EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- NSA Whistleblower Revealed: Q&A with Edward Snowden
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- 'Reprehensible, Reckless, Illegal': Washington Officials Slam Heroic NSA Surveillance Leaker
Popular content
Today's Top News
Primary Over, Hillary Won
Now that the primary season is over, we can see that the clear winner was Hillary Clinton.
Oh, I know. Barack Obama got the most votes and the most delegates, and he'll be the Democratic presidential nominee this August, but increasingly, it's becoming obvious that he's just a pretty wrapper. Sneak a peak inside the wrapper and you'll find Hillary Clinton inside.
Look at the facts.
No sooner did the last votes get counted in Montana, than Obama hied himself off to Washington to show his fealty to the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), where he promised to do whatever Israel wanted. You would have thought he was Bush or Hillary, so fulsome was his promise to unquestioningly back the worst policies and actions of Israel's criminally insane right-wing government. Claim all of Jerusalem for the Jewish state? Fine by him. Starve and terrorize a million people in Gaza? No problemo. Attack Iran to prevent a merely suspected nuclear program from eventually producing a possible bomb? Okay. Negotiate with Hamas? Never.
Then there was the FISA and Fourth Amendment-violating campaign of spying by the National Security Agency. Some members of Congress and the courts have been trying for years to find out what Bush and Cheney have really been up to with this program, but they¹ve been stymied by the administration's insistence that the phone companies, who enabled most of the spying, are immune from prosecution and don't have to surrender records of, or talk about what they actually did. Congress, with the help of a spineless Democratic majority in both houses, came up in June with a bill that endorses the spying and gives retroactive immunity to the phone companies. 15 Senators - all Democrats - opposed that wretched sell-out of the Constitution and the American people. Sen. Obama supported it, just like Clinton.
When the Supreme Court, in a rare exception to a rash of reactionary rulings in the past few weeks, overturned a state law authorizing the death penalty for the rape of a child, Obama stood up for the death penalty, saying that he thought states should have the right to kill anyone who would sexually abuse a child. I guess he must think the states should be able to kill people convicted of killing someone too, since murder has to be at least as nasty as child rape. Another Clinton position. Never mind that most of the people who get the death penalty are persons of color, and that almost all the 4000 people on America¹s bulging death rows are either poor, desperately poor, retarded or simply insane. Never mind that rape is one of the most likely crimes to lead to wrongful convictions.
Barack was out there dissing black dads, too, charging them, as a class, with abandonment of their children, even though studies show that black fathers are no less likely to abandon their kids than are white dads. Okay, that's not really a Hillary position. It's more akin to Bill Clinton's attacks on prominent blacks like Jesse Jackson or Sister Soulja during his campaigns for higher office.
It¹s getting harder and harder to see any light between Obama's and Hillary's positions on the Iraq War too, what with Obama backing away from his earlier campaign pledge to end the war within 16 months of taking office and saying instead that he would "listen to the generals" and that withdrawal would depend upon the situation on the ground.
Finally, Obama, after showing a remarkable ability to inspire tons of small donations and support from individuals, and to fund a huge national campaign without much in the way of corporate support, is greedily slurping from Hillary's cesspool of corporate backers, now that she's out of the way. Soon, he'll be wallowing in tainted cash from Wall Street commercial and investment banks and hedge funds, telecom companies, defense contractors, Big Pharma companies, the HMO industry, and the entertainment industry. He'll be owned like just about every other politician in Washington.
The transmogrification of an upstart people's candidate for 'change' into just another front man for the corporatocracy will be complete.
Hillary will have won, but in the corporal form of Barack Obama.
The joke, of course, is that this evocation by Obama of his inner Clinton is not going to win him many votes, and may in fact lose him far more than he gains. Being Clinton, after all, didn't win it for Hillary Clinton. It was Obama¹s differences from Clinton that won him the primary votes.
Clintonian positions didn't really win the presidency for Bill Clinton either. It was Ross Perot who won the 1992 election for Clinton, by stealing enough votes from George Bush Sr. to let Clinton win with a mere plurality of the votes cast. There won't be any Ross Perot this year, though, so Obama can't hope to squeak by with a minority of the votes cast the way Bill did. In fact there will be at least two candidates - a Green Party one and Ralph Nader - who will be picking off some of the people Obama's imitation of Clinton will turn off sufficiently for them to abandon him. There will also be a Libertarian candidate running, whose outspoken opposition to the war will attract disillusioned erstwhile Obama backers. Many more voters may just stay home in disgust. (It was also Al Gore's decision to run a Clintonesque campaign or triangulation and pursuit of those elusive "mainstream" voters that made his run against Bush in 2000 close enough for the election to be stolen.)
Meanwhile, those Hillary primary voters Obama seems intent on pursuing at the expense of the progressive vote‹the pro-Israel hawks in New York and Florida, the "hard-working whites" of the West Virginia hollers, the Pennsylvania hills and the flatlands of Ohio and Indiana aren't going to vote for him just because he adopts Hillary's positions. They¹ll want the real deal, not just a front man posing as a front woman, so they'll go for John McCain (just as they would have in November had Hillary won the nomination).
You gotta ask why a guy who had it all going for him is suddenly making such incredibly bad strategic decisions.
It has to be either that he's brought on board too many Clinton backers, or that his own strategists have lost confidence in their own game plan. In his bid for Democratic Party "unity" Obama has sold whatever soul he once had.
He has met the enemy, and he has become her.
Dave Lindorff's most recent book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


161 Comments so far
Show AllThe truth is: we all lost - everyone in the U.S., and everyone in the whole world. It is time for a large enough percentage of us to start saying a loud "NO!" and vote outside the two-party system; we won't vote for the lesser of two evils and be stuck with more evil. We will commit ourselves to voting for true democracy, a multiparty system that is held accountable by "we, the people". Vote for McKinney, Nader, or some other third party candidate - and vote third party in all other elections, too!
We lost!
Obama is not tolerating this "focusing on the issues" very well. I had wondered what would happen when "anyone-but-Hillary" evaporated as a platform-substitute.
It's impossible, as far as I can tell, to find "the campaign" what with all the shouting by the Obama supporters and apologists and the "a vote for anyone but Obama is a vote for McCain" arguers. So what else is new. They plan to hold his feet to the fire ... AFTER he's elected ... right now, hey, it might hurt his chances.
The "black issues" aspect of the gun ban overturn (bans implemented in large part to address the problems of gun deaths among inner city youth and out of control guns-everywhere society) -- and -- the advocacy of "state rights" wrt the death penalty for noncapital crimes may be the tip of the iceberg of yet more "but I thought he shared my values" cognitive dissonance.
The ongoing legal challenges to and dismantling of "greater good" attempt at controlling guns will take years. Will they all be suspended in the meantime? I don't know.
It's true that Obama's -- and anyone else's -- "opinion" means squat -- the court has spoken, and yet ...
aside from the "me,too" to John McCain's approval, it's either pandering or it signifies a core value disconnect from many liberal supporters -- or both.
The problems with FISA are hardly trivial.
The suggestion that he is planning to fix them "after I get elected" is just more fear-mongering (vote for me, or else).
Again, impossible to know what the candidate has to say. His supporters rationalizations are disappointing -- hey, he's gotta do this to get elected seems to be best they can come up with.
Dismal. God, and I thought this election was depressing last month.
That we need to say "NO!" and vote outside the two party system, as Rich says, is right. Unfortunately, we're all so worried that if we do that, our vote will be lost because only a few will vote with us.
There's also the question of which candidate outside the two parties that we should vote for. We could end up scattering our votes all over the board, and then where would the country be? Where we've been for years - out in the cold being laughed at by those inside.
I'm waiting for Tom Hayden and/or Jesse Jackson to explain the essential okay-ness and brilliance of Obama's stance on, say, FISA....
Oh, yeah? Well... you stink! Fool! Elitist! Renegade! Sophist!
Actually, I agree completely with this sobering assessment. I was just trying on the epithets spewed by the faithful against the Sunshine Obama supporters.
Stay tuned.
Keep your focus, people. The only possible vehicle for change at the level of POTUS in this cycle is Barack Obama. Change itself must come from the we the people. It's no surprise that one man (or woman) is unable to hold out against the massive power of the two-headed monster we call a system, but given the choice between BO and JMcC, it's foolish and childish to throw your votes away. It's equally foolish to imagine there isn't a mountain of work before US to hold Obama's feet to the fire, move him to the left and organize to implement real change. The time to develop viable 3rd & 4th parties is not in the course of the presidential election.
Don't like the presidential candidates? Send a real progressive to Congress to stand up to the onslaught.
www.carolmillercongress.com
I continue to be astonished by Obama supporters habitual (compulsive?) name-calling. IMHO, this has been consistent "message" problem for this campaign since Iowa. Sure, some stranger calls me "foolish" and "childish" -- that's the person I'm going to listen to.
I wonder how many Obama supporters understand that the FISA bill that Sens Feingold and Dodd were trying to fillibuster and ammend was nothing more than an Immunity Bill for George W. Bush. If the telecoms were not given immunity then they could have said "Bush told us to violate the law." Obama failed to fight the good fight with true patriots like Feingold and Dodd. Where were you Obama when you needed to speak out against Bush LIES?
Rich M. wrote: "....when Obama was still to the left of Hillary."
Since when is "Change You Can Believe In" to the left of anything? The correct analysis is "....when Obama produced more hot-air slogans and cue-cards than any other politician in the USA." He still does.
One of the things regarding Obama and FISA is that actually -- it's possible for him to make a difference -- he's now PARTY LEADER, the vote has not happened, there is organized resistance ...
This is not a "done deal" ... it's not yet a "missed opportunity" to lead ...
Pelosi's gotta go ...
This is a tremendous analysis by Dave Lindorff of the emergence of the recent Obama during these past three weeks, after he secured the nomination. I too have been troubled by his positions on these issues.
Is Obama moving himself to the center? Or moving to the hard-right?
In 1972 I proudly cast my first vote for George McGovern. I still revere him. History records that he won a total of one state; thank God for Massachusetts. He lost in a landslide, to Richard Nixon!
Eight years later I supported David McReynolds for president. I couldn't stomach Reagan or Carter, who spawned the Taliban in Afghanistan and gave the green light for Archbp Romero's assassination.
Carter was awful as president; were Reagan or Bush I any better? I'd argue they were not.
After these past three weeks, who knows where the Obama campaign is headed? I'd hate to see him move any more to the rightwing.
Look people, I hate to be the one to break this to y'all, especially since I am probably not the most popular person around here, but there is NO WAY there will ever be a viable third party in this country.
We are stuck with two fucking choices.
You gotta get that.
Those of you that are calling for an overhaul of the system, an alternative to the Repubs and Dems... ain't gonna happen.
The problem is that the energy and votes you expend carrying on about another candidate outside of this system, the more you empower the worst option, which is the Rupubs... (I am sure I don't need to explain this to most of you - I hope you are aware of the rational behind this).
The system is set up for the two parties only.
It was designed to stay that way a long time ago, and it has stayed this way - for a LLOONNGG time.
In my opinion, the problem is that a majority of Americans are
1) not too smart in the first place (lets face reality here).
2)not really critical thinkers and do not independently - if at all - follow political affairs,
and
3) so involved in their own daily picture, their own self-interests...
that they will NEVER come together in a large enough group in order to enact this (needed) change.
The bottom line is that the people that are fed up with the system as it is need to work within the structure we have in place and alter it from the inside out. I realize that this also is an immensely improbable proposition, but hell, you have to cover your ass (cya)will laying down a forward track at the same time. That is to say: vote Dem now. Continue to vote Dem, because it IS the less of two evils - AND continue to make changes one step at a time while building coalitions of like-mined people!!!
Any questions?
Timber! More than the glorious trees in our forests appear to have fallen!
Oh, I think a lot of venerable "leader" types were afraid of being left behind and saw Obama as a chance to reclaim "relevance" as well as -- lofty stuff -- like help mentor a whole new generation of activists.
Starry eyes ... and I think the Kennedy clan definitely want and wanted a "legacy" candidate ...
Oh, and Obama may very well be our next president ...
Are all you third party voters here getting out of the house and doing the hard labor it takes to get your choice on the ballot?
If not, you should all be experts by now on "Hot Air".
Speaking of "hot air" Obama has the market cornered.
A country with only 2 parties IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Super delegates is not democratic.
Its not Hillary
Its not Obama
Its the American people
The politicians are dancing to the tune set by Americans.
Obama is doing what he needs to do to get elected by a nation that has high percentages that support torture and support the death penalty. Thats reality.
I suppose it is easier to attack the politicians than to say Americans are really not very nice people...the people are always right is the American mantra..well imo "the people" are immoral. All they care about is their own personal economic gain. And you won't hear that from politicians or in the media...America is being propped up economically by other nations and Americans carry very high debt burdens. God knows what is coming next but I would... sell any bank stocks...or anything to do with credit cards...
"Are all you third party voters here getting out of the house and doing the hard labor it takes to get your choice on the ballot? If not, you should all be experts by now on "Hot Air".
Yes, we are. That is in fact being done by the Nader campaign, but we wouldn't expect Democrats to know anything about that because their privileged party doesn't have to meet the same myriad requirements. Do they? Unlike the Democratic and Republican parties, independents and 3rd parties have at least 50 separate sets of procedures, fees and red tape, all different to get the candidate's name on all 50 state ballots plus territories. In some states the procedure is so convoluted (on purpose) that the process is almost impossible. How is this a democratic election then? When the Republican and Democratic parties setup a special "debate commission" that only allows their candidates to be in the debates, how is that not a rigged election? So excuse me, but the hot air is coming from the 2 major parties from the pile of manure that they are.
it won't please the teeth gnashers, but as far as I have been able to tell people have projected onto Obama what they wanted to see. I don't even blame him. I'm not sure there was or is any intentional deception. I kinda knew this day was coming, even if it came earlier, faster and harder that I would have predicted.
Yes, the question is "what do we do now?" My personal answer is "wait and see what happens." I'm going to hold off any hard-and-fast declarations for as long as possible and "watch what happens" ...
I plan to see about supporting my local Greens because -- regardless of the election outcome, after the election -- I think they will be important and that their relevance is again "on the ascendent" as is state-level politics.
"hey now" explained it for you.
The third party myth lives and helps keep progressives divided.
Rush and the right wing are betting on you now, you are their best shot....
But the political pendulum is swinging to the left anyway.
Please vote third party if it makes you whatever.
If you want it all at once you are always goin to be angry and never see progress.
I don't expect you to change, and I don't expect you to do the work it takes to get your choice on the ballot.
It is easier to push hot air.
It is irresponsible, if you are even slightly left of the Dems and live in a safe state, not to vote third party. (Almost as irresponsible as Nader and McKinney running against each other).
If you live in a potential swing state, I can't tell you what to do. Being from the west coast I've never faced that situation.
Dave's article, and these "Progressive[?]" comments, are all an echo of the 2000 election, with Nader insisting that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Dubya and Al Gore.
Well, we know how THAT turned out.
Sheesh!
hey now June 28th, 2008 2:31 pm -- 'Look people, I hate to be the one to break this to y'all, especially since I am probably not the most popular person around here, but there is NO WAY there will ever be a viable third party in this country.'
You may be right. But, in that case, USan 'lefties' might just as well face the fact that they've been completely outflanked and pack their bags. Either that, or accept the inevitablility of a continuing rightward shift with the connivance of both halves of the existing "two-party" facade. Read Elections, Capitalism, and Democracy.
colleen wrote:
"Its not Hillary
Its not Obama
Its the American people
The politicians are dancing to the tune set by Americans.
Obama is doing what he needs to do to get elected by a nation that has high percentages that support torture and support the death penalty. Thats reality."
This is a ridiculous, myopic outlook on American conservatism. The American public is only so conservative because the control of information flowing to them is in the hands of corporate media and corporate politicians. Of course people see their interests as synonymous with business interests when no other possibility is presented. And considering that a minimum wage job keeps one *just* above the federal poverty level (already absurdly low), forcing many people to work multiple crappy jobs if they don't want to live like animals, it's not surprising that most working class people would rather watch the Simpsons or go to bed when they get home than kick back with some Chomsky or Zinn. When your daily life is infuriating, you don't go seeking out infuriation in books or other alternative news sources. Having the free time to do that is a uniquely middle class privilege.
So needless to say, I find your "naturalization" of American conservatism quite absurd. Read some books on labor history to see how militantly progressive average, working people will become under the right conditions--unions that provide an alternative framework for understanding company decisions, an independent radical press that provides a different perspective on national and international politics, etc.
thank you Matt -- I agree.
=========================================================
The whole "and how did that turn out argument" might worked better TeamGore hadn't walked away to fight another day and if 2004 hadn't turned out so very badly as well ...
I don't know what the future of the Democratic Party will be if they lose in November... and, yes, I think it's quite possible.
AdeleTheCzech said:
"Dave's article, and these "Progressive[?]" comments, are all an echo of the 2000 election, with Nader insisting that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Dubya and Al Gore.
Well, we know how THAT turned out."
1. The election was stolen. That's not Nader's fault.
2. I am not sure how different it would have been with Gore. The Democrats often do their killing under the table (not always, of course--see Vietnam), but they engage in just as much Machiavellian, murderous foreign policy.
You should read this article--try to wade through the moral claims and just focus on the facts, which you can check against other sources to see whether they are accurate and just how accurate they are. The facts are impressive enough in their own right and I trust you can make your own moral conclusions:
http://questionwar.com/liberalholocaust.html
You also might want to check out Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer, The Forging of the American Empire by Sidney Lens, or Killing Hope by William Blum (the last one is another that you will have to wade through a bit of moral/emotional rhetoric but the facts are all there).
Or just google "CIA interventions" or "CIA interventions + [continent]" and read a few of the first websites that come up.
Democrats, it seems to me, have always been 99% complicit in the building and maintenance of the military-industrial complex, and frequently, in using it against defenseless nations every bit as callously as the Republicans do.
Constantly blaming everything on corporations is easy but think for a minute how you would exist if you wouldn't have any relations with Corporations....
Would you have money? a car, gas or any transportation? Could you make a living, talk on a phone watch TV ...buy food and clothes and you may have to find another planet to live on but you will need a corporation to find that planet and get you there. But there will be a long waiting for those who want it all now.
Ask not what you want but what you can give.
I just made that up, and you can blame JFK.
When the primary season began, I looked and listened, wondering which Dem I would support. Even as the season progressed, I continued. But no matter how much I listened, obama never convinced me he was/is the superior candidate for Dems. And now suddenly everyone is uneasy, what does this guy stand for? But now is not the time to find out, and you didn't pay attention to what was not being said during the primaries.
obama is vulnerable on several fronts (go to NoQuarter for a list). All better hope that whatever it is that knocks him out of the race occurs before the convention.
until lately i've firmly believed that voting for a 3rd-party candidate in the current presidential race. but with Obama's recent duplicity the 'firmly' part has begun to fade, and this from someone who contributed beyond his means to Obama's campaign and urged friends to do the same.
Gee....I didn't think it took much to see that whatever candidate took the D primary that their souls would belong to the corporate whores who control the party (and the R party for that matter)....are people still naive to think anything other than a corporate whore will run in either of the two political parties??? We haven't been in OZ for some time now folks.....THIRD PARTIES are the only way to get something other than corporate in the white house.
WAKE UP PEOPLE...
deathtotyrants,
need some fun Target Practice?
http://www.goarmy.com/downloads/target_game.jsp
socialistmatt
Americans are not conservative..they follow any belief that will give them more economic gain.
The irony is that by looking out for number one (only themselves) they have weakened America. Conservatives have sold Americans on the idea that if they are greedy the system will work very well. And those who are unable to compete deserve what they get.
If Americans were smart they would look at other nations to see what they have..but Americans are so filled with nationalism they can not imagine that another country might be better run than America. So we get people voted into office who are trying to weaken the government so that private corporations can dominate. Many of these corporations are multi- nationals that Americans in their stupidity think are American corporations.
It is fashionable to attack the government as being incompetent while saying how competent the corporations are...
I'm in Canada and even average people who have never attended college know more than the Americans you describe as
"most working class people would rather watch the Simpsons or go to bed when they get home than kick back with some Chomsky or Zinn."
You don't have to be an intellectual to know that universal health care was the right thing to do. And the people who opposed it (like the AMA) were out for themselves...
Why don't you read some books about why the labor unions are still strong in Canada? Or read about Tommy Thompson and his role in giving Canada universal health care...
The basic problems for America are the greed and consumerism and the lack of interest in searching out information. Certainly the US tv news media is a joke..the question is was it people like Rupert Murdoch who used the media to give the US shallow values or was he riding on a tide of shallowness in the American culture?
Look at the ratings for Fox news...Americans love that stuff...
susanparker (and anyone else, of course), please check out my typically verbose and annoying 1:11 pm screed here:
Keith Olbermann: Then and Now by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/27/9924/
(I think it would be tacky and obnoxious to just keep re-posting, even in this permalink-free platform.)
N.B: Now I'm enjoined to provide "solutions", which perforce must be "practical" solutions. Thus, beginning with bedrock concepts like "truth" or "right" is right out the window. It's backasswards for a proponent of pragmatism; virtue is the pot at the end of an arc that is less like a rainbow than a Trail of Tears. It's what will RESULT, or be ACCOMPLISHED, at the end of the quest.
The solution begins with the acceptance of the role of solver, a political persona separate and distinct from one's trivial personal ego, encumbered by an unreliable conscience and inclined to self-centeredness. Knowing oneself, and trusting one's felt intuitions, is only encouraged to the point where it doesn't impede subjugating oneself to moral collective action.
OK, even I need to climb down from such perplexing meta-levels; maybe I'm suffering from oxygen deprivation. But I'm not sure I can conceive of a "solution" that's an improvement over the pragmatist's Prime Directive: "We're lost, so we've got to make better time!"
I have been saying it all along: ANYBODY BUT THE TWO PARTIES.
America wanted exclusion, constant war, and Oligarchy. We got'em all. And yes, you are right. Two choices are never a real choice and were never intended to be, by design. Although two choices might be an ultimatum. How do you like ultimatums? BHO has served his purpose either way.
He raised false hopes to a crest and then pulled the plug. The souffle collapses, the hopes die, those who were gulled pull the covers over their head, and Master reigns supreme. Don't matter which hand goes on the flat earth holy book now. This country is done, put a fork in it.
Next stop, The Great Shattering. Look for cascading waves of disasters on multiple fronts, e.g. environmental, economic, military, social. All corrective measures will be prevented because those measures are NOT in Master's Interest, so he will stop them. Perfect Storm.
Every four years we are told we MUST vote for Democrats, or else... the catch-22 of viability holds us hostage to a corrupt party that doesn't care about our concerns or needs on a daily basis. It is time for freethinkers to vote outside the system in all elections, esp. municipal, city, town, state elections, but also federal elections. I have been working on electing greens in my home state throughout this decade. It's slow & tedious but the alternative to party building is what? Voting for Democrats? How is that working for us?? They have sold their souls to their corporate sponsors. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Vote third parties!!
Black dads are no more likely to abandon their families than white dads?
Apparently this author never worked in an inner-city housing project, like I did.
Raanan G
wcdevins: You are wrong. Nader has shown for over 20 years what he stands for and proven he is what he says.
Polls show that with Nader in the running Obama does better so shut up already about voting for Nader being a vote for McCain.
socialistmatt: You are an apologist for the american people. Apparently you don't know your own country. Your claim about the history of the US is wrong. Those who worked for progressive ideas never got support from the people. Take a better look because you missed the boat.
socialistmatt
Also the unions were part of the problem in the US. The auto unions were in opposition to Gore's views about global warming when he ran for president and weakened him. Now we have no auto makers in the US that can compete with Toyota's Prius and GM may go bankrupt.
But the easy profits were with the SUVs, not with economical cars.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/motoringSummary/idUKNOA73304120080627
GM shares drop to 53-year low
"DETROIT (Reuters) - Shares of General Motors Corp hit their lowest level since 1955 and dragged down the auto sector on Thursday after Goldman Sachs cut the struggling U.S. industry's largest manufacturer to a "sell" rating and warned it would have to raise capital.
The panicky slide in GM shares capped a period of growing concern about liquidity risks to U.S. automakers and suppliers from a domestic auto market reeling from record gas prices and the impact of a housing slump and tighter credit."
(more at the link)
take a look a the man who has created this mess for GM:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2008/06/times-staff-wri.html
"A living legend in the auto industry, Bob Lutz has worked for Ford, Chrysler, BMW and, since 2002, General Motors, where he heads product development. The Swiss born, fighter-jet-flying, bespoke-suit-wearing ex-Marine isn't known to mince words. This spring, he famously referred to global warming as a "crock of sh**."
(more at the link)
The only reason why alternative candidates look good now is the same reason so many of you thought Obama looked good a few months ago - their true selves and their true policies are unknown. Those who deified Obama are suffering mental whiplash now, but you Kucinich, Nader, Paul and McKinney (please!) supporters would be equally as let down as soon as your favorite got within sniffing distance of the White House. The system is completely and hopelessly broken, rigged by the rich, powerful, and aristocratic, and no saviour is going to emerge from the muck on a shining steed to fix it. It's catch 22 - anyone who really wants to be president is unworthy of the job. Piss away your vote on third parties if you must, but don't blame anyone else when another couple of young Nazis get appointed to the supreme court. And don't tell us how noble your candidates would be in Obama's place until they get that far to prove it. Until then we must consider them all potential future disappointments.
But If it makes Rush and the right wing happy, why worry?.
Jim Glover - Corporations don't stand alone. They are nothing without the workers who produce the things you mention. Labor is the backbone of society - corporations just add layer after layer of unnecessary cost and waste, until we get what we have today, top-heavy, vastly-overpaid managers who add nothing to the product but are paid to put the squeeze on labor. Corporate-friendly laws and policy are the downfall of American society.
I still just don't know enough about Obama yet to make a real judgement. Perhaps it would be a good idea to see if he answers the real questions that are coming.
I'm with raanan June 28th, 2008 5:05 pm> This article is suspect in its facts. This statement of a study that could only have come fron fantasy land is absurd.
"Barack was out there dissing black dads, too, charging them, as a class, with abandonment of their children, even though studies show that black fathers are no less likely to abandon their kids than are white dads."
Completely false statement.
Obama or McBush? I'll take my chances, and it won't be with the Bush camp. I've seen what it can do, and it reeks.
The problem is the people. If you don't see that you are in denial, and thus, an average american.