THERE WILL NOT BE CHANGE IN AMERICA!

Special interests and "free enterprise" capitalism it is what this country has devised as worth living and dying for. The basis for the consumer ideology is energy and its association with an auto centered economy closes the circle. It uses the media to direct the public flow of the so-called truth and we have a perfect example of it in this political campaign. It is why Exxon Mobile is out of control and the public is given platitudes rather than help. The media is out of control as this election has shown just how far it has gone to dumb-down the public. The recent move by ABC to remove candidates from the debates was outrageous.

They are trying to determine the fate of the country and the world being mouthpiece for special interests and the government and to silence dissent. Media censure is unheard, the FCC should rule for the public but like the EPA its teeth are continually drawn. The media has no right to exclude any politician who is running for office as happened recently with the ABC debate. The only exclusion under the rules used by ABC should apply to a candidate not sitting in public office. The license of ABC would be lifted if the rules were changed but the congress, with the exception of a few pushes for more media conglomeration supported by special interests.

I hope that someone picks up on this thought but I doubt that will happen, it's all too far-gone. We have seen the obsession by FOX and CNN, particularly in the form of Wolf Blitzer, and the FOX rabid journalists constantly referring to the Rev. Wright controversy. Blitzer's bias was clear. He was quick to use every possible negative he could against Obama from the Flag Pin to anything else he could get his mouth around. But it worked Obama wears the pin all the time now.

His support for Clinton was been clear and inappropriate, for CNN to call itself a "fair and balanced" news network at the time. I quote Mr. Nichols: 
" The media pretense of being a fly on the wall has often been preposterous. In the real world of politics — where power brokers and manipulators proceed with the cynical axiom that perception is reality — the fly on the wall is the wall. The political press corps is not observing reality as much as redefining it while obstructing outlooks and constraining public perceptions." But not only that, it is conditioning the American people in a one party system to behave in certain predictable ways.

As usual, few are able to see the stampede of the public sheep created by media. I support change that I once thought Obama represented! His rhetoric suggested there might be some but the Huffing ton Post clearly warned that we were facing a different Obama. Many of us wanted an America once again to be looked upon as a great nation that it could still be and once was.

The present "lack of experience" cries of Clinton during her campaign against Obama and now by McCain is preposterous. However, once it appeared that Obama would capture the nomination the DNC stepped in and told him what Obama must do as the other half of the oligarchic coin. True, the Democrats will do slightly better for the average person but not enough to change the corporate landscape soon enough to stop the ensuing global disaster

Could anyone having been near the White house as long as Bush done as badly for the USA or the world? There is experience, the experience of greed an American cultural reality! The discovery of a job approval rating for Bush at about 28% of the American people speaks volumes about experience and the ability of the American people to understand what has happened the USA. No one could have been as bad as the Bush team but to be elected twice is a travesty and a crime against humanity!

There is Washington experience in action! A flight from entrenched American politics is necessary . . .it has ruined this country and the world made greed the single value of importance associated with American world hegemony. The young people once again embrace hope as a result of the Obama campaign but that will quickly be replaced by apathy as they see once again the emergence of the usual political leader promising everything and delivering nothing. I would say that Obama is completely experienced in the ways of Washington we see it in action. The Hillary political group displayed the truth of politics; Obama offered change but now we see what entrenched politics brought to the American people by the DNC & RNC have done. They have virtually destroyed America with its policies and exclusive power clubs. The Clintons before and now the Obama camp show clearly that hope is dead; they embrace the single party system, this is America.

Clinton during her campaign morphed to the Obama populist message, it was called, "finding her voice" while at the beginning of her stump showing her Madeline Albright, bomb the children image. Now Obama having secured the nomination has lost his voice of change and has morphed to the business as usual candidate. 
Can anyone truly think that change is unnecessary? Does anyone think with the American political machines in place, as they are that Americans will get a different kind of politics in Washington?

I think not since all the politicos have adopted Obama's message of change but the only way they will get the kind of change we must have is when the entire globe melts down as is happening now. The mistakes that Obama may make as president cannot be greater than those of the past seven years of the regime in power. But his mistake of destroying the hope of the American people and particularly the youth has stripped the vitality that might have invigorated the American people and the world. The Democrats are a pathetic shadow of what the world needs now.

It is also necessary to have a democratic congress whether Obama assumes the Oval office or not it has to be slightly better than we see coming from the mind of the Republicans, however with them at least one knows what we get. If any hope exists it will not come from the leader of color we had hoped might be the person. The "politics of hope" is replaced by the politics of cynicism of a single party system as we have seen happen in this American political scene. We had some hope Mr. Obama might make certain that the programs that Americans wanted and "hoped for" could be enacted, that seems to be slipping away before our eyes.

Mr. Gore Vidal, has pointedly criticized mainstream media as one of the major problems, and what is wrong with the USA. The corporate media conglomerates control the message and that message is perversely distorted and panders to its advertising portfolio! Wolf Blitzer and the rest of the media propagandists, is only one of the most glaring examples of this criticism. He shows clearly those distorted ideas with his reporting, which is nothing more than partially factual opinion dictated by his bosses. He is a person who has no right to shape public opinion far from being the "fly on the wall" he espouses to be.

He has politicked for a re-invigorated Clinton White House given the recent movement of the Obama Camp toward the embrace of the Clintons we can look for Hillary Clinton as the VP within the foreseeable future. The media continues to move the so-called Democratic Party toward that eventual conclusion. This is a media conditioned country and it has been conditioned for that eventuality. This VP committee will decide in this direction. Remember the "Blitzer Dream Team".

We must remember flies morph from maggots. But it is not only Blitzer that has morphed to a new reality. While he displays ignorance as a virtue for the entire world to see, an example of what is considered, by many in America to be news reporting, but shows us a propaganda machine in operation. The only good thing that might happen as a result of a black president is the standing of the USA in the world which may rise briefly until the world sees that the policies of the USA are not very much different as they have experienced these last seven years and presently given the behavior and the twisted message orchestrated by the DNC for its puppet Barak Obama.

Obama really said this? "For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. "

How is it better? What a patronizing ...

I agree with you, Bob K.

Actually, middle-aged women are the most active in political and social struggles. Maybe it is because they can afford to be, but at least they care. A lot of people who can afford to be just want to collect expensive toys.

I am a middle-aged woman. Young people accept me quite well and I don't even know why. I don't try to be like them. I also don't think that they know more than I do. We each know more about some things than others. None of us knows everything.

bobpomeroy,

No, it was YOU who gave us Bush. But don't bother trying to figure it out. If you haven't got it by now, you probably never will. Just keep voting for the Mcbamas and the OCains and cursing the darkness.

I appreciate what Shada had to say. Maybe YOU should take your hostility somewhere else, PJD.

There is no real alternative but McCain, and to vote for anyone but Obama is to elect McCain. Electing McCain to suffer the slings and arrows of recovering from W is a nice idea, but defective. The only way he can govern is with force in defense of W. Nader gave us Bush. Figure it out.

...

disclosure:

I am a middle-aged, middle class white person myself.

"Anybody but the middle aged white woman - that's been the mantle of all the so-called progressives and good ole boys all along. Tom Hayden proclaiming that its now the time for the young (please, its not 1968 anymore so get over yourself)"

Shada, please take your griping somewhere else.

Middle aged, rich, smug, white women (and men) are very well represented, even over represented in the antiwar movement and most activist projects. Yes, it IS now the time for the young, and if you aren't willing to work with them because of their black clothing, percings and tatoos, unshaven armpits and legs, their Proudhon and Emma Goldman, and their use of tactics that you dissaprove of - like expressing their anger clearly, then please retire and get out of their way, and (assuming you are a Pittsburgher) if you continue to lead the Merton Center to irrelavance, you can take it with you too.

Anyone who votes for a known liar does not deserve that vote, but deserves to be a slave of liars.

I'm voting for Nader too. If he can move up from 6% to 10% in the polls, and participate in the Google debate, look out. Once people see he HAS A CHANCE, his numbers will shoot up and it will become a three-way race.

It's a Change election, and the major parties are each putting up extremely flawed, intellectually and morally weak candidates. This could be the year of President Nader. We should all contribute to his campaign.

I expect to vote for Ralph (if he qualifies for the Oregon ballot, I'm not sure where that stands).

If Ralph doesn't qualify, I will vote for McKinney if the Greens get qualified.

If neither of those conditions exist, I will vote or write-in Ron Paul. He agrees with me on almost all the foreign policy issues and can be a Tiger on the FISA privacy issues, and restoring the rest of the Bill of Rights. His votes in the House these two past years were almost identical with Kucinich's votes.

In any case, I'll be voting third party down the ballot wherever a candidate is available that I know something about. There are some good Libertarians in our state and there should be Greens running for minor offices.

Obama's betrayal has made me decide to vote Green. The democrats enabling of the Bush administration has been a slap in my idealistic face. Impeachment should have been vigorously pursued long ago, yet no one takes Kucinich seriously and the media gives credence to the insanity and bankrupcy of the McCain candidacy, what a pitiful state of affairs !

Is it really so difficult to imagine a huge surge in support for Ralph Nader? Are we all so brainwashed that we'd support those who give money to have innocents killed .... for career advancement and fame? Don't you want to build a surge of voters for Nader to send a message that we don't approve? Maybe it will bring around Obama to think his support is slipping. Voting is our way of using the political voice. What else do we have?

If you complain about politicians going along, not resisting, why would you do the same thing by voting for someone who is does not represent your ideals? Can we collectively be clear and focussed on what we want rather than what we don't want?

I hate the way progressives are jerked back and forth. #1) it's frustrating 2) debilitating 3) embarrassing! 4) counter-productive.

Building resistance is what we should be about, not being led around by the nose here and there. You just end up suckered!

We've had it with the two-parties! They've betrayed us, lied, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents in our name, to name just a few atrocities by these selfish, wannabees.

Vote for Ralph Nader, the truth sayer, the doer! The worker! The educator! The real progressive! Give money to his campaign. They need it desperately! This week they're asking us to send just $4, symbolic of Independence Day.

Shada July 6th, 2008 10:56 am
Anybody but the middle aged white woman - that's been the mantle of all the so-called progressives and good ole boys all along.
*********************************************************************

I take issue with that comment, since I AM a Middle aged White woman, Shada. I AM NOT nor have I ever been as you described. Generalizations, many times are unecessary and hurt people or anger people when from that group but never OF that group.
My niece is named Seyda, in Turkey, but there is a certain, as in French accent agrav[sic]under the S giving it the "Sh" sound, beautiful name, mean comment.

I am an Independent who has actively supported Obama's campaign. I can no longer do so. His integrity has been tapped out. His lies and deceits can no longer go unchallenged.

I have only had the opportunity to vote once for a Presidential candidate in the past 40 years. It wasn't apathy that prevented me from doing so. I do NOT vote for the lesser of two evils. I had hoped that Obama was a man of principle and honor. He has failed the test miserably.

Although I have never voted in protest nor have I ever voted for a Republican, I am considering that option, in the sense that sometimes things have to get much worse before they can get better. We'll see. In any case, I will NOT vote for Obama. Progressives have a new home... under the bus.

He had me at hope and change. He lost me with lies and deceit.

Why isn't Obama listening to progressives? (you may ask)

I was chatting to an old leftist at a fourth of July bbq. He said, "we never asked why isn't LBJ listening to us."

Why should we ask why Obama isn't listening to us. He's from the party of LBJ and Clinton after all.

Nobody is going to listen to us until we're loud enough and dangerous enough. And when that happens even McCain will listen to us. Nixon had to give up in Vietnam.

How American politicians work: they say what they need to say when it is convenient for them to win. Later when they need the votes of others (more conservative and backwards) they change their tune. It is all about winning. Now the people who brought Obama to the dance take a back seat to the professional Washington crowd - the gameplayers and the money people. The insiders who have the most to gain career wise now want a winner so they have jobs, etc - its not about leadership or what is best for the american people. It is about pandering to the demands of the ill informed, uneducated populace that has been manipulated decade after decade. But the polls show a large majority want the US out of Iraq. That is clear. That is the vast majority. So who is leading and who is following? Who knows best for the people in a democracy? What is going on here?

Insightful and well-written comments, Thoughts_Into_Action!

Ted Markow, you didn't say exactly how the Obama quote "resonated" with you.

It resonated with me, too, in a shuddery way.

It reminds me of a time during my teen partying days, when I accepted a ride home with a guy who, like myself, had been up all night working on our illegal smiles. Nice guy, but he was so wiped out that when we reached a multi-lane boulevard, even I could tell that he was missing traffic lights and drifting in and out of lanes. Luckily, I guess, there was little traffic and no cops.

I got so nervous that I couldn't help but "front-seat" drive, "braking" by stomping my foot on a nonexistent pedal, and sharply saying things like "Red light!" or "Watch that truck!" I knew it wasn't helping, but I was too fried myself to keep quiet. Finally, when we DID stop at a red light, I apologized for freaking out.

I'll never forget my buddy turning to me with a beatific smile. "That's OK," he said. "I'm not even paying attention to you-- so if it makes you feel better, go right ahead." Scary, but funny.

If I were a progressive Obama supporter, I would feel exactly as I did in that car.

Did you notice that he actually, if obliquely, refers to his supporters as "tools"?

Tom --

One of the things I feel I have to very seriously think

about at this point is not only the betrayals by Obama,

but the last two years of new betrayals by the Democratic

Party WHICH IS NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR TWO YEARS MORE OF WAR

AND THEY COULD HAVE STOPPED IT.

Morally -- can I give my vote to this party?

Looks like the democrats still don't get it. They stand for nothing but the same exact policies as republicans. War and looting of the world (and us).

They haven't learned a thing.

If you want things changed, vote for someone who will do it. Vote for Nader –ESPECIALLY in the swing states.

What makes Obama such an entertaining politician is his oratory; his ability to give such an impassioned, uplifting, and exciting speech without saying a single damn thing of substance.

Vote for Obaba, vote for McCain, vote for Nader if you want to; it really doesn't matter. The plutocrats who run this country will put whichever groveling obsequious puppet they choose in the White House just as they've done for at least the past three decades, and your corporate-controlled and corporate-counted electronic ballot doesn't mean a goddamned thing. Your vote exists only to give you the warm fuzzy illusion of exercising some control over your destiny and being an active participant in a true democracy while providing the thinnest possible veneer of legitimacy to a Fascist police state exclusively dedicated to government with the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

If voting could change anything, it would be illegal.

"They are digging their "national security" trench larger and larger until it will join McCain's national security trench and we, the people, no longer have a choice." There never really was a choice, was there?

Anybody but the middle aged white woman - that's been the mantle of all the so-called progressives and good ole boys all along. Tom Hayden proclaiming that its now the time for the young (please, its not 1968 anymore so get over yourself) while the women who were inspired by the 1960's anti-war and civil rights movements, waited our turn. Now, we're told we're no longer relevant, our sweat, our blood, our attempts to make a more balanced world for our daughters... well, be good gals about it and step aside for the always more deserving male. Hillary offered a more detailed plan for troop withdrawal, a timeline that "progressives" may not have agreed with but it was there all along. Obama is as slick a politician as I've ever seen; his rise to national prominence meteoric. Ironically, he may just win this because of the Clintons. As a Hillary supporter I have been getting a ton of email messages from both Hillary and Bill; cajoling me to "unite" the Party, to come together to help elect Obama. I live in PA which did not fall under the Obama spell. Obama and the Dems need PA now; they suddenly need the working folks who were insulted by Obama, they suddenly need the feminists who were equally inspired by Hillary's candidacy as the Blacks are by Obama's. In the past I've always behaved like a good girl, loyal to whoever the Dems nominated. I always saw third party candidates as the spoilers who helped elect W. This year I'm seriously considering NOT voting for the Democratic candidate. I'm not sure yet if I'll go Third Party or possibly just not vote for any of the above.

Here are some new facts pertaining to the November elections. All are from the mouth of Richard Danzig a former navy secretary who advises Senator Obama on national security.

"It's hard to see how we [meaning an Obama administration] could spend less on the military in the near term. Cuts would be hard to make due to the costs of Senator Obama's plan to withdraw troops from Iraq and of repairing and replacing equipment from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

In other words: expect Obama's first DoD budget request plus his Iraq/Afghanistan "supplementals" to be close to one trillion dollars. Danzig also glibly forgets to tell us that Obama wants to expand the army with 65,000 new soldiers which, of course, is old news but will require increased funding.

"Senator Obama has also said he wants to send at least two more combat brigades - the equivalent of between 6,000 and 10,000 soldiers - to Afghanistan, where violence has climbed as the Taliban and al-Qaeda regrouped."
"Mr Danzig said he could not say precisely when more troops would go to Afghanistan under Senator Obama but stated: "I don't see it as very far off; I think it's a priority."

Have they ever considered the possibility that the renewed growth of Taliban is due to the presence of too many and not to too few foreign soldiers in Afghanistan? This smells like President Johnson and Vietnam: escalate, escalate, and then escalate some more. Obama has once stated to the Chicago Tribune that he is not against all wars, he is only against "dumb" wars. Obviously he considers the "war" in Afghanistan a clever (intelligent?) war. In reality it is just as dumb as the occupation/war in Iraq. And the summit of dumbness would be the bombing of Iran which Obama does not oppose.

"Mr Danzig said Senator Obama supported current efforts to build a missile defense system to protect the United States and its allies from attack by rogue nations."
"But he said the program would be subject to more careful scrutiny under Senator Obama."

In other words: a president Obama will throw billions of additional but "well-scrutinized" [sic!] dollars at the military-industrial complex for a project that most experts think is a total waste of taxpayers money because that "defense" can always be overridden by potential opponents. It also appears that our "allies" are not too happy about the relentless pressure put upon them.

It is now perfectly clear that a loss by Obama in November, should that happen, can no longer be blamed on Hillary and Bill Clinton but only on Obama and his advisers themselves. They are digging their "national security" trench larger and larger until it will join McCain's national security trench and we, the people, no longer have a choice.

Re Obama's "reversal" on FISA, his response on my.barackobama.com blog:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF

This especially resonates with me:

"Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down."

Muggles5 said: "I'd be more impressed by this "accept no lesser of two evils" stance if it was matched by much in the way of alternative institution-building in towns and cities."

So much truth there. It applies to all trends for those who want progressive shift in the country - the Obama supporters, the Naderites, the McKinneyites, the undecided .

We have to figure out how to relate to and organize "those people". They are the type of people who formed the backbone of the Civil Rights movement: hard working, patient, with a deep life understanding of how bad things are. Nobody had to shout at them about injustice because they knew about it for a long time. The means to overcome that injustice were not always obvious or available.

So called rednecks know many things and are also capable of political development. I witnessed that when a few of my hard core racist family members turned toward MLK after his sanitation worker activities. Racism has been the main factor in confusing white workers' perceptions of where they stand in society. When rednecks transform it tends to be more thorough; they do not bring with them the entitled attitudes often found in the educated and comfortable.

The urban, educated left can be clueless as well as very arrogant and preachy, repeating the same strident and simplistic mantras over and over. It is especially offensive when directed toward poor people who are in the midst of dealing with so many complicated daily problems. I would say get over yourselves and do some organizing.

Tom,

I hope you read this and can read the sincerity in my response. I have been following your line of thinking for more than 4 years now (even heard you speak at Busboys & Poets in DC at the 1/27/07 protest) and have been bewildered at either your honest lack of understanding of the two political parties or your staunch determination to lie to yourself about what the Democrats are...a CORPORATE PARTY like the Republicans.

Seriously, you look like a fool with your pleas to Obama to "do the right thing" as if he gives a damn about you, your opinion, or any other individual who is not aligned with the multi-national corporate agenda. Why do you so dearly feel the need to BEG and PLEAD with the Democrats to do the right thing??? Why can't you be a man and think for yourself and separate yourself from LYING, deceitful people and organizations??? Is your ego driving your decision making? Just like the organizational name...you should MOVE ON !

There are plenty of lefties who are looking for more genuine, critical thinkers who have experience from the past...if you are sincere then you will stop lying to yourself and others and put your energy into educating the youth about how organizing works.

peace,

Tom Hayden,
You sound as old school as Hillary and Nader. I don't have any advice for you, but to take a long rest. It is counterintuitive for someone who foresaw the disasterous results of our going to war in Iraq to want to stay there. Give the guy a benefit of the doubt, will you?
Also, I just don't get it, how did you manage to lose Jane Fonda?

"Chance of a "third party" candidate displacing the well-entrenched and ruthless right-wing rule in place for so long?..LESS THAN ZERO!!!" And why is that? Because you Democrats prefer it that way. Because you Democrats march in Goose Step with those that hide the brown streak down their back. Because folk like Tom Hayden have become the cogs of the machine that they once despised. Because power corrupts and Democrat power corrupts Democrats in the same way that Republican power corrupts Republicans. Because people no longer see the possibility of what may be, being content with the probability that perhaps, there will be less evil. No. That is not good enough. That is what the people have been given for options for decades. That is the status quo of deceit, manipulation and empire. If that is what you want, if you wish to live under the delusion that Obama will change that, then vote for Obama. But the empire wants you exactly to do that. It wants you, yet again, to waste your vote and empower them. So go for it and leave those of us who have had enough alone. Being part of the deceit, lies, death and destruction, by voting for more of it is insane. Run Ralph. Run! And by the way, the "well-entrenched and ruthless right-wing rule in place for so long" ARE the Democrats who empower the Republicans. Haven't you noticed?

What shift to the right? Obama has always been to the right of Bill Clinton and the DLC. Hillary, on the other hand, is significantly to the left of her husband. Yet, the same "progressives" who have been promoting Obama have also been smearing Hillary (and marginalizing Nader). What's going on here?

If the aristocracy's plan all along has been to manipulate public opinion and secure the Democratic nomination for the worst possible candidate -- thus giving the Republican nominee the best shot at winning in November -- Hayden, Huffington, The Nation, CommonDreams and others have certainly facilitated that plan quite well.

Not only is Obama a Republican in Democrat's clothing, he's also a corrupt old-school Chicago politician living in a mansion with four fireplaces and six bathrooms which was bought with dirty money kicked back from funds which were supposed to go to public housing for the poor. He has no integrity whatsoever.

Anyone who's done their homework knows that Obama's campaign rhetoric is completely and totally vacuous. And, Hayden has been down this road before. He knows that Richard Nixon campaigned for the presidency in 1968 on the "pledge" that he had a "secret plan" to end the war in Viet Nam. And, President Nixon did indeed pull American troops out of Viet Nam: SIX YEARS AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS LATER, IN 1974!

Yet Hayden buys Obama's phony campaign rhetoric?!! He "first endorsed" Obama because so many other people had already bought Obama's phony campaign rhetoric?!! Where is our leadership on the Left? Where's the wisdom of the sixties experience? Hayden was there! What the hell is wrong with him?

Thoughts_Into_Action:

An excellent, realistic, assessment of Obama and the get along, go along, mainstream Democratic Party collaborators of the Republican Party. Sure, there were some highly qualified Democrats running like Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel displaying integrity and honesty in their campaigns and were tossed aside by their own party in favor of the pro big business, pro Pentagon, anti-Constitutional candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Right from the get go, corporate media focused on Clinton and Obama, excluding the other Dem candidates with coverage, and the willfully ignorant American people (I won't make excuses for them, they get what they deserve) continue to sing the imperialist fascist tune while getting screwed at the same time. We celebrated "Independence Day" a few days ago and since the 2000 election, I believe the Founders of this nation would shed tears on how the American people gave up on participatory democracy with which they risked their lives for.

And for all you folks who condemned Ralph Nader for Al Gore's defeat, you better do a little simple arithmetic. The 50% or so of so-called citizens who don't vote or who don't care who is elected to anything, cost Gore the vote. And these same 50% or so have suffered the most these past seven and a half years under the current administration.

I don't know if you are male or female Thoughts_Into_Action, but you summed it up very well and I compliment you!

TSS -- please stop referring to the lice at the head of our government as "elite" and "at the Top". They are murderous parasites with money, nothing more. The persons you refer to are more akin to "crabs at the bottom".

One person one vote.

The gist of this oddly titled essay is that we should get behind Obama so we can tell him how we feel and then he'll move more in our direction.

We should also join Obama's Web site because Obama listens there - even though he didn't do that the last time. Instead, Obama granted the telecom companies immunity from prosecution for FISA and Constitutional violations. Obama voted against his constituents on a vital matter because, I guess, he just didn't hear us. Indeed, Obama trashed the Bill of Rights in the process, but he'll hear us if we elect him President - yes, he will. So, Tom Hayden implies.

We've heard these kinds of demurrals before, from the likes of John Conyers, who gets overwhelming support for impeachment, but keeps asking for people to support what people have already told him they support. It's like they hear you now, but they suddenly go deaf, and they want you to repeat what you've demanded time and again - that you want impeachment. And they say, "What? I can't hear you!"

Let's parse Tom Hayden's essay some more.

Obama somehow needs you to push him more toward his party's base, and away from the right wing, because if you'll just vote for him, he'll listen to you then, even though you are telling him quite plainly right now that you don't want him to shift to the right - and he just can't hear you. Don't you see that you have to vote for him on the right to convince Obama to move to the left where he was somewhat during the primaries, but, but, but .... You see it's all about political expediency and the art of the possible, and the hope that keeps Obama from turning to the right.

And if that doesn't convince you, just remember that you really have no choice anyway. You're a progressive, and you want perfection, but you have no choice in this election where you'll make a choice. Forget third parties. You must vote Obama because otherwise you'll get McCain. Even though the Democrats supported the worst excesses of the Bush administration, you can't let McCain get it because McCain will enforce the Republican policies that the Democrats in Congress backed during the Bush administration. McCain will propose the kind of judges that the Democrats didn't oppose under Bush. Yeah, there's a real difference here, so vote your fears, not your hopes, even though there's little difference between the candidates. One wants to bomb Iran (McCain) the other wants to bomb Pakistan (Obama). Besides, third parties would divide the Democratic Party from its unity in supporting Republican policies, and where would that leave us?

Neither Obama nor McCain is calling for a specific end to the wars. See, they are pragmatists. You progressives, you just want perfection. But pragmatism means letting the body count pile up. More than 4,000 U.S. GIs dead, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, one million plus dead Iraqis, but pragmatic candidates want an orderly withdrawal because otherwise it could be a bloodbath. Hey, and remember how the Democrats got educational funding for the GIs? Even though the GIs may be dead or maimed by the time of enrollment? See, that's leadership. The art of the possible.

Sure, vote your third party. Progressives want pipe dreams like immmediate withdrawal from the wars and occupations. March 'em out like they were marched in. Just make yourselves feel good, you progressives, by demanding what won't be granted. You can't win. True pragmatic candidates, like Obama or McCain, know that you must be vague about your plans. Don't you see how strategic that is, and how it will help us build a democracy in those ungrateful lands?

You peace voters - you've marched, you've written. But we just can't hear you. Vote Obama, and then, when he's President, he'll say, "You know, now I hear you." If you vote for a third party that supports your views, you'll just let McCain win. And McCain wants to bomb, like Obama, but in a really bad way.

Thank goodness for Tom Hayden's incisive comments. You see, we just need to get organized because they just don't really think we mean it. And don't vote third party, because that really does mean that you mean it, and that would hurt Democratic and Republican unity.

While Mr. Tom Hayden was in Chicago in 1968, I was in S. E. Asia. I was aware then as I am aware now at 61. I detest, and have signed impeachment petitions since 01 on these so-called neo-con fascists, the simp and his fat, greasy friend, 'Chillin' Cheney. Yet Hayden, with all his resources to investigate, for the last seven years has managed to deliver nothing but pablum for the rest of us with so much repetition I am surprised, no, diffident, at his impudent belief in his inate superiority to dogs in the street that have better instincts than he possesses. Is it any wonder Congress has been emasculated?
Throughout this essay of missed opportunities by the Dimwits, Mr. '60's radical leftist Hayden, attempts to suggest he is not of that ilk, when in fact, he is exactly of that ilk with failing to uphold his own worthy values if it means giving up something as useless as being a Dimwit. What else could he do? Go back to college and re-submit his radical, so-called peace agenda to a much more sophisticated crowd of "fuck off, shithead" freshmen eager to rip his throat out for his lack of energy to finish what he started forty years ago?
Quit paying attention to this mass of miscreant protoplasm passing itself off as well-meaning Amerikans.
Life really is much more intelligent and larger.
Just ask my dog.

LOL KEM, yeah it'd be nice if a person possessing such Charisma, knowledge, good intention, iron will, leadership drop off the sky and assume that role. However, the moment he's gone and the public are left in charge again, before long everything will revert back to the same old sh**-hole. There's this saying...that people follow the revolutionaries, but not the revolution itself.

Face it. It doesn't matter capitalism or communism, anarchy or democracy or some other advanced social systems into the future; Each can function justly and equally and efficiently as long as the majority of its citizens possess the right qualities. I don't see any society today that are even close to having such citizenry as majority, it'll probably take at least another 2~300 years or so of social/value reform to see it happen.

In the mean time, a lot of contemporary problems can be solved or controlled if our population can be controlled. If in just 2-3 generations we can reduce the overall population of men in the world down to a quarter of what it is now, many social/economic/environmental problem will be solved by itself, and this can be realistically done if nations put this high on their agenda list and comes together to form a collective plan.

If Obama is elected, it will move the spectum of politics a bit to the left.

He won't be as bad as McCain would be or Bush has been.

Once the spectrum shifts left, progressive liberals can make the next contest one further step towards sanity-a bit more away from the right.

Obama's FISA 180 pisses me off. But he's still our only hope to keep insane mccain out of office.

Nader has done nothing to prepare for this race in recent years, good man or not.

Kem Patrick,
Sorry to say, but we already have a king, his name is George, even if he doesn't have the title he knows how to rule as one. It might be nice to have one on the left for awhile tho.

George Washington fucked it up. The first congress wanted him to be our king and he refused. We sure could use a king for a year now, but not a King George Bush.

A good king for a year would dissolve congress, pull the troops out of Iraq, Korea, Afgan and Germany, etc. Then outlaw from now thru perpituity, lobbying at any level.

Then initiate a totally clean energy program and have solar, wind, geo-thermal, wave and tidal energy developed on a major scale and shut down every coal fired plant and phase out the nukers. Then order the auto makers to build electircal powered vehicles ___ good ones.

That would be the first day's business. There would be a lot more to do, like having a fair paper ballot election in a year and all elected "every-place" would have an eight year term only and no TV ads allowed, ___ ever again. Lots more to straighten up. Would have to have some axe men too, or a tent city in Antarctica for a colony of ousted politicians and hot shot Ceo's.

"I don't understand what happened to Obama?"

Its quite simple. HE WAS LYING.

Obama's always had a ton of Wall St. and corporate money in his accounts. He was lying when he pretended to be a progressive during the primaries. And the corporate money in his accounts told you this from the beginning. Back in 2007, he was surprisingly good at fund-raising, and he was getting as much or more Wall St. money than Hillary. Big red warning signs for anyone who's paying attention.

Then he gave speeches that were just one big load of bull after another. He'd chant 'hope' and
'change' like they were mantras, then be surprisingly vague on what he was going to do. Another big red warning sign.

Then of course there was the time his economic advisers went to Canada and let it slip that Obama was, get this, lying when he said he'd change NAFTA. To the people that count, the message at that time was don't pay attention to the LIES Obama was telling the loyal Democrats, that Obama was really on their side.

But hey, even when this is reported and made known, the Obamabots still just keep following their man. The saint Obama couldn't possibly be lying to us.

Then, ever since he's gotten the nomination locked up, he's made speech after speech and statement after statement disavowing every kinda-sorta-maybe-I'll-hint-I'm-a-lefty thing he said in the primaries.

And the Obama supporters just can't understand what happened to Obama? Duh!

Here's a rule for future elections. The candidate getting big corporate contributions is not the one you back. Because he's not on your side. And he ain't getting that money for free. The candidate you need to back is the one that doesn't have the corporate money and doesn't get all the nice stories on corporate TV.

Do people really expect that corporate America is going to fund and promote some radical politician who's really going to change things in this country? Do they think they are going to find the candidates that will fight for them being promoted on corporate TV? WTF?

At the very least, learn the lesson now and move forward. The candidate with the corporate money and on the corporate TV is not your friend and he won't be your saviour. You are going to need to get out and work and build a political movement that will fight for and represent you! The corporations aren't going to hand you this on a silver platter.

Call you local Green Party and get started today.

Surrender monkey Hayden has spoken.

Hey, go read the article on the FISA bill. The Great Obama just told his supporters to go stuff it. He litterally told them on his blog that they've got no where else to go so he's doing what Bush and AT&T want and they can go stuff it. Ok, not exactly in those words. But that's the message loud and clear.

So, here's old Tom Hayden spreading the bull about how we need to organize to pressure the Great Obama. Well, how's that going for ya? We've just seen the effort to try to do just that on the FISA bill? Doesn't seem to be working so well. When Obama's supporters want something different from the NSA and AT&T, its the Obama supporters who get told to go stuff it.

Sound familiar. Doesn't that sound like all the attempts to 'pressure' the Democratic Congress into stopping the war? Hey, the money doesn't want it, so you progressives go get stuffed. Or, maybe it sounds like the attempts to pressure the Democrats into impeaching Bush? Hey, the money doesn't want it so the whole damn Constitution can go get stuffed!

Isn't the message from the Democrats quite clear by now? THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT ON OUR SIDE! That's fundamental and must be understood. A 'win' by the Democrats is not a win for us because THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT ON OUR SIDE!

Or hey, you can be a good Democrat and vote for the corporate rulers who screw you everytime and then refuse to listen to anyone telling you that you are being an idiot by claiming it must all be them evil Republican shills out here trying to get people to vote third party.

It really makes you wonder how anything as dumb as a Democrat could survive natural selection.

I don't understand what happened to Obama?

We would be very naive to think that there are no republican shills here telling us to vote third party. Vote third party in safe states only. It's life or death.

The right can make a politician rich, or it can kill him. All the left can do is bitch. Who will the politician represent?

Direct democracy via the referendum is the way to keep politicians honest. www.nationalinitiative.us

Just a comment on the 82 MILLION eligible voters not

coming out to vote --

They certainly are not the elites/wealthy failing to

come out to protect their stake in America.

Rather than being concerned with the 82 MILLION eligible
voters who aren't coming out to vote, we have Obama
rising from meetings with MONEY MEN in the past ten days
with an entirely different tale to tell ---

This is not a man with a fire in his belly to for justice --- this is a man working for the MONEY MEN ---

Thanks, anyway, Tom ---

PS: Along with other delusions, I had e-mail from Democracy.com who also cited Obama's move to the right,
but their gimmick now is to try to call in money for
Obama to be held in reserve for him, supposedly only
if he returns to his prior positions!!!

I'm sending my money to Kucinich and Cindy Sheehan
and the Green Party ---

I am probably coming to this party a bit late and there were many really good points in the above comments. So...

Immediately after he essentialy clinched the nomination and got Hillary to say she would fight for his victory, Obama started moving right when he should have moved left. Most of you probably can grasp this intuitively. By the time the election rolls around on Nov. 4---if it does (Iran)---gasoline may be at $6 a gallon or more. All those Red Staters out west who travel long distances to survive will be wondering what's really going on. Most of those driving SUVs will be doing so only because they cannot sell those demented vehicles for anything close to what they are obligated to keep paying for them.

Most election polls are falsely reporting because they are Normative and in a crisis end up asking the wrong questions. I live in the Midwest in a small town filled with "Rednecks" and while you may dismiss this as ANECDOTAL, many of them are as angry as I am (but more fearful). The bursting of the housing bubble is a serious issue here. People cannot find jobs while the "safety net" is illusory as Hell. It goes on and on...

At a certain point I got excited about Obama, but in the past week I have lost any trust in him. He is listening to the same old Dem advisors of the DNC/DLC et al. On economic issues alone, this will be a disaster.

As for Tom Hayden, I met him in the hotel in 1968 Chicago shortly after the "riots" outside the Dem Convention then, and had brunch with him and others of the Chicago Seven. He struck me as an insular asshole then, and his recent writings have not changed my mind. The REAL HERO of the 1968 Chicago Dem Convention was Don Petersen of Wisconsin, who from the Convention floor called for a reconvening of the Convention two weeks later outside of that City because of the violence by the cops. As a reporter I had been in at least 6 riots in at least 3 cities, and as I watched the 1968 Chicago "riot" on TV live in a Washington D.C. apartment I could tell that this was a really nasty scene. There is Mayor Daley trying to "fist" Don Peteresen and epitheting him on TV. One of the pivotal events in the history of the Dem Party, which Obama is too young to remember while it occurred in his own Hometown.

Once again, unless there is real change, the Dems and their advisors will have blown it. Really, our lives and our values are at issue here.

Again, I no longer trust Obama. He had a chance to change history and so far he blew it.
-30-

WOW I can't believe how uncivil some of those that write opinions here are. We all have opinions but bad mouthing is so lacking in understanding and compassion.

I am very pro peace and if Obama is elected and doesn't end the war then it will be a clear call for all who care that it it time for something different and then we must claim our power and make it happen.

Those that blame and complain offer very little to the process except creating more crap to wade through. It is way past time for us to take back the power of the people; that means you and I standing on strong ground. That strong ground includes an open mind, an open heart, courage, a belief in the innate wisdom of all who come together for a higher purpose. Our once great nation has fallen on lesser times because we talk but do not act. We must instead come together to bring about positive change.

Joseph
www.explorelifeblog.com
www.peace-together.com

Obama shares one very important trait with McCain. When they both have been anointed with the mantle of presidential candidate for their respective parties, they will be DOA cases—Dead On Arrival.

People ! its either McCain Or Obama? One of those two will be the next President. Do you think that Mr. Obama also recognizes that reality as well?
Forget all those other third party obtions at this point, its not real. With Obama in the White House we can then work on Moving congress to the left. I think Obama's heart is in the right place ,its his brain thats filled with gobley gook, from all the educated B.S. artist in the leadership of the party.

To make it clear, when I speak of "community-building", I'm not talking about a community of leftists. I'm speaking of a community entailing all the functions of a community.

There truly *wasn't* much difference between, say, Reagan and Clinton. With Clinton, the first priority, under the guidance of Robert Reich, was deregulation, for example. It's a bit troubling to hear Obama praise Reagan.

The neocons are particularly crude militarists and if voters think the first priority is to get rid of them, that's the way it is, but if we think coalitions with corporatists (the two primary parties really do comprise the corporatist party) will result in progressive benefits, *there* is loose screw somewhere.

Be inspired by history, but learn from it, too. The great leftist movements have not exactly taken us into the promised land.

Absolutely breathtaking to hear leftists saying after eight years of Bush that it makes no difference whether the Dems or the GOP hold the White House. This is about real suffering in the world, any lessening of which is a good thing, it is not about maintaining ideological purity. I'd be more impressed by this "accept no lesser of two evils" stance if it was matched by much in the way of alternative institution-building in towns and cities. But frankly, most of that which I have seen going on the last fifteen years (aside from those groups which were already established, in continuity from the 70's and early 80's) has been from the group of people the purists on the left want nothing to do with: churches. There's a contempt displayed by many here for the "naivete" of Obama supporters, while no one seems to take a hard look at Nader, for example. I have family and personal connections to the man, and I once admired him for his work on consumer safety, but there's a lot of problems with him as a leader - he is, oh the irony, a religious puritan - he does not believe in gay rights; he sees most leftists movement building as "identity politics" (with some justification); he has no patience with dissent in groups he has led (much like Chomsky, who is such a hero to the left, and such a monster in his professional life, along with being extremely nasty about people with disabilities. The hard-line posts on here mocking anyone who is voting for the Dems tactically, in hopes of getting some semblance of due process and social welfare back on the table, well... they're just very naive and adolescent. It has mattered hugely that this cabal of maniacal neocons has held sway in Washington. It was very different under Clinton, despite all of his selfishness and bad decisions and deceptions. it mattered simply that he was a Democrat, because different constituencies had to be lied to and cajoled.

The left had better grow up a little bit soon, and remember that the successes of progressivism in the US have always been messy and full of uneasy coalitions and late arrivals, and, oh yeah, people who believe in invisible things, like the Holy Spirit, you know, "those people."

jozef at 4:23 -- Just to plug McKinney ...What you say about Nader is true, but, I'm sorry to say it, he has been a hindrance to the development of the Green Party. As far as I know, he still has never registered as a Green Party member and has mainly used the party for his own purposes (which are indeed noble and useful.)

It should be clear to everyone by now that the outcomes of presidential elections will not make much of a dent in the dire and urgent problems we are facing nationally and globally. Corporate money (and the power elite class) has it locked up. What is required is a strong, disciplined, and inspired grassroots organization, like an army of labor and a community of effort. The Green Party has some potential to organize a movement politically. Nader has not been useful here. In fact, the fixation on presidential elections has sapped much precious energy.

McKinney certainly doesn't have the strong background of Nader, nor am I certain that she will be involved much in building the party, but if she is the Green Party choice for president, it would be well for those who care about grassroots organizing to vote for her if they decide voting for a third party candidate is something they should do.

I see your point of view, too, and have been going back and forth about it for a long time. You may be right in regard to the big show of the presidential election. But I've been involved with the Green Party for many years as a voter, as a member of a county council, and as a participant in statewide and national organization and discussion. I stopped participating about a year ago in frustration that every bit of progress (or the name of Nader) always seemed sufficient until we slid back to where we were before.

We need to work hard. That means you and me and the rest of us. We need to elect Greens (or sympathizers) everywhere and create a counterforce to the Beltway and its minions. We need to go beyond traditional election organizing into something much more akin to radical labor organizing and community-building. IMO, we don't have an option.

Well, I can go on and elaborate forever as it is a subject close to my heart, but it's probably for another forum.

Nader has not been tested, when, if ever, he gets to 50%, I will consider him, right now he can say anything he thinks you want to hear without media scrutany, without having his words twisted, rehashed, assigned forign meaning, placed under a microscope.

Look what happened to Ross Perou, but only when he reached a chance at the Presidency.

I won't take 4 more years of
Bush! I'll vote Obama.

Namaste

SUSANPARKER: Right on!

Yes, McKinney knows from "speaking truth to power" ....

Interesting comments on Hayden's article.
KOLEA: I tend to agree with your first comments but when you talk about the "Naderites" you lost me.

JOZEF 6:08pm post: I have to second you there. Right on!

COOLHANDUKE, RTDRURY, good comments.

HUCK: excellent!

JCLIENTELLE: I like McKinney very much. I like Nader too and of course he has name recognition but when Cynthia WAS IN CONGRESS, she did take on Bush and the Republican agenda, much to the disdain of the traitor Pelosi and other Bush enablers. She'll get my vote more than likely.

It apppears that the closer a candidate comes to realizing his goal the greater the influence of the D.C. aristocracy on his or her campaign. The candidate becomes convinced of his or her inexperience. It is the avenue through which the candidate can then be manipulated to conform to the conventional wisdom and there are so many who want to "help".

VoteNader.org
It is true that a vote for Nader will have no effect.
Oh Wait! that is unless millions of people do it.
There is the small problem of crossing the barrier
from being small and inconsequential to being
large and unstoppable but we need to get started
before we are looking back on Bush as the good years.

The solution is simple: Tell Obama that you will REFUSE to vote for him unless he changes his positions on key issues. Btw, is everyone aware of his latest flip-flop, this time on late term abortions ? He doesn't think that psychological stress of the pregnant woman is worthy of a exemption, he thinks that a psychologically stressed woman should be forced to carry through with the pregnancy. What a nice guy.

I'm waiting for the Hayden / Edwards / Jackson / Gore response to Obama's stance on FISA myself ... how 'bout it?

"Tom has it right. We have to remain critical of Obama, including in public. We have to avoid spreading any illusions about the man. And we have to organize to pressure him (and Congress) even if (especially if?) the Democrats sweep in the fall."

Agreed. We have to remain critical of anyone in power, no matter what party, stripe, or color, and yes, _especially_ if the Democrats sweep.

I can tell that many here are not gamblers. Well, truth be told, neither am I. However, I do realize that there are always odds and opportunities and it's up to us, every day, to take them or leave them. Either way, the responsibility is ours.

We are faced with a rather unpleasant choice: Vote for a man who we may not like, who is not our model of progressivism, or vote for a man who we are certain will keep driving this country and this world into the ground. Or, vote for neither. I support voting for Nader or Kucinich or McKinney if they are building something. I've done it in the past. If someone truly believes in someone and has a strategic plan to build a movement, then I say, good on you! If not, if one just votes for someone who will not win out of churlishness, then it is not only a wasted vote but also an irresponsible vote.

Every voter has the legal right to cast an uninformed vote. That's how we got to where we are now - too many uninformed voters. I suggest that unless you know your candidate's position on all of the issues, PLEASE STAY HOME. DO NOT VOTE. YOU WILL CANCEL OUT THE VOTE OF SOMEONE WHO CARED ENOUGH TO DO THEIR HOMEWORK.

You have the right to vote for either of the war party's candidate - repub or dem. You do NOT have the right to do that and then call yourself a 'peace advocate'. A vote for any dem/repub is a vote for endless war. More Iraqis were killed during the Clinton administration than during Bush's. Remember the 500,000 Iraqi children who were killed and Madeleine Albright said that their deaths were worth it. Damm the democrats! At least the repubs are up front about their love of killing.

War is just the USA business plan. Without war what would the corporations do. Just follow the money. The Iraq war, which has gone on since 1991, has produced a lot of new millionaires. It has been a brilliant success - the largest money laundering scheme in the history of the planet. Money from the working class to the ruling class - brilliant - and they say GWB is dumb. No, my friends, it is us - we are the dumb ones.

VOTE NADER or stay home.

First....Obama has to win...He has to get votes to do this...How does he get the votes of the most uneducated,aggressively ill-informed,historically dud,[possessing almost zero geographical knowledge,hypersensitive to issues regarding "patriotism","sanctity of life",etc.,ignorant of how wealth is really being stolen from the common people to enrich the tiny ruthless elite at the top]populace in the western "democratic" world? With a margin wide enough to over-ride vote stealing on a massive scale?
After winning..THEN he can TRY to bring about some change.Any guarantees?...ZERO

Chance of a "third party" candidate displacing the well-entrenched and ruthless right-wing rule in place for so long?..LESS THAN ZERO!!!

Logical choice? Obama......and then hope and pray...If this doesn't work,forget everything,try to be happy and close your eyes when everything goes over the cliff....

Change, like growth, is incremental. First let's get rid of these Bush clones, then concentrate on the movement.

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT

"What is clear is that Obama is responsive to pressures from the grass-roots base of a party..."

This is not clear at all. In fact, everything Obama has said and done since clinching the Democratic nomination demonstrates that he is deaf to the grass-roots base--takes the grass-roots base entirely for granted knowing full well that not a single "progressive" would dare stay home or vote for another candidate. Without the threat of meaningful consequences for abandoning the peace movement (and civil justice movement and civil rights movement...), Obama will continue to prevaricate, confident that the "left" will vote for him no matter what because it is so cowed by the spectre of a single day more of Republican rule that it would vote for him if he ate babies for breakfast every morning. Perish the thought that the "left" would defect to Nader or McKinney or elsewhere - or even make noises in that direction...although that would be sure to grab Obama's attention. Although that is precisely why Nader is there: to push Obama or whoever back over to the left by unmasking the left's delusions about its perennially weak-principled candidates and serving as an electoral foil.

Obama is about to betray "the movement". Now how are you, "Progressives for Obama," going to explain allowing that to happen????

See you all at the convention, er, behind the chain-link fence, a mile or two from the convention center, we'll finally be heard then.

George Carlin

abramawicz says:

" progressives in non-swing states should declare their intention to vote 3rd party. (But I would advise this irrespective of Obama's recent statements.)"

Right! Vote 3rd Party in non-swing states! That is what the country needs regardless of this election.

The old argument against multi-parties is that nothing gets done in Congress. What could be worse on that score than what we have now?

VOTE OBAMA

Mr. Hayden's basic premise is flawed, to wit: "I first endorsed Obama because of the nature of the movement supporting him, not his particular stands on issues. The excitement among African-Americans and young people, yadda-yadda,,."

He should know by now that the non-aligned mega corporations float a variety of candidates to order to herd the various pockets of Americans into safe zones. Obama is a corporate safe zone in the same way that Bill Clinton was. Clinton used the hopes, aspirations and language of the people of the sixties to render them irrelevant. Once elected, he promptly did all the things the Republicans couldn't have done -- ended welfare "as we know it", rammed NAFTA and GATT through congress, turned over military procurement to Halliburton and its boss, Dick Cheney, halted fuel efficiency rules, etc ad nauseum.

Hayden correctly identifies Obama's role in herding the hopes of black Americans and young people, but he blesses that herding as something good rather than as the strategic ploy of Obama's corporate sponsers that it is.

Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader and Cindy Sheehan are the real McCoys in this current democracy and that's why the corporate press ignores them. If Hayden was his younger self rather than a yippie morphed into a yuppie by way of overexposure to elected life, he might remember that it was street level education and drama that ended the VietNam War and not the high-falutin' analysis and endorsements of corporate candidates who gave them succor while pretending alternatives did not exist.

Giving credence to corporate manipulations does not increase one's hope but slaughters it.

ezeflyer Says:

"I agree with John C.. Obama needs the stupid's support to win. But let Ralph debate."

Absolutely! Ralph is necessary to keep Obama honest and to demonstrate the horrific danger presented by McCain.

I see nothing inconsistent in what Obama has said and is saying now. He was never for the war, and he wants to end it.

I would think CD readers would be smart enough not to fall for this MSM teaser. The news business is kind of slow lately. Let's think up some shit to make our OWN news, says MSM.

You know, today CNN's front page says "Warning Signs for Obama". A couple of days ago CNN's front page said "Warning Signs for McCain".

These MSM guys are fishing. Are you stupid enough to bite?

Here is the same old bullshit: "This is a form of political "chicken," consciously pursued by Ralph Nader in 2000 and resulting in the election of George Bush." No. Not true. A lie. 300,000 DEMOCRATS who voted FOR Bush in Florida "elected" George W. Bush. DEMOCRATS failed to win Gore his home state of Tennessee. DEMOCRATS failed to win Gore, Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas. You see. This is why more and more people are hating the Democratic Party. Because it, and you, don't take friggin' responsibility for YOUR CRAP CANDIDATES and there failures. Nader did not elect George W. Bush. DEMOCRATS DID! To hell with the Democratic Party.
_
"Naderite fantasies may make you feel good–heck, smoking a bowl and falling asleep under a shady tree will make you feel good, but it won't lead you to effective politics geared towards ending the war, preventing the next one or increasing justice here at home." Neither will your election of Barack Obama. Putting Nancy Pelosi in power showed us how much Democrats shive a git about that. Electing Obama to end the war is beyond smoking a bowl full, it is snorting. Obama, who votes for continued supplemental funding. So stop giving us so-called Naderites the same old pap we have been hearing for decades. Working within the Democratic Party is doomed to failure, as doomed as the change that Nancy Pelosi promised in 2006 and didn't deliver.

Which will get us the most progressive change, Obama or McCain?

Obama has a near perfect environmental voting record with the League of Conservation voters and has been endorsed by Gore. McCain has the one of the worst.

For those who say that there is little or no difference between the two during our global warming crisis, please at least consider that. At worst, half a loaf is better than none. The world can't afford another Bush.

We can petition Obama to permit allowing Nader and McKinney in the debates. They will say what Obama cannot say lest he lose the stupid's vote.

No, we're the ones at risk as the American electoral machine again throws up a dreadful candidate and seeks to enthrone an neoliberal opportunist who loves guns, capital punishment and "faith" initiatives.

Right on, Tom. You continue to give a clear-headed analysis of the narrow range of options available to us under the current conditions.

As a longtime CD reader, I am disappointed that the best progressive site for news and analysis has been unable to devvelop a strong core of critical thinkers. "Critical thinking" does not mean "utopian fantasizing." Not does "critical" elevate the short-tempered, emotional, reactive rsponse over the careful analysis of the current situation.

College towns, like Madison, Berkeley, Santa Cruz and Eugene (to name a few) have always provided an atmosphere where crerative progressive thinking could take place, but also be put into action at the local level, if activists remained steadfast in educating and mobilizing the residents. That took real organizing.

The cyber-world has created new opportunities for organizing, but also new opportunities for creating small, autonomous "virtual communities", not unlike some of the 19th century utopian societies where like-minded people withdraw from meaningful interaction from a broader swath of people in order to reinforce their particular worldview. Cyber organizing runs this risk.

As we try to develop strategies to "change the world," it is often difficult to figure where to begin. Archimedes, reflecting on the physics inherent in the use of a lever and fulcrum, famously said, "Give me a place to stand, and I will move the world." For political activists, we need to be clear what will serve as the lever, what serves as the fulcrum, where to apply the tip of the lever to get a good grip and how to organize the strength necessary to aplly to the lever.

Saul Alinsky was brilliant in teaching the nuts and bolts of community organizing and many of us benefitted from studying and trying to apply his techniques. We need a new Saul Alinsky-type strategist to provide a bit of sensible theory and practice to the new crop of impatient revolutionaries.

Tom Hayden, then and now, was always one of the most thoughtful strategists for studying the p[ossibilities in front of us and suggesting an approach which was both practical and visionary.

Thank you, Tom.

Faced with the real world practical choice of McCain versus Obama--one of them will be the next president of the United States--I have no trouble recognizing Obama as the better choice. I wish to spread no illusions about how "progressive" he is, cause he ain't.

Support for any politician, should be critical support. Some degree of support and some degree of criticism. There needs to be a constant re-negotiation of the support, but when you go into negotiations, you have to have a realistic assessment of what you can deliver to the politician and what options the politician has to ignore your demands. At times, you are stuck without much bargaining power because your objective assessment of the situation convinces you that ther is no perfect option available to you.

The Nader (or McKinney) option may have appeal to people who have a greater need to feel uncompromised than the need to avoid a McCain presidency. A hypothetical argument can be made that third parties have the possibility of forcing the candidate to adopt their positions in order to retain their base. This is a form of political "chicken," consciously pursued by Ralph Nader in 2000 and resulting in the election of George Bush. (Those of you who want to deny that Nader cost Gore the election are simultaneously denying the fundamental rational of Nader's campaign. Please look at it a bit more consistently and retain your in=tellectual integrity.)

Nader, and his supporters, are consistently inconsistent on this. They alternate between saying there is no essential difference between the two major candidates so it doesn't matter which one wins. Or they argue that Gore /Obama should be forced by their movement to adopt Nader-like policies. Since they claim there is no meaningful difference, why do I not see them arguing that Bush/McCain should adopt Nader-like positions? I guess they find it less likely that the Republicans are capablee/interested in the Nader base, Hmmm. Why is that?

Tom has it right. We have to remain critical of Obama, including in public. We have to avoid spreading any illusions about the man. And we have to organize to pressure him (and Congress) even if (especially if?) the Democrats sweep in the fall.

Naderite fantasies may make you feel good--heck, smoking a bowl and falling asleep under a shady tree will make you feel good, but it won't lead you to effective politics geared towards ending the war, preventing the next one or increasing justice here at home.

Of course, YMMV.

"Even if Jesus Himself ran for President and won, do you think he'd be able to transform the country? I doubt it - with the horrific duopoly in place - nothing can ever change in a major way."

http://tinyurl.com/6zgw8z

Well, from what I've seen, Jesus isn't running, so maybe we should relax and vote for our best chance, knowing that it falls way short. Maybe J.C. himself would admonish us to stop waiting for a hero and do the heavy lifting ourselves.

.
Obama is set to cost the Democratic Party the November elections accross the country.

The DNC is about to hand victory over to the Republican Party for the next four to eight years.

Senator Obama is a Media Creation.....an empty suit.....No accomplishments and no experience.

Hello President McCain and four more of the same !!!!!!!!!

.

I like that one "It's Third Party Time", OR maybe it would be better with NO party. It is time for Independence from all Parties. That has been my position for 20+ years. If Nader is not on the ballot, just write him in. I have been doing it for years.

Obama left me in the dust when he rejected the views of Rev. Wright. Wright was right about almost everything he said. It would have been a great learning moment for the nation if Obama had explained the things that Wright said. Instead he chickened out and became just one more politician with a White House ambition.

Nader is our only hope. Demand that his name be on the ballot and that he be allowed to debate.

Hayden left out the matter of the war in Iran, which will dominate the agenda of the nation and the campaigns in the coming months. That is coming to a head very rapidly and Obama's positions are not promising.

Perhaps he has been told credibly that he must support the Empire's agenda in the Middle East or he will not be allowed to take office. Perhaps what was put at stake was not just his life but our democratic institutions. Perhaps those are the terms of the Devil's bargain that he has made. If so, will the greater Middle East War destroy his domestic agenda and the movement that has formed behind him?

On the other hand, do we have a movement that could rally millions and tens of millions to thwart an attack on the Constitution? Where is the evidence of that for Obama to see?

I hope Obama wins for many reasons, but I'm not sure I want to spend my credibility or my energy by going out and asking people to vote for him. There are plenty of people on the Obama bandwagon and this race is his to lose. Rather, we need to be building movements that Obama or whoever could turn to for support when they want to go against the system by - for example - withdrawing from Iraq or opposing an attack on Iran.

"What is all this talk about third parties and the importance of a good running mate. Nonsense! A strong third party will divide the party and Mc Cain will win by default." You see, we non Corporate Party (neither Republican or Democrat varieties) give a hoot. The Democratic Party long ago jettisoned the working class, so who cares if their party splits. If Saint Obama cannot wipe out a John McCain in the presidential election, then that tells you a lot, doesn't it? Just like when intellectual Al Gore couldn't wipe out the dim G.W.

What most voters know comes to them through corporate media filters. The nation has been given the candidates the media owners have selected for us. The enormous cost of running makes even "honest" candidates make pacts with the media devils so that they can try to do a little. Obama may not be the corporate neocon controlled media's first choice, but he is for them a safe alternative.

The nation would be better served by putting names of Nader, Kucinich, Paul, McKinney, Dodd, Biden, Al Sharpton, Obama, and McCain in to a hat and pulling one to the the president. Congress is equally serving of corporate interests not general public of the nation. All congress could be replaced by selection at random from Jury duty lists and we would be better served by ordinary pretty honest citizens.

Given the situation we have, I would encourage anyone torn between McCain and Nader to feel free to vote for Nader, or write in their own name. Hopefully even if Obama bombs Iran, he will appoint more liberal Supreme Court justices than McCain would. A vote for anybody other than Obama is a vote for the corporate right wing.

This is a familiar pattern. After all, the American government has not been really acting in the interests of the American people for more than a generation.

Why? Because America is controlled by an oligarchy of wealthy, corporate and military-industrial interests, as well as by an interested foreign power named Israel, and it those interests that the American government serves, pure and simple.

So, anyone who is going to be elected is going to have to cater to those interests. Anyone who does not, such as Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and to a lesser extent, John Edwards will be marginalized and ridiculed by the media and the political and cultural leadership.

Obama is just playing the game to reassure his future bosses that he will not upset the status quo. He has to do this to get elected. Why does this surprise people anymore? When are the American people going to wake up to the reality that their electoral and representative processes are a fraud?

Let's also see how his million and a half donor base reacts?

I suspect many who have given money to the Obama campaign hoped for more than he now promises. And that he may now feel the pinch if too many progressive, hopeful backers stop giving.

If Obama doesn't become more convincing, and more persuasive that he will end the war, then hold back. Don't give.

That's one way of getting their attention.

Thanks, KEM PATRICK. I think Retire Green was looking for an apology from Daniel David, and that's why I said I wouldn't hold my breath. Right, DD? As for Obama, maybe he should have called his book, "The Stupidity of Hope," (instead of "Audacity"), as in it's really stupid to hope that Obama is really a progressive. Or: "you people must be really stupid if you think I'm going to end the occupation of Iraq, enforce the Constitution, fight the corporate interests, or stand up for what's right." Oh well, I'm off to a party to put all this depressing stuff away for a little while. Ciao!

Cynthia McKinney??? Why do people keep bringing her up for president? Isn't she the wild and crazy woman who was stopped by Capitol police for not having her badge on and threw a hissy fit.

Talk about temperament! I've seen her on late night replays of Congressional hearings, and I think she's a snippy thing and not too well prepared.

how many of these politicians do we have to punish before they get it that the one thing we won't tolerate from them is lying?

For many many years it became obviously clear that there is no REAL difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. All the
differences are theatrical and posturing to dupe the mostly naive voters.
Both parties have almost identical foreign and demostic policies which
are dictated by big Money/business.
So, it does not make any differnce who will win next November. Business
will be as usual in Washington DC.
The only hope is a third populist party. But that for the long hall and
it will take years. But that is the only hope for REAL CHANGE.