Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Tilts Toward Center, Irking Some Activists
Barack Obama's support of an overhaul of domestic-spying laws last week was the latest in a string of statements suggesting the Democratic presidential candidate is tacking toward the center to compete with John McCain.
On foreign policy, national security, tax issues and even local politics, Sen. Obama has made some decisions lately that belie his ranking by the nonpartisan National Journal as the U.S.'s "most liberal" senator.
During the primaries, he ran to the left of Sen. Hillary Clinton, securing the nomination in part by shoring up a base that included self-identified liberals and Internet activists who helped fill his campaign war chest.
Some of those supporters are irked by Sen. Obama's latest moves, but the general-election season will put increased pressure on both candidates to attract moderate and independent voters.
The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, conducted in early June, showed that 58% of voters perceive Sen. Obama as a liberal and 24% view him as a moderate. In contrast, 34% view Sen. McCain as a moderate and 48% see him as a conservative.
To be sure, the predominant view among party leaders is that a turn toward the center is smart politics, and that Sen. Obama's willingness to buck the left wing on issues such as the spy bill signals he is maneuvering to fight Sen. McCain directly for voters in the middle of the political spectrum.
"I applaud it," a senior Democratic lawmaker said. "By standing up to MoveOn.org and the ACLU, he's showing, I think, maybe the first example of demonstrating his ability to move to the center. He's got to make the center comfortable with him. He can't win if the center isn't comfortable."
Sen. Obama's press office didn't respond to requests for comment.
The shift has met with some protest from the activist left. The liberal MoveOn.org, which endorsed Sen. Obama, is petitioning its members to call his campaign to object to his support of the spy bill. The group notes that he previously vowed to support a filibuster of the legislation because of immunity provisions for telephone companies that helped the government carry out its surveillance program.
Popular liberal blogs criticized the senator after he announced his support of the bill Friday. "There's an element of distrust now," Matt Stoller, a liberal activist and co-founder of the blog OpenLeft.com, said Monday at an Internet politics conference in New York.
Mr. Stoller said that Sen. Obama's position on the spy bill may not alienate the majority of his supporters, but the issue gives activists "a strong reason not to trust him or give him the benefit of the doubt."
Similarly, Sen. Obama's decision to opt out of the public-financing system for the general election was a blow to leading liberal Democrats who have championed campaign-finance reform and public financing. "This is not a good decision," Sen. Russ Feingold (D., Wis.), said in a statement Thursday.
On taxes, Sen. Obama told The Wall Street Journal in a recent interview that he would consider cuts to the corporate tax rate as part of an effort to simplify the tax system, a position also advocated by Sen. McCain. [Graph]
Sen. Obama's shift toward the center is particularly apparent in foreign policy. In a recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, he offered such ardent support for Israel that he had to backtrack just a few days later. Sen. Obama, working to woo Jewish voters, told the lobbying group that he supported Israel retaining control of an "undivided" Jerusalem. The comment so infuriated many Arab leaders that he was forced to issue a clarification that he didn't oppose Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over the future of the city.
He also used the AIPAC speech to tweak one of his most controversial positions -- a stated willingness to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- and outline a hard-line position on Iran that is basically interchangeable with Sen. McCain's.
In his remarks, Sen. Obama said a possible meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad would take place "at a time and place of my choosing, if and only if it can advance the interests of the United States" -- and only after earlier talks between lower-ranking American and Iranian officials. He also vowed to "do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon -- everything."
On Iraq, meanwhile, Sen. Obama has been making clear that he favors shrinking the U.S. military presence there, as opposed to trying to quickly eliminate it through an immediate withdrawal.
He favors withdrawing one or two "combat" brigades a month, but the designation is vague enough that it could allow a President Obama to leave potentially significant numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said he had been prepared to lobby Sen. Obama against withdrawing forces too precipitously, only to find that the senator's thinking was not that far from his own.
Mr. Zebari said that he had a lengthy telephone call last week with Sen. Obama and that he came away "reassured" that Sen. Obama wouldn't take steps to jeopardize Iraq's recent security gains. He said Sen. Obama told him he would "consult very closely with the Iraqi government and with the military commanders in the field" before ordering any withdrawals. "He will not take any drastic decisions, or reckless actions," Mr. Zebari said.
Sen. Obama's center tilt comes as Republicans have increased their efforts to paint him as a liberal -- a word that has been demagogued to where Democrats now mostly prefer the term progressive to describe their views.
In recent interviews and speeches, Sen. McCain has drawn parallels between his rival's energy policies and those of former President Jimmy Carter, who conservatives criticize for tax increases and heavy regulation.
Politically, Sen. Obama also endorsed Georgia's Rep. John Barrow, a conservative white Southern Democrat, against a liberal African-American woman, state Sen. Regina Thomas, in the July 15 primary. The move raised eyebrows, because party leaders generally don't get involved in intraparty skirmishes. While Ms. Thomas may have more appeal among Democratic primary voters, Mr. Barrow is widely viewed as in a better position to win in this swing district.
The endorsement also stoked anger on the left.
"It is up to us to create a progressive check on Obama, and we might just have our first opportunity," OpenLeft.com wrote regarding Sen. Obama's nod, agitating for Ms. Thomas to score a primary upset.
Yochi J. Dreazen, Siobhan Gorman and Amy Schatz contributed to this article.
© 2008 The Wall Street Journal
314 Comments so far
Show AllObama is NOT the savior........ SOS...... VOTE NADER!
Bubye BHO. Bubye. We already had a Klinton and rejected a 2nd one. We don't need a 3rd. Next. "Thank you for submitting your resume BHO, if we have any openings in your line of work, we'll call you. There's the door. Don't make us call Security."
Obama is not tilting towards the center. He is tilting towards Fascism.
To all of you out there who said "I told you so", we salute you. Here comes "Slick Barry".
Maybe people will start to wake up and realize that Obama is a fraud. There is no valid reason to vote for Obama, not even fear of the worse McCain.
Good-bye to the old Hillary - Hello to the new Hillary.
I can't resist !!!
My evil demon has gained control even after valiant efforts otherwise.
I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!
That's taking candy from a baby. All anyone with half a brain had to do was check his fascist corporate paymasters. It was all in plain view for all to see. Amazing blinders the sheepies have.
So undermining the Constitution is now considered "moving toward the center." Actually, it's unlikely that any presidential candidate would willingly surrender the powers seized by George Bush. That's why they run for office, folks, to be in power. If they really wanted to help people they'd open a soup kitchen.
The Wall Street Journal; and who OWNS the Journal. Murdock! The MSM just muddies the water, when it can't own someone. Spreading mistrust...
What again has BHO ever done to gain the peoples trust in the first place?
curmudgeon99: Ditto. But this is one of those cases where being right doesn't make anyone feel good -- not I at least.
Unfortunately I can see no easy solution. The constitutional changes that would be needed to reinstitute some form of multi-party parliamentary democracy would never be permitted by the dual-facade establishment system. And I seriously doubt that enough revolutionary spirit remains amongst the citizenry to impose it.
In the circumstances, I can foresee nothing but increasingly perilous times ahead, not only for USans, but for peace and security globally -- not to mention the impending economic disaster that bipartisan obligations to an unfettered Wall Street can only exacerbate.
Nader is not electable, even though he is a good man, there are many good women and men, but who is the 'least horrible' politician?
Politicians are all sell-outs.
It's a game of compromise, of holding your nose, if you play at all.
And, ya know Nader is not a saint either. There are none. He IS a beltway lawyer, has money in munitions, and is a FOX Pundit now and then, still, a good man.
I respect the perspectives of idealists, I hope you deign to understand that pragmatism does not necessarily mean lack of idealism. When Progressives bicker, it sucks. I'm just resigned to the nature of politics.
Peace.
Tilts towards center? That would mean he is moving left, right?
Yes, Vote Nader and elect John McCain. There was no difference between Gore and Bush in 2000 so enough voted Nader to elect Bush. How did that work out? Gore would have being paying attention to the threat of Osama, Gore knew about global warming and the need to change energy policy. Gore would not have given huge tax breaks to the rich.
Nader will not win the election. He is not enough of a political animal to know what it takes to win. Obama may not be the savior, but another Bush term will be its own special hell for America.
Actually, progressives should grump enough to give the impression that Obama is not part of the "lefty" crowd. John McCain wins if he and the republicans can paint Obama as a "liberal". I, for one, trust Barak Obama will make the best president. But for those who do not understand American electoral politics, vote for Nader, like you did in 2000. But then have the courage to take the blame for getting a 3rd term for George Bush, and not continue to deny that the worse person won, because 90,000 people in Florida voted for Nader.
He is moving to the "center" of the Oligarchy, not the American people. No no. We're not like that. We'd all stand up and vote for the Bill of Rights today. Of course we would. Wouldn't we? Anybody get any love notes from DD recently? Every thread should have at least one Dim shill.
Actually enough democrats voted for Bush to elect Bush.
Lieberman even votes for Bush. lol
There was some audacity of hope
but it faded fast.
He will now lose the election. The progressives will stay home as Obama keeps up the right turn.
More than twice as many people mistakenly believe that Obama is a Liberal than believe that he is a Centrist. Want to know why that is so? It's because of all those DP-glued-liberals with their DP-glued-websites with their DP-glued-delusions about Obama saving the country from the neo-cons.
Thanks DP-glued-liberals for dumbing down America! It's almost enough...lol... to make one want to listen to Rush and Glenn... lol. Dumbo-Dee and Dumbo-Duh. Where do you want to eat your factory-food political hamburger at?
yes, turnarounds on FISA and public funding are just the sort of issues that were anticipated when some of us feared Obama was a "manchurian candidate" ...
The shock and horror expressed by some now "disillusioned" Obama supporters is only slightly sadder than the rationalizations used to gloss over these genuine transgressions.
They didn't know about Obama's record because they didn't want to know .. they were looking for someone to follow.
I keep being reminded of Al Gore's "shoe-in" "his to lose" 2000 campaign ...
If the Democratic Party loses the presidency in November, I'm not sure what their future will look like ... or ours.
damnliberal June 25th, 2008 12:27 pm ...Your facts are WAY off...do some research.
Only the Wall Street Journal would call outright fascism "the center."
damnliberal June 25th, 2008 12:27 pm -- 'Yes, Vote Nader and elect John McCain.'
Okay, if you insist. Thanks for your advice and consent. I suppose, if every "lefty" constitutional value is going to be tossed on the scrapheap anyhow, it might as well be done by someone who's honest about his intentions.
The Left is sounding more and more nihilistic, if Buzzflash and CommonDreams posters are any indication.
Maybe, just maybe, Obama knows how to win. About time a Democrat figured that out.
Maybe, just maybe, he also knows how to lead... which may have nothing to do with what he did in order to win.
This could very well be the Democrats last chance to make any kind of difference.
So there are two choices: 1) stay home, vote for McCain or a third party candidate or 2) vote for Obama.
The former indicates a desire for the whole thing to fall apart, with all its attendant misery.
(Sure. Whoever survives gets to start from scratch. Yahoo!)
The latter indicates some hope that maybe, just maybe, we can either turn this around or at least slow down and cushion the fall.
Hell, chaos is always an option. Why not wait one more election cycle? If Obama can't, or doesn't make a difference, we'll all have a front row seat for the inevitable Grand Opera, replete with Death and a Fat Lady.
Predictable as the sunrise. Until liberals stop giving their votes and their money to non-liberal candidates, we can count on exactly this happening. The political calculation is that we have nowhere else to go - that it's the Dem or no one. Bill Clinton did it and so did Gore and Kerry. So is Obama. Until liberals say "no" to this, we can count on politics in America drifting ever rightward as it has been since the mid-sixties.
Understand: we are at fault. We liberals are at fault for the radically rightwing politics in this country.
Vote Ralph.
Clemsy June 25th, 2008 12:45 pm -- Why not wait one more election cycle?
How many 'one mores' is too many. Why not wait until the fascists have so consolidated and secured their hold that any subsequent resistance becomes totally impossible -- if it hasn't already reached that point.
I will definitely vote for Ralph Nader, the only candidate who truly represents the views I hold. It is this country's great tragedy that social democracy isn't even in the political lexicon here. We're stuck trying to bring about reforms in areas like health care, which should have been dealt with decades ago. I long ago threw up my hands in utter disgust with politics-as-usual in the United States. I don't care if Nader doesn't stand a chance or if he is a spoiler for the fixed elections of the two big money parties. The difference between Repugs and Dems is the difference between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. No true reform will be coming from either party. Both are totally corrupted by the campaign financing system.
Thanks Arvy. I think your summation about the non-existent multi-party solution is absolutely correct.
The Dems may have a chance if they draft Gore. He is the best of a bad lot, but he gained some stature over the global warming issue.
The fascist war-mongering corporations purse strings are really bloated with the profits of a continuing state of war.
OK, folks . . . there's no savior ---
Except, probably NADER ---
This is probably either real Obama or Obama listening to the Corporate-DLC --
whichever, freedom, democracy, economic democracy -- will be left behind.
I'm really sad for the people who worked so hard and believed in this man.
Arvy,
Because you're not going to change a damn thing five months before an election. All this bitching and moaning has to turn into action way before an election if anything worthwhile is going to happen.
Go ahead. Vote for Nader. What the hell does he do after every failure?
Falls off the radar screen.
Nothing changes.
Putting McCain into the White House will make change. Absolutley. But not the kind I want to subject my children to.
Yeah. I want to give Obama his shot. I want to see what he'll do after he's kicked McCain's ass because he beat the repubs at their own friggin' game.
If he's a flop, well, then we'll know.
But if no one does anything on Januarly 21st of next year, then nothing will ever change. I'll tell you this: obama can be successful if we make him. If we're loud and obnoxious and relentless and ORGANIZED.
Aye. There's the rub.
Like I said, chaos is always an option.
For those of you who who didn't get the following survey. VERY IMPORTANT TO FILL OUT!!!
http://www.independentmovement.net/
This may be a chance to get Independents a voice!!!
(If any Kucinich people are out there especially....!)
Thank you Rich M (and others) for speaking the truth. Maybe folks who consider themselves to be of the left might want to consider the corporate right wing culture they live in. Obama's views are to the right of Richard Nixon, if the media tells the herd that this constitutes loony left liberalism then who is to blame? Things are very bad and it's going to take some real work, not just a vote, to make it better.
Center?
He WAS in the center. The guy is now lurching to the right.
Did you hear he just endorsed a white Bush Democrat over a black progressive woman for Congress?
Pathetic.
Oy vey! This is why the Progressive movement can't win elections... we are just not as united as the conservatives. To win, you cannot just appeal to your base. America, unfortunately, is not a nation of progressives. Even within the progressive movement, there are varying degrees of "progressivism". The conservatives know this fact about their own party and why even though many of them don't support McCain, they realize that to win in the long term, they must hold their noses. Things like appointing more conservative judges and no taxes are still their ultimate goals and better to have a place at the table than not to have a place at all.
Unfortunately, progressives still cannot see this. They will vote for some other nonviable candidate or stay home and allow the conservatives to dominate and then bitch and moan about how bad things are.
The conservatives had and continue to have a strategy. They took over the Republican Party instead of grousing over who was more conservative. They knew that only when they attained power could they have a say on what to do with that power.
Progressives, on the other hand, have no strategy except to dream big and lose big. The only way is to win and then take over the party with our people. You cannot do it from the outside. You cannot do it when you keep shooting each other. Win first and then change things.
Folks on this thread and others obviously have their own views about politics and the candidates. Not to rehash a truth that repeatedly has been pointed out on other threads, but as all of you know, the political system has run its course. It is broken. Instead of repeatedly giving our views about Obama, McCain, Nader, and others, how about beginning a dialogue discussing new ideas and approaches to changing the system? How about talking to politicians who are willing to change the system (I know, they are very few in number)? It seems to me that we constantly will remain in this dysfunctional political system unless we begin making some changes. They might seem radical to those who are enslaved and willing to remain such in the dysfunctional system, but who the hell cares? The system clearly is in need of complete overhaul. I propose that we begin supporting politicians who are not tied to nor controlled by corporate interests. Tell your family and friends to support these people. Yes, Americans will have to make some significant changes to their lifestyles, but you know what, tough shit. Sometimes sensible change is healthy for a country and God forbid, might actually put it on a logical course. Why not try to build our own platform of ideas we all can agree on and perhaps nominate and support someone among the CD posters? Any takers?
Your thoughts??
Does it make any difference who we vote for if the Republicans own the Diebold voting machines? No accountability, no paper trail -- and, as usual, no proof.
I'll be damned if I am going to vote for Obama simply because he is not the republican. Obama will get my vote when I feel that Obama has earned it! He is NOT entitled to it.
The 'turn towards the center' is only necessary if the said candidate cannot support his supposed left-of-center views. Said candidate should fully EMBRACE those views, argue STRONGLY for those views and defend them vigorously, and not get distracted by the inevitable personal attacks that will follow (not of the views themselves, but of unrelated distractions). Said candidate will find that the center will then find him.
Intead to try to move oneself to appease the center is dishonest and illustrative quite frankly of a lack of conviction and a lack of leadership. So again, Obama, earn my vote - move the center.
Obama is not the saviour, McCain is for sure not the saviour, and for Pete's sake, Nader is NOT the saviour. Who is the saviour? You, me, and everybody we know. The "Great Man" (or Woman) theory of history is just a myth. By the time anyone gets enough money and clout to run for national office, they have been bought and paid for by whoever got them there. WHOEVER gets to be president in January, THAT'S when our work starts for sure.
All this rabble-rousing about how Obama is moving to the center is just the right-wing corporate press trying to get McCain elected by convincing enough people to vote for Nader so that Obama loses. If you think things are bad now, just wait for the McCain presidency. So go ahead and vote for Nader, and then get ready to shoulder the blame for what we get. For real. A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. Get over yourselves and face reality.
Folks, could you just take a damned second and read my earlier post and hit the link???!!!
Arvy and RichM pretty well sum it up for me. Damn! I hate having to agree with people.
So I'm left with the question:
In a far from state of the art election system like America's, where it seems, if I understand correctly, the window to "register to vote" closes before many people are even starting to pay attention to the candidates,
how do Americans get the alternatives like Nader, Sheehan, the Green Party etc to coordinate their efforts in a more effective way?
FOLKS, COULD YOU TAKE A BREAK AND JUST TAKE A DAMNED SECOND AND READ MY EARLIER POST AND HIT THE LINK??!!!
Clemsy June 25th, 2008 12:58 pm -- If he's a flop, well, then we'll know.
If, by "we", you mean you and your fellow apologists, I doubt that very much. You'll always find some self-justification and excuse for supporting the continuation of a "representive democracy" that represents no one except their paid "corporate person" sponsors.
claudius: I am for making change in our political system. No more lobbyists would be nice. But, how do you change something that has become a Behemouth and destroyed our way of life? Corporate and lobby control through money donations to politicians that do their bidding and they have been effectively hiding the money trail by having their 'CEOs' and leaders make the donations.
Congress can't and won't vote against something that gives them greenbacks in their pockets. From Lobbyists like AIPAC and the big OIL companies the money flows to them and helps these organizations buy the Foreign policy they want. This shouldn't be happening but how to stop it? Humans are inherently greedy and greed is what is causing this War. OIL companies are controlling our government now. The American people seem on board for a war for OIL now, after the artificial inflation of gas prices at the pump and the constant beating of the drum to drill off shore, control the OIL in the Middle East etc..or it will be detrimental to our 'Way of life'. Americans grab on to everything out of the mouths of commentators and news people.
We have let Corporations become deregulated, hide their money in off-shore accounts so they don't have to pay taxes. And, now they have become Behemouth controllers of our society, in fact all aspects to what we put in our tank, what we eat, etc. That is a hurdle that will be hard to change. We are now moving toward 'The United Corporations of America' for control of the population of the world to sell their crap to.
There is no longer a true progressive candidate running anymore. The MEDIA corporations made sure of that. They got all 'Moderates' in the pool..McCain, Hilary and Obama were all Moderates..just look at their voting record in Congress. Obama never voted as a True Liberal. Another lie the MEDIA is dribbling out to the American people. The MEDIA plays a big role in twisting truth and Americans are hooked on TV. The Power of the message. We need a big television news station not controlled by a corporation but has money to back it. The MEDIA message seems to be key and true journalists that will investigate to find the truth, not paid off to shut up by the corporate entities that give them a paycheck. They will never bite the hand that feeds them. Corporate news lapdogs for the greenbacks they love.
These are big hurdles to overcome. The rich against the poor. That will be tough. I see no clear answer. Money seems to be the only thing that gives corporations their power and little people don't have that kind of money. OIL companies are now Billionaires.
"He will not take any drastic decisions, or reckless actions,"
The sold-out, pro-Big Business, Pro-corporate, Military Industrial Complex whore bastard considers stopping an immoral and illegal military aggression against another nation based on documented lies in order to plunder its oil wealth as "reckless actions".
Screw the Democrats, screw Obama! Vote for Green Cynthia Mckinney, Nader or any 3rd party candidate and encourage everyone you know to do the same.
It does not look to me that Obama is appealing to the mainstream American voter. Instead it looks like he is trying to mollify the neo-cons and big money to ease his path to power.
Do you think the majority of centrist or not too politically committed American people want to have their every phone conversation wiretapped? I would think the opposite.
Also, does the centrist American electorate really require obesience to Israel? Aren't they more concerned with jobs, housing, war, energy and the condition of the earth for their grandchildren?
Is it possible that Obama will pull "a Kerry"? By "A Kerry" I mean to lose a sure thing by uninspiring and dismaying the public and by boring them to death with hedging and backtracking.
Maybe I am overestimating the electorate, but if Obama continues down the expedient path, I predict a dropping off of support, not only on the left but from everyone who was longing for "change".
Republicans have a new dirty trick up their sleeve. If you look carefully you can see a device being installed on Obama's back. Obama will now be controlled via an infared device that will ensure he will act and talk exactly like a Republican.
Failure to comply will result in a nasty shock to the left testicle. Complying results in a pleasure sensation experienced in the right testicle. The device was tested on lab rats to avoid a backlash from animal rights groups.
Will someone in the press or here who agrees with this define the "center", because orcording to polls people are left of center now on the issues. I don't think there's been an ideological shift yet, it's more a result of economic circomstances, but the "center" is to the left of where it was years ago. This is conventional wisdom at its worse.
I also think it's sad that protecting the 4th Amendment is now a "liberal" or left of center position (it isn't since libertarians also object, but according to the media it is). It seems more and more that the "center" just stands for the status quo, backing policies that won't work as well as more radical alternatives more than anything to please people who are irrationally ideologically rigid and to attract support from entrenched interests. The "moderates" and independants have always been outnumberd by those waiting for a real alternative, but this conventional logic is what you get when you hire the status quo from past administrations (who enacted policies that were horrible and got us to this point) and they're the ones giving you advice. I knew that both Clinton and Obama would bring little change but, with the polls on issues now what it is, I never thought we'd have ANOTHER Democratic candidate move towards the center, the 1990's center not now. Pathetic and weak.
If you want a good example of how warped the corporate press' idea of what the center is, look at the above article's comments on AIPAC. Obama takes a stance that is on the extreme right and because it is away from the liberal base of the Democratic Party it is the "center".
Read on a republican blog the other day how much they're loving watching the liberals squabbling and going in all directions. Even had a link to go to for everyone to check them out.
As for Obama - Whatever he may be, and as with anyone, no one can really know what someone is going to do once they're in the position to do anything, until they do it. But there is one thing about this guy - HE HAS GOTTEN THE VOTERS OUT, AND A LOT OF THE YOUNG PEOPLE. To me, that matters. It means they've awakened to something that has a bearing on their lives.
Surrender,
What are some more of Charlie Brown's views other than being anti-corporate, anti-war?
Criticalthinktank,
I understand what you are saying. The way we have to present change is packaging and marketing it as a completely new idea, which it is. At first it may seem foreign to many folks, but once they understand the logic and sensibility of it, they might warm up to it. I have some ideas of my own based on a careful and calculated look at this country's political history, voting trends, and patterns. Whoever comes up with the golden ideas no doubt will have a tough time selling them to people conditioned by this dysfunctional system, but hopefully at some point they will resonate with the angry voters and be appropriate at a time when the country really is ready for change.
As a Nader supporter in 2000, I have to say that there IS a difference between Repubs and Dems. We may not have known that in 2000, but if you still believe there is no difference then you are not paying attention. The Dems are not perfect or even that great (especially the cowards that won't impeach this punk), but if you don't want a more sensible and balanced policy and instead would like 100 years of war (including Iran and Syria), no Social Security, no health care, no environmental changes (drilling on the coast or in ANWAR anyone), true fascism, and other Republican 'ideals', then, by all means, vote for MCcain/Nader.
You will NEVER get your perfect candidate, being a politician (and our democracy and Constitution (what little is left) I might add) is about compromise. Holding to your 'principles' when the future for our children is at stake is selfish, not principled (my reasoning/opinion? if the decision only affects/hurts you, it is principled, if it hurts others, it is selfish). If you don't like where the Dems are going, then run for office, go to protests, or at least write your politicians. I don't like what the Dems have become, but all be darned if I am going to go through 4 more years of a Republican Monarchy only to have Clinton2 (talk about a Republican in Dem clothing) in four years (if we survive that long).
Also, as one who opposed and protested the war from the start, I agree that we cannot pull out immediately. Whether or not we supported the war at the beginning we cannot leave Iraq to flail around as we owe it to the people of Iraq to fix our mistake. If they ask us to leave, we still need to do it in a responsible way so that carnage (yes, carnage we started) is not left in our wake.
I might also add, where has Nader been? Seems like he runs for office and then disappears until the next election cycle. A true leader would be front and center for change even when there is no election... and showing up on DN! a couple times a year is not front and center. I, for one, felt as though Nader abandoned all of us that voted for him in 2000, so he sure isn't getting my vote this year.
Just my 2 cents, but really people, Obama may not be great, but can we really survive another 4 years of Republican rule?
Clemsy June 25th, 2008 12:58 pm
damnliberal June 25th, 2008 12:27 pm
Please take my challenge:
1)Please make a list of all the grand accomplishments of the Democrats in say, the last 12 years, no, how about the last 2+ since they have been in charge of the Congress.
2) Make a list of the reasons to vote for Democrats that aren't reasons to not vote for Republicans.
3) Please explain why the Democrats say impeachment is off the table when many legal experts believe Bush has broken the law and violated the Constitution.
4) Explain why the Democrats continue to fund the illegal occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
5) Explain why Democrats just helped grant Bush and the Telecoms immunity for breaking the law.
6) Explain why Bush is allowed to redefine torture and continues it.
7) Explain why the White House leaked the name of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative and George Bush and Dick Cheney are not in jail.
8) Explain why the defense budget exceeds that of the rest of the civilized world put together and the Democrats rubber stamp it.
If you can answer even one of the above I will be amazed. When given this challenge most Democratic Party apologists will side-step and weasel. They can't back up what they advocate. And that's the truth!
ps Over many more Democrats in Florida voted for Bush than Nader!