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.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
161 Comments so far
Show AllI just happened upon the latest presidential poll, conducted by NBC/WSJ and needed to share the news.
Obama v. McCain:
Obama 47 McCain 41
When adding Nader and Barr into the mix, we get:
Obama 48 McCain 35 Nader 5 Barr 2
So according to the poll, with Nader and Barr running, Obama wins by more. Of course what really matters are the numbers in each state, but it appears that any fear of Nader playing a 'spoiler' role are unsupported, as with the margin of error for the poll (~3%), Obama does at least as well as he would if the Dems had their way and blocked him from the ballot.
I always hear people say 'there will be a time for 3rd parties, but don't risk losing the election this time. Well, apparently that time is now.
Response to both:
"raanan June 28th, 2008 5:05 pm
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"
and...
"Thomas More June 28th, 2008 5:27 pm
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."
-----
The statement in the article requires some disambuguation. The pivotal word is "abandon", which both readers appear to have understood to mean something different than what is said. Statistically, Black fathers do not abandon their children more than White fathers, though they are more likely to live in a separate residence. When it comes to involvement in a child's life (Studies done more in Anthropology and Psychology/Child Development than Sociology and Demographics), publications show no significant difference between Black men and men of other backgrounds. (And the article I cite below actually shows Black fathers to be MORE present over-all that other racial groups.)
Where does this come from?
1. A destructive sociological study done in the 1960s, commonly referred to as "the Moynahan Report". In it is a detailed analysis of the "breakdown" of the Black family, in which it naively looks at whether children of Black families lived with both genetic parents or not, and compared that to the rates of Whites. If you set the standard of "ideal" to be a European tradition of the "nuclear family", then Whites are always "found" (confirmed for Whites seeking confirmation) to be performing better than "other" groups. This study does not cross class or non-marital categories, or other cultural forms of child-rearing and has been thrown out by ALL academic fields, except as an example of institutionalized racism.
2. A reliance on White "normative" behavior to be valued above other cultural productions.
Are Black fathers abandoning their children? No.
Is the Black "family" in crisis? Yes.
But what can be expected from 300 years of legal, economic, cultural, and institutional Affirmative Action for White men, especially those who are rich, heterosexual, and christian?
But Republicans don't believe that historical privilege (you know, "legacy" at your Ivy League and Big Ten schools?) exists, and Obama, being Democrat, isn't allowed to talk about these things (he doesn't want to be called a "liberal", G-d f-rbid).
"Reciprocal Longitudinal Relations Between Nonresident Father Involvement and Adolescent Delinquency", by Coley, RL, and Medeiros, BL. Child Development, Vol. 78, Issue 1, 2007.
"tgriff June 30th, 2008 7:58 pm
I really like Ralph Nader, and I would vote for him in a heart beat if I thought he stood a chance of winning. I watched the documentary "An unreasonable Man" and I felt like I really understood Nader and his positions. With that being said, I am very fearful that if I vote for Nader, my vote really won't count. Look at what happened in 2000. I know that it was not Nader's fault, but when elections are that close, they are easy to steal. The U.S. is in shambles. This country is going down the drain very quickly. I know that our country would not be in this state if Gore was our president. With that being said, I know that Nader does not stand a chance at winning, and I just can not throw my vote away; however, I think that Nader would be a better president than Obama."
People like you really make me sick.
You're intelligent enough to understand the value of someone like Nader, yet you're a coward who's given up his political responsibility.
Go ahead and hide your lack of courage behind your "common sense" if you want but when you look at yourself in the mirror, remember that YOU are personally responsible for the "country going down the drain." Nader "doesn't stand chance" because of people like YOU who're trying to guess the "winner" as if it was a horse race instead of VOTING.
Not throwing your vote away? You're throwing away democracy... who cares about your vote.
.
Ralph Nader is greatly equipped to "work" with congress.
He has been doing it for 40 years…
40 years is one heck of an amount of experience. All working as being an avocate for justice. Oh yes he will be able to work with congress.
.
So by some miracle Nader gets elected, how will he govern?
Exactly. He is a man who has great positions but nothing to back it. He is the real empty suit.
Oh and Hillary dragged her own good name into the mud.
Don't forget that at our core, our very essence, we are primordially a racist culture - conceived & nurtured. As you vote for Barack-star, pay closer attention to who the VP candidate is - he or she may be the one left standing once Barack-star makes his first trip past the Mason-Dixon line...
Nader is definately America's champ with an unmatched legacy of proven performance for the public good and commendable courage against the corporate machinery of industry and their Democrat and Republican disciples.
I've found Ralph to be seasoned, tough, thorough, honest-even when it is unexpediant to be so and is the only current presidential candidate running who has maintained integrity and been consistently on message throughout his life.
McCain has flip flopped/broken his word on:
immigration
torture
tax cuts for the overwealthy
public financing of campaigns
Conservative Christian priorities
Wants to give Bush/Cheney a free ride for Constitutional violations.
Obama has flip flopped/broken his promise on:
public financing on campaigns
funding the Iraq war after speaking against it
signing FISA giving Bush an escape clause and telecomm's illegal immunity.
Being against NAFTA and now thinks it OK
Wants to give Bush/Cheney a free ride for Constitutional violations.
No. I'm sorry. That's not good enough for me or our nation. Both candidates are not serious presidential material. Both earn an D for disingenuineness and F for failure and H for hypocracy.
Electing either only guarantees a continuation of the corrupt status quo and preserving problems that afflict our nation and abuse the public.
Not only should we vote for Ralph Nader, we should also reach out to a few exceptional Democrats in congress such as Henry Waxman, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, and Wexler and ask them to bolt the party and become Independent, Green, Socialist, or start a new party. The Democrat Party is unworthy of their good leadership and actively stymies progress out of fear of Republican anger.
.
VOTE NADER 2008... You'll be glad you did and so will I...
.
.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
single payer national health insurance:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
No to nuclear power, solar energy first:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Open up the Presidential debates:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Adopt a carbon pollution tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Impeach Bush/Cheney:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Work to end corporate personhood:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
.
.
I'll say it again…
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
I really like Ralph Nader, and I would vote for him in a heart beat if I thought he stood a chance of winning. I watched the documentary "An unreasonable Man" and I felt like I really understood Nader and his positions. With that being said, I am very fearful that if I vote for Nader, my vote really won't count. Look at what happened in 2000. I know that it was not Nader's fault, but when elections are that close, they are easy to steal. The U.S. is in shambles. This country is going down the drain very quickly. I know that our country would not be in this state if Gore was our president. With that being said, I know that Nader does not stand a chance at winning, and I just can not throw my vote away; however, I think that Nader would be a better president than Obama.
I don't know what people know or don't know, but it is quite apparent that winning an election is much different than governing. Senators Clinton and Obama know that; I'm not sure some of the responders on this website understand that concept.
Senators Clinton and Obama will eventually go their own way unless Hillary is VP. She has agreed to help him get elected and I know she will keep that agreement. Senator Obama is a very smart man; he knows he has to appeal to a wide variety of people, especially the independents. His repositioning of his policies will help him do that successfully. I think people who are interested in implementing change, need to get behind the quarterback and take his lead; not critize him at every turn. It is called teamwork. We live in a very heterogeneous society and compromise is the tactic of the day and has been since we started out as a nation. Learn your history and learn from the actions of the past. One must give to get and this is the essence of democracy. Our democratic leaders are displaying their skills for all to see; give them a big break, because beating McCain isn't going to be easy.
Americans will get what they deserve, and deserve what they get when November arrives
Good job, David
I think Karl Rove/Mark Penn did their jobs well in destroying Hilary's campaign. While she is no 'saviour', she was a known quantity.
How long before the convention to crown Obama?
Geez!we already see him imploding even before the swiftboaters get their first shot at him.
I love how the contributors on here keep dragging Senator Clinton's good name down with Obama.
I mean this whole hatefest smells like something out of a Karl Rowe playbook.
And if there are actually any real Democrats contibuting here. They sure keep Mo Udall's analogy of them with their circle firing squad alive after all those decades.
Lets face it folks Democrats are going to lose this election.
And you out there talk about joining a 3rd party. Well after the Dems. lose this time you are going to join another party ,because the democratic party will just fade into history.
America is a sinking stinking ship. It never has been that Great Democracy in the sky .
If you cannot remember the way we so called patriots treated the original Native Americans
The Negroes < The Chineaes < The Japs The Irish and now the Latinos well you should have never even been license to drive a car Nevermind vote.
OBAMA was never your Savoir .He is just another joke on you.
CHANGE! you are lucky if even before the convention you have any rattling around in your pockets. But fear not because after the Republicans win this fall you might as well buy pants without pockets.
Like I stated before. I will write in Senator Hillary Clinton's name as my choice for President,and the day after the election . Then JOIN THE GREEN PARTY.
No the Green Party will never win any elections,but I at the very least will be able to sleep better because I can finally vote the way I feel.
As for Obama ? that is your crying spoiled pampered baby You Rock him.
genaman
RichM -- as far as I can tell quite a number are doing just that ... apparently if/when you ask to be removed from the Obama email dist.list there's a place to them them why ...
I am puzzled why Obama has focused his childhood without a father within the context of African Americans. Would he go to Kenya and scold them in the same manner? Why not discuss the prevalent phenomenon of the many African male students who study outside of the continent and leave their relationships behind and forgotten when they return to Africa.
"Nader = paid for by the repubs to damage dem chances."
Bull****. KaChing. For calling me a Republican I am going to make another donation to Nader. Touche. Thank you.
RichM June 28th, 2008 1:53 pm
"There is no such thing as "holding Obama's feet to the fire." He won't listen"
Actually, he might: if voters who supported him on the basis of his declared and implied positions openly withdrew support now - so that a 'credible threat' were reflected in poll numbers - he might dummy up.
This leads to the pragmatic and immediate reasons for a third party, as opposed to the idealistic and future-outcome reasons for one: without a coherent third-party threat, such progressive resistance is less likely to occur. Whereas - as with paliamentary blocs - an actual third party, with defining positions, would have more power to enter into binding negotiations with candidates to give their support.
cutting edge June 28th, 2008 1:34 pm
"Don't like the presidential candidates? Send a real progressive to Congress to stand up to the onslaught."
Unfortunately, the U.S. political reality is such that it's more a matter of withdrawing support from Obama - thus sending the democratic message that Democrats cannot abandon key sectors of their electorate without consequence - than actually electing a progressive.
RichM June 28th, 2008 1:26 pm
"At the time, that analysis seemed interesting & plausible."
As an observer of your comments under the thread name of "baska," I not only agree with your observation, but find it interesting that you made it.
susanparker June 28th, 2008 12:49 pm
"I had wondered what would happen when 'anyone-but-Hillary' evaporated as a platform-substitute."
For most readers of this website, it was not 'anyone-but-Hillary' but 'anyone-but-an-Iraq-invasion-apologist-and-prevaricator', I'd guess.
LINDORFF ON WHY THE POST-NOMINATION OBAMA IS "SUDDENLY" A CLINTON
Clinton backers aboard his campaign? Loss of faith?
How about: Standard Operating Democratic Party assumption: takes the progressive vote for granted, reasoning that - even if anti-Iraq-invasion Dem's and progressives did contribute, organize and vote, tipping the nomination to him - progressives/left Democrats will never vote for someone else, no matter how much he abandons pre-nomination positions.
The question is, is that standard operating assumption correct? If it is, candidate Obama is not accountable to a key sector of his electorate, but can piss away his marginally more left-Democratic credentials without risk or consequence.
Dave Lindorff used to post his thoughts on Daily Kos. Wisely, he no longer does so--he'd be ripped to shreds in no time.
For the record, I think he's right.
colleen: Precisely because Amurika is a right-wing nation, it will always prefer real Republicans to fake ones. So why shouldn't Obama run as a real Democrat?--assuming, of course, that he wants to.
mcgushee: What the "Democrats" in Denver are doing is making sure the free-speech zones are within easy reach of the Denver Police, which would like nothing better than to knock your heads in.
Yeah, this is change I can believe in. The kind of change where things stay the same.
The democrats are dangerous hypocrites. They pay lip service to change and to being the party of the people, but don't deliver anything. Hell they don't even have to pay lip servcie to liberal values once general election season comes.
In some sense Obama is worse than Hillary. He appears to care about change but ultimately is running for a third term of DLC/Clintonism.
We truly are the change we've been waiting for- not Barack. (and probably not Nader or McKinney) Forget electoral politics-- we need CHANGE.
Cynthia McKinney needs our support NOW. Obama doesn't. You can always hold your nose and vote for Obama in November if you feel it is your patriotic duty. Meanwhile you can help to empower a genuinely INDEPENDENT voice for peace & justice in the race. Support Cynthia McKinney's grassroots Power to the People campaign. www.runcynthiarun.org
C Corporate
H Hedgmony
A And
N New
G Guns for
E Everyone
RichM maybe I did vote democratic, but none of my choices ended up in the white house.
Boomers did something once and then crowed about it for decades. Thanks foe nothing.
Anyone who expected any thing else to happen is either seriously deluded or knows nothing about how the Democrats have behaved for the last 30 years.
Every other country on earth can have a 3rd party except the USA so packed full of morons and fools. A vote for the Democrats is worst than a vote for the GOP bacause at least the Republicans stand up for their own constituency. The Democrats are traitors who balckmail their own supporters with the prospect of "least worst" sellout.
Vote Nader on mass or face the fact that things will NEVER change. You need to rebuild from scrath and keep the Democrats away from power.
When Clinton won the election in 1992, I was informed by an individual and I m not sure what group he was involved with, but theorized that there are 6 families in the U.S./Britian/France that are the wealthiest people in the world. Some names such as "Dupont", "Rothchild's" "Bush", "Harriman's" will influence world policies. The President must be someone they can control. He told me how Ross Perot looked like a total idiot. Reason - influence of the media to portray him that way. The wealthy folks couldnt control Ross. Howard Hughes was another one who was not of the weathly afluent class. Look what happened to him. I thought at the time this person who told me that was paranoid or wacky. It appears that what he said may be making sense. All we can do is vote. Obama will probably win or McCain. It will make not difference. Policies and economics will continue to work to "enslave" the populations of the world except for a few of the weathiest, and there you have it. Business as usual. Savor your vacations, new golf clubs, or whatever pleasures of happiness you have now because it may not be available to you tomorrow. Just food for thought people.
...Nader and Paul. Ha!
Nader = paid for by the repubs to damage dem chances
Paul = former newsletter with racist rantings
more lunacy and silliness from the Viva La Lefties!
...and it would appear that a few liberals out there would actually prefer Bush carry on his policies through McCain just so they can complain and whine about it for the next four years... Vote McKinney! ... yeah, great idea, give McCain a chance...
Lindorff sounds like quite the whiney leftie here. He actually believes a President Obama will not address the issues facing our country and the world. It is obvious to this reader that whiney liberals would rather hurt his chances for election by writing criticisms that are so far unwarranted. Obama is a self-made man who remembers where he came from. By crying over his diplomacy with Israel and whining that he hasn't taken the bull by the horns, Lindorff shows that he really has no concept of Obama's policies. They're at his website, I suggest he reads them. Meanwhile, as a presidential hopeful, Obama is in no position to hold Israels' (or anyone's) feet to the fire. He isn't president yet. Lindorff seems to have forgotten this fact. When all is said and done, hopefully we will calling Mr. Obama the president. McCain is an extension of the BUsh cartel and therefore exactly what we don't need. Yes, Hillary was a strong contender, but she lost. Even if she had had Michigan and Florida counted, she still would have lost. It is obvious she wasn't the choice of the people. Lindorff is writing out of hurt feelings here more than objectively it would seem.
Thank you for the most sensible response on this post, my2sense
Organizations do seem to 'consistently go bad', perhaps that is entropy in action ? It is not just for-profit corporations either, as i am currently involved with a 'non-profit' corporation which is having serious issues regarding a self-selecting board of directors which has totally disenfranchised a very dedicated and involved membership pool, and then wonders why nobody wants to work with them . . . this is happening across all levels right now and seems to be a fractal phenomona . . . the prudent thing to do seems to be to stay active while maintaining integrity and refusing to engage with the death throes of the corporate entities . . .
What is happening with this particular non-profit is painful but necessary, and it does seem to be a good omen that next spring the organization (it is a dance foundation) will be staging a production of Igor Stravinsky's ballet 'The FireBird' (legend of the Phoenix) for the first time . . .
my2sense
This is a chance to discuss politics and people don't need to become scholarly experts. We learn from one another and correct one another.
Its democracy and its the way it works. Sometimes people say things that are wrong and/or outrageous.
I learn from this forum and expand my own information base with the questions and defenses given.
Imo the truth varies from person to person...and people are just expressing their versions of the truth here...and some of them are very passionate about their beliefs..its interesting. : )
Imo the Obama campaign has made decisions about how to get votes..and the number of votes lost is not greater than the number of votes gained when Obama says Iran is a threat..etc
Part of the problem is AIPAC which is a very strong organization that has had a big effect upon American politics. They support war as a solution.
But the candidates are evaluating how to position themselves to win..and liberals should speak out against Obama's movement away from liberal points of view....
This was technology used in the last presidential election..you just know it is being used today..
http://www.livescience.com/health/brain_politics_041029.html
Brain Scans May Unlock Candidates' Appeal
By PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer
"Already, the scientists are predicting that brain scanning -- known as functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI _ will be a campaign staple four years from now, despite ethical concerns about "neuromarketing.""
skip
"People make tons of decisions and often they don't why," Iacoboni said. "A lot of decision-making is unconscious, and brain imaging will be used in the near future to perceive and decide about politicians."
Freedman came to political brain scanning through his brother Tom, who served as a consultant to President Clinton. Tom Freedman asked his neuroscientist brother if the technology could improve on how campaigns woo voters.
skip
DaimlerChrysler used MRIs to gauge interest in different makes of cars. Researchers at the California Institute of Technology are scanning brains for reaction to movie trailers. Baylor University scientists just published brain scans suggesting preference for Coke or Pepsi is culturally influenced, and not just a matter of taste.
"This is a story of the corruption of medical research," warned Gary Ruskin, who runs a Portland, Ore., nonprofit organization called Commercial Alert. "It's a technology that should be used to ease human suffering, not make political propaganda more effective."
more at the link
Are people in the world really this fickle and closed-minded? Or is it just people in the blogosphere? Do you really think any of you know what is in the minds of the people who make these decisions in Washington? Don't you think it's possible that Obama has sound reasons for his votes? Or do you think he should consult with all of you first before he does his job? If so, which one of you? There are millions of people out there who believe their opinion is the only correct opinion--and they are all different.
Let me ask you something, all of those who expressed an opinion here: Have you read the proposed legislation? Do you know what the FISA amendments are? Have you studied the constitution? Do you understand anything about state's rights and the limitations on the power of the supreme court to restrict the state's authority to set it's own laws? Do you realize the danger of taking that right away from the individual states?
Liberals, conservatives, Hillary supporters, third party supporters--please stop blindly choosing to think the way your group thinks--and start thinking for yourselves. A good way to start is by doing the research before you spout an opinion in a public forum and cause an avalanche of knee-jerk reactions that will bury us all someday.
Goatgirl - my sentiments exactly, on a pessimistic day. I've often thought that some shadow government (something like that set up by Cheney / Bush in the event of emergency, bypassing the laws of succession) has holding pens where they keep hostages from politicians' families to keep them in line, maybe handing over an ear or digit when the pol gets out of line or showing a friendly little session between the pol's daughter and four or five Blackwater goons. How else to explain such mind-numbing stupidity - the Judiciary committee passing Mukasey on to the Senate when he would not agree that Bush was not above the law? The Democrats encouraging Bush to be MORE aggressive towards Iran? Handing over billions, over and over, to Bush for his war? Telecom immunity? Or voting for the war in the first place when their phones were burning up with %80 calling opposed to giving Bush "war powers"? There is something very, very, very rotten in the state of Denmark.
socialistmatt
Its not that Americans are conservative..there is an underlying philosophy beyond conservatism that is the problem in America. It exists in people who are on the left and in the middle too. Too many Americans are greedy and insensitive to the suffering of others. They want "to get the bad guy" and support prisons and wars. Imo its too mean spirited a nation that likes to think of itself as being generous..but for example ..fellow Americans were abandoned in New Orleans during the aftermath of Katrina..where were other Americans then?
Maybe take a look at the Pew poll ..Conservatives and Liberals are about equal in this nation...both are minorities.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/17/in-search-of-ideologues-in-america
It is very interesting to compare Canada and the US because their language and their experiences are so similar and yet they diverge in some ways. The Canadians have not been hit with a mortgage crisis and do not have the debt burden that Americans carry. (I get into trouble in Canada because I speak up..Canadians are more reserved and follow rules more than Americans do)
Part of being conservative might actually be genetic (and there have been studies to suggest that shyness and religiosity might also be partially genetic)
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070524_ideological_leaning.html
Political Preference Is Half Genetic
By Melinda Wenner, Special to LiveScience
People who are more conscientious and prefer order, structure and closure in their lives tend to be more conservative, whereas creative people who are open to new experiences tend to be more politically liberal, says John Jost, a psychologist at New York University who conducted an overview of previous studies involving a total of more than 22,000 participants from 12 countries.
But that psychological profile only pulls half the weight when it comes to determining people's politics, his review showed. The other half is genetic, as is revealed in studies of twins and their political bent, Jost says.
(skip)
"His "meta-analysis" of previous studies, including his own, showed that liberals seem to be drawn to chaos and novelty—for instance, they tend to support social change—whereas conservatives prefer reassurance and structure, and thus like to maintain the status quo.
Jost's findings, detailed in American Psychologist, suggest that environmental factors, or the types of situations people encounter in their lives, determine approximately half of their political preferences.
For example, when people fear death or terrorism, or are in a state of uncertainty, they tend to become more conservative,"
more at the link
...................
Arry
Just put your ideas out there. : )
You never know who reads them. That's my advice.
To those saying we need to hold our collective noses and vote for Obama - I suspect we won't have a viable third or multi-party system for some years to come, probably 20 - 50 years. But, let's get it started. The masses won't join in until they feel enough pain (hunger, poverty, floods, rubber bullets, big brother, martial law by Blackwater Goons (as happened in New Orleans), $7 - $10 per gallon gas. Then we will have a mass movement. Until then the answer is education, organizing. I personally tell all my undecided friends that Obama is a sellout, and I explain why. I wouldn't consider voting for him even in a close race in a critical state. I will not vote for imperialism, fascism, corporatism (is that a word?). Even early in his campaign Obama stated he wanted to expand the US military -- EXPAND when we, with %5 of the population spend %50 of the world's military expenditures. He lost me right there. My vote goes to Cynthia McKinney this year if she is on my ballot, otherwise I'll vote Green or Socialist, perhaps. However, I am mistrustful of organized government, to tell the truth. I suspect the only way government will work is a very loose organization of grass-roots controlled local governments. Organizations seem to consistently go bad.
Hi Namaste,
I am VERY disappointed. The stupidity overwhelms me. Where to now?
I know. I shall use this bucket as a helmet. And this mop
shall be my lance. But wait - I see a windmill on the hilltop.
The threat is real and grave. I shall mount my trusty steed
and charge the windmill with my lance!
But now... there are real WMD back in Iraq. The threat is
real and grave. Must invade again!
B R A I T H W A 8 4 2,
Yes of course, the threat of Iran is very REAL, as those "evil" Muslims just don't know how to do business correctly :
__ to offer _ i n t e r e s t _ f r e e __ loan$
__ to 3rd world countries
__ ( and even, gasp, to 2nd world ones )
That would jeopardize the entire world's security of continued greed and corruption.
Namaste « Presence »
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world » — Gandhi
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed » — Gandhi
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King
Barack Obama calls Iran a 'threat':-
"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," he told his audience at the gathering.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=61626§ionid=351020104
I am one very disappointed Obama supporter. This behavior is exactly why I despised Hillary.
Hi colleen and lizard and anyone else who says "the problem is that American people are just conservative, end of story":
I do not mean this in a condescending way at all. But do you understand statistics? Do you realize the probability of 300 million people who live in a country all *happening* to think in conservative ways about political issues? Obviously, it is a collective phenomenon. Colleen's comparison with Canada makes this point even more clear. Political attitudes are, in a large way, a cultural thing, if you will. But what drives whole cultures? What makes the culture of one country different from that of another?
More specifically, what makes American culture more conservative than that of France...or Germany, or Canada, or Sweden? Is it our geography? Our history? Our political institutions? Our media?
Obviously the answer is NOT simply that humans who are born within U.S. borders are predisposed to become more conservative later in life. There is something--rather there are many things--about America that cause a person born here to become conservative, relative to, say, a Canadian. And once again, "culture" is clearly an answer, but it's not the FINAL answer, since you still have to explain the differences BETWEEN cultures.
I pointed out the media (owned and advertised on by big corporations) and politicians (lobbied and their campaigns financed by big corporations) as possible movers of our political culture. Are these the only factors that make American political culture what it is? I'm sure they aren't. But if you reject them, or if you accept them but think they aren't sufficient to explain everything, then you have to point to other factors that could be doing the job.
To say "it is just the people" is totally inadequate. It's only "the people" at the absolute most immediate, shallow level of causation.
-------
JimGlover wrote:
"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."
Hi Jim,
People DO need transportation, food, clothes, entertainment, communication, and everything else you mentioned--and all these things do have to be produced by somebody. And you're right that currently we have to get nearly all of these goods from private corporations. But that's sort of the basis of people's complaint--not a counterpoint against it! Nobody is against the fact that production takes place, except maybe some of the more radical environmentalists; but some people are awake to the fundamental dangers of allowing society's vast productive powers to be controlled entirely by capitalists. That has really been the basis of the anti-capitalist critique ever since the industrial revolution ~200 years ago. It hasn't changed much.
You should probably read up on socialism. There are different stripes according to your personal/intellectual preference: market socialism, libertarian socialism, statist socialism (this one has been fairly discredited by both history and theory, at least to my mind), and so on. Maybe the best place to start is just in understanding capitalism. The wikipedia article on capitalism is pretty decent.
I think I'm getting pedantic, and with a name like "socialistmatt" you really have to be extra careful not to get preachy, but I hope I didn't go much further than I had to in order to reply to your reply.
Barack Obama has just opted out of public financing. He's in an awkward position now: he needs our money to continue his campaign. If we want him to take a stand on this issue or any others, we need to send a strong message that he won't be getting a cent more until he returns to his pre-primary positions, and that includes FISA. That's the only way we really make a change at this point.
Lindorff: Obama and Hillary were twins from the get go.
What took you so long to figure that out?
Vote Nader.
Let's face it...anyone within spitting distance of the nomination for president gets shown the alternate takes from the Zapruder film, an unknown video of Chapaquiddick and an Anthrax envelope, then either takes the Blue Pill or else simply walks away never to run again.
I can so see Obama unzipping the Human suit to reveal the Lizard-thing beneath.
At the very least, the Nations of the world and their governments and people are no longer relavent...not when Haliburton and Blackwater can wage non constitutional wars that no nation or government can control.
In such a world the power of the people is meaningless.
We either will or we won't figure out how to wrest the country and the world away from these greedy, avoricious fucks. If we don't, they either will or they won't collapse under the sheer weight of their greed and self-loathing, destroying the world and all the pesky living things that get in the way.
jsc (10:20 pm) writes, "The only appropriate political activism at this point seems to be to change ballot access laws and implement Instant Runoff Voting. Don't see how third parties can ever go anywhere without that."
- IRV & more open ballot access would be great, of course -- but the powers-that-be aren't stupid & will simply never allow that much "democracy" to happen. So they'd fight ballot access reform just as ferociously as they'd fight a third party, & for the same reasons. It's basically the same fight. Namely, is it (or is it not) OK for the 2 big-business parties to totally monopolize political power, & to exclude all other possible parties from participation?
It's a vicious circle, because open ballot access would help 3rd parties to be able to win, but the duopoly will never allow ballot access to become more open. And without more open access, 3rd parties can't compete.
At root, it's a question of people refusing to go along with the 2-party tyranny any longer. As long as we have little chickensh*ts finding excuses for supporting "lesser evilism," there can be no change in the status quo. In this respect, as in most others, the continued cowardice of Democrats (and here I mean the voters, not the elected officials) limits any hope of progress.
Yes, I plan to bus down from Boulder ... I know that route well ... gosh, I should probably put in for a vacation request ...
The way DPD treats protesters changed a lot last Oct during the Columbus Day protests. A new policy put into place for the Convention got its first run then. They shifted much more to the 2004NYC model of doing mass arrests and holding people in jail for either complete nonsense or traffic-ticket level offenses.
The good news is that its largely a harrassment technique. In NYC, it was what, 95% or more of the arrests were dropped because they were all bogus? And then you get to sue and be part of a big judgement years later because its still theoretically unconstitutional to arrest people with no reason.
Remember, on something like the DNC, its not so much the local police running the show. Oh, they tend to be the public face, but its very doubtful that they are setting policy. There's usually some $50 million or more of federal funding to the local policy, and its unlikely that this comes no strings attached. Its a pretty sure bet that in a back room somewhere the federal police are running the show. Thus, most of these events have very similar feels to them.
Come anyway. Be a part of the big lawsuit settlement a few years from now! And let the evil (though very slightly lessor) Democrats hear what you think of them. I want a crowd so big it can be heard in the convention center over the sound system from blocks away behind all the riot police and fences that will be in place to make sure democracy does not occur. A few million people shouting, singing and beating on drums and pots and pans can do that. :)
Just want to give a shout-out to ACORN as well ...
http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=2703
>>>> ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities.
Since 1970, ACORN has grown to more than 350,000 member families, organized in 850 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities across the U.S. and in cities in Argentina, Peru, Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Canada.
ACORN's accomplishments include successful campaigns for better housing, schools, neighborhood safety, health care, job conditions, and more.
ACORN members participate in local meetings and actively work on campaigns, elect leadership from the neighborhood level up, and pay the organization's core expenses through membership dues and grassroots fundraisers.
ACORN has constantly challenged the traditional notions of what a community organization is, and its family of organizations includes two radio stations, a voter registration network, a housing corporation, and several publications. >>>>>>>>>>>
They have offices around the country and appear to be doing important work ... (and they've been around for 34 years) ...
check out their web site ...
From the article, "You gotta ask why a guy who had it all going for him is suddenly making such incredibly bad strategic decisions. "...It wasn't sudden - why does Lindorff think this is such a mystery. It was foretold in an article published in the American Conservative, 10/07, "War Whisperers: The 2008 hopefuls promised a change in foreign policy then hired the old guard."
Since the 2 parties are both oligopolies & little more than a good cop, bad cop act anyway, I was hoping that Clinton would fight to the end and take the Dems down with her. Imagine Nader vs Ron Paul and the race could get real instead of the farce it's become.
The problem is, if you vote for Obama you are voting for basically the same policies. There are only minor little differences around the edges. But, voting for Obama is voting for four more years of the same stuff.
Isn't it clear by now that electing a Dem leadership in Congress made no difference? They pretend to be an opposition, but their main task seems to be to sheppard through and pass all the bills that Bush wants passed. And to block bills like impeachment that Bush wouldn't want.
You'll get more of the same with Obama. Anyone with enough sense to ignore the bull coming from a Democrats' mouth and then both grasping the magnitude of the Bush-like $295 million he's raised and where it was coming from knew this all along.
Right now, the Democratic Party is living proof that Lincoln was right when he said that you 'could fool some of the people all of the time.'
susanparker--
Well, I don't want to turn this into a Denver chat board, but I'll briefly respond. I've been on the sidelines for a few years (now trying to overcome my sense of futility and spend less time hanging out at Web sites like this ;-), so I don't have much first-hand knowledge, but I hear people talking. Denver police? It depends. If they come to your neighborhood on a drug raid, you don't want to be engaged in suspicious activities like sitting in your living room minding your own business--they'll shoot you for that. But they actually seem to treat protesters decently, at least compared to what happens in some other American cities. You don't hear too much about cops here freaking out and beating or tasering people at the drop of a hat.
The only appropriate political activism at this point seems to be to change ballot access laws and implement Instant Runoff Voting. Don't see how third parties can ever go anywhere without that.
It was all a con.
It was a given all along that the Democratic candidate would support these policies. The fact that most of the Democratic party members organized and defeated the primary candidate who promoted them is at best a minor inconvenience to the party leaders. The outcome was always determined. Obama was always positioned to be their Plan B.
Members of the Dem party should be offended by this. They should be heading for the exits as once again the leaders of that party just told them loudly and clearly that what they want doesn't matter. Do members of the Dem party want the war to end? Doesn't matter. Do members of the Dem party want impeachment? Doesn't matter. Do members of the party want NAFTA and WTO changed to protect our interests? Doesn't matte.
So, you might get some 'overheated rhetoric' from con men who say anything to grab personal power. But you were always wrong if you thought any of this was doing anything to change the direction of the Democratic party.
The fact that must be faced is that the Democratic Party is not democratic. The policies of the party are set at the top and pushed downwards. If you are to be a supporter of the party, then you must continually support policies with which you disagree.
If you want something different, then get out of that awful party and stop voting Democratic.
Jim Glover
Someone I respect and who I would carefully listen to is Russ Feingold. If he opposes the bill then so do I
I would love it if all this spying uncovered the criminality within the Bush Administration and was used to bring them to justice.. How appropriate that would be...
"The system and mental health of the population is screwed and manipulated. We need to build an alternative."
I'll talk to myself. I don't mind. :-)
When I'm talking about building an alternative, I'm not saying voting for Nader is sufficient. One of my criticisms of Nader is that he has not helped build a grassroots alternative in terms of working with the Greens and others to build a foundation of the necessary alternative society and economy. He could have helped. It's up to us, not to celebrities however correct they may be on most of the issues. Neither can we look upon the presidential election as the great denouement. Look in the mirror. That's who who needs to get to work.
Cooperatives, resistance, boycotts, relocalization, local democracy and economies. I'm not saying it will happen. Only that it needs to happen.
It is sad to put your faith in Obama (where do we get that he is a "progressive"..where'd that come from?) If you think voting for him is necessary, that's something else that I will personally respect.
(But I'll probably be voting for McKinney and some very good Greens for local offices. For the faint at heart, unless Obama screws up big time my vote will count for little in a state that otherwise will almost certainly go for Obama.)
And, again, like I said in January; who is surprised when Obama turns out to be as much a shill as any Clinton?
At least he is not Cheney, I mean, Bush. But I think we can all be sure Obama will support Israel's attacks on Iran with our own carrier based air assets.
granamica (9:17) - Your "analysis" is weak, boring, & shot full of holes. It merits comment only because you are so typical of voters who have passively swallowed the Dem Party's bill of goods, & wound up finding one or another rationalization to continue supporting these miserable traitors.
The reason you will be paying for the next 40 years for the decline of this nation is precisely that you, and others like you who let yourselves be deceived by the Dem Party, are gutless conformists who never demanded real political representation for the Left. Instead, you were (& are still) content to submissively follow the lead of the Democratic Party. You will enjoy the fruits of your cowardice.
If there was a real & vibrant political Left in this country, you would not be forced to choose between two corporatist-militarists, at every single election. You could have had real single-payer health care, paid for by slashing the "defense" budget. You could have had development of alternative energy sources, & high-speed mass transit.
But no, you supported the Democrats -- who helped their Republican friends keep all such radical notions "off the table." Nice going. Enjoy your next 40 years -- but don't lie to yourself about why it came to this.
What is it with many of you CD posters? You spent several months dragging Hillary through the mud and insisting that Obama was our great hope for change. Now that she is out of the race, it is drag Obama through the same mud. It is no wonder the Repugs win these elections when Progressives just tear down their own candidates.
This type of destructive discourse makes one feel like voting for Bob Barr just because this is so nauseating. Is this discussion really progressive or regressive behaviour?
What third party? You've gotta have two before you can have three and we haven't had two for many terms now. Both Dems and Reps are controlled by the same super-rich elite who call the shots on everything that matters to them.
Anyone who still believes there's a real difference between the parties today hasn't studied the Clinton years thoroughly. There's a reason Slick Willy and George I get along so well now, they're cut from the same political cloth.
There is a difference however between the Neocons and the party they hijacked. Lots of Eisenhower Republicans and even some Reagan Republicans have deserted the Neocon ship. Making sure they don't remain in power is job one, so the question becomes - is McCain a Neocon? If so, he must be stopped. If not, what happens in November won't substantially change anything either way.
So, I'm still voting for Obama. I'm not expecting Kennedy however, Slick Willy is far more likely.
yes, last week's shooting by police in LoDO filled me with dread ...
Those streets down there are so narrow ... they could easily become chutes.
I haven't been to downtown to look around for more than 5 years. I'm hoping some of the empty lot and parking lots (free spaces) remain. It's gonna get crowded with no place to stop and catch one's breath.
Have you been to any R68 meetings? I live in the mountains about 35 miles out and I have an old-old car so, I keep finding reasons not to make the treck...
I sure wish I liked the Denver police better. (I'm told they are better than I think. )
RichM
"A minute ago you accused me of being a Republican. Now you're saying I'm a liberal. Please, how about a little consistency here!!"
I reevaluated you and changed my opinion..unlike the common notion in America, to reassess and change an opinion is a virtue imo. : )
Imo Zinn would like Obama to state a more progressive agenda, but Obama is the best choice available. Imo if Obama states a more progressive agenda he will lose the presidency. The true test of Obama will be... if he is elected, how will he guide the nation? Only then will we know what he does stand for...and how strong he is...and liberals should be in groups that will pressure and advocate...to help him with a more progressive or liberal direction. Imo there is no alternative.
The opposition to torture is not a political issue.
There were many people who could have opposed the use of torture and some who supported using torture were medical doctors, lawyers and other people in high ranking positions in the military and in the political structure. Where is their sense of morality? And why has the news media not had religious leaders on tv who have opposed the war and this use of torture?
Torture to me seems like a very straight forward right or wrong issue..People were tortured who were innocent and had no information to give. These torture victims are in other western courts and getting justice there but are being denied access to American courts.
Every time I hear the justification for torture they talk about torturing terrorists..but many of these torture victims were completely innocent people and that is never mentioned...
VAGreen-- and RichM
There is a Pew Poll from 2006 that breaks down American values into 4 different ideologies
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/17/in-search-of-ideologues-in-america
and uses the categories...liberal, conservative, populist and libertarian..but the biggest group is ambivalent. About 40% do not fit into any clear classification...the ambivalents
The poll is based on how the respondents answered 6 questions...
I don't know what to make of Americans but it seems like more people should have been opposing the Bush Administration. Why they didn't is not an easy question for me to answer. What went wrong? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Meanwhile, here in Denver, the convention planners and our kinda-sorta-progressive mayor are busy mapping out fenced-off areas for the DNC protesters. Looks like you don't have to be a Republican to love "free speech zones." Oh, but this time, they assure us, the protesters will be able to come within earshot of the delegates. Wow. I am awestruck by how enlightened the Dems are.
I'm voting for Nader simply because he represents what I believe in. That's good enough for me. Why vote otherwise? There's simply no difference in the "two" parties.
RichM and the rest. In November we will have an election, if this administration doesn't declare some kind of imperial privledge so the question becomes: Do you vote with some hope or do you vote with some cynicism because there will be someone elected this November who will not fit your specifics wants.
I will be here for the next 40 years paying for the decline of this nation. I will be dealing with the destroyed country, ecology, finances and constitution while you sit here pontificating on what might of been. You blew it, we have to be pragmatic because it is the only way out because too much talking and posing have gone on.
Colleen, the bill does not give Bush immunity, and it gives the courts more power in FISA.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/23/9840/
As I pointed out You can sue the fuck out of them and they will say they were intimidated by the government who could pull their license. They would plead they were under duress weather they knew the government was wrong or not would not matter.
When the mob tells you to pay which is not legal, and you pay under duress should you be run out of town on a rail too?
Immunity is often a tool used to get to the big boys.
Blaming the telecoms for going along will only increase your phone and internet bills to pay for their defence which they will certainly win anyway and will distract from the fact that Bush ordered it.
This bill could be better but what you say is not the case.
Again the perfect is often the enemy of the Good.
colleen (8:01) - A minute ago you accused me of being a Republican. Now you're saying I'm a liberal. Please, how about a little consistency here!!
I've read a great deal of Howard Zinn, by the way. I don't need to look up little articles here & there to know what he thinks. I looked at your 2 links (the video & the Asia Times piece) only because I knew immediately you were misrepresenting him.
You are right on certain important points. For instance, it's right to be pro-impeachment, especially because of the dangerous precedents. It's very true that there's a great danger of war with Iran. And it's true that the US govt has committed grievous crimes against humanity.
However, you also write, "I have not understood why there was not more opposition..."
- Funny you should mention that!! Let me try to explain it. It's because of the 2-party system, & the role the Democrats play in it.
The 2-party system defines the range of officialy-permitted opinion. Nothing to the left of the Democrats can really get media or political representation in the US. And nothing to the right of the Republicans can really get representation, either. (True, this last restriction doesn't exclude much, since today's Republicans are almost as far right as one could be. But for example, even the Republican Party doesn't openly welcome people like David Duke, or other avowed Nazis. You can't be an open KKK-style racist in the Repub Party, though of course you can be a closet racist, as many of them are. And you can't openly call for a rightwing dictatorship, though what the Bush admin is doing amounts to practically that.)
Anyway, the Dem Party sets the limit for what's permissible on "the left." How big is the range between the two? It's not very big. There are a few issues on which the Dems are more liberal. Most of these are purely social (as opposed to economic) issues. For instance, the Dems don't want to persecute gays as much, & are more liberal about abortion. On economic issues, though, there is very little difference, and most of what seems different on the surface (ie, Republicans more blatantly favor tax cuts for the rich & deregulation) isn't really different, because the Dems never take serious oppositional stands on these matters. They're financially dependent upon (& subordinate to) corporate power, so they don't dare displease big business.
So when you put it all together, on the one hand, the differences between the parties is marginal. On the other hand, the Dems' position defines the leftwards edge of officially-acceptable opinion. THAT is why there's been so little opposition -- because anything to the left of the Dems can't get representation, & the Dems themselves are capitalists, nationalists, militarists, and imperialists, way before they are "liberals." The Dems themselves define how much opposition there can be -- and they make it absolutely clear that they want almost no opposition whatsoever.
BO what a perfect symbol to be the top of the ticket of the rotting Democrat party!!!!!!
yes, it's when they start giving away my guaranteed by the "Bill of Rights" rights that I get really really testy.
colleen June 28th, 2008 8:01 pm
"RichM
You do not understand America. If Obama says those things..he will not get elected.
The US is a right wing nation."
This is an example of the self-fulfilling and self-defeating prophecy that many on the left fall into:
"There's a Limbaugh majority in this country. The only way that we can win is to scare enough liberals and trick enough Dittoheads into voting for a watered-down version of Rush's agenda."
The left sets its expectations too low and ends up supporting center-right Democrats to keep the far-right Republicans out of power. Even when they win, they end up losing. It's a slow-motion suicide for the left.
It's also unnecessary. While Americans are not progressive on all issues, they are in favor of universal health care, bringing all of our troops home from Iraq within one year, and doing something serious about global warming.
Here ...pressure Obama:
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/obama_stop_fisa/?
Sign the petition
I urge you in the strongest possible language to vote no on H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and to ask your colleagues to do so as well. This bill would expand the powers of the President while weakening the powers of the courts. It would give a blank check for President Bush to continue his warrantless wiretapping program and a get out of jail free card for the telecoms suspected of helping him illegally spy on Americans. Last December, you said you were "unequivocally opposed" to retroactive telecom immunity. For the sake of our country, stand by your previous statement. Surely, the machinations of an election year are less important than the enduring promise of the Constitution -- the civil liberties of all Americans. We need leaders who will make tough choices and do what's right. I hope you will be one of them.
......................
But imo Obama now is thinking about winning and he will say what he needs to say to win...
news alert
Politicans lie to get votes.
REF: # susanparker June 28th, 2008 1:59 pm
This is not a "done deal" … it's not yet a "missed opportunity" to lead …
Pelosi's gotta go …
Let's all do anything and everything we can to help Cindy Sheehan win Nancy Pelosi's spot! Remember, she is officially challenging Nancy for her Senate seat!
I have not heard as much talk of "Evil" since Bush's last State of the Union speech, but I have learned much today.
The problem is with the people and everyone who doesn't get it is a duped supporter of Evil.
Voting for Paul and Nader and probably any 3rd party will bring on the real revolution.
Which convinced me that anyone who has the notion that their is a lick of difference between McCain and Obama should not be allowed to have any children.
Oh yes, and Hillary Won!
tj (7:27 pm) -- I agree with you on all those points. I also felt myself swayed by Lindorff's column at the time. Back then, of course, Obama was not making noises that were offensive to progressives. He almost seemed to be telegraphing hints that he was on our side. So it was easy enough to begin wondering, as DL did, "Hey, maybe there's actually something to this guy!"
In the last few weeks, though, he's been making highly offensive noises on almost a daily basis. This FISA sell-out & the AIPAC groveling, etc are just completely unacceptable.
I'm all in favor of supporting Cindy, McKinney, & Nader. Anything that demonstrates (or contributes to) a growing awareness among the public that the official range of 2-party politics is inadequate, and that we on the Left demand the right of serious political representation.
RichM
You do not understand America. If Obama says those things..he will not get elected.
The US is a right wing nation.
You (and you probably are) are a liberal.... and you are a minority....maybe about 20% to 25% of the US population
And I gave you a link to Zinn's statements so that you could look for yourself and make up your own opinion.
I don't like what the Democrats are doing. I think the people in power are horrible human beings..but the question is how to get out of this mess...I support impeachment and always have..even now in the last throes of the Bush presidency..because the Bush administration has set precedents that can be used by a future president that could end us in even worse trouble...
I also believe that we are at risk for a war with Iran because Bush is still in power. There should be an impeachment hearing going on now imo.
I have not understood why there was not more opposition...It seemed very clear to me that there were grievous crimes against humanity that were being committed and I hope the world court takes on some of these cases about the use of torture.
But I am also a realist and Obama is the only hope we have...unless MacCain is a mole..
"He is the potential front man coming out and telling the people (nicely, of course) that we must all get back into line and get with the program (now that we have had a little - very little - fling) and our political system will take care of things and we can vote knowing that the "establishment" will keep things together. All will not fly apart and self-destruct. (Heaven forbid!) The center of gravity (corporate culture) will hold and this shining city will last a bit longer, and we can have our cars and malls, our military air shows and life in the empire for awhile longer."
Of course, that's what the power elite loves to hear. No tangents from the story. They can sit back and relax. Their lobbyists are safe. The corporate/government/military merge continues apace in the all-embracing and all-invasive cocoon of marketing. All's right with the world.
Oh, and by the way colleen, I don't give a flying f*ck if you think I'm a Republican. Dem Party apologists always say that when someone criticizes a Democrat. But as it happens, there's a big difference between attacking Democrats from the Left (like me) and from the Right (like Rush Limbaugh).
You have been misrepresenting Howard Zinn, by selectively snipping excerpts from his remarks, including only the parts that more or less fit with your Dem-Party-apologist view, & excluding the (more important) parts that didn't fit. Anyone who looks at the 2 cases where I just proved you were lying will see that.
yes, calling someone the lesser of three evils is not exactly an "endorsement" in my book...
At that point in time, Zinn was cautiously hopeful ... that maybe Obama wouldn't be as bad as he expected the other two would probably be....
colleen (7:20 pm) continue to dishonestly misrepresent Zinn. The Asia Times article also says the following:
KA: Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama is running on a platform for change and, yet, he does not seem decisive on important domestic or foreign policy issues. Do you agree?
Howard Zinn: I agree his proposals do not meet the need. On the war, where we need an immediate withdrawal of troops he asks only a partial withdrawal and seems to want to keep the private contractors there. Furthermore, his peace position on Iraq, if you can call it that, is countered by a "war position" on Afghanistan (he says, bring troops out of Iraq, send troops to Afghanistan!) and also on Iran ("keep our options open", which means military force must be an option). He has talked about not just opposing the Iraq war but the "mindset" that led us into the war.
He clearly has not changed his own mindset about the use of military force. His domestic agenda likewise does not go far enough, despite his rhetoric his "universal health care" plan is not universal. It still depends on individuals taking out insurance, working with insurance companies, instead of the government guaranteeing everyone free health care (the single-payer system, which other countries use successfully at half the cost of our inadequate system, and which both Obama and [Hillary] Clinton studiously avoid)...
The problem is not what the people really think in terms of values. They want strong communities, healthy environment, corporations out of their lives. It's what they do like zombies based on the Big Lie...the lie that corporate America and the military establishment are, maybe, real folks (thanks Tim Russert), accompanied by the incessant noise that everything else is kinda...well, foreign or not healthy in some way. It's doublethink and effective propaganda, pure and simple.
Obama is not representing the views of the people in order to get elected. He is the potential front man coming out and telling the people (nicely, of course) that we must all get back into line and get with the program (now that we have had a little - very little - fling) and our political system will take care of things and we can vote knowing that the "establishment" will keep things together. All will not fly apart and self-destruct. (Heaven forbid!) The center of gravity (corporate culture) will hold and this shining city will last a bit longer, and we can have our cars and malls, our military air shows and life in the empire for awhile longer. (We have to submit to unconscionable hypocrisy, but we must be sure to pretend that we are not.)
The system and mental health of the population is screwed and manipulated. We need to build an alternative.
RichM
I don't like being called dishonest. Imo you are here to depress the votes by criticizing Obama. I think you might be a Republican.
As per my quote from Asia Times above. Zinn supports Obama
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JD04Aa01.html
"Obama will be better than the alternative, so we must support him at the polling booth." Howard Zinn
Now its possible Zinn will change his opinion but I can find no other quotes from him in Asia Times about who to support for the presidency. So Hank Fur was not being honest imo and I would like to see a link and quote from him to support what he wrote.
Rich M:
I think DL's position of a few months ago was the correct one. It was not a raving endorsement of OB, but as you point out, he looked at supporting the OB campaign as a calculated risk.
In my opinion, it was a calculated risk worth taking: using the OB "movement" to attempt to forward a progressive agenda more than it would have been otherwise. It seems to me that we're in such deep shit, we have to take and make whatever few options are available to us.
I would suggest that the next calculated move would be to support the campaigns of Cindy Sheehan and other local progressive candidates and Cynthia McKinney and/or Ralph Nader. Opting out of electoral politics, as fucked as they are in the U.S., is just not an option we have the luxury to ignore. And the cost of participating is not that high.
WRT 2000, It probably deserves mention that many Nader voters were disenchanted with the Democratic party after 8 years of Clinton (NAFTA, welfare reform, no health care, no kyoto protocol) .... and then even more were disenchanted as Gore and the DLC threw the interests "under that bus" ... I first voted for Nader in 1995 to try to send a message to the Democratic Party ... (I lived in a Red State ... I safely voted for Nader in 2000 ... I now live in a major swing state)
The Democrats and the DLC and Al Gore earned some of that defection their own self ... but there was a solid foundation already present.
If Obama turns his back on all the "progressives" and "liberals" who got him the nomination ... particularly with so many "idealistic young people" and other neophytes, it could provoke a meaningful backlash ... would that backlash last long enough or be big enough tip things in November ... I have no idea.
From now until election day, the US right wings focus on Obama...
will be through the scope of a sniper rifle.
Obama in American history
Howard Zinn
Interview by Kaveh L Afrasiab
KA: Should the left in America support Obama?
Howard Zinn:
Obama will be better than the alternative, so we must support him at the polling booth.
But before and after election day he should be subject to sharp, bold criticism to move him forward.
KA: Do you have any recommendations for the Obama camp?
Howard Zinn:
Stop talking about Hillary, talk about [President George W] Bush and [John] McCain, and their continuation of the war and business as usual. Talk about changing this country from a war-making country to a peaceful one, talk about the need to discipline greedy corporate America, about true health security with a single-payer system, about learning from the policies of the New Deal - government-created jobs, etc, but going beyond that.
All of this will be welcomed by the electorate, who have declared their opposition to the war and will welcome the idea of immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Obama should talk about how American security comes through strength in our relations with the rest of the world, how he can heal the enormous wounds inflicted by Bush, by building bridges to other people when in comparison the Republican nominee perpetuates the discourse of fear and insecurity.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JD04Aa01.html
So HANK FUR
where is your quote from Howard Zinn in Asia Times?
The left should organize locally, use candidates like Nader to bring some views into the public arena with a news media that is shutting out the left..and if Obama becomes president continue to pressure for change.
Use pressure groups.
(But I am less sanguine about the American people than Zinn is.)
And Frank if your promise of a real revolution doesn't happen, I am takin Names.
colleen (6:28 pm) dishonestly claims that "Listen to Zinn himself speak... Zinn supports Obama!!!!"
Anyone who listens to the 1 minute video will quickly see that this is just a lie. Zinn says that all 3 major candidates (the video was from early May) stink & are unacceptable. He does concede that if forced to choose one of them, he'd pick Obama -- but that this is only because he hopes Obama's young supporters might have some sway with the candidate; and only because the system forces you to choose from a lousy group. He points out that Obama is NOT an antiwar candidate at all; that his vague pretenses in that direction are limited & phony.
And this was 2 months ago -- before Obama's recent sharp turn to the right.