What Samson said. None of them are fit to govern. The People must find a way to start again.

Thing is, the people shouldn't have to raise hell in order to get Obama to do right by the people. He's a smart man. He knows that his centrism isn't beneficial. Politicians should have the best interests of the people in mind and at heart. Obama shouldn't have to ask the people, "Well what do ya want me to do?" The things he needs to do are right there sitting on front of him. He should already know. Just because people aren't picketing his house doesn't mean that there isn't something wrong.

I'm not saying that we should sit on our asses. We have to demand that he stop being a chameleon. But shit, we shouldn't have to cajole this guy. What's the point in electing anyone then?

No, it's not the man. It's the system and those who benefit from it. Obama's just a guy who's bidding on a job. And I think that's all he wants, a job, a title, and a place in history. He wants to drive the bus for a while.

Of those who have the best chance of winning, Obama's the correct candidate. If only we had a Kucinich, a McKinney, or a Nader in there though. I can't help but pine for that, especially with the mediocre at best choices we have been given. I wish a genie would give me a trillion dollars so could give it to the Green Party or make McKinney look like Beyonce and Nader or Kucinich look like George Clooney with the mic skills of Muhammed Ali.

I'm SO sick of having to settle.

I love that the "movement" is getting restless. All of the people who fawned over Obama's speech-reading ability and metrosexual looks are now getting slapped in the face with the details of his campaign, which they never required knowledge of prior to proclaiming their support, how odd. He has ruined the Dem party. This should have been an easy win for the Dems, and Obama has ruined it.

I don't think there's anyone who has done more for the American people than Ralph Nader, and he deserves great respect, but I'm disappointed that he has chosen to run as an independent for reasons dcb and others have stated. I'd like to see him consider running as Cynthia McKinley's VP, but that's not to be expected for a variety of reasons, mainly because it would require a degree of selflessness seldom encountered outside of Buddhist monasteries, by a man who has always led whatever projects he has been involved with. Ok, so it's a fantasy, but dammit those two would make a terrific ticket, her youthful fire and his proven wisdom and drive. And we'd never have to worry that they might have flip-flopped on the issues as we slept.

Nannie:

No. I created another username some months back when the bonehead "left" gatekeepers at this site banned me for having arguments to the effect that Ron Paul was the way to go, with links to articles from Alex Jones' PrisonPlanet site. I stopped participating because there was an editorial effort here to get everyone behind John Edwards, and now it's Obama, although the bankruptcy of their position is more obvious now, so they are letting in more dissent. My post was rejected today 3x for some software glitch at this site that I was suspicious of. So I logged in as "rhizome." But now I see comments are going through for "dcb," so I guess there is no problem.

Go ahead, support Ralph. I've voted for him in every election he's been on the ballot. I just don't think I will do it this time. I give $20 automatically every month to the Greens, and write and call people when I can. It's still a free country. But that won't be the case when the neocon/fascists carry out their next false flag attack. Dirty nuke in Chicago, anyone, blamed on more cocaine snorting CIA assets posing as radical muslims?

dcb July 5th, 2008 10:36 am
rhizome July 5th, 2008 10:42 am

hah! I saw the flub. Erased the message cause it was already posted by the other . got your assignments mixed up???
Your attacks on Nader won't work. Go back and tell that to your head of operations. what a bunch. The Greens and Nader have no problems. When Ralph Nader is President they will cheer like the rest of us.

.

Nannie,

Why can't Ralph join McKiinney's team as an advisor or manager? Ralph has been an outsider all his life. McKinney's actually been there in Congress. I think Ralph is an egotist. He's a fantastic philosopher and political scientist; but as movement builder he is much weaker, IMO. What is wrong with the Greens? Progressives need to close ranks and support a real third party MOVEMENT. Grandstanding and seeking the limelight are not what we want right now. Have you heard Ralph's comments RE the excessive whiteness of Obama's campaign? That's intended to turn off swing voters, who will then go to McCain. Ralph has NOTHING to offer the presidential race that the Greens aren't already delivering. I understand that we all owe much to Ralph's advocacy over the years. But his chosen role at this time is a mistaken one, IMO. He needs to get his big fat ego the hell out of the way. McKinney is the real deal, and the Greens, as a whole, even more so. I hate the Nation Magazine -- but they are right about Ralph -- he's a spoiler. If the Greens weren't as worthy of support as they are, my tune about Ralph would change. He is incapable of playing a subordinate role, hence his candidacy. This is a flaw.

.

"The only vote that's wasted is a vote for someone you don't believe in," Nader said, at the University of Hawaii-Manoa campus
July 3,2008

.

To--- dcb--- July 5th, 2008 1:26 am

I hope people don't believe the smear you just wrote. Please take those tactics back to your Democrat blogs and tell people it won't work on Common Dreams. Spewing lies about Ralph Nader will get you no place here. You may not like Nader's message but then vote for who you do like in Nov.

Everything you wrote was a LIE. SHAME ON YOU.

.

skepticism July 3rd, 2008 1:48 pm : "Nader is not a third party. He is more of a "messiah" figure than Obama will ever be. Nader is an independent voice accountable to no party, to no movement. His voice is important but it does nothing to further a progressive movement or a left third party to vote for this particular messiah.
The alternative to Obama is to get out and do the nasty, gritty, dirty work of trying to build a third party. The only viable left party in this country is the Green party. If you don't want to throw in with Obama and the possibilities there, then get out and build the Green Party."

I agree with skepticism and doodledoo's comment above RE the need to support a third party MOVEMENT. Nader is a distraction now. Get behind the Greens. McKinney is awesome. She is for an independent investigation into 9/11, and against the war machine gone mad in the US. Go to the Green Party USA website and read their platform. It's amazingly comprehensive. Nader has NOTHING to offer the presidential race at this point, but to further split and divide the left in the furtherance of another victory for fascism. Obama is a corporate sellout. I read that Nader's campaign manager is a member of Skull and Bones, just like W and Kerry. Same old CFR new world order agenda. There is an insidiousness there that is absent from the Green Party. Can't you see it in the drained demeanor of Nader's? Neither his speaking nor his presence are half as convincing as they were 10 years ago. He's slipped over into the dark side, being controlled by the same puppet masters that are behind Cheney.

hedology July 4th, 2008 8:16 am wrote:

"Democrats and Republicans alike are so elitist, and so far out of touch with USA public, and have gotten so comfortable inside their pig troughs, it would be wise to vote massively for Ralph Nader, for real and not zilch change."

But Ralph is a finite being and an icon without state and local representation. The Greens, on the other hand, have a few hundred state and local representatives now in office, good state recognition, and the guarantee of continuity it any one person leaves their ranks. They are the present leaders of the US left. Ralph's best contribution would be to throw his support to Cynthia McKinney. If all progressives did that, we'd finally have a cohesive movement.

----

gutprobe08 July 4th, 2008 4:00 am

Right on. A really well thought out piece. Excellent food for thought.

----

Freddy, don't despair. Why not vote Green? If everyone who felt as you do did so, Cynthia McKinney would reign.

How many times do some liberals have to see the two-party's good-cop/bad-cop routine performed before they will realize that a vote for the good-cop is a vote for more of the same old hot, wet, packaged barnyard fertilizer, always and forever, world without end, Amen. A question for those who do not believe that: what would be a good year to vote for someone we really like?

Our masters will always present us with an undisguised wolf candidate and an opposing wolf candidate in a sheep suit, the only difference between the two being, the wolf in the sheep suit will be slightly less barbaric while thoroughly screwing us over if elected.

First they laughed at Nader, now they ridicule him; it is time to vote Nader into the White House so that the ruling elite will fear him and the common man.

andrews July 4th, 2008 11:43 am
ardee- I hope you didn't think I was stabbing Nader in the back, I just don't think he can get elected. Nader is a change agent, and I admire his passion, and we need him. I could be wrong, maybe he can be elected, but I don't think that movement can build enough consensus - i hope I'm proven wrong.

Andrews,

I was not attacking an individual with my post but a concept that one can continue to repeat the same mistake, over and again, and expect a differing outcome. Many will excuse Obama's rightward shift as "politics as usual" and ignore the teachings of history that clearly show no corresponding swing back to the left after being elected. Both major parties are doing the bidding of those who pay for that priviledge, the large campaign donors who have the ears of both sides of the aisle. Only by refusing to participate in a sham by voting fpor centrists and globalists can we hope to make a dent in the status quo.

I do not vote for Ralph Nader in the hopes that he can win, he certainly cannot, though, were he included in the debate process you might see a surprising swing towards him. No, I vote for Nader, not onlybecause he best represents my vision of rthis nation, but to show the Duopoly that runs this nation that an increasing number of us are disatisfied

Two reasons for progressives not to sit out this election:

1. Regardless of your take on voting this time, the elections provide an opportunity to talk with your neigbors, co-workers and people in your organizations about the issues YOU think are important. It is a good time to find out what they are thinking. Try saying what you say in cyberspace with live humans and see how it flies. (Suggest not using the word "sheeple" in the first sentence.) Listen to what they say. They are paying some attention for the first time. It is a good opportunity to sharpen one's ability to communicate and to influence other people.

2. You can vote as you wish, even go to the booth and vote for nobody. I have done that. But doing nothing registers worse than zero on the Richter scale. It is a signal that the voters are apathetic, which is excellent news for those who want to stifle and kill democracy.

BTW - If you can catch Democracy Now's Fourth of July program with different actors reading excerpts from Howard Zinn, check it out. Need some inspiration sometimes. Malcolm X's wise and funny speech is particularly pertinent to this election. "It's not the man, it's the movement." Thank you Amy.

Little Brother July 3rd, 2008 5:53 pm

Think away.....

Freddy July 3rd, 2008 11:14 pm

I know exactly what you mean. But don't desert us now. Better to have the closest to the mark than nothing. Vote for the Candidate, not the Party....everytime. I'd vote for Jim Webb everytime and he served as a Republican.

Who cares what they call themselves as long as they come as close as possible to your agenda. There are some here that want all or nothing and they can be assured they will get nothing. At our age we know better.

Don't desert us now!

rdnewhard July 4th, 2008 12:35 am

Great post, please speak up more sir, we can use all the wisdom we can find.

P.S. Daniel David...someone just came in and offered me a beer, I refused in honor of your complaints about Amnesty John. Wine instead. My tribute to you for the 4th!

May God Bless America and all who serve her. May all of you and your families have a happy and safe weekend holiday.

The last sentence is what needs to be done. The first sentence, however, presumes the existence of a "creator". There is no creator. The founding fathers were not so self-evident when they said "that all men are created equal". They excepted black people who they owned as slaves and women who were left out of the process and voting till the 1920s.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

"Thank you Amy! To all those who say they are not voting or voting for Nader, you are simply stepping aside and letting others choose the political leadership of the most powerful country in the world at this time of extreme peril." This is nonsense. It ignores the reality that is the electoral college. As an example, here in Vermont where Obama received one of his largest margins of victory, it is guaranteed that Obama will win the state in November. How is my vote or not voting (actually voting for none of the above)going to change that? It is not. The idea is to give Nader (and other non Dem/Repub candidates) the most amount of votes in building a counter vote to the status quo. That can be done by vote-pairing, i.e., I vote for Nader and I get a right wing friend or family member to vote for say Bill Barr, or anyone other than McCain. Simple as that. It doesn't affect the outcome of the general election and allows me to vote my conscience, which by the way, is a good thing, and build third parties. For more info on vote pairing see: http://www.votepair.org/ Run Ralph. Run!
_
Speaking of affecting the election, there is too much acceptance of the "a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain" nonsense. And the, "we can't have McCain" mindset. As previous posters have stated, it doesn't matter. The Dems in Congress have shown over the past 8 years that there is little difference between them and Republicans. And Obama is confirming that every day now. Perhaps, in the near future he will start wearing two U.S. flag pins to go along with the 1/2 dozen or more that he stands in front of? It is a sign of personal, political and national insecurity.

"Don't be part of drowning it in darkness."

I'm afraid we're more than halfway to the bottom of that ocean already.

There's a line of bull that I'm getting sick of hearing. Its the "we'll hold Obama's feet to the fire" line of bull.

First, how's that working with the Democratic Congress? If electing Democrats means we can then pressure them to get what we want, then we should be seeing this working already, right? So, how's defunding the war coming along? Have you been able to "hold the Democrats feet to the fire" and make them end the war? Or maybe impeachment, how's that coming along? Have you been able yet to "hold the Democrats feet to the fire" and get impeachment yet?

Or, this bit about the Telecom bill is a good example to watch. But not a perfect one because Obama can still switch his stance again and the telecoms that have put $270,000 into his accounts can still get what they want. We'd only really know where he really stands if it comes down to a one vote margin in the Senate and he has to decide. But still, its an interesting case study. Using the networking tools on Obama's own websites, can progressives 'hold Obama's feet to the fire' and get him to help stop an awful bill that gives away our rights but means big bucks to his big contributors.

What I'm trying to point out is the realities of power in America today. As a citizen, we get exactly one chance to 'hold a politicians feet to the fire'. That's on election day. That's the one day every four years you get a 'vote' in what's going on in this country. Every other day for the next four years, the politicians listen to the people who put six figure contributions into their accounts. Heck, you'll never get in the door to even talk to a President Obama. Exactly how are you going to pressure him? Exactly how are you going to 'hold his feet to the fire'.

You get one say in things every four years. That's when you still get a vote. If you give away your vote, you get nothing. That's what the Democrats are trying to con you into. Give away your vote and vote for their candidate chosen to represent their contributors' interests. Give away your vote and vote for their candidate that doesn't give a damn about by your interests. Its all a con to get from you the one thing that you have that they need ... your vote.

If Obama is going to 'distance himself' from what we believe, then we should 'distance ourselves' from Obama.

ardee- I hope you didn't think I was stabbing Nader in the back, I just don't think he can get elected. Nader is a change agent, and I admire his passion, and we need him. I could be wrong, maybe he can be elected, but I don't think that movement can build enough consensus - i hope I'm proven wrong.

I've traveled to Chile a couple times, and was surprised to hear their citizens talk about Pinochet. One older gentleman told me during the 60's era, the US was going through it's transformation, leaning more to the left, and France had even more change, but Chile was farthest of them all. He said "people were entertaining all these ideas, but nobody was working, the country was in dire straits, and Pinochet put the country to work". This guy was a conservative, but I thought it was interesting.

Sometimes the progressive forums remind me of what this guy from Chile said "lots of ideas", but not enough organization. That's why I liked what Mike B had to say, but still think it could be a challenge.

I've worked in corporate America and watched over the last 10 years where they've made investments to track metrics (revenue, cost, margin, units, etc.). It's been an interesting evolution, not easy, and definitely focused more on profits, obviously.

But we could learn something from what the corporations do, by what is measured across a large number of people. I haven't seen too many comments about Ross Perot's recent charts. Whether or not you agree with what he is measuring, the presentation is impressive. http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/

I wondered if the progressives could ever launch something like this, with a holistic view, and add more things to be measured, so all types could see it, whether its % of population in prisons, dollars spent on war on drugs, etc. This is no simple task and takes time, but hopefully this will help spark ideas from people more informed than I am.

Keep the posts going, but think about how to improve the communication of your ideas at the same time.

PROGRESSIVES HAVE NO BALLS

Sorry to be so rude but someone has to say it. For decades now the Democratic Party, its Progressive wing, its Black Caucus, its elected Representatives and Senators have brayed the liberal line. But, every single time it came to action they waffled, wavered, and fell back.

One may ascribe this to what ever reasons preferred, complicity, cowardice, pandering to the large donors, political realism, an effort to be bipartisan, whatever! The end result is exactly the same, a victory for the radical right. Barack Obama is no different from any of them and his stance on FISA is simply his truth revealed. He is, by his own admission a centrist and a globalist, and his idea of fixing NAFTA will not coincide with the progressives wishes for that treaty that has eroded the position of the American worker.

As to those who attack Ralph Nader, who try to shift the debate from Obama's infidelities to those who gave him the nomination, well, nice try, and you seem to have learned well from Karl Rove, congratulations.

The only hope for the progressive movement in this nation, in fact the only hope to stop the creeping ( galloping?) fascism that extends its tentacles into our legislative process is the growth of third party politics pledged to shun the corporate money that controls our governance today.

When the American voter rejects the quick fix as illustrated by those who say that voting for such as Nader or McKinney simply makes it likely that McCain will win I say ...so? Voting for a candidate who immediately shows his true colors after tricking everyone to vote for him is to elect McCain's twin. McCain wants to stay in Iraq, Obama wants to wage war in Pakistan...big difference, I see dead people. Reject the so-called quick fix and consentrate on REAL solutions, and accept that those take more time to effect. Wake the hell up and reject both major political parties as irrelevent to the goals of progressive voters.

"You can recognise a pioneer by the arrows in his back." Beverly Rubik

" All truth passes through three stages; First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

Sounds viable to me ~MIKE B~

IT'S ALL ABOUT ORGANIZATION

This is the only way progressives can hold Obama's and the Democrats' feet to the fire, and at the same time, create a viable third party, the Green Party, and make the progressive voice heard. It would take a massive amount of organizing and cooperation, but it could be done, and I would love to be able to vote for progressive people like Cynthia McKinney and even Ralph Nader knowing that my vote was not putting Bush III in the White House.

First of all you would have to organize all the progressive outlets on a common thread and around a common mission. By progressive outlets I mean websites, news sources, blogs, radio and podcasts, and print media. I'm talking about MoveOn, CommonDreams, TruthOut, BuzzFlash, DailyKos, HuffPost, AirAmerica, NovaM, DemocracyNow, The Nation, Mother Jones and all the rest! I'm talking about an Internet Progressive Revolution here! This can't be done on a piecemeal basis!

And here is the mission -
Get every single progressive Democratic voter to change their registration from Democrat to Green. Even if we got eveyone to do this, we would not have enough to win an election, so they can, and still should, vote Democratic in November, but we would be well positioned to make demands on the new Democratic power structure by threatening them with mass losses in the 2010 elections for the House and Senate, as the entire House stands for re-election every two years, along with one third of the Senate.

By 2010, we could make the Green Party a viable alternative if threats are not enough, and should we still need it. I would hope that we don't need it, as the time available to make a course correction to save this country, and this world, is growing very, very short. We are in that proverbial quandary of an irresistable force on a collision course with an immovable object, and it ain't gonna be pretty! The perfect storm of financial and economic failure, war without end, global warming, peak oil, food shortages, water shortages, resource depletion and dying oceans is bearing down on us at breakneck speed and the ship's crew is asleep-at-the-helm!

Mike B. in SC

I didn't say anythng bad about AMY here ~DOGFACE~. I said I have always admired her and I always have and still do, she's super and I'm very aware of her history.

I don't happen to agree with her hedging on this article, but I understand it. I'm not a ~YES MAN~ personality type and several other people have disagreed with Amy on this one ~HOGFACE~. You knit picking names to chide here? ____ Well yes, you are, get your pooper scooper out and do it up right. Woof -woof.

BTW ~DogFace~, I don't agree with what the Pissant posted however.

Robert Newhard - thank you for sharing, and speaking up.

I would love to see common sense policies from Nader, Ron Paul, Dennis K, etc., but I don't think they can get elected. I'm guessing anyone who gets elected as president has to pay respects to the different power centers, like the Cuban's in Miami, Jewish lobbyists in NY area, all down the line. I don't know for sure, but it makes sense.

Maybe Amy did hob-knob with folks that people don't agree with in Aspen. However, I don't think we can separate ourselves from anyone we disagree with, and still wish to make changes for the better. There's definitely a risk of us becoming more compromised, especially when incomes are so inter-dependent. But I won't ever agree with separating ourselves, even from exploiters. Didn't Ghandi try to influence the British by shaming them?

It would be great if Obama gets elected and becomes a Trojan horse for the progressives, but we've had too many pipe dreams lately. I hope the folks who post on common dreams, who are fed up, angry, and much more informed, keep growing and learning how to influence more people, raise awareness, even outside of this forum. That feels more American to me, or at least how I grew up. The sharing of information on the Solar posting yesterday was inspiring / energizing.

Authority figures or television shows can attempt to tell us what is patriotic, or what is American, but it's not genuine influence, or genuine power. We don't need the "brand" of Obama, or "US" to point to hope. If Obama says things like "this is our time", or whatever it is, let's take that and run with it ourselves.

To Nanny: Yes, you are right. Nader has always brought those issues to the attention of the public.

Freddy: Me too.

To KEM PATRICK and Pissant:

Get down on your knees and thank god that there are people like Amy Goodman out there. It is NOT up to her to fix things for us. She does her marvelous and dangerous work by bringing the unheard and the under reported stories, with painful detail, to the ill informed of this country. It is then OUR responsibility as citizens of this country, and to each other to do something about it.

Amy has paid her dues in bringing the light to the darkest places of this earth. What amazes me is that she is still alive and is still trying to expose the truth. If you knew more about her history, you could not say what you have said about her. Do not take my word for it. Just find her story and see how many times she put herself in harm's way to get to the truth. She is not an embedded caricature of our lazy and timid media.

To Rdnewhard: Me too. I do not have all the time in the world waiting for the people of this country to demand, that which is theirs – A-JUST-SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.

Our form of government has taken a few hundred years to build. Sometimes human kind cannot grasp the meaning or passage of time and they cannot equate it with the length of their own immortality. We are just blips on the scales of time.

Government is a structure. It is neither good nor bad. It is like a hammer. You can use it to build or to destroy. It depends on who is managing it whether it will be used wisely or not.

IT IS THE PEOPLE'S DUTY TO INFORM THEIR REPRESENTATIVES HOW THEY WISH THEIR GOVERNMENT TO BE RUN. We do not do this by remaining in our armchairs.

Government is a delivery system and to tear it down would wreak havoc on this society for years to come. And that my dears, is something you do not want to witness.

No one takes notice of you until you start talking very loud.

I'm with you ~Jim~ the Supreme Court is priority one.

liveinthenow July 4th, 2008 10:01 am asks - "Who are these idiot "undecideds?"

Many many many many of them are people who see two obvious choices both of which they find unappealing or unacceptable. Like someone who doen't like Bud and doesn't like Miller in a bar that only serves the two. Why even bother to drink? Why even bother to vote?

Remember, please, that there are enough Americans out there who won't even bother to vote, to sweep someone into power who isn't Obama/McBush (Bud/Miller).

What makes them idiots, in my humble opinion, is not that they can't form a preference for the two obvious choices, but that they feel like there's no sense in backing someone else, because there is no sense in backing someone unless they're fairly sure that that someone will be a winner.

The self-fulfilling prophecy of the idiots, I dare say.

Who are these idiot "undecideds? How can anyone who has lived through the last 8 years not know where they stand and what they believe in? I remember in 2000 just after the Gore/Bush debate a roomful of these imbeciles were being interviewed. They all seemed just so stupid and wishy-washy. If I were so dim-witted that I couldn't make up my mind so late in the game, I would be too embarrassed to admit it on national tv - and would keep my mouth shut! Why are we letting these "scarecrow-brains" tip our elections every time!

Maybe I'm just jealous because Obama is "courting" them instead of me- a true-blue liberal and proud of it. I'm not calling the real conservatives stupid- most of my own family are republicans- but they have their reasons. They know why they vote the way they do and don't waver back and forth.

If Obama leans so far to the right in an effort to get my conservative mother's vote, he will surely loose mine and not get hers anyway. Why should she vote for a fake? And as far as the idiot undecideds go, who knows what they'll do come election day. If there is something good on tv, they might just stay home anyway-if they can make up their minds what to watch!

I'm with you, Agi.

Did Satan ever come as a woman?

I supported Nader in 2000 and 2004. I am supporting Obama in 2008. The stakes are too high this time. We are one justice away from a far right SCOTUS. If McCain wins, the court will certainly begin rewriting the Constitution. For me, at least, this one reason alone is enough to support the Democrats in this cycle no matter what Obama stands for. Small steps.

http://politicjock.blogspot.com/

OK, Illegal Drugs!

Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.

Run for your lives!

Obama is killing us and making us slaves while the neo cons have invaded this site!

So what transformational movement delivers change without lip service?

Democrats and Republicans alike are so elitist, and so far out of touch with USA public, and have gotten so comfortable inside their pig troughs, it would be wise to vote massively for Ralph Nader, for real and not zilch change.

I think some neocon agents infiltrated this site overnight.

Besides if he did, he lose another 15-20 percent of those who recognize that lessor evilism does not serve them any longer, and join a true transformational movement seeking authentic change and repudiating those who pay lip serve to change but never deliver it like Obama and his handlers.

Obama will never appear in the same forum as Nader to debate the issues: he does not have the backbone for it.

The movement? Isn't it time the US stopped looking for self-appointed messiahs and starting forming a genuine left? "Centrist" in American terms means supporting faith based initiatives, hand guns, the death penalty, restrictions on abortion (pro-life stands which don't, somehow, find themselves discomforted by the pro-death attitudes of those other policies) and a host of other policies which in Europe are the province of the far right. The work that needs to be done, and it won't be done by Obama and the Obamacans, is in the formation of a genuinely social democrat party for America. As far as I can see, the mere suggestion of this will prove to offensive to the majority of "centrists", even centrist Democrats, that it will never happen. What a tragedy for the US and the world.

There ain't no movement, unless your considering 'the same old song and dance.'

Any real change toward 'rule by the people' in this country would first have to overcome The People's own resistance to even trying it.

It speaks for itself that, no matter how badly America's oligarchs abuse the mass of people, the most serious reformers like Nader, the Greens, and other progressive alternatives on the ballot, never draw more than a small fraction of the vote. Never.

This isn't a reason to give up on radical reform efforts, but it may be a reason to do more creative thinking -- outside the rigged political box of national elections.

The Greens in Europe, who've now gained increasingly potent footholds in several national parliaments, almost all started out slogging through local and provincial politics; gradually getting elected to run towns and cities; moving upward into coalition-determining power positions in parliaments and ministry chief positions in national governments.

Most of us want rapid change in the rotten US system. But most of us also know that even if a seemming lite reformer, like Obama, gets elected, he will have little if any mandate from the people, and little if any radical base in congress, to challenge the ologarchs head on; to do something as direly needed, for example, as changing the constitution to get private money out of election campaigns -- a sine qua non issue, as far as I'm concerned...

Assuming no bloddy revolution: Building a political base within a non-democratic system with the intention of making the system democratic from inside, means you have to announce your aim: to take power away from a few entrenched people and redstribute it to the many. But 'the many' have to be on your side to begin with, and they must have some experience and confidence at making radical changes at the local end of the power spectrum, before their inate fear and institutional conservativism can be overcome on the really meaningful issues .

We want instant relief from the outrages of a gradually-fashioned and now entrenched and complexly interlocked fascist oligarchy. All well and good. But I think too many American progressives suffer from the political equivalent of the Rolaids syndrome. Political Heartburn? Take an Obama (or even a Nader) and watch it disappear!

If only it were this simple. We need patience with the fact that it will never be even remotely this simple.

Amy is getting the drubbing she deserves in these posts, and maybe less than she deserves. She has become too comforatble with her fame and growing bank account, maybe? I used to find her a breath of fresh air, but just like CD, after a while, you realize that she is really a reformist who does a lot of complaining, but is very short on political program. For those who don't know, a reformist is someone who believes that capitalism - if only it had the right leadership - can be made kind and gentle. Of course, that notion is demonstrable rubbish, and reduces to perpetuating imperialist injustice. Surely she is not that naive, so I am beginning to wonder about her integrity.

But, alas! If I were a rising star, showered with champaign at every turn, would I have the courage to call for the communist overthrow of the Anerican oligarchy? If she did, Democracy Now! would be Democracy Then! very quickly. Her case illustrates the folly of putting your hopes in an individual. It is a principled proletarian political party (say that tens times quickly!) of Leninist stripe that is needed, and I definitely don't see her helping to build that. Oh, Amy - that I could say otherwise! Instead I must expose you as another dangerous agent of liberal capitalism. In many ways, it is the liberals, more than the conservatives, that are holding society back, because they confuse and sap the energy of good hearted people who would otherwise go further left, and help build the party of international socialism.

.

Debates, are what I want to see...
Good honest debates between Nader and whomever , one on one ,or all candidates in standing, with no moderators from MSM. At a table like the old Buckley days. On PBS maybe , no commercial interference. Whoopee , wouldn't that be wonderful?

.

This is true.

The lengthiest "news" segament on CNN today concerning Obama, was what type of a dog he will have as a pet when he enters the White House. His wife says they talk about it every day, but haven't yet decided on a breed.

Only in America.

Obama didn't vote to fund the war this time, he skipped out and didn't bother to vote and he was in DC.

"It's not the man, it's the movement."

Really? I wonder how the Cubans and Batista would have fared if Fidel has skipped out on "the movement"? Sorry, it's the man _____ who never was.

Early on in Hillary Clinton's run for the Democratic nomination, she basically told the anti-war movement to take a hike. Look what it got her. Is this Obama's strategy now? It is odd that the politicians will play to this and that special interest group while consistently ignoring a very large segment of progressive voters. The Democrats have a false strategy that progressive voters will always vote Democratic because they wouldn't dare vote Republican. That strategy failed in 2000 because progressives voted independent. In 2006 the Democrats obtained a large progressive vote to stop the war. And what did the Democratic Congressional majority do? Defied the voters and continued funding the war.

One more time for you slower slaves .

It doesn't really matter which don the mafia selects in November.

You will all still be nothing more than food to either of them .
Spend a little more time here where you might have a snowballs chance in hell of actually creating a "CHANGE" in the world.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/

Representation is the basic con that they use to prevent democracy.

I am an 84 yera old who first voted for FDR. While I agree with Amy's analysis and call for demanding more from Obama, I am also amazed at the want of leadership in Democratic presidential candidates. Bil Clinton's triangulation was at most a strategy for power not a strategy for dealing with the problems of this society. Obama is backpedaling so fast his front wheel will overtake his rear wheel. It was not always like this. FDR faced up to the corporations. Harry Truman was not afraid to push Medicare or, as a Senator, to go after war profiteers We get the weenies the DLC, the beltway Democrats and corporate America offer us. A Kucinich is deliberately bypassed in the primary debates. Democrats must ask why their leadership is so afraid of this world. Why. with the politically weakest President in memory the would not impeach for obvious violations of his oath, but the Republican's would over a sexual issue.

Robert Newhard

Until Obama regains his "hope" and "audacity", I will be sitting this election out. I don't know why I should be surprised by his right turn, but I do feel betrayed. The thought of a McCain presidency is abhorrent to me, but I can not bring myself to vote for a person who has turned his back on his most loyal supporters.

Ahhh ~AMY~ what happened? Your mixed emotions are sticking out like a great big pimple on the nose of a beauty pagent gal taking third place. It appears to me that you are obviously disappointed with Mr. Obama and it shows, even though you are sitting on the fence with this article while trying to hide your hurt feelings.

At least that's how I see it and I do admire you and almost always agree your opinions.
Tell it like it is ~AMY~. ___ Obama has decieved many, over 18 million so far who voted for what they believed was his honesty, his integrity, and the hope of real positive change from a fine young man, ___ a "rare statesman". Skin color or race was not an issue with most white people.

Obama is the greatest orator I have ever heard or seen, and he does it without saying much of anything of real substance, but his speeches are both inspiring and marvelous. The problem is, he's a damn con-artist liar and it's gonna catch up with him. We Americans voters are often classified as sheep, but we're mostly intelligent sheep. Obama has switched his positions on far too many serious issues and he cannot hide it, much as he will attempt to do so.

As to his being Black? That should not make a smidgen of difference if he is black, half black, pink, purple, yellow or green. He is a human being and we are all the same. We don't all get treated the same, but that is because some people judge others by their race or the color of their skin.

It is what is under the skin that counts and Obama has finally shown his true "colors" and it is not black he is showing, ___ it's white. ___ He has waved the white flag and surrendered his soul for power. I feel sorry for him. All he had to do was continue on with what he preached during his primary run and not play political games.

He couldn't however, he was already bought and paid for, the "rare statesman", sadly was a fraud. ___ ~NANNIE~ here is correct about that, check out the link she posted. July 3rd, 12:26pm, the forth comment from the top. One cannot sensibly argue historical facts.

"Subtlety may decieve you, integrity never will." ___ ~Oliver Cromwell~

Dear Amy,
Whattsa matta for you? (as we say in Eye-Talian)
Obama is a flake as I have said in these pages before. "A MAN WHO WILLA NOT STANDA FOR ANYTHING WILL FALL FOR NOTHING". Watch the Republican attack dogs tear him to shreds and devour him in November!!

My goodness. How much more transparent does it need to be for you people to see that McCain and Obama are practically the same man?! Oh sure, they have different skin color, but beyond that?

And Daniel David, spare us your Supreme court hoohaa. Judges, all judges, are by definition, defenders of the people who hold the power, i.e the people who make the laws. They are in the business of protecting and siding with the monied interest. Period. Always have, always will. There is no such thing as a liberal judge. Besides, I prefer a fast collapse in confidence, not this slow, painful drawn out death of what little democracy remains. Get it over with already, so that the delusional can snap out of their spell and we can get on with things.

I agree with dablackanarchist: if you believe that the state is really a good thing that is actually interested in your welfare (a premise I think is obvliously patently false) then McKinney is a far better choice than MacSame or Obamacain.

I'll just add this thought: for all you folks who think that it is the Obama movement that is so valuable, what will you do if all this effort, all this social networking and effort, achieves nothing? What if Obama says, in essence: So?

How is this different from Dick Cheney?

.

VOTE NADER 2008… You'll be glad you did and so will I…

.

I'm 64 years old. I have never been able to vote for someone as president whom I really wanted. I've always had to settle. I'm tired of it. I didn't want Obama, but I was willing to go along. Now I just feel let down again. Maybe I'll skip the presidential vote and just go with the other races. Four more years of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2. The Democrats have been a bust. All talk, no balls. There's no party, no candidate for me.

.

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
.

If the Nation were a Car, the President is not the person at the wheel. He's the guy on the roof with a megaphone. Why are you worried about the way this fella drives? He's not going to be driving. Wouldn't you rather have him on the roof with a megaphone than McBush? Obama looks and sounds a whole heck of a lot classier than the alternatives.

The Nation is bankrupt, change is a-comin', maybe not just the change you're hoping for. Wouldn't you rather have someone who the Intl Community likes up on the roof, when the engine throws a rod?

RichM July 3rd, 2008 7:51 pm
Laugh - candor. It seems many progressives were stirred by the Obama movement vs. the politician - even those who rejected both. Insofar as Lindorff/your comment endorsed the third-party potentials of the movement, your ideas may yet be "plausible": short of changing the Obama machine, who knows how many people (engaged in ways a Clinton campaign could not) may take their engagement in other directions?

We can vote for an intelligent man at the top of his class or we can vote for another privileged son of the oligarchy, at the bottom of his.

Obama is starting to look like the rest of the democrats in the senate and congress...no different than Republicans.
Obama's vote for FISA disgusts me.
His start to flip/flop on Iraq also disgusts me.
Obama is showing that he is not prinicipled. He is another politician that betrays our constitution and the american people.
I wish I could get my money back.

I think the left should vote tactically for McCain.

Thank you Amy! To all those who say they are not voting or voting for Nader, you are simply stepping aside and letting others choose the political leadership of the most powerful country in the world at this time of extreme peril. The helpless of the world will be the ones to suffer the most from your self-rightousness.

The threat to our democracy from corporate interests is clear, and anyone who is paying attention knows that our candidates are compromised by those corporate influences, so what? The point is, if you want to affect social change you do so by any and all means available and that includes voting for the candidate that will cause the least suffering and will be most likely to
respond, however timidly, to social pressures from outside the corporate elites.

That candidate is clearly Barak Obama.

Thanks Amy for your customary clarity and courage to speak the truth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html

See Obama is listening. When we stick together...they hear us. We hold his feet to the fire.

I was not and still am not an Obamaphile. At least I am not heartbroken or shocked and disillusioned by his latest position switching. I am bemused by the so-called "true liberals" or "progressives" who overlooked his flip-flops and his mis-representations, his lies (dates and events in his book)and his associations with the privileged. These are the same people who "forgave" his every contradiction simply because he wasn't that white bitch Hillary Clinton. I didn't start out a fan of Hillary's but I must say I became one because of her resiliancy and because she ended up NOT being the darling of the self-righteous progressives.

See how those hormones make men chicken shits.

The only "movement" I can detect in this article and the misguided rants of DD and company is one of the bowel.

Amy is right and I do not have time to read the other 76 comments to give a thoughtful reply.

One guy on this list even asked how can we do anything, we do not have an organization………OMG!

There are millions of US out here. I read your comments all the time. WE are right here!

We organize in the streets and we stay in the streets until someone does as we ask to be done. Justice is justice and just because it is a law does not make it just. Things in this country must be set right. We owe that to the rest of the world.

OH…… you say they will shoot and maybe kill us… excreta. Baby it's been like that for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Change does not come without a price. What made those previous generations so brave? Well maybe their food wasn't tainted with hormones and ever other possible poison known to mankind.

Yes, these kinds of actions put our lives and our families' lives at risk. Time is running out for this planet. The rich and richer do not see this …or even feel it.

Yes we want to be good people. We do not want to hurt anyone, but then no one listens to us and this poor old sod of a world rolls along. I am afraid that she will manage quite nicely to roll along with out is.

Therefore, if you want change….. we set aside our differences and we all stand side by side in the middle of the street like Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

Barack Obama is just classic Americana. As Ben said in Arthur Miller's play:

"A salesman is somebody way up there in the blue riding on a smile and a shoeshine."

Yes we can!

abramawicz ( 4:25 pm) - Egad. I have to admit, you're very observant. I never would have dreamed that anyone here would notice a little thing like that!

But you're quite right, re the "plausible" comment, which I used the other day to describe Dave Lindorff's article of a few months ago. I did call his theory "plausible" even though I never really believed it. I guess you could say I was either feeling generous & kind-hearted that morning; or that I basically like Lindorff & would lean towards giving him the benefit of the doubt, if at all possible; or just that I was beginning to have some doubts myself, in mid April.

Up until that point, Obama hadn't impressed me -- but he also hadn't horrified & disgusted me, either. (Now he has, many times over, ever since his AIPAC speech.) Also I had sympathy for him when he was under fire from the Right (the Rev. Wright business, the Bill Ayers thing, flag-pin in lapel, the "bitter" brouhaha, & that unbelievable Philadelphia debate, where Stephanapoulos & Gibson joined with Hillary to gang up on him). I thought he handled all that with remarkable dignity. So I was having some weak moments, wondering if I'd overlooked something about him.

Tip O' the Hat to you! I can't deny that you caught me in a moment of weakness & self-contradiction, there. It was indeed a departure from my usual perspective.

What do we have to lose?

How about life as we know it on Planet Earth.

Maybe you've been in a vacuum lately, but the polar ice cap may be melted as soon as this year according to recent studies. What does that mean for the two leggeds?

Wars over drinking water to start.

Better wake up people, because life as you know it is undergoing transformation change and not the kind Obama speaks of.

As an anarchist, I have no horse in this race. However, as a rabid lefty, if I was a statist, Cynthia McKinney would get my support right down the line. I mean, how much of an idiot do you have to be to not see that voting for her will further your interests more than anyone else?

The Greens are (for now) a party that seems to, at least for now, point the guns at someone other than the people. Until the last politician is hanged with the guts of the last religious leader, this'll do.

What do we have to lose by giving Obama a chance? Consider what we have to lose if we don't.

jozef, yeah, and what about the Obama "true believers?"

On January, 20 2009

Privatize social security: What party is more likely to rob Americans of their most valuable asset?

Re: Alter and Goodman

"It seems that as Emma Goldman said, 'I think voting is the opium of the masses in this country. Every four years you deaden the pain.' It is, therefore, our challenge to emphasize what we do everyday to create economic equality rather than the absurd belief that voting in general elections will change our lives."

Organize, organize, organize!

We need to take our bodies daily to work, to Congressional offices, to schools with the message that we demand full economic equality.

I respect and admire Amy, but I think the answer to her question is obvious. Had Obama been true to the grass roots on FISA he would have not shifted his position.

I think this shift is the first of many more to come if he is elected. The simple truth is that you cannot satisfy both the center and the progressives at the same time. (Note the few voices on his own web site offering angry rebuttals over his switch.)

My guess is we are in for Bill Clinton part 2 if Obama is elected. Clinton had a populist message too, and when he won, proceeded to run away from the grass roots for eight years in his eagerness to satisfy the status quo entrenched elites.

So much for the progressive movement. May it rest in peace until the sheeple reach a critical mass and say enough!

What is this pap:
_
"For folks who aren't Nader true believers, you may not realize this will be Nader's fourth run in a general election campaign. He has his true believers. They sure are here telling people not to believe that anything positive can happen, not to support the Green Party and McKinney, or take progressive action with the Obama campaign. Do nothing. Do nothing. That is not what Nader dedicated his life to. It is sad that people using his name are preaching this all over progressive internet sites."
_
When did any Nader supporters ever say "not to support the Green Party and McKinney", or "do nothing"? By all means, vote for Cynthia McKinney. What Nader folk have been saying is DON'T VOTE FOR EITHER OF THE TWO CORPORATE PARTIES! I have NEVER said vote for Nader. I have said, "Run Ralph. Run!" What is so hard to understand about that? And please don't talk about people using Nader's name and "preaching this all over progressive internet sites." Ralph Nader IS A FRIGGIN' PROGRESSIVE. Look at his platform. NO TO NAFTA. NO TO THE IRAQ WAR. NO TO FISA TELECOM IMMUNITY. NO TO TORTURE. NO TO EXTREME RENDITION. NO TO THE PATRIOT ACT. YES TO SINGLE PAYER UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. NO TO CORPORATE WELFARE. You Democrats and so-called Progressives are so brain washed by the Democratic Party and Saint Obama. McBama IS NOT PROGRESSIVE. As for Ralph. I have my disagreements with Mr. Nader on issues. But you know what? My conscience doesn't bother me when I vote for Ralph. I sleep well knowing that Nader's platform is my platform. Can you say that about Obama? McBama who takes impeachment, along with Nancy Pelosi, off the table. McBama who knows Bush lied us into war and now over 1-million people are dead. C'mon folks, you're starting to sound like the sheeple in Germany in the 30s. The savior is here. The savior is here! Vote for the savior, our LEADER!
_
Yeah right, Nader people "do nothing". It's Barak Obama who HAS DONE NOTHING! Come on. Off the top of your head, what has anything Barak Obama done to make life better for you? Ask the same of John McCain. Then of Ralph Nader. If you don't know, look it up. You should know. And if you don't, ask yourself if your party loyalty to the Democratic Party isn't messing with your head? It is. You who find it acceptable to leave Mader and McKinney, even Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel out of the "debates" Yes, we could use informed voters. That is not what the Democratic Party wants. It wants Nancy Pelosi style loyalty. No way Nancy. No way Democrats. No way Obama. And no way, John McSame.

Looks like we have 2 choices, the white old McCain and the charismatic (half white) black McCain called Obama.

This comment defines racism "I'm voting Obama because he is black". Just remember, racism is a 2 way street. Read Obamas "Dreams From My Father".

There are no suprises here, there is one party. Coke or Pepsi, Red or Blue, and this year, Black or White. No change. Same-Same.

We don't need a Party. We don't need a leader. We already have too many 'followers'. One plain, honest, ethical man like Nader is all we need. We have him. Now all we need are informed voters.

The corporate elite will not allow anyone to reach the US presidency who doesn't bow down to AIPAC and refrain from presenting a fundamental threat to big oil, big pharma, the insurance industry, the corporate military industrial complex. That's gotta be a given.

Vote for whoever you want but barring some big surprise either McCain or Obama will be Prez. The work of progressives goes on regardless.

I have a lot of respect for Amy Goodman and I believe she knows all this very well.

I see Nader's candidacy as as big a problem for us as Obama's candidacy. They're both splitting the progressive vote.

We should not expect the progressive movement to be effective until all elements of it unify to support a single presidential candidate.

If all forces of the left, including followers of Ralph Nader, were to pool their votes for the Greens, while no one on the left voted for Obama, the Greens would easily qualify for federal funding and the progressive movement would finally be off the ground.

For folks who aren't Nader true believers, you may not realize this will be Nader's fourth run in a general election campaign. He has his true believers. They sure are here telling people not to believe that anything positive can happen, not to support the Green Party and McKinney, or take progressive action with the Obama campaign. Do nothing. Do nothing. That is not what Nader dedicated his life to. It is sad that people using his name are preaching this all over progressive internet sites.

Furthermore, Nader's comments were racist. Pure and simple. They were disgusting. Its not the first time Nader has made disgusting bigoted remarks, back in 96 he made a disgusting homophobic slur. He's not perfect and never has been. I will always greatly respect Nader and the immense contribution he has made to the betterment of people's lives in this country.

But I don't think the Naderite phenomenon has much to do with Nader anymore. It's a pretty scary phenomenon that projects a two-front effort to campaign against progressive action either within the only viable third party, the Green Party, or within the Democratic Party.

Progressives have options in 2008. Work within the Obama campaign, as well as campaigning for progressive Democrats down the ballot, and/or support Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party and Green Party candidates down the ballot (or some creative mix of both of these). Don't listen to those who advocate that the left maintain its irrelevance. There are new oppportunities with changing times.

"Condi is black, would you vote for her for same reason?"

Good God, Please No!

With all respect to Amy Goodman, I frankly don't know who Obama really is or what he is going to do. And at this point I don't see how any one else does either.

"'Wow. How quick everyone is to jump ship.' Sorry. many of us were never 'on the ship'. We didn't fall for buying the passenger tickets in the first place. Bon voyage on the replay of the Titanic."

I agree…many people on Commondreams truely do not want free thinkers on this website. They are a centrist accomodationist group who sit on their rigid perch and throw stones at anybody who talks about returning principle to politics. Everything has a simplistic answer. Nothing is grey. It's whatever [insert "electable" Democratic candidate du jour here] says. Anybody who talks of dissent is a purist. It's a recipe for losing…..again and again and again.

"And no the white males who support Nader–he of the recent revolting racist comments..." Baloney. You listen to the main stream media "news" about Nader and you eat up their interpretation. No wonder you fall for Obama. You talk of the "left" needing to do this or do that? To jump on board the Obama band wagon. Just who is this left? Liberals? So-called progressives? Is Ted Kennedy left? Really? Dennis Kucinich? Well now, Dennis, according to the media is so far to the left that he is in outer space with the UFOs? And, Adolf was to the left of Attila the Hun. There is no main stream candidate that is of the Left. No amount of semantics can change that, and no amount of making excuses for McBama can bring back the luster to, "Change you can count on". Don't give this guy your money. If you do, count the change(s). It's obvious and should be more than just disturbing. Run Ralph. Run!

bildad said: A note to skepticism: Nader is not really a man without a party. The Green Party is set to nominate a candidate for whom the majority of us did not vote. If we were as democratic as we pretend to be, Ralph Nader would be our nominee, even though in the face of intra-party squabbling he declined to actively seek the Green Party nomination. He has ALREADY won the popular vote in the primaries. His showing in the California primary alone should assure that he will be drafted as our candidate at the convention in Chicago this month, but with our ridiculous consensus system (not to mention the fact that we allow registered Democrats to ascend into the hierarchy of the party where they disrupt and sabotage the party at every turn–see numerous articles on CounterPunch by Joshua Frank, et. al., for evidence)smaller state Green parties and Greens in states without ballot access have too much power to defeat the will of the majority of Greens. I'm willing to bet that there will be quite a ruckus at the convention over this. Nader is already at six percent in the CNN and AP polls. Ten percent will get him into the Google debates–and that could change the dynamics of the race, since millions of people will get to compare the sound-bite and platitude-ridden stump speeches of McCain and Obama with the specific plans, positions and solutions offered by the Nader-Gonzalez ticket.

------

I hope that people recognize this for what it is. Naderites have tried to co-opt the Green Party and when they have failed to discredit it. And no the white males who support Nader--he of the recent revolting racist comments--will not support a powerful black woman like Cynithia McKinney.

But the reality is all this is the best argument for practical involvement in politics, namely progressive organizing with in the Obama campaign, building a progressive constituency among those who have never heard the fractious blather of the left, but who have been energized by what Obama symbolizes culturally about change in this country. The left needs to reach those people, and join with them, and build a left constituency within the Obama phenomena. No, Obama is not going to do anything for us. It's a long term building for change that requires a movement. Standing aside from the Obama phenomena and not connecting and being unheard guarantees irrelevancy.

The organizing by Obama supporters to protest his FISA position is inspiring. This is the kind of action that the left needs to be involved with. People need to keep in mind that it won't bear fruit anytime soon. Obama is not likely to respond, but it is an effort building a constituency toward the future. Can the left just stand aside with a hands-off attitude when millions of new voters, young voters are tuning into Obama? Get out, get involved, critically.

Standing aside, voting for an old iconic figure as a protest, that's same old same old. The left has no power today after so many years of doing the same old same old. Try something different.

"Those of you who will not vote in the next election (at least not the presidential part) shouldn't be writing anything here!!" Why not? Is voting for "None of the above" a less valuable ballot to "cast" than voting the evil of two lessers?
_
"Wow. How quick everyone is to jump ship." Sorry. many of us were never "on the ship". We didn't fall for buying the passenger tickets in the first place. Bon voyage on the replay of the Titanic.