Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
It's Not the Man, It's the Movement
I was on a panel at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado this week when Newsweek's Jonathan Alter asked me, "Is Obama a sellout?" The question isn't whether he is a sellout or not -- it's about what demands are made by grass-roots social movements of those who would represent them. The question is, who are these candidates responding to, answering to?
Richard Nixon's campaign strategy was to run in the primaries to the right, then move to the center in the general election. Bill Clinton's strategy was called "triangulation," navigating to a political "Third Way" to please moderates and undecided voters. This past week, Barack Obama has made some signal policy changes that suggest he might be doing something similar. Will it work for him?
Take the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for example. A Dec. 17, 2007, press release from Obama's Senate office read: "Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same." Six months later, he supports immunity for the companies that spied on Americans.
I asked Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., about Obama's position on the FISA bill. He told me: "Wrong vote. Regrettable. Many Democrats will do this. We should be standing up for the Constitution. When Sen. Obama is president, he will, I'm sure, work to fix some of this, but it's going to be a lot easier to prevent it now than to try to fix it later."
Feingold and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., are planning on filibustering the bill. It will take 60 senators to overcome their filibuster. It looks like Obama will be one of them. Disappointment with Obama's FISA position is not limited to his senatorial colleagues. On Obama's own campaign Web site, bloggers are voicing strident opposition to his FISA position. At the time of this writing, an online group on Obama's site had more than 10,000 members and was growing fast. The group's profile reads: "Senator Obama -- we are a proud group of your supporters who believe in your call for hope and a new kind of politics. Please reject the politics of fear on national security, vote against this bill and lead other Democrats to do the same!"
Then there were the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on gun control and the death penalty. Obama supported the court in overturning the 32-year-old ban on handguns in the nation's violence-ridden capital. It's the court's most significant ruling on the Second Amendment in nearly 70 years. And in a blow to death-penalty opponents, Obama disagreed with the high court's prohibiting execution of those who were found guilty of raping children.
In a Jan. 21, 2008, primary debate, Obama called the North American Free Trade Agreement "a mistake" and "an enormous problem." He recently told Fortune magazine, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified ... my core position has never changed ... I've always been a proponent of free trade." This, after the primary-campaign scandal of the alleged meeting between Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and a member of the Canadian consulate. A Canadian memo describing the meeting suggested Obama was generally satisfied with NAFTA. Goolsbee described the accounts as inaccurate. Now people are beginning to question Obama's genuine opposition to NAFTA and "free trade."
Then there is the floating of potential vice presidential candidates. Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post was on the Aspen panel and noted that he has been receiving e-mails from gay men who angrily oppose former Sen. Sam Nunn as an Obama running mate. They can't forget Nunn's key role in shaping "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which prohibited gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military. The e-mails trickled up, prompting the writing of an influential Capehart column, "Don't Ask Nunn."
It may be the strategy of the Obama campaign to run to the middle, to attract the independents, the undecided. But he should look carefully at the lessons of the 2004 Kerry campaign. John Kerry made similar calculations, not wanting to appear weak on the war in Iraq. Uninspired, people stayed home. There are millions who care about the issues from which Obama is distancing himself, from FISA to gun control to gay rights to free trade to the death penalty. Rather than staying home, they should recall the words of Frederick Douglass: "Power concedes nothing without a demand."
149 Comments so far
Show AllI disagree with this article; I regard him not as a sellout but as simply no good at all - a useless vessel, signifying nothing. There is no valid reason to support Barack Obama, not even fear (justifiable) of John McCain. It's time to end the catch-22 of viability and for more & more of us to support only alternative parties to break the stranglehold of this two (sic) party system.
Miss Goodman's advice notwithstanding, I probably will sit out this coming election, at least at the presidential level.
For me, Obama's persistent tack to the right puts not only his integrity but also his intelligence into question. He clearly intends to out-Clinton the Clintons, exploiting issues and ideas rather than truly believing in them.
For example, anyone with half a brain knows that "free trade" is a completely meaningless concept, a slogan used to grease the skids for abusive corporate practices. One can promote trade without supporting "free trade" agreements. Why isn't Obama taking advantage of the widespread disillusionment with these unholy pacts?
jj
.
VOTE NADER 2008… You'll be glad you did and so will I…
.
.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
OBAMA TOP CONTRIBUTORS
" You gotta dance with the one who brung ya "
.
Hail King Obamcain
lie to us
steal the wealth of our nation
please make all our decisions for us
kill us
enslave us
teach us that thinking is dangerous
Hail Obamcain
The left has no power. It has an opportunity to gain some in this presidential election season. If the left is loudly part of the coalition that elects Obama--especially if it can be visible by huge vote margins in jurisdictions perceived as liberal/left--then the left will be perceived as a constitutency that matters.
I agree with Amy Goodman that the left should be loud in its opposition to Obama's positions it disagrees with. But threatening to stay home simply has no effect. If the left is not perceived as part of the coalition that elects Obama, and hopefully a wave of Democrats in other offices, some of them genuine progressives, then it will stay quite irrelevant.
I'm all for a viable third party. I've done a lot of hard work in my life toward building one. But its not a viable option at the presidential level in this year. We need a left third party as part of the equation. (And an independent protest candidate like Nader is NOTHING of the sort--voting for a partyless, movementless icon like Nader is the perfect example of doing absolutely nothing.) I'm for continuing to build that at the local and state levels.
But in this year, the left's best option is to be a part of a coalition that has motivated a lot of new voters, young voters, people who aren't going to hear the left if it talks to itself about staying home. Get visible, be part of this. As Amy Goodman says, it is the movement not the man. This election is just one step in a process. You don't change a country by electing one individual. You change it with long term strategic action.
The big flaw with Ms. Goodman's analysis is that there is no "movement" to pressure Obama. There are his believers, and there are his main donors, there is no movement. There is no organization, not even as loosely defined as say the Rainbow Coalition. It's just people logging on and believing that Obama will save them. If there were a movement, I think I would have seen them doing something? Right? Not just "believing" and donating money.
First of all, hamming it up in Aspen with these cretins exposes your credibility (once again.)
As you stated here Amy, a third party is really never an option, is it Amy? It never will be with progressive fakes like yourself.
Vote for Nader and turn-off the MSM (this includes fakes like Goodman)
All in an atomized country suffering from Kitty Genovese Syndrome where NOBODY that matters wants anything to change, EXCEPT, that things should get better for them and fuck everybody else. This was always an authoritarian, patriarchal society based on exclusion, imposed weakness, and exploitation, just as we were a slave Nation of 3 classes: Masters; Overseers; & Slaves or that we were conceived in genocide. None of that has changed. The Roosevelt Legacy was a social mistake that has been mangled and raped to death and Mr. & Mrs. America DON'T want it back - the choices and decisions required by Freedom; economic, social, political, & personal terrified them. Such a life would cost them their fixed creation, flat-earth model of life. "Whaddyamean I gotta let black kids go to school with my kids, or a black family down the block. No way Jose."
Never forget: Nixon was elected in '68 to put the blacks, the women, and the protesters in their place. He did. He killed them, ritually shamed them, and extra-legally executed them.
Beyond that, they just couldn't handle the leisure time. It made them crazy.
It is the doom of men that they forget.
I'm voting for Obama. He is black. Maybe you can't see what that means unless you are in the Southern Bible Belt where you can still hear race baiting sermons and the N word still used in some paces without fear of giving offense.
I waited in line to vote for him in the primaries. When I got inside there was a 90 year old black woman waiting in a wheelchair with her granddaughter. I am in no position to understand what that day meant to her. She had lived through the lynchings during Jim Crow, drunk at the colored only water fountains, maybe lived in one of the "nigger houses", shacks which housed black farm workers who worked until they were old and broken for somebody else's profit. Her Grandmother may have been born a slave.
I don't care if it is only a symbolic gesture. I'm voting Obama because he is black.
You are apparently not looking very hard Deran. There are plenty of supporters "doing". They've even set up a blog on the Obama site calling him out on issues they disagree with.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/3/7211/98156/400/545723
Thousands have signed up for that group. Most supporters with any sense don't believe he will "save" us. No one person can accomplish that anyway, to think so is naive and counter-productive. What draws me to Obama is his ability to get people involved and working to improve our system. His community organizing backround is unique in a Presidential Candidate and he has obviously learned much from Alinsky. Now for the reality check, what exactly will he get accomplished if McCain is elected? He has to play this like he's playing it. Were he to come out and agree with everything we want he would NEVER GET ELECTED IN TEN LIFETIMES. This country has never been into political sharp turns, change occurs gradually...
Nietzsche has takin the bait.
Obama is as much 'white' as he is black. What a foolish reason to vote for Obama. Condi is black, would you vote for her for same reason? Looks like Obama disillusionment has finally set in, as I knew it would. A politician that comes into power within a corrupt party and system, cannot help but be corrupt himself. It really only a matter of degree.
It's not the man, it's not the movement, it's slick packaging and marketing !
I agree with Deran. If there is a movement, Obama has just spit in its face, like John Kerry did to his most passionate supporters. This is exactly what Obama is doing; spitting in the face of those who most passionately supported him and worked for his nomination. Now, knowing that we have no place else to go, he is diluting himself with stupid triangulating stances that will cost him the support of millions and loose him the election. He doesn't deserve to be president if he is this stupid and corrupt. It most likely will take the Democrats another four years to learn this lession, and another four years of a Republican president for Americans to finally wake up and realize they have been sold a bill of goods by both parties.
Amy Goodman is not a fake and I'd like to see anyone here compare their contributions to a better world to hers. Having said that, I do not agree with this article and I am resigned to possibly never vote again (meaningless IMO if there isn't at least a 3rd party)if there continues to be only a choice between mean or meaner. I wish I had the optimism displayed in this article.
Goodman has a lot of good things on her shows. That said...
She is funded by foundations for a reason.... THE WE HEAR YOU BUT.......PUBLICATIONS.
The job of these nich marketed pubs are always to speak out loudly in opposition to the Corporate Scumm Bendovercrats so that the listner thinks "they are on my side" Then when time comes, they are used to say
"even though we disagree with Obama on A-Z we think you should still vote for him beause blah blah blah.
The fruits of forty years of lesser of two evilism will be Iran-- for Chase Bank.
I think the most usefull thing we can do is write about media deception strategies on mainstream media (preventing our marginalization and taken-for grantedness that will ocur if we ONLY type here) and lead some new readers back to the rich democratic discourse on Common Dreams--MOSTLY IN THE COMMENTS SECTION! JUST SO CAN WE COUNTER THE GATEKEEPING STRATEGIES OF THE KAPLAN FUND!
Goodman has a lot of good things on her shows. That said...
She is funded by foundations for a reason.... THE WE HEAR YOU BUT.......PUBLICATIONS.
The job of these niche marketed pubs are always to speak out loudly in opposition to the Corporate Scumm Bendovercrats so that the listner thinks "they are on my side" Then when time comes, they are used to say
"even though we disagree with Obama on A-Z we think you should still vote for him beause blah blah blah.
The fruits of forty years of lesser of two evilism will be Iran-- for Chase Bank.
I think the most usefull thing we can do is write about media deception strategies on mainstream media (preventing our marginalization and taken-for grantedness that will ocur if we ONLY type here) and lead some new readers back to the rich democratic discourse on Common Dreams--MOSTLY IN THE COMMENTS SECTION! JUST SO CAN WE COUNTER THE GATEKEEPING STRATEGIES OF THE KAPLAN FUND!
Rich Griffin... you're absolutely right!
Third party is an option... simply vote for an alternative party and then we might have real change. Don't get fooled by corporate America's shell game (Democrat or Republican?), turn off your TV and start asking real questions of your elected officials.
Of course not, but he is not Rice or Thomas. He is a charismatic politician AND he is black. I am sure he is saying whatever he thinks will get him elected.
It may be too much to hope for that he plans to bring criminal charges against telecom Inc. but it's possible, and the bill allows for the possibility.
Thoreau complained that his government was also a slave's government. If my government could have a black man as president it would make up for a lot.
Everybody knows that a good percentage (how much I don't know) of criticism of Obama is inspired by his color. You don't hear the talking heads on TV say much about that.
skepticism, if Obama is abandoning all of the positions for which I have been supporting him then voting for him would also have no effect.
jj
Thank you, skepticism and Nietzche above, for two good analyses from two different perspectives. Both are worth reading again slowly if you half-skimmed them.
The substance of Obama's "hope" campaign is not that he himself is some kind of messiah, or magician, or in any other way larger than life. (Although being nominated for president while being mixed-black and having a black family is a HUGE thing in itself for this country---as Nietzche's 90-year-old woman could tell you from her wheelchair.)
The important part of the "hope" is what we individual citizens can gin up and keep ginning up until we have soundly defeated John McCain, his party's philosophy, and his promised clones of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Because those clones, if elected/appointed are going to slap citizens, and slap citizens, and slap citizens again FOR YEARS until you and your kids are exhausted, humiliated and thoroughly subjugated. They will do it on cases of THEIR choosing, not yours. We have A VERY GOOD CHANCE to avoid this---this year---and we had better take advantage, because 2012 is probably too late. They just need one more for complete control. (P.S. Nader/McKinney etal are NOT in a position to rescue this---not now, and not even, if by some miracle, one of such was to be elected in '12, or '16 or '20.)
As for Obama tacking to the right, we can all question whether that is the best strategy to win---and we can all attempt to influence him with loud public opinion. But to criticize him mercilously as a sellout and some kind of bum---when he's all you've got and a TERRIFIC candidate at that---is the worst of anti-hope, and it's coming from very questionable places of deception. The mere fact that all the GOP can muster is an adulterous beer dealer for their party of "family values" tells you this. Right now, there is a lot of "hope" for better. It is my hope, your hope, our hope. Don't be part of drowning it in darkness.
GOODMAN: warning to Obama and progressives.
Goodman lays out a situation, while refraining from telling progressives to do something - on the one hand, she 'counsels' the Obama machine that centrism (aka shift right) may hurt his campaign; on the other, in the article title and concluding sentence - she suggests that "power" (including "power"-ful politicians like Obama) will respond only to demands, in this case, demands by progressives.
Don't stay home disgruntled and feeling impotent, exercise democracy and make demands of Obama, Goodman writes.
Good advice - the question is, how? Should progressives merely demand and criticize? Or should they say, 'Voting for you depends on your supporting pre-nomination positions, and not moving right as you are?'
My view is that progressive who supported Obama should now withdraw support and hold their vote in escrow.
To this, I would add only the point I made in a post elsewhere: that the absence of a progressive third party in American politics makes this more difficult to do; and that, if there were a unified third party, Obama might have been prevented from leaning right in the first place.
RE: LACK OF PROGRESSIVE THIRD PARTY PREDISPOSED OBMAMA TO SHIFT RIGHT, AND LIMITS EFFECTIVE PROGRESSIVE RESISTANCE
For those interested, I make the third party argument here:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/02/10035/
abramawicz July 3rd, 2008 12:05 pm
WHY THE OBAMA SHIFT RIGHT: BECAUSE THERE'S NO PROGRESSIVE THIRD PARTY IN U.S.
I will not vote for Obama. He is a liar. Period. You can wiggle and explain and parse all you want, but from public campaign financing to NAFTA to FISA, he has lied, lied, lied.
I don't care what the alternatives are. I will not vote for a liar. I will vote for Nader. Voting one's conscience is never wasted.
I think Obama will be elected. Having said that, I guarantee this: after one year of Obama's presidency, we will still have over 100,000 troops in Iraq; we will still be fighting Iran (assuming that the shrub starts it, which is a dead solid certainty), we will still have NAFTA in its present form, FISA will still be in effect without significant change, we will still not have universal health insurance, and the left wing will be as ineffectual as ever. Mark my words. If I am wrong on any of these predictions, I will gladly kiss your ass in Macy's window and give you 30 minutes to draw a crowd.
Perhaps another question that should be asked is not just "who are they answering to?" but "who has greater influence over the candidate? The public or the big money donors?"
If we are going to have a conversation about the "center" and Obama "moving to the center" then we must realize that the political climate has shifted. Voting to give companies retroactive immunity for violating the Constitution is not a mainstream position and if it is being touted as the "center" then the center has obviously shifted to the right.
Certainly it is good that there has been outrage over Obama's complete reversal on the FISA legislation as well as his shift on several other positions and it should continue. If Obama is honest about his approach toward real "change" in this country, then we must ask ourselves why he is following the playbook of the same old Democratic Party...shifting his positions to the right to gain votes. This is an indication to me that the same forces are at play with Obama that have always been in play and those forces are not the American people.
Amy raises good points about putting pressure on Obama, but we need to be ready to vote in mass for a third party candidate (Nader or McKinney) if Obama is not responsive to the people.
- Chris
http://chriscommons.blogspot.com
NOBODY with any integrity seems able to get elected as president in this country. The population is just not bright enough to hire on merit. We are just about on a par with the Good Germans who hired Hitler.
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 Nietzsche. I don't care what Obama has to do to get elected. Just "Git Er done." If he is elected it will be the best thing this country has done in a long long time.
THIRD PARTY NEEDED? AGREED. BUT GOODMAN'S POINT IS THAT PROGRESSIVES MUST MAKE POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE - E.G., THROUGH 3rd PARTIES
As I argued above and elsewhere, short of taking power, third parties could enforce accountability.
Rich Griffin July 3rd, 2008 12:14 pm
"I disagree with this article; I regard him not as a sellout but as simply no good...It's time to...support only alternative parties."
I agree with Daren: there is no "movement." We will get what we deserve, which is another corporate-owned president. There are differences between Dems and Repubs, but at the core they are both rotten. Vote Nader and maybe one day we will get some relief.
It's the man, its the lack of a Movement. We have traveled from the lack of a Movement so-called 'Rainbow Coalition' to the lack of a Movement, Obama, the so called 'Change' guy. And we still have nice liberal types trying to get us to go with the corporate Democratic Party guy because they don't want to truly build a Movement, or don't truly know how to do so? It will take more than votes.
The objective here is defeating McCain. Obama has the best chance of doing that. Try to imagine a McCain Presidency. If we still have any rights left when George FINALLY leaves, I can assure you they will not be there after his first term is over.
I don't want to live in a totalitarian state. Some of the comments here suggest to me that some people wouldn't mind at all. I am sure the really big money is all for it. They love talk about numerous third party candidates.
If the richest 1% has more wealth than the poorest 90% now, they will be a lot richer after four more Republican years. Guess where that wealth will come from?
Of course Obama's a sellout. How else did he get where he is? They are all sellouts. And, as much as I wish I could be naive and hopeful, I am not. If Obama is ever inaugurated, which could happen (and I am not going to say "elected" because we do not elect presidents in the US, they are appointed by nameless faceless behind-the-scenes players) he will have the leeway to do perhaps a few things he believes in, and he's probably not that terrible a person. Certainly he is more developed morally and psychologically than Bush, so he may do some good things...but he will be there serving the agenda that politicians in the US serve.
The "movement" in support of Obama does demonstrate a deep hunger for change. Belief in and service to the two party system, though, cannot result in significant change, and we are still deeply mired in that particular bullshit.
The best thing about this situation is the 10,000 Obama supporters who have petitioned his website for a change in his FISA stance. That is 10,000 people understanding an issue and deciding to take an independent action. It's a little seedling that has to grow.
It's also significant that the website, particularly the critical part of it, has not been shut down (yet?). Does that mean that some in the central administration or techies of the campaign truly care about free and independent participation in electoral issues? I suspect so.
Thank you baruch. When you are deeply mired in the shit, the first priority is getting out. This is no time to leave the horse and wagon where it is and shop around for another farm.
Is this discontent I hear? Senator Obama acting like a politician? Running as a "liberal", but moving to the center so he can govern? For shame!
Senator Clinton is looking better and better!
FreeTheMedia July 3rd, 2008 1:45 pm
"the same forces are at play with Obama that have always been in play....Amy raises good points about putting pressure on Obama, but we need to be ready to vote in mass for a third party...if Obama is not responsive to the people."
Agreed. To which I would add only: a coherent third party must exist to make a candidate accountable - either in terms of 'contracting' to positions, or facing consequences if they abandon those positions.
To be ready to "vote in mass" for a third party requires the existence of a third party that progressives are tuned into in advance.
Rockerbabe1 July 3rd, 2008 2:30 pm
"Senator Obama acting like a politician? Running as a 'liberal', but moving to the center so he can govern? For shame!
Senator Clinton is looking better and better!"
Nah, the Democrat electorate rejected Clinton for her positions, but also her unecessary caving in to the right; now they can do the same with Obama - whereas defeatists who supported right wing Clinton as "realistic" gave up that power in advance.
Obama 'protesters' are being consistent in their demands and expectations.
Folks, our first priority needs to be cleaning up Congress, replacing not only as many republicans but also the accommodationist Democrats as possible. With stronger, more Progressive majorities in both houses - and especially in the Senate - we have less to worry about with regard to the person sitting in the oval office.
I understand the "anyone but McCain" sentiment but I don't think that electing Obama will mean a lot without plenty of Progressives in the Congress to check his rightward drift.
jj
"Vote for Nader and turn-off the MSM (this includes fakes like Goodman)" --
This is one of the battlefronts in this war (campaign) for the future of our great country -- where the left is so far out there, that they are standing elbow to elbow with the far right. I do believe that many who are making their voices heard on the Obama website are sincere, but I also suspect that some on the far right are standing with them (wolves in sheep's clothing). And when the insulting infighting starts is when I get off the Nader and far left bandwagon. That is not to say that I wouldn't add my voice to those who seek to influence Obama to stand his ground on this one. True, the real threat to our nation's security is the government's heavyhanded surveillance, but those on the far right, doing the fear mongering work of those who want to manipulate the public for the continued hold of the few over the masses, will frame it as the exact opposite of "risking our security." But strategy has its place, and I, having said my piece against the FISA Bill, will sleep well at night. Demos have got to stop reacting and start responding to the events set up by the far right syncophants of the powerful.
There are, in fact, two men running who have never wavered from their "core" principals: Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, and lifetime public servant Ralph Nader.
Stop being "disappointed" by corporate-approved-and-paid-for candidates doing what corporate-approved-and-paid-for candidates do, and start voting for real leaders who will deliver a real revolution.
it's clear Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! are shifting right along with Obama.
VOTE NADER that's what'll scare the one party system. Even if he gets only 10% of the vote, it'll scare the beegeezus out of the establishment and force them to take the issues seriously.
Otherwise, they'll just go on doing what they're doing -- that is whatever they want.
I agree with Jim Hightower: I'm a part of the Obama Phenomena. I'm more a fan of the Phenomena than the man.
The biggest, most effective lobby right now working to get Obama to change his mind about FISA is at mybarackobama.com
story: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6450928
Obama's campaign is an opportunity to become part of an enormous grassroots movement, and try to influence it's direction. I think that any leftists not joining in are foolish.
Isn't anyone else voting for former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney???
She takes the right positions on the issues in favor of peace-loving, working people, and she's got more guts than any other politician I can think of, (see the documentary American Blackout), and as a bonus
...she's a black woman!!!
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.
"It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." -- E.V.Debs
My friend called Amy a "liberal gatekeeper", at the time I believe he meant she wouldn't "open the gates" to allow other theories on who was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.
But I also think he meant more than that.
Having in the past donated money to Democracy Now for several years, it's now my opinion that is Amy Goodman is also keeping the gate locked on alternatives to the current two-party system.
Every election her coverage has been basically the same. One interview with Nader and a few other candidates, but incessant coverage of the major players. Even when she is addressing an issue that is screaming for Nader's input, where he would have expertise, she often gives off the vibe that she wouldn't dare even mention his name. Instead, she finds people inside the party establishment to talk to about "the candidates."
Listening to Democracy Now during the run up to each major election has started to make me ill just a little too frequently. There is far too much wasted airtime devoted to already media-saturated Democratic (and Republican) candidates and their "positions". The positions don't vary on Democracy Now. They are the same on the mainstream news. It's not like Amy Goodman is scathing in her analysis.
It's at the point where I don't tune in just to avoid getting disappointed with her, and very annoyed. I don't like to waste my time. If she wants to provide Democracy Now she should rethink her strategy for covering presidential elections.
This year my funds are going to Nader, and to other alternative candidates, not to gatekeepers.
RichM July 3rd, 2008 2:40 pm
abramawicz (2:38 pm) - "same person who posted at CD under the name of 'baska' last year?"
Yes - mentioned to explain my interest in your "plausible" comment vis-a-vis my understanding of your earlier views.
As I recall, we both see third parties as vital, but have a dif pov re whether capitalist politics is by definition a con, and consequently re whether third parties should ever seek to exert pressure on the ruling parties.
Based on my understanding of your position, I was struck by your provisional interest in the 'Obama movement as transitional third party' view.
Obama may not be responding to the wishes of his money supporters as much as to threats and offers he can't refuse from the dominant right wing media.
Mayari
I'm foolish because I won't support someone who supports war, NAFTA, surveillance, and the big insurance companies, to name a few things?
Or, in other words-- instead of my simply supporting independent candidates who are upfront and honest in their opposition to these things, what you're telling me is, it would be wiser for me to put energy into trying to change some corporate candidates mind?
ha! Brilliant.