My Vote’s for Obama (If I Could Vote) …
Friends,
I don’t get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn’t get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.
So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote — and yours — on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?
I haven’t spoken publicly ’til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don’t give a rat’s ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there’s a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word “Democratic” next to the candidate’s name.
Seriously, I know so many people who don’t care if the name under the Big “D” is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.
Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I’ve watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name “Farrakhan” out of nowhere, well that’s when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the “F” word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama’s pastor does — AND the “church bulletin” once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!
This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!
Yes, Senator Clinton, that’s how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can’t win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry “Uncle (Tom)” and give it all to you.
But that can’t happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.
How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come — but it won’t be you. We’ll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).
There are those who say Obama isn’t ready, or he’s voted wrong on this or that. But that’s looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.
That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what’s going on is bigger than him at this point, and that’s a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.
I know some of you will say, ‘Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?’ That’s a damn good question. In November of ‘06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?
I’ll tell you why. Because I can’t stand one more friggin’ minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I’m almost at the point where I don’t care if the Democrats don’t have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain’t “Bush” and the word “Republican” is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that’s good enough for me.
I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That’s why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters — that big “D” on the ballot.
Don’t get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.
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. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that’ll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.
Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, “Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for ’spiritual counseling?’ THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!”
But no, Obama won’t throw that at her. It wouldn’t be right. It wouldn’t be decent. She’s been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.
That’s why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That’s why he’ll take us down a more decent path. That’s why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.
But the question I keep hearing is… ‘can he win? Can he win in November?’ In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it’s possible to hear the words “President McCain” on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She’s counting on it.
Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only “three fifths” human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.
Yours,
Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.com
MMFlint@aol.com
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
The spectre of a “President McCain” is scaring plenty of people into flocking back to the Democrats. Basing your politics on wild fears of a bogeyman is obviously somewhat irrational — but as long as so many people are doing this, I’m surprised more aren’t being driven by fear of a “President Hillary.” For just the kinds of reasons that Moore lays out, I see her as being no better than McCain at all, & in some ways even worse. McCain is nuts, wrong on everything, & not very bright, but she’s an utterly unprincipled sociopath. (I’ve never heard the little gem about her & Bill inviting Rev Wright to the W.H. for spiritual counseling before, but it makes the point perfectly.)
Moore very wisely cautions: “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. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement…”
No one loathes the Democratic Party more than I do, but I have to admit that the more the media tries to destroy Obama, the better I like him. It’s not that his positions are particularly good — they’re not. They’re scarcely any different from Hillary’s. The criticism that his “hope and unity” shtick is just vague happy talk is basically accurate.
But he must be doing something right if the media sleazebags are trying so hard to swiftboat him. He must be doing something right to have a wife like Michelle Obama & a pastor like Rev Wright (whose viewpoint has far more in common with the real MLK than the media dares to acknowledge). And in terms of his character, & his philosophical depth, he’s vastly superior to Hillary. I hope many Pennsylvanians will be sensing this, as they go to the polls tomorrow — though I hope they do so, with no illusions about the Democrats.
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!
Mr. Moore has a unique way of being johnny on the spot, it usually takes a period of time for his ideas to be proven correct. It is a real irritation for such a ‘fat piece of shit’ (thanks for the enlightened description, devil 1) to tell it like it really is and finding out that he was right all along. Don’t you just hate that when it happens. I have to imagine that there are people out there who are loving this endless war, who revel in the fact that others are without health insurance and are deeply committed to the Patriot Act. For those persons there are two choices, for the rest of us there is only one.
As a Green Party member (but not speaking for all Greens) I would respond to the anti-third-party messages above this way.
1. We run candidates for president not expecting realistically to win but because we need to do that to build a party for the future; it helps state parties organize and stay on the ballot (here in Neb 5% would do that).
2. In the short term it serves the purpose of reminding the Dems that they can’t just run to the center/right (As Clinton/Gore did) because their traditional constituents have no other place to go.
3. Being limited to two parties allows big money ping-pong back and forth between them too easily. Eventually a widening of political choices can help crack up a monolithic system of corruptive influence.
4. Once again, there were more Dems who voted for Bush in 2000 than Greens who voted for Nader (who BTW was an IND. in ‘04 and is in ‘08).
5. If we would adopt instant runoff voting (see fairvote.org) voters on the left could pull together (as we do when we work issue by issue) instead of squabbling over strategy.
I hope Pennsylvanians are not voting on Diebold machines.
Why would anyone want to vote for some 60 year old skank who wants to “obliterate Iran”?
Michael Moore: Good-cop defender of American imperialism.
No tactics or strategizing on this end. Just a profound sinking feeling. Is anybody else out there depressed unto death by the dog and pony show that we Americans have mistaken for democracy, and by the consequences of that spectacle for most folks (and non-humans) on the planet?
My daughter and all of her classmates will come of age in a world where such trivial issues like catastrophic climate change, collapsing infrastructure, resource wars, etc. will be theirs to deal with.
Meanwhile we “grown-ups” sit and debate the important shit—which candidate’s minister said what, which candidate has more experience, which candidate is more electable, etc.
When in the fuck are we going to wake up, realize how high the stakes are for ALL of us, and work together to solve the very real messes we face? Will we continue to mainline HDTV while driving our SUVs and amassing our piles of cheap Chinese shit or will the consequences of our actions eventually make a dent in our collective skull?
Looking at the politicking of the Clintons, Limbaughs, Roves, etc. of this nation and at our ability to glibly follow these people to the edge of yet another cliff does not fill me with hope for our children’s futures.
Wow. A voice of sanity. Outstanding. If you (dear readers) are so inclined, why not make a few dozen copies of this to take to your local grocery store or mall, to post or hand out?
But I must quibble. I believe Sen. Clinton’s Iraq war vote was a vote of conviction. I believe it had been US policy to hold Saddam Hussein responsible for any terrorist attack against the US, going back to Geore H. W. Bush and continuing through her husband’s presidency.
And though you would not know it hearing the way she now denouces George W. Bush on Iraq (and the mainstream media likely will not remind you), her Iraq policy has won the explicit endorsement of George W. Bush.
Another thing “the media” won’t refresh your recall about (perhaps because they really do not know themselves) is that Hillary’s famous Tammy Wynette/baking cookies comment was made in response to a reporter’s question about her quesionable activities at the Rose Law Firm.
Distract. Divert. Say anything. Take what people say about you and say it about your opponent. Her campaign populism reminds me of George Bush I; and like him, she risks leaving the impression that she has become unhinged.
Not only has her campaign just about run out of funds, she herself may, finally, have just worn out her welcome.
devil1 (April 22nd, 2008 8:13 am), thanks for identifying yourself in your screen name so that we can ignore your vileness.
nebraskagreen (April 22nd, 2008 9:05 am), it would be nice to have proportional and instant run-off voting, and some of the other things you mentioned. Problem is, we need a third party that has enough money to challenge the two major parties. I vote for Greens and other independents locally and statewide, but most don’t get elected — the main comment I hear is that people haven’t heard of them and have no idea what they’d do if elected. The Greens have to master the use of free media and spend more on TV to get their message out to the average voter, although I know many Greens hate that idea.
Also, I have been at third party meetings — they usually devolve into a few loud people trying to protect their own fieldoms and address their personal issues at the expense of the party or the overall goal of getting someone elected — cat wrangling would be less frustrating.
If you think voting for the lesser of two evils is stupid.
Vote for the greater of two evils. It is your right.
Obama/Richardson.
I find it insulting that you would suggest that we should vote for Obama to “redeem” ourselves for something our ancestors did that we had no control over that was the norm in those days.
I will not be ‘guilt tripped’ into voting for a candidate just because people before my time did some horrible things.
When Alberto Gonzales was in power people hailed him for being the first Latino Attorney General, but as you saw his race alone wasn’t proof of confidence at his job.
ike kay April 23rd, 2008 2:18 pm
There are thos here who offer a very careful diagnosis of the disaster that the Clintons have become to American politics, trying the destroy the very integrity that Obama wishes to offer in terms of the change in American. The people who think nothing will change if Obama is elected are extremely cynical for some and very skeptical with others and with good reason. Yes he like Clinton is presently surrounding himself with many party hacks, former Clinton advisers and will be in the future controlled in some measure with party influence, as a result of an agenda that has existed in the USA since the robber baron era.
Having said that knowing that I, as well as many of you writing here, have prompted the response of so many skeptics, but many are hoping that something will shake this country into a new direction that includes, ending the war, which is robbing every single person in the USA of wealth, health care and a reasonable life which is paramount.
Also the budget that goes to iraq in just a few days of expenses could be used effectively to control some of the most negative effects of climate change. but it is all about Oil not alternatives. As well Obama offers a plan to raise the business dialog as he know too well that comforts promised by the industrial revolution have yet to be forthcoming. the price for food alone is one many cannot pay! Clinton promises a life of ease, education and so many more the political machinery uses to get the public to do what the leaders want done.
If the average US citizen has some comforts it has come at a price that is questionable. The prices are generations of young people killed to support an ideology that was flawed from the outset. A work ethic that has the wage-earners in families in the USA, working two and three jobs to pay for their basic needs and forty million people living in poverty.
Moreover,the system supports another form of slavery. The people who think nothing will change if Obama is elected are extremely cynical in some and skeptical with others, with good reason. Having said that knowing that I, as well as many of you writing here are hoping that something will shake this country into a new direction. Obama cries for change as every thinking person wants.
All this based in a “free enterprise” system of government that allows corporations the right to, exploit their workers, go where they wish with government subsidy- thereby destroying communities which they were part- and the lives of people without any checks by government; also to pollute the population and communities with toxic waste leading to any number of health related issues. The public is left to pay for the medical attention caused by the pollution the corporations have caused, if they have the money to do so.
The “American Dream” has caused endless abuses to its population, with the false promise of fame and riches that are legend, supported by the Hollywood myth and media indoctrination will somehow come to all. The claim that anyone can be president is manifold. However by some fluke of chance and hard work a man has come along that somehow defied conventional wisdom and possibility. He has made the inroads into populist thinking. The masses and particularly the young who want to be heard have embraced him.
Clinton on the other hand uses the traditional smear tactics and Republican bending of the truth to win, at any price. bill has been mentoring Hillary all these years, after all he did become president. Many people have given voice to the dissatisfaction felt by so many people in the USA and the world.
Obama has offered change, and yes, we who have lived long enough, know it is necessary to be critical. Obama echoes many of us who know intrinsically, what Americans understand: The USA must move in another direction quickly for its citizens and the world! He knows, as we all do, human life hangs in the balance and America bears twenty-five percent of that responsibility but the important thing is that the young people want him and not the hack policies of the past. Clinton on the other hand want their continuation and to bomb Iran out of existence.
For those who are cynical and pessimistic, I support your views but there is not too much time left! OBama, Kucinich, and even Edwards plus a few others out there have some good ideas that are worth supporting and trying to get the public behind. Given the nature of the political machinery, this is not a simple task and will require a congress sympathetic to Obama’s ideals. It is necessary not only to elect a new president that embraces change but a congress as well that also wants these changes. Obama is not a fool! He knows that this will be difficult, he admits as much. he has experienced the Hillary machine and his advisers think he must respond but i fins suspect the methodology of the response!
Obama is populist president, it is his intention to go back to the people to help him get his plans through congress should he encounter difficulty and a deadlocked Congress as is the situation at present. We need only look at the surveillance bill that was hung up for Bush because the House recessed before giving its approval. It was a way to allow it to expire before approval, knowing there would be a howl of public anger if the house moved to put it into law. but it will become law because there is no courage in congress but for a few.
The American people voted for a change with this Congress, yet to be realized because it is still tied to the “failed policies of the past” with people like Pelosi and others like her, or the Clintons who are part of that inner back-room type of political deal. Obama is a realist and knows the difficulties in front of him should he get the nomination and the presidency. Some say unstoppable but this is a strange country?
The ideas that we all put out here are necessary for others who can convey them to the candidate. While it necessary to maintain a healthy pessimism, I think we must shelve cynicism for a while and not let it affect reality. Nothing is perfect; nothing will be perfect, including the nomination of Obama. But we must do what we can to make it work, as I am certain we all try to do, as does Hayden. This is necessary to deal with the last possibility of change in the American way for both the US and global survival.
The war must end! The money spent on the war must be diverted to the rebuilding of the infrastructure of America, as well as to the social services that Americans want. The tax on the excessively rich as well as the diversion of policies away from everything in the world but American need must be looked at differently. It is important to help the world but not with military adventures, excepting those, which take place through the UN although, it too must change.
It is necessary to make America and the world a more environmentally aware place. The export of American technology can help its economy and also make it energy self-sufficient. It is not only America that must be assisted but also the world; Obama, I am happy to say, suggest these beliefs in his rhetoric. The USA lives in a world with other nations like China, whose environmental policy can sink us all.
These are the challenges that Obama has made reference to in his speeches. Yes, one can look at him and the entire process, with pessimism, as many do quite rightly including myself. Yes, there is a possibility that Americans may be wronged once again by the political process. However, if we do not take this last time to try, by helping Obama if we are able, we may also give up one final chance to make the changes the entire world needs. I believe as a fervent, committed environmentalist, working in communication, we have lost our last chance if we don’t try.
It is good to hear people write their different points of view. Great thoughts are brought forward in dialog and exchange not presumption. But some who write here think they have the edge on intelligence and awareness. There are some here who believe that the democratic will of the people should be overturned by the presumption of power as in the super-delegate issue of the democratic party. This is raises the specter of large-scale defections toward Republican stupidity.
Should this occur it would affect world security and the issue of climate change directly. These issues are dependent upon radical solutions, which include global economic changes. Defection of democrats and particularly the young people -who have hope and believe that change is necessary-risk an upheaval that could possibly tilt the election toward the Republicans.
This reflects the basic problem of this so-called democracy of America where a win in the popular vote does not guarantee the change in direction that the Electoral College can make as we saw in 2004.
The Democratic Super-delegate issue is a reflection of the absurd non-democratic American condition of the Electoral College. Should Barak Obama win the popular vote from America’s Democratic caucuses, delegates and committed states prior to the convention I do not believe that he should accept second place as vice president, which seems to be the mood of the media controlled races and spin jockeys. I believe that he should maintain himself as the democratically designated elected leader of the Democratic Party.
Further, should he be forced to that position by the party of super delegate control he should leave the Democratic Party and form a third party and run against both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. This is what every one who is really thinking in this country wants and thinks the USA very much needs. He has stated he has run because the time is now not in the future. The changes needed, are as he puts it, “right now”, not in the future and the perils of environmental collapse are approaching so quickly that we do not have the luxury of another eight years of “business as usual”, which would be the Clinton way, before he can claim the office of president.
He is a populist candidate that has offered hope! He should continue that platform with the courage to take the courageous steps necessary if the standard-bearer position is denied to him to effect party change and changes in American direction. He should do it, if necessary, not in the Democratic Party but by creating a third party, should the party be given to Clinton, we all lose and the possibility of change goes down with him.
Should he follow the Clinton policy as suggested by some pundits we all fail. But if he takes half the country with him to a third party we have a chance. He believes that the failed policies of the past exist within the entrenched two party systems in congress. I believe the only way of preventing another move to those failed policies is not to allow Hillary Clinton to win. But we all know that this idea in this system is a fantasy.
Obama’s public denial of allowing super-delegates to determine the election would be a way of circumventing being moved to second place. I heard one of the super-delegates speaking from Georgia. He was black and under examination by the press, it was clear that the direction of the super delegates would be to overturn the national-will and cause the disaffection of the youth of America.
This is the spin after the Pennsylvania primary. No one has a right to do that since the older generation through “the failed policies of the past” has put us in the present circumstances of possibly destroying their future and their life. In the final analysis this country did not rise to the level of intelligence and courage by electing George Bush to office for two terms and I doubt that it will if it chooses Hillary Clinton to lead.
Should she win with the super delegates it will lead to chaos and the disaffection of the youth and could possibly elect John McCain by default and continuation of war for another hundred years; no just thirty because that is the time we have left to make the radical shift in global politics and
if we are to deal with global climate change.
The USA is in trouble because there are no longer people who can think and create ideas for others to consider. Half the country does not vote and is not capable of choosing anything other than their selfishness. Another part of the USA thinks the American Ideal is worth exporting by force. And if exported and not accepted than annexation without compensation or discussion, as was done to the native peoples.
Never mind all that, of course we know that history is unimportant to creative thought! Or is it? The models of the Greco/Roman history of its expansion are unimportant, why should there be anything to study in the ways that people have laid waste the Earth or destroyed other cultures for their own ends based on greed? Given the fact that the globe is disintegrating with climate change, that a new form of resolving differences is in order and another form of economy must be developed perhaps the right man has come to lead? Do we not think that a new form of economic justice is in order?
If I can avoid looking at what I know is the usual American character and rejoice that we have spawned a new type of politics based on the present human crisis we can still hope. If this is what democracy and free speech are about, than the experiment is worth continuing.
ike kay — The _ R E A D E R S __ D I G E S T version
You listened AT THE BEGINNING to myself and others about using all CAPs, and that was a BIG improvement.
If you could
I wager that most people no longer READ you posts, so one has to wonder why you continue to undertake such a massive effort, and DO NOT adjust your content to your audience.
Hopefully, if you are astute (which what I have read indicates)
than we can expect to see LESS and MORE of YOU, at the same time?
Namaste, I like your style…
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
.
Namaste,
The entire discourse is as you call it an “abstract” which you can pass. I do not need your help with thought, although, I suppose your an editor and I have fought them all my life. Thanks for the advice and your backhanded compliments but instead of reading five paragraphs of nothing I would prefer to post an essay that might just be informative for someone who perhaps might link all the connections in other ways than supporting Ralph Nader whom I like as an honorable man but who would not be elected to change anything, a wasted vote.
I prefer to provoke people, even you, to think about the essay, while you passed the content and that’s OK. I suppose that there are a few who might read my posts and as for the others, I do not post to win a popularity contest. Nor do I enjoy four lines of expletives as I have seen here. I have not noticed many reasoned approaches to this campaign from Americans locked into the media sound bite version of thought, as they follow Mr.”dream team,” Blitzer’s, “what’s goin on?” I suppose this response is long enough to suit your taste.
Oh! Namaste,
Delighted you used the time to respond. I do not fight with erudite people and I do not post the response to you to sting sorry you felt badly. . .”I had improperly assumed that it was your interest and commitment in communicating that was proportional to your postings length. You needn’t worry of more “critiques” from me, as I can see that I was mistaken about your interests and mine having much in common.”
Namaste, thank you for taking the time, that you would put you above most. I can see you want change as most who post here do. I fly in the face of the sound bite since true thought is not generated from that kind of approach. To his credit, Obama, has had enough of these mindless debates and media light weights who determine world events.
In terms of the above, to link the many elements of what is involved here with this election and the direction the USA and the political machine moves, requires that a person truly read was is written. It cannot be dispensed with using a chuckle, since human survival is at issue, my concern as is the work of Michael Moor. I too create documentaries of serious concern based on the environmental agenda but that is not free from the relationship to every other issue including the American political scene.