Road Map to Defeat

Articles by Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman and the obits are the only parts of the NY Times that I can even bear to read anymore. The rest is usually watered down and slanted so as not to offend the customers for the jewelry, fashions and 9 bathroom aparments they advertise. They did not do a job in exposing the lies leading to the invasion of Iraq. They will not cover any anti-war activities.

Under the Republicans...

 People are losing their homes and jobs.
 We are in a war that will never end.
 Food prices are soaring.
 Gas prices are soaring.
 Medical care is increasingly out of reach.
 Global warming and environmental issues threaten.
 We are hated all over the world.

So can the Democrats lose?

YES THEY CAN!

This is incredible. Never in US history has a party been such a failure and still been electable. It is because overall the Dems have not led, fought for, or inspired the population. For too many years they have been content with simpleton campaigns. Obama is an exception on the inspiration front. But many are not convinced that he has the will to fight it through.

CLINTON/McPAIN
More of the Same.

Corpirate Media does it's worst
To let the
BUSH/CLINTON
Travesty
Continue!

Pope a Dope is called in!

Never question!
The Holy Corpirate Empire?
While they
Prey on Poor
Covered in
Ratsburgers Dressing.

Riding around in The Pimp Mobile
Silencing the Lambs!
Excommunicating the Innocent.

The Chicken Hawk Crows!
Bless me now Father?
Spank you!

Unknown

Barack Obama is not Islamic; don't take my word for it, go to factcheck.org, they are good at vetting the truth out of the floatsom that shows up on the internet.

Booksense, you make sense. Obama has to exhibit more self-control than any of the many candidates to date--

Barack Obama is reliving "Ground Hog Day" daily with the same stump speech, kissing more babies etc- Very stressful - not useful at all.

At the same time he could be consulting with important leaders and reading material that will prepare him to be one of the most important leader of the planet- being well rested to be insightful and effective.

Hillary is stopping this from going and she cannot win- it is a disservice to the country.

I'm still trying to figure out who are the Democrats and who are the Republicans since I can't for the life of me see any difference. If there was a difference then troops would be pulling out of Iraq simply by Congress stopping the funding.

If there was a difference universal health care would have been introduced many years ago. Black people would not be locked up to prevent them voting and they would have had the vote at the same time as the whites, not 40 odd years ago.

The USA has never been a democracy, sure the constitution exists but it depends on its interpretation, even the right to bear arms isn't written in stone.

The USA is an Autocracy/Theocracy nothing more nothing less.

The invasion of a sovereign state for no good reason isn't the actions of a democracy, a dictatorship yes, but never a true democracy, the people wouldn't allow it.

Democrats. Tell us again why we SHOULD vote for a Democrat ever again, eh?

Pelosi Plans $178 Billion Blank Check for Iraq

"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle

"That's not from the peace movement - it's from the National Defense University, written by a senior Pentagon official who served under Donald Rumsfeld.

"Yet despite the overwhelming opposition of the American people, Speaker Pelosi plans to rush a vote through Congress for another $178 billion blank check."

extratime40 says:
"Or, we can scrap all this and vote for REAL change: Nader, McKinney, Ventura, whoever."

Well, when you decide which of the three you are gonna waste your vote on, since they are not gonna be on the ballot and thus counted, you might be more convincing.

Voting as a statement that won't count is not voting for "Real Change" and most people here can see that is reality..... Change always comes from reality not fantasy. Since the reality is we have a 2 party winner take all system, before your vote will even be counted you need to first change our system in just 7 months. Got any bright ideas?

Flag Lapel Pins

Flag pins have got to the screwiest item about which to pick a fight there is. Although allowed for in the US Flag Code, which is notoriously lax, despite being an item of wearing apparel, which are otherwise forbidden to carry flag images, they share an obvious problem with flag shoulder badges and the like.

The US flag is never supposed to be displayed in a smaller size or lower elevation than any other flag nor treated with disrespect.

Are flag pin wearers as fastidious about walking under the various flags one sees in daily life as the most superstitious idiot is about black cats, or is this just another empty-headed display of faux-patriotism that actually denigrates the flag, since there is no particular proof that wearing a flag upon one's lapel (or on one's sleeve) enforces the spirit of dignity and reverence required by the US Flag Code of those who carry a flag, nor that they take any particular steps to ensure that the flag they wear isn't placed in positions of indignity or even shame. Do they take it off whilst taking a crap beneath it? Do they take it off whilst cheating on their expense acounts, taxes, wives? Do they take it off whilst displaying bigotry and intolerance? I doubt it.

A strong case can be made that this use, as an item of jewelery or mere decoration upon apparel, is a violation of the spirit of the Flag Code if not its letter, and that in an earlier age many of these smug flag wearers would have been horsewhipped for the shameful behaviors they exhibit whilst bearing the US Flag in public.

What, after all, is the great leap made from vanity flag pins as worn by hateful morons to vanity flag toilet paper used by idiots?

Cheers,

Puddintane

mike marshall has a point.....

and a progressive tax policy like franklin roosevelts is the key.... at that time the highest incomes was taxed at 90% now down to 35%...and because of that progressive tax structure america had the strongest and most prosperous middle class than they ever had in the 50's and 60's..

so there is one simple solution do as FDR did.. tax the rich and make the jobs for americans and with better pay from those taxes..

and another way.. tax the wealth of anyone with over 10 million at 10% and bring this back to the people... former labor sec robert reich has explained what has happened the wealth has gone from the people to the top....

bring this money BACK to the people with a 10% tax on wealth over 10 million...

now what would happen if obama did this proposal?? would he be shot??? so it may be better for obama to not be so bold and try to ease into all this...

the clintons influence would be over if obama becomes a popular candidate and wins the presidency.. he then will be the new and main democrat and his vp and appointees will also.... this would then limit the clintons influence....

bill would lose money on his speeches....if mccain wins the clintons will keep alot of influence and hillary could tun in 2012....

this is about nothing but insane greed and lust for power and fame by the clintons....

obama is trying not to fight hard aginst hillary... cause he wants some of those voters that hillary has.... since he is winning the nomination anyway.. it would be unwise for obama to really hit hillary hard with all the ethics and scandal problems they have.. this may get those hillarys voters who are blind to even vote for mccain..

so obama is being wise... him being a so called wimp is wise...

with obama there is a very good chance he will get alot of the pro life people who has been voting republican and since bob casey the anti abortion democrat senator is campaining for obama this may get cross overs from the repubs.... we will wait and see if the cross overs voting in PA are the repugs that russ limbuagh is urging to vote OR if they are the pro life repubs voting for obama..

hillary would not stand a chance ina general election.. she would NOT get any cross over voters of the pro life group cause she is seen as the main feminist and abortion candidate..

and mccain is pretty much pro choice so when obama and him runs the pro life people may switch over to obama.. BUT the nuts who like hillary may be so crazed that they switch to mccain..

so it will be interesting..

but obama is gonna be where the pro life voters go.. also jimmy carter is the most pro life democrat and he also is going for obama strong...

so pro lifers will go for obama and hillarys nutcase voters will go for mccain.!!!!

Didn't the corporate-sponsored Democrats and the Democratic Party loyalists within the U.S. anti-war movement promise us that the war in Iraq would be ended if a Democratic Congress was elected in November 2006?

As long as the Democrats are unwilling to nominate a candidate who completely rejects the U.S. power elite's foreign policy of "Bipartisan Militarism and Continued Military Aid to the Israeli Establishment" and who is willing to argue in favor of the pacifist U.S. foreign policy that Martin Luther King promoted, the Democrats are not going to end the current era of endless, permanent war.

So those Democrat Party loyalists who have been blocking the growth of a politically independent U.S. anti-war movement in the United States should now resign their current positions of leadership within U.S. anti-war groups, unless they agree to stop engaging in politically partisan politics on behalf of Democratic politicians who still vote in favor of funding the Department of Defense and continued U.S. military aid to the Israeli Establishment.

Follow-up to my last posting. When I said Democratic candidates for federal office want to lose, I meant all of them. Including Obama. Obama is a very intelligent person. If he wanted to he knows what he would have to do. All he would have to do is promise universal public health insurance, progressive taxation and an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. He'd win in a massive landslide. He knows that. But he doesn't want to win in a massive landslide. As a member of the elite, Obama fears the masses and he fears anything that would mobilize them and rouse them out of their stupor. He is banking on his chance of winning by a small margin. If he does, all very well and good; but a massive landslide? No way. Too scary for the likes of him. He'd rather see McCain win.

Mark Marshall
Toronto

Mr. Herbert, I'll let you in on a nasty little secret: Democratic candidates for federal office want to lose. They want to lose because they're all rich, and they will personally benefit more under a Republican administration than under a Democratic one. They want to lose to Republican candidates who will cut their taxes. It's that simple.

Mark Marshall
Toronto

CoMarc:

9-11 would NOT have happened anyway. You have no reason at all to say such a thing. It goes against the evidence.

Katrina need not have been that way and your statements ignore the diversion of funds from the dykes to Iraq.

Perhaps you are right but these are conjectures begging for refutations.

The success of failure of the democratic candidate does not depend on progressives, they are irrelevant. It will be determined by how many democrats support McCain. The only leverage progressives have is in not voting for the democrat. It will seem like they made a difference but of course it wouldn't be true. Progressives make no difference at all. Gravel,Kucinich,McKinney. All together they barely came to 1 percent. That is the full extent of progressive power. Zilch.Niente.Nada.Pfft.

The corporate ruling class cannot hide the true reality from the people forever no matter how much they try to distort this reality. The neocon experiment has failed both in its military adventures and economic ones. There is a demand for "change" in the air across America, although it isn't yet articulated against this corporate domination. People just realize that America has been going in the wrong direction and things are not working as promised by the elites.

In this new awaking, the best the elites can hope for at this time is to keep a political landslide against their policies from occurring and hence the pushing of all this confusion and implicit support for Clinton if it means that their real choice McCain isn't going to make it. We see this in the corporate media's handling of this "democratic process". They do all they can to keep real issues out of the political debate and trivialize the issues. A Clinton small victory is the outcome they'd prefer over a Obama landslide victory that sets the stage for further advances by the working-class and progressive forces against this corporate agenda.

Whether the electorate will see through this come election time is yet to be determined. Whether the Democratic Party and its supporters can rally around the eventual nominee after the blood letting that has taken place, is yet to be determined. The stage has already been set, so that the elites will come out on top (as usual), either by a weak Clinton or Obama presidency unable to really challenge the corporate agenda or a McCain presidency that will continue to support that agenda.

It will take a massive ideological shift in the elector's perceptions to overcome this challenge and that can only come about by the progressive forces focusing on and exposing the plutocracy's real agenda. This means that calls for unity around the call for "change" and avoiding falling into the trap of disunity.

Maybe if "Dancing with the Stars" is canceled Americans might take a look at what is collapsing around them - their country!!!

COMarc:

There is a lot in your series of posts to respond to, but I'll focus on the one thing that really needs reiteration:

The key is to build a new political movement that can both represent us and also win

That's exactly right. Of course this is a long-term project. No one should expect that such a movement can be built by the next presidential election cycle, nor the one after that.

But you are absolutely correct that this is what is required if any durable changes are to be built along progressive or left lines.

the munz brings up an important point though: what to do in the short-term while this movement is being built?

The choices appear to be between the following three candidates: McCain, Obama (the statistically likely Democratic nominee), and Nader.

I'll rule out McCain for quite obvious reasons. So what choice do you make between Obama and Nader, while, at the same time, beginning to build a movement for the long-term?

1)You can opt out of the election altogether, but this is purely gestural politics that only serves to produce in the abstainer a feeling of righteous resistance while achieving nothing in the larger world.

2)You can vote for Nader who, for a variety of very real reasons, cannot possibly win the election. Only people who greatly overestimate either the real numbers of liberals/progressives/leftists in the American electorate or the extent of Nader's appeal to a broader constituency can imagine him winning. I submit that people who are convinced that Nader can win are not leftists in any way--regardless of their stances on various issues--because they refuse to confront and understand the current social/cultural/political conjunction, something that has always been a hallmark of left analysis. They are bad-utopians, imagining the present to be quite other than it is in their understandable desire to change it.

A vote for Nader is thus another form of gestural politics, albeit one that might conceivably come as a wake-up call to the DP (this is Nader's line of thought) should the DP lose the election, but which could also (and just as likely) produce feelings of bitterness and resistance towards Nader, progressives, and their agenda.

3)You can vote for Obama, who is unlikely to move the country in a clearly progressive direction, but who might at least apply the brakes to some of the more disastrous decisions of the last decade or more.

So the choices are not between building a progressive movement or participating in the election. Both things are necessary.

We need to accept reality, the Christian right, evangelical christians, are scared and brainwashed and generally not very well educated either from home or school. They need to believe in something because they are too scared to believe in themselves. Not all Christians are like this but most are, the main reason the Republicans got them in their pocket is abortion. This is the killer issue...it is a difficult issue for Democrats because their base want Women to have the power of decision whether or not a fetus should live, whether or not a fetus should be considered a human being with a soul inside. Christians will never accept that perhaps a fetus does not have a soul, this is normal if you believe in God.

Yet many democrats believe all life (animal life too) is sacred God or no God. So I think Democrats should get smart and come out with an alternative plan like paying all women who want to have an abortion for financial reasons but would keep the baby if she could afford it, a salary to keep the baby (universal health care would stop a lot of abortions) paid for by taxing the churches and HMOs. Churches should go for this cause its a one item stop abortions tax, based on church revenues. 98% of women have abortions for finacial reasons.

About 2% of women want to have an abortion just because they're too screwed up, on drugs or whatever...maybe we could pay her to let us adopt the baby (many people look to adopt)..I'm sure at least half would go for that. The remaining 1% or so that have an abortion just cause its the easy thing to do (it is not that easy to do!) perhaps we could make it very expensive for them to do so. Make abortions expensive, really expensive, which will deter these kinds of abortions enormously. I'm sure if Democrats touted programs like this they could win a lot of that Christian extremist vote.

@CoMarc

Whatever you think of Clinton, he was remarkable in that he wanted to eliminate nuclear weapons, stopped US testing, and signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Today, however, we have an official policy of pre-emptive nuclear strike.

You become what you hate.

I honestly do not know how the Christian Right can look at themselves in the mirror every morning, knowing the corruption they are supporting. When they vote Republican that's what they are doing. But, they seem to have selective moral's. The ability to ignore corruption when it suits their agenda. I firmly believe this country is going down the tubes all right. From the cancer of corruption that's overtaken over and is eating away at the heart of our beautiful nation. That no one seems to care about anymore. I stopped voting Republican back in the 80's when Reagan took the party to far to the right. I haven't voted for them since and the reason I mentioned above...corruption. So I honestly do not understand how righteous Christian's manage to reconcile themselves to all the lying, cheating, stealing and etc.

The electorate's collective memory is short, and between August and November the Dems will have plenty of time to paint McCain for the fascist-in-waiting that he is.

Yeah the Dems are experts at grasping defeat from the jaws of victory. Don't worry though, they got Ralph Nader waiting in the wings when things go wrong: the obvious scape goat to blame never having taken responsibility for their own pathetic failures...

the more things change, the more they stay the same...

Considering how firmly the reins of control are held by the "elite" (top %1 who control %50 of the wealth), and the massive resources of government, including the rapacious military-industrial complex that must have wars to further its profits, and the media whores that act as the facilitators of the scheme, nothing will substantially change until people are desperate and hungry. Then I think its a toss-up whether we'll have a severe crackdown by the government (in the interests of "stability") or a successful political awakening. Gas at $4.00 a gallon (or $5) will help wake up the dozing citizens, so will rising food prices (due in significant part to the stupidity/greed of biofuels). It is guaranteed to become worse, as we are facing the perfect storm of global warming, peak oil, resource wars, and maybe an economic collapse or severe depression. It will be interesting times, that is guaranteed. I figure the best approach for survival is to live rural, have a big garden, try to be self-sufficient (rely on local friends / community). In more civilized areas of the country I think it's going to be possible to live fairly well. Urban areas are going to be grim places. What is the food supply present in a major urban area at any one time, about 2 weeks? Katrina has shown us that we are already unwilling or unable to cope with natural disaster.

Remember the Blackwater goons in New Orleans? Remember that the FIRST response of the Bush administration was to suggest that maybe the US Military was the one to handle "security" ? Here are some quotes from that time:

"I want there to be a robust discussion about the best way for the federal government, in certain extreme circumstances, to be able to rally assets for the good of the people," he told reporters September 26.

Last month, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush "wants to make sure that we learn the lessons from Hurricane Katrina," including the use of the military in "a severe, catastrophic-type event."

"The Department of Defense would assume the responsibility for the situation, and come in with an overwhelming amount of resources and assets, to help stabilize the situation," McClellan said.

Ah yes, good 'ol stability. Lets hope the American people wake up and have a revolution of some sort (political or actual). If we don't we're marching off the cliff so %1 of our population can live like Kings.

Or, we can scrap all this and vote for REAL change: Nader, McKinney, Ventura, whoever.

Don't forget, on the surface Obama appears to be the kind of president we need. However, the ruling elite don't want him, the press dosen't want him, the Clinton power will do everything to defeat him, the Republicans will do everything to defeat him.It seems most of the average citizens would like to see him suceed, but we no longer matter. I will be surprised if he makes it.

OK COMarc, in the decades it takes for you to build your party of the "third way" the GOP can mind the shop until you are ready.... What a great idea, why didn't we all think of that.

It's actually worse, dems cannot compete - when the repuks are a no show

"The USA needs a hero, a candidate who will relinquish their bid for President, for the greater good."

The US has had two such candidates in this presidential election: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. But those two fine people were marginalized to the point where they could no longer threaten the elite's plan. FOR SHAME!

I do not trust Obama, Clinton, or McCain. They work for the lobbies, which in turn work for the corporations. That's how the three of them have made it this far. DUH! No vote for them from me.

I will continue to oppose this N..W..O plan they're working toward. Don't get me wrong, I welcome the day we see ourselves as one human family (One Love, as Bob Marley would say), I just don't want those murderers, liars, thieves, and cheats to decide our future for us, The People. I think we will do much better without them messing up our evolution.

It's like watching the Washington Generals blow a forty point half time lead.

Bill Clinton was lucky to get our of the White House when he did. Actually, the whole thing was falling apart under Clinton in his last year. He's just lucky to leave when he did.

The economy was certainly heading for this. All the big elements of the economic collapse were in place before Clinton left office. Clinton invented the 'jobless recovery' in the early nineties. That was because his policies massively favored the corporations over the workers. NAFTA and then WTO were two big pieces of this.

The 90's looked good under Clinton for two reasons. One was oil prices. There was a burst of new oil supplies on the market in the early 90's as a reaction to the earlier oil price shocks. The North sea oil was one of the biggest. Because of this, oil prices were at their lowest in real dollars ... they hadn't been that low until since before the 73 oil embargo.

Also, Clinton rode a wave of economic activitiy as the PC became a stable of the office and the home. That was more of a one-time benefit that Clinton rode than anything like the 'new economy' that the Clinton's proclaimed. And if it was the new economy, then the Clintons were instrumental in selling it off to India since it was the Clintons' trade deals that let all those computer jobs go overseas.

9/11 would have happened no matter who was in the White House. And either Clinton or Gore would have attacked Afghanistan in response. Iraq is a more interesting question, but remember the Clinton/Gore administration had been waging a quiet war with Iraq for their entire term and had pledged themselves to 'regime change' in Baghdad in the late 90's. The same campaign of public pressure to go to war with Iraq would still have been mounted. Much of that came from forces outside the administration, and any campaign like that would have still been well-funded and well-backed by the corporate media even if Gore was the Pres. The question is whether Gore would have been made of stern enought stuff to withstand all the pressure and not go to war. Since I've watched Gore as a highly militarist Senator and VP, my guess is that he'd have gone to war. But its just a guess.

Katrina would still have happened if Gore was Pres. POTUS can't control hurricanes. And the levees had been under-funded for years. You can find the same reports back to the Clinton years, and the same lack of action to do anything about it.

The Clintons were the one's also who passed the banking reform legislation in 99 that led directly to the current banking mess. And the Clintons gladly supported Greenspan as Fed chief and re-nominated him. Greenspans policies led to the current bubble that's deflating, and the Clintons supported him all the way.

Its just simple minded nonsense to say that all was better in the Clinton years and we'd all be just skipping down the yellow brick road if only Bush had become President.

And for the election, the answer is neither Nader nor Obama.

I like Nader and I've worked on his campaigns in the past. But, the big problem is that he's not building anything for the future. That's the key. Who gives a flip if we can win this time or not. The key is to build something that can win.

The Dems always start this 'nader can't win' nonsense as their line of BS as to why everyone should be good corporate sheep and vote for their corporate backed candidate. If you only think of this one election, then that BS can stand for a short time. But, the key is to look longer into the future. The key is to build a new political movement that can both represent us and also win.

That's the one thing the Dems don't want you to think about. They want you permanently stuck with only their corporate approved candidate or the Republican.

We need to build a new political movement, and we need to start now. For that reason, its more important for me to find the others doing that and join them. If Nader ever wants to stop his one-off campaigns and join or build a party to do that, then great. But these little independent campaigngs don't do any good. Me, I'll be helping the Green Party unless and until I see something better forming out there.

"Even now the GOP continues to show 100% support for GWB"

WRONG!

As a general rule, you can think of the Republicans as about 40% of the electorate. That's about the low water mark that even the weak campaigns like Bush Sr in 92 hit when they've got nothing but Republican support.

Polls show Bush down around about 25% in terms of support of the population. That tells you that about 15% of the electorate that's Republican is not supporting Bush. Or, that's about 15/40 or 3/8's of the Republican party.

And its not hard to find Senators like Hagel or Presidential candidates like Paul in that party that have clearly rejected Bush.

This is actually one of McCain's biggest problems. He's pledged to continuing Bush's very unpopular policies both in Iraq and with the economy. He's faced with large swaths of the Republican electorate that is very disillusioned. The 3/8's above is disillusioned by these policies. And others are disillusioned by the fact that McCain's not a bible-thumper fascist preacher.

Of course, the Dems won't tell you this because their propaganda has to build McCain up to be a super powerful bogeyman. The Dems have to do this because they also only really know the politics of fear. The use the politics of fear a little differently from the Republicans, but its still the key to the Dems to. This whole article and much of this thread reeks of it. Be scared of the super bogeyman McCain and get in line behind the annointed pro-corporate Democrat or else the bogeyman will get you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

RichM: As usual, right on target.

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.

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

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!!!

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 !!!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

"[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.

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.

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 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?

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.

.

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.

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.

.

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

.

"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 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, t