A 3rd Party? We don't even have TWO parties! We've got ONE party -- The Party of Fascist Corporatism (sorry for the redundancy).

AMEN to elmeztisogordo. Non partisan is what we really need.

I won't be able to vote for Hillary either. I never really liked her but now I find her revolting beyond discription.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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

SIBELIUS FROM ERROR KANSAS EXCUSE ME

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.

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.

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

-------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.

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.

Martin Sheen, eh? Sounds good to me. Actually I think I'll vote for Sean Penn.

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.

I suggest marijuana and junkfood.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

Good idea!

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.

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.

You're operating under the assumption that Obama is a "progressive." Which he isn't, really.

Hillary needs to drop out of the race. She's no Democrat.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

"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

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.

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.

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??????

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.