Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiRepublican Nancy Johnson of Connecticut was first elected to Congress in 1982, and proceeded to win re-election 11 consecutive times, often quite easily. In 2004, she defeated her Democratic challenger by 22 points. The district is historically Republican, and split its vote 49-49 for Bush and Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.
In 2006, Rep. Johnson was challenged by a 31-year-old Democrat, Chris Murphy, who ran on a platform of, among other things, ending the Iraq War, opposing Bush policies on eavesdropping and torture, and rejecting what he called the "false choice between war and civil liberties." Johnson outspent her Democratic challenger by a couple million dollars, and based her campaign on fear-mongering ads focusing on Murphy's opposition to warrantless eavesdropping, such as this one:
The result? Johnson was crushed:
Rep. Nancy Johnson, a 12-term Republican who ran a tough-on-terror campaign and touted her co-authorship of the Medicare prescription drug legislation, lost her re-election bid Tuesday to anti-war Democrat Chris Murphy.
Murphy had 56 percent to Johnson's 44 percent with 12 percent of the precincts voting. Johnson was the longest serving representative in Congress in state history.
Johnson's final margin of defeat was 12 points. Despite continuing to represent a tough, split district, Rep. Murphy -- as he runs for re-election for the first time -- recently voted against passage of the FISA/telecom amnesty bill, obviously unafraid that such Terrorism fear-mongering works any longer.
That pattern has repeated itself over and over. In the 2006 midterm election, Karl Rove repeatedly made clear that the GOP strategy rested on making two National Security issues front and center in the midterm campaign: Democrats' opposition to warrantless eavesdropping and their opposition to "enhanced interrogation techniques" against Terrorists. Not only did the Democrats swat away those tactics, taking away control of both houses of Congress in 2006, but more unusually, not a single Democratic incumbent in either the House or Senate -- not one -- lost an election.
With Rove's National Security, Terrorist-fear-mongering campaign, huge numbers of GOP incumbents were removed from office and replaced with Democratic newcomers. Voters were simply impervious to claims that Democrats should be denied power because their opposition to eavesdropping and torture made them Soft on Terror. Earlier this year, Bill Foster made opposition to the Iraq War a centerpiece of his campaign -- and emphatically opposed both warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity -- and then won a special election to replace Denny Hastert in his bright red Illinois district.
As the 2008 election approaches, the Democrats' position has strengthened further still. In fact, in attempting to determine the best targets for the $325,000 we have raised so far to target Bush-enabling Democrats in Congress, the most difficult obstacle by far has been to find even a single Democratic incumbent who is vulnerable. Not only does it appear that they all are likely to be re-elected, it's actually difficult to identify ones who have any real chance of losing. That's how weakened the GOP brand is and how vehemently the country has rejected their ideology and politics -- in every realm, including national security.
* * * * *
So what, then, is the basis for the almost-unanimously held Beltway conventional view that Democrats generally, and Barack Obama particularly, will be politically endangered unless they adopt the Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism and National Security, which -- for some reason -- is called "moving to the Center"? There doesn't appear to be any basis for that view. It's just an unexamined relic from past times, the immovable, uncritical assumption of Beltway strategists and pundits who can't accept that it isn't 1972 anymore -- or even 2002.
Beyond its obsolescence, this "move-to-the-center" cliché ignores the extraordinary political climate prevailing in this country, in which more than 8 out of 10 Americans believe the Government is fundamentally on the wrong track and the current President is one of the most unpopular in American history, if not the most unpopular. The very idea that Bush/Cheney policies are the "center," or that one must move towards their approach in order to succeed, ignores the extreme shifts in public opinion generally regarding how our country has been governed over the last seven years.
One could argue that national security plays a larger role in presidential elections than in Congressional races, and that very well may be. But was John Kerry's narrow 2004 loss to George Bush due to the perception that Kerry -- who ran as fast as he could towards the mythical Center -- was Soft on Terrorism? Or was it due to the understandable belief that his rush to the Center meant that he stood for nothing, that he was afraid of his own views -- the real hallmark, the very definition, of weakness?
By the time of the 2004 election, huge numbers of Americans already turned against Bush's position on the War and ceased trusting him even in the realm of National Security. Thus, the defining claim of Bush's 2004 acceptance speech at the GOP Convention -- the central distinction he drew between himself and Kerry -- was not that his National Security views were right, but rather, was this:
This election will also determine how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism -- and you know where I stand. . . . In the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand.
Bush's ability to project "Strength" came not from advocacy of specific policies, but from his claim to stand by his beliefs even when they were politically unpopular.
For that reason, isn't the perception that Obama is abandoning his own core beliefs -- or, worse, that he has none -- a much greater political danger than a failure to move to the so-called "Center" by suddenly adopting Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies? As a result of Obama's reversal on FISA, his very noticeable change in approach regarding Israel, his conspicuous embrace of the Scalia/Thomas view in recent Supreme Court cases, and a general shift in tone, a very strong media narrative is arising that Obama is abandoning his core beliefs for political gain. That narrative -- that he's afraid to stand by his own beliefs -- appears far more likely to result in a perception that Obama is "Weak" than a refusal to embrace Bush/Cheney national security positions.
What's most amazing about the unexamined premise that Democrats must "move to the Center" (i.e., adopt GOP views) is that this is the same advice Democrats have been following over and over and which keeps leading to their abject failure. It's the advice Kerry followed in 2004. It's why Democrats rejected Howard Dean and chose John Kerry instead.
And in 2002, huge numbers of Congressional Democrats voted to authorize the attack on Iraq based on this same premise that doing so would enable them to avoid looking Weak on National Security. The GOP then based its whole 2002 campaign on attacking Democrats as Weak on National Security and the Democrats were crushed -- because, having accepted rather than debated the GOP premises, there was no way to challenge GOP National Security arguments. What makes Democrats look weak is their patent fear of standing by their own views. A Washington Post article last week on Obama's move to the center included this insight:
"American voters tend to reward politicians who take clear stands," said David Sirota, a former Democratic aide on Capitol Hill and author of the new populist-themed book "The Uprising." "When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don't pay a lot of attention look at one thing: 'Does the guy believe in something?' They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow."
The central problem is that if Democrats embrace the GOP framework of National Security -- that "Strength" means what the GOP says it means -- then that framework gets enforced and perpetuated, and it's a framework within which Democrats can't possibly win, because Republicans will always "out-Strength" Democrats within that framework. It's only by challenging and disputing the underlying premises can Democrats change the way that "strength" and "weakness" are understood.
The Democrats had such a smashing victory in 2006 because -- for the first time in a long time, and really despite themselves -- there was a perception (rightly or wrongly) that they actually stood for something different than the GOP in National Security (an end to the War in Iraq). Drawing a clear distinction with the deeply unpopular GOP is how Democrats look strong. The advice that they should "move to the center" and copy Republicans is guaranteed to make them look weak -- because it is weak. It's the definition of weakness.
The most distinctive and potent -- one could even say exciting -- aspect of Obama's campaign had been his aggressive refusal to accept GOP pieties on National Security, his insistence that the GOP would lose -- and should lose -- debates over who is "stronger" and more "patriotic" and who will keep us more safe. The widely-celebrated foreign policy memo written by Obama's adviser, Samantha Power, heaped scorn on Washington's national security "conventional wisdom," emphasizing how weak and vulnerable it has made the U.S. When Obama took that approach, he appeared to be, and in fact was, resolute and unapologetic in defending his own views -- the very attributes that define "strength."
The advice he's getting, and apparently beginning to follow, is now the opposite: that he should shed his prior beliefs in favor of the amorphous, fuzzy, conventional GOP-leaning Center, that he should cease to insist on a re-examination of National Security premises and instead live within the GOP framework. That's likely to lead to many things, but a perception of strength isn't one of them. One of the very few things in the universe with a worse track record than America's dominant Foreign Policy Community is the central religious belief of the Democratic consultant class and Beltway punditry that Democrats, to be successful, must shed their own beliefs and "move to the Center."
* * * * *
As a brief follow-up to the Keith-Olbermann-promoted claim that Obama's support for the FISA bill is justifiable not only because it lets him avoid being depicted as "soft on terror," but also because it leaves open the possibility that Obama can criminally prosecute telecoms once he's President, NPR correspondent Daniel Schorr said last January that he "can imagine Mr. Bush, if nothing else avails, issuing a blanket pardon for phone companies that may have broken the law." As I pointed out on Friday, a Bush pardon would completely foreclose any Secret Plan to prosecute the telecoms criminally, even if Obama really did harbor such a plan and intended to execute it (despite never having even hinted at any such thing). On Friday, Olbermann announced that he intends to deliver a "Special Comment" on Monday's show to elaborate on his "Obama/FISA" defense. When doing so, he should address this rather towering defect in his Obama-defending theory.
UPDATE: To clarify, I'm not making an argument here about why Democrats (including Obama) "really" support Bush policies in terms of their "true motives." The term "Democrats," even when confined to those in Congress, includes several hundred individuals, and their motives can't be discussed monolithically.
Many Democrats support Bush policies because they believe in them. Others don't believe in them but are persuaded that they must support them in order to be re-elected. Still others have no beliefs at all other than their own re-election and do whatever they perceive is most likely to achieve that. Here, I'm simply taking the political argument at face value -- that Democrats must "move to the Center" in order to win -- and arguing why that's empirically false.
UPDATE II: Without my endorsing every point that's made, Digby adds several thoughts in a post that is well worth reading.
Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.
© Salon.com
72 Comments so far
Show AllI think all the progressive on CD should read this very interesting perspective before they throw away Obama with the bath water.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/30/9993/
http://politicjock.blogspot.com/
Hey curmudgeon, why would you dump Obama for Gore. Gore certainly moved to the center in the 2000 election and was just as bad or worse than Obama. If your going to dump Obama we need someone better than Obama not more of the same.
P.S. Thanks AGI for the quote. Pretty disturbing words to hear from a "progressive" democratic candidate. Gives you a sense of how far right our politics have turned.
Yeah, I read what Obama said. The bottom line, in my view, is that federal tax dollars should not be funding religious organizations.
"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."
Barak Obama
I would just like to point out that the accusations of allowing religion to be factored into hiring practices is outright false. If you read the text of Obama's speech, he clearly states the exact opposite. That religion would not be allowed to be a factor in hiring decisions for federally funded projects. If you want the facts, read the speech.
http://politicjock.blogspot.com/
I can't believe what I'm reading in the paper this morning. According to the Associated Press: "Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and -- in a move sure to cause controversy -- support some ability to hire and fire based on faith."
I'm all for helping the poor, but not by having federal tax money go to religious organizations. This is a violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, and I'm shocked that Obama wants to "expand" this unconstitutional program. The religious right will be thrilled.
Move to the center? Unfortunately for the US your "center" is pretty far to the right in most first world countries. The US doesn't really have a viable left.
Oy vey!! Stop it already!!
McCain, Obama, Clinton, Bush, don't control anything! They stepped out of the realm of The People a long, long time ago. They're actors in the ongoing soap opera produced by the Global Crime Families. They are all shills for Global Corporate Fascism. Obama is just another "heart-throb" for the "progressive pollyannas" who so desperately need to BELIEVE!! HOSANNA, HOBAMA!!
Please consider Webster Tarpley's take on Obama and his foreign policy advisor Zbignew Brzienzki--the connections to David Rockefeller, the Trilater Commission, The Council on Foreign Relations, etc., etc. Tarpley has an interesting point historically that fascism can also enter from stage Left. Just look at how the U.S. voters have been manipulated through the packaged right/left/good-cop/bad-cop paradigm to get to the point where we are now.
I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, although there are many parts of his philosophy that I don't agree with. The main reason was that comparatively, he was open and honest. He had a strong stand against the war and very strong opinions about the Federal Reserve and the stranglehold of the elites on our economic system. A protest vote? Well, yes. And I'll be registering another "protest" vote if we manage to hold elections in November.
I won't be voting for a seemingly compulsive liar--seen enough of that already.
What's going on now is very much orchestrated and We the People are targeted for the bloody end of the stick.
Could somebody please tell me how supporting FISA is somehow a move to the center , Its a capitulation to the right wing. Where the hell is the center? Its a calculus without an answer. If he supports this legislation then it is proof that he has no moral clarity.
Greenwald makes some good points, but he starts with a false premise: That the Democrats oppose this war.
They don't.
The Democrats overwhelmingly gave Bush the un-Constitutional authority to conduct an illegal attack on Iraq, and then kept funding the wars year after year, even as public monies disappeared under bottomless no-bid contracts, while tens of thousands died.
The Democrats similarly have trashed the Bill of Rights (PATRIOT Act, etc.), even though most know that Bush's global war on terror is bogus. They steadfastly refuse to exercise their Constitutional duty to impeach the lawless Bush administration.
And no, Obama isn't moving to the center. He's on the right, and he's moving further in that direction. There's no contradiction. He's just more transparent nowadays after having clenched the nomination. It's now time for Obama to reassure the investor class of his fealty, which is what he's been doing of late. Obama, while not a Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) member, has been praised by that fascist group withing the Democratic Party. There's a reason for that praise, folks.
Still, Greenwald's point that the majority of the American people aren't with this rightward shift is true. The problem is that most Americans unthinkingly follow their party, even when it's clear nowadays that the Democrats just mimic Republicans policies and don't represent the people.
The only way to stop this toxic pattern is to break from it. That means Democrats must stop voting for Democratic candidates that don't represent their interests. It may mean that Republicans will win some races, but so what? Clearly the Democrats are not appealing to their base and have been betraying their base for many years. Third parties must become a threat to stop the DLC corporatist Democrats from moving in lock-step with Republican fascists. What else can stop it?
Get real about what the Democratic Party has become. And yes, that's Ralph Nader's point too. And he speaks with great wisdom on this issue.
Now that we have all basically agreed Obama is an eloquent corporate tool without any substance beyond serving his careerist ambitions, what exactly should we do about it.
I'm thinking third party. Can we find a bandwagon?
Oops, wrong thread!
not to mention what has happened to the economy in the 8 years of Bush reign and (is it just) 10 years of Republican controlled congress?
Because they're so good with money ... the grown ups.
And all that war debt is on that "other ledger" ... the one we don't see or hear about much ... that they pretend we can worry about later.... after we control the world or something.... after the rapture... I donno.
Is anyone here better off than they were 8 years ago? I'm not.
When is someone going to actually say the obvious, "If you believe the fear-mongering rhetoric of the Republican party, you have to be a half wit." When is someone going to tell people that this form of "campaigning" is an insult to their intelligence. Would you vote for someone who assumes you are stupid?
And, please remember who was in charge when 9/11/01 happened. The Republicans were the ones who failed to prevent the attacks, despite abundant warning from the intelligence community. It was the Bush administration that failed to act on the briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." It is the Bush administration that has failed in over seven years to capture bin Laden. And it is the Bush administration that elected instead to launch a war on a country that was not involved in any way with the attack of 9/11. It is the Bush administration that has us mired in that war of choice, while the so-called war on terror is being waged on prisoners held in detention and tortured into confessions that are likely worthless and untrue. Meanwhile, al Qaeda has regrouped and strengthened in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So, this Republican administration has failed us, and incompetently promoted the cause of Islamic extremists around the world.
No kidding guys, couldn't you make your points without some of the filthy language.
There are some ladies here. A little respect wouldn't go amiss. I know when emotions get to flowing its easy to slip, but try. Please.
Obama, sweat still dripping from his brow, enters a darkened chamber. Wiping the sweat he revels in the thought "I can't believe a brother has made it this far". But his euphoria soon dissipates as he eyes the somber and faintly lighted figures seated around the large oaken table. He hears the clamor of his supporters, celebrating his victory, suddenly silenced as the chamber door is sealed shut behind him. Welcome, says a voice from the dark. Thank you, he says, now what? From now on, came a gloomy reply, you do exactly as we say.
Aside from the rate at which Obama is "dissembling" ... I am baffled by the Obama Campaign which as far as I can tell has not communicated "talking points" to his supporters ... nor have they appeared to be paying any attention to what their supporters were posting in sites like this ... iykwim.
I noticed this during the primary races on several occasions when pulled-out-of-my-hat explanations and rationalization ran rampant.
It's great to have an army of millions of supporters and a state-of-the-art internet presence, but I can't see that they're using it for much besides fundraising... hmmmm.
"If Obama needs to do this to get elected then the hooker on the corner needs to sell her butt to feed her kids."
Obama IS the hooker on the corner. Just a much more expensive corner. And instead of selling his body he gets to sell our money, our rights, our lives.
Its amazing how the same bull gets spun by the Democrats every single time. And it amazing how many people Lincoln was right about when he said that you could indeed fool some of the people all of the time.
The Democrats have a recurring problem in elections, and its perhaps most obvious in their Presidential runs. The problem is that what they have to do to pay off the big contributors to their campaigns is very different from what the voters in their base want.
Thus we see what we've just seen. A Democratic politician lying his rear off when talking to the base to get them to vote him the nomination. Anyone with any sense knew he was lying. Especially when his advisers got caught telling Canada not to pay any attention to the 'overheated rhetoric'. Funny, it wasn't so 'overheated' in the Obama campaign that they forgot to tell the big money boys that it was all just lies for the fools that make up today's Democratic party.
This isn't a 'move to the center'. Its the con being revealed. Obama never really moved anywhere other than where he is now. Not when talking to the big money guys in the backrooms. The rest was all just a big con to get the poor voters who really do want something different to give him the nomination.
Watching loyal Democrats is like watching Charlie Brown kick the football the Lucy is holding.
RichM -- Yes, I know ... I've been surprised the number of people who think that -- at least during the McCarthy era -- being a communist was against the law ... (and perhaps still is!)
A lot of people think that blacklists somehow became and are "illegal" ... because, of course, we now realize how bad they were ...
I grew up around some people who were blacklisted ... they were "kept track of" well into the 1970s that I know of .. some visited every few years by the FBI at home -- just to let them know that the FBI knew where they were ... and some were visited at work to let their employers know just who they'd hired (history of labor organizing), possible loss of future government contracts.
It could be revived again tomorrow in many industries... and many believe it continues today (but in hiding)... Ask all those post-09/11 "detainees" about their rights... the ones you can find ...
If Obama's trying to get to the center he might want to turn around ... he's going the wrong way.
On the other hand, this strategy worked great for Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. Pretty compelling reasons to stick with it.
susanparker (8:16) - I haven't heard yet about today's events (did Obama attack Wesley Clark & MoveOn?)
But to the core of your post: "...for reasons I don't understand, like the women of Salem and witchcraft … Democratic candidates keep having to prove they ARE NOT AND NEVER HAVE BEEN leftish…"
- It's because real leftism criticizes capitalism. Not just "criticizes" it -- but indeed erects a compelling lens for viewing history & politics, in which capitalism itself is the root cause of war, exploitation & most social misery. And any such view is unpardonable heresy within the "Church of Capitalism" called the United States.
The "Church of Capitalism" is rightly terrified of serious leftist ideas (ie, Marxism), because those ideas are basically fair & correct, and would have widespread support if not suppressed by a relentless campaign of anti-leftist indoctrination. Anyone who seeks power in capitalist society must demonstrate absolute fealty to the eternal hatred & defamation of leftism. Our ruler class is terrified of opening the door, even a little bit, to the slightest leniency on this point. Anyone who has the slightest sympathy for leftism is considered "An Enemy of The State" -- period. It's a non-negotiable point.
During the so-called "McCarthy Era," liberals (ie, mostly Democrats) sided with the witch-hunters, either passively or actively. What we call the "McCarthy Era" was actually a purge of virtually all seriously left elements from positions of influence in US society. And the purge was very successful. That purge is the origin of why Dem candidates to this day are terrified of being linked in any way to anything even faintly "leftist."
Today's events sure smell to me like someone put that proverbial "fear of god" (the same musty dusty one evidenced by Gore and Kerry of elections past) into Barack Obama ... and he's running away from the dreaded lefty label as fast as he can ...
.... when just stating his position, HIS position, might very well suffice....
Throwing Wesley Clark under the bus....
Dissing MoveOn -- an organization which already made itself "marginal" for this election cycle, and closed it's already dormant 527 -- that's like cursing "pinkos" ...
I am continually amazed at the "hold" this "left wing" holds over the imagination ... is it a taint?, a contagion?, genetic?, a curse? a spell? and mass delusion, or a "red menace"? ...
for reasons I don't understand, like the women of Salem and witchcraft ... Democratic candidates keep having to prove they ARE NOT AND NEVER HAVE BEEN leftish...
I'm amazed they don't volunteer for the water test ... if on dunking, you manage to not drown, you're a witch.... and are scheduled for hanging or burning.
If Obama needs to do this to get elected then the hooker on the corner needs to sell her butt to feed her kids.
lwhunt330 June 30th, 2008 12:44 pm
"Obama is turning into the chicken-shit that John Kerry turned into. Instead of listening to the voters that gave him the nomination he is now listening to a group of belt-way imbeciles who are giving him this great advice. He deserves to loose, as Kerry did, if he is going to be this much of a mamby-pamby spinless piece of dung."
lwhunt330,
Your comment is a mirror image of what I've been thinking and feeling about Obama. Imbeciles on Captiol Hill are a- dime-a-dozen, which is why many of them will be voted out of office in November.
Bull$hit is no longer in vogue while most people are now connected to real-world news and reality via the internet.
RichM June 30th, 2008 6:57 pm wrote about delusions: "Obama is only pretending to be a centrist now — but once he's elected, we'll see his true progressive side assert itself."
As if once elected, Obama, who has such lofty principles he sheds them like my dog sheds hair during the summer, wouldn't be the least bit concerned with his re-election and therefore would be willing to SHOCK everybody by turning out 180 degrees different than the way he campaigned.
Please be realistic, sweetie. Once in office he will continue with what worked for him because his main concern will be getting re-elected. Period. Everything else will take a back seat, just as it has now. If you buy this one you are an endsjustifysmeanist.
Are we supposed to believe he is so "principled" he would actually deceive to get into office in order to turn out different because as we all know, the anti-war majority wouldn't vote for a Democrat if an old, tired, "war hero from 30,000 ft." accuses him of being soft on terror. God forbid anyone call you soft on terror~! Therefore he has to do this. Please.
@elderlylady
While I respect your belief that Obama is to the left of McCain, and this is why you vote Democrat, this strikes me as voting for a notion, and not for actual policies.
After all, Stalin was to the left of Hitler.
Glenn Greenwald seriously rocks!
"Democratic consultant class and Beltway punditry that Democrats, to be successful, must shed their own beliefs and "move to the Center."
-Or that Democrats must become Republicans which is what they have become.
"What makes Democrats look weak is their patent fear of standing by their own views."
-An argument can be made that they stand for nothing but getting in office that's why they surrender and capitulate so readily.
"Many Democrats support Bush policies because they believe in them."
-Amen, isn't that the truth!
Many Democrats support Bush policies because they believe in them. Others don't believe in them but are persuaded that they must support them in order to be re-elected. Still others have no beliefs at all other than their own re-election and do whatever they perceive is most likely to achieve that. Here, I'm simply taking the political argument at face value — that Democrats must "move to the Center" in order to win — and arguing why that's empirically false.
-What a beautiful summation of it all in one succinct paragraph. Well done Glenn-Kudos.
Here is my question to all the Obama supporters. Suppose Obama gets elected. What if he turns out to be a major disappointment? Supporters say "let's get him elected, then we will hold his feet to the fire when he is in office." What are you going to do? You can't do anything to George Bush, so what makes you think you can do anything to Obama?
Most lesser-evilists are peddling silly delusions, such as the idea that "The Democratic Party is a force for good," or that "Obama is only pretending to be a centrist now -- but once he's elected, we'll see his true progressive side assert itself." Most lesser-evilists accept the 2-party system framework as being as immutable as the sun rising in the East; & can't see beyond their (justifiable) fear & hatred of Republicans.
Most lesser-evilists use arch tones, pretending that the politics of our situation is a "slam-dunk" type of thing. For an example of this mentality, look at sipsey @ 5:12 pm. who writes, "...Metaphorically, do you want Russ Feingold or Rush Limbaugh? Yeah, I thought so." Anyone who thinks that the matter is that cut-and-dried is simply missing most of what's really at issue.
However, Kolea's post above (5:19 pm ) is different from most that end up supporting Obama. I still disagree with Kolea's conclusions (& flatly reject his comment about Nader's "ego and delusions"). But at least Kolea has respect for the full dimensions of the problem -- far more than can be said for most of those counseling a vote for Obama.
I've been saying for two years that McCain is no "war hero." MarthaA provides all the proof needed, above. Precisely how is it "heroic" to merely survive in a prison camp, especially when your mission had been bombing civilians from the air, never facing a single enemy troop, never truly in harm's way except as a consequence of your own incompetence. McCain clearly was an incompetent pilot, as MarthaA shows beyond a doubt. How reminiscent is his history of the present occupant's? So we're faced once again with a military faker/fraud becoming president. What could be more predictable, in a nation that worships frauds and fakers?
Dennis, get the fuck out there and run, run you sweet motherfucker...
I totally agree with Greenwald's point about running to the feeble so-called center.
I am voting for Nader, and not because I have much hope that he'll win, or because a McCain presidency is a remotely tolerable idea.
Nader operates on principle, not ego, and I believe he's taking the long view. My real world hope is that enough people vote for candidates other than the duopoly to make something happen with instant runoff voting. The fix to so-called spoilers is perfectly simple, it just needs some event big enough to get large numbers of people mad enough to squeeze it out of the establishment.
The Green party in Oregon is fielding a candidate for secretary of state with instant runoff voting in his platform. The problem is that he can't get elected without it.
I have no patience for people who spend more energy blaming Nader for the problems with the system than agitating for instant runoff voting. I'm furious that any candidate can get installed in office with less then half the vote (even when all the votes are counted correctly), and you should be too.
FACT SHEET:
Military Record of John Sidney McCain, III
Both John Sidney McCain, III's father and grandfather were Admirals in the United States Navy. McCain, III's father, Admiral John S. McCain, Jr. ("Junior") was Commander of the United States Forces in Europe --- and later, Commander of American Forces in Vietnam, while McCain, III was being held prisoner of war in Vietnam. McCain, III's grandfather, Admiral John S. McCain, Sr., was Commander of Naval Aviation at the Battle of Okinawa in 1945. Both McCain's father and grandfather attended the United States Naval Academy; hence, in 1958 McCain, III also attended the U.S. Naval Academy finishing near the bottom of his graduating class.
John S. McCain, III loses 5 U. S. Navy Aircraft
In 1958, U. S. Navy aircraft student-pilot McCain, III loses U.S. Navy Jet#1 when he plunged the Navy's airplane he was flying into Corpus Christi Bay during landing practice.
In 1960, two years later, Pilot McCain, III after deployment to the Mediterranean loses U. S. Navy Jet#2. McCain, while flying his Navy jet plane too low over the Iberian Peninsula, took out some power lines and totally lost another Navy airplane, which led to a spate of newspaper stories causing McCain, III to be identified as the "son of an admiral".
In 1965, Pilot McCain, III loses U. S. Navy Jet#3 while returning from a Navy trainer solo flight to Philadelphia, PA for an Army-Navy football game. McCain, III ejected the Navy jet plane after he radioed, "I've got a flameout"; the airplane crashed to the ground and was lost. McCain, III floated to a deserted beach.
July 29, 1967, now Combat Pilot McCain, III loses U. S. Navy Jet#4 account an inadvertently fired rocket. McCain, III was assigned to the USS Forrestal as an A-4 Skyhawk combat pilot; soon after his assignment while waiting his turn for takeoff, a rocket slammed into McCain, Jr.'s airplane. McCain escaped from the burning airplane, but the explosions that followed killed 134 sailors, destroyed at least 20 aircraft and threatened to sink the ship.
October 26, 1967, three months later, Combat Pilot McCain, III loses U. S. Navy Jet#5 after being struck by a North Vietnamese surface-to-air missile during his 23rd mission flight over North Vietnam. McCain, III ejected his jet's parachute breaking both of his arms and one of his legs, and subsequently landed in Truc Bach Lake near Hanoi. The North Vietnamese pulled McCain, III from the lake, bayonetted him in his left foot and shoulder, struck him with a rifle butt, and transported him to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the Hanoi Hilton.
The 1973 New York Daily News Labeled POW John McCain a "PW Songbird"
After four days of POW John McCain being denied medical treatment, slapped and threatened with death by the North Vietnamese communists who were demanding military information in exchange for medical treatment, McCain, III broke and told his interrogator, "OK, I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." --- U.S. News and World Report, May 14, 1973 article written by former POW John McCain. It was at this time the North Vietnamese communists learned that McCain, III's father was Admiral John S. McCain, the soon-to-be commander of all U.S. Forces in the Pacific. According to U.S. Government documents, after learning this information, the North Vietnamese rushed McCain, III to Gai Lam Military Hospital, a medical facility normally unavailable to United States "prisoners of war".
By November 9, 1967, according to U.S. Government documents, the North Vietnamese Hanoi Press was quoting McCain,III describing his mission, to include the number of aircraft in his flight, information about rescue ships and the order in which the United States' attacks would take place; so, in early December 1967, North Vietnamese doctors operated on POW McCain's leg.
Also, while POW John McCain was still in North Vietnam's Military Hospital recouperating from his collateral damage caused by the fractures, stabs, contusions and abrasions, POW John McCain gave an interview to the prominent French television reporter Francois Chalais for a television series titled, "Life in Hanoi", which Chalais aired on televisions all over Europe.
Six weeks after POW John McCain's Navy jet was shot down, McCain was taken from the North Vietnam Military Hospital and delivered to a United States POW camp, where in May 1968, POW McCain allowed himself to be interviewed twice at separate times by two North Vietnamese generals. --- May 14, 1973 article writen by former POW John McCain. Other United States POW's were not aware of John McCain being taken prisoner until August 1968, at which time the other POW's learned for the first time that John McCain, III, the "son of the Navy general" had been taken prisoner.
On June 5, 1969, the headlines reported in the New York Daily News was, "Reds Say PW Songbird is Pilot Son of Admiral, "... Hanoi has aired a broadcast in which the pilot son of United States Commander in the Pacific, Adm. John McCain, purportedly admits to having bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam and praises medical treatment he has received since being taken prisoner..." The Washington Post explained McCain, III's broadcast: "The English-Language broadcast beamed at South Vietnam was one of a series using American prisoners. It was in response to a plea by Defense Secretary Melvin S. Laird, May 19, that North Vietnam treat prisoners according to the humanitarian standards set forth by the Geneva Convention."
In 1970 POW McCain agreed to another interview, this time with Dr. Fernando Barral, a Spanish psychiatrist who was living in Cuba at the time, which Dr. Barral published directly in January 1970. According to a declassified government document, the meeting between Barral and POW McCain, photographed by the North Vietnamese, took place away from the prison, at the Office of the Committee for Foreign Cultural Relations in Hanoi. During the meeting, POW McCain sipped coffee and ate oranges and cakes with the Cuban; and while talking with Barral, POW McCain further seriously violated the Military Code of Conduct by failing to evade answering questions "to the utmost of his ability" when POW McCain, according to government documents, helped Barral by answering questions in Spanish, a language McCain, III had learned in school.
March 15, 1973 McCain, III Released By North Vietnam
In 1993, during one of John McCain, III's many trips back to Hanoi since March 15, 1973, McCain asked the Vietnamese NOT to make public any records that the North Vietnamese hold pertaining to returned United States Prisoners Of War, as McCain, III claims that while a POW, he tried to kill himself.
McCain, III, Son of 2 Famous Admirals Receives 28 Military Awards of Valor
John McCain, III was awarded "Medals For Valor" equal to nearly one and one-half medals for each hour spent in combat. For 23 combat missions, an estimated 20 hours over enemy territory, the United States Navy awarded McCain, III, the son and grandson of two famous admirals the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit for Valor, the Distinguished Flying Cross, 3 Bronze Stars, 2 Commendation Medals, 12 Service Medals, 2 Purple Hearts, and 6 more medals according to the following statement.
Bill Bell who is a veteran of the Vietnam War, a former Chief of the United States Office for POW/MIA Affairs, and the first Official United States Representative in Vietnam since the 1973 fall of Saigon explains, "McCain had roughly 20 hours in combat." And, Bell continues, "Since McCain got 28 medals, that equals to about a medal-and-a-half for each hour he spent in combat. There were infantry guys -- grunts on the ground -- who had more than 7,000 hours in combat, and I can tell you that there were times and situations where I'm sure a prison cell would have looked pretty good to them by comparison. The question really is how many guys got that number of medals for not being shot down."
For years, John S. McCain, III, former North Vietamese POW "Songbird" turned Congressman, turned U.S. Senator, and now turned Presidential Candidate has sang for the GOP who has glossed over the facts of their singer's low grades as a student, failure as a pilot, and collaborations with the enemy. Contrary to the GOP's media, John McCain, III is NO HERO. McCain, III has taken full advantage of the military prestige of his father and grandfather, which in no way makes McCain, III presidential any more than George W. Bush has been presidential, only another puppet for GOP control.
FACT SHEET information acquired from the following url:
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/mccain_post_card_word%5B...
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com
Kolea,
Are you suggesting that is worse to live in a artsy hippie ghetto, as you say, than a gated community? I'll choose the ghetto thank you very much.
Mr. Greenwald:
I have lauded and respected your writing and your positions for some time. I understand why you are frustrated by the Obama rightward lurch. I have, up until recently, also taken the "no prisoners" approach and argued the same points about the actual state of the American electorate. But I have to disagree with your assessment.
As a Chicagoan southsider, I know one thing for sure-- the people running Obama's campaign know a lot more about how to get him elected than you or I ever will. They may not be fire breathing radicals or even progressives in the same sense that I and perhaps you consider yourselves to be. But they are, right now, the last best chance we have to put a huge crack in the Establishment. And friend, a crack is all we could possibly hope for right now.
Remember, this is not 1932. The crisis is still not fully upon us and the time for radicalized politics is still at least a year or two away. The FISA bill (and the progressives' outcry against Obama's stand) is exactly what Obama needs to create an impression of national security bona fides. This may be the very key to winning the election (though I think he will win regardless). For that, I am willing to abide his rightward lurch and wait. Whatever hope we have of reversing the Unitary Executive really only starts with a willing executive, and that would be Barack.
Two things. First, there are plenty of surrogates, such as Sens. Dodd and Feingold, to mount the current attack. We don't need Obama to hurt himself electorally to fight this fight. Second, once Obama is elected, there will be a better opportunity to disrupt the destruction of the Constitution and fight back, only then with a sympathetic President.
All that said, it doesn't hurt for the Progressives to bitch and moan and push Obama back to the left. But in the end, you and I know that the only intelligent choice is to vote for Barack and work for his election. The alternative does not bear long contemplation.
Regards, your friend,
dood
Folks are pissed! Nader is your next president!
Kolea,
Politically you're right. But, some of us are tired of the same old politics. We are tired of the lying and deception and not knowing what motivates someones actions. Some of us are tired of having to second guess every move by our leaders. A vote for Nader means you are getting what you see. And someone who will work for the PEOPLE. We know that. Ego? Yes. Name one person in our administration who hasn't let their ego bring down our country during their watch. An Addington, a Cheney, a Bush, a Yoo, a Rumsfeld, Some of us want to go up. We're tired of being drug down into the depths of madness and ignorance and violence. We're tired of the one step forward, two steps back. Maybe we want real change and the truth. Imagine that. The truth. Obama is one of them. He's already cast his vote. I'm tired of playing chess. The world's problems don't demand it. They demand some honesty and guts. Nader has those qualifications. If the American people are slow to realize this, then we get what we deserve. But, you shouldn't be pontificating to those who want real, honest, educated, peaceful and compassionate change. Yes, I'm naive. I'll say it first. Somehow I don't think that necessary posits that I've abandoned my core principles. And you?
bnerin,
On spot. I couldn't agree with you more. But, we're all here typing away on our computers. An accident?
I have to support much of bnerin's analysis. But allow me to make a few points, and errors, of my own.
Voting for Nader is a lazy way to pretend you care passionately about social change. I am reminded of the young activist you said he was willing to die for the cause. An older woman looked to him and said, "Any fool can die for a cause. It is much harder to live and struggle every day."
The problems, limitations and equivocations of the Democrats are what you get with any mass, semi-democratic organization in a pluralist, corporate dominated nation. Especially in the absense of a mass mobilization of public opinion.
If there is a large-scale political movement sufficient to build a meaningful third party alternative, that same movement is capable of transforming the Democratic Party. If it looks like a formidable task, it is. But so is building any effective large-scale coalition of divergent social forces.
If you live in one of the artsy-hippie ghettoes that dot this country, there may be value in building the local Green Party as an alternative, especially if there is not a decent progressive wing of your local Democratic Party. But as soon as the Green Party gets big enough and powerful enough to be taken seriously, it will be invited to the table, where it can either compromise in order to win some of its agenda, or it will be ignored and unable to deliver on its promise to its supporters.
A small segment of the population is content with remaining in the "off-campus" white hippy ghetto and fearful of really being asked to take on responsibility for negotiating the competing demands between the unions, the ethnic communities, the low income, the environmentalists, small business, the need for jobs, the demands for both low taxes and good schools.
It is easy to remain virtuous when you are powerless and not invited to participate in those negotiations. The Greens in Germany were the "most successful" Green Party in the world. Once they became strong enough to become a player, they developed the same problems as other major political parties, especially once they entered government.
The German parliamentary system allowed for the growth of an alternative party because their system avoids the "spoiler" dilemma built into the US system. Some Nader supporters deny the "spoiler effect." Nader, in his more honest moments, has embraced the spoiler effect and made it the basis for his strategy. Either the Democrats adopt his positions, or he hopes to pull enough votes from them to throw the election to the Republicans. What happened in 2000 was not an "accident" of Nader's strategy. It was the fully predictable and conscious fulfillment of his strategy.
Greenwald is right that Obama's "tack to the center" strategy is bad politics. Obama's betrayal on the FISA bill is both unprincipled and damaging to Obama's "marketability" as a "candidate of change." I assume that Obama's people think he has such a secure lock on the Democratic and progressive base that he can afford to suck up to the telecom giants to win their support. They MAY be correct in making that assumption! Which may enrage some progressives into saying: "Don't take our votes for granted or we will vote for Nader!" And some will. But not enough to affect this election, because Ralph is thoroughly discredited to most progressives. Not because evil Democrats have been "badmouthing him." But because we learned the lesson of 2000 and Ralph's ego and delusions do not prevent him from willingly play a spoiler role this time IF given the chance.
The electoral options for progressives seeking to be effective this cycle are limited. I would urge support for those progressive Democratic challengers that have at least half a chance of winning. I think Nancy Pelosi's sins, especailly in deciding to take impeachment "off the table" are offensive enough that people should support Cindy Sheehan's challenge in San Francisco. If Cindy draws votes away and a Republican wins, so what? The Dems will have a big enough margin in Congress and Pelosi's leadership is replacable without putting the country at risk.
The presidential race is different. The differences between Obama and McCain are significant enough that a McCain victory would mean an embrace of the Bush policies, rather than a rejection. If the American people take ownership of a continuation of Bush's policies, the world will not respond positively. Even if Obama turns out to betray our hopes, at least the American people would have used the limited power they have, the vote, to TRY and turn this country away from the Bush model of world domination.
elderlady @ 4:48 PM nailed it, but I'll add this: the next president will nominate at least two Supreme Court justices. Metaphorically, do you want Russ Feingold or Rush Limbaugh? Yeah, I thought so.
Obama is the nominee. Let's get behind him and get him elected, then starting 1/20/09 we can hold his feet to the fire.
Until then, let's disband the Democratic circular firing squad.
peace coup, I know many probably dismiss what you said, I didn't. I think the Dalai Lama has had a huge influence on you. It just started recently, my daughter said, "Mom, try to say you are Pro-Peace not anti-war", yes I know its an Illegal Occupation not a war, but she was engaging me in conversation and asking questions about certain bills and legislation I may have talked about and the next day she said she had been reading many of the Dalai Lamas' books, his approach through his beliefs and change will happen.
I am tired, sick of all the shit. I suppose I'll try a new approach because anything would help at this point in this Nations demise.
Mr. Greenwald is entitled to his opinion. I am entitled to mine.
Senator Obama is to the left of Senator McCain on the War in Iraq.
Senator Obama is to the left of Senator McCain on health care.
Senator Obama is to the left of Senator McCain on education.
Senator Obama is to the left of Senator McCain on women's rights.
Senator Obama is to the left of Senator McCain on every issue discussed in this campaign --- if you discuss issues.
If you want to get sidetracked on other things, by all means -- do so. Whether he is far enough left, or too center, is, as far as I'm concerned, a non-issue. I'm a Democrat, he is my party's nominee.
I will vote for, and continue to support Senator Obama.
Because, I also am just to the left of the "center" that the previous poster (heav y runner) found.
heav y runner June 30th, 2008 4:20 pm
There is no such thing as the "Center."
Are you sure? I just looked around and sure enough, I'm just to the left of it.
If there were no center as you say, where would most people be?
realitychecker,
If progressives vote for 3rd parties is not to show the GOP, is to show the Democrats that their agenda is as bad as Republicans. You are assumming that they are better and actually both parties are wrong.
Besides, isn't this a free country where people should be able to vote for whoever they want? And how voting for a 3rd party is not organizing from the bottom up?
Anyway, I hope McCain wins maybe that way Americans will finally movilize and take their country back.
There is no such thing as the "Center."
Please read Vincent Bugliosi's book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder."
Fantastic summation by Greenwald, who's led this issue to the forefront where it belongs. I love the correction that's been made: Obama isn't moving to the center, he's moving to the right, where the political framework benefits the Republicans.
Kerry did do the same things, as I wrote in my blog entry on Saturday. Why Democrats remain committed to making the same mistakes they have in the past is a mystery to me.
I liked the comments above as well. Obama might be scared of offending the Zionist/coporate media if he looks too soft on terror, which has come to mean "soft on Israel's enemies, especially those with oil they want to sell in Euros."
bnerin is right on track with the role of money and corporations in the electoral process. We need to get busy educate the American people about what has been done to them, and above all get them to vote. Yes, Obama is an imperfect choice, but we have to do what we have to do. This doesn't mean we can allow his advisers to formulate his platform based on a corporate, interventionist, and anti-Constitutional foundation.
bnerin (2.05 pm) -- I also agree with your points. I will probably vote for Nader.
RichM June 30th, 2008 12:40 pm
I agree with a fair amount of what Greenwald says here, but the following sentence from the article seems to literally tower above the rest of the piece. It should be in triple bold-face, if there were such a thing:
"…The Democrats had such a smashing victory in 2006 because — for the first time in a long time, and really despite themselves — there was a perception (rightly or wrongly) that they actually stood for something different than the GOP in National Security (an end to the War in Iraq)…."
I'm with RichM on this part.
Its pretty simple though, "The Baseless, and Failed, 'Move to the Center' Cliche" title is wrong. The cliche is probably right. The reason I'd say so is because the vast majority of people are in the center or close to it on either side.
Extremist can't win unless they can fool people into thinking they are near the center as GWB did.
Rich Griffin wrote- "Incrementalists: I'm so tired of hearing every four years how it's not time to rock the boat, the upset the status quo."
Speaking for myself, I am not telling you not to rock the boat, I am simply stating you CANNOT rock the boat. You can't do it. All this talk of "Well, if everyone that believes in A, B and C voted for Nader he would win" is fatally flawed since there are simply not enough Americans who are even willing to consider voting for a 3rd party. Leaving aside for the moment whether they even agree with Nader, McKinney or Barr. There are not enough people that even understand why you shouldn't vote for R's or D's. It can't happen through national elections. A vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote.
Look after 2000, you could make the case that Nader voters rocked the boat and helped a Democrat lose an election they should have never lost. But what did that produce? A Dem Party that would never again ignore Progressive voters? No, the exact opposite. They now look at Progressives as more of an enemy than the mouth-breathers on the rabid right. They vilify Nader at every chance. They will not take you or I seriously until we can defeat them with our own candidates.
It's amazing to me how you guys seem to understand that there is little difference between the 2 coroporate parties- you understand that electing Democrats makes little difference because they vote for Bush policies- you understand that the Dems are not spineless or gutless but rather part of the problem. Yet your strategy is to vote Green so that the GOP wins. Yeah that will show them. Instead of the moderately liberal social candidate that is pro Big Business we'll show them by electing regressive social candidates that are big business.
If you simply follow your own logic you will see that electing Republicans instead of Democrats is no threat at all to these people.
If you want to change the system you have to beat the supposed "liberal" party with actual liberal candidates. Protest voting may be good for your ego but it is not helping the human race or even your local community. We must build an orginization from the bottom up- not from the President down. This should be self-evident. But sadly it is not.
bnerin (2:05 pm) -- Thank you for that excellent post. // I agree on virtually all points.
People must start thinking in terms of strikes, sit-ins, & civil disobedience. If the best the citizenry can do is to fall in line behind the latest corporate Democrat, there is simply no hope for this country.
We need to do our part to create a society that is ready for a truly progressive government.
It is largely about framing the issues.
We lose when we call the monopoly media the mainsteam media.
We lose when we call global warming climate change.
We lose when we talk about war and terrorism instead of focusing on the goal of world peace.
We lose when we allow war to be seen as strong and peace as weak.
Peace is the best strategy for long-term prosperity and security.
Peace is active not passive.
Peace is strong not weak.
It is time for us to win...
...not by default because Bush was so bad, but because we convince Americans that our positions are legitimate, efficient, and justified.
The first thing we need to do is decrease the staus and power of the monopoly media. Americans are spending more time online. We need to make sure they have places to go where progressive ideas are being discussed and shared in an open and positive way.
Obama doesn't seem to get it that much of his current constituency would prefer voting third party and letting McCain in, to supporting someone who from the get-go shows he can't be trusted to keep his word.
If Obama is not moving to the center he must be moving to nowhere.
The problem with Obama is that nobody (except maybe Obama himself, his wife and his advisors) knows what he really believes in - he's truly an enigma wrapped in a mystery. Does he vote the way he does because he believes it's the right result? Or a necessary "compromise"? Or does he vote that way to appear less "liberal"?
David Sirota reminds us of what Obama told him in an interview two years ago:
"I want to point out that Barack Obama told me that progressive activists should judge him explicitly by what he does -- and not come up with wild theories that absolve him. Here's the money quote from my article on him in The Nation two years ago:
'You should always assume that when I cast a vote or make a statement it is because it is what I believe in,' Obama said.
So by Obama's own admission, when he casts, say, an anti-progressive vote on civil liberties, we shouldn't whip up wild fantasies about him supposedly doing it because he actually is progressive on civil liberties. We should believe that he is, in fact, anti-progressive on civil liberties. That is, we should judge him on his actions."
-- excerpted from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/reminder-obama-told-us-to_b_1...
I'm tired of trying to figure out who the real Obama is. And by the way, screw the Democratic Party.
Murphy is my rep from CT, and I voted for him. He's one of the few dems in congress that is true to their word about standing up to Bush.
Notice how the Republicans have to threaten people in order to get their points accross.
Gore was so awful he didnt even contest the stolen election and the black voters stopped form voting.
Carlin was right. Politicians are just a reflection of society. garbage in, garbage out.
Glenn, excellent, excellent, analysis of a truth that Nader discovered in his 2000 campaign; that the 'majoritarian' position of average Americans is far more liberal, progressive, populist, and bravely confrontive of tyranny than these corporatist media arse-wipes and shills will even allow to be whispered about in the lying MSM.
We are on the verge of a real revolution in American politics --- and the ruling-elite 'corporatist Empire' hiding behind this two-party, 'Vichy' facade of a phony government is scared shitless that we will figure it out and shit-can them all.
curmudgeon wrote:
"A nice compromise would be to draft Gore and dump Obama."
Why do that? Is your memory that poor?
In 2000, Gore was the very model of the spinelessness and wimpy cowarice. He stood for absolutely nothing - or his stands ended up being to the right of Bush.
This shift to the so-called "center" as an election strategy has been disaterous for practically every Democrat that has tried it. Yet they keep doing it anyway. They move to the "center" even when the public is absolutely primed for a forceful, well-argued, pro-worker, progressive agenda.
And even Dukaikas didn't lose because of his political position, he lost because he didn't forcefully stand by his positions - the model of the day, you recall, being the wimpy Hollywood liberal style of Alan Alda.
Kevin Phillips' 2004 book "American Dynasty," which focuses on the Bush criminals but which also provides a fascinating account of the birth and growth of the military-industrial complex and of the history of Washington-Wall Street cronyism, details the depth of the corruption of the US political system. And we see Obama's evolution as a predictable continuation of that decadence.
Just returning from a month-long trip to China, one of many I have taken over the years, I cannot help but believe the Chinese government serves its citizens, on the whole, better than the US government serves its citizens. Which means the US Constitution and "representative form of government" amount to a big fat zero, providing no value to the average citizen whatsoever.
Voting Nader or third party ain't gonna "git her done." The real answers are painful, so painful that most on CD would never consider them.
Obama is turning into the chicken-shit that John Kerry turned into. Instead of listening to the voters that gave him the nomination he is now listening to a group of belt-way imbeciles who are giving him this great advice. He deserves to loose, as Kerry did, if he is going to be this much of a mamby-pamby spinless piece of dung.
I agree with a fair amount of what Greenwald says here, but the following sentence from the article seems to literally tower above the rest of the piece. It should be in triple bold-face, if there were such a thing:
"...The Democrats had such a smashing victory in 2006 because — for the first time in a long time, and really despite themselves — there was a perception (rightly or wrongly) that they actually stood for something different than the GOP in National Security (an end to the War in Iraq)...."
- And as we know, this percerption could not possibly have been more wrong. That one fact is more important than the rest of the theorizing, which has the tone of wishful thinking along the lines of "Wouldn't it be nice if the Democrats stood for something, & also had the guts to fight for it?" The problem is that they don't stand for anything, and even if they did, they don't have the guts to fight for it -- as we can all see in Obama's disgusting "move to the center," and in the Coward-o-crats' approving both the continued occupation funding, and the FISA disaster, 10 days ago. (Not to mention Hersh's revelations that they also approved Bush's secret finding for covert ops in Iran, & are on the verge of approving a naval blockade against Iran.)
All the major "issues" are off the table because those issues interfere with Master's wealth, power, and private law over us and Master owns America. Owners always make the real decisions. The peasants can decide how to do "something" as long as it isn't important. Nothing substantive of course. Cannot be allowed. America didn't murder all those voices for economic and social justice for nothing. Master didn't want those issues to even be spoken, and they won't be. Perfect storm.
Let's hear it for everything that's "OFF THE TABLE".
This article perpetuates the false belief that we must choose between these two parties only. If enough of us true progressives voted only for true progressives we could show that we can not be taken for granted; that progressive issues matter; that accountability matters. It's time to vote for other parties IN EVERY SINGLE ELECTION! It's time to start running for all offices.
Incrementalists: I'm so tired of hearing every four years how it's not time to rock the boat, the upset the status quo. The time is past the point of no returning! The TIME IS NOW!!! As far as I'm concerned, voting for ANY "third" (alternative) parties is a good thing (for now). I hope we use the Progressive Party of Vermont as a model for a national party that would combine the Green (or Green-Rainbow) party with other progressive parties into one cohesive party. But for now, It's time to start electing alternatives in smaller offices in a concerted effort. I'm volunteering for Green and other independent candidates this year. Let's start to pull together and create REAL CHANGE!!!
I strongly urge that everyone, and I mean everyone, votes for someone other than McCain or Obama in November!!
A nice compromise would be to draft Gore and dump Obama.
Nah - makes too much sense.
Also the corporate fascists who are paying Obama would not stand by idly and allow their can't loseObama vs. McCain) go bye-bye.
Vote Nader!
Vote Nader!
Vote Nader!
Naturally, Obama will tack to the right center. What else could we expect?
Obama is a realist and knows that big money and most corporations own the two Parties, therefore he cannot offend either the Democratic Party or the owners of the Party. If he offends big money and corporations, they will turn their powerful mass media operations against him and delude the population as to how dangerous Obama is.
If the propaganda mills could convince some 60 to 80% of the country that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was connected to 9/11 and 90% of our military in Iraq that Hussein was connected to 9/11, th