Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBarack 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 AllThinkPeaceExistence:
What is this crap about nitpicking and mistrust and infighting being a "thing of the past" like Obama's bringing "both aisles together" and Divided We Fail's appeal to stop "bickering" in congress? Are you kidding? The Repugs have spent 30 years wiping the floor with democrats, hell, vote-rigging and putting them in prison (Gov. Seigelman), and you and Obama want what, to make NICE with them? Are you insane?
We should just be "positive" and have faith and "hope and "trust" in Obama because...WHAT? When did this prom-queen of a candidate become exempt from goddamn CRITICISM when he kisses AIPAC's ass and votes to shit on the constitution?
Americans need to grow the fuck up and get used to the idea that political participation doesn't begin and end at the goddamn ballot box (not today, especially), and "hope" is for children who don't have the stomach to face reality
Yes, ThinkPeaceExistence, when you are in a fight for your very life, which is certainly the case now,
WINNING IS EVERYTHING!
willybill June 25th, 2008 11:56 am wrote "Obama is NOT the savior…….. SOS…… VOTE NADER!"
Neither is Obama the devil incarnate and throwing a vote away on Nadar seems to me to be even more irresponsible at this time than in 06.
Maybe Obama expects progressives to understand that to get into office requires winning. That no matter how correct we may be in our positions, our answers aren't the only ones. We have a lot to do and it will require that even the smallest 'Who' among us is involved in making that change. Nitpicking and infighting are a luxury of the past -- as is mistrust and apathy... Even if Obama turns out to be a centrist and nothing gets done, it will be a far cry from BushII and more destruction.
Think positive...
Think about timing. It is the time to plant and not yet the time to reap.
In the minds of many people, Obama represents the best hope they have seen for a while. People who have never participated have been inspired to act. It is difficult to set up a third party or even get people to take some time out for a protest in the middle of this tidal wave of enthusiasm. It's all Obama all the time.
However, it is possible to use the opportunity to educate about the issues, to plant small seeds of understanding which will sprout in the bleak light of realization that will come after the election, assuming Obama wins. The environment, energy, military waste and aggression, domination by corporations, erosion of democracy, poverty, gas, food, housing, jobs - Obama does not have the ability to solve these without a popular movement. (Evidence shows that he does not have the steadfast willingness either.)
This is just one moment and we are very far from democracy and justice. It will take some real strength and endurance to become genuine contenders. Speak the truth now, but kindly so as not to kill hope but to turn it into maturity and understanding that will sustain people for the long fight ahead.
The situation is tiring. Every day we are confronted by another complete outrage. But that is what it is. That is the time and place we are born into. We are overrun by people with better weapons and we have to fight back. It will take a long time. This is a project like raising children or farming. You have to do what has to be done every day regardless of fatigue or illness. With luck and with hard work, we may increasingly reap the rewards.
Think about timing. It is the time to plant and not yet the time to reap.
In the minds of many people, Obama represents the best hope they have seen for a while. People who have never participated have been inspired to act. It is difficult to set up a third party or even get people to take some time out for a protest in the middle of this tidal wave of enthusiasm. It's all Obama all the time.
However, it is possible to use the opportunity to educate about the issues, to plant small seeds of understanding which will sprout in the bleak light of realization that will come after the election, assuming Obama wins. The environment, energy, military waste and aggression, domination by corporations, erosion of democracy, poverty, gas, food, housing, jobs - Obama does not have the ability to solve these without a popular movement. (Evidence shows that he does not have the steadfast willingness either.)
This is just one moment and we are very far from democracy and justice. It will take some real strength and endurance to become genuine contenders. Speak the truth now, but kindly so as not to kill hope but to turn it into maturity and understanding that will sustain people for the long fight ahead.
The situation is tiring. Every day we are confronted by another complete outrage. But that is what it is. That is the time and place we are born into. We are overrun by people with better weapons and we have to fight back. It will take a long time. This is a project like raising children or farming. You have to do what has to be done every day regardless of fatigue or illness. With luck and with hard work, we may increasingly reap the rewards.
Let the Obama people know how you feel LINK. I did. While the FISA bill decision hasn't changed my vote, it has shaken it...
Flood the inbox.
As for revolution... maybe the recent SCOTUS decision will come in handy.
Oooops! Did I just reveal myself as an enemy combatant?
MikeBinSC : i see your point . For what its worth my tuppence :
In country after country , from the common man's perspective - the entire game of politics, elections etc . is a massive (and unholy) exercise in utter and complete futility .
To politicians , we common folk are little better than the grass under their feet. To be trampled upon time and again.
Come election time out here - our political class,their allied pundits and the media , go to town - each touting himself as either 'the best of the bad lot ' , or trying to put the fear of God into people , invoking stratagems like the TINA ( There is No Alternative ) factor.
Fortunately most of our electorate ,have over the years , become quite hard-headed and cynical . And harbour few illusions about our entire political class.The long and the short is that few fall for such ruses.
For my part , whenever politicians approach me seeking my vote , I send them packing with a flea in their ear. (Of course given their imperviousness, such ranting and raving is little more than a pin prick on an elephant hide .)
Its probably an over simplification , but ,in whichever country one might be , Elections really boil down to one simple thing : selecting ( what one believes to be ) the 'least worst ' from out of a truly terrible lot.
The only thing one can rely upon politicians to do is to belie expectations . And here they ,most definitely, do not disappoint .
The only way genuine change might come about is via a drastic process of sweeping out -cankers , cobwebs etc.
However given the awesome power of the state and its vested interests ,such revolutions will continue to remain just very charming and beguiling fantasies.
I find it hilarious to read the same Pelosi talking points about why impeachment is detrimental to Democrat presidential aspirations. Party Faithful, indeed. It was so relaxing to get back to nature today and forget this BS for a short time.
Awhile ago in the top right-hand corner of the CD mainpage was an ad for a bumper sticker saying My America Doesn't Torture. Of course, if you know anything about US History, you know that the US tortures--routinely--has taught thousands how to torture, how to organize death squads, and how to engage in terrorism to force people against their interests to "elect" a rightist, repressive government. Both parties are complicit in this behavior. The fact that so few American citizens know these facts is a testament to the effectiveness of the Propaganda and Indoctrination Systems. Thus we are afflicted with Party Faithful who support the implementation of the policies outlined above, and worse, because they are unwilling or unable to look for or face the facts of US Imperial policy as conducted by both major political parties, they try to argue those of us who know the facts of US History out of our very pricipled disgust and opposition to those policies and the politicos who want to continue their implementation.
I will vote for a presidential candidate who will rollback the US Empire and embark upon the road to the paradigm change we need to have any chance at overcoming the very dire challenges facing our future. Neither McCain or Obama is that candidate.
I suggest that until people learn/understand the true nature of the US Empire and its history and the complicity of both major parties in the destruction the Empire has wrought they refrain from advocating for ANY candidate, that they declare themself too ignorant to make an informed choice for president and that they refrain from voting until they understand just what in the hell they are voting for. In other words, if you want to vote for continued Imperial expansion, death and destruction, then vote Democrat or Republican, knowing that you are an accomplice to the crimes of Empire and take resposibility for what comes to pass.
Interesting comment from Grant. Why are the american people so politically and socially backward? It's almost inexplicable. We have a rich history of progressive movements that have been replaced in large degree by a fictional history of american exceptionalism, "progress," exporting "democracy" (at the point of a gun, or napalm), and psuedo-christian warrior ideology that the founders would surely deplore. We've become a nation of idiots, and those with a sense of history are ineffectual, marginalized eggheads with no voice in the public arena.
Despite the obvious causees, media control by corporations, relentless consumerism, debt bondage and no workers organization, are these really causes or symptoms?
I wonder of we suffer from the anglo-saxon dicease, and looking at Canada, Australia and especially England, mired in the suicidal worship of and subjugation to finance capital's rapacious exploitation, I think there is good reason to believe this.
"WE NEED A REVOLUTION!"
Wonderful bumper sticker. That is not going to happen, outside of absolute collapse and given the power structure and the lack of a participatory working class movement, any revolution would probably lead to a right wing authoritarian government.
Support radical parties, organize, educate and keep your head out of the clouds. Things like revolution take time and a lot of people willing to fundamentally change society. We are the farthest from that at this point than any industrialized country.
Lewis Beyman (11:49) - Do you mean which of the two would be more likely to call out the National Guard & FBI to crush the revolution? It would be a tie. Both would move with equal speed & ruthlessness to crush the revolution.
Or do you mean which would be more likely to inspire the populace to such a pitch of hopeless fury, that they'd contemplate a rebellion? Probably McCain, more so than Obama. But less so than Bush -- and there has been no contemplated revolt even under Bush. // Obama would probably be much more skillful than the Republican beer-hall brawlers in charming the populace; keeping them soothed with false assurances. Democrats are good for that, & Obama will be unusually good at it.
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A REVOLUTION WOULD IT BE BETTER IF OBAMA WAS PRESIDENT OR MCCAIN?
RJKT, you are right, there were many Obama supporters here on CD, as well as Clinton supporters. Many of those Hillary supporters, like Kem Patrick, are venting their frustration of Clinton's loss on Obama's stand on the FISA bill. But do they think her stand on the bill would have been different had she been the nominee?
I was a Kucinich, then Edwards, then Obama supporter. The time to get a real progressive candidate elected is past. You fight the good fight in the primaries and get the best you can. Trying to get Kucinich the nomination in the Dem Party, is even less realistic than getting Ron Paul the nomination in the Rep Party.
Writing in Kucinich on the Ballot, or voting for Nader, is an exercise in futility without real fifty-state party organization and some kind of media presense. You would be better off writing in "George Carlin" on the ballot, as his candidacy is more viable.
I think the consensus is clear. We hope for Obama instead of McCain, but expect nothing more from that regime, except a little less pain and corruption. This is hardly a rousing endorsement. We must do better, way better, than this feeble "hope' for "change." Chump change is more like it.
Obama may finally be colluding with President McCain to reduce the Heretical influence of Activists and Atheists.
Some of these Heathens have been crossing out, "In God We Trust" on paper currency using a Sharpie pen. THIS SATANIC PRACTICE MUST BE STOPPED!
It is still possible that Obama will CONFESS his life to JESUS and support the cause of McCain and his hot young wife as they serve the Patriotic American Heartland of Chickenpluckistan.
As someone who is not an American your entire Election process seems ,almost fatally, fascinating. Like theatre , full of dramatic twists and turns ,mobs running riot , passions surging-in short the works.
Intriguingly, till a couple of weeks back , this site was full of posts ,fairly gushing over Obama . Now ,all on a sudden, the tide of opinion on this site seems to have turned .
In my country , the scales have long since fallen from our eyes. We've learnt ,by bitter experience, to expect little or nothing from our politicians . Therefore ,we tend neither to lionize -nor demonize them .We just disdain them -and try to steer clear of them.
Of course one realizes the US , if nothing else, is a vibrant democracy . However ,in the ultimate analysis, politicians ,wherever they be , are very much the same : serving just themselves - and the vested interests that prop them up .With a cavalier disregard for their 'masses' .
Serving their constituents is invariably the very last thing on their minds . That is ,until the next elections -when they go cap in hand to the electorate .Making the most extravagant promises -just to get re-elected.
Obama needs to go out and educate everybody about why we shouldn't vote for him or his party. Obama was a professor. He needs to educate people to help them see that the Democrats have joined forces with the Republicans to destroy or privacy and civil rights. The Democrats assist the Republicans at every turn of the road. I have hope. He can do it!
Obama can be a force for good if he chooses. He can start by unmasking himself and his party. If can do that, I will reconsider voting for him.
The theory of voting for demo-traitors as the lesser of two evils has been a failure for at least 30 yeras. The demo-rats have never run on their strengths, to policies the majority of americans support, and where they could win. They are frauds and appeasors and Obama strikes me as one of the worst of the lot. You are deluded to fantasize he will move to the "left" after he kisses AIPAC and the petro-pharma-banking lobby's ass to win the election. He won't. Of course I am against John McCain, but that's the problem, is this box where your "choice" is between two pieces of crap, hoping one is not as shitty. Losing proposition.
Grow up and build a third party and a counterforce to this fraudulent "democracy."
We need the truth.
We need the facts.
WE NEED A REVOLUTION!
He needs to climb onto his soapbox and educate the American people about why he CAN NOT support this bill.
Most Human Beings would agree with him, if they knew the truth. Homeland Security is really code for 'Police State.'
we need the truth. we need the facts.
Obviously, Obama is making a big mistake. I think he figures we'll vote for him even in his betrayal of this country.
I am almost ready to scream, "I'm mad as hell...."
I understood the campaign financing, at this time, but not supporting a filibuster of the FISA BILL - is almost as bad as Hilary voting for war.
I agree wholeheartedly with everyone on this list who supports getting off our butts and supporting third party candidates, and this summer that's what I have been doing!
I feel like since 2000 "progressives" have been engaged in some self-destructive OCD binge revolving around "what if..this... what if that... happens".
How are we going to get any positive change in the future if we continue that kind of thing any longer? A negative tailspin, seems like. At this point the whole thing is getting sad. There is an element of pathos to it.
Why can't American progressives get off their self-pity trip and get together to organize something for themselves? You can hear people in countries with more than two parties asking this question... in your sleep...
There are good candidates out there to support, and who knows, maybe some of us in the future will become good candidates too. I hope so. We are holding ourselves back.
We've got things to do!
Vote for people who represent the people, for one thing.
ps... Obama "tilts" to the center? uh, tilts to the, uh, right? Just a little maybe.
Tailcap had a good list of points about the "spoiler" thing up the list a ways back.
perceptionexperiment (3:19) - Yes, USAn bought up this kind of idea yesterday at 2:09 pm (June 25) above.
In your scenario B, I agree totally that we could see "the exact same thing happen." However, it might be with pretty much the SAME rhetorical flourish -- ie, the hard rightwing would still devise a way to blame the whole mess on liberals. For instance, with Vietnam, even though Republicans were in control from 1968 until the end, they still managed to blame it all on "the liberal media" and student leftists, etc.
So delicious as the thought might be, it could be too optimistic to predict that "Conservatives fuck up the country to the point that their entire movement disintegrates once and for all." They might just fuck it up horrifically -- yet still emerge from the mess suffering only a very transient setback in their own position.
Has anyone considered the following:
Due to a large showing of Green Party and Libertarian voters, Americans take a stand against a failed and corrupt two party system. And....
A.
Obama is elected.
The economy continues to tank due to his refusal to break with trickle-down economic policies and bunk free-trade agreements.
The war continues to go downhill due to his refusal to withdraw troops.
Social programs continue to deteriorate due to his refusal to slash military spending.
Taxes increase, even if only on the rich.
True universal healthcare is not implemented. Obama's "universal healthcare" doesn't work well. The entire concept is now tainted in the minds of Americans.
We continue to sponsor Israel with one fifth of our foreign aide budget. As a result, another terrorist attack occurs at some point. Obama is accused of being week on terror. Obama implements policies similar to those of George Bush in order to try and get a second term.
Corporate executives still are in charge of the EPA. Environmental degradation continues. Corporate friendly global warming initiatives are put into place.
And when all of this is said and done, the media will spin it as "See, I told you so, this is what happens when a LIBERAL is elected."
B.
McCain is elected. The exact same thing happens (minus increase of taxes and lip service to universal healthcare), but with a different rhetorical flourish. Conservatives fuck up the country to the point that their entire movement disintegrates once and for all.
So will you vote for what you believe in or cave into the FEAR?
Actually, I think our (the USA) behavior with regard to Iraq, our behavior in Iraq and American complacency about the ongoing occupation of Iraq suggests that Americans, rather than "special interest groups" have a strong identification and affinity with the worst of Israeli politics.
and yes, there are plenty of Israelis unhappy with their government and seeming unable to replace the "dominant paradigm" wrt to the "Palestinian problem"
what did "we" learn from vietnam? apparently it was to send more troops and be more brutal, as far as I can tell.
ymmv.
Ironically, a powerful guarantee that there will never be any such thing as "holding Obama's feet to the fire" is precisely the Dem Party loyalists who insist in hysterical tones (like paulie617 @ 3:18 am) that helping Obama win is essential "for the future of the world." At the same time, paulie617 excuses all the Democrat's rightwing pandering (to AIPAC, the Miami Cubans, FISA sellout, etc) by saying "...Has anyone ever won the presidency while campaigning on an anti-Israeli platform?..."
Since Obama knows he can count on weak-minded liberals to behave in this way, & to whip up mass hysteria about the alleged necessity of stopping McCain, what incentive does he have to pay the slightest attention or respect to voters who really oppose the wars, want military spending slashed, & desire single-payer health care?
Liberals like paulie617 & Cappadonna3030 simply give the Democrats a free ticket to continue moving rightwards without ever having to pay any price for it. They themselves, & anyone they manage to influence, guarantee that the notion of "holding Obama's feet to the fire" is just a silly delusion that helps naive liberals feel more comfortable about selling out to corporatists once again.
actually, I mean, I really didn't think they could or would be so @!#$# tone-deaf ... at times I think Obama is going to be THUNDEROUSLY defeated, TeamObama having alienated so many registered Democrats...
I'm having flashbacks to Gore's campaign where being the obviously superior shoe-in candidate he was morphed into being a wishy-washy fabricator and worse who "won" but lost.
for god's sake, Team Obama needs to stop attacking "fellow democrats" ... it's counterproductive. it's wasteful. it's stupid.
I've been voting 3rd party much of my life .. I'm not interested that someone believes I am "throwing my vote away"... I don't buy the "a vote for anyone but X is a vote for Y" ... sorry ... sometimes a third party vote "sends a message" .. sometimes a third party vote actually represents and endorsement of that candidate's platform.
now, we can all hope that the Libertarians have shot themselves in the foot, ankle and knee cap with Bob Barr's candidacy ... or is that mean?
"It seems like people in this "progressive" blog believe that their way is the only way."
As stated before, there is not only one way, which would apply to Obama and his advisors more than the left here critiquing them. THEY only think of things in one way, which is the status quo. There aren't offering any new ideas that I see coming out of his team, if you disagree please enlighten us. It's funny that people say that critics here of Obama are ideological purists then don't stop to think about he fact that Obama's economic & foreign policy team (not willing to really change much of anything, despite the disastrous and immoral results) is not letting any new ideas in but more neo-liberal nonsense and more interventionist and pre-emptive violence. Or the fact that his healthcare plan is as status quo as you can get, with minor improvements.
There are problems that need solving, which require a fundamental change. Obama isn't offering that or anything near it. There IS more than one way, new ideas that are truly different than the status quo (which has gotten us to this point in the economy, healthcare, etc.), maybe you should tell Obama's brain trust that.
What you really mean is that, "This is not a winning formula in a democratic form of government in which" CAPITULATION "is necessary" and acceptable. No, it is not. And so, we have Nader, McKinney, etc.
Yes, anyone who has been around Common Dreams longer than say, the last 18 months or last 12 months or last 6 months knows that the Greens, Nader, third parties, antiglobalization and other issues are the bread and butter of the site. It's not HuffPo, it's not TPM, it's not Salon, etc.
Yes, TeamObama sought to ... in effect did ... commandeer this site as they have overrun Salon ... and HuffPo and TPM ... they aren't keen on "conversation" or "discussion" and seem oblivious to the profoundly negative impression they leave. They don't even seem conversant in their candidates position ... They are just playing wack-a-mole at anyone who is obviously not-part-of-the-team.
I really expected this to subside somewhat after Obama became the "presumptive nominee" or whatever his current status is ... but there has been no retorical evolution.
The rationalizations for the FISA capituation are pathetic ...
Wow, I guess there's dogmatism on the left as well. It seems like people in this "progressive" blog believe that their way is the only way. That's why I like to distinguish between progressives and leftists; progressives do not apply labels and do not demonize a politician as a corporate beholden fascist because he has a different view on a particular issue, whereas leftists do. This is not a winning formula in a democratic form of government in which compromise is necessary. Let's question Obama's motives, but let's not automatically label him and demonize him. Let us prove that these are the propensities of the right.
"One does it because they both stink; because they're jointly complicit in all their crimes together..." Yes. This is indeed the prime factor. Remember spewing vitriol at Democrats daily as they gave Bush/Cheney everything they wanted for 7 years? How we forget? And how we let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid trample over us and then we crawl back to the "only game in town". No. Cannot do. Not now. Not ever again. It is as Nader, McKinney, and others like them show us, NOT the only game on time.
Pluck that!
"At the heart of every revolution, there is one man with a vision".
JESUS took Captain Kirk's advice and started the Greatest Movement in the Heavens! The People should not try to start a new movement, lest they subvert the Wisdom of their Ministers.
Nader's Coporate Watch Group interferes with the Defense Contractors' performance of their duties, which have been BLESSED by GOD.
Susan,
Who's telling you to shut up? Say what you have to say.
Say it loud and say it proud.
But let's not go back to sleep after the election. Sleeping is the great American pasttime. Look what's happened while the nation snored.
Let's keep in mind that "center" for the CD crowd means "far left" for the mainstream citizen.
I love the part about how we have to "hold his feet to the fire" AFTER the election ... but as for now, we're all supposed to sit down and shut up ... oh yeah, that works for me ...
Actually, the intolerance of TeamObama to the opinions of others, coupled with "their" tendency towards name-calling ... I have felt was -- actually -- a liability to the candidate ...
It's as if, having "secured the nomination," no one is "supposed" to voice doubts, disagreements or alternatives ...
I vote for holding Mr. Obama's feet to the fire NOW ...
RichM:
"- This business about "holding Obama's feet to the fire" is pure unadulterated bullsh*t. There is absolutely no mechanism for doing this, & it's simply not a part of American politics in any way."
Well, gee. Then I guess we're all quite fucked.
Go, lemmings!Go!
Hello again Jozef!
Well... put a group of people together an alpha stands out and gets the ball rolling.
Organizations rarely start spontaneously by a group of people. (The Athenian revolt of 507 BCE comes to mind.)
Obama hasn't started a movement? What? Might not be the kind you're looking for. It's not the kind I'm looking for. However, the movement isn't the man and as far as I'm concerned the jury will be out on whether or not the man is up to the movement until after he shows who he really is after January 20th.
But there is certainly a movement.
Obama's rhetoric has not been progressive. He wants to get elected.
I repeat myself again: what he does after January 20th depends on what we do.
I'll tell you this, if there is a true progressive beneath the American political bullshit suit he's wearing, he won't reveal it unless we send him the signal it's safe for him to do so.
Or maybe he'll just start acting like a progressive, because our voices won't be ignored or marginalized.
Regardless. It ain't up to him.
It's up to us.
But hey, whatever. Vote for whoever else your honor demands. If McCain wins we can talk it over in hell.
Clemsy: Leaders DON"T START MOVEMENTS. People start movements! When the people lead the leaders follow. Amazing that you chastise Nader for not "starting a movement" when Obama hasn't done as much. What the hell is that? There is no Obama progressive movement. What there IS, is a corporate sell job coming out of the DLC in Bill Clinton's footsteps that you mistake, or get suckered into accepting is a progressive movement. If Obama is a progressive then we are in BIG trouble. Besides, what kind of progressive movement would be FOR the death penalty? Would NOT BE for singular payer universal health care? Would be for replacing troops in Iraq with mercenaries (contractors). Jessum man. Go vote for Obama already. But don't delude yourself.
Clemsy,
Sorry about that.
tailcap.
I hope that felt good. Personal remarks can be so empowering, no?
Bully for you. Keep doing something. Maybe you'll you'll make a difference.
maybe you'll even come to know that cutting others down makes you no taller.
Vios con Dios.
Cappadonna3030 (12:53 pm) writes his rationalization for supporting Obama, including in it his variant of the traditional rhetoric,
"...Yes, progressive should cohesively and intelligently hold Obama's feet to the fire on issues that of great import. But at the same time, abandoning a major party candidate for quixotic players in election for the sake of keep you 'pure' is rather immature...."
- This business about "holding Obama's feet to the fire" is pure unadulterated bullsh*t. There is absolutely no mechanism for doing this, & it's simply not a part of American politics in any way. It's just a delusion that liberals have to make themselves feel more comfortable, as they prepare to sell out yet again to someone who won't do any of the things they want him to do, but will do most of the things the ruling corporatists & militarists want him to do.
Secondly, one doesn't abandon the 2 Republicrat parties "for the sake of keeping oneself pure." One does it because they both stink; because they're jointly complicit in all their crimes together; & because if we don't break out of the 2-party tyranny, there can be no way of avoiding the disaster bearing down on us. We have descended already to stolen elections, torture, govt spying, trashing the Constitution, murderous occupations based on lies -- all without the slightest serious resistance from Democrats. Voting them into power is not going to reverse what they've been thoroughly & consistently complicit in.
You ask what did I find to be humerous here ~MIKE BIN SC~?
I find it humerous for any to believe that if Obama is our next president, that we will be able to pressure him to do anything.
If any think Bush is a self proclaimed king, wait until Obama is crowned. Bush and Cheney have given the take over lessons and Obama is a fast learner. He will be the new king and nobody except the big money boys and girls are gonna pressure him. Obama will be in charge of pressures.
Jozef, thanks for pointing out that for the entire name calling, Nader has done more for this nation than many members of Congress who have been in the game just as long as he has. He's dedicating to making American lives well -- and you can't fault the man for that. It would be naive to say that Nader does nothing between Presidential races.
But let's be real, Ralph Nader, like McCain, has over 25 years of age on Obama, he's old enough to be the man's father. He should have accomplished more than Obama.
The problem I find with people at CD and DN! is that we fall in two extremes -- ideological purists who will burn the village in order to save it and weak-willed pragmatist who will let our elected 'progressive' leaders get away with murder to keep the real psychos out. Neither will get us anywhere.
Yes, progressive should cohesively and intelligently hold Obama's feet to the fire on issues that of great import. But at the same time, abandoning a major party candidate for quixotic players in election for the sake of keep you 'pure' is rather immature. Unfortunately, many CD posters lead towards the former.
History has shown that when things get REALLY bad, people don't turn to peace focused, rational leaders -- they scream for bloodthirsty military strongmen to act as the 'Father' of the nation and fix everything through fiat. Mussolini and Hitler came to power when their nations were at their lowest point. And as much as right wingers (and a few progressive) like to whine about Castro and Chavez, neither of these guys would have come to power if the rich rulers weren't keeping 80% of the population in practical slavery. There are a lot of exceptions, but for the most part, people turn towards radical firebrands when level heads should prevail.
The question still goes back to the long term. So the idea that you're building a movement doesn't pan out in history -- the worse things get, the more political regressive the country becomes.
Obama isn't perfect, and he comes from a middle class Black Christian background that's political and social beliefs would clash with a lot of hardcore activists types. That being said, like FDR and LBJ, he can be swayed to do a lot of good for our nation. And like FDR and LBJ, he has the good sense not to trust everything one party or another says as the Gospel.
Nader and McKinney are pipe dream candidates who, IMHO, would make things worse if they were elected because they're such ideological purists -- ala Bush. McKinney was virtually uncompromising in the Congress. Good thing for progressives that love her ideas, but downright scary for a President. Remember, this chick smacked a cop because he didn't recognize her as a Congresswoman. Everyone has their off days, but I've learned in my own journey that character will carry where talent and ideas can't take you.
Although accomplished and almost single handedly fighting against corporate oligarchy, Ralph Nader, by all accounts, can be rather dictatorial and is used to being surrounded by idealistic sycophants. To them, Nader is Jesus and they are his disciples. As a Christian and a progressive, I get leery of anyone who shows that kind of insulated God-complex. We need to look no further than the Bush Clan to see what a disaster that can be.
And McCain's big thing is war, his mind and soul never left Southeast Asia. He's like the comic book super soldiers Nick Fury and Captain America -- all he knows is war and frankly has little use for anything else. He'd be an okay SOD (if only because he would make sure soldiers are treated well and because I wouldn't want to be a tin pot dictator rattling sabers at the US with McCain as the top military commander.) But he would hand over the country to plutocrats just as long as he can blow stuff up. He's a Goldwater Republican -- and not in a good way.
In the end, Obama seems to be the clear choice, if only because he has a slightly smaller ego than his more radical counterparts and would rather talk with enemies than nuke them, like John McCain.
But this is just one man's opinion.
Clemsy,
Some progressives have done a lot. I am not one of them-yet. Yesterday I volunteered to help Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party. I actually agree with you that Ralph isn't building up a party. Ralph just wants to raise issues which I applaud.
I will vote for who I believe in, not the lesser-evil. And I will put my money where my mouth is by donating time and money to the Greens.
To assume all progressives sit at home and whine and bitch and do nothing displays a small and narrow mind.
A genuine political progressive cannot be elected president in the US, and Obama is finding that he must fit into the reality that the US is not a politically progressive nation.
The Democratic Party is not a progressive party, there is no progressive party in the US political structure. In Canada, the politics of the US Democrats would fit into the "Red Tory" category and Obama could win an election as a "Progressive Conservative". Only in a context of a country where the political choice is between a military/corporate/social-reactionary controlled party and a military/coporate/social-conservative controlled party could the second be considered "liberal"; that does not mean it is progressive. Progressive political movements, e.g. the Democratic Socialist Party, have long been suffocated in the US and socially progressive views are not tolerated either by mainline political parties or by the US electorate. Once again, the choice is between the lesser of two types of conservative parties, one blatantly so and the other covertly so.
tailcap,
Not much. It's why I'm not a democrat.
Go ahead and cast your protest vote. Personally, I think elections are the wrong place to stage protests.
The street. Now there's a place to stage a protest.
WHAT HAVE WE PROGRESSIVES DONE TAILCAP?
Sat in the corner we've been relagated to and whine, whine whine.
Hey, some people believe that the only way to change the system is to let it fail. If that's you're take, vote for McCain, he'll do the job.
If I didn't have kids I just might go there when it comes down to it.
Depends. I have these overwhelming misanthropic moments when all I can say is:
Go, lemmings! Go!
The real question is not what has Nader done. The real question is: WHAT THE FUCK HAVE THE DEMOCRATS DONE CLEMSY?
Here is a good caption for the photo at the top of the page
"John, You see that squirming little mass on the floor there? That is America's hope for the future...shall you step on it, or shall I?"
jozef,
Equally amazing. Try reading my post again.
I'll save you the trouble:
"If he'd actually started some kind of effective movement in between election cycles, he'd be someone to consider."
Movement. The key word is movement. An organized Progressive Movement.
Where is it?
Unfortunately, the words 'organized' and 'progressive' tend to be a contradiction in terms, as is apparent by this blog.
Organization is the only way to stop the descent into hell.
And as I've said over and over, that takes action, not just voting.
What are you going to do January 21st?
I'll repeat myself again:
If McCain wins, start planning to send my kid abroad. If Obama wins, I'll meet you here to plan how best to be a royal pain in his ass.
If McCain wins, have that final smoke and order your last meal.
After what the Democrats have done:
1) Refuse to stop funding the war
2) Refuse to impeach Bush
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers into the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war
8) Allow Cheny to ignore subpoenas
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10) Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here
And you still vote for them. That means they can do anything and you'll still vote for them for the sole reason they wear blue and the Pugs wear red. What the hell is the difference otherwise?
Come on frogs, time to get out of the water before you get cooked!
Clemsy. Amazing. Just amazing. Nader does nothing between election cycles and has no accomplishments. Compare what follows with anything that Obama has done. Huh? Go ahead and keep watching the corporate boob tube and continue your education.
_
Instrumental in the passing of the following legislation:
National Automobile and Highway Traffic Safety Act (1965)
Clean Water Act (1968)
Clean Air Act (1970)
Co-Op Bank Bill (1978)
Law establishing Environmental Protection Agency (1970)
Consumer Product Safety Act
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Mine Health and Safety Act
Whistleblower Protection Act
Medical Devices safety
Nuclear power safety
Mobile home safety
Consumer credit disclosure law
Pension protection law
Funeral home cost disclosure law
Tire safety & grading disclosure law
Wholesome Meat Act
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
Wholesome Poultry Product Act
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 1970
Safe Water Drinking Act
Freedom of Information Act
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
Founded or sponsored the following organizations:
American Antitrust Institute
Appleseed Foundation
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
Aviation Consumer Action Project
Buyers Up
Capitol Hill News Service Center for Concerned Engineering
Center for Auto Safety
Center for Insurance Research
Center for Justice and Democracy
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Center for the study of Responsive Law - 1969
Center for Women Policy Studies
Citizen Action Group
Citizen Advocacy Center
Citizen Utility Boards
Citizen Works
Clean Water Action Project
Clearinghouse for Professional Responsibility
Congress Project
Congress Watch
Congressional Accountability Project
Connecticut Citizen Action Group
Consumer Project on Technology
Corporate Accountability Research Group
Critical Mass Energy Project
Democracy Rising
Disability Rights Center
Equal Justice Foundation
Essential Information
FANS (Fight to Advance the Nation's Sports)
Fisherman's Clear Water Action Group
Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
Freedom of Information Clearinghouse
Global Trade Watch
Government Purchasing Project
Health Research Group
Litigation Group
Multinational Monitor
National Citizen's Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
National Insurance Consumer Organization
Ohio Public Interest Action Group
Organization for Competitive Markets
Professional Drivers (PROD)
Professionals for Auto Safety
Public Citizen
Pension Rights Center
Princeton Project 55
PROD - truck safety
Public Citizen's Visitor's Center
Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGS)
Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees) 1004
Retired Professionals Action Group
Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest
Tax Reform Research Group
Telecommunications Research and Action Center
Look at all these Liberal, self-plucking Chickens!
TRY to Unite.
Yes, I am eagerly awaiting his response to today's supreme court ruling on District of Columbia gun ownership ...
You say you want a revolution
Well you know, We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know, We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
dont you know we're gonna be
SOLD OUT
You say you got a real solution
Well you know, We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know, We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
dont you know we're going to be
SOLD OUT
You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know, We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know, You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Barak Obama
Just vote for McCain and save yourself the drama.
BECAUSE BARAK OBAMA JUST
SOLD OUT
jozef June 26th, 2008 11:50 am
From above: "Go ahead. Vote for Nader. What the hell does he do after every failure?" Ignorance. LOOK IT UP.
jozef,
Shouldn't have to. That's the point. If he'd actually started some kind of effective movement in between election cycles, he'd be someone to consider.
He didn't, so he's not.
Just my opinion.
paulie617 (3:18 am) makes the usual Dem-Party-apologist excuses, like so:
"Has anyone ever won the presidency while campaigning on an anti-Israeli platform?" etc etc
Then, hilariously, he tries for a grand summation: "...Do we really want to risk not only the future of this country, but the future of the world by not voting for Obama because he is doing what he has to do to win the general election and promulgate our agenda? Stop being blinded by idealism. Let's not let conservatives outwit again...."
Note how he slips in there the delicate assumption that Obama will "promulgate our agenda." This is pure hot air, based on exactly nothing. All the evidence is that Obama is just like the Bill Clinton of 1992 -- a charming fellow who can stand on a stage & give the impression that he "feels your pain;" but when it's time to act, the agenda that he "promulgates" is that of Wall Street & the military-industrial complex. Surprise, surprise.
What we see in this thread is the hopeless corruption & confusion of American liberalism. Liberals like paulie617 are screeching hysterically that it's essential "for the future of the world" to support Democrats -- even though the Democrat in question is going to do virtually everything that a Republican would do. // You can be sure that if McCain groveled before AIPAC, threatened Iran & Pakistan, opposed impeachment, & betrayed the Constitution on FISA like Obama has now done, that liberals like paulie617 would be apoplectic about it. But if a Democrat does the same exact thing, and more, it's somehow OK. The Dem is only doing "what he has to do to win the general election."
At some point, Americans will be forced to recognize that if they want to save themselves, they will have to escape from the tyranny of the two big business parties. The choice between Obama & McCain is a choice between two corporatist-militarists who are both visibly willing to trash the Constitution, to serve the US ruling class. It's an unacceptable choice, and voting for one or the other only supports the system that forced this unacceptable choice upon us.
I just don't get Obamma on the death for child rape deal either...even the Bible says, "a life for a life"...not a life for a rape.
Child rape is a horrible crime, but unfortunately it is most often committed by the child's parents or other relatives.
Capital punishment for child rape just creates raped orphans, and does nothing to help the child. How do they get closure in later life if the perpetrator is dead?
I personally see life in a small box, outcast even from the other inmates, as a far harsher penalty than death.
From above: "Go ahead. Vote for Nader. What the hell does he do after every failure?" Ignorance. LOOK IT UP.
_
As for Obama tilting to the right. No. He did not. He was always there and just conned you.
Mike B of South Carolina,
Shsme on you! James Dobson is a CHRISTIAN Minister who has been ordained by GOD to ensure the victory of President McCain and his hot young wife.
The WIsdom of the Christian Ministers throughout God's Glorious Creation trickles down upon their WORSHIPING FLOCKS!
Can anyone please explain the difference between Obama and McCain on the big issues? Can anyone explain the difference between Democrats and Republicans?
On the big issues like the occupations, the unchecked powers of the executive, illegal spying becoming legal, the bloated military budget, and impeachment I can't seem to locate any major difference. There are small shades of differences but nothing major.
Why would it make a difference? If McCain is elected could that be a good thing? McCain is pure rot. He could be a wake up call for those that vote Republican. Could it be Obama is just a band aid that doesn't address the rot underneath?
oh, I've voted for Nader at least twice before ... and have probably voted third party as often as Democrat for president (going way back to Peace and Freedom tickets in the 1970s) ... I just haven't bothered to support the Greens.
I think that environmental issues are going to swing some of the important decision making process back to the state and county level, where the Greens are, and where -- it must be mentioned -- the rich and powerful are as entrenched (if not more so) as on the national level.
If we can't get universal health care on a national level (and I think this issue risks getting "lost" in the coming economic debacle which may mean we'll be lucky to hold onto social security and Medicare), we can get affordable state level bare bones coverage expanded. (my state's last-resort covered jumped from about $350/month to over $1000 a month last year, meaning I can no longer afford it's one adult person coverage).
I knew that Obama was pro-capital punishment ... but being against the supreme court decision refusing to expand the death penalty to non-lethal crimes (and all the reasons why having the death penalty on the table might actually inhibit reporting of what is believed to be an underreported crime -- child rape), like FISA, very serious, core-value deal-breaker stuff.
Again, it may depend on just how much of a threat McCain becomes. The race is much tighter than it should be ... and Obaman's hold on the reins seems uncertain.
Hey Nader voters!
I hope you all follow up on your convictions and please let us here all know how many votes Nader gets.
Maybe it will inspire you all to get out of the house and get him on the ballot for the next election.
When the pendulum swings left it is a force that won't be stopped.
I just dont understand this fear of third parties.
Imagine this senario (shouldn't be hard to do)
You are a stanch anti war progressive
You have one party that is agressively beating the drums for another illegal war of agression. They own all the mainstream media.
You have a second party that you KNOW is only pretending to be against another illegal war of agression in order to woo voters, but is finacially supported by the war industries, ALWAYS votes with the first party on war issues, and you KNOW will invade at the drop of a hat.
You have a third party that is ACTUALLY against any war other than one to defend your country from invasion.
So you vote for the second party because the media (owned by members of the first party) say that the third party will never get elected.
WAHT THE HELL DOES THAT GAIN YOU???????????
YOU JUST VOTED TO GO TO WAR
Yes, I think I may join the Greens to prepare for whatever outcome general election brings .... an ounce of preparedness being worth a pound of cure.
~ CHESSGAMES56 ~
The Ron Paul/Geo Carlin YOUTUBE video has been _d e l e t e d_, which likely means that it was too ( F U N N Y ):
__ concise
__ clear,
__ penetrating ( into corporape of America),
and
__ truthful.
Namaste
Obama has lost my vote and respect. If I want a republican in office, I'll vote for McCain. I don't, so now I'll have to vote for Nader again.
"The change it had to come, we knew it all along,
we were liberated from the fold, that's all.
And the world looks just the same, and history ain't changed,
'cause the banners were all flown in the last war."
"Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss..."
Pete Townsend, circa 1971
Once again, the owners of the Dem Party exercise their right to implode.
Not that Americans care, but Obama also intends to "stay the course" on economic issues, maintaining the rapid growth of our no-choice, bottom-wage workfare replacement labor(hint: Don't plan to go on strike.)
Time to stop believing and facing facts? Seems like another cycle of dissillusionment--cynicism--resignation...
The late George Carlin pretty much sums it up in this short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktIECyzf4YM&feature=related
I'm torn between voting for Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney - how refreshing to have two such great candidates?? There is no reason to even discuss McCain and Obama, since there are no valid reasons to vote for them.
The Democratic candidate can't be trusted. Period. I will choose a third party. My vote will represent no confidence in our political system. If McCain wins, the Democrats will deserve the defeat and the nation will deserve the pain...it may bring us closer to a needed political revolution.
#
Retire Green June 25th, 2008 10:29 pm
"Clemsy:
You said it yourself:
'I get close to blowing CD off, sometimes.'
Understand, Progressives are not Liberal Democrats, and Liberal Democrats are not progressives.
Common Dreams is not a Liberal Democrat blog - it is a Progressive Blog."
I'm not a Democrat. I'm an independent with little tolerance for assholes of any flavor.
Can't get more independent than that.
I supported Nader in 2000 and 2004. I still do not believe that he caused the Dems the presidency. The Democratic candidates costed the Dems the presidency for getting so close to the Reps that people voted on issues of no consequence given that there was no difference when it came down to important policies.
While I am not pleased with the recent positions Obama has taken, I am still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being. There is still time until November, and he has to make some inroads on national security. Let's not forget that Clinton felt she had to become more hawkish than the Reps in order to have national security credibility.
This is the state this country is in. The Reps will keep scaring the American people into voting for them for as long as it works. It is up to us to take that weapon out of their hands. Once they are defeated, then we may be able to resume a political discourse.
I just hope that Obama will not make the mistake made by previous Dem nominees and get too close to McCain's policies. That strategy didn't work in 2000 or 2004. The American people want change, and they will vote for Obama as long as they feel he'll deliver on that.
After that, the choice is his. If he choses to be an imperial president, he will be a one term president. If he, with the support of a democratic congress, choses to change the direction of the country and restore the Republic, he might become the historic figure he claims to be.
In the meantime, we also need to focus on some basic but not trivial matters such as the Supreme Court. A McCain victory will be a devastating blow to the independence of the court. We are just one justice away from a Federalist Society control of the court. If only for this, we must not have a Republican in the White House.
http://politicjock.blogspot.com/
Mike, do you think that we can win if Obama makes enemies with the most powerful lobbyist group in the United States that can easily destroy his election tomorrow if they wanted to? Have you ever heard of the expression "Take one step back to take two steps forward." Yeah it sucks that he has to cozy up to these jerks, but what is the other option Mike. I want to know what your campaign plan would be? How would you bring about a Democratic victory in November? It's funny; all the people in this blog criticize Obama for his campaign strategy, but they offer no other winning formula. Blinded by idealism, I guess.
Very unpleasantly "cute" the picture of the two, Obama and McCain, cozying up to each other and looking so "warmly", into their "warmly togetherness", while the ruling elites enjoy the scene; given they know who really rules and that Obama most certainly is not the candidate he's been pretending to be for [years] now.
At first and for a little while, I though there might finally be something fine about Obama during Bush's recent enough trip to Israel, when Bush, McCain and Billary all spoke fully pro-Israel and anti-Iran and therefore anti-LAW, while Obama, on the stage, spoke reasonably, or far more-so anyway. Well, since then things have changed, in part due to Obama's bs speech before AIPAC in early June, but also more. So I have commenced to see that distinction between the words of Obama, and those of Bush, McCain and Billary as very possibly, if not likely, a stage act that was orchestrated from high-on-up, for the rich ruling elites know Obama much better than his electoral supporters among voters of the general public do; the latter taking much too long to wake up to the evidence that Obama has laid out before us all to SEE.
It very possibly was all a stage act.
NOW IS THE TIME FOR SANITY AND A REALITY CHECK!
Lisa3210peace, Jonjoe and others, I agree with you completely.
The Presidential Election in November is NO place to stage a protest, as that should be confined to the primary contest. Once the primary is over and nominees are chosen, getting behind your candidate and WINNING is what it's all about.
Even knuckle-dragging right-wing crazies like James Dobson, from Focus (FUBAR) on the Family, know this. After vowing that he would never vote for McCain during the primary, even he has taken to smearing Obama in the hopes of pulling his base together - They know how to win elections, a lesson yet to be learned by Liberal Democrats!
We (liberal progressives), have worked very hard over the last six years to change the political landscape in Washington, and guess what - IT'S WORKING! We have gone from sliding down the mountainside with no limbs to grab or footholds to slow our descent, while the Fascist enablers in the Republican party held all the levers of power in the House, Senate and the White House. They passed worse legislation after bad legislation and stuffed the judicial system with Neo-Fascist right-wing hack judges in the mold of Tony "The Skunk" Scalia.
We finally landed on a ledge after the 2006 elections, when the Republicans snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with a lot of bad press about Iraq and a Republican Congressional homosexual page-diddling cover up, after the fix was already in place on the voting machine count. The Democrats won enough photo-finish elections to regain control of the Senate and House by razor-thin margins.
In the process, we managed to throw some scum-su