Tailcap [July 10th, 2008 11:24 am], I have answered some of your questions on another CD thread (see below), but I'll respond to a few here:

tailcap: "3) Obama supports the destruction of the Constitution and granting Telecoms immunity"

For God's sake, Tailcap, even you don't really believe he supports 'the destruction of the Constitution.' Yes, his vote granted the telecoms temporary immunity from civil lawsuits, but not from criminal prosecution. Sen. Russ Feingold is satisfied that a President Obama would respect the Constitution and enforce the law. Do you know better than him?

tailcap: "4) Obama has right wingers as advisers"

You mean Zbigniew Brezinzinski who worked for Jimmy Carter? That's true, but he also has progressives like Joseph Cirincione, Lawrence Korb, Denis McDonough, Gen. Jonathan Gration, et al, advising him. Does he listen to Brezinzinski more than all the others?

tailcap: "5) Obama betrayed his friend of 20 years and spiritual adviser, Wright"

Some might say that Wright betrayed him by not keeping his mouth shut. Besides, exactly how did Obama 'betray' him other than quitting his church? He simply said he doesn't agree with what Wright said -- is that some kind of great betrayal?

These are all pretty fatuous accusations, Tailcap, I'm sure you can do better.

tailcap [July 10th, 2008 11:24 am]: "I don't envy people like you RSJ. You have the unenviable task of justifying all these sell outs through mind-boggling, mental-contortions and acrobatics which in the end are simply unprincipled capitulations to the establishment."

Your problem is you are seeking a Perfect, Principled Hero who will always tell the truth and magically save the country from everything in four years. That creature only exists on movie and TV screens. Ralph Nader isn't it; Cynthia McKinney isn't it, and I can't think of anyone who is. They may be good people, or trying to be good people, but if they ever attained the power of the presidency, trust me, Tailcap, you'd be disappointed in them because they would make human mistakes and tell human lies. As long as they have no power and aren't likely to get elected, they are a good foil for you to castigate people like me for not being progressive enough or selling out my principles. Actually, you aren't even really castigating me, you are going after a demon you've created in your imagination. For example: I'm not a Democrat and have always voted independent, including for Green Party and other progressive candidates, In 2000, I supported Ralph Nader with my money, my vote, and engaged in innumerable heated arguments with Democrats defending him. I thought he was a principled man until he violated his promise to his supporters to build the Green Party into a viable third party. Then, in 2004, he took money from several openly Bush Republican groups seeking to use him to keep down the vote for Kerry. He let himself be used and made excuses, just like any other politician. This is your progressive hero? Other than speeches, what has Ralph Nader actually done since 1996 when he first ran for president to advance the progressive movement? Give me a blatant politician like Obama who more often than not actually gets some progressive legislation passed and is running to win rather than someone who just shows up every four years to make speeches and sell a new book.

This thread is getting impossibly long -- join the fray on the other CD thread here:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/09/10232/#commentsform

ike kay July 10th, 2008 3:28 pm
-of course, but if we follow your logic of instant gratificayion 3rd parties will never be viable

We need to join them, support them and encourage our friends and co-workers to do the same

Hey ike do you seriously believe that on issues the Democratic Party is superior to the Greens?

Is then, your sole opposition that they cannot win- now?

FOR TAILCAP:

By the time the Green-party in the USA picks up enough votes to win the election you will be boating to the polling station.

Sir Thomas More do you really think that Obama isn't going to be the Democratic candidate? If not him then who?

RSJ July 10th, 2008 5:58 am
1) Obama voted to fund the illegal invasion/occupation of sovereign nations without UN approval.

2) Obama has fine print weasel on his website to continue the occupation

3) Obama supports the destruction of the Constitution and granting Telecoms immunity

4) Obama has right wingers as advisers

5) Obama betrayed his friend of 20 years and spiritual adviser, Wright

6) The list could go on and on.........

I don't envy people like you RSJ. You have the unenviable task of justifying all these sell outs through mind-boggling, mental-contortions and acrobatics which in the end are simply unprincipled capitulations to the establishment.

I do like how you tell me to "grow up" when as you can read all the posts, it is you that is on the wrong side of progressives and doesn't need to grow up, you need to WAKE UP!

You like your Democrats, good, vote for them. If it were up to people like me the Democratic Party wouldn't even exsit and instead we would have a real opposition party.

wsws.org website [July 9th, 2008 4:00 pm] wrote: "You want facts, yet you haven't responded to my point that Obama has more corporate money behind him than McCain. In a previous post in this thread — in response to your doubting that *fact* — I documented Obama's corporate backing, and how much greater it is than that of McCain's. (Just scroll up for that post.)"

I can find no documented reference to Obama's financial backers posted by you on this thread except on [July 7th, 2008 3:43 pm], which incorrectly implies Obama is a member of the Clinton's 'Republican Lite' Democratic Leadership Council. In fact, Obama does not belong to the DLC. Yes, elsewhere you allege that Obama takes more corporate money than Obama, yet you show no documented proof, just your opinion. Nannie has posted the same list [July 9th, 2008 2:26 pm] she always posts which is misleading as well as silly -- the Center for Responsive Politics, the group that prepared Nannie's list of 'corporate' donors that includes universities, also concludes on their 'Summary' page at Open Secrets.org that Obama has taken no money from lobbyists or PACs. Step back and total up that list of contributors Nannie posted -- made up of the employees and their relatives of businesses and colleges -- and it adds up to less than $10 million dollars out of the nearly $300 million Obama has collected! In fact, the majority of his campaign cash was donated in the form of individual contributions of under $200 dollars. If Obama is in the back pocket of anybody, it's the small campaign donors who account for most of his donations.

Meanwhile, John McCain is awash in lobbyist and PAC money from traditional GOP donors, receives help from the suddenly-flush Republican National Committee, the well-funded 527 'Swift Boat' groups, and most of his campaign staff are current or former lobbyists. I'm surprised someone as informed as you seem to be would continue to try and advance this lame argument that Obama is the 'true' corporate candidate in this election.

Which brings me to Matt Gonzalez's article at CounterPunch you linked to: I could rebut him point-by-point, as his argument is based on facts that are either twisted or left incomplete to make his case, but instead of posting a lengthy diatribe, I'll use just two examples to show you how he has employed misleading half-truths to smear Obama. Read this paragraph by Gonzalez:

"And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman "his mentor" and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called "Bush's closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?"

Whether Obama actually "went out of his way" is arguable, but it's true that he did make speeches during the Connecticut Democratic primary on behalf of Lieberman in the spring of 2006. That's the half-truth. What Gonzalez leaves out is that once Ned Lamont became the Dem nominee, Obama supported him in the fall over Lieberman. (And Lamont is now supporting Obama for president.) Matt also doesn't explain the full truth that in the US Senate, a 'mentor' -- a senior senator who shows a new senator the ropes -- is selected by a senate committee, not by the freshman senator. So Lieberman was Obama's 'mentor,' but not by Obama's choice. It's a matter of record that he opposed the Kyl-Lieberman bill to give Bush a loophole to attack Iran. Although the vote was held so quickly he wasn't able to get back to Washington in time to vote against it, he made a point of having his objections to Lieberman's act included in the Congressional record. Does this sound like someone who is pro-war? Someone who is some sort of puppet of Lieberman as Gonzalez implies?

Here's Gonzalez again, flaying Obama on the death penalty:

"Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it."

Yes, he does, unfortunately, support the death penalty -- that's the half-truth. But Gonzalez does not include the information that Obama, when a State Senator in Illinois, successfully sponsored bills to force the police to videotape interrogations to help prevent suspects from being railroaded into confessions that might land them on death row, and to reform the way defendants are processed in capital felony cases and the way they are treated in court. While he may still support the death penalty, he has worked to make it fairer and less often used, especially against poor and disadvantaged defendants.

BTW, did I mention the Matt Gonzalez is Ralph Nader's candidate for vice president? So what we have here is basically a politician posting a hatchet job on a political opponent. Great, wsws, next time why not use for 'objective proof' John McCain's opinions of Obama's voting record?

Obama is a black man trying to get elected president in a still mostly white country, and there is a sliver of doubt about him in the minds of some white voters; too much of a veer to the left and he's the radical 'Black Liberation Theologist' being depicted in neocon email campaigns, ready to give away the country to Louis Farrakhan. Even soft-liberal suburban whites would abandon him. This is also a country where large numbers of people, even many 'JFK' liberals, believe in 'American exceptionalism,' which has led to our faltering empire overseas. Were Obama to come out against all American involvement in other countries, the Big Media and the Republicans would bury him as 'soft on terrorism' or 'anti-American' or some such nonsense and McCain would win in a walk.

But, to be honest, I see Obama as a centrist-liberal on foreign policy -- I think he believes the US should police the world, working in concert with the EU and our other close allies, and only use force as a last resort. That's still an improvement over McCain, though, who thinks we should be its dictator and that the rational answer to every perceived enemy is war.

In comparison to Bush-replica McCain, who has promised Junior's bloody empire will continue and expand under his presidency, Obama has plans to pull back and negotiate rather than attack. Even if he doesn't keep every single one of his promises in the Middle East we, and our troops over there, will be better off with the nuanced intelligence of Obama than the Bluto-on-steroids approach of McCain.

I'm not 'hoping that he'll change his tune' once elected -- if he sticks to what he has said so far, he'll be a vast improvement over what we've had the past eight years and what McCain has in store for the next four.

Now, when are one of you Nader supporters going to answer my questions posted above?

tailcap [July 9th, 2008 5:07 pm] wrote: "By the way, RSJ, Obama did vote yea on the immunity for Telecoms."

Yes, he did and, frankly, it stinks. Did I say he's a politician? Politicians sometimes lie, even the great ones like FDR. When you grow up -- sorry for the ad hominem attack, Tailcap -- you'll realize that.

Quoting from the following article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j09.shtml -- entitled,
"Obama's Swing to Right Sparks Warnings From 'Left Backers'" --

"In the space of barely a week, the candidate (Obama) declared his support for a bill that he will vote for this week legalizing the Bush administration's massive domestic wiretapping program and giving retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that facilitated it; opposed a decision by the US Supreme Court opposing the extension of the death penalty to crimes other than homicide and appealed to the Christian right with a pledge to double funding for "faith-based" programs.

"This embrace of positions associated with the Republican right followed his slavish declaration of support for right-wing Zionism at last month's conference of the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC and a series of bellicose statements regarding Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan.

"Finally, on July 3, the candidate held a news conference that many cast as a retreat from his campaign pledge to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq in 16 months after entering the White House. Obama stressed that 'the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability,' while insisting that he would 'continue to refine my policies' based on information he receives from 'our commanders on the ground.' ...

"This position reflects a growing consensus within America's ruling establishment that, whatever the divisions over the 'mistake' of launching the war in the first place, the predatory venture must be made to succeed in the end, furthering 'US interests,' specifically domination over the strategic energy resources of Iraq.

"However, for many of those who, over the course of the more than year-and-a-half-long campaign for the Democratic nomination, portrayed Obama's candidacy as a fundamental change in American politics, the candidate's new 'sensible' approach has apparently come as a shock. ...

"Among the left liberals who have assiduously promoted illusions in Obama, there are those who are deluding themselves and those who work quite consciously to deceive others. ...

"Nothing could more clearly define the politics of cynical opportunism that characterizes the great majority of the so-called left in America. Worshipers of the accomplished fact, they are mesmerized by the supposed immutability of the two-party system and seek to paint the Democratic Party as some vehicle for effecting progressive social change, despite decades of evidence to the contrary. ...

"(Obama's) presidential candidacy has been engineered by a section of the political establishment that sees it as an ideal means of putting a new face on discredited American imperialism and carrying out real but quite limited adjustments in American policy after eight years of the Bush administration. His brief though meteoric political career represents for these forces an empty vessel into which policies are being poured that have nothing to do with peace. ...

"When the candidate (Obama) insists that he has not shifted on Iraq, he is essentially correct. His promise to 'end the war' always envisioned the continuation of the US occupation and the pursuit of the war's original predatory aims. His essential difference with McCain is over whether more troops should be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan to escalate the US war there and potentially extend it into Pakistan.

"As for domestic policy, the money that has poured into his campaign coffers from Wall Street, **nearly twice the amount donated to his Republican rival John McCain,** is based on the clear understanding that an Obama administration will faithfully serve America's financial oligarchy. (Asterisks added.)

"If the candidate is more openly promoting his right-wing agenda now, it is not in interests of gaining votes. Over two-thirds of the American people want an end to the war and the overwhelming majority is hostile to the Bush administration; he does not have to appeal to some vast right-wing constituency. On the contrary, Obama is making his pitch to the ruling elite, attempting to cast himself as 'presidential,' i.e., someone who is prepared to do whatever it takes to defend the interests of American capitalism, both at home and abroad."

Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j09.shtml

RSJ July 9th, 2008 2:59 pm
Thanks for your measured and thoughtful response. I respect your right to your opinion RSJ. I will also take your advice and cease using caps for rat in Democrat. Good call, aD Hominem-abusive argument. I really don't need to call them names, your right to point it out. Well done RSJ. Democrats hang themselves by their deeds. By the way, RSJ, Obama did vote yea on the immunity for Telecoms.

RSJ,

You want facts, yet you haven't responded to my point that Obama has more corporate money behind him than McCain. In a previous post in this thread -- in response to your doubting that *fact* -- I documented Obama's corporate backing, and how much greater it is than that of McCain's. (Just scroll up for that post.)

But you, evidently, continue to think otherwise.

As for *more* fact, what's your response to the followng -- http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html

Obama standing with the ruling class on the issue of American imperilaism is no small matter.

In fact, American imperialism affects every single health, education and welfare issue, given the enormous amount of money spent on the war (15 billion dollars a month) and on the over all Pentagon budget (over 550 billion dollars per year!).

Obama is an apologist for this obscene wastefulness, and he's an apologist for the ongoing muderousness of US foreign policies.

*Hoping* that he'll change his tune once he's in office is naive at best.

How about, If you like Kem and Monica __ blow your horn.

I think it's time for a female VP, or a Prez.

lisa3210peace: good info and comments, thanks.

tailcap [July 8th, 2008 10:58 am] wrote: "We all know this is a complete crock of shit and is actually the fine print weasel that allows him to keep many 10's of thousands of troops in Iraq to ensure the profits of Big Oil, Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater and a host of other profit-seeking vultures. These so-called "targeted strikes" always seem to kill some innocent kid looking out the window or a group of people at a wedding."

No, we don't "all know this" and even you don't know this. Until Obama is president this is simply your opinion, pulled out of your crystal ball or, more likely, where the moon don't shine. If you can prove Obama is dead-set on enhancing the profits of Halliburton, Big Oil or Blackwater, you should present some proof beyond your speculations.

Tailcap, et al, if you want to call me an 'Obama apologist' because I try to correct distortions, mostly from the radical right-wing, about his record, then so be it -- I'm an apologist. I'm neither disingenuous nor trying to deceive anyone -- I'm just trying to present the facts, not overheated opinions or lurid predictions. Tailcap, you admit you have some personal dislike for Obama -- that's fine, just don't make up things to justify your personal animosity. (BTW, Tailcap, the only group I've seen use the construction 'DemocRATs' are the featherdusters and Dittoheads over at Free Republic. From reading your comments, I assume you don't want to be associated with those neocon knuckle-draggers and chickenhawk goose-steppers.)

Speaking of Freepers: tetti_tatti [July 8th, 2008 11:07 am], stop trying to split the progressive vote on behalf of your friends at the RNC. I've read your posts in many other threads here at CD; first it was Hillary and now it's Nader. Give it up.

wobblie July 8th, 2008 11:47 am wrote: "Obama is part of the problem: supports war, FISA immunity, insurance industry, nuclear power, NAFTA, gets the most funds of any candidate from financial industry, protects Bush from impeachment …. need i go on."

Obama does not support war; he hasn't voted yet on FISA immunity; he has no particular ties to the insurance industry; he supports nuclear power as a transition phase to renewable green energy; he supports NAFTA with guarantees protecting American workers; he does not get the most funds of any candidate from the financial industry; and he isn't 'protecting' Bush from impeachment -- he's just smart enough to know that impeachment will go nowhere in the House and Senate. (Kucinich has already introduced it and it's gone into committee.) Wobblie, you've consistently distorted, misstated, and failed to provide proof for your charges. That shows what kind of person you are, not what kind of president Obama would be. Need I go on?

Nannie [July 8th, 2008 1:08 pm], you have managed to simplify to the point of absurdity some very complex issues, but I'll respond in kind:

single payer national health insurance:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

No, it's not off the table for Obama. He just knows it doesn't have a chance of passing Congress anytime soon. In the meantime he has a stopgap plan to cover all Americans.

Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Obama has said he will cut defense spending in certain areas, but will increase funding for such things as the VA and military families.

No to nuclear power, solar energy first:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

This is almost criminally dumb. Germany is committed to solar powering the whole country and they are installing solar panels all along the nation's Autobahn to effect that result. Even with a full national commitment to solar energy, the minister in charge says it will be 2010 before they can provide even ONE/THIRD of Germany's energy needs from solar power. How in hell does Nader plan to convert a nation the size of the US to solar power overnight? (No pun intended.) It is entirely unrealistic, impractical and impracticable. Obama's program phases in solar, wind and other renewable green energy sources with as little pain to our weakened economy as possible.

Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Wrong. Obama has said he will prosecute the former and end the latter.

Open up the Presidential debates:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Obama hasn't said anything on this score that I'm aware of, so that remains an unknown.

Adopt a carbon pollution tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Obama has not put this 'off the table.'

Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Obama just said yesterday that he will end the war in Iraq. He has also said he will negotiate with Iran and other Middle Eastern nations to achieve peace. That is a substantial change from Bush's current policy.

Impeach Bush/Cheney:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

A President Nader couldn't impeach Bush and Cheney once they are out of office. Obama has already said he will instruct his AG to investigate and prosecute any crimes committed by past administrations. Ralph could do no more than that.

Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Obama has stated he supports unions and union organizing, but I haven't heard him directly address the Taft-Hartley act.

Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Wrong. Obama supports taxing Wall Street speculation and improving the ability of the SEC to prosecute white-collar crime.

Put an end to ballot access obstructionism:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Wrong. Obama has supported fairer voting practices.

Work to end corporate personhood:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Haven't heard him address this issue, so you can't say it's 'off the table.'

Nannie, three questions:

1. If Ralph Nader has as much integrity as you claim, then why did he renege on his 2000 promise to build the Green Party into a true national party?

2. Since the popular vote in meaningless and only the electoral vote determines the presidency, how does Ralph become president when he's not on the ballot in enough states to get the required number of electoral votes to win?

3. If Ralph should somehow become president, how does he enact such things as single-payer universal health care or transitioning to renewable energy without the support of majorities in the House and Senate, since he'll have few supporters in either chamber of Congress?

(You Cynthia McKinney supporters can respond to these last two questions, as well.)

I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer. Whenever I try to pin down exactly what will happen if Nader, or another third party candidate, actually gets elected, his/her supporters go blank because they haven't really thought about it, or they just don't know how our system of government works. They seem to think we are electing a monarch rather than the head of one branch of a tripartite government.

Since I don't view a political contest between flawed human beings as a self-righteous religious crusade or the election of a saint, I'm not voting for the lesser of however many evils -- I am voting for the least imperfect of all of the imperfect candidates in an imperfect election in an imperfect country in an imperfect world full of imperfect people.

As I said, if you find the perfect, or even near perfect, candidate who has a chance of getting elected, let me know. He or she will have my vote.

In the meantime, it's either Obama or McCain, and Obama is the least imperfect of the two by far.

KEM PATRICK [July 9th, 2008 12:58 am], possible 2008 bumper sticker: "Stick It To 'Em with Kem!" or "No GOP, No Dem, No Nader, Vote Kem!" ;)

.

I'll say it again…

We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.

Never before as we do now

http://www.votenader.org/index.html

.

.

Goldman Sachs $571,330
University of California $466,410
UBS AG $364,556
JPMorgan Chase & Co $364,157
Citigroup Inc $360,304
National Amusements Inc $322,050
Lehman Brothers $319,147
Harvard University $315,624
Google Inc $309,714
Sidley Austin LLP $294,445
Skadden, Arps et al $278,163
Time Warner $264,977
Morgan Stanley $260,376
Jones Day $249,375
Exelon Corp $236,211
Latham & Watkins $220,865
Wilmerhale Llp $220,230
University of Chicago $219,707
Microsoft Corp $206,942
General Electric $206,579

.

.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

OBAMA TOP CONTRIBUTORS

" You gotta dance with the one who brung ya "

.

lisa3210peace July 9th, 2008 4:22 am

I'm with Lisa Tailcap. Kudo's!

I wish that "liberals" would for once vote for their candidate. What Obama has been doing these past couple weeks with his turn to the right, is simply political posturing. I believe he will be the most left wing candidate the democrats have run in my lifetime. I dont understand how a decent candidate will never be good enough for the super liberals. Voting for McKinney or Nader is essentially voting for John McCain.
The system in America is a two party system, deal with it. You are never going to change that unless you wish to split the democratic party and give power to conservatives until America inevitably implodes. What the Ralph Nader's of the world could never do is climb the political ladder of the Democratic party and thus they remain non factors. McKinney atleast tried, and was a Democrat until she lost her seat and her relevancy in American politics.
The green party is a nuisance at best, if you want a more left wing democratic party what you need to do is run more Democrats like Dennis Kucinich. But that's never going to happen unless we get Obama elected. If we all turn out and vote for Obama we will win, unless they rig the election (which I fear may happen). But all we can do is support our candidate, once Obama is elected things like the FISA bill will be a thing of the past. He wont turn his back on us, but he also isnt going to redistribute the wealth in this country. Small steps is the only way things have ever come to be in this country. Abraham Lincoln wouldnt have free'd a single slave if that would have saved the Union.
I honestly am very cynical about politics in America, the best outcome I can see is to put a new face on America, and to pull out of Iraq so the rest of the world doesnt hate us as much. For me Obama is the only candidate that can accomplish this feet. My friends overseas are all pulling for Obama, and Im considering working for his campaign. I just wish that my party would unite for once, it's like once Hillary Clinton was out of the race we all just started infighting.

Anyways... Vote for Obama or watch the country you love slide further down the road of no return.

Peace.

Jiminey Cricket tailcap, you are forthright and fearless in self-analyses; this requires a subtle courage that many shy from.

Thank you for taking time to explain your feelings. Although we ground our decisions in facts as we know them, our 'gut' sense of things, our instincts largely guide us in the end.

Like your unease with Obama, I have a small degree of faith in him; both, possibly, intuitions to some extent.

Peace. Piece by piece.

Lisa, you made a good call and got me. I used to work for a firm (Hughes Aircraft) that got bought out several times, eventually by Raytheon. I still own stock. I'm in a hypocritical bind because I am staunchly antiwar but own Rayheon stock. Tonight I promised myself to get rid of it ASAP. Good call Lisa you nailed me good!

Hi Lisa, first off I am not voting for Nader. Secondly, although I am not a history major, I do not think very many wars were necessary. The one is Iraq is certainly illegal and immoral. Thirdly, I am not a fan of the military industrial complex, so my answer to #2 is no.

I am voting for Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party if she is on the ballot. If not, I will vote for the Socialist Equality Party candidate.

Lisa, if you think I'm pushing Nader, you are barking up the wrong tree, but having said that I would vote for Nader over Obama any day if those were my only two choices!

Sorry Lisa3210peace, I can't stand Obama and what's weird is that I've never liked him from the first time I heard about him which was at the last convention in 2004 when he gave a speech and everybody starting fawning and equating him with a "rock star". It is strange but I am not in the very least way impressed by him at all. Everything he has done lately just gave me fresh ammunition but I have never liked him, rightly or wrongly. I will not vote for him under any condition. I just don't like the man. Period.

Because, ya see, Ralph owns stock in Occidental petroleum, The Gap, Wal-Mart, HALLIBURTON, Defense contractors, other Oil Co.'s,and a lot of Bristol Myers-Squibb.

He's conceded he owns 'about' a quarter million dollars worth of Fidelity Magellan stock.

Google Nader investments. Because, ya see......Halliburton?
Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics-

If this creep is the lesser of two evils, I'd hate to see who he had the moral high ground on.

He's a darling of big corporations now. Fox News Pundit. They know who their friends are. Constantly attacking the Dem's.

He has no right. His money is in missiles. And a WHOLE LOT in Cisco. Research Cisco and tell me he's a good man.

tailcap; hello. you say you won't vote for any candidate that votes for 'uneccessary' wars or funds them.

I have two questions.

1. What necessary war might you possibly imagine?

And 2. Would you vote for a candidate who invests significant amounts of money in weapons manufacturers?

Thanks for any response, ESPECIALLY TO QUESTION NUMBER TWO..

MYTH: NADER COST GORE THE ELECTION

"Democrats for Bush, Democrats for nobody"
"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush"
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

Even if none of the factors mentioned above had happened (see http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html), the votes of Florida voters themselves show that Ralph Nader was not responsible for George W. Bush's presidency. If one percent of these Democrats had stuck with their own candidate, Al Gore would easily have won Florida and become president. In addition, half of all registered Democrats did not even bother going to the polls and voting.

According to the official 2001 Statistics of the Presidential and Congressional Election of November 7, 2000, George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by 543 votes. It is noteworthy that every third-party candidate received enough votes in Florida to have cost Al Gore the election.

Green Party Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader did not work for the Florida Secretary of State, the Palm Beach County Election Commission, the Al Gore campaign committee, or the United States Supreme Court. Yet, he has become a scapegoat among many Democrats for Al Gore's loss of the 2000 election, and, beyond the election, the person to blame for the resulting policies of George Bush. These diehard Democrats are averse to looking at the failings of their candidate, and they are not blaming voters for failing to vote at all. Instead, they are upset that Ralph Nader did not acquiesce to dropping out of the race as many urged him to do. As a side note, if Al Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, he would have had the necessary Electoral College votes to have won the election and the Florida results would have been irrelevant.

Lastly what makes DemocRATS think they own votes and Nader steals them? I for one, will not vote for any politician that either votes for unnecessary wars or funds them. Period. Doesn't matter what rationale is used by their apologist. So if I hadn't voted for Nader I would have voted for somebody else but it certainly wouldn't have been a Democratic-Republican. Sorry.

Hey have you guys ever thought about blaming the DemocRATic Senators that refused to sign on to an investigation (even after being begged by House members) of what happened including Al Gore?

Hey ever think to blame the Supreme Court Justices the DemocRATS helped to confirm?

Kem, that was pretty funny, I'll vote for you-you sound like the lesser of other evils.....?

Nannie; you posted a quote by Nader asserting 'they' would take money from ANYBODY.

Well Nannie, what ralph was defending their was his record of accepting bundles of contributions from REPUBLICANS when it would hurt Democrats.

He's been of Fox 'News' attacking the Democrats- BUT NOT THE REPUBLICAN THUGS WHO ARE RAPING ME RIGHT NOW.

You know NADER INVITED MCCAIN to help in his 2004 campaign?
And you WORSHIP this guy?

Salon.com Feb, 08 analyzed his one-sided attacks on Democrats, and HOW HIS DECISION TO RUN IN '08 "MAY BE TO HELP HIS FRIEND MCCAIN."

However it's Nader's investments in Weapons Manufacturers that sickens me the most.

You've been hustled.

Is Salon.com trustworthy in your opinion?

Yeah don't vote, and that's why we now have a fascist form of government.

~Nannie~ if Nader has 20% chances in the polls by October, I'll vote for him. Even though I think he'd be a lousy president, he'd be FAR LESS lousy than Obama or McCain. And there we go, I'd be voting for the lesser of three evils. You know who I'd like to see as our president? ______ Me.

I would take names and kick ass from day one, pull our troops out of Iraq, go visit Fidel, have Naader as my Attorney General and take our atomic bombs back from the Isralis and have the voting system revised with only paper ballots and no TV ads allowed for candidates and ship every lobbyist to the Anarctic, one way tickets.

Then we'd begn a massive program to have clean energy and phase out nukers and coal fired plants within eight years. That would be the first week and I'd continue until I was impeached. ___

Impeached? ___ Oh yeah, ___ I enjoy blows jobs too.

First, people must believe that the electoral system is honest and fair.

I don't think it can be shown.

Second, this election will be the last in which this nation will enjoy relative prosperity. The markets will collapse (demand collapse), economic depression will destroy the "American Dream" and people will revolt and replace this political system with something new. I doubt it will maintain a corporate business government in its present form.

Voting is a waste of time.

Dr. Lakoff:

Finally the answer to what really makes Joe Public tick. I hope the Dems read this and see the light before they screw up the election.

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

Nannie July

.

NANNIE JULY- CAMPAIGN FOR RALPH

lisa3210peace July 8th, 2008 12:57 pm

Very nice!

WELCOME TO AMERICA!

KEM PATRICK,

i must say i do agree with most of what you say, but then in the end you fall for the classic trap of the lesser of two evils.

how do you (or anyone) propose to get out of it?

slowing down the empire does not end the empire.

people will still die in wars under obama, we will be moving toward nuke power with obama, he supports NAFTA and his war council resembles clinton's cabinet, among many other things.

Thats enough for me. mccain and obama are not that much different.

lisa3210peace,

Marx would point out that it is the liberals above all that legitimize the systems.

Jim Glover, Okay, Lisa I love you! I really do and you are right, we have more in Common Dreams!

Obama is in self-destruct mode, i.e., he is letting us know who he really is?
_
John McCain is in self destruct mode, i.e., we know what he really is?
_
It's time we stopped bailing either major party candidate out, hoping that they are what we would want them to be. It's not going to happen. The only bailing out worth while is bailing out of the so-called 2-party system. Run Ralph. Run!

.

http://www.pr.com/article/1100
Ralph Nader Goes to Washington... Again - The PR.com Interview
By Allison Kugel, Senior Editor - May 14, 2008
Ralph Nader:
We just accept money from individuals, as long as it's legal. We don't take money from PACs (Political Action Committees). We don't take money from commercial interests, which have a quid pro quo, like the oil companies, auto companies and insurance banks. We don't do that. If people want to contribute, no matter who they are, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Green, whatever… you want to contribute? Welcome. There's no quid pro quo (a Latin term meaning "something for something"). They see where we stand and they see our issues on the table. You want to contribute? We're grateful.

.

.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

single payer national health insurance:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

No to nuclear power, solar energy first:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Open up the Presidential debates:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Adopt a carbon pollution tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Impeach Bush/Cheney:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Put an end to ballot access obstructionism:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

Work to end corporate personhood:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table

.

Tailcap,

Leave Lisa alone!

Here is a better one. You have evil on your mind more than Bush ever did.
Your idea translates in the real world as "why waste a vote on the Lesser when you can help the Greater Evil?" and then blame it all on everyone who doesn't accept your fantasy view.

Maybe you think you are a loyal Marxist and maybe you think that makes you not evil,
but if you think you will help the Green Party with your hangup on "Evil", you are really providing me with some great infotainment and that shirt story is amazing. The Greens are gonna need that one.

tailcap, Non-Obama Supporters;

Although we've come to different conclusions about how to try and effect change, most CD threaders share common principles and ideals.

Paradoxically, those of us that seem most diametrically opposed in thought are surely quite aligned in principle and perception of right and wrong.

We have more Common Dreams than Intrinsic Differences.

We disagree about how to get to the top of the mountain, not that it is there, or that it must be climbed.

Peace To All.

lisa3210peace July 8th, 2008 12:31 pm writes "...is this typical Obama-Hater strategy?"

Notice how your typical Obama-supporting DemocRATic Party apologists struggles to come up with reasons for supporting that sellout Obama that doesn't involve lesseroftwoevilism.

Absent the ability to make a good argument she resorts to calling me a "typical Obama-Hater" as if this is somehow justification for Obama selling out and refutes my charges.

Surely, Relativist-Marxist lisa3210peace, you must be able to make a better case than that. Weak.

Congratulations Relativist-Marxist lisa3210peace! You just did the side-step weasel all Obama-supporting DemocRATic Party apologists do when asked to state reasons for voting for DemocRATS that aren't lessoftwoevilism.

I will vote for Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney in the hopes we can build up a party that will eventually be able to compete with the two party duopoly you support. I already volunteered to help them. I hope twe can pick up a few percentage points each election until enough people like you start supporting real progressives and decide you are tired of getting screwed and cooked in a pot like a frog.

BLOODY SHIRTS
Your friend needs a shirt. The Big Shirt Store at the mall offers two and only two types of dress shirts. A white shirt and a black one. The white shirt is made in China and the workmanship is shoddy. It has loose threads and all the seams are crooked and most of the buttons are loose and some are actually falling off.

The black shirt is made in Indochina and is SLIGHTLY better. Some of its seams are not crooked but almost half are. Some of its buttons are loose and and one is falling off. Both shirts are of inferior quality but the Black one is slightly better. Both are expensive and are bought "as is" with no refunds or returns.

Conclusion: I must buy the Black shirt because it's better than the white shirt and I only have two choices. The shirt must be purchased at the Big Shirt store at the mall. - WHY?

- WRONG!
You tell your friend: If you were to bother to shop at a smaller store down the street you'd see they are offering well made shirts at an affordable price. The worker that made those shirts don't work in sweat shops and are a much better deal all around. You also inform your friend that by not buying from the little guy they may just go out of business. You also mention that if we all start shopping at the Little Shirt Store they will be able to expand and start competing with the Big Shirt guys.

Next day, much to your dismay you run into your friend wearing a black shirt. He's busy, hunched and bent over on the ground, trying to find a button that just fell off his new shirt as a seam in the back starts to rip. You look down on him and say, "I told you so!"

Your friend, not getting it replies, "It's ok, I'll take it home to my wife who can sew the button back on and repair the ripped seam. It's still better than the white shirt."

You scratch your head, look down, and say, "Good luck" as you walk off.

Why do you write that to KEM PATRICK ~ WOBBLIE~? Did you perhaps think I have a reading disability and didn't see it previously? I happen to agree with you BTW. I also happen to believe the Supreme Court selections are of vital importance and we cannot afford another Republican in charge.

Why is it, that any who don't favor Obama are classified as Obama Haters? I supported Kucinich and John Edwards and then Hillary when the media killed those men off.

Because of that, and I long ago stated that I saw Obama as a fraud, I was asked twice, why I hated Blacks? Once by a perosn whom I thought was my good friend. I also said I think Bush is a murdering, corrupt Psycho, and no one ever asked me why I hated white people.

Some others said I was a racist, a rotton person with no morals, etc. This Obama Hillary fight has turned this site into a fucking mess with such nasty personal attacks by some against others who didn't favor Obama for fair and obvious reasons to them.

To those self centered individuals who attack ME personally with their shitty comments, because I have expressed my personal opinions, I say with total vulgarity, ___ "Go fuck yourself, ___ or rape yourself". ___ I do wish I could say that in person to those who have attacked me and started shit fights here.

I joined the 18 million plus who voted for Hillary versus Obama. And if someone favors Obama, that's alright with me. BTW, I don't favor McCain either. And I admire Nader but will not vote for any who do not have a prayer of winning and that's my perogative and don't tell me I'm a shithead, or an idiot, etc for having that personal opinion.

tailcap; don't put words in my mouth dude. I said some key members of Congress have been blackmailed.

I did not in any way include Obama in that observation.

Don't misquote me then challengn me on your twisted misquote; is this typical Obama-Hater strategy?

tailcap; don't put words in my mouth dude. I said some key members of Congress have been blackmailed.

I did not in any way include Obama in that observation.

Don't misquote me then challengn me on your twisted misquote; is this typical Obama-Hater strategy?

tailcap; you want a puppy too? (thanks above) tailcap, there are none this Christmas.

It's the great big world of dirty US politics. Sorry, but the only saints get sent to heaven early; (Wellstone).

You a Nader fan?: I've detailed that creep's investments in munitions and weapons systems before; Not so Obama; He's the better man. (lesser of two evils)

I got a challenge for you; Name me the perfect progressive candidate who has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected?

Can you? I'll vote for them if you can.

Signed A RELATIVIST (hint; there are no absolutes) No perfect persons.

You mean Wobblie's facts.

Big Business supports all major candidates.... Oh my God!

There is a Socialist who has more credibility than Wobblie, the most popular political figure in the world who is hoping for our "fairytale" and that Socialist is Fidel of Cuba!

lisa3210peace July 8th, 2008 11:52 am
Can you make an argument for Obama that isn't lessoftwoevilism?

RSJ; I recall you were one of the few who understood as I do that some key Dem's have been turned, blackmailed, by Cheney/Mossad/The Bush Crime Syndicate. Clearly.
-oops, almost missed it! Now that's a novel argument for Obama, he acts like a Republican because he's being blackmailed by a vast right wing conspiracy, which of course, will cease to blackmail him once he is elected, therefore vote for Obama! Good thinking Relativist-Marxist lisa3210peace!

PissantNobody; Hi. I'm a Relativist-Marxist and agree with you pretty much; we'll effect little real change by voting. For anybody. Period.

Having said that, degrees of horror or decency do count. Eight years of insane mccain would obvioiusly be tragic, far beyond Obama's truths. Ergo I will vote.

But I wonder, ARE YOU READY TO PICK UP A GUN AND START SHOOTING AT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SYSTEM? BURN COURTHOUSES?

I doubt it. The time is not yet here. It would be foolish.

Marx had our number, we've got about fifty years I'd guess before Joe American wants to fight his government with a weapon.

uh.... obama is in the pocket of the nuclear industry (google it!)

obama supports NAFTA -- talk about jobs!

learn your facts.

your are "the ace in the hole" of the corporate order if you vote for obama or mccain

Who needs McCain?
Well since you are his ace in the hole.
McCain wants to create a million new jobs building a hundred new nuke plants.... vote McCain or 3rd party if you need the Job.

lisa3210peace,

does it not disturb you that obama since securing the nomination has all but come out as a repuke?

Do facts not matter here?

Obama is the fairy tale candidate

This article is a a wolf in sheep's clothing. The posts largely see through it but are mostly (who can read them all?!) mistaken in one key way, as well: You will NEVER be able to elect justice into capitalist 'democracy'. Idealizing the American political system as capable of expressing the will of the working masses will certainly end in disappointment, and a continuation of imperialist carnage as usual. If someone like Nader or Kucinich (even assuming they are sincere to begin with) somehow won the election, and attempted to implement equality and socialism, they would be brought into line or crushed. Under the veil of genteel democracy hides the fanged demon of illegitimate private property. And it will bite with mortal fury if seriously challenged.

It is essential today to build a political party that has crystallized the lessons of history, and is ready to assume the leadership role in the international socialist revolution that is a MUST if we are to break the endlress cycle of violence and poverty that even liberal capitalism can never overcome. When I say 'build the party', that includes taking it into the consciousness of the working masses. Only under these circumstances - a properly prepared party with a mass base in key areas of labor - will a future uprising succeed. If we fail to build that party, there will be a continuation of the endless war that imperialism (now openly!) promises. I challenge CD readers to either show why this formula is wrong, or get busy with it.

This may sound extreme, but please stop and look at the record. Through the years, there have been 'third' parties and coutless reform movements, yet the USA has never taken a breath in its imperialist conquest, including astounding genocides and utterly immoral wars, certainly including those in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no way out within capitalist 'democracy'.

For those who only want to believe, they will be deceived. Most of the unquestioning support for Obama seems to derive from personality worship. We see what we want to see in Saint Obama and, hey, if Oprah says he's good, he must be, right? The better you understand your own capacity for deception, and especially self-deception, the better you will understand it in others. Obama serves the money first and foremost just like any other mainstream politician. Vote your heart, and be true to yourself, not for some idea who will be the 'least worst.'

RSJ; Nice! Point by point. Let the Obama haters squirm. They are doing nothing of substance in November and know it.

POET; "plane crashes are an equal opportunity weapon" of assassination of Republicans and Democrats. Uh, dead wrong.

Turn off your TV dude. Google "Democrats twice as likely as Republicans to die in plane crashes"

I think it's eight to four in recent years.

Obama '08. Perfect? No. Progress? Yes.

RSJ; I recall you were one of the few who understood as I do that some key Dem's have been turned, blackmailed, by Cheney/Mossad/The Bush Crime Syndicate. Clearly.

To Obama haters: If it's the most principled person, not electability, why not write in the Dalai Llama or Jesus Christ?

Oh yeah, because they can't win. Hee Hee Ha ha.... Squirm, haters.

November cometh. You'll all be on vacation, politically- figurativally if you will. NFL maybe?

i like spirited debate.

the clueless ought to be called out as clueless.

They are unwittingly contributing to the destruction of our country.

To KEM Patrick:

Obama is part of the problem: supports war, FISA immunity, insurance industry, nuclear power, NAFTA, gets the most funds of any candidate from financial industry, protects Bush from impeachment .... need i go on.

who needs mccain?

SOME ONE PUT THIS ON OBAMA'S DESK TO READ AND GIVE IT TO HIS TOP ADVISERS!!!

You haven't read any posts I have written regarding Dimwit McCain ~lillulu~?

You never read where I have often written that we cannot afford another Republican in the White house? Knock off your continual personal attacks on me Okay. Am I the only poster here who is criticizing Obama? This article is about Obama. And I'm not a "sore loser", we all lost.

I always stated that I thought Hillary could defeat McCain, especialy if Obama was her VP choice and Obama will lose to McCain. I still believe that, __ hope I'm wrong.

thaddeusstephens July 7th, 2008 9:48 pm

Amen! Excellent post.

I think the escape clause Obama uses is a great effect.
In fact I have pointed out to the Obama bashers here before that Obama is not outright supporting nuclear power and they would ignore the escape clause and say he is for nuclear power but the escape clause is good because it means he will do what is proved the best...

his escape clause on Iraq now has Iraq saying they want the USA out and a timetable for getting out.

Again the Obama effect.... I don't agree on his support for the FISA bill because it has secret articles in it.... but that issue is still out there and Obama still wants to get that immunity out of the bill. He ain't perfect and only the bashers call him "Messiah" and with all the scary fear mongering on CD, the Obama effect even has Israel in a cease fire with Hamas and it is talking to Hezbollah... the threats of war with Iran are just for show because the US military and Israel knows it is suicidal and Iran might not even want the Big one.

Obama is no Wobblie, That is why he will win!

Obama is a fraud, like Hillary before him, like every Democrat. Dick Cheney's policies clothed in Nelson Mandela's rhetoric.

Democratic voters remain the blindest, stupidest and most ignorant of humans. Nader was always right.

VOTE NADER. VOTE SHEEHAN.

I guess we're all in for a big disappointment; mr. Obama is gracing us Europeans with a visit and we'll be invited to put more effort in the war in the Middle East and Afghanistan, showing the voters that he means business with America's wars. I just hope our politicians realise he's just another of those narrow-minded Americans, pursuing 'American' interests, have a bit of back-bone left and tell him off.

RSJ July 8th, 2008 7:03 am writes "He has repeatedly said he would withdraw one to two brigades a month after taking office, having all combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months."
-pure crap!

From Obama's website:
He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda

We all know this is a complete crock of shit and is actually the fine print weasel that allows him to keep many 10's of thousands of troops in Iraq to ensure the profits of Big Oil, Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater and a host of other profit-seeking vultures. These so-called "targeted strikes" always seem to kill some innocent kid looking out the window or a group of people at a wedding.

When asked Obama would not committ to removing all the troops by the end of his first term 2013.

Obama's top foreign policy and national security advisers are pressing the case for keeping Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates at the Pentagon after he won widespread praise for his performance. The move would be in keeping with Obama's desire to appoint a cabinet of all the talents.

The Post reports rather ominously today:
Some advisers acknowledge privately that Obama is now emphasizing the need to be "responsible" in handling Iraq — rather than emphasizing urgency in getting troops out — to appear more centrist, a substantial adjustment of his original antiwar stance.

What I am not sure about is whether Obama-supporting, DemocRATic Party aplogists, like RSJ and dougnwagner actually believe the crap they write or are being disingenuous.

clueless RSJ,

obama and mccain both support the war, protect war criminals from impeachment, get corporate donations, support religion in politics under "faith based initiatives", support the corporate order, threaten real democracies like venezuela, support restrictions on abortion, support NAFTA, nuclear power, "bringing democracy to the world ... need i go on?

obama does take corporate money. In fact, he's the recipient of the most funds from the financial industry! (see center for public integrity.

you are exactly what the corporate order counts on to maintain control.

if clueless people like you got a clue we might not be in this mess, maybe we'd have a decent president like kucinich or nader.

Prof. Lakoff,

I vote based on issues, and always take care to see through the "character" (often phoney) the politician is trying to project.

Am I some kind of freak?

Please stick to psychology. Your knowlege of politics and ideology is practically nonexistent.

Face it professor, you and your Progressive friends got hoodwinked and bamboozled. Enjoy the blandness of nothing, Obama style.

lillulu is exactly what's wrong with these parties.

they count on you saying "i don't agree with what he says but he's better than mccain"

if that's your standard of democracy, then you deserve the one you get.

the problem is the rest of us with some dignity have to suffer the consequences too!

lillulu July 8th, 2008 7:57 am
-Is there anything Obama could do or support that would cause him to lose your vote? Funding illegal wars, not pushing to impeach, supporting the destruction of our rights and the Constitution, doing nothing about torture, his support for right wingers like Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates? Anything?

Obama isn't perfect; he's a human being.
-Is that the best argument you can make in his favor?

Lil Lulu sez:

Notice it's always a Democrat who gets killed in a plane crash or is assassinated by the old fashioned method (gun).

*************

Lil Lulu actually aircraft crashes have taken the lives of Senator Tower (R-TX) and Sen Heinz (R-PA) so if it's an assassination method it is an equal opportunity weapon.

KEM, you constantly criticize Obama. Do you have any criticism for McCain? You're still bitter about Hillary losing to Obama.

Obama isn't perfect; he's a human being.

Which one would be better as president: Obama or McCain? It surprises me that Hillary supporters said they are going to vote for McInsane. Talk about sore losers.

KEM PATRICK [July 7th, 2008 1:06 pm]: Kem, as you well know since you've read my posts supporting Obama in the past, I have never said he was anything other than a good politician -- he is not by any means 'perfectly progressive,' and for those seeking a religious icon to worship, they should look elsewhere.

I am disappointed in Obama, but not surprised. He pandered to white downstate Illinois farmers in his US Senate election in 2004, but he didn't abandon his anti-Iraq War or progressive health care rhetoric. That said, I still think he'd be a better president than John McCain. Nominees to the Supreme Court would be one major issue and I think Obama would use diplomacy over force in the Middle East and be much more progressive on domestic issues, contrary to the clairvoyants here who just 'know' what he'll do as president. After all, none other than FDR himself was something of an enigma before he was elected in 1932 and I can tell you, from talking with people who were around back then, that they didn't expect the wealthy and aristocratic Roosevelt to understand or do anything about the concerns of average working folks. This paragraph sums it up:

"President Franklin D. Roosevelt, for generations a liberal Democratic lode star, was no easier to define. He slipped and slid his way through the 1932 election. 'Herbert Hoover called him a 'chameleon on plaid,'' Mr. Dallek said."
-- Michael Powell, "For Obama, a Pragmatist's Shift Toward Center," NY Times, June 27, 2008. (Robert Dallek is a presidential historian.) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/27obama.html

Student of history Obama seems to be doing the same thing as FDR but I think, as Lakoff and others here do, that he's making a huge error by trending to the right on such issues as the FISA bill. There is no constituency for not holding the telecoms accountable so Obama's shift on this would seem to be the result of his, unfortunately, listening to Dem pollsters telling him he must shore up his 'Protect America's Security' credentials. This FISA bill is, however, the wrong issue to do it on: he should have 'framed it' -- hat tip to Dr. Lakoff and Frank Luntz -- as a protect the Constitution and corporate accountability issue.

criticalthinktank [July 7th, 2008 1:33 pm], you're talking out of your hat. Obama has been moderate on some issues, but he's been progressive on others, particularly government ethics and transparency issues. For example, the Obama-Feingold Ethics bill was passed as part of the Senate Ethics Act, largely due to Obama's efforts. (I suggest you check his website before you make a fool of yourself again.) You also misunderstood what he said about Iraq: He has repeatedly said he would withdraw one to two brigades a month after taking office, having all combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. I'll issue the same challenge to you as I have issued here at CD many times: If you have the perfect progressive candidate who has a chance of getting elected in 2008, let me know who it is and I'll vote for him or her. In the meantime, it's either Obama or McCain, and McCain would be an unmitigated disaster. If you think Obama flip-flops, read this:

McCain's 27 Flip-Flops So Far
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/mccains-27-flip-flops-so-far-w.php

wobblie [July 7th, 2008 1:52 pm], hey, clueless Wobblie -- vote Nader, get McCain.

cavedweller [July 7th, 2008 1:55 pm], everything you say may be true, but it's not going to happen before next November. Obama, even if he's a 'moderate' president, would still be better than a continuation of Bush's radical-right agenda that McCain has already promised to maintain. I really believe that in four years, if we have a President McCain, there will be no threads like this to exchange ideas, carp, and insult each other on -- the Internet will be completely corporate-controlled and dissent will be closely monitored and limited. Of course, by then we may not be able to afford computers anyway as our money inflates like a cartoon sponge and McCain gives away what's left of the store to the wealthy elite. And he might actually start a nuclear war in the Middle East with the predictable blowback coming in vicious attacks here at home. A President Obama I think would avoid all of this, along with my previous statements regarding SC nominees, etc.

wsws.org website [July 7th, 2008 2:01 pm] wrote: "Obama is nothing more than a corporatist candidate — with more corporate money behind him that John McCain!"

Really. Obama, who takes no PAC or lobbyist contributions, has more corporate money than McCain? Prove that statement with some facts.

Quality Time [July 7th, 2008 4:06 pm] keep your vote to yourself or fritter it away on some third party candidate and repent under President McCain.

Jacob Freeze [July 7th, 2008 4:31 pm], perhaps someday you'll wake up and realize there is no puppy under the Xmas tree this year. Modern national politics is a cynical, dirty business and we're lucky when we get someone like an FDR that actually passes legislation that helps the average people rather than the privileged. The reason some candidates don't do well -- and here I'm thinking of Nader -- is that they refuse to play the game to the extent of getting elected to an office so that they might effect change for the better. Why didn't Nader try to get elected as a congressman or senator before running for the presidency, as Bernie Sanders has? Why hasn't he, as he promised in 2000 when I voted for him, put his efforts toward building a true nationwide third party to support his presidential candidacy? Ego? It's great to stand on the sidelines and spew hot air about all of the problems we have -- better to join the game and get your fingernails dirty solving them. As far as I can tell, Ralph has succeeded in selling his books but not his policies.

I guess your idea of 'honest and principled' didn't sell to voters this year, Jacob: Chris Dodd had his chance and couldn't garner enough votes for nomination, just as Dennis Kucinich did. Obama's a better politician, whatever that may mean to you, and believes you must get elected first to accomplish anything. So do Dodd and Kucinich, but they don't know how to play in the Big Show yet.

That said, I hope that Nader, McKinney and Barr are included in the presidential debates -- Nader and McKinney would hold Obama's feet to the fire and Barr would expose McCain for the pathetic empty shell of a conservative he really is. Who knows, if that happened, maybe one of the third party candidates would gain a sufficient number of votes to get elected, if they can get on the ballot in enough states to receive a majority of the electoral votes, which is why, of course, they aren't going to be allowed in the debates this year. But keep looking for that puppy under the tree. Maybe next year, under Crackers McCain, your tree will be in Gitmo.

H2O [July 7th, 2008 8:05 pm], what 'review of his donor sources' proves Obama has taken large amounts of money from the health care industry? You are also wrong to say Obama does not support universal single-payer health care; as he made plain in a speech to the AFL-CIO last year, he supports a single-payer system, but knows that it won't pass Congress at his time, so he has an incremental plan to provide health care to those who need it while he works on passing single-payer in the future. If you thinking he's lying, fine -- prove it.

Finally, some wisdom from Studs Terkel:

"People are so tired of dealing with two-foot midgets, you give them someone two foot four and they start proclaiming him a giant."
-- Studs Terkel, referring to John Anderson running as an independent against Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Of course, he could also be referring to Obama and McCain this election. Obama may be shrinking to 2'4", but that's still greater than the 1-inch Bush-surrogate McCain and we have a chance with Obama that he might grow one day to a full-sized progressive adult. That opportunity doesn't exist with the GOP's Capt. Crunch, who has prostituted himself on every issue of the radical right agenda and voted with Bush 95 percent of the time.

Obama has been 100% vilified here.
A horrible, lying human being.

I disagree and will vote for him.

If he wins and effects some positive change, I hope you all remember flaying him endlessly, insulting and putting him down.

I'll take the heat now. I'm for Obama.

And I predict you all will eat your words in the next few years.
Remember the absolute hatred 90% of CD'rs have for him.

Vote Nader. It's his every-four-year photo op-where has mr. wonderful been? Uh, gee......playing the stock market, oh yeah.
Some building of a base.

Hi ~LEFTK~. How do I clarify a question? I'll try.

After reading the comments, I was amused by how darned serious everyone is about it. We have had so many Obama and Hillary threads, I guess I'm sick of reading them, but cannot seem to not click on to them. Addicted I suppose and always hoping ~Riverman~ or ~Dougwagner~ would show up once again to write their funny comments in support of O-bama.

I have always thought Obama was the very best bullshit artist I've ever seen or heard speak and always wished I was wrong about my opinions of him. Fraid I'm not.

I do think the ~SICKOFWHINERS~ post here may be quite accurate.

I like Lakeoff's approach, although it does have the kind of reductio ad absurdum feel of an academic logic exercise at times. His philosophy, it seems to me, is born from despair that people seem so easily fooled - by the folksiness and plain-spokenness of a Reagan or a Bush, for instance. However, it must be true that people don't generally vote based on policy positions because when they are polled, they oppose policies such as those proposed by Reagan and Bush.

I think Lakeoff is implying that so-called centrism has been co-opted by the political right. If he did say that, it's true enough. No one can describe the positions under centrism. It's better expressed in the United States as "not left." Also, at least Lakeoff gets it correct that Obama moved to right, rather than to the center as the corporate media here has it.

The confusion about Obama's political positions during the primary seems to have been caused by what must have been a consciously contrived sanitizing of his Senatorial voting record. If you check Obama's votes as Senator, when a defining issue that might be progressive came up, Obama always didn't cast a vote. I think that's reason enough to say that Obama has always been on the political right. While Obama campaigned somewhat on the left early on, he's taken far right positions of late. Lakeoff, using his specialized language, at least has an explanation for why this is a bad idea. In a word, Obama looks like he has no principles - a losing proposition.

I agree with posters above that Lakeoff's view is rather generalized - that indeed some voters really do pay attention to policies. I define those folks, contrary to Lakeoff's overbroad characterization, as "progressives." It's the "liberals" who vote lock-step based on squishy things like values messages over substantial policies. Liberals find the "I believe in change"-type speeches to be the end of the argument, and it doesn't matter if the subsequent policies turn out to be right wing (as under Bill Clinton). So Lakeoff's predictive model mostly applies to liberals and conservatives, not to progressives.

One tacit assumption in Lakeoff's argument is that staying true to "nurturing" values is a winning approach. I think that's correct, and I think Lakeoff is also correct that consistency in staying true to those values is crucial (something that Obama isn't doing). I agree with others above that it's maybe a stretch to call Republican thinking a "strict father" mentality when what the right wing espouses is quite savage, even murderous. That's how the neatness of Lakeoff's dualistic model fails the practical test. It's more like mom on one side and a homicidal maniac on the other, rather than mom vs. dad.

Posters above also mentioned another dimension missing from Lakeoff's philosophy - that is, the political economic aspects, specifically the influence of corporate campaign dollars. Such influence renders values and "framing the message" kind of moot. For instance, Dennis Kucinch, by Lakeoff's standards, should have fared well. Kucinich was consistent and emphasized a lot of common progressive values in his campaign. However, Kucinich was excluded from the debates by the corporate-owned press, which instead lavished attention on the well-funded Clinton and Obama campaigns. So Lakeoff's philosophy is not true under real politic conditions and under the corrupt U.S. campaign system.

I think that Obama cannot campaign by remaining authentic and sticking to his core values, because he doesn't seem to have any. These are things you demonstrate by your life, not by just using the right words.

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

There was some mechanical problem with the plane that Obama was on. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Rethuglicans are involved with it. Hopefully Obama won't end up like Paul Wellstone, Gov. Mel Carnahan, and JFK Jr. Notice it's always a Democrat who gets killed in a plane crash or is assassinated by the old fashioned method (gun).

The right-wing smear machine are lying, as usual, and saying Obama went to school at a madrassa in Indonesia when he was a kid. The truth is the school he attended was a Catholic school and not a Muslim one.

The Republicans are also lying about Iran as usual and saying "Iran is a threat to the world." Give me a break. Iran has no nuclear bomb and has not attacked anyone in hundreds of years. The U.S. and Israel are the ones with hundreds and thousands of nukes and are the ones that threaten the world --- not Iran.

what you are saying is that until voters start voting based on the issues, and actually know what they are and what the candidates' positions on those issues are, we're fukt.

damnliberal July 7th, 2008 4:06 pm
Obama will make a great President. We are very lucky to have him in this race.
-why?

Very thought-provoking and interesting, I'd like to read the book. George Lakoff- Well done!

But the form of bipartisanship that involves adopting, or appearing to adopt, right-wing views has the opposite effect. It strengthens conservative thought in the brains on those biconceptuals and weakens progressive thought.
-outstanding point!

It give conservatives more reason, not less, for voting for conservatives.
-Obama on FISA

In The Audacity of Hope,
-some of us doubted everything about Obama, including his book. Looks like we may have been right all along

No matter how many right-wing views you move toward, you will be viciously attacked as too liberal,
-well said, stick to your values, but this may be impossible for a politician solely bent on getting elected

even giving them phony support
-to me he has always been a phony-sorry

Don't adopt right-wing positions for the sake of political expediency (that will backfire)
-could be too late, he looks weak, wobbly, and waffling, McCain has a very good chance to take him out

Some conclude Obama was genuine but has lost his way. To me he never was anything but a phony, very ambitious, politician. Nothing more, nothing less.

Great article. Interesting thing is that the article explains why so many of the posts here are the same as the posts in response to any other article on CD - people's positions are solidified by whatever they hear because they only hear what they already believe. I believed reading the posts would be a waste of time - my position has been solidified.

I tried wading through this in the normal way viz. from top to bottom . But I found it very rough going.

Instead of using just a few well-chosen words to get the point across ,Mr. Lakoff has gone to the other extreme and inundated the reader with a veritable torrent of high sounding words and phrases.

The upshot is :getting to the essence of his post is as uphill a task as looking for that needle in a haystack. (In college we used to call it 'getting lost in words'.)

Let me say though once I read it in reverse i.e. from end to beginning ,it became somewhat clearer.

If only the art of precis-writing had been given its due importance in the US Educational System...

One massive circle-jerk! Goodbye all.

If Obama is elected, will I wake wake up with a new high-paying job? Will the Iraq war be ended? Will the military-industrial complex cease to exist overnight?

0bama = No change.

Although I expect nothing, I will still vote for him over McPain.

I wish people who posted to this site would:
1. keep a civil hand on the keyboard-or "keep a civil tongue in your head."
2.respect other people and accept everyone for who they are.
3. I don't need to be told:
I'm clueless, stupid, blind, idiotic or likened to a sheep, dog, cow, horse or any other animal. I am a human.
4. Writing in all caps is a way of shouting at people-SEE I'M SHOUTING NOW, OBNOXIOUS, isn't it?
So, shout if you must, but be aware, shouting and screaming will be perceived for what it is: a lack of reasoned response so let me SHOUT!

thanks, and keep doing what ever it is you do best but add a bit of respect, courtesy and friendliness to the world before your growl, curse call names or disrespect.

WsWs 3:43 "THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WOULD RATHER *LOSE* THAN UNDERMINE THEIR CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP."

Hole in One. And yes, put a Dim in the Oval, watch him dance like a puppet on strings pulled by very obvious hands, Voi La, do'in it in THE STREETS. No hope of electoral change producing results. And then DROWN HIM when he appoints another Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, or Bork. Nail him to the wall when he says "Years more in Iraq" or "We need to bomb Iran."

SHAKE THE WINDOWS AND RATTLE THE WALLS OF OUR SLAVERY! THEN KNOCK THE FUCKERS DOWN. IT is OUR COUNTRY. Wasn't it supposed to be?

Of course by the time BHO is scheduled to put his very first and only Black hand on that flat-earth holy book, GWB may have rearranged the landscape with some nuclear missiles in Iran. Whole different ball game. Are we witnessing the birth of an American Kim Il Sung?

Buckle up, it could be a very BUMPY ride.....donchaknow.... No, erase that. It WILL be a very BUMPY ride..... donchaknow....

I can't believe some of these folks even exist! What are they? A bunch of would-be Anarchists?

No excuses here for Obama's recent foolishness. And, yes, I believe Lakoff is light years closer to reality than the nasty, arrogant, self aggrandizing — and may I add — whining zealots here. You don't win elections by beating people you disagree with over the head or by mocking their opinions. Most, believe it or not, are good people who do good things and who make good neighbors.

YOU have to learn how to TALK to them. It's YOUR PROBLEM, not theirs. They're OK with what they think. You want to change it? TALK TO THEM!!!!
Otherwise, you are pretty much the same as those ugly, evil NeoCons you accuse of always knowing what's right even when they are dead wrong.

KEM,

All I know is few CD readers seem to know what I am talking (writing) about. Use words like "infrastructure" or "dialectic" and it goes right over their heads...

Agree that this is no surprise. What you are now seeing is the "real Obama" to the extent there is one. This was fairly evident from the beginning, He didn't wait to get the nomination to "swing right". His healthcare policy was clear evidence that he had already decided that corp. bucks were worth more than principle. A review of his donor sources was a dead giveaway.

Agree that Dems losing past few elections are result of this money addiction. While there were, and undoubtedly continue to be, election shenanigans, I have said in the past (in other venues) that the reason the Dems keep losing votes (while retaining corporate $) is that a large number of people, correctly perceiving that neither candidate has anything to offer them of any significance with respect to the issues that are most pressing to them in their daily lives, simply stay home.

After I read somewhere that prominent "progressive" gurus had signed a letter asking Nader not to run in '04 I decided to subscribe to a few of these public. out of curiosity. What had I missed, having voted for Nader in '96, '00, and '04. What I read makes me, by turns, laugh, weep and rage. How pitiful. The "left" media have done such a good job of dismissing, belittling and demeaning the true progressive candidates out there - guys like Kucinich or Nader, that the MSM doesn't even have to bother. "Our" media is our own worst enemy. And it's not that they don't know better. Time and again they make cogent analyses, and champion progressive solutions, but will back what they determine to be the "electable" Dem. - every time - no matter how bad he is. And every time they argue that he is at least better than the Rep. and if they have trouble making a good case for that with a straight face they inevitably fall back on "remember who gets to appoint the Supremes."

The "progressive" media (PM) seems to display the insanity described as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Lakoff is right about the fact that people will reject someone they see as without principle. I have written elsewhere that as much as I vehemently disagreed with Rep. principles, I thought they at least HAD some, the Dem. don't seem to have a principle they aren't willing to throw under the train if they thought it was a "strategic" maneuver.

I am a registered Dem. I thought that the Party meant something once. I think it could again. But if the Dems abandon me, as they consistently have done since at least '92, I will abandon them. And here's a couple of pieces of "not rocket science" that I have understood more and more clearly as I get older:

1) in the long run, principle trumps strategy
2) if you want something, vote for the guy that supports it (better if he has actually pushed leg. for it)
3) unless you are rich, the only time you have any leverage is election time and the only thing the pols really need to win is what you have - your vote. Don't give it a guy/gal who is "electable" by MSM or even PM standards and expect that you can "pressure" him/her latter. HA!HA!HA! Too late, they got your vote, now they can continue sucking up the corp. bucks and ignore you completely until the next election when they can start the charade again. Sigh! We are such suckers, aren't we?
4) the only "unelectable" person (natural born citizen, 35 or over) is the one you don't vote for.

Having been there, done that, fool me once etc.etc., I have found that when the high from the champagne celebration of electing the seriously flawed but "electable" candidate wears off, the hangover is a real you-know-what. Ain't worth it folks. Pyrrhic victories are too costly.

can you please clarify, KEM?

I agree with Lakoff's analysis. I've always said that I might be willing to vote for a candidate who is honest, has integrity, is not a hypocrite, and tells it like it is, even if I don't agree with that person on all the issues. That is why I like and respect Ron Paul, for example, even though I don't agree with him on several key issues. That is why I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, even though he would not support some of the key things I believe in (such as not-for-profit universal healthcare), because I thought he was honest, had integrity, and was, at bottom, a decent person. I still think he's a decent person, but I no longer trust him. To me, he's just another politician, albeit a smarter one than most. Because of his recent triangulating, back-sliding, double talk and pandering, I now know for sure that he's not the person I hoped he was.

How many here actually believe they know what they are talking about?

Excellent concept:

"Biconceptual" thinking. Should be used readily by all of us to counter usage of redundant arguments that have no contextual relevance anymore.