Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Not-So-Simple Twist of Fate: Could Hillary Bequeath Us Our Long-Awaited Third Party?
Oh boy. Where have I seen this movie before?
I think it was four years, surprisingly enough. Hey, what a coincidence! Wasn't there a presidential election going on back then, too?
Remember how Howard Dean came out of near total obscurity, how he started walloping the presumptive front-runner, John "Fearless" Kerry, by taking bold positions (at least in the context of American politics) against the war, and against George W. Bush? Remember how Kerry changed his tune to ape Dean's message, and how nervous Democratic voters played it safe and came home to the guy with the experience and the name brand? Remember what an outstandingly effective candidate he then turned out to be? Remember the "real deal"? (Oh, and what a deal it was. I think experienced card players refer to that hand as a 'jack-shit straight, seven high', if I'm not mistaken.)
Is this ringing any bells for anyone?
Only Democrats could lose the White House in 2008. It's hard to imagine a more perfect storm favoring their decisive, landslide victory. This should be 1932 redux, and then some. There's a reviled incumbent from the opposite party, already past his expiration date four years ago when he stole a second election. There's a new nominee from that same party joined to him at the hip on the most important issues, and stupid enough to be seen as such publicly. There's the economy heading into a recession after years of lethargy for the middle class. An extremely unpopular war based on lies. A massive national debt. A housing crisis. An environmental crisis. Gas at well over three bucks a gallon. Oil over $100 a barrel. The dollar at record lows and plummeting. Pension stocks falling and cities falling apart - when they're not literally drowning. Scandals everywhere in the Republican Party. Three-fourths of the country believing America to be on the wrong track. And more. Put it all together and it's an amazing scenario! It's like some poli-sci professor somewhere was tinkering around with a real-life statistical model, setting all the variables at max to see how big a blow-out is theoretically possible. "Hey, I wonder what happens if...?"
It's a perfect, perfect storm. And then along came Hillary. Look, I certainly don't object to her running if she wants to. But I do object to how she's running, and I think Democratic voters are as dumb as a bag of hammers sitting out in the rain to pull the handle for her. In this year of the great political tsunami, Republicans have managed to - inadvertently, it would seem - choose their best hope to hold on to the presidency, even if they can't quite stand their own choice. Hillary would be the Democrats' worst hope.
She would go into the general election with all sorts of pre-existing baggage and negatives. She would get smashed to pieces by McCain on the very voter selection criteria she herself has articulated for use against Obama: experience and national security. McCain could virtually take her 3:00 a.m. ad, pull her out and drop himself in, and use it against her. And he will. Her candidacy is already ugly to contemplate, and she hasn't even released her tax filings yet. Aren't Democrats just brilliant? Hey, maybe she can get Kerry to be her running mate! Perhaps Bob Shrum is free these days, and can finally push himself into double digits on his personal best lifetime count of presidential races lost (with zero wins), by managing the campaign.
But it's not just Democrats going with the Clintons that alarms me, it's how they might win it. It is almost a mathematical certainty that neither candidate can win the nomination by means of gathering pledged delegates in the months ahead. Under the proportional allocation system Democratic primaries and caucuses tend to use, a candidate has to do exceedingly well in the popular vote to realize a significant shift in delegates. It would appear that Clinton's got some favorable states ahead, and that Obama has as many or perhaps more, unless momentum has really shifted now, after Tuesday. I tend to doubt that is the case, unless Obama goes all Massachusetts at this point, like Kerry and Dukakis, and stands by helplessly watching the steamroller as it relentlessly approaches. In which case, fine, anyhow - get the clown off the stage, he's not ready for prime-time. As a tired American progressive, worn down by disappointment across more decades of losing politics than I care to count, I can abide many things. But one of them is not another wimpy Democratic presidential nominee who gets out-slugged by the latest Karl Rove and manages yet again to seize defeat from the jaws of victory.
Anyhow, let's say we end the primary season about where we are now, with Obama about 100 delegates up, and having won more votes and more states than Clinton, but with neither candidate over the magic nomination-clinching line. It would be fairly outrageous for the Clintons to seize the brass ring at that point, but they will not care in the slightest what the ramifications of their actions might be for the party or the country. The Clintons will do anything - and I mean anything - to get the presidency. This is a sickness that infects the hearts and minds of some people much more than others. Because of their own needs, most prominently a very deep-seated personal insecurity, they simply need the validation of being president, and they go after it like a heat-seeking missile headed toward a power plant.
You don't want to get in their way, man. Road kill is no mere metaphor when someone's intensely-held life aspiration is on the line and their moral bearings got tossed overboard sometime back in their twenties. You don't get that sense of desperate pathological need from, say, Jimmy Carter or George McGovern, while individuals like George H. W. Bush or Richard Nixon fairly reeked of it. In the case of Bush the Elder, clearly the whole point of being president was to be president. He didn't seem to have any ideas of what to do with the office once he got there. In the case of his son, the whole point was to do it better than Dad, and so he had lots of completely insane ideas of what he wanted to do once he got there, particularly in areas like taxes and Iraq, where Poppy had screwed up on the way to losing a second term (amateur!).
The Clintons are very much cut from the same cloth as Old Man Bush. Actually doing something in office is incidental to the main project, which is the psychological satisfaction (and reassurance) that comes from all the attention, glory and power attached to the White House. Compared to that overwhelming goal, they no more care about national health care than does Sean Hannity. If they can win by going single-payer, so be it. If they could win by war, the death penalty and welfare slashing instead, they would. Indeed, they have. The point is that the Clintons will do anything to secure the presidency, even if that includes wrecking that part of the Democratic Party they didn't already wreck during the 1990s, and/or tossing a few body blows in the direction of American democracy. The definitive model here is the 2000 election, and the campaign I'm referring to wasn't Al Gore's, ladies and gentlemen. More like the other one in that race. Anyone with any doubt about what they're capable of needs to adjust the satellite dish on their igloo, and fast. (If she does leave the race, it's only because she absolutely cannot see any mathematical possibility of winning whatsoever, and she wants to preserve some shred of her reputation because - and only because - she'll be getting ready for 2012. Even if there's Democratic incumbent in the White House. Maybe especially if there is.)
Far more likely is that Clinton remains in the race, keeps it competitive by staying within range delegate-wise, and marches all the way to Denver fighting for the nomination. Then she plays some card, or combination of cards, in order to effectively steal it from Obama, despite his having won more states, more votes and more pledged delegates. Perhaps she does it using superdelegates. Perhaps she manages to get Florida and Michigan counted. Perhaps she sues to invalidate her loss in the Texas caucuses. Perhaps John Edwards (with anywhere from 12 to 61 delegates pledged to him, depending on whose count you believe) wants very badly to be Vice President or Secretary of State. Perhaps Bill cuts some sort of deal in a smoke-filled room somewhere. Maybe it goes to the Supreme Court for resolution (you know, those nice people in black robes who gave you the George W. Bush presidency), and they decide in her favor. Most likely she employs a combination of all these gambits, and collectively they could possibly give her enough delegates for a narrow technical (and very Pyrrhic) victory.
If any of these scenarios play out, Obama should leave the Democratic Party and run as a third-party candidate. Simple as that.
It would be the morally proper thing to do, and it just might even be successful, especially in the longer term.
If this seems an improbable quest, remember that Obama's support is quite passionate - he's not just your standard-issue marginal political preference for, say, Joe Biden over Chris Dodd. Nor would this be some personal (and absurd) vanity project, like Ross Perot's. His supporters would be outraged at the stealing of the nomination from its rightful owner, and they're a motivated bunch. Black voters would feel particularly slighted, and would be likely to follow Obama elsewhere. That alone would be enough to finish off the already badly-damaged Clinton candidacy in the general election. Given this moral high ground, too, I don't think Obama would be perceived as the Ralph Nader who gave the election to McCain. Perhaps, because of access restrictions, he wouldn't even be able to get on the ballot in many places, except as a write-in.
In the end, I don't think it much matters. If he can't win in 2008, the country will be ripe for the taking after four years of John McSame. And Obama has shown us nothing this last year if not excellence in organizing skills. There's plenty of time by 2012 to give birth to a real progressive party that has been aching to calve off from the Democrats for three decades now. If the Clintons and the Liebermans of this world want to hang tight with their DLC party of Diet Pepsi Wall Street, let them. If they feel a burning compulsion to become the Whigs of the 21st century, I for one won't stand in the way.
The idea of a third party alternative has long been a dream of progressives in America. It has also too often been a fantasy and a distracting albatross. Particularly since the Bill Clinton era of centrist sell-out - but really going back to the Reagan period of Democratic cowardice, the McGovern campaign of entrenched Party power acting shamelessly toward their nominee, and certainly the Johnson debacle in Vietnam - progressives have been looking to ditch the shell of the former New Deal now doing business as the corroded (and corrosive) Democratic Party.
Unfortunately - really, very unfortunately - it's an almost impossible trick to pull off given the structure of the American political system, and I have joined lots of other smarter people counseling against the effort, suggesting an attempt at hijacking the Democratic Party instead. Not for nothing was the last new major party born in America 150 years ago. It's not an accident that for about three-fourths of the country's history it's been Republicans or Democrats. Period.
Oddly enough, however, this is probably the year when the country could come closest in a long time to seeing the birth of a genuine third party. Theoretically, at least - if the right sequence of events transpired. It's probably a long-shot, and not my personal preference for the short-term, but it is feasible; it's probably the only way to imagine overcoming the considerable institutional barriers to creating a third party in America, and doing so would be just the shot of adrenalin this decrepit old political system needs. Moreover, there are - believe it or not - still some folks out there who don't yet get the damage done by conservatism in America. Another four years of the same may be just the tonic to finally seal that deal forever.
So, let me see here. We'd have a destroyed Republican Party, a destroyed Democratic Party, and a new progressive, "Fired-Up!" party rising out of their ashes. We could do a lot worse than that. And we could thank Hillary Clinton for it all, if it happens.
Sometimes a silver-lining can turn into a whole pot of gold.
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.
127 Comments so far
Show AllSeriousprofessor, there was not actually much of a debate about Obama's relationship to lieberman, except that you were wrong in this remark:
"Obama's support of Lieberman is old news. He supported Lieberman against the anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. His closeness to his Senate mentor is beyond dispute."
In fact, he supported Lamont over Lieberman, contrary to your posting. Now you'd like to toss that off -- I understand, but your egregious error kind of spreads to your other comments as well. His 'closeness' to his 'Senate mentor' is also very much in dispute. Exactly what has Obama done for Lieberman?
"You might also stop and think about your last sentence. If he had to ask that his name be taken off DLC material (and I note here that you don't say that he quit the group), then it had to get on that material in the first place."
The DLC wanted him to be part of their group and, in anticipation, printed up some material with his name on it ithout asking him. He sent them a letter asking that his name be removed -- he was NEVER a memebr of the DLC to begin with, so he couldn't quit that group.
If you're going to play snidely knowledgeable, you should actually have some knowledge of the subject you're snidely addressing.
IS ANYONE INTERESTED IN VOTING BASED ON FACTS?
AGAIN, WE MUST PLEAD: READ, READ, READ their VOTING RECORDS!!!!!
RSJ, I see that when pressed, you agree with me that Obama won't be forming or joining a third party. I reiterate that progessive third parties already exist for those who want them.
I'm not sure why you want to debate about Obama's relationship with Lieberman. I'm quite aware that once Lamont got the nomination, Obama stopped campaigning for his pro-war Senate mentor and formally, at least, expressed support for his party's nominee (wink, nudge). That does not change the fact of his support for Lieberman.
You might also stop and think about your last sentence. If he had to ask that his name be taken off DLC material (and I note here that you don't say that he quit the group), then it had to get on that material in the first place.
I know, I know: they held him down and made him be DLC.
Seriousprofessor, perhaps you should do some academic research with 'the Google.'
First of all, while Obama made some speeches for Lieberman in March, 2006, he came out for Ned Lamont when he became the Dem nominee. The Washington Post story from Oct. 26, 2006 is here:
"Lamont Gets Help From Obama"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601187.html
Furthermore, Ned Lamont is now supporting Obama for president; Lieberman is decidedly not.
The 'mentor/protege' slice does not take into account how that relationship was forged; freshmen US Senators have a 'mentor' appointed for them by the party; Obama did not pick Lieberman as his mentor, Lieberman was chosen for him and, when one of Lieberman's most important bills came up for a vote, Obama did not vote for it, yet Hillary Clinton did.
You also may have read that Obama backed a progressive Dem in Illinois who just won Denny Hastert's 'safe' Republican seat in Congress, Bill Foster.
To respond to your March 7, 4:04pm comment, no, I don't think Obama will run as a third party candidate; he's doing pretty well as a Democrat right now. However, he is not a DLC Dem -- he asked that his name be removed from their material.
re: RSJ March 8th, 2008 8:03 am
"Seriousprofessor (March 7, 4:04 pm), if, as you say, Obama is Lieberman's 'protege,' why didn't Obama vote for the Kyl-Lieberman act, as Hillary did?"
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you possibly suggesting that a mentor-protege relationship requires the parties to have identical voting records?
Obama's support of Lieberman is old news. He supported Lieberman against the anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. His closeness to his Senate mentor is beyond dispute.
My March 7 (4:04) comment was clear enough. If you have something to say about progressive parties, let's have it.
Vote Green local, state and national!
The least criminal involved political party in America!
Why vote for the lesser of two evils when there is a choice of NO EVIL!
Thanks for the post, jimm_barr.
Oh, yeah. If Clinton thinks that only she and McCain are ready to be president, then it won't matter if I go third party because either will be prepared. Since many Clinton supporters say they will vote McCain if she doesn't get the nod, it will be ok with them if McCain wins. So I can vote Green or Nader and it won't matter to them. Did I get that right? So a vote for Clinton is a vote for Nader which is a vote for McCain. Whatever.
I'm going to go register new Obama voters now and leave you all to your back and forth. Call me when you get it resolved.
I am a Green who supports Obama. I haven't voted Democratic since 92 when I voted for Clinton. It is funny that Bill drove to to a third party and Hillary might actually increase our viability. If Obama gets the nod I will vote for him because he has attracted new voters. This is one of my reasons for promoting 3rd parties and it is in many ways sufficient for my support of him at this time. It is possible that Clinton will do the opposite and drive voters away. Either way there is an upside. I can either vote for the only Democrat in any race that I have supported since the turn of the century or we will see a weakening of one of the major parties and a move towards 3rd parties. All I can do is to extend my thanks to the Clintons for their efforts. It will be a great legacy.
Andy G, the Green Party has many commendable positions. Tomorrow I'll go down to my local bar and ask how many people there have ever heard of them. If even one has, I'll be amazed. If I tell them to go to the website and find out about GP, they'll say "Yeah, sure" and go back to their beer. When I ask them next time I see them if they checked the website, they'll tell me they were too busy with the family or job, or just forgot. This is exactly what happened in 2000 when I supported Ralph Nader and the Greens. Americans are passive and you have to have the money to advertise to them to get them interested. It's a sad reality, but that IS the reality.
Obama, IMHO, is the best chance we have this year of electing someone who has a mostly progressive record and starting to break the chain corporate America has on our government. In the meantime, we can work to build a strong, well-funded and well-organized third party to challenge the two major parties.
BTW, there are many reasons why Hillary won those big Blue states like California, early voting when Hillary was ahead by 30 points and Obama hardly a blip on the media radar being one, and they are the same states that Kerry won in 2004 and Obama would win this year.
One final thing, as many promises as candidates make, there is no guarantee that they will keep them once in office -- don't think that just because they label themselves 'Green' or anything else that they will necessarily always vote that way if elected. Politics, and life, is much more complicated than that.
Vote Nader... He might not have a Party but he has started a "Movement". He is the only candidate who supports peace, a Single Payer Health care system, and economic justice for all.
See the Nader graphics and join the on going Nader discussion at
http://www.mickeyz.net/
People should recall how Bill Clinton has traveled all over the world with George H.W. Bush; how they are such buddies. That's ex-president Bush, ex-CIA director/spook Bush of the Bush Crime Family. The Clintons are on good terms with the Bush Crime Family, despite Shrillary's criticisms of Dubya. Yes, she is a monster indeed. Both Clintons are. Who but a monster would use those below-the-belt tactics she has used against Obama? Questioning his commander-in-chief abilities while praising McCain's? Has any Republican candidate ever done that to another Republican? I don't think so. Who but a monster would chum it up with war-criminal spook/sociopath Bush Sr.? Bill and George Bush Sr.: birds of a feather, vultures of a culture.
I read this article hoping it would point out the MANY falsehoods of our Two Coporate Party System! Both bought and paid for by 'Special Interests', who's best interests come way before you or me!!
Possibly might have pointed our, alternative voting systems, such as IRV, or explained 'range' voting; so it would be feasible to have third parties. So we could ALL stop voting against our own best interests!
Instead I got; MORE Hillary bashing and Obama Worship!!
I will NOT defend Hillary!! I do NOT support her, will NOT vote for either of these Corporate Shills!!
I have a real problem with anyone, voting for anyone, who based on anything but Positions on the ISSUES!!
What will actually be "Their" agenda when they (if) get the Presidency?? Okay, you can't know, but you should have a fairly good idea!
The First time I went to the Green Party's web site, I had this overwhelming sense of relief! I'm not weird! Other people want the same things I do!! 100% agreement, Never! But, over 90%, that's not bad!
The Green Party has been building an organization! They have monthly meetings, and 85 candidates running! If you think MSM is going to tell you about it, your dead wrong! They have gotten IRV in some areas. They will be having a Convention (think the media will cover it?)
Hillary may not have the delegates Obama has, but she has the Blue States, a Dem. needs to win. What does it say about Obama, that ALL these Republicans are supporting him? How far Right is he? Do we really want Republicans/Red States picking the Dem candidate?
Why did a REAL Blue State, who two Senator's and Governer, both endorsed Obama, vote 70% for Hillary? If you want an answer, I have a copy of a post from a college professor of that state (Mas.) that might shed some light for you!
Nannie, what I meant was an organization that can get him on the ballot in enough states that he could make a difference in the election, and raise enough money to advertise on TV and radio in those states. Without that, he's not going to get much media attention and without media attention, he's not going to make a difference. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is this year.
Jpoverseas, I downloaded it with no problem. Perhaps you need to update your Adobe PDF program or allow it a longer time to load. (Mine takes some time.)
Frank S
As one of those who feel Obama is a bit thin on substance I was excited to follow your link to the Blueprint. But all I got through the link was a nice front cover and a embarrassing long line of blank pages. Couldn't find a way to get it through the Obama website either. Anybody have any ideas?
RSJ...
He has a organization. Didn't you know?
votenader.org
How wonderful it will be to not have to put up with liars,cheaters and monsters.
Ralph Nader will give us America back.
vote for honesty,truth,and America Vote Nader.
He has OUR interest first. THAT"S WHAT HE DOES...
Quit playing the Repub/Demo games.
.
Frank S March, thanks for that Obama 'Blueprint For Chnage' -- too bad it's a PDF file.
VAGreen, I hope the Green Party does well in November -- I'll be voting for them in some local and state races myself. If they can build the necessary organization to really challenge the two major parties at the national level in four years, I'm there.
Cranky_Chatter, here's the 'math' Hillary hates so much, summed up in a comment posted by Matt Shirley to Altercation, Media Matters, 3/6/08.
Name: Matt Shirley
Hometown: Pearl Harbor, HI
If I may, I'd like to make a few comments to provide a little perspective to the hyperventilating about yesterday's primaries:
It's over, even with last night's results, we are left with:
(1) Sen Obama has a lead of approx 138 in pledged delegates. There are only about 619 pledged delegates left. Sen Clinton would have to poll 63%, on average, in ALL of the remaining primaries. She did not do that in ANY of last night's States, and it is hard to see even one primary where she could do that.
(2) The following States are included in that 619: Wyoming, Mississippi (the next two States between now and Pennsylvania), Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, with 318 delegates. Even assuming Sen Clinton splits 50-50 in these Obama friendly States (highly unlikely), she would have to poll 73% in all the remaining elections. Not even if Sen Obama was caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl, could Sen Clinton pull that off.
(3) So her hopes boil down to convincing the superdelegates to give her the nomination despite having won fewer pledged delegates in the primaries. That would hand the moderates and independents that voted for Sen Obama to the Reps, and energize the conservative Clinton haters in a way Sen McCain could never hope to achieve on his own. Not even a Party with an instinct for its own jugular like the Dems would be that stupid.
It's over.
Read the rest of Shirley's comment here:
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200803060001#13
Nannie, Ralph Nader is a great progressive, but he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell this election. He should have spent the last eight years assembling a national organization to get him elected if he's serious.
.
votenader.org
click on news for all the latest.
.
.
I'll say it again...
http://www.ontheissues.org/ Ralph...Ralph_Nader.htm
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now.
http://www.ontheissues.org/ Ralph…Ralph_Nader.htm
Copy the whole line including his name and paste in your browser. Read what Ralph Nader stands for. A honorable trustworthy leader.
.
Sassysue - I just have one question for you. Why in the world would you ever support Hillary Clinton?
The democrats (of which I am sort of one) are such fools. They pretty much thought that they had the election of 2008 already in the bag so they would run a woman or a black man when the perfect candidate for President - John Edwards withered and bowed out of the race for lack of support.
I am shocked - Edwards actually had solutions to our many problems, is very intelligent, has values, no baggage except being John Kerry's running mate. Like it or not Americans are not liberal enough to elect a woman (especially Hillary Clinton) or a black man. Edwards being white, from the south, a family man and self made millionaire would have gone far in healing the nation. Too bad, the democrats got so caught up in Hillary and Obama. Our next president will be John McCain especially if Hillary is the democrat candidate.
I find it odd that everyone has ignored the poll taken just before the election cycle started where it was determined that just over 50% of all voters stated they would never vote for la Clinton under any circumstances. That being said, Hillary will never be the president.
PS: I just had my cable turned off.
It just hurts too much to watch... my ears are bleeding.
So, other than craigslist, where can I post every conceivable piece of lurid, scandalous facts on Clinton that I can find, between now and PA?
suggestions?
VOX... you definitely get BEST OF. You can write for ME anytime.
Anne Faith hit the nail on the head...
Delegates won is a direct consequence of voters voting. Prior to the last round Obama was ahead by almost a million voters. A MILLION people MORE voted for Obama than Clinton.
The super-delegate spin-troversy put an onus on the word "delegate." Now the Corporate News is re-trumpeting Clinton's "he thinks he's going to win with math," schpiel. The 'MATH' is US. We're just "math."
How disrespectful is that?
Gasp! I support Hillary Clinton, but am beginning to feel sorry for Obama. With supporters like you, he will probably loose.
My hope is that the two of them will run together and win against the Republicans and any third party that emerges.
jhd, the spinners are spinning all right. Question is, who's doing the spinning? I don't, for one second, trust statistics posted by a Hillary for Clinton website. Nor do I trust a cryptic citation to ABC and NBC's estimates (which, notably, do not match) regarding the number of popular votes or delegates allotted to the two candidates.
The media is already spinning Clinton's "huge wins" in Ohio and Texas in her favor. Forget about the fact that Obama will have won more delegates in Texas once the caucus votes are counted. Forget about the fact that Repugs apparently voted in large numbers for Clinton in the Ohio primary, at the urging of Rush Limbaugh. Her campaign and the brain-dead corporate media are spinning like crazy, and I can see Obama's chances dwindling as we speak, DESPITE the fact that he has more delegates. It's all so predictable, and almost too painful to watch this crap play out, yet again.
Does anyone believe the Rove "politics of destroying the enemy" couldn't be in play in the Dem primaries? Everyone knows the Republicans are salivating over having Hillary for lunch during the fall presidential election. Couldn't massive financial support for Hillary be coming from a secret cache of cash (and even Republican primary voters switching to Dems for this purpose)? My bet is millions of $$ have been stowed away just to ensure Republicans can promote her Dem candidacy to ensure they have another Clinton to dismantle? Paranoia, yes. But do you really think the swift-boater mentality isn't at play to manipulate the Dem primaries?
riverman pointed out something in one of his blogs: those with 'side agendas' not benefiting the whole are damaging the progressive cause. Feminism, gay rights, abortion, etc. should not be the main focus in an election, at least while there are much more important issues on the table. It is highly selfish and self-centered to emphasize these issues when people are going without health insurance, the infrastructure and environment is crumbling or being destroyed, people are going hungry or falling into poverty, and more and more people are losing medical coverage. These splinter groups are really just lobbyists for their specific agendas (which is a huge problem in Washington today), and detract from the major issues that affect us all as a whole. Not only that, but they give the other party more fodder for fear-mongering and prejudicial campaigning. I may get clobbered for this post, but I think riverman is right and, I personally, will not support any party which makes these its main issues.
I see from most of the ones posting here the same ignorance is alive and well in this country! Go ahead vote for your third party! Kiss any hope of things being different good bye! Because all you will do is put another fascist Republican into office! But, that will no doubt make most of you happy! We will have another 4 to 8 years of misery. If there is anything left of the country after they are through raping it. You people never seem to learn do you??????
According to NBC and ABC Senator Clinton has already amassed more votes than any candidate in either party.
http://www.delegatehub.com/archive/?id=6399
Untitled Page
And yet, the Obama supporters can't understand why she won't concede. Give me a break!
The people are speaking ... the spinners are spinning.
militantliberal has it exactly. We need a SECOND party - relizing that the Dem and Rep parties are just opposite wings of the CORPORATE party. Neither of them will discuss serious issues so why do we consider either of them? Clinton has already proved her judgment is about equal to a wino's at best (the so-called Iraq thingy as well as her corporate sponsors/investors). She's indeed the monster in shoulder pads and makes my skin crawl.
"If any of these scenarios play out, Obama should leave the Democratic Party and run as a third-party candidate. Simple as that."
It won't work, because the convention isn't until August 25-28. Most states have their filing deadlines for independents and third parties before the convention. If Obama leaves the Democratic Party on the 29th, he can get on the ballot in the following states:
AL, HI, MN, MS, ND, RI, UT, VT, and WI. That's it.
A vote for Ralph Nader makes a statement, but it won't last beyond Election Day. A vote for the nominee of the Green Party (probably Cynthia McKinney) helps us to build a third force in American politics that is independent of the two corporate parties.
Register Green, vote and volunteer for Green candidates, and consider running for local office as a Green.
www.gp.org
It's an interesting scenario for Obama, but I don't think he'd do it. More likely, if Hillary got the nomination with trickery such as Dr. Green describes, he'd bide his time for four years, build his organization and his war chest, and come back in 2012, stronger than ever. No matter who gets the White House -- we can predict McCain will be a failure, and Hillary, if the way she's run her campaign so far is any preview, won't accomplish much more than Flyboy Johnny.
One problem this year, even if Obama wanted to be a third party candidate, is the ballot; by the time the Dem convention in August is over, he wouldn't be able to get on the ballot in many states.
BTW, there is a story I've heard from a couple of different sources as to why we're stuck with two major parties in this country: In 1877, following a hotly disputed presidential election which ended with Republican Rutherford B. Hayes sneaking into office by a bare majority of the electoral vote after Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, representatives of the two major parties gathered in a hotel room in Philadelphia to discuss the future. Both parties feared that factions from within their own parties would splinter off into third parties that could gain enough votes to present a challenge to their dominance. An agreement was supposedly struck -- the GOP and Dems would fight each other, but would work in concert to keep any third party candidates from winning in the future. It seems the agreement is still working.
COMarc (March 7, 12:29 pm) and Peaceistruth, watch Obama's full speeches on C-Span, or go to his website www.barackobama.com/issues -- yes, he does have more going on than just 'hope' and 'change' -- that's just the media dismissal of his popularity to keep the sheeple from checking him out any further. You know the media penchant for soundbite shorthand to frame the candidates: "McCain's a straight-talking war hero!"; "Hillary is coming back and has the momentum!" and "Obama just fell off a turnip truck yesterday and has no experience, ideas or substance."
Mmeo (March 7,12:42 pm), thanks for appointing yourself spokesperson for every progressive in the nation. What would we have done without you?
Bildad (March 7, 1:39 pm), that's a great list but what we need in this country is either proportional representation, so that votes for the Greens or Nader count for something, and/or a parliamentary system, where minority parties can make a difference.
I also like to go back to the way it was in the early days of this nation -- the vice president is the candidate who gets the second most votes after the president, no matter what party affiliation. No more Dick Cheney's.
Captn72 (March 7, 2:27 pm), that's quite an impressive and accurate list as well. From what I see, the working class and middle-class are plenty angry -- quiet, but enraged. Whoever represents the Status Quo on election day may get a rude surprise, unless the renamed Diebold steps in.
Seriousprofessor (March 7, 4:04 pm), if, as you say, Obama is Lieberman's 'protege,' why didn't Obama vote for the Kyl-Lieberman act, as Hillary did? The vote was unscheduled and he was out of Washington at the time, but when he got back, he did enter into the record his strong objections to Kyl-Lieberman and giving Bush any leeway to attack Iran. If Lieberman is his 'mentor' why would he do that?
When Hillary first came out to run for the presidency all I could think of was all the lies of her husband's administration and her participation therein. Her screeching accusations against "the right wing conspiracy" out to get them at any cost, the self pity, etc. My first thought was do we want to go through this all over again? Why? What could possibly be gained by Hillary being elected president? Her "republican-lite" status as the senator for New York has been patently offensive especially the way she sucked up to ranking republicans since her first days serving the people of New York, who by the way, I consider to be absolute fools for being taken in by such a carpet bagger.
White Water, Travel-gate, the missing documents from the Rose law firm, her involvement with illegal insider stock trading, etc will definitely come back to haunt her. Hillary will be so easy to "swift boat" - The republican spin meisters will have the blame for the Monica Lewinsky laid at Hillary's feet for while she was out dispatching Vince Foster to the next world, smoking gun in hand, the leader of the free world had to find warmth and comfort in the arms of a White House intern.
The American people are certainly in a jam, the republicans are so corrupt and the democrats are such cowards as to be useless. How is it that we have only two parties when every other nation in the world has so many more, except of course, totalitarian regimes. Our problem is that we have allowed "progressives, progressive politics" to be lumped in with communism and other such ideas that most Americans don't want to be seen as being progressive which is sad. The last "progressive" president of the US was Woodrow Wilson in the 1920's an era we seem to be currently revisiting given the billions of dollars being made by the very few, the over valued stock market, people out of work, the war, housing crisis, what are we going to do?
Will the democrats lose in 2008 for their refusal to put up an acceptable candidate or will they do what they did post Watergate by electing Jimmy Carter, for one term only to lose his bid for re-election to one of the worst presidents of our time? We lost just about everything good from FDR to Carter, in the areas of social services, human rights, rights of American workers, etc in the era of Reagan and Bush, Sr. Will the democrats do it again, this time around? Maybe the only chance they have is to somehow convince Al Gore at the convention to step in but then, I'm sure Hillary won't allow that to happen.
America is unlikely to ever get a multi-party system. The democrats and the republicans while liking to play to the notion that they stand in opposition to each other on major issues are entirely in agreement that three would be one too many political parties, as they are on many other issues such as support for Israel, rejection of the rule of international law, legitimacy of starting wars of aggression, and belief that the Nuremburg principles, the Geneva conventions, conventions against torture etc. applied to all nations with the exception of the US. The democrats and republicans are no more than two sides of the same animal on most important issues, and in that context from a distance the American love of spouting "my side good, your side bad" regardless of which side of the line they stand lies somewhere between comical, farcial and tragic.
It amazes me that the vast majority cannot grasp that they are like Charlie Brown, ever trying to believe that this time it will be different, ever being dissapointed, but seemingly incapable of doing more than having another kick at the ball each four years or so.
Every time a third party emerges, those in power ensure its demise by if necessary changing the electoral rules further in their favour. The wobblies in the thirties threatened the status quo so they were done away with by crushing the movement. When candidates other than republican and democratic ones wish to get elected they need to get absurd numbers of signatures just to get on the ballot. Democracy demands a level playing field, that that is not something either the republicans or the democrats are ever going to support in either principle or practice. It will always be one set of rules for not getting elected if you are running as a libertarian or a green party candidate, and another for ensuring that you get a fair chance of getting elected if you are running as a republican or democrat candidate. As as consequent the US and the former USSR are very similar.. both had rules which ensured that only member from the right party could ever be elected. The difference was that in the USSR this was stated openly so people understooding this opposed it. In the US people don't grasp this, because it is never made plain to them, there appearing to be not one party but two. Thus and only thus can they legitimately but falsely belief that they live in the greatest country on earth, because theirs is the land of the free and the home of the brave.
I stopped reading this rant when it was opined that the American electorate would choose the "Bomb, bomb Iran" bigot-hugger from Arizona to pick up that 3:00 am phone call, rather than Mrs. Bill Clinton (she's far more than that, for course, but if she weren't, that would be enough for me.)
This is just another Clinton Hating pontificator pretending to have profound insights when in fact he has little more than a gift with stringing words together. Blah, blah, blah. Clinton will be president, and if Obama has any decency and patriotism he will lead his hordes into the fold, serve as a loyal but principled Vice President or 8 years, as Al Gore did, but on a much grander scale, and go on perhaps to become the Abraham Lincoln of the 21st Century beginning in 2016, when American will need his message of hope more than ever.
I think you call your thoughts "nihilism" -voxclamantis- as a way to anticipate criticism.
This is understandable, but regrettable.
You see something True, you should be Proud- not Wary.
What has expanded too far, must now contract. There is nothing surprising about this, nor anything sad. It's the way things work.
Life requires Death.
This applies to our creations as well as to "creation".
The United States of America, Republic or Empire, is a machine made by Mortal Men, and is therefore itself mortal.
It's possible that any sort of "forward movement" is hindered by a maladapted version of how we should live together.
I always thought that this new, more just, more free, more sustainable and more peaceful and loving Society is what we were all about, what we were attempting to "Progress" toward.
I think people forget this when election time comes around.
When did Peace become about National elections?
When did Justice become about National elections?
When did Sustainability become about National elections?
Since when, in short, did Nation-States' Bureaucracies become the solution to all of our problems?
Someone here has said: think out-side of the two-party box. And this is True.
But try to remember that "third-party" thinking is just another box that you may have to think out-side of, and it's only the beginning.
You might have to leave all the boxes behind and commit the most Radical Act of all:
Actually getting to know the people that live close to you and co-operating with them to meet your 6 Human needs without coercion or control.
So yeah, vote for the "president" if you have time, vote for Congress if you can stand too, but don't spend too much time stressing over it.
It's the People who always have to drag the "Rulers" forward, this time is no exception.
-matti.
The Democratic Party is unmoved by gratitude to you, the voters, for their Congressional majority. They've heard what you've said about impeachment, about war, and they are playing deaf and dumb. Can you say it louder? Louder, please?
Meanwhile the third-party vote strategy is bound to fail, this essay tells. So you can vote against McCain by voting a Democrat that doesn't represent you - that's it.
Under this scenario, who really cares if you "throw away" your vote on a third party. At least, by voting third party, you accurately express your views. The vote is a poll of sorts, after all.
Do you want to express support for warmongers and free traders (yes, I mean Democrats) or do you want to accurately express your vote by voting for a third party?
Since the assassination of JFK forty-four plus years ago, the United States has been in decline. We are living out a Greek tragedy because this nation, after years of having its capacity for sober judgment rotted out by television and a public school system that teaches nothing, is incapable of realizing its own self-interest or displaying even a modicum of humility. So McCain will be the next president; the occupation of Iraq will go on and on and on; war against Iran and Syria will begin. Conscription will be reinstated. Joe Sixpack and Frau will slather their cars with American flag decals and in 2012 they will be standing in the economic gutter with their thumbs up their asses, ready to make Jeb Bush the next president since McCain (now brazenly ridiculed as Patrick Geriatric by the MSM) will be unable to run due to a decline in his health. On all our paper money the words "In God We Trust" will be replaced by "Fuck You". If there are no second acts in American lives, there are none for this nation as well.
Ya know I have a problem with that answer. I have a friend who is a Republican, and one day he was over my house we were discussing the day that Saddam Hussien was hung. One of the things he said to me was people forget, they forget what happen on 9/11 (now remember he's a Repub.) So I had asked him about Desert Fox, just to see if he remembers what that was about, he obviously didn't. Back in 1998 there was a little known campaign called Desert Fox, I am sure some remember and for the most part some don't. It didn't amount to anything, in fact I think it only lasted a week and got scraped.
My problem is is that trusting the American people is another way of passing the buck. I remember back before the invasion of Iraq, and after 9/11. Going into Afganistan was good, I wouldn't say excellent, but good. The presidents poll numbers where roughly around 90% support and I also can remember when the President started his campaign for Iraq that his poll numbers were about the same and that most Americans wanted this war.
I remember back in the late 70's when Jimmy Carter was President, and we had the Irainian Hostage Crises. I remember the talk back then, a very good portion of the American people wanted him to go in militarially. But Carter being the type of person that he is didn't think that was the answer. So the country was very pissed off calling him a whimp and all sorts of other insults. As it turns out he was up for re-election in 2 years, and lost to Ronald Reagan. The weirdess thing is the night Reagan was inaugurated the hostages were freed that night.
I also remember Desert Storm/Bush41 and how people got very mad at him for not going into Bagdad and finishing the job.
I no more trust the American people and their judgement and I no more trust the person in the oval office.
There was a chance for a change back in 2004, but it did not happen. All the time I could hear people say I voted for Bush and now I am against him. That does not make sense to me, the war in 2004 was going so bad back then. Today it does seem like it is better, at least better than it was back then. I think what it boils down to is misary loves company.
Oh by the way I didn't vote for Bush either time! How I feel about Obama is the same way I feel about Bush, lots of hot air!
The moral to the story is: You people have no clue as to what you are talking about! Considering that everyone on this board were for the most part the ones who put President Bush back into office.
Okay, I guess I drifted from the point of this article. Yes, I suppose I agree that if HRC starts a civil war, then all bets are off. I just hope it doesn't come to that. I don't see how we salvage anything positive from such a scenario. Let's not forget that we still have the corporate media to fight.
I'm still in favor of taking back the Democratic Party over third party runs at this time. Look, it took the Goldwater conservatives 20 years to get the candidate they wanted (Reagan). It takes time.
Clinton is not our progressive champion. Nor is Obama, for that matter. Obama is poised to build the party by bringing back disenfranchised voters and attracting new ones (and possibly an even more dramatic realignment). Clinton, on the other hand, is poised to start a civil war within the party. I do not think that this would be good for progressives or anyone else.
IMHO, Barack Obama not only offers the best chance of winning (as a Democrat), but also offers the longer coattails--He will energize voters who will be selecting "D" all the way down the ballot. That's when progressives will have a chance to start thinking about the future. That's when we can start building our movement. We'll have enough Democrats in Congress to provide us with cover in *some* of the battles we have been fighting. Splitting the Democratic Party would be risky at this time. If McBush wins, progressives are stuck playing defense again for another 4 years. For some younger progressives, this is the only life they have ever known.
The hour is late and I have a headache. Time to pour a vial of nihilism into this cauldron of contention.
We might consider divesting ourselves of a couple of assumed goals. Why, exactly, does the United States of America need to be saved or redeemed in some way? Why do we need to maintain our economic and military dominance in the world? Why do we need to preserve our luxurious standard of living? What is wrong with a period of disunity and confusion and internal chaos? What is wrong with standing aside and letting dissipation and ignorance and corruption do their work? What is lost by giving up the arrogant myth that we are a shining city on a hill?
If McCain were to win the election and perpetuate the Bush wars of occupation, he would soon exhaust our appetite for war and bankrupt the country. Hopefully this has already happened, and the GOP will begin to disperse into rocking chairs and prisons and prayer tents where they belong. The Democrats are pre-dispersed, being incapable of enough unity to accomplish much for themselves or anybody else. If both major parties were to lose credibility in the face of real and palpable crises such as health care and the economy, the host of alternative parties listed by bildad would surely recruit defectors into other clamoring, equally ineffective factions. This begins to sound like Thorne Smith's ideal, that government should be small and funny. Notoriously silly and contentious, multi party governments tend to argue every new initiative into nonexistence, assuring a level of dementia sufficient to erode our ability to maintain empire. This is a good thing. We need to become defanged and quaint and obsolete and ordinary. We have been drunk with exceptionalism and power for too long, and the best remedy is for us to go into historical rehab to regain a sane perspective on ourselves. When the wealth dries up the international corporations will shrink like warts in moonlight, the goons of Blackwater will go back to their mothers in Mordor, the ozone layer will heal itself and black footed ferrets will frolic once more in our yards.
Green's fantasy is not bad. Many of us think the World Trade Center has not yet finished collapsing. Maybe all we need to do is step back and let it go.
Is this commentary some kind of a joke?
Are we honestly to believe in the possibility that Obama will leave the Democratic Party and dare being called "disloyal"?
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha ! This is the best laugh I have had all day!
The difference between Hillary and Obama is not in their records but in their performance during this campaign.
I am a lifelong progressive Democrat who served as an elected official at the local level for 26 years. In 2004 I ran (unsuccessfully) as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention pledged to Dennis Kucinich. Since that time, I have continued to support Dennis because his positions on the issues most closely match mine.
This year however, even before Dennis dropped out of the Presidential race, I decided to switch my support to Barack Obama. Here are the reasons why.
Our human species, having come to dominate our planet, now stands at a crossroads. We are at a point where our own actions threaten the very survival of our species and perhaps all species on the planet. We are confronted by four great threats to our survival. I believe it is entirely possible that unless we take significant action within the next ten years, any of these four threats may reach a tipping point where our survival is no longer within our own hands.
The first great threat is the escalating catastrophic destruction of our environment, most exemplified by man-made global warming. Second is the barbaric violence unleashed around the world through a belief in, and embracing of, militarism by so many nations and peoples, particularly the US. Third is the crushing poverty and joblessness for vast numbers of people on our planet resulting in increasing starvation and sickness among the worlds' poor. Fourth is the deliberate inculcation among the general public of nihilism, despair, resignation, passivity, compliance and/or acceptance regarding these oppressive conditions.
These four threats all stem from the same root cause: the tyranny of unchecked corporate power, in both the workplace and society, which now dominates the decision making of most nations.
So why am I supporting Senator Obama? Clearly, among the Democratic front runners and prior to dropping out of the campaign, John Edwards had most clearly indicated his intention to take on the entrenched corporate power that threatens our democracy and our survival. In fact, there is hardly an issue where I am in complete agreement with Senator Obama on the specifics of the changes we need to bring about. However, there are four elements that I believe will need to be in place in order for any President - Kucinich, Edwards, or Senator Obama – to bring about the changes we need.
First, to be elected as a Democrat in 2008, any candidate will need to generate a huge turnout that will overcome any attempts to steal the election in such states as Florida and Ohio. Senator Obama has demonstrated that he can inspire people to believe in something bigger than themselves. The young, independents, the dispossessed, even Independents and Republicans are flocking to his politics of meaning and hope. Only Senator Obama appears to have the ability to turn out the numbers that no vote fixing will be able to stop.
Second, once elected, any President will need a significantly increased Democratic majority in Congress to ensure that there are enough votes to overcome the entrenched corporate interests within both the Republican and Democratic caucuses. Far too many of the Democrats will always go along to get along.
The truth of this can be seen by the results of 2006 where, even with Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate, we cannot end the war nor impeach the worst President/Vice President combination in history. Only Senator Obama appears to have the ability to turn out the record number of voters that I believe will be necessary to elect Democratic majorities that are willing to confront the corporate lobbyists.
Third, once elected, any President will need to be pushed by a mass movement made up of grassroots Americans who demand the changes we need. FDR was famous for looking at progressive proposals and telling those who supported them, "This is great, I support this, now go out and make me do it."
No President will make the changes needed, in the face of the corporate power that will attempt to block those changes, unless the American people rise up and force that change to occur. It is not enough to go to the polls on Election Day. Democracy demands more of us. It demands that we become effective participants in the day-to-day struggle for the legislation and polices we need to ensure our survival. The corporations are engaged in that participation on an ongoing basis. We can, and must, do no less.
Also, the President we elect must be willing to take those actions that will enable that change. I can only hope that, based not just on Barack's rhetoric, but also his background with NYPIRG and as a community organizer in Chicago, that when given the chance he will rise to the occasion. It is indicative to me that only Senator Obama is running his campaign in such a way as to put in place the community organizing and mass mobilization that will be necessary to advance a progressive agenda once he is elected.
Fourth, and most importantly, a President who believes that he or she can get things done without that mass movement simply will not be able to bring about the changes I believe necessary. Only Senator Obama realizes that it requires "we" not "he" to bring about transformative change.
So I support Senator Obama because he, and right now only he, can put in place the elements required for the changes I believe in. Once he is elected, we cannot sit back and wait for him to bring about those changes. Instead, it will be up to us to fight for the changes we want. That is an opportunity that I last felt in 1968. With Senator Obama, I feel it once again. And that opportunity is all that I can ask for in this campaign.
stevepallen, that is an excellent idea. If enough people make it clear to the DNC and Democratic leadership that they will defect if Clinton is the nominee, it might keep Clinton from working her backroom deal with the superdelegates. Does the DNC know how much Hillary is hated by so many members of her own party? Do they care?
Curmudgeon99 identifies the right villains in this period. They are, indeed, the Demogogic Losership Cabal, BUT "centrism"(it is really rightism) has a long history in the Democratic party( George Wallace, Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey, Woodrow Wilson, Chester Allen Arthur, etc.). My suggestion opposes both
"partisanship" AND the notion that real, essential, structural change can come from political parties. We need new types of organization which are not hierarchical, but "horizontal", which act locally and think globally
(to trot out a tired old bromide), and we need lots of them. Will these
organizations come up with flawless solutions? Of course not. Show me a
flawless solution and I'll show you a scam.
In 1972 when the liberals and kids were piqued because McCarthy wasn't the candidate, we got Nixon instead. Presidents are not about purity. They have limited powers (assuming the Congress does its job better than it has with a R plurality.) Hillary Clinton is not a monster. She's a serious woman who is more qualified to be president than Ford, Reagan or Bush. The Clinton presidency had a long list of executive initiatives that helped women and children. They had a R congress in the second term. We badly need a strong Congress so the Kucinich, Watt, Frank, Waxman members can be the positive influences many of us want.
gimmesometruth March 7th, 2008 12:09 pm
"I'm with you, David. If Obama runs in the general election, he's go my vote, whether he runs as a Democrat or and Independent. If he's not in the race, I'll vote Nader."
What's the difference. Why are the Obamist so up in arms they are willing to vote for the guy they were railing against a few days ago. PLease clue me in. In terms of there records not their rhetoric what the hell is the difference between McClinton and McObama?
You people are nuts!
Well I'm late to the party again but the benefit is that I see that there are many, many of us that have had it with the Clintons. Many of us voted for Nader and may do so again - and I, like many of you, don't care what 'mainstream' dems think about it cause they don't seem to care what the progessive arm of the party thinks. They cannot see the forest for the trees. What you all need to do (maybe it's piss'in in the wind but still satisfying)is send lots of messages to the Clinton campaign and to the DNC and other democratic party leaders. Tell them that if the Clinton's railroad this nomination, you're on the sidelines, or writing in another candidate.
I hear more and more Dems swearing they will never, ever vote for Clinton.
They used the divide and conquer techniques to install the Centrist DLC. They made sure that the other factions were always fighting with each other while they snuck the Wall Street centrist control under the blanket.
Hillary needs to drop out of the race. She's no Democrat.
You're operating under the assumption that Obama is a "progressive." Which he isn't, really.
This guy is a total idiot. There is a third party that is on enough state ballots to win the presidency that is so freaking progressive it makes my bleeding heart....well, bleed. THE GREEN PARTY. Jesus. www.gp.org people. THERE'S your progressive third party.
And why would anybody ever vote for Obama or Clinton anyway? A bunch of conservative morons.
Hillary Clinton's claims that Barack Obama's entire lifetime of experience, just 15 years shorter than hers, consists of one speech, while she played a pivotal role in world affairs is disingenuous. She boasts of her role in Kosovo, not mentioning that she lobbied Bill not to intervene for over a year and thereby caused many deaths. She sat on her hands while Rwanda became an abattoir and Bill blocked the UN from acting. The Clintons gutted the International Criminal Court Statute by forcing concessions, then cynically refused to sign anyway. They refused to join the landmines treaty and she recently voted against restricting cluster bomb use in civilian-populated areas. She screwed up healthcare reform with her arrogant, high-handed ways, condeming more than 40 million people to another 15 years without coverage. Now she claims she is the one to solve the crisis, repeating her error of thinking she can unilaterally impose her plan. She does a lot of handwaving on Iraq, as if 4000 Americans, a million Iraqis (mostly women and children) and two trillion dollars didn't matter, as if she could undo the damage with her promise to withdraw quickly without admitting that she showed the same disastrous judgment and told the same lies as Bush, Cheney and Rice. She, a very rich woman who sat on WalMart's board as it destroyed thousands of small businesses, busted unions and created a minimum wage, benefitless workforce, pretends to be a champion of the working classes, even though it was only the top quintile who gained in the Clinton 1990s economy. They did noting meaningful on the environment, despite Al Gore's presence and urging, and they sold out gays on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and Defense of Marriage.
At a time when we face unprecedented military, economic, constitutional, diplomatic and environmental crises we don't need yet another divisive, triangulating, hardball-playing politician; we need someone who can unite, inspire and uplift people, and Obama is clearly superior. If he is the lightweight she asserts he is, why did Kennedy, Dodd, Leahy and other venerable statesmen endorse him?
While Hillary Clinton would be better than GW Bush--almost anybody would--we can and should do better.
Good idea!
Just want to add here that we certainly haven't had honest elections by any means --- not just since 2000 -- but since the mid 1960's . . .
that's when the computers began to come in --- !!!
Jim & Ken Collier were two journalists looking for an angle to write and election story --- they decided that one of them should actually run for office. Along the way, they noticed their vote count change in a very peculiar way and began to investigate what had happened. At the end of the trail they had uncovered huge computer fraud in the election and had a contract with a major publisher to write a book -- which was quickly suppressed.
You can read or scan that book at --
http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm
"VOTESCAM, THE STEALING OF AMERICA" *******************
Both journalists have passed away and the website is kept by their family.
After two years of constant campaigning I think the whole country is weary of the entire process. In Michigan we voted in the dumbest primary in history and now even the few votes we did get out amount to nothing. A waste of time and dollars and for what? I think it is called shooting yourself in the foot. The whole election system needs reform from top to bottom. The sooner the better.
Article is not worth bothering with . . .
Comments are interesting, however ---
Would our daydream be that . . let's say Kucinich, Edwards, Dean move into the Green Party?
Anyone of them would make a good VP for Nader ---
Even Randi Rhodes surrendered to third party logic on Thursday . . . tho she only advocated it when we have
had our Democratic ducks elected and reversed much of Bush corruption --- but THEN, she says, onward to a third party!!!
And right she is --- but it should be NOW . . . before we are any further betrayed by Democrats -- and btw, the DLC is soliciting more "blue dogs" to run against liberal/progressive Democrats!!!
David,
There is a slight problem with your essay; you're obviously for preserving the status quo. There's nothing wrong with being pro anyone or anything and there's nothing wrong with wanting to support a candidate. The problem with your essay is that it only looks at an election maybe four or eight years long and that is like skipping our grandkids futures. Neither Obama nor Clinton can change anything; maybe a few crumbs here and there but nothing that will give us back our government.
Perhaps you've forgotten that we have allowed our government to become a fascist conglomerate. Our votes are as meaningless as yesterday's cereal and the only thing that matters is lucre.
I am surprised at Americans, who haven't forcibly removed the present administration and returned to what our Constitution meant: a government of the people by the people and for the people.
By all means have your little game and vote for whoever is simpatico; it won't change a damned thing.
I suggest marijuana and junkfood.
This can't be done... with ten weeks left to spare between the Convention and the National Election.
This is a fatuous flight of fancy... a daydream to alleviate the deep, excruciating pain of a Clinton nomination.
I understand the need for opium as well as any.
The problem is, when the reverie is over, the pain remains.
Martin Sheen, eh? Sounds good to me. Actually I think I'll vote for Sean Penn.
I honestly don't get the Obama thing. Here is a candidate who, all pretty speechmaking aside, is positioning himself to the right of Hillary on a number of issues. And Hillary is GOP lite as far as I'm concerned.
I'm already fairly certain I'll be voting for Ralph Nader or another third party option.
I don't like corporatist warmongers and unless Obama changed his tune radically and actually stood for something actually progressive he won't get my vote regardless of whether he runs as a Dumbocrat or as a third party candidate.
I think this country needs real change. Not the fake change Obama is hawking.
-------the democrat party MUST kick out the abortionists and feminists who cares nothing except these greedy issues and will be blind when voting which will bring in MONSTERS to destroy america------
You're deluded Riverman. The left would lose more people than they could ever gain by such a move. Until we set aside these inflammatory emotional issues like abortion and gay marriage we will never regain our country from the criminal cabal that has stolen it from us.
That's why I support Ron Paul DESPITE being pro-choice pro-universal healthcare and against free trade. He hasn't got a snowball shot in hell but Kucinich has dropped out and nobody ever gave Gravel any support even though he's my personal choice.
Rise above the left/right paradigm and focus on the things that MUST change to turn the US back into a legitimate nation by and for the people once again - or we are truly doomed to live and die in a fascist police state.
bildad sez: "Would American consumers be satisfied if their only choice in soft drinks was between Pepsi and Coke? NO..."
Great analogy but I do believe that many people think that coke or pepsi ARE the only real choices because the other brands have been labeled as 'inferior' and have been marginalized to the 'store brand' shelf
Obama's empty headed rhetoric is the kind of hollow drivel upon which religions - not viable political parties, are built. Obama has always been the backup guy selected by the corporate state to ensure that the election will be as meaningless as every other election we've had for the last 50 years. If they can't pawn corporate whore Hillary of on us there is always corporate whore Obama as the second tier of having no real choice at all.
The guy who has Brezinski as a foreign policy advisor is going to bring change? Fat chance. Brezinski created the Al-Queda branch of the CIA. The only change he represents is the same increase in false flag terrorism and destruction of the US economy that the Neo-cons have started.
Now that Kucinich is out of the race Gravel offers the only hope for effective change from the left. Oh, I fogot, the left has been forbidden to know who Mike Gravel is due to the orders of their handlers in the Neo-democratic party, though it's really the left's own fault for failing to turn of the mind control boxes in their living rooms and actually researching the available candidates.
Face it, the election is already over and the American people have lost whether you realize it or not. Since my vote doesn't count for shit anyway I think I'll write in Martin Sheen.
I am very disappointed in professor Green judgement. Obama is definitly
not a progressive. He is another shell for Corporate America and he,
McCain and Hillary has been bought and paid for by big Business/Money.
All three of them are war mongers and against the middle class and
working people. We have a third party already which is the green party
whicha has to modify its platform to more social, political
and economic issues to gain grass root and momentum.
SIBELIUS FROM ERROR KANSAS EXCUSE ME
There is a 59-page outline of what Barack Obama plans to do for America if he's elected President. This man hasn't left out a thing. Not only that, he includes a detailed plan of how he's going to carry out every one of his intentions. It's very compelling - and he will definitely have my vote if he is chosen to run for President.
I've never in my life seen or heard such a detailed outline of what a candidate plans to do once he gets into office - regarding every topic any thinking American could possibly be interested in. If you'd care to take a look at it, it's at this web site:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
OBAMA NEEDS TO INTRODUCE HIS VP CANDIDATE NOW, KATHLEEN SIBELIUS FROM KENTUCKY. HE NEEDS TO TAKE COMMAND OF HIS CAMPAIGN AND HIS FOLLOWERS HE DOESNT NEED TO BE WO-MAN-HANDLED BY CLINTON AND BRIBED INTO HER CANDIDACY BY FEAR. SHE IS IN NO PLACE TO MAKE THOSE KIND OF ASSESSMENTS. OBAMA NEEDS TO END ALL SPECULATION - SPECULATION AND INDECISION FAVORS FEAR. FEAR FAVORS CLINTON AND MCCAIN.
OBAMA NEEDS TO TAKE A STAND ON WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT CLINTON WHINING OVER MICHIGAN DELEGATES SHE WON IN A SOVIET STYLE ELECTION WITH BALLOTS THAT DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER CANDIDATES NAMES ON THEM BUT HERS! OBAMA NEEDS TO COME OUT AND CLEAR UP THE MUD. HE NEEDS TO GIVE A PRESS CONFERENCE OR SOMETHING. SPECULATION IS NO GOOD. THE CLINTONS WANT US CONFUSED SO THEY CAN MANIPULATE US!
As usual, David Green starts out with a very laudable premise and takes it to a ridiculously implausible conclusion.
YES, a "Third Party" (really a Second Party in opposition to the omnipotent "Corporate Party" that consists of Democratic and Republican factions) is desperately needed. YES, the disastrous Bush administration, carrying corporatist-imperialism to its logical extreme has disgusted enough of the populace to actually provide an impetus for such a party. YES, a Hillary nomination would anger and disillusion millions of progressives and force them to question the dogma of "lesser evilism". YES, a Hillary administration would push many of these progressives over the brink, likely destroying the Democratic "Party" permanently.
But NO, NO, a thousand times NO, Barack Obama is NOT under any circumstances a person who can or will lead such a Third Party revolt. Mr. Green's tirade is more tiring hyperbole from naive Obama worshiping liberals who are so easily duped by his lofty rhetorical prozac. For the thousandth time, Obama is NOT a progressive, Obama is just as power hungry as the Clintons and just as duplicitous. The only difference is that he is much more talented and sublime in his efforts. This man stands for nothing and believes in nothing other than his own glory and status. He is seducing the left (quite successfully, I am desolated to admit), because the left hates the Clintons. But if his principal opponent were running from the left (say, a John Edwards type), Obama would be spewing DLC rhetoric and cozying up to the Clintonistas quicker than you can say Tony Rezko.
Obama passionately wants to be President, for its own sake and nothing else. At 47, he can easily afford to wait four years if Hillary steals the nomination from him. And he'll have a whole horde of delusional "intellectual" liberals like Mr. Green eating out of his hand, whining about how wronged he was. I sometimes suspect that this is Obama's secret strategy:
Let the Clinton's pull every sleazy ploy to manipulate the nomination away from him in 2008. Then, sit back and watch as Hillary squanders a slam dunk, thus permanently destroying the Clintons' power and influence over the Democratic Party. Then, jump in to that void, incessantly repeating the, "if only they had nominated me, we would have won" meme for the next four years. The 2012 nomination will be his for the asking, and since President McCain will likely have taken the United States further into the abyss, Obama will sweep to a Reaganite landslide (remember, Reagan lost the nomination the first time he ran too). Why take a nomination of a deeply divided Democratic party in 2008 and risk losing, when you can let your opponent "steal" it from you but lose to the GOP, and have yourself elevated to the high road, cruising to the nomination and the Presidency in 2012. For a megalomaniac, power hungry fraud, nothing could be more ideal.
Real progressives who recognize that the Democratic "Party" is a sham, a shill for corporate America that gives us only "Corporate-Imperialist Hegemony Lite" and nothing more NEED to support a third party movement alright. But not one lead by one of the most successful tools of this corporate-imperialist hegemony. Whichever shill is the Democratic nominee, real progressives have a sincere and dedicated candidate who can lead a Third Party revolt, a candidate who never backs down and never compromises his principles. His name is RALPH NADER!
kathy heckman, 2:45pm. you are so correct about everything in your post. they are addicted to this narcotic called power. i suggested, a couple of weeks back, that this would ultimately come down to race and sex. in texas, that is exactly how it played out. save for the few pockets of open minded thought, excluding the pour soul from austin who was "dayum proud" of his heritage, or something, texas voted exactly as i thought. d/fw, houston, austin and san antono (surprisingly) along w/those immediate vicinities went for obama. the rest, rural and west and lower valley, all sucked on hillarious. ditto the crap in the deep woods of east texas.
granted, hillarious won't release her tax records any time soon. i also doubt that she'll be saying much about vince foster's death (anyone remember that mystery?? sorry, fargokantrowitz, but if you think the clintons' aren't involved in mysterious deaths, do some research.), nor will she likely say much about systematics/alltel, or promis software. hillary? hillary? got a a comment for us? not only is she lower than a snake's belly, she's about as crooked as one.
The next president of the United States will be the most reviled of all time although
(s)he won't be at fault for the tribulations to be experienced.
Vote for whomever you hate most.
The Dem members of Congress should support Obama running as a third party candidate if Wal-Mart Hillary is the nominee. Many Obama voters will stay home otherwise and the Dems will likely lose control of Congress, as we all know McCain would win in a landslide against Wal-Mart. If Obama ran on a third party ticket which did not have down ticket candidates those voters would come to the polls and would likely vote for Democrats down ticket.
David, you say: "McCain could virtually take her 3:00 a.m. ad, pull her out and drop himself in, and use it against her. And he will." He already has. I think that was originally a McCain ad - made by McCain supporters much earlier. It has been on You Tube. Clinton just stole the idea from McCain, and replaced him with her smiling face.
I won't be able to vote for Hillary either. I never really liked her but now I find her revolting beyond discription.
AMEN to elmeztisogordo. Non partisan is what we really need.
A 3rd Party? We don't even have TWO parties! We've got ONE party -- The Party of Fascist Corporatism (sorry for the redundancy).
While the conclusions reached here are probably valid, I think a point has been missed. We do not need a "third" political party; we need NO political
parties. We need new forms of organization which will act directly to create
direct democracy. Face it: whoever is elected will have to be opposed on some level. Let's shift our energies to organizing and strategy that offers
some hope of working.
This is not cynicism, folks, this is a call to abandon failed strategies.
"If ..., Obama should leave the Democratic Party and run as a third-party candidate"
AGREED. Hillary is a false flag Dem. She - and her DLC friends - would/will make an effective contribution to the McCain camp. We need more Democratic leaders to show some courage (before the convention), and to endorse Obama.
Add two more votes here for Obama... or Nader if Clinton is running. We can't vote for Clinton. She gets worse the more you look at her. I'd rather see John McCain win than Clinton trash the reputation of Democrats by taking the presidency and doing nothing but triangulating and posturing and pretending she's experienced.
The people who don't understand what's at stake in this election either don't want to understand, don't care, or are deep in denial. Rather than second guess strategy, or voting for someone against another, just vote directly what you stand for and let the results fall where they may. And don't waste your energy on those who wish to remain 'ignorant.' They'll probably only growl at you anyway.
That being said, having Obama running as an independent with, say, Edwards would make for a most interesting election. Even if they received only a third of the vote, that would make a repug 'winner' most nervous and serve to break the 'third party barrier' in this country. "I mean, hey, if they can do it, so can I!" Four years later we could have a true 'progressive' in office.
I guess I should qualify my statement that the good candidates never win. Although Dennis Kucinich dropped out of the presidential race, he did win his congressional primary. (Yay, Dennis!) Although I didn't get to vote for him for Congress (I don't live in Ohio), I did vote for him for President (in Florida) and sent money to his campaigns. I'll count that as a win. And boy, did it feel good.
I don't see Joe Lieberman's protege starting a progressive third (sic) party. I also don't much care which DLC member gets the nomination for the Dems.
We already have Green and Socialist parties for those who want actual progressive choices.
If the dems are stupid enough to run Clinton, an Obama/Nader or Obama/Kucinich ticket would be fun to watch and an excellent life insurance policy for BHO. Clinton at Health, Edwards at Justice, Richardson at Energy, Ron Paul at Defense.
And all in the same dream.
We all know that a candidate with truly progressive positions will be, in this day and age, knee-capped by the corporate media and can never make it even to first base. So it would seem that the only progressive candidate who could possibly make it to home plate would be one who pretends to be at least somewhat status quo. Is Obama that person? We cannot know unless he makes it there. However, any clever and highly intelligent progressive who seriously wants to win would have campaigned very similarly to the way Obama has campaigned. Progressives really have nothing else going on right now so I do not see what it would hurt to give him the benefit of the doubt, particularly since he did choose to be a community organizer and work for the public good. That should be worth something.
Fuck the Dimocraps. Why? Because they already said repeatedly "Fuck You" to me and the people who gave them the big anti-Bush mandate. They're so full of shit and ego that they can't tell themselves what's true anymore. Kucinich was as good as it's going to get. They assassinated him---so let them play their games and lose yet again. I am not going to vote for anybody whose idea of America is Dubuque, Iowa. Let the empire fall as it pleases.
Kathy--
I understand and agree.
But just in case anyone who calls the shots is watching--I am one democrat who will not vote if my only choices are Hillary with Barack or Hillary without Barack. There was a time, about two months ago, when I was torn between them. But no more. I have seen her evilness.
I wonder how many other people feel the same way? And if we all abstain from voting for that "dream ticket," how unifying will
that be?
As an ex-pat brit, and Liberal before they were Liberal Democrats, I would be very worried about a quick move to a third party. Three party systems are the best way for those in power to divide and rule. Thatcher et al managed to stay in power and do so much damage because of the three party system in the UK. That's not to say a grass roots party cannot emerge, Labour did so in the early years of the 20 C.
I would become an American and vote if there was a party worth supporting, but alas alack.
pax anyway
Anne Faith; I am another one who since 1968 has never voted for a winner. I sometimes hope my
record doesn't get broken. It has always been somewhat nice to always be able to say "Don't blame
me, I didn't vote for him".
To my2sense:
Hillary mentioning Barack as a running mate is a tactic she uses so she can say to win Superdelegates that she is the candidate who was willing to unify the party and Barack was the divider. She wants to counter the critisim of her very negative campaign.