Email List
Most Popular This Week
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 AllYes, I plan to bus down from Boulder ... I know that route well ... gosh, I should probably put in for a vacation request ...
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.
Lindorff: Obama and Hillary were twins from the get go.
What took you so long to figure that out?
Vote Nader.
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.
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 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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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. : )
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 . . .
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.
...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...
...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!
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.
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.
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.
C Corporate
H Hedgmony
A And
N New
G Guns for
E Everyone
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 1:53 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.
"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.
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.
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 ...
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
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.
Americans will get what they deserve, and deserve what they get when November arrives
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.
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'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
.
.
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
.
.
VOTE NADER 2008... You'll be glad you did and so will I...
.
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.
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...
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.
.
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.
.
"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.
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.
I 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.