An opening to attack McCain has appeared by him releasing his tax returns, but indicating that his wife's tax returns (which include tens of millions in income from her Hensley & Company inherited beer distributorship) must remain secret. Keith Olberman did a great job yesterday on MSNBC in ridiculing this "secrecy" and finally started talking about their big BEER profits on national TV. He also suggested someone asking McCain in an interview why exactly he committed adultery decades ago with (current wife) Cindy while still married to former wife.

The key to McCain's defeat is to separate him from the "Church" vote, which his personal morality or lack thereof most certainly does not deserve. McCain cannot win without the social conservatives, and the social conservatives cannot vote for McCain and face themselves and their own consciences IF THEY ARE INFORMED (which most are not--------- YET.)

As for the Democrats, Hillary and Bill are now into a zone of obvious willingness to be carelessly destructive of the party and the people. With luck, that ain't gonna keep playing very far forward.

I have been saying since January that a united Democratic party could win easily in November. They could be pounding the Rethugs every day instead of flaming each other and doing Karl Rove's work for him.

The USA needs a hero, a candidate who will relinquish their bid for President, for the greater good. Then all the Democrats could be 'winners', united against the common enemy.
Instead this insane infighting will inevitably produce 'losers' out of half the Democratic voters. Many will jump the party and vote independent or not at all.

Every day this continues the Democratic party grows weaker. Every day the chance to stand up to the war-mongers who are desperately trying to start a new aggression against Iran goes begging. Every day the chance to restore our Constitutional rights is ignored.

I believe it is irrelevant which party takes the elections in November. The US is going down, and it would be better to have a Republican at the helm when the US crashes at the bottom.

I believe this to be a necessary path for the US, for when one loses everything, every step after that is forward and and positive. This is necessary for the US to heal.

Agreed. Yet once Obama is a clear winner and the Democrats hand him the mantle we will see if he is able to pull up his jock strap and play hard ball. The playing field is against him right now and he knows it. The innings have been long and tedious but its still only the second or third. He has come from bat boy to lead off in a stunningly short period. There is time for him to get the feel of it. Herbert, like most journalists, pushes so hard because they so love to see Democrats stumble. We are deep in a war and bogus economy that Republicans have manipulated to the detriment of the nation but look what gets printed. Democrats, in my view, have attempted to muster a majority after the abysmal years of Johnson and Vietnam. Maybe, just maybe, we can pull it together and do it with an inclusive awakening. It won't be easy with the likes and gripes of the press.

Thank you, Mr. Herbert, for one of the most succinct and cogent articles to appear on CD in a long time (even if it was originally written for the New York Tombs). The Democrats WILL lose for all the reasons stated above. Hillary Clinton is poisoning the well so Obama will lose the general election and she can run again in 2012. McCain is mentally disturbed; any politician who will actually tell the American people he plans to start more wars has every single screw loose that can be loose. Americans should be running away from this lunatic as if he were an out of control big rig headed straight at them. The heedless, half-assed, uninformed and indifferent people of this country have been intent upon self-destruction for a long time. This is what they want and they are going to get it in spades. All the well meaning people who keep saying that it's better to light a candle than curse the darkness don't seem to realize that while there may be enough candles to do so . . . the Republicans own all the matches and they're not going to sell you any.

Although I enjoyed Mr. Herbert's views and agree that the Democrats are not helping their cause, it seems almost superfluous to mention that Mr. Herbert's own mainstream media and pundits frame the issues by selectively pursuing trivia against Democrats while ignoring important lies and distortions told and repeated by Republicans. The only way a Democrat will ever win in such an environment is if ordinary Americans close their ears and eyes to all political reporting by the MSM, admit to themselves they are getting screwed by the Republicans, and vote for anybody the Democrats select as a candidate.

When asked if he was a member of an organized political party
Will Rogers said "No, I'm a Democrat."

The Clintons have been and continue to be the greatest liability of the Dims. They brought Repug lite and a generally conservative agenda to the Whitehouse and centered their party around a losing DLC strategy to lock out progressives and ensure the corporatocracy's status-quo.

Hillary Clinton is doing everything she can to railroad the leading contender, Obama, for her own nefarious gains at the expense of the country. If you have a mis-placed anger towards the genuine populist Ralph Nader because you labor from the illusion that he cost the Dims the presidency, you should have 10 times the anger at Hillary Clinton, a corporatist shill who is actually, purposefully handing the office to the neocons for another term.

I agree Bob that the Dems are stepping on their own feet but the Republicans and McCain have much to be concerned about. The war is a disaster, the debt is huge, the oil profits are sky high and we the people are paying for it. There is also the huge turnouts in the primaries and caucuses where the Dems look ready and willing to fight.

I suggest that when Obama gets the nomination and starts focusing on where this country needs to head after the almost 8 years of the disaster guided by the illuminaries of the Republican Party, the people will show their wisdom and vote a new direction for America.

We are the ones that will make the difference. The more conversation, the more consciousness, the more education of the the realities of what is going on, the more the people will be informed voters. Your voice, my voice and everyone who cares voices will make a positive difference.

Joseph Bernard
www.Explorelifeblog.com
www.Peace-Together.com

The Dems had a good candidate, John Edwards, who should have been able to unite his party and beat the Repugs by a landslide. The trouble was, the Repugs knew it, so we got constant hammering 24-7 that the "front runners" were Hillary and Barack. Repugs are not good for much, but their ability to steal elections when people do not really want them is uncanny.

It is foolish to drag either one of the Dems through the mud, as it was another set-up election from the start, and there are many more tricks ahead if this one doen`t do it.

This election is not about a woman for president, or a black man for president. It is about cleaning house in Washington, DC.
It's about breaking up the good old boy networks that control other people's money (the taxpayers). If you ask any taxpayer if they approve of the way Washington spends their money on an ever-expanding war machine, or on private contractors with no government oversight, or on de-regulating - doing away with the thousands of consumer safe-guards protecting the general public from abuse, or on filling appointed offices with political cronies instead of people who know what they are or should be doing, that taxpayer will say "Give me a break! Kick out the cronies, the lobbyists, the private contractors getting rich at the public trough, and give me back a sense of trust, of appreciation for public office, of confidence in our civil society." "Change,"
Obama has hit the nail on the head, and change can hardly be expected from the same old Washington insiders, calling out political favors. It's time to clean house.

I agree with everything WTF says. I think the country is going down, and it's best that a Republican be at the helm when it does.

Besides all WTF says, there's also the majority of several generations who have sunk so deep in apathy when it comes to government and what direction we're going in, that nothing short of suddenly waking up at the bottom of a well without a ladder will shock them out of it.

"While some of those predicaments raise legitimate concerns (his former pastor, his comments in San Francisco)"

I disagree 200%. Rev. Wright's statements were absolutely correct. But they had nothing to do with Obama. He didn't make the statements.

It's a sad day when one is expected to give up his church, or give up his job when the leader says something he disagrees with. It's even worse if one shuns another only for telling the truth.

My take on this is that neither Obaba, nor Clinton should need to campaign in order to beat McCain.

.

I'll say it again…

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.votenader.org/index.html

.

wilmoor,

You and WTF do have a point, but there is a serious danger associated with your approach. Note:

(1) the Republicans will be aware that after an economic collapse with a Republican in control that it would be almost impossible for Republicans to win a fair election;
(2) Republicans have shown little or no respect for the constitution or the processes of democracy;
(3) Republicans have shown the boldness (or recklessness) necessary to take extreme risks to accomplish their goals; and
(4) Republicans have been clearly evolving into a ruthless criminal gang.

And that all leads to the conclusion that if Republicans do win the White House one more time, they may have the time, determination, and ability to implement a total fascist state, and so it would be completely irrelevant whether the population blamed them for an economic collapse or anything else. If there were any further national elections, they would probably only be for show, and would not differ much from elections in the old Soviet Union.

If you are still looking to Washington for change, disappointment is in your future. The least worse candidate will only slow down and prolong the pain. Events are beyond one man or woman's ability the change. The Congress still functions on an 18th Century operating system that guarantees failure. They simply lack the understandings and management architecture to succeed in an environment of hyperculture. We are apporaching the need for a paradigm shift in thinking, yet those in power and their corporate sponsors are married to the idea of 20th Century centralized control. Mix a little greed into the system, a heavy dose of Fascism, endless foreign wars, middle class bankruptcy, and some rosed colored public relations and we have an unsustainable future.

The architecture of change is decentralization and the catalyst will be hardship and bitterness. Since change begins at the bottom and a new vision is developing, there will be a general roadmap to new more sustainable lifeways. The change must first take place in the individual mind, heart, and spirit. We couldn't ask for a better symbol of rebirth than the Mayan vision of 2012. A once in 26,000 year cosmic event where the Earth and Sun are at the center of the Milkyway. On December 21, 2012 the Sun will pass through the Dark Rift of the Milkyway to an ascendant rebirth. People have a choice. Choose life, cooperation, and respect or choose death, ego, and greed based competition. The choice for the human future could not be more clear. People will either choose to transcend in a life affirming way or they will choose death.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Nader Issues:

A definitive military and corporate withdrawal date from Iraq;

Single-payer, expanded Medicare-style health insurance for all;

Labor law reform and repeal of the anti-union provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act;

A solar-based sustainable energy policy;
and,
An end to the corporate welfare and corporate crime that has resulted in millions losing pensions and jobs.

.

I don't think any of the candidates really knows what to do next year. They may very well be organizing "picking up the pieces". It may be too late for Keynesian adjustments, playing with tax rates, etc. 8 years of tax cut and spend, non-enforcement of regulation, war, financial insanity, the real estate as ponzi scheme adventure, globalization run amok, printing valueless money... Add in peak oil, health care continuing to increase 10% plus every year, the cost of food inflating, and nothing done about global warming.

What a mess! Are you sure you want this job Mr. Obama?

It appears as if the old joke about Democrats being a circular firing squad is happening again (the Will Rogers quip about not belong to an organized party applies as well). This time it mostly due to Hilary Clinton's pique at the temerity of the Democratic rank and file not going along her feeling of entitlement that the nomination is hers by right. If the Democrats lose in November, her narcissism will be a main cause.

I sincerely hope for a brokered convention - I personally can't live with Barack Obama for President. He's a disaster! Sure, I will vote outside the box, for Nader or McKinney, but I can also hope for a Democrat to win, simply to alleviate some pain & suffering that would surely happen if McCain were to win.

Russell Feingold (with the exception of Israel-Palestine), John Edwards, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulksi, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Bernie Sanders (progressive party), or even Hillary Clinton, who I like more than most on here (she's wrong on some foreign policy and fiscal policy, but she makes up for it with some good ideas particularly for domestic policies), Mike Gravel, Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney would all make excellent Presidents.

"[Obama] needs to be clear about where he wants to lead this country and how he plans to do it. That's how a candidate defines himself or herself."

"Instead, Mr. Obama is allowing the Clintons and the news media to craft a damaging persona of him as some kind of weak-kneed brother from another planet, out of touch with mainstream America, and perhaps a loser."
_______________________

Obama is behaving like some kind of weak-kneed brother from another planet because he knows that MSM corporate shills like Herbert would crucify him if he told the truth. If you don't believe me, look at how Herbert characterizes Obama's association with the truthteller Wright, and Obama's unfortunate moment of candor when he called American workers "bitter." They are, says Herbert, "cultural predicaments" Obama stumbled into that "raise legitimate concerns."

Obama knows he has to cloak his decency and compassion to win. Swearing obeisance to the pharisaical MSM gods of torture, savage capitalism, and imperialism is the only roadmap to victory. Telling the truth to Americans is a roadmap to Golgotha.

If I read the reports correctly, the Democrats have already lost. After all, they have yet to present a candidate and show no signs of doing so. Apparently the best they can try to muster is a couple of terrible-twos pulling each other's hair. The Republicans I know are already celebrating.

Road map to defeat? No, it's not. It's the road map to the S.O.S. C'mon folks, you can smell it. You can see it. The recent ABC joke of a debate splattered it. The Hillary-Obama (and McCain) show is the best this country can produce?

Look at your progressive issues, those that define you. Look at Nader's positions and commitments, platform. Look at the substantive way Nader responds to questions, and how he rejects the corporate crap questions, such as do you accept Jesus, or wear a flag pin, or how about your friggin' minister. No, the Democrats are NOT on the road to defeat. They ARE ALREADY defeated by their own inability to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, end the war, and institute universal single payer health care. Nader is at 10% in Michigan. What keeps someone like Nader from winning is progressives who regressively argue that he cannot win. They await their savior and when the Party throws them one they go after the bone, time and time again. Shameful. Tui culpa. Tui maxima culpa! Run Ralph. Run!

We need to realize that, as a functioning body, the Democratic Party is a myth. There hasn't been one in nearly thirty years. Half of the politicians labeled as "Democrats" are as corporatist as the Republicans.

How can there be unity of purpose for the public good with these Republicrats?

Whatever liberals there were in the party have almost all compromised themselves with the corporatocracy.

Liberals can't, or won't, even stand up to defy the Reich's false characterization of who they are.

No wonder liberalism, as a factor in US government, has been dead for thirty years.

I agree with bbr-001. Whoever becomes the next president, he will have a mess on his/her hands. It will take a Herculean effort, by any president, to remake this country, if it is not too late. McCain doesn't even have a clue, and he will carry on what Bush has started.

jozef__Just how do you think the Democrats could end the war, put in operation a national health plan, or do much of anything, when Bush and his zombies are bent on stopping all of the Dems ideas, and Bush has veto power than cannot be overridden? Nader could not do anything either, unless he had a majority in Congress like thre Repugs had for six years.

WTF & wilmoor__You may be right about the country going down, as it is on it`s way there. I disagree that it may be the best way to straighten things out, though. We had better do everything in our power to prevent that from happening as we have a citizenry that is not prepared to exist on a meager lifestyle. In the `1930-1940 period of depression and war, most people were able to sacrifice and pull themselves through with hard labor and helping each other. Our younger generations have not seen those kind of conditions and would probably end up in chaos and disaster.

calm down everybody.......WHOEVER THE DEM NOMINEE IS....HE\SHE WILL BEAT MCCAIN THIS NOVEMBER.... ONCE AGAIN THE MEDIA IS ALWAYS HYPING THINGS UP !! ONCE THE GENERAL ELECTION DEBATES START MCCAIN WILL BE EXPOSED .....MCCAIN IS GARBAGE....THE FAR RIGHT WING OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WISHED THEY NOMINATED SOMEBODY ESLE FOR SURE....YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK !!!

Hebert you have to be kidding. Whatever your feelings for Barry O., please be clear that the enthusiasm for his candidacy has not cooled. If his Friday night rally in front of Independence Hall in Philly is any indication, that fact that he drew a crowd of more than 35,000 should give you a clue. The fact that he has picked up a couple of key endorsements from former Clinton stallwarts should give you a clue.

Think of the position the corporate media has put him in. He's damned for not going full force on Clinton in that sham of a debate this past week in Philly. And he would be damned if he really went for her jugular. Do you really, honestly believe that he couldn't hammer, hammer, hammer away at her many negatives if he wanted to? But if he does that, then he becomes the very thing that many white people fear: the big bad black man symbolically beating up on the poor white woman. Maybe that doesn't apply to well-read, well-informed folks that post here, but believe me Obama has to walk a tightrope.

It really bugs me that Obama is blamed for the attacks against him. It's like someone being robbed and mugged while trying to walk a little old lady home because it's dark outside and then being ridiculed for their injuries because she lives in a crime-ridden neighborhood.

You are free to support who you support but please believe that everybody is not stupid. We can truly understand what's up here.

Brother from another planet, indeed!!!

BOOKSENSE YOU ARE 100% CORRECT .....OBAMA was to walk a tight rope....HILLARY IS ALWAYS TRYING TO GET HIM TO SHOW HIS "BLACK" SIDE.....

Article: "The Democrats are doing everything they can to blow this presidential election. This is a skill that comes naturally to the party. There is no such thing as a can't-miss year for the Democrats. They are truly gifted at finding ways to lose."

My sentiments exactly. Americans don't realize that the current mess has been 28 years in the making. It'll take a similar amount of time, under Democrat control, to reverse the slide in America. These things don't change overnight. It doesn't matter who wins for the Democrats. Indeed, for sheer gravitas, McCain may be the best candidate running. Democrats HAVE to win, to begin reversing this slide into fascism America has been taking.

Consider what happens if a Dem wins in November. It'll take 10 years, as least, to reverse the effects of just BUSH's additions to the national debt. Seriously BAD things have been happening under the current administration, and under republican control. These effects need to be reversed ASAP, or America really does risk sliding into a kind of third world enui.

RichM: As usual, right on target.

Explorelife says: The people will show their wisdom....

I can scarcely believe I'm reading that! To show something you have to have it first. If the American people are wise I don't understand anything. I must be a lot more stupid than I ever realized.

Senator Baraq Hussein, Jr. is doomed even if he wins the primary (by the invisible help from "supreme" delegates), which is not very likely either given the presence of his untiring opponent -- Hillary Clinton.

American voters may not want a man from Islamic heritage to occupy the White House in 2009. After all, Americans are rightfully (or wrongfully, one might argue) fighting the Islamic terrorism worldwide. President Bush's war on terror is synonymous with America's war against Islamic terrorism that threatens American imperial interests.

Senator Baraq Hussein, Jr. is good at saying what a huge fraction of racially divided Democratic voters like to hear.

But, other than that, American voters in a general election are not yet prepared to elect a person of Islamic or Jewish faith as the commander-in-chief.

Kennel. You stop the war by filibustering the occupation/war spending and/or supplemental bill till it dies. You do that because the U.S Constitution matters, god damn it. Because you believe in no more war crimes. No more torture. no more extreme rendition. That's how. The point is that you have to let the Democratic Party know that the people will no longer tolerate more of the same. That taking the voters for granted has come to an end. Pelosi should be the last time you Democrats let that happen. But heh, no spine, Eh?

You don't make change by going gaga over Obama, the candidate premeditatively groomed and packaged to be the new Democratic Party savior. You push the Democratic Party by taking your vote away and maybe, just maybe, when it behaves the way the people want, you give the vote back. You do it the way Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas, Henry Wallace, and others have done successfully in the past.

Yes, the current mess is 28 (or more) years in the making. In the making by the One Corporate Party with two heads! How is anything going to change by voting for yet again, gag, ad nauseum, the same candidates with the same hype, the same sham, from the same rotten duopoly? It's not.

kivals -

Your points are all right on - and they're exactly why I've been saying for nearly a year that there is no way in hell they're going to allow the Democrats to take over at this point to start rebuilding everything they've destroyed.

We'll be in Iran sometime this summer, Bush will initiate their well-thought-out agenda, the election will be cancelled, and if Bush wants out, McCain will be annointed his successor.

Everything else I say about the election is only wishful thinking.

The most interesting thing about this whole election is that nobody can predict how it will play out. How will either of the two candidates will react when the other is anoited? Hillary Clinton has scared me ever since I saw the fury in her eyes during the "Shame on you, Barak Obama" response. B.O. has a good candidate schtick, but nobody has a sixth of a clue how he would actually perform both as opposition to the Republican contender or as president. It has been fascinating in a twisted sort of way, unlike any other election season I can remember -- and I've been following the process since Kennedy-Nixon in 1960.

Can either one of the top two credibly present themselves as having solutions for problems that are so immense that thinking about them at all can stagger most imaginations? Can either one say with a straight face that they have the ways and means to make things better? Do they actually believe this? Does B.O. really think that an upbeat positivity and willingness to work "with" rather than "against" the opposition to get past the "old politics" can actually lead to a national renewal? Does H.C. believe that her willingness to "work hard from day one" can stave off climate change, global financial collapse, and the belief of much of the earth's population that war is a viable solution to anything? If both do believe their own b.s., doesn't this call their sanity into question?

Can anyone at this point count out the possibility that the Democratic Party will find a way to bring Al Gore or John Edwards in to become some sort of party-unifying "compromise" candidate?

If you can enjoy the whole show as a show and not speculate too much on the actual personal consequences of any foreseeable outcome, then this is the best presidential election season in U.S. history.

The exaltation of ignorance as a virtue and the adoption of violence as a cure-all have bankrupted the country. The United States' crappy Treasury bills are paying less and less and are worth less and less.

How will the U.S. respond when other countries fail to support its massive deficits? The answer is easily seen by looking to Iraq: the U.S. will go to war, and with even bigger problems than it has at this moment, the U.S. will need more and bigger wars to retain its hegemony and its dollar.

There's no other way to protect the dollar but war. Now that the bullshit is wearing thin, the only thing left to support the U.S. dollar is the country's military and its enormous cache of nuclear weapons. There is nothing else left to support the dollar. War is the U.S.'s only option, and the war in Iraq will be fanned to engulf much more of the world.

Having outlined the next president's international policy, the second question is, How will the U.S. respond to its domestic problems of depression, starvation and bitterness? Again, by looking to the recent past the answer is plain to see: The U.S. will choose an expansion of its prison system and a strong enhancement of police powers to maintain domestic order.

That is our future: more and bigger foreign wars, perhaps a really big global nuclear war, and a powerful expansion of the police state.

The third question is, How long will that ugly situation continue? The answer to this question is that the hellish America to come will go on for quite a few years. It will end only when the U.S. is militarily defeated, and that is going to take the rest of the world quite some time and trouble to carry out.

But there is another possibility: Perhaps the U.S. will be victorious in the big war to come. In an absolutely unrestrained, all out war, the U.S. big weapons, boats and airplanes become far more effective. Under conditions of depression and near starvation, the public will not concern itself with torture or nuclear weapons or war, and the government will be able to bomb, torture and kill without restraint. Under these conditions, the U.S. possibly could be successful in defeating or crippling most of the world.

None of this depends on the next president. We cannot prevent the disasters at our doorstep, we can only try to protect ourselves and our own.

First, both Democratic candidates are flawed. No candidate is perfect. To pine away waiting for the "perfect" candidate is vacuous and irresponsible. It is, however, quite responsible to put flaws into perspective. The flaws of the Democratic candidates are small hillocks in comparison to the Himalayan flaws of the right. So, quit dwelling on flaws.

Second, at this point in the campaign, the self-destruction of the Democratic Party is 100% the fault of the Clintons. You can argue that Hillary has the right to stay in the race. But she does not have the right to use tactics that deep six the chances of any Democrat winning the general election.

Third, once BHO gets the nomination, the best thing the Clintons can do is go away quietly and not "help" him. McCain could have no greater ally in the general election that the Clintons helping Obama.

jozef wrote:

What keeps someone like Nader from winning is progressives who regressively argue that he cannot win. They await their savior and when the Party throws them one they go after the bone, time and time again.

While I don't doubt the sincerity of your admiration of and support for Ralph Nader, I have to disagree with your analysis of why Nader cannot win.

To believe that Nader doesn't win because progressives don't throw their support behind him en masse (out of the belief that he cannot win) is to greatly overestimate the prevalence of progressives or left-leaning people among the electorate.

Much as I'd like to believe that there are large numbers of leftist or progressive people in America, I see very little evidence to support that view. From my view, Nader would therefore still lose even if every progressive or left-leaning person in America voted for him.

But more importantly, what I find rather troubling in your post is the idea that Nader is the long-expected savior for whom progressives have been waiting. My objection has less to do with Nader as an individual than with the general idea that what progressives and leftists need is a messiah (and, obviously, to recognize him/her when (s)he arrives).

That's precisely what the left (and Americans generally) does not need. We need less fixation on and messianic expectation of single figures and more organizing and education at local levels.

Progressive or left values, forms of critique, and so forth must be built up through a process of organization and conscientization. It isn't achieved in an election cycle.

That sounds like bad news for the left--and in the short term it certainly means that we won't see major changes in our manner of living following this election--but it has always been a salutary feature of left thought that one must understand and work within the prevailing social/cultural/political configuration rather than imagining it as otherwise or as one wished it would be.

Don't get me wrong. A form of utopian longing is absolutely indispensible for the left and always has been. But it does absolutely no good (and actually does real harm, I'd argue) to overestimate the extent of leftist values and the hold they have among people across the country. It does little good then to imagine that a Nader victory is: 1)simply thwarted by the failure of progressives to vote for him (for reasons given above); or 2)the thing that will really turn the country around if only it could happen.

A Nader victory is impossible because progressives make up only a small part of the electorate. Recognizing that fact ought to give us all some indication of the work that needs to be done.

With Obama, I was hoping to actually vote Democratic for the first time since 1976, however, if its Hillary Clinton as my choice, I'll vote for Nader or someone else if he's not allowed on the ballot.

"But more importantly, what I find rather troubling in your post is the idea that Nader is the long-expected savior for whom progressives have been waiting. My objection has less to do with Nader as an individual than with the general idea that what progressives and leftists need is a messiah (and, obviously, to recognize him/her when (s)he arrives)."

I never said that Nader was a Messiah. And I do not await one. Nader, is however, in the same tradition and line that succeeded in moving the Democratic Party toward a progressive direction in the past. Why do progressives abandon that?

Yes. I agree that a "A Nader victory is impossible because progressives make up only a small part of the electorate. Recognizing that fact ought to give us all some indication of the work that needs to be done." Yes. La lucha continua. But having progressives (liberals who shy away from being called so) "continue doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results", is as Nader puts it, the definition of insanity. And just how is voting or even working for Obama "the work that needs to be done". It is not.

I have no interest whatsoever in organizing on a local level and building a progressive party over many years. I do not believe that this effort could possibly be successful, not in the U.S. with its miserable school system and its brainwashing television sets. As Eric says above, progressive politics is understood and appreciated only by single digit percentages of the people, and I would add that it has no appeal to the uneducated.

I think that the country must somehow be divided into at least three separate countries. Intelligent people could migrate to the smallest of the new countries. By modeling the new country after Switzerland, and by equipping themselves with rifles in a universal military service - as the Swiss do - I believe that American progressives could also defend themselves from the vast and hopelessly ignorant masses of the world, as do the Swiss.

If Hillary is washed up, and Obama can't close it, well ......... we do still have Gore and Edwards in the bullpen.

Either with Barack as Veep would be a great ticket.

WTF - As someone who has specialized in organic human development, I recognize the natural process of regression, but all the way to the apartheid of Palestine and now Baghdad with civil war thrown in for the entertainment of the monetarily elite - this for America? No!

As mentioned in the article people are staying close to home this summer - what better activity than viewing the impeachment hearings of Bush/Cheney.

I attended a town hall meeting in the 12th District of Michigan today and brought up impeachment, feeling out what the Democrats are fearing. Sander Levin couldn't speak for Pelosi's fear of "divisiveness", and he refuted my statement that he feared the lack of 60 votes, but in later dialogue, while propping up Pelosi and another Democrat with the word courageous (he's pretty good at interjecting while on the go with the give and take, eh?) he let slip the continuing fear of being labeled soft on terrorism. This is why it's futile to attack the people, the human beings, that will be required to impeach Bush/Cheney whether they be Democrat or Republican.

If you need inspiration on this point and motivation for addressing (now! not in 10 months or 4 years) the rampant violence consuming humanity go to the movie Bobby about RFK. The character development is a little goofy in the beginning but stay with it until the final scene of The Crashing Dream: RFK's voice speaking of violence in America just after MLK's assassination are over laid his own assassination scene - this speech should be echoed inside the heads of every person who considers themselves an American for a week - I personally will be memorizing it and taking it to The People as part of my personal message for the direction of the Union.

For this is the time for We The People - now with all sexes and genders and no 3/5 partialities - this is the time and We Are The People!

Impeach Bush/Cheney!

Impeach The Fear, Unleash The American Spirit!

Impeach Bush/Cheney!

Impeach The Fear, Unleash The American Spirit!

The presidency of the US is a powerless position. The idea of the election game is to give some credence of democracy. Winning the presidency is like being a shop window dummy. You get to wear nice clothes, but there is no free will. Once the so called strategic interests of the US are defined in terms of resource acquisition, special interests and power broking, the presidential role itself is defined in terms of decisions already made. A strong intelligent personality which has any different ideas will never be allowed come near the office. The presidential candidates allowed to continue are those that conform most closely to the wishes of the powerful, and real agendas are filtered by the media. The only way to break the back of power in the US is to destroy it.

To RichM: I always enjoy reading your series of remarks throughout CommonDreams.

jozef:

Apologies if I misunderstood you, but everything in your earlier post suggested that you understood Obama to be the false savior to whom progressives mistakenly turn when they should be turning to the true savior, Ralph Nader. If that's not your position, then I owe you an apology.

But I stand by my position that a Nader victory is impossible for reasons quite other than the ones you initially gave. Such a victory would be impossible even if every self-described liberal, progressive or leftist in America voted for him.

Given that fact, what arguments could one make for urging the liberal/progressive/left wing of the electorate to vote for Nader anyway (knowing full well that a Nader victory is impossible without much broader appeal)? I can think of a few, but they all carry significant prices. And if this is indeed something that you believe progressives should do, then you and everyone else should be absolutely clear-eyed about those possibilities.

Is it worth mobilizing progressives to vote for Nader rather than Obama because making a clear statement on behalf of a more progressive agenda is more important than the possibility of a McCain victory? That's an honest (as opposed to a loaded) question. If so, then arguments need to be made that the possibility of Republican presidential control for 4 more years is less significant than the longer-term gains to be had by making the symbolic stand of voting for Nader. And people then need to go into the voting booth clear-eyed about what they are doing.

But there are plenty of other questions that need to be addressed before this. If the goal of such action is (according to you) to push the Democratic Party in a more progressive direction, then questions need to be raised about the likelihood of voting for Nader achieving that goal. Why is it more likely to do that than to cause the DP to become embittered at Nader (and progressives and their agenda) for possibly denying the party the presidency. If you're going to approach all of this at the level of strategy and tactics, then you're going to need to consider (and have convincing arguments for) all the possible counter-arguments.

Personally (and I'll end here) I don't think that durable changes in ideology are brought about through voting in an election cycle. That requires long-term work, not the casting of symbolic votes.

Voting for Obama is thus not the work that needs to be done. I never said that or would ever say it. In the current conjunction, it is merely the likeliest real possibility of applying an emergency brake.

Getting the train to change direction?--that's going to require more than any election can achieve.

Nostra__ Your statement that the Clintons can be blamed 100% for the problems of the Dems is totally off the mark. After Reagan and BushOne and their penchant for war and military excess, and Reagans move to hand the country to the rich, the Clintons did a good job of stopping the ride over the cliff, even though the Repugs fought them every step of the way.

If the 2000 election had not been stolen we would still be in good shape,as every year was improving until the Bush gang got appointed and there we went over the cliff. It is a little disingenuous after an eight year break from the Ruinators that we should blame Clintons for the present problems.

If you like the present disaster under an incompetant dictator better than what we had eight years ago, then go ahead and blame Clintons 100%. There are enough people in the party that have messed up such as Dean, Kerry, Gore, and others that could have done a better job that blame can be spread around.

The Dems that fell for the right wing fundamentalist line and also the ficticious war on terror can take their share of blame by supporting the Bush-Cheny cabal.

The big question remains....Is America smart enough to understand that it is GWB, and the GOP, that needs to be held to account. To think that swapping one GOP leader to another leader from the GOP will bring about change is delusional. The GOP has aided and abetted GWB in every issue that the great majority of people now realise were major errors. Even now the GOP continues to show 100% support for GWB, which by any logic should make any candidate representing the GOP unelectable in November. If the GOP had the interest of America at heart they would not obstruct the Congress at every opportunity. Over 70% of Country say that the USA is going in the wrong direction and wants change. That change must come and all the deep thinkers, like Mr Herbert, should be talking non stop about this and not minutia of the campaign.

Wow, so much BS on one page, its hard to know where to start.

Well, to begin with, its hard to believe people even took the original article seriously. Right now each campaign is throwing this same bit of mud back and forth at each other. The Obama camp is claiming that Hillary staying in the race is going to help the Republicans. The Hillary camp has always basically said that anyone who dares to stand in their way is helping the Republicans. This bit of mud keeps going back and forth. Why progressives take it seriously or care is beyond me.

Yes, the long campaign has exposed the weaknesses in both the Obama and the Hillary campaigns. Democrats should be cheering this instead of whining about it. But, whine is about all the Democrats can do these days, so it doesn't surprise me. Why should the Dems be cheering this? Because this is just a taste of the fall. Do the Democrats think the Republicans are just going to play a soft little game of beanbag in the fall? Maybe the Democrats were stupid enough to let Obama walk through the earlier parts of the campaign just chanting happy mantras about hope and change, but the Republicans were never going to let such a weak tactic stand unchallenged. And most the nation knew Hillary's basic character as a power-hungary bitch already. So, at worst the Obama campaign is getting some toughening up that it badly needed.

One subtext to note is that the Democrats seem united in that they hate democracy. You hear this same nonsense anyone dares to challenge the imperial annointed Democrat candidates in a party primary. Oooooh, you are just helping the Republicans. What nonsense.

If you want any sort of progressive change in this country, and if you are still naive enought to think that the Democratic party might be the vehicle for that change, then you'd better get used to hearing this and to ignoring it and combating it. Because, you ain't gonna change the Democratic party without a lot of very tought party primary fights. You are going to have to go toe to toe with every sitting Democratic office holder that is pro-war and pro-corporation and beat them. If you want to change the Democrats in congress, then you need to win about 200 of these things. And in every damn one you are going to have some idiot from the NYT whining about how the primary fight is just aiding the Republicans.

In fact, this is pretty much the constant mantra of all of those who are working to block progressive change. If you dare to challenge the pro-corporate Dems in the primaries, you are just aiding the Republicans. If you dare to challenge the pro-corporate Dems in the general election, you are just aiding the Republicans. The constant message is that you are just supposed to surrender and give up. The message is that you have to accept the pro-corporate Dems as the only option the corporations will allow you.

So, you can either learn to ignore this BS and stand up and fight back. Or you can listen to this BS and bow down before it and be a good corporate slave. BTW, all good corporate slaves can line up at 4pm and be handed their Obama stickers.