Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Atonement
I would rather stand with Obama in defeat, than stand with Clinton in victory. Every once in a while in life and in politics, we get a clear choice to do either the morally right thing, or to continue to cut corners and believe that the end justifies the means. We should have no illusion about this choice after following Bush's road to the White House in which all of the ugliness and hatred he fostered on the campaign trail followed him and us through the last eight years. Now we are standing at that crossroads again watching the unfolding drama and contrasting styles of two Democratic candidates.
Hillary will get in bed with anybody. She has no internal moral compass. Her only choice is what is politically expedient. Her recent gas tax holiday proposal, an idea borrowed from fellow conservative McCain, is so stupid that I am surprised she can defend it with a straight face. Then I consider that it has no substance, it is just another means to an end for her. There are countless other examples that have made her appear harsh and arrogant, bullying in tone, threatening and menacing, pandering to our fears instead of inspiring our hopes. She knows that this works, and gleefully embraces it no matter whom she harms. The clearest example of her political calculus was her vote for the war in Iraq. Like Kerry and Edwards who were also anticipating runs for the White House, she jumped on the war wagon, because she thought, like most insiders, it would be over quickly, and her vote would make her a more credible candidate on national defense. It would also make her look tough! But toughness is not something you have to prove; it is formed by a constant adherence to principled positions that form one's moral center and cannot be buffeted about by political winds. My own senator, the late Paul Wellstone, showed what that center looked like when, in a tough reelection fight, he voted against the war, and for his ourage and consistency of message his popularity surged ensuring his re-election.
Obama has shown this kind of courage, too. He resists the temptation to get in the mud with Clinton when it would be the politically expedient and the expected thing to do. He resists her taunts. He does not infantilize voters. He does not pander to fear and he remains unwavering in his determination to win by the means that he believes will be necessary to govern this country. He is now being tested in this firestorm swirling around him. In the inferno ignited by his former pastor and fueled by the media, Obama has remained steadfast. He is undeterred by the ugliness of racism and continues to move with the confidence of a man who is grounded in a strong and principled sense of self. There is a basic decency about him that one catches in his smile and the spontaneous way in which he interacts with crowds. There is a steely determination reflected in his eyes that gives us a clue to the character behind them. He inspires and speaks to our higher nature, recognizing that underneath our fears and spitefulness we are basically a good and generous people. For these reasons alone, I would rather stand with him and lose, if necessary, than win however possible.
But the most important reason to stand with him is that his election in the fall would give us a chance for atonement, to get back what we have lost over the past 25 years through a politics of division and hatred, where our government has been corrupted for the benefit of the very few; where the common good has been denigrated by a narcissistic worship of individualism and the wealth of our nation has been measured only in economic terms. Moreover, we might make amends to the rest of the world by electing a president who leads with humility and does not need to prove himself by killing others. We could atone for our warring ways, for torturing and terrorizing others, and for promoting hatred around the world. We could talk to our enemies, find common ground, share the world's resources, promote the general welfare, and regain our place as a country with a basic regard for the well being of all human beings. Rather than talk about Christian principles, we could put them into practice beginning with loving our neighbors. This is the hope and dream that Obama engenders in me. It is refreshing, and even surprising that at the age of 60, I could once again be inspired by a politician.
Bud McClure is Professor of Psychology at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He welcomes your emails at bmcclure@d.umn.edu.
Comments
Due to trouble with browser compatibility, Common Dreams has reverted to the older version of Disqus for comments while they fix these problems.

100 Comments so far
Show AllBy the way, WHAT have the Democrats done to prevent the Republicans from stealing another presidential election in November?
Republicans own and operate Diebold computerized voting machines and have their hired computer hackers and programmers who have had time since 2000 and 2004 to perfect their criminal, treasonous art of stealing elections.
:(
I haven't heard one peep out of the so-called opposition party, the Democrats, regarding this.
Illilu, you ask for evidence that the Green Party can win. That can't be done ahead of the effort for them to do so. On your logic of you'll vote for on the basis of "electability," you probably should be choosing Clinton over Obama right now because the polls are showing that Clinton will win over "McInsane" rather handily, while Obama and Mc are neck and neck. But I don't think that would or should dissuade you--Obama is obviously "your guy" and you should stick with him. As I've heard Dennis Kucinich ask "Can I be elected?" and answered: "If you vote for me." Anything less than a vote based on your convictions is a bet placed with a bookie rather than a citizen's casting of her/his sacred vote. I'm probably "going Green" but by all means you go with your heart, keeping your head engaged to review whether you are making the "right" choice.
As a cynic, I should vote Nader. As a hopeless cynic, I will vote for Obama if he gets the Democratic nomination. If Clinton manages to finagle the nomination, I will have no choice but to vote for Nader. I would sooner "waste" my vote than cast it for the woman who would "obliterate" another country -- innocent along with guilty --, who is on record authorizing the current war, without ever admitting it was a mistake (because, I think, she really did support the invasion), and who is wholly-owned by lobbyists and special interests. Obama, while not my first choice as the democratic nominee, is at least not guilty of any of the above three objections. Obama is possibility. Clinton is doom. (and I am Clinton's demographic -- female, 50+)
ATONEMENT is the title of the article we're (supposed to be) talking about on this comments thread and it's a word and idea much in vogue these days. It's a title of course for an excellent Academy-award nominated movie. A similar idea of making amends for past wrongs is represented in "apologies" rendered to the aborigines of Australia or Canada, and multi-million dollar compensation payments to victims of wrongful imprisonment (Florida case), etc.
Just as AA says you can't begin to recover from alcholism until you admit you are an alcoholic, you can't apologize for something unless you really feel the "wrong" you are trying to right. Briony in ATONEMENT certainly realized the tragic result for two people when she falsely accused one of them of rape, and created an authentic and beautiful atonement by writing a novel in which she gave a "life" to those whose real lives were forfeited by her actions.
Whether Obama or anyone else can become the agent of national atonement that is urged by Mr. McClure depends on just such a "we (Americans) have abused our people and those of other lands" confession. When Jeremiah Wright and others have made this "confession," Obama and more indirectly his rivals Clinton ("he wouldn't be my pastor") and McCain have described his attitude as that of "another time," as if the degree to which U.S. imperialism at home and abroad could be openly confessed is somehow governed by a statute of limitations that makes such confessions no longer relevant to our new world of "unity" politics. (When the politicos start talking of unity, duck and run for cover!)
Well so be it, maybe Americans today don't have to try to compensate the victims of the "sins of our fathers," but how about the on-going sins of the day: the perpetuation of brutal wars (actually occupations) in Iraq and Afganistan, the enabling of raids in Ecuador, Somalia and Syria as well as contemplated ones in Iran, the support of an equally brutal and illegal Israel occupation of Palestine, etc.? Is there any serious atonement for these continuing crimes that can be expected of any of these candidates? Let's take "the war" (Iraq) as just one example: is any of these candidates prepared to atone for this war by simply getting the hell out of it, as quickly as troops and materiel can be loaded on trucks, buses and planes and carried back to the United States? And why do these three United States senators condone the continuation of the war until "when I am President?" They ARE members of Congress and they DO have the power to pull the plug on that war by voting against supplementary war funding bills that will be coming up probably during the next month. If any of them are serious about atonement for what they all have described as the "mistakes" of this war, are they prepared to step to the well of the Senate and vote a resounding "No" when this legislation comes up for a vote? If any one of them undertook this one concrete act of "atonement," he or she would probably have my vote, because I would now feel that this man or woman had the "courage" that the author attributes to Obama to make other decisions that we all know need to be made but are unlikely to be made because of the dominance of the "military-industrial" (and media) complex in our public lives. Otherwise I'll keep looking for that leader who is truly a leader.
Pardon my "Jeremiad!" I'm just an "old uncle."
Obama has his flaws and is working with the same groups as Clinton as McCain but I have to agree he is the lesser of three evils.
Obama represents a rare chance to bring to power someone of the generations who will have to clean up the mess made by those represented by Clinton (baby boomers) & McCain (pre-boomers). It is no surprise that Boomers are fighting Obama tooth and nail, as his presidency would mark their passage from the halls of power, which they richly deserve.
Bud, I feel it too, for the first time since summer of 74. If I can't have Dennis K then I will support Barack. He cannot be as bad as the other two have already promised to be.
Hillary Clinton is to Barack Obama as Robert Mugabe is to Morgan Tsvangirai.
Obama is a very brave man and I pray for his safety and that of his family.
Bud, your words are narrowly focused. The old paradigm is crumbling. The change Obama speaks of is constrained within the old paradigm. He will not succeed.
Join the new paradigm. Strike out in a bold new direction.
http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml
I would rather stand with Nader in defeat, than stand with either Obama or Clinton in victory.
Every once in a while in life and in politics, we get a clear choice to do the morally right thing.
And I would rather stand with OBAMA in VICTORY than stand with HRC in defeat.
Nice guys finish last in the U.S. It's time to change that. I'll vote for Obama instead of 3rd party as I planned. If Democrats make it a landslide for Obama, the Republicans won't steal yet another presidential election as easily as they did in 2000 and 2004. How can they explain their "win" if every Democrat turns out for Obama?
Republicans back their candidate no matter how bad he is. The least we can do is back Obama, a decent man who would make a good president and help the U.S. image worldwide. Another thing: He's not responsible for Rev. Wright's statements, so let's give it a rest. Yes, I'd prefer to vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney, but the U.S. is not progressive enough to allow a 3rd party to win.
If you vote for either McCain, Obama or Clinton this is what you get:
continued decline of unions
continued corporate control of the media
continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan
an increase in the military budget
an increase in troop levels
continued occupation of over 700 military bases worldwide
continued high gas prices
continued HMO control of our health insurance
continued free trade policy
continued illegal economic sanctions on Cuba
continued support for the crimina government in Colombia
and on and on...
No matter which of these three is elected, the new boss will be the same as the old boss.
NateW, your generalization about Clinton being backed by baby boomers fighting Obama tooth and nail is just that---a generalized assertion. Most of my friends and co-workers, including a large number of baby-boomers, are enthusiastically for Obama. Myself included. Seems you have fallen into the divisive trap of stereotyping groups. I think this is something we all need to examine more closely in ourselves, again, myself included. This is the effect of the disease promulgated by the current and last few administrations. Divide and conquer.
Psychologist Bud McClure and some others of Obama's followers might need to see a psychologist to see if they can find out why they project their own progressive values on so unlikely a vessel as Barak Obama. His "character," on basis of which so much virtue is attributed to him, was shown clearly enough from the way he "handled" the J. Wright affair. His devotion to black America was demonstrated by his unneeded admonishment to blacks not to engage in violence in response to the Sean Bell verdict. His supposed independence of the corporate powers is denied by his being showered with many millions of Wall Street campaign dollars. His sympathy for the downtrodden is highlighted in his unswerving support for our "staunch ally," Israel with scarcely a word for Gazans, except that they should overthrow their own leadership. Perhaps his (or Clinton's) election would be better for the country than that of McCain, but no concrete credible proof of this has ever been presented, in a campaign in which personal invective has taken the place of discussion of issues. If you're looking for a genuinely progressive alternative to any of these three, I second the motion of Gloom and Doom that you expose yourself to the "new paradigm" of the Green Party.
Just on another subject, has anyone else noticed that there has never been a single article posted on Common Dreams that is remotely critical of Obama or supportive of Clinton? Maybe CD's editors need to consult the same psychologist.
My last several posts to CD sites have been sitting in limbo as "awaiting moderation," and this may be fate of this one as well.
ever since john edwards dropped out....i've supported obama....i hope he gets edwards as vp...but i'm not holding my breath...anyway i'll stand with obama in the rain,snow, sun, hail or anything else (especially if edwards is on his ticket)
Somebody PLEASE explain to my why I should vote for Obama rather than for a third party candidate (like Nader).
- Obama represents a party that has taken impeachment (and as such accountability) off the table. Did I miss his impeachment resolution?
- Obama has continued to fund the illegal war
- Obama continues to be a staunch supporter of Israel and it's colonial and genocidal policies
In all accounts some Obama supporters have told me (as in some of the above posts) that he is the lesser of the two evils (but sorry I am not going that route again). Others have told me that in order to get elected he has to send a "moderate" message, but once he gets elected he will do the right thing (WHAAAAATTTT? It is a rarity if a politician keeps half the promises he had made before he got elected. And you are expecting Obama to do something that he hasn't even promised???).
And the American Sheeple keeps on cheering for BillaryObama....
merwan May 4th, 2008 12:37 pm
"Hillary Clinton is to Barack Obama as Robert Mugabe is to Morgan Tsvangirai."
==> This statement is an outrage. Before Mugabe became the incarnate evil he is today he spent time courageously and successfully fighting (literally) to end colonialism in Rhodesia, as it then was.
Terran May 4th, 2008 1:04 pm
"I would rather stand with Nader in defeat, than stand with either Obama or Clinton in victory. Every once in a while in life and in politics, we get a clear choice to do the morally right thing."
==>It's the "morally right thing" to help elect John McCain?
citizen1 May 4th, 2008 2:28 pm
"Somebody PLEASE explain to my why I should vote for Obama rather than for a third party candidate (like Nader)."
==> See response to Terran, above.
Gloom and Doom, Jerry D. Rose --
==> See response to Terran, above.
Hector May 4th, 2008 2:56 pm
Your explanation basically boils down to preventing McCain getting elected. You have not convinced me that Obama has earned my vote.
Alas, the lesser of three evils is still evil.
I'll vote Green to my end.
And what difference does it make whether it is Obama or McCain who does the following:
- Let Bush off the hook for his war crimes
- Keep on funding the war
- Continue supporting Israel's colonial and genocidal policy (which is the root cause of so many global problems)
So, why should I prefer Obama over McCain?
Whatfools, if you provide some kind of substantial evidence that the Green party has a chance of winning, I'll go that route. If it's just going to make it easier for McInsane to win if I vote 3rd party, then I'll stick with Obama.
Bud McClure Professor of Psychology...
Right on the money, nothing more to add to an excellent Article....
Only to reiterate alaskamaid's comment, I only hope Obama's security is tightening as we move forward...Obama is a rare dolphin in a "Sea filled with Sharks"....
itizen1 May 4th, 2008 3:44 pm
And what difference does it make whether it is Obama or McCain who does the following:
- Let Bush off the hook for his war crimes
==========================================
To be frank this is not even about Bush, but about setting a precedent that you can not get away with destroying our constitution and committing war crimes.
This is a very low bar I am setting for the next President, and unfortunately neither Hillary nor Obama passes the test.
But vote as you wish. At the end of the day we'll get the President we deserve, just like we Americans got Bush because that's what we deserved.
We are all terribly divided right now but nothing that some $8 gas could not cure--to break through the illusion that we don't need one another might be grace.
dcbeltway May 4th, 2008 12:11 pm
"Obama has his flaws and is working with the same groups as Clinton as McCain but I have to agree he is the lesser of three evils."
Agreed.
I'm not comfortable with those who sing the glorious praise of Obama. He is a product of the same political system as the others. However, he has fired up the interest and energy of many people, especially young people, and that by itself is worth looking at.
Jerry D. Rose,
"Just on another subject, has anyone else noticed that there has never been a single article posted on Common Dreams that is remotely critical of Obama or supportive of Clinton?"
This bothers me as well. I don't like Clinton, and will not vote for her, but CD is showing its bias. Not good.
Has there been, other than an occasional crumb, on the issues that Nader or the Green party raises on Common Dreams?
Instead most articles insist on discussing how the issues between Obama and Hillary are the highest priority: the bitter people, the gas tax, the Reverend Wright etc.
If people voted for Nader 8 years ago, because of their conscience; instead of sucking up and voting for Gore for political expediency, the democrat party discussion would on issues instead of floral arrangements.
Will they ever be a perfect time to vote your conscience? Yes, the time is now.
"I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want, and get it." - Eugene Debs
Terran, citizen 1 - Assuming we can not immediately upend the status quo and effect the millennial rectification we so urgently need, Obama may represent a little incremental change in the right direction. The lesser of three evils to be sure. He's digging up votes right now, even in bad neighborhoods, and can not speak his mind.
I'm voting for Nader myself. But I live in Arizona, where you can do that easily. McCain is already the winner here. If I lived elsewhere I don't know what I would do.
Obama, Clinton, and McCain are from three different generations in Strauss and Howe's work they are Generation X, the Boomers, and the Silent respectively. McCain's generation, the Silent, have never had a president. I don't think they ever will. McCain is such a representative of the old order, the status quo, I don't see how he will ever win. Clinton is a Boomer and will follow in the footsteps of her Boomer husband and their brother Boomer, Georgie. Really no possibility of change there. Obama is Gen X, first wave; I'm a couple of years older than him and last wave Boomer, as I think about it though I identify much more with Gen X. I think this means that there is a real possibility that Obama does represent real change, a generational change. A generational change does represent a real difference in one's mindset. There's no saying he is not different, the difference exits inside him, and I think it will be seen, is seen, in his politics.
RICH M: Well-reasoned post as usual.
JERRY D. Rose: Excellent (9:38 PM) post.
JH: I agree with your voting strategy.
Senator Clinton is not a whore who will do anything for money; to intimate that she is, is a judgement you are not qualified or morally entitled to make. Just because you don't like her politics, is not reason to denigrade her. Your sexism is showing big time.
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. Right now, any breather from the rising prices will be much appreciated by the public. Your analysis is flawed, especially with regard to the long-term consequences.
I think the writer of this piece is more about the cult of personality, than pursuit of public policy. It is policy that drives our government and it is ideas that spark discussion and debate that cause us to think. Most Americans are not dumb, but a beauty pagnent winner is not who I see as the next President of the United States.
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 just because he is attractive.
Well, now we are all convinced that Obama will perform miracles when he is elected. The hated capitalists will sudddenly, after hearing another stirring speech, decide they have taken more of their share of the nations wealth and will be very anxious to atone for their misdeeds.
The warmongers will quickly become peacemakers and we will have unity and unselfishness throughout our land. There will no longer be people without medical assistance, the rich will offer up their taxes for the good of all, the oil supplies will be shared so that everyone has plenty, food prices will drop, and our problems will be over.
Kernel, I know you don't mean what you say. Obama won't use his magic wand to change the world. But at least he shows common sense, courage and integrity about the gas tax holiday. Hillary and McCain are buying our votes for $28 and meanwhile, costing the treasury $8 billion, not including the many thousands of construction jobs - I'm estimating more than 50,000 jobs nationwide if we would lose 13,000 jobs in Indiana and North Carolina alone. Just what this country needs right now. Not to mention abandoning deteriorating roads. There's always a ripple effect as well. Obama said they tried it in Illinois and the oil companies rushed in to plug the price gap. So Hillary thinks Congress would stand up to the oil companies for us - like they've always done? Talk about miracles!
Rockerbabe, I have many objections to Hillary. She and her husband both lie, and I don't cast my vote for liars. They are DLC Democrats, the corporate wing of the Democratic party and I don't vote for corporate politicians. In spite of campaign promises, they have never done a thing to promote or protect unions, the Gini index shot up under their watch faster than ever before or since and I consider that significant. They are still concealing the source of the fabulous $100 million increase in personal wealth they gained in the last 7 years - book sales indeed! Hillary's decision to "throw the kitchen sink" at Obama hasn't affected my opinion of her, although I suspect the reason she has cut back on negative campaigning is that either the party leadership warned her something would be done if she didn't stop, or she noticed her negatives were going up and her support was going down. Certainly not because she gave a damn about the future of the party or she wouldn't have done it in the first place. But she got some mileage out of it. But there are plenty of people, you included, who don't mind all these character flaws. I do, and I don't vote for people like her. If I thought Obama was a lesser of two evils, I wouldn't vote for him either.
Maybe the reason CD isn't posting "pro-Hillary" stories is because they know something some here don't seem to understand. She is NO progressive!
kathyodat
I'm visiting in the UK, and last night I saw Obama on TV, speaking in favor of a U.S. troop "surge" in Afghanistan. I considered him to be the lesser of three evils until I heard this comment. I am now tempted to stay home on election day in November.
Some responses:
to siouxrose (no relation): thanks for the kudo.
to BeForKids: I certainly hope that Kernal May "meant what he (or she) said" since this post encapsulates so brilliantly the fallacy of believing that our grave problems will go away if we simply entrust their solution to a candidate with a vacuous "platform" of "hope and change."
to Darrell M: Please, not another "generational analysis" that seems to replace the sexism and racism that is (hopefully) receding from our society with a new form of ageism which says that Generation All Wrong must move to the back of the bus. I'm especially frightened by a prospect of political dominance from the precincts of a generation noted, if anything, for its narcissistic tendency to want to say, "look at me, how pretty I am, and how I am the joy of all mens' and womens' desiring!" We narcissists (of all ages, and I admit I am one) even have a High Priestess of our cult of personality, our Oprah Winfrey who can whip up the screams of acclaim for all the "cool" people among us. So now we have, as we had in 1964, a candidate of youthful viga' who appeals not only to "kids" but to the arrested adolescents among us, including far too many aging liberals from the Lost Cause campaigns of Howard Dean and my own favorite, Dennis Kucinich. Hopefully, come inauguration day, the excitement of our Prom Night and the Extreme Make-Over of our political system will allow us to thrill to the stirring words of a new Dear Leader who will tell the world that the "torch has been passed to a new generation" and we're about to inaugurate a Prom Night decade. (This from a person who has devoted a big chunk of his life trying to understand JFK's assassination). If you have a bit too much to drink and wake up with a next-year hangover when you realize that Wall Street handlers are manipulating your Dear Leader, you'll have Doctor McClure to counsel you; or maybe Oprah's Doctor Whatever's his Name in the green scrubs.
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 much legislation, so we wouldn't get single-payer universal health care, a reduction in the military budget or deployment, changes in our trade policies, alteration in the role of media, nor any of the other things you've mentioned, except a withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Since Obama has already promised to bring the troops home from Iraq and change our mission in Afghanistan from nation-building to pursuit of Al-Qaeda, and he actually has a chance to be elected, he's the better and more realistic choice, as flawed as he may be.
Words Are Important, in the early part of the 20th century, Eugene V. Debs and others proposed many progressive, union and worker-friendly policies, as well as Social Security, etc., but it took a charismatic politician like Franklin D. Roosevelt to turn them into law.
In the same way, I trust Obama will enact some of Nader's progressive agenda if he's elected. It's certain that Nader, with few friends in either major party, could never get it through.
As I've posted at CD before, I voted for Ralph in 2000 and one of the reasons I voted for him is that he promised to help build the Green Party into a true rival to the two major parties. After the election was over, Nader reneged on that promise -- that was very disappointing and indicative of his character. Since then, I think he has let his ego, and desire to sell books, get in the way of his political sense and judgment.
To me, there is no 'perfect' progressive candidate running this year in any party; until there is, we have to elect someone president who comes as close as possible to that ideal and isn't either a media joke, as Nader has become, or completely ignored, as is McKinney -- and that would be Barack Obama.
Of course, if you're simply trying to siphon off progressive votes from the Dems to help McCain get elected, then that's a different matter.
RichM (May 4th, 2008 1:34 pm), I fundamentally agree with your assessment, except Obama has said that from his first day in office, her would tell his Attorney General to begin enforcing the law with government officials; he has promised to uphold the Constitution and, as a former teacher of Constitutional law, he's actually read it; he has repeatedly condemned torture; and to hold Wall Street and corporate frauds accountable.
He does campaign as a centrist -- an unfortunate fact of life in Bush's America is that if you're seen as too liberal you can't get elected -- but then veers left once elected. Read what he did in the Illinois Senate, and the bills he's sponsored or co-sponsored in the US Senate. While there have been a few clunkers, there have been many more progressive bills put forth. Besides, I think he has more integrity than either McCain or Hillary, and that's been proven by the way he's campaigned. He's turned down opportunities to pander and go nasty, something his Dem opponent apparently regales in. And his March 18th speech in Philadelphia on race relations will go down as one of the classic political speeches of our time.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisownwords
.
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
.
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....
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.
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.
according to opensecrets.org, Obama is receiving more than Clinton or McCain from corporations...check it out....
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…."
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.
If Obama gets more money from corporations that would undermine Clinton's theory about his electability about, wouldn't it?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).