The Michael Moore letter is quite a good piece of rallying rhetoric, regardless of one's views on Obama or the Democratic Party.

Say what you want about him, but Michael Moore certainly can write in an appealingly just-average-folks, populist sort of way.

My only complaint is with the end, where he invokes the old "3/5ths of a human being" canard. This is usually understood as a statement that "the U.S. Constitution understands African Americans to be less than fully human"

Pedantic hat on: The 3/5ths compromise was struck because Northerners and Southerners couldn't agree on whether enslaved African Americans should be counted for purposes of representation in Congress. Southerners wanted them to count in full. Northerners didn't want them to count at all.

Thus, Northerners (i.e. those in the states opposing the slave trade and/or where slavery had been ended by statute) would have to be considered the ones–according to the traditional understanding of the 3/5ths clause–insisting on the non-humanity of African Americans. They (Northerners) didn't want them to be included in the calculation at all.

Southerner slave-owners, by contrast, would thus have been the ones–again according to the common understanding–insisting on the full humanity of their black slaves. No doubt, some Southerners would have loved it if a single slave could have counted as two or more people for purposes of political representation.

You can see the obvious problems. My point is that the common understanding that the 3/5ths clause was inserted to make some kind of statement about blacks lacking humanity is nonsense. That clause has nothing to say about the country's views of the extent of African American humanity. It was inserted to strike a compromise about the extent of the representation (and thus the political power) the South would have in Congress. A Southern slave-holder would have wanted them to be considered fully and numerically equivalent to whites for purposes of calculating the number of Southern representatives in Congress, but might have continued to view them as less-than-human within the plantation system.

Pedantic hat off: keep writing Mr. Moore. I always enjoy reading your stuff!

Did they really bring Wright to the White House???

You learn something new...

Being 5/5ths of a human is bad enough--if we were all less human and more non human the planet would be more civilized and peaceful.

Yeah - I've seen the picture of Bill shaking the Rev's hand - but no one ever brings this up...

He was one of the pastors that came to help Clinton out.

Michael makes the right case for this strategic vote. There should be no illusions about the Democrats, but given how the American electoral system is set up, Obama is the best bet for progressives (sorry Greens!). Barring a full scale mobilization and ressurection of the left, Obama may be the vehicle for great social change down the road. Maybe.

I think it is worse about HRC than the progressive Michael Moore says. I think she is helping McCain win (because she doesn't have the delegates to beat Obama) so she can run against McCain in 2012 *after* Obama "fails" in 2008.

See this superb article for more of the argument:

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03242008.html

What I especially liked about Moore's article is the clear statement about the problems with the Democrats and Obama.

ceti wrote:

"Barring a full scale mobilization and ressurection of the left, Obama may be the vehicle for great social change down the road. Maybe."

Actually, any hope of Obama being vhicle for anything but Wall Street's desires will ONLY be a full scale mobilization and ressurection of the left.

Excellent Michael.

I'd like to add that this past Friday, I was sitting with a retired teacher and she was so angry at David Brooks from the NYTimes defending the terrible hosts of the last presidential debate, that I thought she was going to get up off her rocking chair and throw it at the TV! She lives on a very spare income and even then, is trying to scale down. She still drives, a very old car, and at times done without a meal to save on groceries. You can guess what it was that Mr. Brooks was saying that had her all riled up -- he was saying that charlie and George were just asking questions that "we," were asking about Obama; or that "us," want answered. She kept saying, as she grabbed her heart, "Us??? We???" How dare you with your income and material wealth act as if you are talking for me!

Precisely my sentiments, Mr. Moore. Millions of us reeled in disgust at the debate and at the base nature of Clinton's choices in argument. I too began as a Clinton fan 8 years ago, but that confidence has been erroded, and the past few weeks have sealed the deal. We do not want someone with her ethics in the Whitehouse. Sad to see her shooting herself in the foot; she's missing the mark.

Speaking as another disenfranchised Michigan independent Democrat, I second Michael Moore's request for the good people of Pennsylvania to vote for Obama tomorrow (because our votes don't count up here in the Great Lakes state). Soon enough we shall see if James Carville is indeed right, and Pennsylvania really is simply Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between.

I couldn't stomach the pettiness of the most recent ABC primary debate, so switched early over to watch a Tiger game.

Yet as the anti-Obama attacks become more vicious in anticipation of Tuesday's balloting, I'm beginning to wonder why there's virtually nothing being said about the bigger, more newsworthy context of the Clinton campaign's negativity: Hillary's camp has now openly embraced and enlisted the assistance of Karl Rove's right wing echo chamber.

Rush Limbaugh openly encouraged Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary in the Texas and Ohio primaries, and he's been doing the same mischief in Pennsylvania in what the dittoheads call "Operation Chaos."

Roger Mellon Scaife's newspaper endorses Hillary Clinton formally, and provides the interview forum for her to volenteer that Reverend Wright's church would never be one that the Clinton family would attend.

What began in the right wing blogosphere as a simple swift boat smear - Barack Obama is a closet Muslim, educated in a madrassa overseas in a brown skinned land, who took his oath of office upon the Koran - migrated from am radio to Faux News into the earlier Democratic candidate debates as "persistent rumors", fair subject for mainstream media inquiry to be denied, and then ostensibly put to rest, by Obama. Ho, ho, ho.

And what about the photo of Barack dressed up like his village elders in Somalia or wherever? What about the photo were the other pols have their hands over their hearts, and Obama appears to be fondling his balls?

Prove you're not really a Muslim. Both reject and denounce Louis Farrakhan. Then reject or get denounced with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. No flag in your lapel? What's your views on the flag burning measure Senator Clinton once endorsed?

Hillary Clinton (and, to some extent Howard Dean and the DNC) could stifle lending this racial and religious bigotry the legitimacy it craves and thrives upon by forthrightly condemning the whole line of inquiry, rather than by coyly standing by and not so subtley actually stirring the pot from time to time.

Hillary's campaign brain trust apparently thinks she can play strange bedfellows with the likes of Limbaugh and Scaife, and the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party will never notice.

Time to send a message, Pennsylvania.

Bill from Saginaw

Hillary Clinton will deservedly win the Pennsylvania primary tomorrow. I'm hoping she wins by at least 10%. More would be better. She is the better candidate, will win in November for certain, will bring up what needs to be said about McCain, is more progressive, and will not disillusion us to the extent that Obama certainly WILL. It's inevitable because the claims made about him are false. Read his books, listen to him more closely, see for yourselves, Obama is a fraud!

Clinton will win either way.
If Clinton wins PA with a good margin she will likely be the Democratic Party nominee.
If she loses PA, she is Republcan enough to be McClone's running mate.
The Clintons proved they have no party loyalty when they campaigned for independent Joe Lieberman against Democrat Ned Lamont two years ago.

I'm not an American, but Barak would get my vote, too, even though he's a bit too eager to show his patriotism, religion et cetera. All presidential candidaties are wasting way too much time on these trivia. Grow up, America, please!! It's supposed to be about issues, and how they should be handled. Who their god is, is totally irrelevant.

Hillary did not have much choice but to go on attack as until the Preacher Wright dustup the Repugs and the right wing media were giving her all of the criticism and going easy on Barack. Just because Limbaugh said to vote for Clinton certainly did not mean they wanted to run against her. All but a few of his right wing robots would do just the opposite of what he said. The Repugs know Hillary would get some fast action to reverse things, while Obama keeps talking about unity and getting along. He should know the only way to get along with Repugs anymore is to give up and let them have their way.

I'm an American from Nebraska, traveling overseas for the moment, Germany, France, Holland, Spain, UK, Denmark...I've just been through all those countries and everyone is overwhelmingly hoping Obama wins the nomination and the Presidency...he is more popular in Europe than he is in the USA it seems.

By the way I copied this from another blog concerning
Reverend Wright

From 1959 to 1961, Wright attended Virginia Union University,[1] in Richmond. Inspired by President John F. Kennedy's 1961 challenge to "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," Wright gave up his student deferment, left college and joined the United States Marine Corps and became part of the 2nd Marine Division with the rank of private first class. In 1963, after two years of service, Wright then transferred to the United States Navy and entered the Corpsman School at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, where he graduated as valedictorian.[6] Having excelled in corpsman school, Wright was then trained as a cardiopulmonary technician at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland where he graduated as salutatorian.[6] Wright was assigned as part of the medical team charged with care of President Lyndon B. Johnson (see photo of Wright caring for Johnson after his 1966 surgery). Before leaving the position in 1967, the White House awarded Wright three letters of commendation.[7][8][9]

I will sit here and wait for someone to post the military honors of GW Bush, Bill Clinton, and Dick Cheney - the draft dodgers!

copied from MCaesar post on the Larry Kane Report

Way ahead of you Michael. I switched back to the Democratic party just to vote for Obama. No I was not/never will be a Repugnicrat, I just wanted to counter some of the criminals switching parties to vote for Clinton.

"It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country"

WRONG.

They are not any nicer...they just have better press agents

If Green is not on the ticket, don't vote. Michael, stick to flicks.

It's so bloody sad that this is what we're reduced to. Remember in the 1980s when El Salvador and Guatemala starting having elections, and voters had a choice between the right wing and the extreme right wing, because parties agitating on behalf of the poor and indigenous had been decimated in the civil wars and marginalized thereafter? That's what it feels like here in El Norte in 2008.

After eight years of continuous service to the Green Party, I have just taken a break from activism because the tide is too strong to swim against. Even my anarchist friends here in Texas voted for Obama. I'm not sure whether I will, should he win the nomination. But if he goes on to win in November, I'm rooting for him to prove me wrong and govern like a real democrat, with a big or small D.

Eric J-D,

In reality, the electoral value of slaves was 0/5ths because the did not get to vote, the slave owner's choice had the weight of 145 votes instead of one. Such was a gross perversion of the values enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.

Vote for Obama if you just want things to stay "As Is".
If you want to ratchet up the war and the deficit then vote for McCain.
If you want to see someone laugh and fiddle as Rome burns vote for Clinton.
My vote's for Nader. Not sure what will happen if he gets into office but it's a damn sight better than any of the other Bozo's up for grabs.

"Anyone, as long as they're a democrat" is the stupidest line of thinking I've heard come out of Michael Moore EVER. It's that kinda stupidity that got you people into this mess in the first place.

Don't take the bait, people. The one step forward party cannot compensate for the three steps backward party. Instead, vote third party progressive and help bring both of them to their knees. Do not show them any compassion. They will only exploit it. You have to have double standards - one for people and another for organizations. Think about it.

Ignore Moore. He's an excellent muckraker, nothing more.

Go back and reread CH's article - Nader, McKinney, or even Paul for REAL country-rattling change.

Hey, Mike - what's BO's plan for the more than 700 US military bases scattered about Earth? Did you know he's a fan of the un-Constitutional Faith Based Initiatives? How many payoffs has he received from Wall Street and Big Corp Media and SuperBig Defense? Has he promised to hold all lawbreakers accountable, from the Decider on down to Ashcroft and Ridge and the rest who "got away" to collect their multmillions in lying warmonger rewards?

Mike, calling for a vote for the lesser of two unqualified candidates is just sad...

Hard to say if Moore's endorsement helps or hurts Obama in the longterm. MoveOn's support of Barack is used as fodder by Hillary and her republican backers.

But his comments are spot-on. Obama ain't perfect, but a much better candidate than the dems have put forth in 30 years.

Hillary and the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton paradigm needs to end. Do it Pennsylvania!

The last time I walked out of the voting booth with a smile on my face was in 1968 when Eldridge Cleaver ran for President as a write-in making it possible to cast an honest vote.

" You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. "

" All the gods are dead except the god of war. "

Eldridge Cleaver

Obama 2008 = Clinton 1992.

Obama is young and charismatic, as was Clinton.
Obama is very appealing to young people, as was Clinton.
Obama talks a lot about change, as did Clinton.
Obama exploits people's fears about the Republican Party, as did Clinton.

It's the same candidacy all over again, and just like Bill Clinton, Obama in the end will only expand on the Reagan Revolution.

Young people, don't make the same mistake my generation did. Don't base your vote for President on personal charisma or on your fears about the GOP. If you do, you will up sadly disappointed, just as my generation did.

Face it, Obama is not going to change anything anymore than Hillary would. Both are status quo candidates, at best.

The truth is that Ronald Reagan started a movement that hasn't yet played itself out. Putting another *Clinton* in office won't accomplish anything except to prolong this movement and delay the change this country needs.

dbcsez & the Lorax: Well said and right on target!

A vote for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

Enterik wrote:

In reality, the electoral value of slaves was 0/5ths because the did not get to vote, the slave owner's choice had the weight of 145 votes instead of one.

This isn't news to anyone, me included.

The (admittedly pedantic) point I was making is that Moore reiterates a quite common and mistaken notion about the idea of the 3/5ths clause.

It either made no statement about the humanity of enslaved African Americans or, if you want to believe it did, then whatever statement it made about slaves not being fully human was the responsibility of Northern and abolitionist interests since Southern slave-holders would have wanted slaves to count as full human beings for purposes of representation. {I put it this way to make the absurdity of option two readily apparent]

Note the word representation. We're talking about how many seats your state has in Congress, not who gets to vote. No one is talking about this (i.e. the 3/5ths clause) being for purposes of enfranchisement. In short, no one is doubting that in terms of the franchise slaves were 0/5ths of a person. So were women.

The point (again)is this: the 3/5ths clause is simply irrelevant as a window into what late 18th c. white American Northerners and Southerners believed the humanity of enslaved blacks to be.

I bring it up only because it makes progressives and leftists look foolish (at least to anyone who knows what the 3/5ths clause is) when they use it as a shorthand to talk about the very real racism of this country.

When are you people going to understand that neither Nader, Mckinney, Paul, nor ANY THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE IS GOING TO WIN ANY PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION under the current system? Moreover, even if elected, they will get nowhere with a Congress of Democrats and Republicans. Voting for someone who has zero chance of getting elected - let alone governing if they miraculously got into office - is NO way to effect change.

Vote in the Democratic primary for the Democrat who most closely matches your stand on the issues. Vote in the general election for the candidate who has the best chance of ending the GOP reign of terror. Then organize at the local level to nominate and elect better candidates. Work to change the system to one that CAN be more responsive. Implement instant-runoff voting. Get progressives on your city council, your school board, your county government, and in your state legislature.

Most importantly, vote with your feet and your wallet and your hands. Work BETWEEN elections and OUTSIDE of politics to foster the development of the America and the world you want to live in. Live simply. Buy locally. Live sustainably, and tell your friends and neighbors why you're doing it. Turn off the idiot box as much as possible. When it's on, talk back to it - watch for, and respond aloud to, the subtle messages they are trying to plant in your head. Educate your children. Show them - and constantly remind yourself - how the hucksters try to manipulate your emotions and stifle real thought. Seeing it explicitly, and responding to it actively, is the only defense.

Politicians can't and won't solve our problems, so take what you can get from them and move on. Vote for the best candidate you have a chance of actually electing, not for the one you wish you could elect and know you can't. Or insist on being the lone voice crying in the wilderness, in the knowledge that you will have nothing to show for it at the end of the day but smugness in defeat.

rtdrury wrote:

Don't take the bait, people. The one step forward party cannot compensate for the three steps backward party. Instead, vote third party progressive and help bring both of them to their knees.

Let's zoom in on sentence #3.

How, 7 months from now, will you achieve this?

Let's hear some specifics about how this crippling of the DP and RP is going to occur through voting for some third party progressive.

Not that I don't share your desire for such an event, but is it achievable 7 months from now?

In 7 months the new (in my version, socialist) day is going to dawn because some part of the American electorate cast their votes for the progressive third-party candidate?!?

I don't mean to be snarky, but this has bad-utopianism (yes, there is a good kind) written all over it. It's land of Cockaigne dreaming not a real political possibility.

If you believe it is (and I am open to being convinced here) then please explain how this third party progressive candidate is going to capture the majority of the votes cast? From where will they come?

If someone like Dennis Kucinich couldn't even break single digits in the primaries, you're telling us that some third party candidate (Nader? who?) is going to be able to sweep into the white house come November?

This is like a progressive version of Nixon's "great silent majority"--an ideological fiction--but in this version the folks out there in rural and suburban America are all overflowing with progressive and leftist sympathies and just waiting for Nader or someone else to run.

It's a comforting daydream, but impotent as politics go.

I'll end with a point I've made before: it has always been a salutary feature of leftist thinking that in trying to have a chance of altering the present one must one must understand and work within the prevailing social/cultural/political configuration (that is, with the set of material realities and possibilities that are available in the present) rather than imagining it as otherwise or as one wished it would be.

kgarry wrote--A vote for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Which apparently means voting for either Obama or Clinton could be that case.

However, voting for an unelectable favorite 3rd party candidate means voting for the worst evil, McWar, as that is what happened in Florida 2000 when Nader took enough votes from Gore to put Bush over the top by a few hundred votes.

If Nader had not been in the race we would not have this disaster we now have in our country. Anyone has a right to run, but that does not make it a smart thing to do.

I agree with redstatelefty above, as much as I like Ron Paul Dennis Kucinich and Ralf Nader...we got to get real and get the Republicans out of office first, even if that means electing Democrats, once the Democrats have the power we can work on them to move the country towards single payer health care, budget surplus, lower taxes for the middle class, more taxes for wall street and banks, no more wars and private armies funded with our tax dollars to protect corporations trying to rape the third world, no more corporate welfare for oil, coal, banks...etc...once Dems in power we replace them with greens little by little in congress and at local level that's what they do in Europe and look how they live!

redstatelefty,eridjd,I agree with your comments 100%.Now is not the time for self righteous altruism.It is time to hold on to your dreams ,but hold your nose and vote for what is possible now!The progressive movement can work to pull the eventual nominee back to the left after defeating the Republicans. peas in

Michael, I'm from Pennsylvania, and I've already cast my absentee ballot for Mr. Obama. I really hope that, soon, Nancy Pelosi gets some integrity and/or starch and uses such influence as she has to get the eternally waffling superdelegates like herself and the misguidedly calculating ones like Rendell to ratify the voters' choice in Mr. Obama, sooner rather than later. I know the pious wisdom that we should wait till every primary is counted -- but the trouble is, Mrs. Clinton is using every week that goes by to ensure that any Obama winning of the nomination will be Pyrrhic. (That her own exceedingly unlikely nomination will be Pyrrhic is axiomatic, by now.) I have been gravely disappointed in the lack of spine and/or integrity in Mrs. Pelosi, who is fast establishing herself as the worst Speaker of the House imaginable. I can't see how she fears her professional life and "career" are worth anything. She failed to lead a movement toward impeachment of the two most blatanly unconstitutional Presidents and VPs in our history. As we speak, she is backing a bill to allocate 100+ billion dollars toward a continuation of the Iraq farce. And her failure to spearhead a drive toward Obama's ratification may cost the Democrats the election in November. I hope the PA voters and the superdelegates do the right thing and bring this to an end soon. Otherwise, Mr. Obama should quickly form an Independent party and lead his millions of supporters to a new path to the Presidency. Our country has a historic precedent for this. Mr. Obama ain't no Ross Perot or Nader or any of those eccentrics. He commands the support of millions -- he is, as you say, a movement, and this movement must move forward. Let's hope the Democrats are worthy of him and his movement. If not, we all need to get behind an Independent ticket.

Michael, I'm from Pennsylvania, and I've already cast my absentee ballot for Mr. Obama. I really hope that, soon, Nancy Pelosi gets some integrity and/or starch and uses such influence as she has to get the eternally waffling superdelegates like herself and the misguidedly calculating ones like Rendell to ratify the voters' choice in Mr. Obama, sooner rather than later. I know the pious wisdom that we should wait till every primary is counted — but the trouble is, Mrs. Clinton is using every week that goes by to ensure that any Obama winning of the nomination will be Pyrrhic. (That her own exceedingly unlikely nomination will be Pyrrhic is axiomatic, by now.) I have been gravely disappointed in the lack of spine and/or integrity in Mrs. Pelosi, who is fast establishing herself as the worst Speaker of the House imaginable. I can't see how she feels her professional life and "career" are worth anything. She failed to lead a movement toward impeachment of the two most blatanly unconstitutional Presidents and VPs in our history. As we speak, she is backing a bill to allocate 100+ billion dollars toward a continuation of the Iraq farce. And her failure to spearhead a drive toward Obama's ratification may cost the Democrats the election in November. I hope the PA voters and the superdelegates do the right thing and bring this to an end soon. Otherwise, Mr. Obama should quickly form an Independent party and lead his millions of supporters to a new path to the Presidency. Our country has a historic precedent for this. Mr. Obama ain't no Ross Perot or Nader or any of those eccentrics. He commands the support of millions — he is, as you say, a movement, and this movement must move forward. Let's hope the Democrats are worthy of him and his movement. If not, we all need to get behind an Independent ticket.

NOTE: The word "fears" in my first post should be "feels."

If the Nader-nuts really cared about Ralph, they would give the guy some M-O-N-E-Y. Obama, however, is someone who can out raise everyone else because he is raking it in from 1.3+ million individuals. Being wildly popular with millions and millions of people is how a real candidate operates. Ralph is a joke and those who tout him here are just being cheap.

But, go ahead, support McInsane and vote for Nader. For sure things may indeed have to get a lot worse before they can get better. As for me, I want change sooner rather than later.
Obama in "08.

Only under the present system of first past the post can a progressive have a chance in this country. Otherwise, how the hell did Abraham Lincoln get elected in 1860. With proportional representational voting, Lincoln would have lost.

On the other hand, PR voting got the Nazis in in Germany in the 1930s, and it's gotten the far right's foot in door on the European continent. Don't get fooled by this BS about first past the post. The problem in this country is the whorehouse politics of big money buying the politicians' booties every election.

I do agree with Michael Moore's sentiments for Pennsylvania, and progressives do need to keep the pressure on if Barak Obama does win the presidency.

Also Canada has first past post voting, but a very strong progressive third party, the New Democratic Party, which can put pressure on the Liberals as long as the Liberals don't win outright in the next election, but instead end up with a minority government.

redstatelefty - "When are you people going to understand that neither Nader, Mckinney, Paul, nor ANY THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE IS GOING TO WIN ANY PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION under the current system?"

You're right, which is why progessives should vote for McCain.

Again, been there, done that with the *pragmatic politics* game. It didn't work when we supported Bill Clinton, and it isn't going to work now. Pseudo-Democrats like Hillary or Obama will not gently guide the country to the left; in fact, they will energize and enable the GOP, and they will do so far more effectively than a Republican President ever could.

How dare anyone dismiss Michael Moore as a 'muckraker'. He has more heart and a keener mind than any of his detractors. His films serve as an inspiration to people of conscience the world over.

Michael Moore for president!!

Every now and then, I fancy Clinton out of the race. I really think her departure will be in the best interests of our country. However, she is so devoid of class that I can't imagine any graceful exit. She reminds me of DeNiro's portrayal of Capone in THE UNTOUCHABLES. When he is finally nailed in the courtroom, he has to be dragged out, kicking and screaming. That's the way Hillary will lose. But, ugly or graceful, her exit is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Michael, as John Kerry infamously said, "you voted for the right candidate (Nader), before you voted against him (and for Obama)".

As an artist, Michael, you should know that politics has no second acts --- and your first act; to support Nader, was your only right choice.

Go back to your fist act Michael --- vote Nader.

It's still only April! How much longer will this slow death of the American political system go on?

Michael's words were stirring, well-intentioned. But what will Mr and Mrs Average American do when it comes to November? I shudder to think given the prejudice against black Americans and women and, worse, given the extent of political ignorance and apathy.

Please get your house in order. Please.

Dangerous Creation

Great article Mike. I wonder if Obama will give democracy a break by using the referendum to let the people decide?

Barack Obama. The Left's opiate.

I will be casting my vote for Nader.

But after Obama gets elected, maybe Moore can get his film crew out in front of the White House while filming for his new psycho drama entitled: Brother Can you Spare a Dime.

I definitely agree with Moore that Hillary is showing her true colors and has exactly a ZERO chance of winning against McCain. I certainly would never vote for her, and I was born in Philadephia. I hope my fellow Pennsylvanians can see what I see.

But what I find really fascinating is the debate here about Obama vs a real progressive candidate.

I think we can all agree that Obama, for all his oratory skill, is NOT a progressive. Yes, he is wonderfully articulate and on some days can be truly inspiring. But one does not rise to the level of viable candidate for president - in this country - without the support of the corporate masters that all the powerful ultimately have to answer to.

Be that as it may, it is a curious situation. I myself am way far left of Obama. And I have heard all the arguments as to why folks should vote for Nader. I appreciate those arguments. I have made them myself. But at this juncture in time, in this situation, I think that would be approaching folly. The time for a 3rd party candidate was in 2000. (that year I did vote for Nader) Folks on commondreams should be keenly sensitive to Cointelpro, and other efforts to divide the left. It's an old trick of the right.

When the economic depression really sets in - and it will - you will be glad you voted for Obama. If instead, you divide your vote and end up with McCain, chances are quite good you will starve to death.

Your choice.

Mike Moore is the the worst enemy of the progressive movement. Okay, not the worst. But he does a great disservice by not supporting third party candidates.

Anybody but Bush didn't work in 2004.

Anybody but a Republican won't work in 2008.

The more the Democratic leadership encourages us to vote for their candidate regardless of which one it is, but more I will encourage third party voting.

Anyway, the convention is in August and there are still primaries. Why do the newspapers and political pundits say that we should already have selected a candidate. That is a bunch of bunk. I hope that discussion on the issues (war, economy, health care)will start eventually.

or not.

so it goes...

Another poster made this comment. I think it explains the picture perfectly.

'Democratic Party hacks would rather elect a Republican hack than a Democratic Reformer.'

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, partly because I couldn't stand Bush or Gore, and partly because of his promise that he'd help build the Green Party into a real power base to challenge the two major parties.

When the election was over, Nader went on to other things. Ralph has done some great things, but he's pretty much of a lone wolf as a politician, and I think he's let the stars go to his brain. Maybe he justlikes running for president, and it's good for book sales as well.

I'm all for a third party, but it would take the kind of dedication and organizational skill Obama has shown in his campaign, and I don't see anyone out there who can accomplish making a real run as an outsider this election. Certainly not Nader or Cynthia McKinney.

In the meantime, I'm voting for someone who has a chance of winning and, while not perfect, is generally thoughtful and progressive, and that's Barack Obama.

As Mike wrote, have no illusions, but let's get someone other than another Republican in this year. I don't think the country can take another four years of neocon madness.

As far as Hillary Clinton and her Rovian 'scorched earth' politics are concerned, if Obama doesn't win today in PA, rumor is Dem Party heavies are going to offer her some carrots — Governor of New York or Senate Majority Leader — to convince her to drop out but, if that doesn't work, the stick will be employed: Dean will instruct the Superdelegates to throw in with Obama before June, ending her misbegotten campaign and her attacks on the Dem frontrunner.

It won't be hard; many of the Hillary Supers, especially black elected officials who endorsed her early, are feeling the heat and ready to jump ship. If they have the cover that they were ordered by the party chairman to do it, she's toast. And there's no love lost between Howard Dean and the Clintonites.

The ultimate irony would be if all of her nasty Rovian campaign tactics and 'misspeaking' resulted in her losing her Senate seat in NY. Both Clintons out of politics? Jebas, Bill might have to run for NYC mayor or White Plains Dog Catcher or something!