COMarc (March 24th, 2008 5:30 pm) is right on the mark!

Forget this "half a loaf" nonsense!

We want -- we NEED -- to bake the loaf WE want and we NEED. somthing NUTIRITION and for our own recipe and vision.

GREENS symbolize taking steps to defininf a new direction based upon REALITY and caring self-awareness. You cannot go on playing this game of "lesser of two evils" and expect EVER to win.

Americans today always want what's EASY and convenient and what makes them feel good Right Now. THAT is what taking half a loaf IS. It means never getting around to DOING what is necessary to change things, always putting that off.

Friends, THAT is what has brought corporations into our living rooms, bedrooms, classrooms, and fascism to our doorstep.

I know, it ain't *easy*, it won't be easy. But we've allowed this to go on too long, and been lulled to sleep. Ther IS no easy or pretty answer, no matter how much you want it. Supporting Democrats who enable the fascist takeover without batting an eyelid, or even bringing up that ugly subject will not get us closer to RESISITING.

Only starting anew, RE-thinking, and building a Party truly based upon deomcratic principles and a vision of the world as it could be, can get us started down the Road to the World We Want. SUPPORT the GREEN PARTY! The rest is a waste!

Chris Hedges is totally correct!

Ralph Nader was absolutely right in calling the two so-called major parties, "Republicrats". We must exert—with all our strength—not to let them win!

One thing to remember, folks, is that nasty anachronistic elephant in the room--the Electoral College. In California, where I live, everyone I know, everyone they know and everyone on all their email lists--and, I would venture to say, every Common Dreams reader who lives in the state and all their friends and everyone on their email lists--could vote for Nader or McKinney and all the state's electoral votes would STILL go to the Democratic nominee. So if you live in a strong red or blue state, all you have to lose by voting for a real anti-war, progressive candidate is your addiction to the corporate-imperialist duopoly. Your vote will be meaningful because of the message it will send to the status quo Democrats: YOU CANNOT TAKE US FOR GRANTED ANYMORE! YOU WILL HAVE TO EARN OUR VOTES IF YOU WANT THEM! And if enough people actually vote their consciences, that will scare the hell out of them and they will have to adjust some of their rhetoric and behavior. At the very least, you will have helped to build the progressive opposition; you may even help to create a new era in American politics in which leadership is defined by ideas and integrity, not by party affiliation and the amount of money one can raise.

I personally think it is a dreadful abdication of your rights and responsibilities as a citizen to engage in "strategic voting" because it is a rejection of the most important element of our freedom--the right to freely cast a vote that represents your true opinion about the leadership and direction of the country. The most "un-American" thing you can do is to give up your right to vote for the kind of government you want, or to allow yourself to be intimidated by someone else into voting against what you truly believe because "the Republicans are worse." If you don't live in a "swing state," you don't have to worry about this at all. The Democrats will still get their bought-and-paid-for electoral votes, and you will be doing the nation a big favor by standing up for peace, social justice, and environmental wisdom.

I take the franchise to be a sacred trust. Even if I lived in a swing state, I would vote my conscience as a matter of principle, but I can understand if you live in one and are afraid to take the risk of telling the truth with your vote. But once again, if you live in a state like California or any other strongly red or blue state, there is no reason whatsoever to allow yourself to be bullied or intimidated into voting for either of the two pro-war candidates of the Democratic Party if you don't want to do so.

Sorry if my message was incomplete a minute ago.

Hedges presents strong arguments. Since presidents of both major parties for about the last 18 years have been jointly responsible for the deaths of well over 1 million Iraqis how can we support the candidates of either party when neither will agree to get us out of Iraq militarily immediately and completely.

I have been out on the street for a few hours weekly for five years.....in an area notable for it's anti-imperialist stance. Lucky to get a thank you or a cup of coffee most weeks, even though a huge majority agrees in Principle. And these people will likely vote "Democratic" in November !!!

Let's face the music folks: even in this age of computer info, humans cannot act in a rational way, collectively speaking. Individually perhaps, at times, but not collectively. "Throw away" our vote because we "know" the anti-war candidates "can't win"? This is the attitude people have when all hope is truly gone and no faith is left in the sorry experiment us "civilized" humans have been engaged in for so long.

Gotta get out of the box to see this one: a spiritual/economic/political/cultural revolution is waiting to happen, and will. Will we need a 2X4 to the skull to get it going or will a peacock feather suffice? Our choice.

This should have been the lead piece instead of the tail end. This is the Progressive place, not more status quo. I quite agree, vote Democrat or Republican if you want blood on your hands.

I went to the 5th anniversary locally and was disappointed the peace group decided to team up with Moveon. We had, the 22 of us, a candle lit vigil for the troops that died in our state. It was cold and windy standing on the street. I was the only one who brought my own sign that remembered the Iraqi dead. At the end the people were allowed to speak and one guy went on about voting for Obama to bring the change needed. I could sense those there were in agreement. I also got the feeling that these people were not fully aware. Example, the older man next to me asked me, "What ever happened to Cindy Sheehan".

I just saw an amazing documentary "Beyond Belief" (about 2 9/11 widows who help Afghanistan war widows) - one of the many reasons I would not vote for Obama is his insistence that we should go "in" to Afghanistan in a bigger way. His imperialism, his "civility" (which always works this way: we move to the RIGHT), his saying he has no passions about ANY issues (read his books, listen to his interviews). We are going to get stuck with old man McCain for at least 4 years; let's start a new abolitionist movement - end the Presidency and adopt a multi-party parliamentary system (eliminating the U.S. Senate, yay!); outlaw all monetary lobbying by corporations; at the very least get rid of the electoral college (allowing voters to have an actual say regardless of where they live - as it is now, only swing state voters matter); limit terms to no more than 3 years with a limited power PM having a maximum of 8 years in power - these are just a few of many ideas.

Did anyone see the CNN Ware the other night, stating that Al-quaida was a non-issue now...that buying that line now is listening to a used car salesmen?

The Dems and Repubs...like two bad tidal waves pounding on the center...us.

There is no end to the corruption....how I wish a third party could triumph. I am sooooo sick of what we have now.

Fact is, if I have to vote Dem or Repub....I am not voting my conscience....so they won't be getting it.

We are doomed either way...Dem or Repub....all the same club.

nothing will change until you hit them where THEY will feel it

turn off the tv
buy local foodstuffs
drive as little as possible
buy generic drugs whenever possible (do NOT endanger your health tho)
write letters / email all the MSM radio and demand real news (not entertainment)

drop your newspaper / magazine subscritions and tell them why

there are way smarter people than me who can think of more ways to hit them in the purse.. but please at least try

if we all do our little bit ..they will listen

Vote Green and slash consumption.

Chris Hedges has come out with some fine ideas in the past, but he is wrong on this one. We can all vote in protest for Nader, Gravel, McKinney, Kucinich, or Jesus, but all that will do is help throw the vote to the warmongers who started this war, the Repugs. It was not Hillary or Obama that lied us into this five year disaster and they would neither one have done it.

All this idealistic crap sounds great, but it will accomplish nothing but a feeling that we did the right thing, which sadly will end up doing the wrong thing and give us 4 or 8 more years of destruction and we will have no country left to worry about.

As Kemosobbe said, take the half loaf and make the best of it. The other option is to continue throwing the half loaf in the mud and end up with nothing. A lot of good that will do.

.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Nader Issues:
Adopt single payer national health insurance.
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget.
No to nuclear power, solar energy first.
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime
and corporate welfare.
Open up the Presidential debates .
Adopt a carbon pollution tax .
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East .
Impeach Bush/Cheney.
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law.
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax .
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism .
Work to end corporate personhood.

.

For those who keep insisting that voting third party or Nader is throwing away your vote, you can keep voting for your democrat candidate and let the status quo continue. For me, the status quo has got to go.

By the way, Bill Clinton should have been impeached, not because of the sex scandal but because of his economic policies that pulled the rug out of the common man. Oh yes, you got a dollar more than, but now your have no health insurance.

There is no god, so sorry. Take better care of this earth.

so it goes...

"have only two options in the coming presidential elections-Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney."

Damn! Even Chris Hedges won't mention Mike Gravel. The only reason democrats have the slightest chance in hell of getting my vote is because of people like Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. Gravel did a better job than anybody of exposing most of the democratic candidates for the warmongering scum they are.

"He mouthed thought-terminating patriotic slogans to out-Bush Bush."

I listened closely in 2004 for Kerry to say he was going the end the subjugation of Iraq. He never did. I was willing to vote for him if he would only promise this single thing. But no, that asshole could only tell us how he'd be a better imperialist than Bush. In a sick kind of way, I'm glad I will not have to even contemplate voting for Obama. I live in a republican voting state so I won't even have to waste a vote on the lesser evil. I'll just vote for Nader, McKinney, or Gravel.

I kept waiting for something to change in 2006, when the Democrats talked of 100 days, but nothing changed except maybe a bit of the rhetoric. I guess we have to be the change we wish to see. I agree about getting off the consumption wheel and getting back to the roots. Join a community garden, shop thrift, learn how to grow, sew and diy. Go to the library, read books on herbs, barter if you can, go for long walks and learn about birds. Joy is a path, not a destination. With military accounting for about 80 percent of our manufacturing, I don't think much will change in the funding of such a jobs program! Although, I'm keeping an eye on Van Jones, he has some wonderful ideas.

Peace be with you all!

Thank you Mr. Hedges and Poet March:

After the TV is turned off, reread Thoreau. Then boycott every transnational corp. selling in your community you can, without undermining your health. Is such even possible anymore? Still, one does what one can. A little by each of us is a lot by all of us. The pain of change is how long it takes.

Two more suggetions:

1. Stop shopping for all but survival necessities.

2. Stop watching TV (and byu so doing stop being programmed by its commercial content)

When we contract the economy we contract the power for Bushco or its successors to wage war.

All of you who think Nader made a difference in 2000 should check the stats - in Fla - 200,000 Dems LEGITIMATELY voted for Bush. Gore also lost Tenn - his home state. Part of his problem was also lack of Clinton support and Bilary's campaign using vital Dem resources.

Kerry rolled over after promising to 'contest' any unusual voting patterns - like Ohio.

These are the Dems you love so much.

At least your conscience would be clear after the dust settles in Nov.

At least the courts have decided that it is legal for people to demonstrate along the inauguration route in a recent decision against the Nat'l Parks Srvc.

We should focus on planning a reception for whoever takes that walk ( which Bush avoided) to show how strongly we feel about the issues WE care about - not the fantasies of the 2...er, 1 party system in place.

Exactly how are you going to 'push' Obama for the policies you want? That sounds good, but its complete and utter bull.

Or, look at it another way. How much success has the anti-war movement had in pushing this Dem led Congress towards a different policy? None, nada, zip, nothing, a complete failure.

The anti-war movement has had its maximum leverage over Obama in the last few months. With the final votes being cast, that is ending. Obama knew he needed anti-war votes to get the nomination, so we've had maximum leverage over Obama. At best that produced a few mealy-mouthed statements that he contradicts at other times. That's it. You've already gotten the most from Obama that you are going to get.

When Obama is President, how are you going to 'push' him? You can't. You'll have no leverage. You have no political power. When you vote for Obama in November, you'll have sacrificed all the leverage and power that you might have. When you continue to line up behind the Democrats and vote for the Democrats despite the fact that they do exactly the opposite of what you want them to do, you are giving away any political leverage or power that might have.

The Democrats laugh at you as 'idiot liberals'. And this is why. They know there are plenty of fools out there that say they oppose the war, but they'll go into voting booths and vote for a Democratic party that approved this war in the beginning, that has supported funding the war and the Pentagon at every turn, and is plainly saying today that if elected they'll keep the troops in Iraq until 2012 and they'll probably expand the wars into other places. Of course they think of you as 'idiot liberals'. Only a complete idiot would keep voting for politicians who do the opposite of what their supporters want.

If you want leverage, if you want to be able to push to change policy, you must develop political power. You don't develop and demonstrate political power that opposes the war by voting for pro-war candidates.

Even if the Greens lose, a strong vote for them develops and demonstrates growing political power. A strong Green vote will scare the Democrats, and get them worried about what's going to happen in 2010. A strong Green vote means maybe we have some negotiating power with the Dems who are in office. Causing the DEFEAT of Democrats only strengthens this. The best way to get Congress to listen to us is if we can show up after elections day saying "we defeated so-and-so and so-and-so and this guy too. Listen to us if you don't want to be next."

So, its win-win if you oppose this war. You get to support politicians who actually believe as you do. And you get to deliver a firm message to Washington that this will not continue.

Or, if you vote Democrat, the war will continue and the Democrats will laugh at all the idiots that keep voting for them. And you'll have the blood of thousands on your hands.

Actually, the Democrats = the OLD Republcans

Please listen to what the Democrats are saying. They've promised, both Obama and Hillary that US Troops WILL be in Iraq in 2012 at the end of their term.

And they all promise to expand the military and give even more of our money to the Pentagon.

They've both been very warlike in their pronouncements. Both talk about expanding the war to Pakistan, and both have solidly supported Bush\Cheney et al about attacking Iran. Both are also visciously hostile to leftist governments in South America as well.

Both support 'withdrawal' plans where we don't withdraw. They have loopholes big enough to drive an army of occupation through them, thus their solid promise that we will have troops in Iraq in 2012. And they both propose a policy that if anything is more evil than our current one. While they might withdraw our troops to bases to and other countries in the region to cut down on American casualties, they both also would emphasize greater use of airpower inside Iraq. This means more 500 lb bombs dropping in residential areas. Which means more indiscriminate killing of non-combatants.

If you vote Democrat, then you have blood on your hands. If you vote Democrat, you are supporting this war and the wars they'll expand or start while in office. If you vote Democrat, you are as bad as those who vote Republican.

I really don't see what the difference is if a Republican wins this time around. The Democrats have been supporting the Bush policy all along, and the current Dem plans for Iraq are remarkably similar to the Republican plans. They all talk about starting to reduce our forces there, but that we will be there for the long haul.

In 2004, Obama, at around the time of his convention speech, said in an interview that he was basically on the same page as Bush in terms of Iraq policy. That's still true today. Both talk about staying there through entire term of the next president, and both talk about some reductions in the number of troops.

FACE IT, the Dems support this war. They dance and lie a lot about it, because they want to tap into the votes of the people who are fed up with this. But look at the details. Look at what the Dems have actually done. Reid and Pelosi both promised after the 2006 elections that war funding would not be cut by this Congress. And they've delivered on that promise. They've tried to create some political theater to pretend they oppose the war, but they've successfully guided both the supplemental funding bills and the main Pentagon budgets through Congress without any cuts.

Tom Delay would be proud of them. And there's absolutely been no difference in what this Congress has done under Dem leadership than what would have happened if the Republicans had still had the majority.

If you want this war to end, voting Democrat is a wasted vote. Even worse, if you want this war to end, voting Democrat is a vote for the enemy. Voting Democrat is clearly a vote to continue this war for four more years. We must stop voting Democrat.

I worked for Kucinich in '04, Edwards in '08, and after he dropped out, I voted for Obama.

It's true that Barack has not been a very progressive Senator or campaigner. There are things he's done that I don't like. I still think he's worth voting for, and if he can defeat first Hillary and then McCain, he could be the most effective progressive President since FDR. Maybe not.

Neither Nader nor McKinney have a prayer of winning the White House. Hillary lies and panders and is a lightning rod for venom- I'd find it very difficult to vote for her for anything.

Obama compromises, but he also inspires lots of people, particularly young people. The nations of the world would see an Obama victory as a renunciation of the Bush/Cheney era. I think that's worth achieving. And we will need to keep pushing for sanity in foreign policy and single payer health care and all the things we want.

Politics is the art of the possible. Keep pushing for what we want, and when the chips are down and it's time to vote, be thoughtful and realistic about the options.

#sorefeets almost had it right. Should have said:

DEMOCRATS. . .THE NEW REPUBLICANS, but with only one testicle!

Chris, love your writing and admire you, but disagree on the vote for Nader and McKinney. Florida 2000 -- We can't afford another republican-- take half a loaf and hope for the best!!!

I agree with LindaS. My first-choice candidates (Dodd, Kucinich, Edwards) were soundly ignored by the MSM and had to drop out. I'm also 57 (hi, pod!) and I can't bear the thought of another 4/8 years of this insanity. It will be the death-knell of this nation if John Sidney McCain III is elected. As much as I appreciate everything that Ralph Nader has done for the American consumer, I will not advocate a splitting of the Democratic vote such that, once again, the Rethugs stay in the White House.

Re "Obama, his advisers say, will also not rule out continuing to use private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq."

While serving as a potentially influential member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the committee charged with overseeing private paramilitary forces, for the past five years, Sen. Clinton has done absolutely nothing whatsoever to rein in these mercenary troops.

Not only did she do nothing, she actively declined to support the Stop Outsourcing Security Act and declined to respond to press inquiries into her mercenary position, the same press inquiries that Obama's staff did respond to and that resulted in the American public at least being informed of his official position.

On the day after the article by Jeremy Scahill was released about Obama's mercenary position, Clinton finally took a stand. She immediately signed on as a cosponsor of the Stop Outsourcing Security Act (over three months after it was introduced) and released a statement claiming that she is opposed to the use of mercenary forces while Obama is not.

For those of us who are going to hold our noses and vote for a Democratic candidate as a desperate move to prevent the emotional and mental incompetence of McCain being installed into the WH, we need to know some of these particulars about Clinton and Obama. You may not particularly care for either one, but they are not the same, esp in the area of honestly communicating their positions in a timely manner to America's voters.

Look, Americans, sooner or later you are gonna hafta break out of your one-party system. What's the matter with right now?

DEMOCRATS. . .THE NEW REPUBLICANS!

I'm all for Cynthia McKinney but I guess it will have to be a "protest vote" which is only slightly less meaningless than a regular vote all things considered. Given the monopolization of the media and the corruption of the selectoral process, we won't be seeing either of these legitimate candidates in the illegitimate debates and most people may not even hear of them or their positions much less think either has a chance. A sad state of affairs indeed.

pod - thank you.

I agree and will not vote Democratic either, for all the reasons Chris cited.

Further, maybe we need to begin planning for actions to begin after McCain is elected.

The one thing to keep in mind is to keep a close eye on his running mate.

I'm 57 yrs old and have never voted republican. The same will hold true for 2008. However I am so fed up with the Democratic party that I cannot bring myself to vote for whoever their nominee may be in November. Whether they are complicit with the Repubs or too spineless to stand up to them, they have become a non factor as far as changing the coursre in which our country is moving. Nader said back in 2000 (even before 9/11) that there was no difference between the two parties. And the Dems have proven him correct by giving Bush everything he wanted from Iraq and war funding to Allito and Roberts to the Patriot Act to illegal spying to election fraud to torture to taking "impeachment off the table" etc., etc. This year I will vote Independent.

Just because everybody believes in something doesn't make it true. Just because only one person believes in something doesn't make it false.

This war (and most wars) is just a way for the powerful to transfer riches and money from someone else (or some other country) to themselves; with the powerless (and the foolish), who join the military for patriotic reasons, paying the ulitmate price.

It would seem that we would have learned by now, but as Mr. Fisk said recently, the only lesson we have learned is that we never learn. How much worse do things have to get before people wake up?

Just another unrepentant Nader Supporter

so it goes...

This isn't an article about ending the war. This is about reclaiming the true meaning of being patriotic. How can these clowns in D.C. continue to play political games while the country, and world, is being destroyed? It can't be love of country because they are the ones who are killing the country. It could be national security because these are the political whores who have made Americans hated all over the world. But mostly it's greed. This is what drives our current political system. Not justice and dignity for all, not a desire to help your country, but greed for power and money. It's not how the country started out. But,it was only a matter of time before Capitalism would figure out how to subvert the Democracy standing between them and their desired profits. So it's natural that our politicians would evolve into businesspeople and use the Constitution to help themselves do more domestic and international business.
We don't need to change the king. We need to change the kingdom. Nader was right when he said we become slaves when we don't have a breaking point.
Hoa binh

We cannot salvage both our integrity and the market.

Uncle Dick has a plan to bomb Iran for McCain. Who do you trust to lead us in an air war against Iran? The wise old tortured warrior, of course.

Is it their terrorism or ours? This is the big question of the 21st Century that America refuses to address.

Yes, I agree with Chris Hedges, what America needs is a radical change of heart, a new spirituality of liberation and justice.

However, this I beleive can only come about with the inevitable self-destruction of Western indusrtrial capitalism and the fall of the American Empire. It is in reality, a waiting game.

Until then, any heroic democratic oppossition to the imperialistic power brokers of war and economic domination will remain futile. The game is rigged until the very end, and the end may be sooner than we think.

Hedges doesn't even address the spoiler problem, which I think is very arrogant. What if our antiwar votes for Nader swing the election to McCain, who advocates a 100 year war in Iraq and bursts into joyful song at the prospect of starting a new war in Iran? As Noam Chomsky said, activists have to be guided by the forseeable consequences of our actions.