Profiles in Pusillanimity

Bankruptcy is the only cure for America.

I decided voting Democrat was a very limited option not too long ago, after I read A People's History of the United States in college. I realized, as RichM states, that the "differences" are quite trivial, and sometimes only verbal in nature. In intervention after intervention, the Democrats have either caved or actively participated in empire building. The record on this is quite substantial in length, and most here already are familiar with it. Those who it is new to should try reading some Noam Chomsky or Michael Parenti as a suggestion.

The supreme court nominations and others are still accountable to both houses of congress, and "should" therefore be subject to citizen approval. Of course this does not happen. No matter how many letters and e-mails are sent, phone calls made, enough Dems will cave to the appointment, even if the nominee doesnt say waterboarding is torture(for a quick example that requires no reading of history).

The Democrats are negligent in their duties whenever the issues of most importance(i suppose this is a relative term) come around. Sometimes, such as with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, or with the World Trade Organization, they even initiate and support the issues that are destructive to 98% of the population.

Of course everybody is entitled to ignore things they do not think are important. The killing of Iraqi children(the Clinton way), can be "unimportant" to you, and then I suppose I understand why you vote the way you do. But to expect any half-way human right respecting person to go along with you, and eagerly persuading them to vote against their own values is a damn shame.

I am against the killing of innocent Iraqis by "my" own government.
I am against the approval of corporate rape of other countries by "my" own government.
I will not vote for anybody that supports this. If this "spoils" your election, its your own fucking fault.

Oh, boy... Nancy Pelosi is having an HONESTY MOMENT.... she's tired of the lies, too.... no doubt she's doing it for the Free Toaster Oven..... and an HONESTY MOMENT brought to you by Nancy Pelosi, and Sears-Roebuck.... can YOU say "war is stupid, so let's throw money only at stuff like the arts, education, and needy children?" Very good, kids! Nice work, Mr. Rogers!

I realize that what I am about to say is unpopular here. I do believe that it does need to be said because the balance of progressive ideas is suffering and possibly being derailed because of it. That issue is the organized support of abortion. I am not suggesting ending abortion. What I am suggesting is decoupling it from the progressive agenda. A positive life agenda is key to progressive success. A life agenda includes celebrating life in all of it's dimensions, human, animal, environment, health care, anti-war, healthy foods, etc., and all the complex dimensions of their interactions. By doing so I believe that progressives would draw voters from both Dems and Repubs in the establishment of a new party. If the progressives organize around a comprehensive belief in life, success will follow.

Miss Twinkie Eyes and Mr. Walking Corpse - torpid, weak, useless, should not be getting a paycheck. I am so mad.... I am so not ready to make nice....

I have to collect myself and think of some way to make this anger effective.

You've got to start thinking outside the box to understand the politics of D.C. There are NOT two political parties. There is one political party, with two right wings. The Uncle Buck party. This current batch of political whores are only interested in holding on to their seats. None of them will rock the boat and risk being left off the team. But the author is right when he says this con won't last forever. The sad part is that this con has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
Hoa binh

I wouldn't have used the same lowbrow vernacular that Matt Tabbi did, but he accurately identifies the toxic pattern that has been an essential part of the country's shift to the right.

"The really tragic thing about the Democratic surrender on Iraq is that it's now all but guaranteed that the war will be off the table during the presidential campaign. Once again - it happened in 2002, 2004 and 2006 - the Democrats have essentially decided to rely on the voters to give them credit for being anti-war, despite the fact that, for all the noise they've made to the contrary, in the end they've done nothing but vote for war and cough up every dime they've been asked to give, every step of the way.

Even beyond the war, the Democrats have repeatedly gone limp-dick every time the Bush administration so much as raises its voice. Most recently, twelve Democrats crossed the aisle to grant immunity to phone companies who participated in Bush's notorious wiretapping program. Before that, Democrats caved in and confirmed Mike Mukasey as attorney general after he kept his middle finger extended and refused to condemn waterboarding as torture. Democrats fattened by Wall Street also got cold feet about upsetting the country's gazillionaires, refusing to close a tax loophole that rewarded hedge-fund managers with a tax rate less than half that paid by ordinary citizens.
... In the meantime, of course, we're to remember that they're the good guys, the Republicans are the real enemy, and, well, go Hillary! Semper fi! Yay, team!

I don't understand the tone of this and similar pieces--they rightfully excoriate the democrats for the same long lists of betrayals and spinelessness, and then say the same old 'we're getting tired of this', and then pull their punches, without taking the last and final step--supporting a third party.

People, we're never going to get out of this mess as long as the voters keep enabling them--the two wings of the corporatocracy we're enjoying now. The only way we're going to get viable third parties, whether Greens (my choice) or Libertarians or Socialists or Independents is to actually, you know VOTE for them, break the endless cycle of 'voting for the lesser of two evils', or voting to keep somebody else out, or the fear of throwing your vote away. Voting to endorse and encourage and enable these crooks and liars just condemns us all to more of the same old boss.

The Democrats, as an official party and as represented by the DLC do not represent progressive goals or ideals. Yes, there are some brave progressives (very few), but as long as they stay tied to the Demo party and not break free to form a true progressive third party, it's all just part of the same dog and pony show.

They throw us a Dennis Kucinich once in a while and spout progressive ideals, but with no hope of that person ever getting elected to Preznit, and then they fold like a cheap lawn chair to The Party and toe the line.

I've never voted for a Republican in my nearly fifty years of voting, but that doesn't mean the Democrats automatically get my nod either, I proudly voted for Nader twice, and Perot back in the day, and there's no way I'm voting for either Obama or Hillary this time. No, not even to 'stop McCain' from getting in.

We have one party - a lot of truth to that. So nu, what next? Do we say that Mr. 100 Years War is the same as Ms. Calculatrix and Mr. YesWeCanDoSomethingUnspecified?

seriousprofessor - your analysis lacks a transition. Why Hillary when she is guilty of almost every weakness you raise?

Really, these are questions. I have more questions than answers.

As one who, after much soul-searching, is resolved to embrace lesser-evilism, I reject and deplore this article. I've filled my purse with tissues, condoms, and a tub of Vaseline; I've resolved Not to Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good; I accept that Rome Wasn't Built in a Day, and that sometimes you have to circumnavigate the globe backwards to take one step forward.

I'm prepared to flee the long winter of my discontent, and race-- tack might be the correct term-- towards the rosy-red, uplifting oratorical dawn of the messianic Son of Illinois, or, alternatively, the crisp, cool astringent breezes streaming from the glacial Hardworking Competence of the Valkyrie from the Empire State. Let her roar!

But I can't surmount the slippery slope within the abyss of Morbid Cynicism, Rampant Pessimism, Skepticism, Doubt, Defeatism, and Negativity as long as nihilistic shits like Taibbi (and that RichM) continue to ejaculate the toxic poison of truth onto the future objects of my devotion! I've seen the error of my ways, thanks to all of the sensible realists who regularly express righteous contempt and disdain towards those of us (formerly) unable or unwilling to wise up and pull our heads out of our hopelessly idealistic and self-centered reverence for truth and integrity.

During his brief career as a secretary for Senator Stewart, Mark Twain politely dismissed a letter from a constituent requesting assistance on a church-related matter. Twain suggested that the writer seek help elsewhere-- because "Congress don't know anything about religion". This is a useful microcosm of my own predicament.

Yes, I long to join the ranks of those I've collectively come to refer to as the Impurists. But apart from the personal abnegation of conscience and critical thinking, I've learned all to well on these threads that in order to live with oneself as an Impurist, it is necessary to buy into a transpersonal ethos-- a benevolent groupthink, as it were. One of the legion of Attitude Maintenance correctors recently rebuked a Taibbi-like nay-sayer by observing that this site is called Common Dreams; corrosive and relentlessly downbeat Uncommon Nightmares need not apply.

My former wicked and unregenerate self started to post a riposte to the effect that the site might just as well be named Common Delusions if enabling a soft-progressive Democratic Party echo chamber was the true object of the exercise. But the common denominator to the lesser-evil spectrum ranging from monotonous, robotic Democratic supporters to the wrathful anti-Republicant activists is that faith is the key. Just as Obama has pluralized Sammy Davis Junior's "Yes, I Can" motto, so do the lesser-evilists march under the banner of the late Tug McGraw's axiom: "Ya Gotta Believe!"

So thanks a fucking lot for undermining my conversion, Taibbi, ya prick ya! I'll never obtain salvation as long as there are vicious, irresponsible truth-tellers like you around to harsh my lesser-evil buzz! :(

If I wasn't me, I'd be emkay.

jclientelle - I think seriousprofessor was being
sardonic.

Emkay - the problem with third parties is that Americans are denied information about them. The MSM labels them (or any progressives like Kucinich or Ron Paul) as fringe lunatics at best. On top of that, any third party will be to the left of either the Democrats or Republicans thereby only hurting the Democrats by siphoning off support from the 'lesser of two evils'. Of course a third party is the logical solution to end the governments corporate allegiance, but for that to occur we would need a true democracy free of corporate interference or at least an educated electorate.

Since1492- you said..."But the author is right when he says this con won't last forever." Really? What will end this con? I personally don't see any chance of our nation suddenly being enlightened politically. Do you?

I'm sure the Democrats will do what we want when we give them unlimited power. That's why they aren't challenging the unconstitutional powers Bush has given the executive branch.

This author thinks that if Reid and Pelosi would just trash the military effort in 2008 that it would somehow end the war.
What that would do is ENSURE the election of John McCain and probably a Republican Congress as well to put a new voter "surge" behind some more "surges" lasting for years or decades into the future.
Rolling Stone could do a lot better than this shallow journalism. Real liberals are not that dumb.

There's no hope for third parties until we reform our winner-take-all electoral system. If we had proportional representation, even a party with 5% of the seats in Congress could exert influence on tight votes (like the ones over the War in Iraq). As long as politicians have to cross that 51% threshold to get elected, most people are going to invest their votes in existing parties that already have the (corporate) dollars and infrastructure necessary to even have a shot at winning. The system we live under was designed - intentionally or otherwise - to limit discourse and slow down those who would seek radical change. In short, more stability at the cost of (arguably) less democracy. We should look at the best aspects of European parlimentary democracies (greater debate and representation) and combine them with the best aspects of our system (fixed terms and offices that favor stability.

So Harry and Nancy finally came out of the closet. Whoop De Doo! Why is anyone outraged about this? The outrage is what they've been doing all along. Anyone who hasn't noticed they've been stonewalling for a year wasn't paying attention. ActBlue is a progressive PAC that directs donations to designated progressives. Oregon has a progressive running, Steve Novick. Could use some money. We need to work for progressives. Electing jerks like Nancy and Harry and then "demanding" they do the right thing didn't exactly work like a charm as some dreamers on these sites have proposed.

Daniel David, what's your Plan B?

kathyodat

Harry and Nancy and Hillary don't want the war to end. They want to appease the public and feed the insatiable corporate appetite for profits and war is by far the most profitable.

Get with it. The public is uninformed and generally indifferent until they notice their wallet has been emptied. Yeah, they oppose the war, but not enough to do anything about it. They oppose torture, but not enough to do anything about it. But with our economy threatening to go into freefall, they may stir themselves into some sort of action. And just to be safe, the corporations are arming themselves with private security and everyone seems to be arming themselves with tasers. Rapids coming up on this river.

Daniel David, that is the most mealymouthed post I've seen yet out of you. I never thought you were paid by the DLC but now I'm wondering.

kathyodat

If you support peace and justice, you can't support the democratic party. Or you can, but they won't support you.

The democratic party leadership has been pulling a Charlie Brown on progressives for the last 20 years. They say, 'hey, we are the only ones who support you' yet when elected fail to do so. Just like Lucy pulling the football away, each and everytime. And yet, each time Charlie Brown feels hopeful that may this time they won't pull the ball away. WAKE UP.

Now more than ever is the time to support a third party that puts peace and justice ahead of corporate interests.

If the evidence and direction of our government/corporate policies aren't bad enough to convince most people that we are on an unacceptable path, then there is no evidence that can convince the current crop of voters.

Get off the fence - http://www.wordsareimportant.com/getoffthefence.htm

so it goes...

Denying the Dems your vote - so possibly the election - in 2008 is slashing off both your nose and ears to spite your face. Forget punishing them as a modus operandi. The time to use your anger for momentum, exercise your convictions and develop an alternative is NOT at general election time when the stakes are as otherworldly high as they are now. No rational person should believe for a second that there is no substantial distinction between Clinton, Obama and McCain on the biggest stuff (our suicidal imperalism). Was there a substantial distinction between Gore and Bush? Does anyone believe we'd be where we are today if Al Gore had proceeded into office instead of George W. Bush? This election is about collective responsibility for the actions of our government. We are, first and foremost, obliged to impeach (no,it will never be too late). We are then obliged to clear the decks of our electoral process of all the corrupt and dysfunctional impediments to a certifiable election (back to paper ballots!). Finally, we are obliged to choose the LEAST HARMFUL of the candidates who've progressed this far in a very flawed process. Right now, every anti-war Democrat who has not yet participated in a primary or caucus should see to it that Barack Obama defeats Hillary Clinton in their primary, so that there is virtually no possibility that John McCain will be elected President. This is our responsibility to each other and to the world. Idealism is crucial to our evolution as a culture, but this presidential election is not the time to stand on it to the exclusion of all other considerations. After Obama is elected President it will be time to go to work with your idealism and creativity fully engaged.

"Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history, Reid explained..."

Tom Daschle must be so happy that his crown has finally been passed on...

Hey, Daniel David IS a plant, whether offically or otherwise. Just take him on, folks. It's not hard to take down his arguments and it's unnecessary to personalize it.

emkay wrote: "They throw us a Dennis Kucinich once in a while and spout progressive ideals, but with no hope of that person ever getting elected to Preznit ..."

First of all, there is no "they" who "threw us" Dennis Kucinich. There is just Dennis Kucinich, who chose to run for the Democratic nomination to (1) put progressive policies like ending the US occupation of Iraq, and establishing "Medicare For All" single-payer nonprofit medical insurance, into the primary campaign discussion, and (2) to as a vehicle to build and organize a progressive grassroots political constituency within the Democratic Party. And in spite of the resistance from the Democratic Party establishment and the corporate media, Kucinich had some degree of success on both counts.

Second of all, while it's true there was "no hope" of Kucinich getting the nomination, let alone being elected President, there is also no hope that a Green Party presidential nominee will be elected President. The Green Party is quite well aware of this, and in the 2004 election the Green Party nominees David Cobb (for President) and Pat LaMarche (for Vice President) used their campaign much as Kucinich used his primary campaign: to bring progressive ideas into the public discussion and to help build and organize the grassroots Green Party. They did not campaign in close states, so as to avoid helping Bush by splitting the Democratic/progressive vote with Kerry, and instead focused their campaign on helping Greens who were running for local and state offices.

I am a registered Green Party voter, and also a strong Kucinich supporter. In my view, there is not an either/or situation with (1) building a progressive movement within the Democratic Party and (2) building a progressive third party. I believe that progressives need to do both, and that these paths can be complementary and synergistic. What any individual chooses to do depends on their own situation, inclinations, and the opportunities available to them to get involved in party/electoral politics.

And I would suggest not focusing exclusively on national (eg. Congressional and Presidential) elections, and getting involved in local and state elections as well. Most of the serious, active Green Party people I know are focused on electing Greens to local and state offices, where the barriers are somewhat lower, where door-to-door people-power grassroots organizing and campaigning can play a more effective role, and where it is actually possible to get some people elected (see the official US Green Party website at www.gp.org for a list of Greens currently holding elected office). Many progressive Democrats are also organizing locally and effectively to elect progressive Democrats to local and state office.

A successful Progressive-Democratic, Green politics has to be cultivated from the grassroots up.

dolkar___ I agree with much of what you say. It is vitally important that we get one of the Dems elected to prevent even four more years of this destruction of our country.

However, I am not so sure that Obama is far ahead of Hillary in being electable in the general election. The Repubs have already dug up all there is to throw at Hillary, but just imagine all of the new dirt there will be available to dump on Barack.

The Repugs turned war-heroes into lying traitors in 2004 so they have shown us what they are capable of doing to grab another Presidency (or dictatorship). Don`t be too sure that Obama is an unbeatable candidate.

Amazing ! A new poll indicates the majority of Americans now realize that getting out of Iraq will help restore the economy. How strange that neither the Presidential candidates or Congress understand the basic math on deficit military spending.

The imperial war criminals are burning up about $4 Billion (Iraq/Afghanistan) a week as debt that must be paid back with interest. And other than profits for the military complex this money does not get circulated within the domestic economy.

Every time a bomb goes off or a bullet is fired, that is money disappearing.

We are already experiencing "war" related inflation and devaluation of our currency. The occupation of Iraq has also raised rather than lowered crude oil prices thus crippling the economy with high energy costs. Etc.

If the money wasted on imperial aggression was circulated within the domestic economy for beneficial purposes such as health care, education, developing public utilities or infrastructure improvements, every penny spent would be circulated within the economy over and over again in productive ways.

And a new twist has developed in Russia. Due to American global aggression, the Russians are now ready to get back into the arms race. Imagine how we would feel if Russians began building military bases in Mexico. We now have new bases not only in Afghanistan but other Central Asian countries which creates an American military presence on Russia's southern border.

But as Chalmers Johnson explains so well in "Sorrows Of Empire" the global American system of 700 military bases is now seen by most nations as a threat rather than any form of protection or stability. And this tax subsidized imperial system consumes more money than the "empire" brings back to the American economy.

We can no longer afford to subsidize the military industrial Big Oil complex warfare state.

And in case you missed it, here is one evil Democrat, Feinstein, who put war money directly into her husband's pocket.

War Contracts Feinstein/Blum:

http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/

In the spirit of Mount Rushmore I propose Mount Azzmore. There the dumb azzez of Ried and Pelosi could be forever enshrined. Small desk models could be sold to finance the larger project.

BeForKids,

We're on the same side, remember? Barack Obama.

You will make progress on ending the war when you get a Dem president. Not until. And you know it. What's with all the beefing? If you demand that Reid and Pelosi literally PREVENT Barack from being elected by energizing every gungho warrier in the country to vote McCain, there is no progress.

dolkar,

I am not a "plant". As for your call to "take down his arguments", go at it. I wish you and all my other critics would actually do that. Most of them, now you, find it so much easier to rail at DD than to make any sense with any substance. (Advance Hint: Third party "solutions" are not "solutions.")

RichM wrote: dolkar & others (12:57 ) echo the tired old argument, trotted out like clockwork at every election, that "No rational person should believe for a second that there is no substantial distinction between Clinton, Obama and McCain on the biggest stuff (our suicidal imperalism)…"

Anyone ever notice how the rhetoric of Dem supporters becomes more shrill as the distinction between the Democrats and the GOP becomes less and less?

Post above would have us believe there is no difference between Democratic Supreme Court Judges and Republican Supreme Court Judges. Ever heard of Scalia?

Another great article by Matt Taibbi. The leaders and the majority of the Democratic Congress are impotent, by their own choice, because they value (misguided) politics above human life. It's shameful.

DD (Advance hint: Third part "solutions" are not "solutions").

Maybe not, but a second party would be a start.

I have never heard of the (supposed) anti-war movement group referred to in this article. Please distinguish these apparently K-Street astro-turfers from real anti-war groups (United for Peace and Justice, Military Families, all those who are organizing the Moratorium Days, etc. etc. etc.). Don't tar the entire anti-war movement with the sell-out brush. It just makes people think they shouldn't bother to turn out for demonstrations -- and blame "those anti-war activists" for the politicians' decisions.

In the contest between the Big Money few vs. the rest of us, we don't stand a chance. Do we contract lots of lawyers, own the major media and have a monopoly on information, bribe all 545 politicians in DC, own the M/I/I complex, our energy, our food, health care, shelter, educational corporations, banks and so on? NO! We may own a few shares, but they own controlling interest.

When Big Money does something really nasty, we may get up in arms about it and cause a temporary change. But it's just that, temporary because Big Money invariably makes the rules.

So all this stuff about progressives doing something about this or that is just talk. There is nothing we can do under a government duopoly that represents the business oligarchy over the people. Nothing that is, unless we stop this fatal attraction with representative government and quit relying on politicians to rescue our collective asses, knowing that really doing that will get them figuratively or actually killed.

The only solution I see is to represent ourselves direct democratically via modern communications like this one. And the easiest way to organize is to incorporate We the People into the largest, most powerful corporation that makes the rules. Until liberals and progressives recognize these things, the only way they will ever acquire power is to become the money-power, the antithesis of liberal thought.

RichM and others__ Just how many decades do you think it will take to dismantle the two party system we now have and replace it with the Greens, or combination of several others? The present system, for all of its faults, took decades to get to its present state and short of revolution, will be around for awhile.

The main thrust of many posts lately has been to discredit one of the Dem candidates or the the other (usually Hillary) as not being a fit candidate for office. That is a total waste of time as either would be a world better than any Republican.

The difference, for anyone that would like our country to survive, is between electing either Dem as opposed to having four or eight more years of ruination by the same bunch of criminals we have now.

Common Dreams are a great thing for us all, but we will not have a country to dream about if we cannot stop this present erosian of our assets, principles, and opportunities. It would seem that for any change to occur in the two party system, the minority groups should combine so that they had a better chance to throw some weight in the elections.

Oh HELL YA! Excellent article! Beautifully said! KUDOS!!! Big Stars!!!

Bend-over_crats:
Retreat, capitulate, curtail, withdraw, recant, repudiate, fall back, retire, submit, renounce, relinquish, yield, quit, fail, expire, abandan, resign, abdicate, accommodate, acquiesce, appease, come to terms, concede, cop out, crumble, deliver, demise, drop, dump, forgo, fork over, forswear, forsake, get rid of, give away, give in, give over, go down, grant, hand-over, hand in, lay down, part with, punt, quitclaim, release, renunciate, settle, sissys, sign over, spineless, split the difference, strike a bargain, succumb, throw up, transfer, vacate, waive, weaklings, white feather, white flag, yield, get screwed, hosed, shagged, chicken, Milquetoast, craven, invertebrate, gutless, spead eagle on the hood of an old pick-up truck sporting a Conferate flag and gun rack…….

Or more succintly, just bend over.

I say, lets make all of them irrelevant. Throw the bums out! Vote for the enemy - do a write-in, send an email. Take no prisoners. The next town or community meeting, all you "activist" need to get vocal with these elected officials. Better yet, run for office against them - that'll show 'em.

It's not about a third party emerging to replace one of the two corporate parties. It's about taking away the power of the corporate shills running the Democratic Party in the name of the DLC, etc. Take away their power by denying them electoral victories and we begin the process of taking back the party for the people, a process that was derailed after the '72 election, when they used the defeat of true progressive George McGovern to change the rules to prevent a true People's candidate from ever becoming the nominee again.

We need to deny them a victory in November to begin the process of taking away their power once and for all. Vote Green as a protest, as a way to put a number with our discontent. As long as the DLC candidates continue to win, we cannot mount an effective insurgency to take the party back. They have to lose power to be defeated. We may have to wander in the wilderness for awhile to gain control of the party. The neo-cons did it for a lot of years before they finally won with Reagan in '80. Yes, we face great issues and problems, but neither side is addressing the truly life-threatening World-wide problems of peak oil, overpopulation, corporatism, and other looming economic and environmental disasters. Everything else is just fiddling around the margins.

Matt Taibbi is a fine journalist who doesn't spin the truth. This often makes people uncomfortable, but democrat or republican, Mr. Taibbi calls them as he sees them. Looks like he hit a raw nerve with Daniel David who consistently supports the democratic professional liars while vilifying the republican ones.

Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of their worthless ilk enjoy their powerful jobs because they promised their democratic sheeple that they would tighten the purse strings on Bush's crony capitalism and rapacious assault on the middle class, investigate corruption and administer justice, consider impeachment, and begin to end this illegal war. Instead, they've done NOTHING but enable further corruption and the dismantling of the US Constitution. They used their constituents in 2006 by making insincere promises (LIES) in effort to oust unpopular republicans. It worked. The only difference is that now the Democratic elite can enjoy the power too, winking and nodding along with their colleagues-in-crime, the Republican fat cats, at the never-ending stupidity of the American public. You can't make this stuff up.

I've said this before and it obviously bears repeating. Anyone who believes that the current Democratic party is even remotely different, morally or politically, from the current conscience-challenged Republican party probably still leaves notes for Santa along with milk and cookies at Christmas, our national celebration of American excess and crony capitalism. I bet you still think Christmas is about the birth of somebody's god? Get real! "It's the capitalist's economy, Stupid!" It's just another charade. I digress.

Like Bush, et al, John McCain is a reactionary phony. The only differences between John McCain and Hillary Clinton are age and gender. When the public finally alters its misguided (non)thinking and dispenses with this brainwashed nonsense that the US government--We the People--is a representative democracy, and that the people's votes actually count, perhaps they will recognize the link between this charade of oppositional parties and fascism.

Third or even fourth parties are the obvious answer. They don't have to win the elections to act as spoilers who won't listen to their party. Ross Perot spoiled the election for George HW Bush, and Ralph Nader spoiled the election for Al Gore. The Democratic and Republican parties should have to stand up for their constituents desires or risk their support being split by spoilers. This is as it should be. There are just two many anti-war (80%) Democrats who are being ignored by the entire Democratic leadership. They should pay a huge price for this.

Dear Folks -

There are so few people writing on Common Dreams blogs that I feel I know some of you personally, which is indicative of how few we are. Sigh.

We are without satisfactory answers for this election. Yes, both major parties support imperialism and corporatism and fail to serve the population with some differences in detail and extent. Yes we need third Party alternatives. And yes it is especially difficult where there are no structural provisions for minorities as there are in Parliamentary systems.

So for now can we agree that we have no fully satisfactory approach at hand in the electoral arena today? We can vote or not vote for the Democrats, but it is palliative at best, not curative. We can vote for a Third Party knowing it is a symbolic act of conscience and no threat to Dems and Republicans. Whether electing a Democrat will make a substantive difference in one life or many lives or whether it creates illusions that halt growth of consciousness and sidetracks struggle for real solutions, these are eternal questions regarding reform, charity work etc. These will continue to be questions as long as we are marginal. So can we give some leeway for people to disagree honestly on this issue?

So in any case we can agree that we need to have more control, we need to organize, regardless of who is elected? To create a third party or many third parties WORK is in the picture. Long term, patient work. First you have to get at least three people to agree on what the party will stand for. Reading these blogs, that looks almost impossible to me. So we will have to ramp down the egotism a bit and find what we can agree on. We will have to show respect and develop together as we go.

But for now, I believe we have to publicly press candidates on the Peace issue and other issues in any way we can to expose candidate's positions and take the public discourse where we want to to be. Otherwise we are completely capitulating on the elections, which is capturing the attention of the people more than ever before in recent memory.

re: jclientelle (11:19)

"seriousprofessor - your analysis lacks a transition. Why Hillary when she is guilty of almost every weakness you raise?"

Simply, I do not advocate for Hillary Clinton. You apparently are reacting to a part of the article I quoted, one which contains obvious sarcasm.

Cindy Sheehan is running against Pelosi as "decline to state"--

http://www.cindyforcongress.org/article.php?list=type&type=12

I think her victory would be, arguably, as significant as a Democrat winning the presidency. It is a very important race and one where the corrupt and complicit Democrats could be put on notice.

The theory that having a right-wing Republican driving the country into the ground would be about grassroots resistance has been shown to be false, perhaps partly because of the force of the corporate media.

That said, I suspect we would be better off as organizers & protesters if McCain was NOT the president. And I think Obama is more progressive than Clinton in terms of their voting records. According to recent polls, Obama has better odds to beat McCain. The differences between these three leading contenders are significant and I see no need to gloss over them. I don't understand why others who are critics of the Democrats want to simplify the complexity of the distinctions. There is no need to do so and it is not persuasive.

I agree, as SecularAnimist wrote, that we should "[focus] on electing Greens to local and state offices, where the barriers are somewhat lower, where door-to-door people-power grassroots organizing and campaigning can play a more effective role, and where it is actually possible to get some people elected (see the official US Green Party website at www.gp.org for a list of Greens currently holding elected office)."

I favor the development of third parties and feel that we must ultimately create a powerful alternative to the corruption of democratic party politicians like Reid and Pelosi.

I want to see the GP run a strong presidential candidate. Push the presidential race to the left by running a real campaign, not like last time.

The GP (and other third parties) should demand to be in the presidential debates. I don't think there should be worry about the spoiler effect because people have the ability to sort out how close the race is, whether or not their commitment to a third party candidate and their own ideals is stronger than their feelings about the importance of having the Democratic Party candidate secure the presidency.

Corruption at the level of the Diebold machine is possible but now no one need be naive about that matter and can factor it into their voting decision.

Fighting for hand counted paper ballots and electoral reforms is another issue that third parties can raise that the Democrats and Republicans will not.

I believe there is room for a multifaceted approach--and without vitriol and hatred.

re: Kernel (4:02) - "The main thrust of many posts lately has been to discredit one of the Dem candidates or the the other (usually Hillary) as not being a fit candidate for office. That is a total waste of time as either would be a world better than any Republican."

Let us assume that your premise here is correct, even though I happen not to think so.
In such a case, we still need to understand that "better" is constituted by a series of intolerable positions.
A rational person will try to figure out how we've gotten to this point. I argue that settling for Democrats who move successively rightward is a meaningful contributor to this situation. The Dems are now to the right of Nixon. The comparative term "better" has been rendered meaningless.

How exactly is more rightward drift any answer to more than a generation of rightward drift? For all rational discussants, it is not.

RichM: Are there any Democrats that are wide-aware of their party's true nature and are completely happy to service it's needs? Where did they learn of it's nature, and how did it become so?

seriousprofessor__I also am disapointed in the candidates we have left to vote for, as I had another in mind. I do think the American people need to blame themselves somewhat for the problems we have as they fell for the right wing propaganga which made it more difficult to work against in Congress.

As for no difference in the two parties, I do not remember the Democrats undfer Clinton handing the entire surplus to their cronies and then starting an endless war and charging it to their kids, as the Bushies have done.

Anyone that cannot understand the difference in balancing the budget and creating a surplus as Clinton did and adding four or five trillion to the national debt as Bush did is not trying very much.

It is not only the President, but also the people around him that matter, with the Repubs we have more of the same fiasco.

Hillary sucks. Please, please DONT vote for her. Since 1988: only a Bush or a Clinton. ENOUGH. Give a somebody else a chance: isn't that what democracy is about? Seems like we live in a monarchy more than a democracy nowadays. I knew America was seriously adrift after the 2004 election results--but to see people so naive as to actually vote for Hillary Clinton is unbelievable. People: WAKE UP to how Clinton and Bush administrations have worked together to further a SINGLE AGENDA. There is no difference: Hillary Clinton will pick up where GW Bush left off.

Below are the hedged words from the Obama and Clinton campaigns. I'm not satisfied with this but lately McCain has spoken of a 100-year war.

Obama and Clinton sound very similar but Obama is slightly less vague about not building permanent bases and saying combat troops out in 16 months. Both talk about "strikes" against AQ targets.

OBAMA:
Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama 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. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

CLINTON:

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families.

Why is it so hard for Dear Party Dem-at-all-costers to realize that their beloved party is another wing of the war and money party?
Because their party's branding includes pseudo-liberalism they have to make feints in the direction of appearing to be anti-war, but they support it wholeheartedly. War is good for corporate America and corporate America is good for underwriting campaigns. You aren't going to get very far with a run for higher office if you actually make a genuine stand against war.
Dems hide behind the ruse of incompetence that Taibbi seems to fall for. They are not incompetent. They want war.
The worst thing that can be said about them is that they didn't have the guts to greenlight the wetdreams of the PNAC but now that they have been greenlighted, they have done and will continue to do precious little to stop the war.
Especially now that "the surge is working" according to corporate media CW.

Take that, Tom Hayden. Cynical Democratic Party manipulates the antiwar constituency, and Taibbi demonstrates the point.

The rah-rah Democrats posting here need to get a clue. The Democrats in Congress, except for a handful, heartily supported these wars for years. They don't represent you, and they won't in the future, no matter how many "inspiring" speeches are delivered.

Look at the candidates' records and then talk about who will represent your interests in the future. It's the ugly truth that they don't and won't. Get used to it. And vote Green, by the way.

"Even Americans can't be fooled forever."

Wasn't it Mark Twain who said you would never go btoke underestimating Americans?