “change” as it is not a functioning governing body with the tools for introspection and discipline (not a coincidence that this word “change” is being thrown around this election year in such vague terms). Finally, the last chapter is written when a number of the Oligarchy’s failed “policies” come home to roost at the same time, destroying the Nations economy or worse. This destiny for all democractically organized governments is spelled out by Plato in “The Republic” and it’s the reason why we all know that name thousands of years later even if we don’t all know or understand his work. It’s the reason the founding fathers drafted the Constitution to be a living, changing document. If you were diligent and careful you could constantly update and re-invent Democracy so that the “decline” was never allowed to begin. But we have not been diligent and careful with it, consumerism and fossil fuels drove us all to distraction. The end.
In all sincerity, can someone please help me understand Obama’s appeal to serious progressives? I am trying to support him, but all I see is vague talk, promises to sit down and make nice with everyone, and rah-rah shouting “Yes We Can!” Sorry, it strikes me as juvenile.
For people who suggest that Edwards supporters should switch to Obama, I’m confused, because I see them as opposites. Wasn’t it Edwards who said, in regards to the health care industry - we’re not going to sit down with these people - they have been the problem all these years and what would make them any different now?
If a few of you would be so kind as to tell me a significant policy change Obama would make that Hillary would not make…. I would appreciate it.
A president Hillary gets your children less than nothing, DD. But it’s clear as a cloudless day that you’re forever in favor of whatever the Democraps dish out, both the nothing that is not there (Hillary) and the nothing that is (Obama). Btw, I’ll vote, ruefully, for Obama just to keep the fascist dogs at bay, assuming it will, which it well may not. But I will not waste a vote on Hillary, and not out of “spite”. SPITE has nothing to do with it, except in your own mind where Democrats have some fetish-like power. It isn’t spite, as everyone here seems to understand but you.
Very good post, captn72 (3:33 pm).
I don’t know why Hillary’s success with white, rural, blue collar Democrats is being chalked up to the myth of prosperity under Bill.
Seems to me it’s good old fashioned racism.
How long ago was it in the South that Democratic primaries were called “white primaries”?
Not long ago, I’m afraid.
I live in California, and a part of California that voted for Hillary. Those of us who voted for her have gotten berated, treated like idiots and told that we would ruin the human race. And my friends and I are tired of this abuse by the so-called progressives and liberals that seem to wallow in their rhetoric. If the truth be known, many of us (who also see ourselves as progressive and liberal) think that Obama is not only too untested to be a president, but we are sick and tired of his supporters putting us and our candidate down. If I were to get as trashy as I have been reading about Hillary, I would say that Obama is just another male Democrat whose supporters are worshiping at his altar and who will probably end up shaming the Democratic party and himself (Read JFK and Bill Clinton). And, by the way, on Tuesday, I did not vote for Bill Clinton, I voted for Hillary. So, I expect a tirade of vitriolic rhetoric about how you cannot separate them. Grow up! If you want a third party candidate, get one! Both Obama and Hillary are being supported by the same corporations.
Or, you can always vote Republican. Just remember Ralph Nader and the war in Iraq.
Sue,
From your post it sounds like your reasons for voting Hillary are: that she’s female, that she’s criticized, that she’s experienced, that she’s not the same as Bill.
Forgive me, but all those reasons are really poor except the notion of experience. Let’s take a look at her experience, however:
She was elected to the Senate in January, 2001. She has 7 years experience in public service. I’m not counting her years as First Lady, because that is a radically different role with no governing authority.
Obama was elected Senator in January, 2005. He has three years experience as a member of Congress. Before that, he was a State Senator in the Illinois State Legislature from 1997 to 2004. So, in sum, he has a period of public service comparable to Hillary.
Hillary is older, to be sure. But, she spent many of those years as a registered Republican, and as a corporate attorney. I’m not sure how that experience better qualifies her to be the Democratic nominee for President of the US.
Perhaps you have other reasons.
The Gloria Steinem argument, I can understand somewhat, even if I think it is wrong. This says “the time has come for a female President. We have to ram one through when we have the chance, even if she is flawed.” I understand that strategic thinking. But, it’s placing the needs of a gender group above the needs of the nation as a whole.
The main reason to avoid Hillary is it is obvious she is a war candidate.
No one who is sick to death of war should vote Hillary. All her Senate votes on foreign policy confirm this.
Hey, the Hillary Barack show is only one ring of the circus.
Demos in Congress have been known to engage in direct war profiteering like Sen. Feinstein giving her Billionaire husband, Richard Blum, a $600 million contract in Iraq. Why waste time with small peanuts like campaign donation or lobbyist perks, just send money to your husband. Feinstein belongs behind bars rather than in the Senate.
War Contracts Feinstein/Blum:
http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/
Feinstein Quits:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54932
Mirf,
Experience, experience, years and years of experience, since she left college and worked with Childwatch. I live in a community that has followed her career advocating for issues that deeply affect women and CHILDREN. I do not worship at her altar and I did disagree with her resolution votes. As one of my good friends from New York said, I forgive her because she lived in the state that was attacked. Obama, on the other hand, was miles and miles away. I think that she had learned and as I hear their platforms (I am listening to specifics; not platitudes), they are very close on the Iraqi issue. You probably wouldn’t like my politics anyway. I thought that we should have stayed in Afghanistan so all of those little girls could continue to go to school.
So, you see, I like Hillary’s consistently long record on women and children, male and female children.
The real class war is being obscured by such portraits. This is a profound phenomenon. Sirota is just one of many professional painters. Only difference is Sirota used the taboo phrase “class war” but it’s quite benign on canvas. The real thing underneath is hideous - mass slavery, millions of rat wheels running, cheese held just out of reach.
Sassysue, pretend she isn’t a woman and he last name isn’t Clinton. What part of her platform is attractive to you? I see the problems facing the country and I see no solutions. Her proposals would at most make bad situations a little less worse. Some people might say things that are sexist or otherwise inappropriate. However, there are many on the left who oppose her and people like her for good reason and they articulate their points without mulling in the gutter. You shouldn’t lump them with the meatheads and ignore the sound critiques of her stances on the issues because you happen to back her candidacy.
daniel david (12:57), edwards lost twice?
aside from that, why is this article being brought out now? why not bring it out a month ago?
Sassysue: I agree with you completely. If Barack Obama is such an anti-war candidate why did he take a dive when the Senate voted on funding the Iraq War? Senators Clinton, Dodd and Biden who were all then running for President, returned to the Senate and VOTED NOT TO FUND Dubya’s War. Obama stayed away. He wasn’t in the Senate when they voted to give Bush war powers so we don’t really know what he would have done if any pressure was brought to bear. Mirf59, the Democratic Party in the South is now majority African American. The White Primaries in the South are now in the Republican Party. When Lyndon Johnson signed the 64 Civil Rights Act he predicted that the Democratic Party would lose the South for at least a generation.
Grant,
I have an appointment, but promise to get back to you. I have listened to almost all of the debates and don’t find Hillary’s or Barack’s platforms far apart. I like her healthcare better! I have received plenty of emails about how great Obama is, but don’t like the hero worship! It has turned me off to him and reminded me why I respect her.
Thanks for the thoughtfulness.
Don’t be fooled.
McCain is not any more hawkish than Hillary or Obama.
All are claiming they have the power to “Keep America strong” and “restore US world leadership”.
All stand for the same arrogant projection of imperial power by increasing military spending and cutting down resources for human needs. Therefore they are incapable of bringing about “change” or leading the country to “new directions.” The only solution for the people is to decide to free themselves from the Republicratic trap and start supporting independent leaders, parties and movements with a revolitionary perspective. At the end the people will prevail. But first they must get rid of the illusions pumped into their heads by the capitalist propaganda.
Sassysue, is she really for women and children if her healthcare plan will still make it so that they pay much more than people in other countries for the same care? If their job is shipped over seas? NAFTA hasn’t only destroyed American children’s lives, it’s destroyed Canadian and especially Mexican children’s lives. Her connections to lobbyists, more than the other candidates when they are already swimming in it, when the countries problems are the result of lobbyist created legislation? Her fiercest critics would concede that she has some positive qualities. The country is facing some problems that can no longer be ignored. Not solving the problems, only superficially changing them so entrenched interests don’t get angry, is in practice ignoring them. Her “centrist” (”centrist” positions according to national polls are single player healthcare, a reversal of “free trade” policies amongst other things) positions might work well with the owners of the media but they don’t with the people getting screwed over by the policies she either backs of fails to critique.
Shada,
The demographics of the Democratic primaries held so far in the South show that African-Americans, suburbites, urbanites, and college graduates vote Obama.
These are registered Democrats voting in the South. I don’t know why you are bringing up Republicans. They are not voting in the Democratic primaries.
Those same demographic breakdowns of the vote show blue collar whites and Hispanics are voting for Hillary.
I argue that racism could explain this result, and it is not necessary to seek out a more sophisticated explanation.
I live in Texas. Texas is still racist. There is no doubt about it. I assume other Southern States are the same.
Educated and metropolitan people are less likely to be racist, as racism is unacceptable in college and in cosmopolitan life.
To be fair, the same critques I listed apply to Obama as well, although SLIGHTLY less so.
The Hillary supporter ‘Sassysue’ (5:01) writes, “… I thought that we should have stayed in Afghanistan so all of those little girls could continue to go to school. ”
I’d expect to hear an opinion like that from a Hillary supporter.
First of all, we ARE still in Afghanistan, & we’re bullying our NATO allies to keep forces there too. Secondly, the US has no right to be occupying that country. They didn’t do anything to us, & should be allowed to live their own lives, without being subjected to the disasters that always come from US military & political interference.
Thirdly, the reason why the US is in Afghanistan has nothing to do with helping little girls go to school. You are aware, aren’t you, that the US helped overthrow an Afghan government that wanted “the little girls to go to school,” back when Jimmy Carter was president, right? We backed the Islamic fundamentalists who later morphed into Al Qaeda & the Taliban. Both US political parties supported this policy — just as they always back US attempts to control parts of the earth that don’t belong to us.
High praise to Captn72 and Peace Coup and JConrad. They’ve all nailed it. Unless we publicly finance all campaigns and level citizen “access” to candidates, corporate “persons” will always beget legislation (legislators?) that favors profits. As it stands today, thanks to some short-sighted and/or bone-headed Supreme Court decisions, immortal corporate “persons” will triumph at the political level over flesh and blood persons.
He who finances a candidate is assured of the candidate’s legislative favors, unless the candidate can resist addiction to office and power. And could care less about his/her re-election.
Recall, corporations were invented by men to generate and accumulate capital for a limited purpose–to manufacture or produce some socially useful commodity for a profit. Today, some of that “accumulated capital” is seemingly funnneled via creative and legal pathways into multi-million dollar campaigns. So much for using those accumulated funds to “manufacture a commodity for society’s benefit,” unless you consider the funded candidate the “useful commodity.” Useful to whom?
We flesh and blood persons have to fight back and breed, train and/or educate, seek and elect representives who are willing to take on corporate America. Candidates who speak truth to power and to the voting public and expose the FCC/bread-and-circus/consumerist sham for what it is: the new opiate for the masses.
Is it possible? Or are we to cower and surrender to that
Borg-ian voice which says, “Resistance is futile.”
You choose. It’s our future…
A reason I voted for Gravel. And war profiteers in the Senate and House definitely belong behind bars.
‘Nuff said.
Sassysue__ Good for you!! It is like a breath of fresh air to have someone bring out a few good reasons to support Hillary as she is the candidate most prepared to stop the insanity that Bushco has enveloped this country in. Of course she is not perfect, but her naysayers do not have anyone in mind that could even get elected except Obama and it is questionable he would be able to withstand the Repub onslaught.
Hillary has demonstrated concern for ordinary citizens for years so the people that compare her to a mercilous killer and fraud are completely off base. The most important thing facing this country is to get someone in control that has the experience required to turn things around fast. If we can get that accomplished, then we can return to dreaming about how to elect the perfect leader from the Green or some other party.
Kernel writes (6:52) that Hillary is “the candidate most prepared to stop the insanity that Bushco has enveloped this country in.”
- Why don’t you tell us exactly which “insane Bushco policies” Hillary has strongly opposed, or even openly criticized, during the last 7 years? I’m sure it would be a very short list.
She supports the “War on Terror.” She voted for the Iraq war, & for almost all its refundings. She doesn’t condemn torture or preemptive war. She voted for the PATRIOT Act. She has been silent about habeas corpus, the stolen elections, the Bush signing statements, warrantless wiretapping, secret rendition, Guantanamo, & saber-rattling towards Iran. She is, if anything, even more supportive of Israeli aggression than Bush is. She didn’t filibuster any of Bush’s terrible appointments. She hasn’t said a word about impeachment. She never even criticized Bush when there turned out to be no WMD in Iraq!
When you add it all up, there is very little that she disagrees with Bush on. There is thus no reason whatever to expect that she would “stop the insanity,” when she herself has been supporting the insanity, and hasn’t fought against a single bit of it.
Sassysue wrote:
“I thought that we should have stayed in Afghanistan so all of those little girls could continue to go to school.”
Sassysue–I’ve got some oceanfront property for sale in Arkansaw: Chateau Shillaré. Very reasonably priced, must sell before November. Let me know if you are interested. It would be a great place to raise little girls to be good Christians. There’s a schoolhouse, Shillaré middleschool, just down the road. In the town of Shillaré, the wars have already ended (for all anyone there knows). And best of all, prosperity is around the corner and down the block.
The one govt in Afghanistan that really did something for women’s rights in Afghanistan was the socialist one that the Dems, led by Brezinski, destroyed as a part of their geo-political game against the Soviets. Brezinski’s goal to create a ‘vietnam’ for the Soviets is what destroyed the one government in Afghanistan that gave a damn about this issue.
The instability created by the Dems and Brezinski led to rule by warlords and religious zealots. The Dem administration under Clinton supported the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan as a part of another geopolitical power game. This has all been constantly disasterous to women’s rights in Afghanistan. The forces of the warlords have led massive episodes of rape when conquering cities while the Taliban worked to force all women out of sight and to block any education of women.
Brezinski is an advisor to Obama, while the Clintons are back with former Sec of State Albright advising that campaign. Vote Democrat and enjoy the evil that you get as a result.
RichM and other Hillary and Dem bashers___ you have nothing but disdain for Dems and especially Hillary , but never have any idea of what or who could turn the country around. Of course, you hold up Nader, who is a fine man, but cannot get elected, so what good is that?
One would think people that are progressive should have some idea of what we should do now, not just dream about what should have been or what might be some day.
Your attitude is that we do not have some perfect candidate so we will just trash the only ones that we have to vote for as if that will help. If all you can do is pour out venom, try putting some on the Bushco that caused this mess in the first place.
“Hillary has demonstrated concern for ordinary citizens for years”
What exactly are you smoking, and can I have some?
When you say ‘demonstrate’, I think of actions. Words don’t count. So let me see if I can think of when Hillary has ‘demonstrated’ this.
Did she do it as a corporate lawyer? Not likely. She was more worried about creating fake billing records.
Did she do it when she was first lady of Ark? Well, the Clintons aligned themselves with the money of Tyson chicken and did nothing for the safety of the ordinary citizens who worked there. A chicken processing plant is a nasty dangerous job that often costs workers fingers and hands as the managers push the line faster and faster. The Clinton’s did nothing to help these workers while taking political donations from Tyson.
Did she do it with her famous health care plan in ‘93? No, that was designed to protect HMO, insurance and big pharma profits. She deliberately refused to back the sort of national single-payer health care plan that would have helped ordinary citizens at the expense of those profits.
Did she do it when the Clintons were pushing NAFTA through? No, that cost millions of ordinary Americans their jobs while boosting corporate profits.
Did she do it when the Clintons were pushing through WTO? No, again, ordinary Americans are told that they have to lose their jobs and compete with the lowest wages in the world, again to protect corporate profits.
Did she do it when the Clintons passed Welfare Reform? Nope, that was a direct attack on the welfare of ordinary Americans while serving as political postering for the Clintons.
Did she do it when the Clintons pushed through the first Federal death penalty laws? No, she’s perfectly happy when ordinary Americans die if it helps them politicly.
Did she do it when the Clintons launched an illegal war in Yugoslavia? No, ordinary Americans who were in the service when the Clinton’s jobless recovery left them no choice died or were injured in that war. And it set the precedent for the Iraq war.
Did she do it when the Clintons pushed through the Telecom bill of 96? No, that created media monopolies that leave many ordinary Americans with higher rates, no competition and increasing corporate control on the information they receive.
Did she do it when the Clintons pushed through the Banking Reform bill that eliminated the reforms and protections put into place after the great depression? No, and today ordinary Americans are paying the price from the resulting financial collapse.
Did she do it when Bush wanted to attack Iraq? No, she supported that, and voted for years to fund it while some 4000 ordinary Americans have died and some 25,000 have been wounded.
Did she do it when Bush wants to take away the rights that our forefathers fought and died for? No, she’s supported the Patriot act and other grabs of power by Bush.
I could go on, but my typing fingers are worn out. But you’ve really got to be joking.
Of course, the reason someone like Nader can’t get elected is …
– Ballot laws, largely created by the Dems to keep other parties off the ballot in some states.
– The Dems working at all costs to keep someone like Nader out of any debates.
– All those Dem voters that keep voting for pro-war, pro-corporate Dem candidates. They keep electing these people who are screwing us under this strange belief that this is the best we can have.
How about this? Why don’t the Dems voluntarily withdraw from some races and help the Greens get on the ballot? Then we could see just how electable a group like the Greens really are without the Dems being their biggest election obstacle.
If it was just simple Nader vs McCain, Nader wins. The reason someone like Nader can’t win is because the pro-war, pro-corporate Dems being in the race and blocking Nader from getting his message out.
Ps … one more …
Did Hillary support the interests of ordinary Americans while on the board of Wal-Mart?
So called progressives always peek my interest. How they can rally behind a guy who votes for the Cheney written energy bill,an industry written “class action fairness act”, and against a 30% credit card interest cap. A guy who considers the coal and nuclear industry his base. A guy whose health care scam is to the right of Romney.
Now, I don’t like Hillary anymore than the next white male, but she is far better than the politics of false hope. Let’s not forget that Rubin is an adviser on the Obama campaign and another adviser argued NAFTA had no bearing on American job loss.
This is an election between beer drinkers and wine drinkers and Obama’s base is the wine drinkers.
JConrad,
I just read through your linked articles:
War Contracts Feinstein/Blum:
http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/
Wow. You make it hard for me to keep telling myself it’s the “other guys” who stink.
being 87 years old and a republican all my life . I can remember things you people ,have only heard about. Women need to remember ,we have not had the right to vote that long. Its men who have kept us down. It was women who walked with the blacks to get equal rights . Now its time for the white women to have her rights . we have been left behind , we are the people who made Winfrey a billionair. Stand for something ladies vote for the woman . she has our best intrest at heart ,she’s been there. We are not electing her husband.Dont let the Good OLE Boy network keep our voices suppressed any longer. Only you and God stand in that voting booth, do the right thing show the male shoveniest , we are mad as hell and are tired of there bull s-h-i-t
Kernel (8:34 pm) writes, “RichM and other Hillary and Dem bashers___ you have nothing but disdain for Dems and especially Hillary , but never have any idea of what or who could turn the country around. Of course, you hold up Nader, who is a fine man, but cannot get elected, so what good is that?…”
- No, you’re mistaken on several counts. First of all, I have plenty of ideas how to turn things around. They take a while to explain, but briefly, I believe there’s no way out of the present morass, inside the framework of the 2 existing parties. The main obstacle to progress is the existence of the Democratic Party, and the mass of its politically ignorant & naive supporters, who are willing to swallow slop instead of demanding policies that serve the broad public interest.
Secondly, I’m not particularly “holding up Nader.” Nader is certainly vastly superior to any Democrat, but the perspective of socialists is more accurate than Nader’s, in numerous respects. Nader’s main idea is to try to “push the Dem Party to the left.” This can’t be done. The DP is hopeless; nothing will move it to the left. (However, I do defend Nader against the ignorant attacks from braindead Dem Party Loyalists.)
As COMarc says above (8:41), the main reason someone like Nader can’t get elected is because the two corrupt big-business parties collaborate in making sure no one but an Repub or an Evilcrat can be elected. The Evilcrats are particularly vicious to rivals on their left, like Nader, the Greens, or socialists.
When Evilcrats do battle with Republicans, all they do is wriggle on their pathetic bellies waving little white flags of surrender. They surrender to Republicans even when they (the D’s) have the majority, or have actually won presidential elections. Judged by those performances, you might think they just don’t have it in them to be “vicious.” But you should see how ruthlessly they spend money and violate election laws, to keep people like Nader & socialists off the ballot. In those situations, no trick is too dirty. They play hardball, just like Karl Rove. All the tricks the Republicans used in Ohio and Florida, the Democrats use, to block rivals on their left from gaining ballot access.
This is an important insight into Evilcrats — that they act like such naive helpless innocents, when going up against Republicans. But they certainly do know how to play hardball, when it comes to bullying small parties on their own political Left.
Hi SCROLLER Thank you for the reply. I read that link you offered and believe I decipher it a bit differently than you have. I believe Hillary’s response would be the appropriate words in reply to such a question for a president, or a Secretary of State to use, on a very delicate and touchy subject. It’s one of those, “do you still beat your mother” type of questions.
Hillary (did not) say she would use atomic weapons. I read that newspaper column three times. Writers and “editors”, can be very clever with wording. On the other hand, Obama HAD, prior to that article, said he would not rule out the use of atomic weapons aganst MILITARY targets in Pakistan. It was during a televised program, about last July. I do not now remember which of the newscasters it was who asked Obama the question, but I saw and heard it. Soon after, during that program, Obama attempted to back off of the issue and he succeeded.
Obama is perhaps the very best talker and orator I have ever seen in a presidential race. He can and does excite a croud. Nevertheless, we have seen him twist the facts and hedge on questions of primary issues. His personalty and body language changes considerably when he’s uncomftorable with a question, and our media is givng him a lot of free rides.
We should be very cautious of Obama and watch and listen very careflly to his words. There have been other world leaders who could ignite a croud with their words. I choose to be very careful and wait and see what transpires during the comimg months.
If Obama is as good as he sounds, and I do hope that indeed he is, he is a true Statesman. If he isn’t what he is is projecting and saying he is, he may very well be, the best bull shitter who ever ran for public office.
Hi ~CoMark~ As a young lawyer, Hillary did a great deal of volunteer legal work for children and adults, before she joined any corporations in a legal capacity. Like all politicians, she gets a great deal of flak, some is justified, ___ some is not. Being the wife of Bill Clinton has some very good features and naturally some serious drawbacks.
Clinton’s New York constitutents by a large majority, like her a great deal, there must be a good reason for that. Those New Yorkers are very hard to please, ___ or to B/S.
The things Bill Clinton said about Obama just before the South Carolina primary, were very accurate, but I do believe it would have been far better for Bill to stay off of such type of discussions, the press does not always wish to hear the truth and they damn sure don’t often print it. They blasted Bill and Hillary Clinton and attempted to make it a racial issue, but never denied what Bill said was the whole truth.
It is very common for that to occur, when the truth is told, someone may play the race card, muddy the waters and then attempt to twist who played it. Before the day is done, few know what the truth is. If the press or our media is favoring anyone, I’m suspecious and wonder why they favor that person. We cannot trust our media anymore and that’s a damn shame, and it’s one of the major reasons we now have a fascist form of government.
~COMARK~ You ask, “How did Hillary do as a member of the Wal-Mart board?”
Ask the people who worked for Wal-Mart. They sure were sorry to see her leave that position. One recent article here stated she didn’t do anything about the union issue when she was a board member. Let’s see the minutes of those meetings. Perhaps there was nothng she could do as a new board member, perhaps the story is slanted and words taken out of context. Do we ever hear of that happening? There are a lot of writeres who don’t like Hillary Clinton and can write articles that give half truths. Lots of them are a paid Neo-cons, the Republicans don’t want Hillary in the White House, any more than they wanted John Edwards or heaven forbid, Dennis Kucinich. Why is the Neo-con press and media favoring Obama is my question? We should all ponder that pertenant issue.
The theory that a candidate must play by the rules to get elected, but once elected they will adhere to their conscience, is not totally without precedent. The biggest bureacracy in the history of the world, the late Soviet Union, was actually reformed by the communist politburos appointee, Michal Gorbachev. He said everything he had to say to get into a position to transform the country. Once he got there, he shook the country to its foundations.
This is our only hope with either Hillary or Obama, but we have already had a Clinton in the White House and he proved to be a Republican in a Democrats clothing. Obama hasn’t fared much better with his support of the health care corporate crime families in Illinois in their attempt to further gouge the poor for inadequate and overpriced coverage.
All we can do now is hope that whoever is elected, is a very good liar who did what was necessary to bring real progressive changes to the country once they’re in charge. Is anyone holding their breath out there?
http://www.gp.org/ what else can I say?
skip these clowns and vote for Ron Paul
I’d like to see a build-up of our public schools. One that provided help for all our children to succeed. Help that provided them nutritious food to eat while they were away from home. And someone to trust and talk to when home wasn’t working out for them.
I’d like to see medical help available for all our neighbors. Help in a clinic at affordable prices. Help that took away their worries about the afflictions that plagued them. Help that would not bankrupt them. That is to say, Help that is really Help.
I’d like to see a concentrated effort to employ all our workers in establishing an infrastructure that is sound. Not mega-large sports structures, but roads, bridges, water and sewage treatment plants, and fire and police stations that are ready to come to our call.
I’d like to see an economy where a small investor could invest their savings with confidence that they would receive a fair return over time that would enable them to have a better life.
I’d like to see all the adults in America going out of their homes at night, forsaking the TV, to build a park, a gym, a community garden, a PTSA, or Boy Scout or Girl Scout group.
I’d like to see a society that looks to Research to find the ways to spend less, save more, recycle all, and teach the world to do the same….
I’d like to see a world where EVERYONE would add to this list.
Make it so.
Seems very kind of Sirota to give Obama the “out” that his race prevents him from speaking about class. The mainstream of the Democratic party has actively worked against the use of government to try to address inequalities in our society for some time. Keynes is effectively dead for the Dems; we know that Clinton ascribes to the regressive economic theories of Von Hayek, and nothing in Obama’s platform or Senate record suggests a commitment to the values of his youth.
Any vote to continue the funding of the war in Iraq can only be described as a vote against human rights and social justice at home and abroad. And Obama, Clinton and Edward all voted to fund the war every time. I’ve read the excuses for these votes, and they read like “excuses,” or at best rationales.
So why even bother with the Dems?
The ONLY practical reason is civil liberties, and that may be reason enough for many.
I thought I caught those spelling errors. Dang. Now you won’t consider my ideas.
That’s America for you! LOL!
Thanks for explaining why BHO has always come across to me as someone running a con.
That said, guess he’s the best of our remaining bad choices. America’s prospect for 2008 and beyond has become dismal far too soon.
Edwards only voted once for it JEREMY. He wasn’t in the senate for the followng votes.
Until we have a DRAMATIC change with the system of the elected in Washington DC, nothing of any major substance will change.
A plan, and without the necessary details for brevity purposes.
Senators and Congress people spend most of thier time, raising money for their next election. __That’s a fact.__ Most of that money is used for television ads. ___ Senators should be limited to one eight year term. ___ The house limited to two four year terms. ___ There should be a set amount (?) of money, they are allowed to spend on a campaign and television ads must be illegal.
Members of Congress should not recieve any special health benefits, or outragious pensions for themselves or their spouses. Their health benefits should be the same as ANY Americans who have the least amount of benefits in the United States. ___ They must obtain a set amount of nominating petitions ON THEIR OWN, before being allowed to have their names placed upon a state’s ballot. ___ Lobbying must be eleminated. ___ Our Congress must stay in session at least 48 weeks a year, five days a week. Those in the house who desire to run for a second term, may have another four weeks off to campaign.
Do that, and the two party system will evaporate. __ Do that, and we will have a true Democracy. __ Do that, and We The People will be heard. __ There is no other way that will be either effective or timely.
Although the good people at Common Dreams will print articles written by Nader, it seems hesitant to print any supporting a run by Nader for the presidency. Why? Could Common Dreams be as afraid as the establishment media of getting rid of the 2-party stranglehold on our political system?
Anyway, to compensate, read the following from Counterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/driscoll02082008.html
Oh once again I am dissillusioned. I’m not for Obama or Hillary as of the moment(they are way too similiar). But, it seems that Obama has sold out in order to win the presidency given his background(oh how history repeats itself how many radicals in the 60s become yuppies by the 1980s). I’m very dissapointed, that Obama would be so happy about being against the Iraq War and than like Clinton and Edwards, approve funding for it?(doesn’t this negate his previous stance against it). This just angers me about the entire process because people really do want CHANGE. People are so desparate for change they will believe anything and fail to truly see their candidates that goes for the Clintons and now for Obama. This all begs the question, when will real change get chance from candidates that don’t sell their souls for money(yes I’m talking to you Hillary and Barack)? Ugh maybe McCain should win.
Kem that was a sly ploy to remind white Democrats in South Carolina that Black voters will vote for a black, and to link Obama with Jesse Jackson, who was generally Considered unelectable. It was deliberately injecting race into the contest, following Hillary’s not too subtle suggestion that Martin Luther King was essentially powerless and that only the great white father (LBJ) could create change. Without King leading a movement, LBJ would have sat on his hands. Her remark was meant to minimize King and essentially remind voters only whites can get anything done. Bill Clinton had been attacking Obama for a month, accusing his early objections to the Iraq of being a “fairy tale”. What Bill Clinton was dong was lying. Bill Clinton accused Obama of using “strong arm” tactics in Nevada, when it was the Clinton camp trying to close down the casino caucus sites after the service employees union endorsed Obama. If they had endorsed Hillary, the Clintons would have fought tooth and nail to keep those sites open, but I seriously doubt Obama would have tried to close them. I haven’t seen him fight dirty yet and don’t expect to. He does fight back when attacked, but not dirty. The Clintons don’t care if they cheat voters of the right to vote if they aren’t Clinton voters. It’s like the Democratic party rolling over on their backs for Republicans, but kneecapping any left wing parties.
And to everyone who complains about some of us saying mean things about the Clintons, the Clintons have earned it.
Bye the way sassysue, Hillary’s concern for all the little girls of Afghanistan doesn’t extend to banning cluster bombs. When the ban was tacked on a defense bill, Obama voted to keep it on and Hill voted to strip it out. It had no effect on the defense bill either way, that was a gratuitous vote. All I could guess was she was keeping AIPAC and the military defense industry happy while children are getting their faces blown off.
Man, is Sirota full of crap or what? Talk about twisting history. Everything the Clintons do is painted as malicious, but when Obama does the same things he is just an innocent making his way in a world not of his choosing.
How about a specific comparison? When Senator Dayton of Minnesota proposed Amendment #31 to S.256 (the 2005 Bankruptcy Act) which would cap credit card interest rates at 30%, the Republicans argued that “free-markets” should rule and government should not interfere. Obama voted with the Republicans against the Amendment; Hillary Clinton voted for the Amendment.
Senator Dayton spoke passionately (linked below) about lenders charging vulnerable people 300%, 500%, and even 1000% annual interest rates. Yet, Obama voted against the Amendment to cap rates at 30%.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109Sb6Xhl:e166855:
Later, in the 1-21-08 South Carolina debate with Hillary and John Edwards, Obama first lied about his vote, saying he thought a 30% cap was “too high a ceiling,” and then, after John Edwards challenged the audacious lie, Obama admitted “It didn’t make sense for us to cap interest rates.”
Obama is NOT the working-class candidate in this race. There is no working-class candidate in this race.
KEM - Like the fact that you posted a plan. What we need to do is get people to rally around the plan and work with it just as the ‘founding fathers’ did. Only we include everybody - a real “We the People.” How do we move on from your start?
Corporate control and ownership of both political parties is absolute. Whether the next administration is lead by McCain, Obama, or Clinton, It will be indistinguishable from that of GWB.
~KCUSICK~ I do not see any CURRENT method to have such a plan implimented due to the system already firmly in place in Washington DC. __ I stress the word CURRENT. __ First, someone in Congress would have to submit a bill to change the years anyone was allowed to serve in Congress. Then if the bill was ever put on the floor for a vote, the Congress would be voting to cut their own throats and kill the two party system. We also would need the press and media behind us, we the people, and as long as the press is owned by the Neo-cons, they would never endorse such a plan.
That’s currently, such a plan is just a good wet dream and will never happen. However, if we have a depression, and I fear we will, after the smoke clears and we end up with a military takeover of the government, such a plan may emerge. It MAY, if the new military leader of America that finally rules us is a statesman, then such a plan, combined with our original Costitution and Bill of Rights may be initiated. That’s my opinion, perhaps someone has an opinion that is more optamistic.
~RIVERMAN 101~ Yeah I have one answer for you on your assumptions about John Edwards. Your opinions are exactly that, assumptions about him. Unless of course you have some provable insider information you base your opinions on.
Thanks for the reference Bob K. I would even find Obama less progressive in the economic sphere that say McCain. The rhetoric on interest is the same if one is talking about banking or housing interest rates. Geeze, sometimes it seems he is the reincarnation of Friedman himself. Now if you are one of those progressives that detest those payday loans on every corner of working class communities, thank Obama. It is beyond how so called progressives can not see beyond the false hope.
I agree about David too, he has lost any moral authority of issues pertaining to the working class. If Obama had a R in front of his name he’d be all over him. I just wish he was as concerned about promoting a populist, progressive vision as trying to make sure he has some political cover.
“Sen. Obama on his official campaign website says he will “immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.” The last I heard, removing “combat brigades” could leave as many as 80,000 American troops in Iraq, not to mention the thousands of American mercenaries from companies like CACI, Titan and Blackwater, and a flood of American commercial vultures who have been just as destructive to that war-torn country as the troops and mercenaries have been. Sen. Clinton’s deceitful plan to continue the war and keep U.S. forces in Iraq in perpetuity is not any better than Obama’s. Neither Sens. Clinton nor Obama have agreed even to pledge to get the U.S. military out of Iraq by the end of their first term in 2013! And history is brutally clear on one important point: while Democrats in the last century have often promised to studiously avoid war while campaigning for president, they have never followed through once in office. President Lyndon B. Johnson, for a typical example, campaigned by casting Barry Goldwater as the guy who would turn Vietnam into an all-out war zone, but it was Johnson himself who did that as president. And this “talk peace, wage war” strategy goes way back with the Democratic presidential candidates: Woodrow Wilson in his 1916 campaign for re-election stumped on the slogans, “he kept us out of war,” and “peace with honor.” Yet by April 1917, the United States had entered the war that even Wilson himself later admitted was a fight between international commercial interests over who was to control lucrative international markets. Are the Democratic Party leaders of today any different; any better; any more courageous and committed to creating a world without war, even if corporate profits suffer as a result? Most Americans know at some gut level that for Democratic Party politicians commercial concerns always trump moral concerns or the concerns of the hard-working people. We’ve seen it far too often to deny it, even when we wish it were not so. Both Sens. Clinton and Obama are following a campaign model in regard to the War on Iraq that is most reminiscent of President Richard M. Nixon when in his 1968 campaign he promised to get us out of the Vietnam War in 6 months. That was even quicker than Obama’s 18 month promise. But after Nixon was elected, there were “complications,” just as we can expect there will be “complications” for Sens. Clinton or Obama. When you know in advance that these “complications” will develop unless we are successful at building a powerful and large enough anti-war juggernaut, you can understand why some prefer the brutal honesty of a Sen. John McCain, who is at least truthful about his intentions.
From the perspective of the labor, peace and social justice movements, we are now left with little-to-no maneuvering room within the Democratic Party, the party progressive movements traditionally have looked to since the 1930s for allies and alliances. With the withdrawal of Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson and John Edwards, there is little chance that the pro-people, anti-war position will have any leverage at the Democratic Party nominating convention, not inside the convention hall in any case. The demonstrations outside the hall will probably remind us of the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.
Corporate America has already won the election. With Sens. Clinton, Obama and McCain, their interests are hedged three ways while the rest of us lose on all counts. The presidential campaign will be at the center of the public discourse from now till November 4. We are left with only one reasonable alternative if we hope to force our issues into this year’s national public debate: support the independent peace and justice candidate with the biggest megaphone, Ralph Nader!
Alone, Nader still has huge name recognition and a large and faithful following. If he is joined by the larger social movements, and by the working families so threatened by the acts of a Democratic Congress and Republican president, he could turn that solid base into a powerful campaign for the people insuring that the people’s concerns are addressed. At best, that could be turned into a three way race that would for the first time in a century give the progressive left a much needed face lift, opening up the prospect of building a mass, independent political force to the left of the Democrats. Ask yourself, why do Democratic Party politicians take you for granted? Why do they count on your votes but ignore your needs? Why do they talk like they care about you but act like they care a lot more about your boss? Could it be that you are so utterly dependable to them that they simply have no need to do any more than pretend to address your interests? They make you the same promises election year after election year, yet the rich keep getting richer, the poor, poorer, and the peace, labor, woman’s, minorities’, environmental, and other people’s agendas keep getting the short shrift.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/driscoll02082008.html
Re California.. Sassy Sue.All of My family Lives in Southern California, that is My home state.. They Voted for Obama for ALL the right Reasons, We need Change, and Not Live in the Past.. We are bi-racial in Our family, Latino, and Afro Americans.. Hillary has done NOTHING BUT CREATE A DIVIDE BETWEEN BROWN AND BLACK VOTERS. She is a WARMONGER AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE ONE.. SHE HAS A TERRIBLE RECORD WITH HELPING LATINOS AND BLACKS, NOT TO MENTION THE POOR AND THE DISABLED IN CALIFORNIA . WHEN SHE VISTS CALIFORNIA IS TO GET FUNDING FROM THE RICH AREAS.. IN THE END HOPEFULLY CALIFORNIA WILL DO THE RIGHT THING AND VOTE FOR OBAMA.. GRAN FOR CHANGE, WISCONSIN
RIVERMAN. ___ You are ASSUMING about Edwards reasons for not endorsing ANYONE. I’m sure he knows both Obama and Hillary and their stands on the issues and their voting records far better than most. You have posted your comments about John Edwards several times now, on this and on other threads.
If you wish to know why Edwards has not endorsed Obama, ask him. You don’t know why, so for you to say Edwards is a total phony, if he doesn’t do what YOU deem appropriate, is just your ‘assumptions’.
You have offered nothing of any substance Riverman. The very fact Edwards has not endorsed Obama tells me somethng about Obama. The very fact that our Neo-con press and media favor Obama, tells me even more.
David, your take is not quite accurate.
Obama and Clinton are BOTH DLC corporate, imperialist, free trader Dems.
They’re political twins.
Paul Street and Glen Ford have the best takes on these two middle of the roaders.
So I see that a number of self righteous and “pure” lefties are going to vote their “conscious” and vote for folks who don’t have a chance of winning or just sit it out.Could you kindly go to Hell?I am as critical of the Democrats,as the rest of you. However,unless you are comfortable with a President Warmonger and Certfied Nutcase McCain,you better get over yourselves and help us have a chance of turning this country around.
Dancing fool,
That is anti-democratic voter suppression drivel. It is no more acceptable than trying to suppress the African American or Hispanic vote. I don’t know if you’re dancing, but you certainly play the fool.
Democracy is a two sided process you can’t be against suppressing the vote on the voter end, but then in favor of it on the candidate end. I think we found out in Illinois how much the Democrats are in favor of voter suppression. They refused to give ballots to Green Party members, lied about having them, and hid then under other information. That is the kind of voter suppression that even Republicans would not venture in.
I am not comfortable with a warmonger - Obama, Clinton, or McCain, which is why I’ll vote Nader. I don’t take kindly to fools like yourself trying to take my vote away. If the Democrats are so concerned about the Nader Effect, then they should compete for my vote, not limit my Democratic choices. If they are so concerned about the possibility of a Obama or Clinton spoiling the election for Nader, then they should push IRV based reforms that takes away the likelihood of this happening.
To anyone who believes that Ralph Nader has said he would not run for president if Obama wins the nomination, or who believes that Nader has “said nothing” critical of Obama, watch this clip from MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Mathews”:
(It’s called “Ralph Nader Talks About His Favorite Presidential Candidates” on YouTube.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLzytK6A3Fc&feature=related
Here’s the relevant part (at the end of the clip):
Mathews: Is it possible that Ralph Nader will be part of the Democratic coalition come next summer? Is it possible, if the Democratic nominee is Barack Obama for example, is there a plausibility that you will be out there endorsing him come next November if he were the nominee?
Nader: No, because he doesn’t have the agenda. If Edwards wins, if he wins the whole nomination, and he doesn’t back off — as they do when they win the nomination . . .
Mathews: (garbled) Green Party (garbled).
Nader: Well, people in Iowa have to ask themselves one question: who’s gonna fight for them?
Mathews: You don’t think Barack’s got it.
Nader: It’s enough that millions of voters vote for politicians who vote against their interests. We’ve got to get over that. This issue is about the voters.
Mathews: You have now excluded Barack Obama from the Progressive coalition?
Nader: He’s excluded himself, by the statements he’s made, unfortunately. He’s a lot smarter than his public statements, which are extremely conciliatory to concentrated power and big business.
Mathews: OK, thank you.
Regarding COMarc, thanks for the list of just what Hillary has condoned but I wish the Hispanics would read this list, but they won’t. I won’t vote for Hillary but many women will just because they “think” its time for a woman President. Or they will vote for Obama (the better choice) because he’s black. Stupid reasons and Gloria Steinem should be ashamed. But I will vote for a Democratic President because we don’t need another Republican manning the country. Maybe with a Democratic Pres., Congress will get some courage. Or not. Maybe it will take a strong and power hungry woman like Hillary to get our Congress back on track but you can be sure, scandal will fill the Presidency if and when she is elected.
judi, the problem with Hillary isn’t just the scandals, and I don’t particularly care what the first husband will be up to in the White House. It’s seen plenty over the centuries. It’s her Lieberman-like support of corporate interests. She will throw us overboard for their profits. I’m also concerned about her hawklike stance, although hoping that’s just “tough talk”. But she makes me feel unsafe internationally and robbed domestically. She is running a vicious unethical campaign and I can’t vote for that.
Dancing Fool, are you a fascist who thinks people can’t vote for who they want to see elected? Do I live in a dictatorship where I am required to vote for someone I don’t want to see elected?
kathyodat
This is the difference between a Democrat and a Republican:
Democrat- he will raise taxes for programs(note during the Clinton Tax increase 93, I am a CPA his Hollywood losers made out like bandits). Democrats do not want to lose their money just everyone else is not entiltled to keep theirs. Now i hear about the windfall profits tax, do they remember how Jimmy Carter damned near ruined the economies of several states which in turn killed the Savings and loans?
Republican - cut everyones taxes particularly the wealthiest(have you ever got a job from a poor guy?). Their rates have to be cut more they have more ability to consume, invest, and create wealth(involves other people,ie workers). The poor get plenty of pork, ie Earned income credit. Now most states have a lotter, which is basically a poor tax, i swear that is the most we get out of them.