Atonement

Mr. McClure

I come to this site at least once a week to read your very first sentence. It touches me deeply. Thank you for sharing.

"I would rather stand with Obama in defeat, then stand with Clinton in Victory."

Jerry D. Rose [May 9th, 2008 8:31 am] wrote: "While I haven't done the research to show that it's the WS lawyers rather than the Mom n Pop ambulance chasers who were feeding Obama's campaign, that seems a reasonable inference from the identities of Wall Street law firms that are on the Senator's donor list."

Perhaps you should do that research before you impugn someone's character. As I have already posted in this thread, while Obama voted for the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act, he also tried to amend it so that consumers were able to sue corporations and medical institutions without restrictions. As I said, this is often done in the Senate and widely misunderstood. Kerry's infamous "I was for it before I was against it" remark is an example of this; the original bill he voted for was not the final, amended version presented to the Senate. Legislation frequently goes through a process where earmarks and amendments are attached to the act, and the titles of the bills are often misleading. This is how the Bush campaign in 2000 was able to misleadingly claim in radio ads in New York during the GOP primary that John McCain voted against funding research for breast cancer. In that case, the 'old' McCain was voting against all the pork that had been attached to the bill, not breast cancer research. As Shawn Zeller at PolitiFact.com (April 28, 2008) notes:

"Senators as candidates for president can be juicy targets for attack because they cast so many votes that can be easily mischaracterized."

And there is this quote:

"'If you're running for the White House as a senator you typically have 20 years of votes, and 20 years of having made speeches into the congressional record, of having had meetings with lobbyists,' said Lilly Goren, an associate professor of politics at Carroll College in Wisconsin. 'These things are part and parcel of the daily life of a senator, but sometimes they look strangely political.'"
-- From "A Lesson in Cherry-Picking," PolitiFact.com.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/apr/28/A-lesson-in-...

Obama has four years as a US Senator and this Class Action Fairness vote is all you can find? Thin, at best, and certainly not solid evidence he's sold his soul to Wall Street.

You might contrast this with the Obama/Feingold ethics bill, which became part of the 2007 Ethics Reform Act, which severely restricted the influence of lobbyists, including those from Wall Street firms. Here are some relevant highlights of that bill:

"[A] full ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists including those paid by the firms that employ lobbyists; an end to subsidized travel on corporate jets; full disclosure of who's sponsoring earmarks and for what purpose; additional restrictions to close the revolving door between public service and lobbying to ensure that public service isn't all about lining up a high-paying lobbying job; and requiring lobbyists to disclose the contributions that they 'bundle' -- that is, collect or arrange -- for members of Congress, candidates, and party committees."

Hmmm, Obama's sponsored and voted for a bill that would unmask the very Wall Street bundlers you and Pam Martens have been talking about. Why would he want the public to know he was receiving funding from Wall Street firms, allegedly as payment for back-channel corruption of rewarding them for their support? Perhaps because it doesn't matter -- it's not an evil quid pro quo, as you imply.

Here's a record of his accomplishments in office:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_reco...

RSJ, sorry about just now "getting back to you" on your last response, which I do appreciate.

I'll let go what you said about Obama perhaps being like FDR and other politicians who were more "liberal" once they got into office than when they were candidates. True enough, but who wants to take that chance?

Mostly I'd just like to respond to your call for "evidence" that Obama ever did anything concrete to repay the largesse of his Wall Street contributors. I thought Martens made that point clearly enough, though again I would say that a lobbyist's "influence" on a politician is largely a matter of inference and common sense since, as a divorce lawyer I once consulted said, the "grounds" of a divorce case typically involve charges of things that people don't usually do "on the 4 corners." Do you want as evidence a photograph of Obama being handed a wad of bills by a lobbyist as he stepped to the well of the Senate to cast his vote on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005? Never gonna happen, but Martens' description of his vote having happened just about the time that his presidential campaign would be unveiled is strong circumstantial "evidence" in that direction. Please don't try to tell me that because many "lawyers" were against the bill for which he voted, this shows the lack of lawyer influence on his votes: and lawyers were by far the occupation that contributed the most to his campaign. But there are lawyers and lawyers; the Blank, Blank and Black law firm that comes on TV to say call them if you're injured and they'll represent your claim are a different breed entirely from the Wall Street types who specialize in defending corporations against liability suits. While I haven't done the research to show that it's the WS lawyers rather than the Mom n Pop ambulance chasers who were feeding Obama's campaign, that seems a reasonable inference from the identities of Wall Street law firms that are on the Senator's donor list.

By the way, if anyone believes Marten was lying about Obama's vote or who his Democrat companions who voted for the bill, here is the link: the vote was 72-26 and all the nay votes, including Clinton's, were Democrats, while Lieberman and 16 other Dems took a taxi to the Republican side.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...

Jerry D. Rose [May 7th, 2008 8:23 pm] wrote: "Isn't it a shade naive to say that there is no proof that Obama ever did anything specifically in return for Wall Street support? Are those things ever done on a public quid pro quo arrangement?"

Sorry, Jerry, but if you're going to accuse someone of being corrupt, you must provide evidence. When Obama was in the Illinois State Senate he played poker every week with lobbyists, yet proposed and passed ethics legislation that put a severe crimp on their activities. They didn't much like it, but they weren't angry at him since he had made a point of getting to know them, but that didn't mean he was influenced by them. He also sponsored ethics legislation in the US Senate that was against the interests of Wall Street and lobbyists. This is how he works -- he doesn't shut anyone out, but, so far, he seems to make the ethical decision when the time comes. If you're going to accuse someone of being in bed with the snakes on Wall Street, then you must provide proof that he did something in return for their support. They may think they are buying influence, but the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove Obama has been or will be influenced by them.

Keep in mind that some wealthy people supported FDR in 1932, thinking he was a rich Hyde Park aristocrat himself and would protect their interests. Instead, Roosevelt championed and signed laws that helped the poor and working class, to the dismay of the power elite. The wealthy called FDR a traitor to his class and even tried to mount a coup to replace him, but he forged ahead and changed the country for the better. No one can know what someone will do as president -- SC Justice Sandra Day O'Connor thought George W. Bush was a just a cautious 'compassionate' conservative, for example, and later regretted her vote to install him in office -- but you really think Obama would be worse as president than McCain or Clinton?

Jerry wrote: "Also, Obama's claim was not that he wasn't INFLUENCED by lobbyists but that he had NEVER TAKEN THEIR MONEY, which is the very "half-truth" for which Pam condems him: does anybody believe that "bundled" contributions from the employees of a company is not a device to enhance that company's influence; or that law firms that work for lobbyists are really insulated from "lobbyist" contributions?"

As I stated above, these companies may think they are buying access but, as the example of Obama sponsoring an ethics law in Illinois proves, that doesn't mean he will dance to their tune. His poker-playing lobbyist buddies were surprised he did that, but admitted it was fair -- just not for them. He listened to all sides and then did the right thing. Contrary to the caricature that some Obama opponents draw of him, I don't believe he is flawless or can do no wrong, nor have I met any of his supporters who believe that, but have we gotten so miserably Republican cynical that we think it's impossible for a Democrat who's trying to do the right thing to achieve high office? If so, then you are denying the historical example of FDR which moved this country in a progressive direction until Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan came along.

Jerry wrote: "Like Jim, you take a couple of generous statements of Pam about Obama and conflate them into a statement that she "hasn't made up her mind about Obama.""

Jerry, it seems you have crawled into Pam Martens' head here to tell us what she means. Me, I go by her words. Here's what she wrote: "I personally admire Senator Obama. I want to believe Senator Obama is not a party to the scheme." I reiterate: Why would she admire and want to believe in someone that she just spent two separate articles raking over the coals for supposedly corrupt connections to greedy Wall Street firms? And she admits in this sentence that she does not know that he is a party any scheme. It just doesn't make any sense. If you're going to write articles this long, and with inflammatory titles like "Obama's Money Cartel," then you must back that up with more than innuendo, inference and guilt-by-association.

If Obama is elected, I will be the first in line to put pressure on him to keep his promises, as we all should. And I'm convinced he will listen, unlike the current obtuse Occupant of the Oval Office.
It seems certain now that Obama will be the Dem nominee -- do we want to add to the right-wingers who will be pulling out all the stops to weaken him, leaving us, including you Nader and McKinney voters, with John 'Bush III' McCain? I'm just saying we should stop trying to destroy the most progressive candidate since FDR without proof of wrongdoing.

rmax [May 6th, 2008 4:46 pm] wrote: "Sorry, but unless Obama has changed his positions on nuclear power, he supports the idea that more money should be spent to make it safe, which says to me he supports nuclear power. To me, that is a waste of money when it could be spent towards development of renewable energy."

Obama supports safe and clean nuclear power, but only as a temporary measure until we're ready to convert to solar, wind, etc. In Germany, the government is installing solar panels all along the Autobahn in an accelerated program to get off oil and other environmentally toxic power sources, but it's still going to take them 10 years to provide a third of the nation's power needs from solar. This conversion isn't going to happen overnight, no matter how impatient you may be, and Obama is fighting entrenched interests who are making a bundle of money from the status quo. I suggest you read his positions here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Nannie, interesting observation and question. Explanation? Well, I have trouble navigating Open Secrets when I have a question of who gives what to whom, but I think it's something like this:

1. Ron Paul's "defense corporations" are first of all the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, along with a few defense contractors, and Google, and I presume that these are "bundled" contributions from soldiers, employees or even internet users, that are recorded under these rubrics.

2. The contribution levels are small, compared with the 6-digit level "top" contributors to Obama and Clinton, something like 72,000 I believe as the "top" contributor compared to the over a half million from Goldman Sachs to Obama. I would think that these same contributors who are "tops" for Paul would appear way down their fatter lists.

Bottom line: I think Open Secrets shows that Paul is far more the authentic "populist" fund raiser than Obama claims to be; I don't like the "libertarian" cast of Pauls' domestic policies, but I admire his forthrightness as opposed to the "half truths" that come so often from Obama.

I went back and checked on the other candidates to see who was getting from whom and found a interesting thing.
Ron Paul who of course is the " NO WAR " candidate received almost ALL of his top contributions from DEFENSE corporations. Odd...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008

I don't understand can you explain?

RSJ, well I was about to give up on getting a critical examination of Pam's material, but you came through and I'm going to make a brief response. Isn't it a shade naive to say that there is no proof that Obama ever did anything specifically in return for Wall Street support? Are those things ever done on a public quid pro quo arrangement? Also, Obama's claim was not that he wasn't INFLUENCED by lobbyists but that he had NEVER TAKEN THEIR MONEY, which is the very "half-truth" for which Pam condems him: does anybody believe that "bundled" contributions from the employees of a company is not a device to enhance that company's influence; or that law firms that work for lobbyists are really insulated from "lobbyist" contributions? Like Jim, you take a couple of generous statements of Pam about Obama and conflate them into a statement that she "hasn't made up her mind about Obama." I could and have said as well that I hope the candidate of hope and change will change, but I don't do what in my first post on this long thread suggest that McClure and other Obama supporters do; and that's to routinely project onto Obama those things they hope he would do. I didn't psychologist on that and call it an infantile tendency but...

Just to add to Jim Glover's (May 6th, 2008 2:05 pm) excellent points on Jerry D. Rose's posting re: Pam Martens' articles at CounterPunch.org:

First off, Jerry, Pam Martens is a member of NOW and, if I'm not mistaken, they have endorsed Hillary Clinton, so she is not exactly an entirely unbiased source.

As to her conclusions about Obama, she relies on her opinion and some shaky detective work. In her first article, "Obama's Money Cartel" she only proves that employees of Wall Street firms have given money to his campaign, but no quid pro quo on his part.

In 2004, I met middle-management staff of McDonald's Corporation who were giving large campaign donations to John Kerry because they wanted a change. The top executives, meanwhile, were supporting George W. Bush as they perceived him as good for the fast-food business.

By Pam Martens gauge, you could say McDonald's Corp. either favored Bush or Kerry in 2004.

"These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street. The cumulative total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was $2,872,128, and we're still in the primary season."
-- Pam Martens, "Obama's Money Cartel," CounterPunch, May, 2008.

So, he's collected $2.8 million from employees of these firms. According to the Washington Post story "Obama's Billionaire Backing," [April 11, 2008], he has amassed, as of April, a campaign war chest of nearly $240 million. I guess that means that these firms will have $2.8 million of influence over him. I can live with that, as it's been shown that, in the case of Citadel Investment Group, Obama voted against a tax loophole in their favor.

She also speciously associates the employment history of minorities by Wall Street firms with Obama -- what on earth does he have to do with that?

Ms. Martens goes on: "The Center for Responsive Politics website allows one to pull up the filings made by lobbyists, registering under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 with the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and secretary of the U.S. Senate. These top five contributors to the Obama campaign have filed as registered lobbyists: Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, et al; Jenner & Block; Kirkland & Ellis; Wilmerhale, aka Wilmer Cutler Pickering.

"Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists? Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms, he's not really taking money directly from registered lobbyists? That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying."

He is no doubt well aware of the fact that these law firms are also lobbyists but, again, there is no proof that Obama has done anything to reward these contributions. When did employees of law firms or Wall Street companies lose their right to support a candidate just because they think he or she might be make best president? Pam Martens is simply engaging in more guilt-by-association without proving that Obama has in any way been bribed by these firms.

"Far from keeping his distance from lobbyists, Senator Obama and his campaign seems to be brainstorming with them."

He SEEMS to be brainstorming with them. Why doesn't Pam present evidence that he, in fact, is rather than her opinion?

The only thing she puts forth is his vote for the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which some of the law firms that are supposedly pulling his strings were against.

Ted Frank at the Point of Law site writes [Dec. 27, 2006]: "Obama didn't participate in the negotiations to get Democratic support [on CAFA], and he voted for every Democratic attempt to eviscerate the bill with amendments (Vote Record Numbers 5 through 8, February 9, 2005). Obama didn't break with the Democrats on any seriously contested tort reform measures: he filibustered medical malpractice reform, and was one of the votes to kill the asbestos reform bill (which effectively failed by one vote)."

So, he tried to amend a bad bill that was assured of passage by the GOP majority to make it better, a common practice in the House and Senate which is much misunderstood by the public, and, obviously, Pam Martens.

Then she engages in this piece of slippery logic: "So, how should we react when we learn that the top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans?"

Actually, Martens admitted earlier in her article that it was not the firms themselves but employees of the firms who were giving money to the Obama campaign but, again, she doesn't point to any case where this influenced his vote in the Senate nor the populist message of holding corporations accountable of his campaign. This is nonsense; just a smear job of allusions and inferences, as shabby a rip job as that done to Cynthia McKinney for accepting donations from Muslims who, at one time or another, also gave money to Islamic charities that had some tenuous connection to Hamas or Hezbollah. Gee, did that mean Cynthia's a terrorist sympathizer? Of course not, but the GOP and her Dem opponent played it that way.

However, Pam ends her the first part with this: "Senator Obama has become the inspiration and role model to millions of children and young people in this country. He has only two paths now: to be a dream maker or a dream killer. But be assured of one thing: this country will not countenance any more grand illusions."

And she ends her second article, which, as Jim Glover has already pointed out, was mostly about the 'Wall Street bubble' that Obama was not responsible for, with this: "I personally admire Senator Obama. I want to believe Senator Obama is not a party to the scheme. But corporate interests have had plenty of time to do their vetting. Democracy demands no less of we, the people."

Why would she 'admire' and 'want to believe someone she has tried to connect to a raft of sleazy Wall Street scandals? It seems like she hasn't made up her mind about Obama, Jerry, so why have you?

With the IN and NC primaries having come and gone, it seems that the string may soon run out on this thread. If there's "unfinished business" about which you'd like to talk, you can contact me at jerrydrose11@yahoo.com and we'll "take it outside."

Two big issues run through this thread and are definitely loose ends that will no doubt be returned to many times over the course of this campaign season:

a. Obama's independence of or control by Wall Street and other corporate interests. Nobody yet has begun to refute Pam Marten's allegations, and I guess that issue will now be returned to the "haven" of being ignored by the progressive alternative press, including Common Dreams.

b. The whole moral and lesser evilism controversy that seems to be used mostly to bolster the 2-party system by raising electability issues about voting for third parties. The best post is VAGreen's chronology of how, in every election, it is NEVER "the time" to strike out against one party's nominee, lest a far more "evil" one will prevail; call it a political philosophy of perpetual evilism. Wait til next time means wait never. Sayanora, Jerry

I guess next month I'll be Nannie June...

LOL...

it is just " Nannie", "May" is the month...

Reading is not always what you see....

empi May 6th, 2008 5:09 pm:
"To NannieMae. I just checked the opensecrets.org website and Obama has not received big money from big corporations. I don't know where you are getting your misinformation from but this is the real deal here."

empi, PLEASE check the website again on the link Nannie May posted two comments above and then PLEASE have the integrity to correct your post. If Goldman Sachs isn't a "big corporation" and $544,000 is not "big money," then I guess I don't know what you mean by "big."

Jim Glover May 6th, 2008 2:05 pm

"The problem with the Greens is they think everyone must join them but they have built up negative good will with most progressives and leftists because they don't work well with others and Coalition building."

The Democrats' idea of a Democrat-Green coalition is purely a one-way street: The Greens always agree to support the Democratic candidate no matter what. The Greens have supported statewide Instant Runoff Voting in Alaska, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Mexico. The Democrats shot us down.

"If they really cared for the future they would sacrifice their ego for one election like Dennis and Edwards did, and say OK lets give Obama his one chance and if he turns out to be Evil than we can all unite and really change the system!"

But it's everywhere and always time to sacrifice our principles!

1992: It's time to unite behind Clinton, even though he is more conservative than we like. He can beat Bush.

1996: Clinton is way to the right of where he was in 1992, but we need to hold our noses and vote for him. We need him to play defense against the Republican Congress.

2000: Clinton-Gore has continued to move to the right, but we need to hold our noses and vote for Gore. We need him to play defense against the Republican Congress.

2002: The Democrats voted for the war and the Patriot Act, but we need a Democratic Congress to play defense against Bush!

2004: Anybody But Bush.

2006: The Democrats have continued to enable the Bush agenda, but we need a Democratic Congress to play defense against Bush.

2008: Obama is a centrist who supported the Patriot Act, doesn't have a universal health care plan, won't promise all troops out of Iraq by 2013, etc., but we need to support him to stop McCain.

2012: Obama betrayed us, but do you REALLY want Mike Huckabee for President?!?

empiMae.
here is the web page once again:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

It explains far better than I...

Obama said on MeetThe Press just this past Sunday that Nuclear energy could be on the table but only if we can make the plants safe and figure out how to store the waste safely.

To NannieMae. I just checked the opensecrets.org website and Obama has not received big money from big corporations. I don't know where you are getting your misinformation from but this is the real deal here.

Only5% of Obama's donors have given the maximum of $4600
Clinton22% and McCain 12%. Please be more factual when you post

Jim Glover, Methinks you doth attribute too much generosity of spirit of Pam Martens toward Obama in quoting her genteel "personal admiration" of him at the end of her two devastating articles. The "vetting" to which she refers in her final paragraph is the determination of Wall Street that Obama was an appropriate instrument of their manipulation after he "proved himself" by voting with Wall Street against the Class Action Fairness Act in 2005. If you think I "slander" Obama, what do you think of this paragraph at the middle of her article?

"(There are) three unique credibility problems for the yes-we-can-little-choo-choo-that-could campaign: (1) these are not just "lawyers/law firms"; the vast majority of these firms (making campaign contributions to BO) are also registered lobbyists at the Federal level; (2) Senator Obama has made it a core tenet of his campaign platform that the way he is gong to bring the country hope and change is not taking money from federal lobbyists; and (3) with the past seven ignoble years of lies and distortions fresh in the minds of voters, building a candidacy based on half-truths is not a sustainable strategy to secure the west wing from the right wing."

(This one must hit you hard because you seem to be making "securing the west wing" the be- and end-all of any candidacy..i.e, McKinney can't win, so forget her.)

To my view you haven't answered the challenge I issued for someone to look at the facts as she presents them by her whole article's characterization of his as "a candidacy based on half truths." Maybe you'll say half-truths are better than the no-truths of Bush, McCain, Hillary, etc. but I'm not willing to join the "left" in promoting a candidacy in the mere "hope" that the candidate of hope and change will change and well, if he doesn't we can turn to some other Savior. (and by the way I had already written to Martens before your post, though I haven't heard back from her.)

Sorry, but unless Obama has changed his positions on nuclear power, he supports the idea that more money should be spent to make it safe, which says to me he supports nuclear power. To me, that is a waste of money when it could be spent towards development of renewable energy.

As for believing what any candidate says on the campaign trail, sure it's easy to promise stuff, but can you really believe it? So when Hillary claims she'll obliterate Iran, can you believe that any more than you believe whatever else she says? Funny how people have selective belief systems. You don't believe her when she says she'll do something positive, but you believe it when she says something negative? Doesn't make sense....

I don't really support Clinton over Obama. As I've said, I will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is.

Democracy is a terrible system, but it's the best we've got.

Don't like your women to be assertive and competent, Mr. McClure ? Then by all means, stand by your man.

Well said Jim.

Max, that is another lie about Obama!

He said years ago and said again on TV last Sunday that there are many issues of Safety and Costs that have to be looked at with nuclear power!

Now we all know about the safety and endless costs don't we?

He is not a radical like us, that is why he has got a chance to win so we can change things.

Jerry,
The third party argument always comes down to "the lesser of two evils" doesn't it because you know Mckinney can't win because she can't get enough votes and she will split them with Nader.

Now because of this at least you have to prove that Obama is Evil which you have failed to do and even the article by Pam Martens you use as slanderous "proof" that Obama is evil, ends her article about the wall street bubbles, (None of which Obama had anything to do with):

"I personally admire Senator Obama. I want to believe Senator Obama is not a party to the scheme. But corporate interests have had plenty of time to do their vetting. Democracy demands no less of we, the people.

[This is the second of two parts. The first ran yesterday. Editors.]

Pam Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years; she has no securities position, long or short, in any company mentioned in this article. She writes on public interest issues from New Hampshire. She can be reached at pamk741@aol.com. "

Now Jerry, my lad, not once does she say that Obama accepts money from Lobby firms but her inside knowledge she knows folks who work at these firms are giving money.

Well, maybe many wall street folks know that the system is too corrupt to sustain itself and think Obama is the best chance to Change for the better. But, even if their intentions are not so pure, all big businesses and mafias donate to both party candidates and that is the same in every system in the world.

Pam does not think Obama is Evil and you can ask her if you want ...her email is above.

Now if you want Evil connections google the financial ties of Hillary to Bush.

I have always liked Cynthia Mckinney, but a vote for her will split and may ruin our last chance to get an honest president in our lifetime.

If Obama double crosses the left of the party, it will be a great time then to unite and form a new force in politics.

The problem with the Greens is they think everyone must join them but they have built up negative good will with most progressives and leftists because they don't work well with others and Coalition building.

If the Greens take the blame for a McCain victory, Mckinney and Nader will be the spoilers once again and that will prevent the progressives to unite and this "Two Evil" argument by slanderers like yourself will continue as long as the War Machine.

I like Mckinney too but she will set herself up like Nader as a spoiler to any chance of uniting for a future real third force in American politics.

If they really cared for the future they would sacrifice their ego for one election like Dennis and Edwards did, and say OK lets give Obama his one chance and if he turns out to be Evil than we can all unite and really change the system!

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, so I am suggesting a fresh tactic for the good of all.

max,

I am sorry, but I won't vote for someone who saying they will obliterate millions of people. When this primary started, I believed that Clinton was more progressive then Obama and the only thing that kept me from voting for her was her Iraq vote. Now it's quite clear that she has no moral compass and thus I am afraid of what she might do when in power. My guess is that all this talk about testicles will turn her into a Margaret Thatcher, trying to outhawk the hawks to prove that she's worthy of the men's club she's trying to get into. That's not good for women or the country. Finally, if she shared your feelings that any democrat in the white house will do better than McCain, why has she her husband been saying things like she and McCain would be better in the white house than Obama? She put people in this position and she will get what she has sown if and when she's able to pull off a steal of the nomination.

One reason I would be happy with Clinton as the nominee is that it would drive the right wingnuts nuts.

I find it amusing that people here say they know what Clinton will do as president but they don't or can't guess at what Obama will do. When I was working for Edwards, I would laugh in the virtual faces of people who claimed Obama is progressive. It's relative, I know, but he comes from a deeply conservative background, and has made a lot of comments about making nice with the opposition. His health care proposal isn't universal and he supports nuclear power. His record and Hillary's in the Senate are virtually identical and a lot of their money comes from the same corporate lobbyists. Obama has played the race card as much as Clinton (see the reaction from his camp to Clinton's absolutely precise comment that MLK's dream was moved forward by LBJ). The Clinton-hate is as unreasonable as the Obama-love--both are built on sand.

Vote Green, you'll end up Red (McCain) and the rest of us will be Brown (scorched earth).

Jerry, once again, I supported Nader in 2000 and 2004 and I am ready to support him again if HRC steals the nomination as opposed to winning it fair and square (with recognized delegates). The reason why both Clinton and Obama took a more populist approach is because John Edwards held their feet to the coals. Nader can have the same effect of counterbalancing any rightward tendencies of the nominee by giving an escape route to the progressive wing of the party. Whoever the nominee will be, they will not play with that scenario for the third time in a row. The Clintonian third way has proven unsuccessful for two elections in a row. The left wing of the party is ready to say enough to the Clintons: your strategy has not worked. The main reason behind Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996 is loud and clear: Ross Perot. He would not have won without Perot syphoning votes from the republicans. This is a generational chance for the base to retake the party. Once we do that, and the progressive left has been reinvigorated, then we can start pull more to the left. But if we do it all at once, as proven by the previous 2 elections with Nader, the cord will snap and the balance will shift further to the right.

RSJ, if you or any other Obama supporter is going to accept my challenge of directly challenging Pam Marten's "Obama as Wall Street Front" article, you may as well grit your teeth and see the other shoe she dropped today at http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05062008.html

Agi, it will be a little late to hold Obama's "feet to the coals" after he's the designated hitter to go after the Big Evil one, McCain. As to his phenomenal record of raising funds from small donors, that's a point suggested by the more recent Martens article, referenced above, that focussed on the "Obama Bubble" operation of Wall Street, following on previous WS-sponsored "bubbles" that were the instrument of "wealth-transfer" from small investors to big WS firms: namely the dot com and sub prime mortage bubbles of the past. They're all like the classic Tulip Mania scheme that depended on countless small investors buying tulips whose prices were artifically inflated by the manipulators. Of course small investers (campaign donors) are a big part of the Obama bubble, but the scheme also needs the help of the Wall Street law firms who may not themselves be campaign donors but are the "bundlers" and lobbyists connected to those firms. It's a shell game, this, no lobbyist and no PAC claim, and it's fooled most of the small "investors" so far. You can fool all of the people some of time, etc.

Sorry, have a good day anyhow.

Here is what I think: let's not put the cart ahead of the horses. Let's concentrate on making sure Obama wins the nomination and then we can hold his feet to the coal and make sure he will stand by his base. I agree that he has taken a lot of money from Wall Street but if you look at his website today, he just passed the 1,500,000th small donor mark. That's an impressive base he's got and that's, imo, what superdelegates are looking at. He has built an astounding grassroot support and he will not be able to disenfranchise them without jeopardizing his chances of winning in November. Clinton has the usual luxury of saying whatever she thinks will win her votes because she can do what politicians do after they are elected: not deliver. Obama doesn't have that luxury as he has built his entire campaign on truth and accountability.

Before this article and its comments fade into the sunset of being so far down the list of "current" articles that few people will find it, I want to offer still another "irreverent" post to the religion of Obamism in the "haven" for that religion furnished in virtually every "progressive" media outlet, both electronic and print. Apart from CD's comments string and the articles on Dissident Voice, Black Agenda Report and (sometimes) Counter Punch, there is virtually no place that a "dissident voice" can be heard; and this from so-called promoters of "democracy." (as in Democracy for America).

1. I'm still waiting for any courageous Obama supporter to take on directly the allegations of Pam Martens about Obama's status as a "Wall Street Front." (I appreciate RSJ's announced intention to do this) (This article is linked twice on the string above. As I researched about this article a little more I found it was published in Black Agenda Report on February 29. Presidential "debates" and our "havened" progressive press have managed to shield the issue being raised til now, so why did I think things might change by introducing it to this Comments string?) Apart from "Hillary's another one," there seems to be no "defense" against this charge, just as you can't mention Obama's servile relation with AIPAC without a "defender" saying, well, "Hillary's another one." It all comes down to the less evil 1-less evil 2-bigger evil 3 idea that we have to stop our deliberations by selecting the "lesser" of evils 1 and 2. What a way to spend a political life, perpetually selecting candidates you think are evil because there's someone else you think is more evil, since the one you think is the less evil is less evil than a third one! There's your beloved "two-party" system in operation folks; a system the only genius of which is to promote the competition of parties in power with opposition parties---a system that loses all of that "genius" when, as in America, you actually have one party with two branches that policy-wise are virtually indistinguishable from one another. You wanna live your life that way? It's your life, it's not mine and it makes a mockery of any "progressive" political initiative.

2. So, the question is raised ad nauseum throughout this thread: what else you got? Nader, Green Party, what? To Jim Glover's specific questions about the Green Party, let me inform him and others that the GP does NOT have a presidential nominee, which will be decided at the party's convention in Chicago July 10-13, though Cynthia McKinney has by far the most delegates selected at state conventions and is the most likely nominee. Ballot access has already been obtained in 22 states at last count and many more are anticipated. Can she or any other GP candidate be elected? Yes, if people will vote for her; and they will vote for her if voters will decide they're not placing a bet on a winner with a bookie but a vote from their hearts, a right which has been preserved by that much-cliqued "fought and died" concept of the right to vote (last I heard, nobody died for my right to place a bet.) If people will use their heads as well as their hearts to recognize that there is scarcely a "dime's worth of difference" between the two nominees of the blended Democratic/Republican Party that I call the Corporacratic Party, they will lose their fear that their vote for a "non-evil" candidate will "spoil" the chance for victory of one of the Corporacrats. This might be a little easier in 08 than it was in 04, since John McCain has not quite yet (though he's getting there) acquired the horn and tails of a George Bush that all the "anybody but Bush" that the Democrats could use to mobilize yet another turnout for a "centrist" Democrat (nobody but Kerry).

Opeluboy (May 5th, 2008 6:28 pm), good points and I'm also surprised that Tracy Flick -- excuse me, Hillary Clinton -- supporters aren't troubled that she's willing to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iran with nuclear weapons -- since that's the only way she could 'obliterate' them -- and haven't considered what effect the radioactive fallout would have on neighboring countries like Iraq and Afghanistan where our troops would likely be poisoned as well. It also doesn't seem to occur to what a vicious blowback would be in store from the billion Muslims in the world to such an attack. Is she prepared to murder millions more to protect Israel's right-wing Olmert government which, BTW, isn't endorsed by large segments of the Israeli people, and what about the unprecedented number of military officers have quit the Israeli army in protest of Olmert's aggression? She may have just said it to look 'tough,' but who needs a Bush-in-a-pantsuit with something to prove as president?

I know of two women who fit into Hillary's core demographic, the people she'll need to get elected president -- white middle-class women in their 50s, one a psychologist and one a small business owner. Both initially strongly supported Sen. Clinton until she descended into this Rovian nightmare of negative campaigning. They are disgusted with her these days -- the psychologist said she would 'probably' vote for her in November, but she'd rather have Obama. The small business owner says there is no way she could live with herself if she voted for Hillary since she's seen this 'anything to get a vote' side of her. If Obama doesn't get the nomination, she may vote third party or sit this one out. They are particularly incensed that she is campaigning on her 'testicular fortitude' -- they wanted, after all, a women president, not a fake Republican man.

This is just anecdotal, of course, but I wonder how many other women in their age group are having the same reaction?

Nannie (May 5th, 2008 6:58 pm), you're talking about employees of those firms donating money to the various campaigns, not PACs or lobbyists contributing money in the name of the firm or its owners. To reiterate: Obama doesn't take money from lobbyists or PACs but Hillary does. I guess it doesn't bother you that most of Hillary's senior campaign staff are all PR flacks (Mark Penn and Kiki McLean), or lobbyists or former lobbyists, such as Howard Wolfson, Maggie Williams, Harold Ickes, et al. Penn has cooked up corporate campaigns against unions as head of Burson-Marsteller, and both he and senior McCain advisor Charlie Black collect their paychecks from the same parent corporation, the WPP Group.
(For details, read here:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/mark-penns-tangled-corporate-web.html)

If Hillary Clinton is ever elected president, these are the people who will fill out her White House staff -- do you seriously think she will serve the public interest with corporate PR flacks and lobbyists running the Executive Branch?

Nannie (May 5th, 2008 7:21 pm), they are counting money given by employees of various businesses, not necessarily PAC or lobbyist contributions. Besides, you should really ask the Center for Responsive Politics if you detect a contradiction -- the info comes from them.

Kathyodat, thanks for the compliment and the link. This is important information that we should all know.

Billrowe (May 5th, 2008 8:26 pm), Obama has repeatedly promised to withdraw all troops from Iraq, except embassy guards, within 16 months in a phased withdrawal. He has also said he will close all 14 'forward bases' in Iraq.

Jerry D. Rose (May 5th, 2008 8:28 pm), haven't had time to read Pam Marten's article yet. I will and post my reaction here. Of course Obama has received contributions from Wall Street types, but he has received much more from average people out in Fly-Over Country. It is indisputable that he does not take PAC or lobbyist money.

Ticonderoga (May 6th, 2008 6:57 am), I originally supported Edwards -- I didn't think Kucinich had a chance of winning -- and shifted to Obama after Edwards dropped out. As far as a Veep choice for Obama, I think it will probably be Obama-Richardson or Obama-Dodd. Obama-Boxer is a long-shot pick.

Barak Obama isn't quite the Gandhi that Mr. McClure makes him out to be, but one thing he's good at is diplomacy. The guy can talk like hell, which is what we need after nearly eight years of a President who can't even pronounce the word "nuclear." I would have preferred Kucinich (or Gravel or McKinney or Nader), but I'm trying to be a realist, so I'm voting for Obama.

There are a number of reasons why, some of which might be considered nuts by others:

1. He has young kids and I'm hoping the reason why he's running is because he isn't stupid and knows that the world is in a bad place, and wants to do what he can to make the world a better place for his kids.

2. He, after graduating from law school, did pro bono work for the poor.

3. He has run a relatively high-road campaign, especially compared to American politics in general.

4. Kucinich endorsed him, at least for one state, and it's just possible that Kucinich knows something about Obama that we don't.

5. He has voted to ban cluster bombs (this is a big deal to me).

6. He has spoken out in favor of instant run-off voting.

7. There's something weird about the whole "Kucinich endorses Obama, Edwards and Hillary get filmed conspiring to keep Kucinich out of the debates, Edwards drops out of the race, leaving Obama and Hillary to duke it out" thing. Kucinich has been the sacrificial lamb all along, telling us all the truth, only to be made invisible. Edwards has been Kucinich lite, only to drop out of the race eventually. Maybe Kucinich and Edwards are both heroes, in different ways. Maybe they each sacrificed themselves for the sake of the party.

Look at it this way: If Edwards hadn't dropped out, Hillary would have won the Democrat race, for the simple reason that Obama and Edwards would have taken enough votes from each other to give her the win. So, with Edwards gone, Obama can win. So, when and if Obama wins, who will be his running mate? Edwards? That's who I'd pick, if I were Obama. Obama + Edwards + Hillary = Hillary. Obama + Edwards + Hillary - Edwards = Obama + Hillary. Obama + Hillary = Obama + Edwards?

I don't know. Maybe I'm crazy, but there's only one better choice for Obama as his running mate than Edwards, and that's Gore, who almost certainly won't run.

I guess I'll have to wait until Obama beats Hillary and chooses a running mate to find out whether I'm nuts or not. The suspense is killing me.

For you folks that are promising to vote Green, can you tell us which candidate is the "Green Candidate"? and are they going to be on the ballot?

Are you working hard to get your candidate on the ballot?

Are you working hard to promote the Greens or just telling Common Dreams your plan?

Is That all you are going to do is write in the word "Green" for every office up for election?

Now those who are going to vote for Nader, are you going to split your uncounted write in votes with the Greens?

You folks don't make any sense if you can't answer these questions.

Is your uncounted vote going to change the system?

I think it makes sense to vote for someone I like who at least has a chance because why should I believe all your cynical attacks on Obama when what you are asking others to do makes no sense to vote knowing nobody will count it.

Let us know who the Green candidates are and if they are going to be on the ballot, you won't sound so helpless.

Good night folks...

opeluboy: No, I don't think you are "prejudiced, insane or making this up" but I think you (and many many others) may willfully be ignoring the kind of information found in the linked material I posted (for the 2nd time) at 8:28 today. And if you don't believe this author, it's all laid out for you on Open Secrets, so please don't say you "weren't aware" of how Wall Street-soaked is Obama's "grassroots" fund-raising. I know for sure I'm not "making this up."

Jerry, I went to Counterpoint and read the article. I will be looking forward to tomorrow's 2nd article by Pam Martens on this same subject.Thanks for the direction. There is so much out there it is hard to sieve through some times.
Vote Nader 2008... You'll be glad that you did.

The fact is that Obama has built the most impressive small donor list in the history of the country. So impressive, in fact, that he is now being seen in the Democratic party as a present and future power-broker due to this unprecedented grassroots support.

But then I must be prejudiced, insane or making this up.

Have any of the people (like RSJ) posting here who continue to mouth the Obama line that his is a "populist" campaign financed by small donors (which it is to an extent) rather than by corporate interests bothered to examine the link to my post of 1:22 PM today?: http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html The title and subtitle of that article is: Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street...and the content of the article fully supports the title. If you want to say that Pam Martens has misrepresented the data on campaign contributors and lobbyists, well go for it, but don't IGNORE this material because if it's true BO's populist front is totally blown out of the water and there won't be enough "haven" in Common Dreams, Alter Net, Truth Dig, The Nation and the Huffington Post (to name a few) to conceal that fact from the public.

Obama is the remaining best of the worst. He is committed to an immediate "start" of withdrawal from Iraq. A small step in the right direction, but at least we can count on that small step, and are guaranteed nothing but the status quo from the others. I'm willing to give the guy a chance and hope for more than I expect. A marginally better choice than a third party.

In case anyone's interested, I just sent Obama my third small donation. He get's a lot of these. Clinton doesn't.

That's called a "fact."

RSJ Your words...

"Hillary has gotten $353,723 from oil and gas corporations to Obama's $266,097, and she's received $850,315 overall from industry lobbyists, compared to Obama's $141,933,"

First you say he doesn't and then you say he does... Which is it ???

.

RSJ, great posts! I always appreciate reading your thoughtful posts.

agi, I agree with your assessment and decision.

Regarding the sociopathic corporations, there is an interesting website http://www.buyblue.org/ which lists corporations with socially responsible behavior. Like individuals, corporations are on a spectrum - admittedly a somewhat different one from persons. But, Ben & Jerry's, anyone? At least, this site lets us see what different corporations are up to. At present, they are revamping their rating system so consumers can make progressive choices with their purchasing dollars. Meanwhile, they are providing links for people to inform themselves. I've been there before, and can't wait to see the new and improved site. They are also encouraging people to sign in and provide input about what they want to know. Lots of possibilities there.Such as, who is unionized, who treats their workers well (I.E. CostCo), who doesn't buy from sweatshops, which companies provide American made goods, which companies support their local communities - anyone have more ideas? Let's get to work.

kathyodat

.

Goldman Sachs,
JP Morgan Chase & Co,
Citigroup,
Morgan Stanley,
Time Warner,
That is just a few of the top contributors to BOTH, O& C . What is funny is Ken Starr's lawyer firm, Kirkland & Ellis gave to O& C but not to Mc C. weird...
To Obama the tune of 117 million dollars by April 5th and lots more since. Yes the little guy is sending in his hard earned pay to these people . It's a drop in the bucket compared to what they get from Corporations, Wall Street and Lobbyists. Spin it however you want they are on the DOLE. No doubt about it.

.

Max - Regarding the Clinton and Obama bashing on this site, I have to almost agree.

The problem is, Clinton is not a progressive, she is a Republican with a D next to her name.

We hear this everywhere: We must support whichever Democrat is nominated. Bullshit. This is what Clinton is banking on. She is going to be hugely disappointed.

Just consider the black vote if nothing else. If Clinton manages to steal this nomination from Obama (after spending months running him down), count on blacks staying home in droves. Both Clintons have now totally alienated that faithful bloc. The Dems CANNOT win without them. Period.

Of course the enormous youth turnout will also evaporate, and it's pretty clear that independents will not vote for her.

And then there's my single vote, which will go to the Green candidate.

For those out there telling us we must vote for Hillary Clinton should she be the nominee, you are asking us to do something contrary to all we believe in. It is not going to happen.

I remain amazed that anyone claiming the label of "Democrat," "progressive" or "liberal" can still consider voting for Clinton, since she is none of those things.

She is so far right when it comes to foreign policy that she would be right-wing in the Republican party. This mindset has done nothing but wreck our country and plummet our world standings, not to mention being directly responsible for the deaths of possibly 1,000,000 people. Yet Clinton supporters are apparently unconcerned by this.

Her campaign has been a mixture of fear-mongering and race-baiting. She has actually called her Republican challenger better suited to office than her Democratic opponent. None of this bothers her supporters in the least

She is destroying the Democratic party, and knowing this, could give a shit. Neither could her supporters.

What about this can her supporters not see? Or do they approve of these measures and doctrines? Is it her unconditional, reckless support of Israel? Is it because she's a woman? Is it because Obama's a black man?

I cannot imagine a worse standard bearer for our party, and a more sure way of guaranteeing that nothing will change.

Maybe that's what her supporters want.

RichM May 5th, (2008 11:15 am), you took the words right out of my keyboard in your reply to Rockerbabe. I would add only this to Hillary's gas tax relief pander: She just proposed a bill that isn't going to pass before May 31st, so it's a 'free' pander, absolutely devoid of any political risk to her. You are also on target about corporations -- they are single-minded sharks that need to be restrained to protect society and our form of government from their inherent excesses. There are corporations in the socialist democracy of Sweden, for example, that are strictly regulated, yet they still make a profit.

Good point, Agi (May 5th, 2008 11:19 am), LOL.

Nannie, go to the Open Secrets page where it sums up campaign contributions -- it shows that Obama has received 100 percent of his contributions from individuals, not PACs or lobbyists. Hillary has gotten $353,723 from oil and gas corporations to Obama's $266,097, and she's received $850,315 overall from industry lobbyists, compared to Obama's $141,933, according to the Center for Responsive Politics at OpenSecrets.org. It might also be noted that Obama doesn't take money from oil industry lobbyists or PACs; Hillary does. And Hillary's senior campaign staff is rife with corporate PR flacks, lobbyists or former lobbyists as well, such as Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, Maggie Williams, Harold Ickes, and others; Obama, meantime, has no lobbyists among his senior staff. (The last info is from Thomas B. Edsall, "More Lobbyists on McCain Staff Than Any Other 08 Candidate," The Huffington Post, June 27, 2007.)

rmax (May 5th, 2008 12:58 pm), I understand your point and mostly agree with it, except Hillary's campaign obviously doesn't.

skeezyks (May 5th, 2008 3:30 pm) that would be nice, but I don't think it's likely to happen. Obama-Edwards is a more realistic possibility, which wouldn't be bad at all, but Edwards might not go for being the 'Best Man' a second time.

Siouxrose, thanks and I always appreciate your comments, too.

Anyone hear Rush Limbaugh telling the republicans to go vote for Hillary in the primary? It's sort of hilarious, check it out if you can.

IF Sen. Obama is nominated, he might be well-advised to chose Dennis Kucinich as his running mate. DK would provide a good insurance policy against accidents, especially the fatal kind.

By Hillary Clinton's own words captured by cameras, we know that she is the enemy of change. I am so relieved that she will not gain the nomination.

Oh dear, nmax, some more Obama-bashing comin' your way (just because it's hard to bash O and C together and CD articles pretty well take care of the C-bashing anyhow).

Hector's attempted distinction between good and bad corporations, with the implication that only the good ones support Obama,just won't wash. If you don't believe this and have the courage to have your convictions challenged, look at the article published today (with more promised for tomorrow) by Pam Mertens at http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html If you read this article, you might get an inkling of an idea that some of the "meanest" of Wall Street firms are helping feed Obama's phenomenal fund-raising machine and that he has acted accordingly (by voting for example for the "Class Action Fairness" act which was actually a corporate giveaway designed to shield them from justice in the civil courts.)

Of course that's an article that comes from outside nmax's cherished Common Dreams "haven"...which has actually been a haven for Barack-glorification (the article on which we are supposedly commenting) and Hillary-bashing (pick any day's issue for a likely example).

It boggles my mind that so many so-called "progressives" claim they won't vote for the Democratic nominee, and risk a McCain presidency. I would say you deserve what you get except that I have to suffer the foolishness of partisan "progressive" politics. I used to think Common Dreams was a haven, but this incessant Clinton- and Obama-bashing is hell. Both are politicians involved in a ruthless campaign. What on earth do you expect from either of these deeply flawed, and yet vastly preferable (to the only *viable* alternative, McCain) candidates? Do you realize that when you bash the opponent, you are engaging in the exact behavior for which you decry him or her?

That article said it all as far as I'm concerned. No mention of the fact that Hillary voted against the ban on cluster bombs in civilian areas while Obama voted for it. That's all you need to know about Hillary, whore of AIPAC.

For an interesting look at how Americans are brainwashed into believing that there is simply no alternative to organizing society around corporations, read through Hector's post (11:13 am).

Basically Hector says that 1) just as there are good individuals and bad ones, so are there good corporations and bad ones, and 2) any form of social organization other than corporate capitalism is necessarily "unrealistic and totalitarian."

Both these assertions sound superficially plausible, but neither holds water upon examination. As to #1 -- no, there is actually no such thing as "good corporations." The defining characteristic of a corporation may have something to do with "limited liability of owners" so far as the legal code goes. But its overall effect on society is another matter entirely. The corporation -- regardless what type it is, or what types of people sit on its board of directors -- is obliged to maximize shareholder value. This means it must do everything it can to maximize profits -- usually with emphasis on the short-term. This will inevitably include lobbying activity, breaking environmental & worker safety laws whenever possible, engaging in false & misleading advertising, exploiting cheap labor as much as possible, price-fixing, supporting political candidates who defend corporate interests over consumer & public interest, and so on.

As the documentary film "The Corporation" put it, after examining the issue a few years ago, if the corporation were a person, it would carry the diagnosis of "sociopath." It must inevitably conform to pressures which force it to behave in a spirit threatening to the general social & planetary well-being. It's a disadvantage for a corporation to try to behave ethically -- any that try, risk being driven out of business by more ruthless competitors. And every single large corporation is either a monopoly or effectively part of a cartel (oligopoly). They all hate genuine competition, and are naturally driven to try to stifle it.

For example, take oil companies who propagandize against the concept of global warming; who buy media outlets & pay fake "experts" to publish papers claiming that global warming is a mere fiction. They are simply acting as they must to maximize profits. If they didn't engage in this kind of sociopathic behavior, they wouldn't be doing their duty to shareholders. The little "itsy-bitsy" problem that this behavior leads to wars & may well destroy the planet counts for nothing, the way the oil companies see it.

Hector's other idea -- that any arrangement of society other than corporate capitalism must necessarily be "totalitarian" -- simply reflects the amusing brainwashing of Americans, who imbibe this kind of garbage with their mothers' milk. There are many ways to organize the necessary production for society, other than creating private tyrannies that consistently destroy the environment, fatally undermine democracy, support militarism and nationalism, & concentrate wealth into the hands of ever-fewer individuals.

Understood. I supported Nader in 2000 and 2004. This year I support Obama. Maybe he'll prove me wrong, but I think he has a real shot at changing the course of this country.

It's all there in black and white...

Takes abit to learn the site but very revealing once you do.

Things they don't want you to know are shoved from the limelight with stupid lapel pin stories or other utter nonsense.
Some are a little smarter than that. It just takes looking into the FACTS. The truth.

The whole fussie-fussie razzle dazzle is a put on to not have to go into the promises they cannot keep.

Issues that what we want to hear. Not fussing.

If Obama gets more money from corporations that would undermine Clinton's theory about his electability about, wouldn't it?

When Rockerbabe1 (12:10 am) posts, you can be sure of two things: the post will be an angry content-free defense of Hillary Clinton, and the post will include a phrase complaining about "the boy's club." According to Rockerbabe1's view of the world, the only reason people despise Hillary is because of "sexism."

Today for example she offers these insights:

"Senator Clinton is not a whore who will do anything for money.... Just because you don't like her politics, is not reason to denigrade (sic) her. Your sexism is showing big time.....I will be voting for Hillary in the General election, even if it means a write-in vote. I refuse to hold my nose and vote for another member of the boys' club ..."

Gee. How about the fact that Hillary is a proven serial liar? That she uses wildly inflammatory language about "obliterating" Iran, after making it easier for Bush to attack Iran with her vote for Lieberman-Kyl? That she & her sleazebag husband have stooped to race-baiting & leftist-baiting, using Rove-style campaign tactics against the likely Dem nominee in a race she mathematically CANNOT win, except through dirty backroom superdelegate deals?

Rockerbabe1 also defends Hillary's dishonest pandering about the gas tax: "The gas tax rollback is a small way to help consumers who are struggling mightily under the rising cost of living; she also wants a wind-fall tax imposed due to the obscene profits the oil companies are making...."

This is pure BS. Hillary -- the former Walmart board member -- has not defended consumers against corporations a single time in her whole Senate career. Even Paul Krugman, an economist who supports Hillary, writes in a recent NYT column that "Hillary Clinton shouldn't have endorsed the bad idea of a gas tax holiday." It's fake pandering, which on the surface looks like it gives the consumer a break, but actually costs the oil companies nothing, & actually creates space for them to raise prices at their convenience.

"according to opensecrets.org, Obama is receiving more than Clinton or McCain from corporations…check it out…."

With all due respect, generalized condemnation of "corporations", and of those "receiving" support from "corporations", is misplaced. The nature and actions of "corporations" range from one extreme to another, as do the nature and actions of individuals. Moreover, "corporations", whose defining characteristic is the limited liability of their owners (i.e., "shareholders") for the debts of the business enterprise, are a sine qua non for any realistic, non-totalitarian system of producing the goods and services that everyone -- including the "corporations"' critics - needs. That there are "bad" corporations is of course true. There are "bad" individuals as well.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/moneyweb.asp?cycle=2008

Try this one also...interesting...

according to opensecrets.org, Obama is receiving more than Clinton or McCain from corporations...check it out....

RSJ: This one belongs on Jon Stewart or another late night TV show, great line, "If you asked Bush what he thought of noblesse oblige, he'd probably tell you he doesn't eat any of that fancy French food." Thank you for your thoughtful, intelligent postings.

An Obama victory would be a small step in the direction of the people retaking control of the Democratic Party. An Obama victory would mean the end of the pro corporate Clinton rule and a return to the more progressive ideals of people like Ted Kennedy. This is the struggle we are watching within the party. If Clinton wins, the politics of triangulation and the rightward slide of the party during the past 15 years will continue. If Obama wins, there is a chance that the base of the party can have a voice again. It's a small step, but a step in the right direction nevertheless.

We need a President who is NOT beholden to the multicorporations.Someone we can rely on to be honest and trustworthy.
Top ceo in the US must have experience.

Nader has it all...He will be an outstanding President. 40 years of experience makes him the BEST candidate we have.

Think about it....

.

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

.

Sdf (May 4th, 2008 1:38 pm), being a 'Boomer' (I hate that word) myself, I think what NateW (May 4th, 2008 12:27 pm) meant was 'yuppies,' not necessarily all Baby Boomers. The Clintons, George W. Bush, Rove, Cheney, Dan Quayle, McCain, et al, are all classic, selfish 'means-to-an-end' yuppies who don't care who they hurt as long as they prosper and are obsessed with themselves, their money, and holding power. Emotionally and mentally, they are sly overgrown children who are always singing in the key of 'me.'

It's interesting that none of them ever went against the grain; none ever marched in the streets for peace or took any altruistic chances that might help others if it didn't benefit themselves more in some way. Bush had fights with his father and drank and tooted through the 70s and 80s, but it was all self-involved -- he was narcissistically pitying himself for being the poor little rich boy who couldn't outdo his accomplished father.

Meanwhile, I know Boomers who have volunteered to go to other countries to help the poor; donate their time to free health clinics in disadvantaged neighborhoods; help the homeless find a place to live; cook and serve food at shelters; perform at free benefits for good causes, and sacrifice their time to care for the terminally ill.

I can't see any of the yuppie-types I've mentioned doing that, unless they were rewarded with publicity to further their political careers.

If you asked Bush what he thought of noblesse oblige, he'd probably tell you he doesn't eat any of that fancy French food.

Formernadervoter (May 4th, 2008 1:26 pm) and citizen1 (May 4th, 2008 2:28 pm), Obama has promised to restore the rights of working people; get us out of Iraq and focus on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; increase the military budget to care for our veterans; lower gas prices; gradually convert to single-payer universal health coverage without corporate control (currently, that would never pass Congress); mitigate free trade agreements to benefit American workers; beef up FCC oversight of the media; and end Bush's 'us or them' policies with other nations, favoring diplomacy over aggression. (Read http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf for more details.)

Most of all, he knows how to work with people to get things done, as he's proved in the Illinois State Senate and in the US Senate.

I don't know what he'd do about Cuba, Colombia, or our military bases in the world, but just working on the above items would be a refreshing progressive change from what we have now. His positions are obviously different from John McCain's, and can Hillary Clinton be trusted -- observing the negative way she's campaigned, lied about various topics, and the Clinton history of running as a liberal and then governing as a right-centrist -- to keep her promises?

Meanwhile, in the off chance that Nader is elected, and unless you're talking about appointing a King Ralph, he would need Congressional majorities to pass any of his agenda. Ralph, with a nod to all of the good things he has done in the past, has shown himself repeatedly to be a man who doesn't work well with others, especially those with whom he disagrees on some matters. Unfortunately, he has a tendency toward self-righteousness and obstinacy that wouldn't find a receptive audience among the 535 members of Congress.

Consequently, a President Nader wouldn't be able to pass mu