Obama was never a Kucinich. He wasn't even an Edwards. What he was was the last person standing who was actually electable, who was also very intelligent and who seems to realize some of the issues surrounding corporate takeover of America. He is also our best hope for president unless you favor gross incompetence and a run away express. I still harbor hope...that once in power he will do the right things. But a president does not stand alone...we must elect more people to the legislature who are intelligent and who are not owned by corporate destroyers.

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.

RichM July 9th, 2008 10:41 am

From news tonight, I may have been a bit premature as to the best of two choices.

tailcap July 9th, 2008 4:44 pm
Thomas More July 9th, 2008 3:02 pm "I'm not a leftist"
-What is a leftist?

With apologies I'll get back to you on that. If needs be I'll catch you on another string. Just leaving and can't get it in.

Obama is Corporate America's Uncle Tom. A corporatist through and through.

Quoting from the following article, 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

If the US government bombs Iran, Iran will be the 21st country the US has bombed since the end of World War Two.

That bears repeating ...

If the US government bombs Iran, Iran will be the 21st country the US has bombed since the end of World War Two.

With many of these bombings lasting for several *years* (e.g., Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Iraq, etc.).

And so the question, by its very nature, reeks of obscenity; that is to say: What other country has bombed so many countries in a similar period of time?

Can you imagine what the US reaction would have been had the Soviet Union bombed as many countries. Or China. Or if twenty 9/11s had occured in the US over the same period of time.

Notice, too, that the countries the US ruling class bombs are, invariably, third world countries -- with armies that are *dwarfed* in comparison to US military might.

Some of these countries didn't/don't even have air forces (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq).

Iraq doesn't even have a standing army!

And the US ruling class, via its mainstream media outlets, has the vile, the obscene audacity to talk about "outrageous," "aggressive" behavior.

And where, pray tell, is that savior of the progressive community, "Saint Slick" -- err, I mean, Barack Obama?

Obama, like the rest of the Democratic Party mainstream, is right on board as far as an invasion of Iran is concerned. Commondream readers will remember that several months ago the Senate -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- indicated to Bush that if he goes ahead and invades Iran they won't interfere. … The Senate to Bush: "Invade if you want to."

So, is it any wonder the Democrats have taken impeachment "off the table." Of course they have; and the reason is simple. The Democratic Party, in their ongoing criminal complicity, are as guilty as the Republicans in prosecuting an unjust, illegal, immoral war in Iraq ... an unjust, illegal and immoral war in Afghanistan ... and perhaps yet a *third* unjust, illegal, immoral war in Iran.

At an international war crimes trial, anyone who voted for the War, Democrat or Republican, would be found guilty. Any first-year international law student would be able to win convictions.
And the ruling class knows it.

Why do you think Bush withdrew the US from the ICC, the International Criminal Court. He and his Republican henchmen -- as well as his Democratic enablers -- know full well that the ICC would nail them in a heartbeat.

The US judges at Nuremberg were quite clear as to what the Nazis' basic, underlying crime was -- the crime from which all other Nazi crimes emanated -- and that crime was the unnecessary, unprovoked invasion of another country.

IN SHORT: THOSE WHO VOTED FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ WOULD BE FOUND GUILTY BY THE VERY STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE US JUDGES AT NUREMBERG IN 1945.

Of course, needless to say, this 800-pound gorilla sitting in the middle of the room, that is to say, the Democratic Party as well as mainstream media's complicity as regards the War in Iraq and the proposed war with Iran, is something that Senator Obama will assiduously and obediently ignore.

Saint Obama will continue to act as if he's literally "descended from the skies," here to, hallelujah, SAVE US ALL!

(As Nelson Algren once put it: "However do senators get so close to God?")

Obama's cynical and shameless move to the right since he's gotten the nomination will, if he's elected, only get worse. In short, the Democratic leadership, via their presidential nominee, has YET AGAIN played the liberals in America for the suckers they most certainly are. (Talk about enablers!)

So when you go to the polls, loyal liberals, and pull the lever for Obama, keep in mind that should he win, he will undoubtedly continue to pursue America's "imperial ambitions" -- brutal and mass murdering as those imperial ambitions have been and will continue to be. ... Or, put another way: when the dead bodies continue to pile up, just remember the misery, the carnage and the evil *you* voted for.

NOTE: After World War II was over and the concentration camps were liberated, Einsenhower arranged for busloads of German civilians -- housewives, retirees, factory workers, non-military individuals from all walks of life -- to be bused out to Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Treblinka, all the concentrations camps -- so that the average German, the "good Germans" could see up-close-and-personal precisely what their support for German imperialism produced.

Where are the buses now?

Thomas More July 9th, 2008 3:02 pm "I'm not a leftist"
-What is a leftist?

I meant to remind you that I'm not a leftist, I'm a liberal, so that could account for some differences in viewpoints as to where we are and in some instances what we should do.

ezeflyer July 9th, 2008 12:00 pm

I simply didn't experience the same thing.

Enojada July 9th, 2008 12:32 pm

Compared to Mitt and Hillary, thats exactly what they are. Neither of these will suit them as well.

"point to immigration as the major problem facing us today"

I did not point to immigration as a major problem, never have. Illegal immigration is a very major problem. Its probably the most important economic problem we must deal with other than the Bush tax cuts and the military actions in the mid-east.

But in any case I'm always glad to provide anyone with a good laugh.

Rich, you're missing my point. I didn't say it was immutable, what I said was there are two choices. One being better than the other. And no matter what thats the reality of 2008.

And I simply don't agree with your's and other's assessments that we are so far gone. Just different opinions there.

Thanks

The Democrats suck. But they don't suck as much as the Republicans do. Since we can't elect a candidate that doesn't suck, we'll have to vote for the lesser of two suckers. For the one that at least claimed to be on our side. That's our audacity of hope.

Thomas More - I'm going to be kind and assume you were trying to be funny when you posit McCain and Obama as anti-elite candidates and point to immigration as the major problem facing us today. You're a pretty good comedian, I have to say.

Thomas -

- Americans are indoctrinated in the belief that the 2 parties are the only "realistic" choices, & that it's got to be that way "forever" (or at least, for as far into the future as the eye can see). As long as most citizens remain willing to accept this assumption, we're going to be operating inside the prevailing & very limiting framework.

But people have lost sight of the fact that this is only an 'assumption,' & nothing more. If large numbers of people start questioning this assumption, the realization will spread that there are valuable gains to be had by moving outside this limiting assumption.

The 2-party system is not immutable in the same way that laws of Nature are. The sun is always going to rise in the East -- that's really "immutable." But the 2 parties' controlling 100% of political life is not the same kind of thing. That's merely a deeply corrupt facet of American life, imposed on us to serve the interests of the ruling oligarchy. It harms the rest of us, denying us any chance to have our interests represented in government.

It's similar to being in a prison camp. The guards of the camp want the prisoners to deeply accept the permanence of their captivity. They don't want the prisoners to even be aware of the notion that any escape is possible. If the prisoners accept this way of viewing things, they will overlook possibilities for escape. It will cease to even be an active idea in their minds, that such a thing as "escape" exists.

If we don't free ourselves from the 2 big-business parties, we are condemned to forever choosing between two things that are both good for them -- and both bad for us.

------------

About Clinton & Romney -- the primary season is a kind of audition for 2 distinct audiences. One is the general public; the other is an audience of elites. The elites study the candidates, to see what they can gain from the various possibilities; & also to gauge which one can carry the vote. I agree that from the elites' viewpoint, both Clinton & Romney would have been quite acceptable. However, McCain & Obama are also just as acceptable to them.

My interpretation is that Romney struck elites as someone who would serve them well, but who probably couldn't win. McCain was a better bet from their viewpoint. // Clinton, on the other hand, would have been almost as good from their viewpoint as Obama. Either would have given a nice new face to the same old policies of neo-liberalism. Elites are delighted with the concept of bringing in "The First Black Candidate" (or First Woman Candidate), because they realize that the Bush thugs have so discredited the US govt, that some "air freshener" is necessary. // Elites profited from the Bush policies, & have nothing against them. But they see the practical need to put a new face on things, while not really changing too much in terms of policy.

RichM July 9th, 2008 10:41 am
-Nicely debunks the myth that voting for Obama will give antiwar leftists a voice.

The path has been well-worn: The sky is about to fall (McCAin), quick support Obama, he will save us (FISA capitulation). Yea, right.

The next emperor cannot not have war. We are an empire and must, by definition, subjugate other peoples and acquire their resources. Asking Obama to end the war is like asking a basketball player to not take a shot.

When this invasion/rape-occupation ends the next will begin. Iran? Just look at history, we are constantly involved in either wars or military conflicts. Got to keep the war machine and the economy going.

The way to break this would be to break with the two party duopoly that have established a symbiotic relationship where they play off each other like a tag team. Both move ever rightward with the DemocRATs perennially crying they are the lesser-evil. When they offer a turd like Kerry the Pugs win. Then the rats get a turn, Obama.

If you follow lesserevilism to its logical conclusion, DemocRATS would support McCain if he ran against Stalin.

If liberals had any balls? Liberals ARE the ones with balls. That's why they're the ones that go against the power. That have the courage to do what's right.

In my military career, conservatives were the most cowardly, dishonest and uncaring leaders. Some of the best military leaders I knew were liberal.

Most of the wealthy conservative administration got deferments. This is the example these chickenhawks set. Sent your kid to war, not mine. I've got better things to do, like staying home and count my war profiteering loot.

We can't fault liberals for not being conservatives. Liberals live and let live. They're not in perpetual fear, looking for enemies everywhere. They're not greedy bastards out to profit from blood and destruction. They're not autocratic, but egalitarian.

If you're saying that conservatives have the advantage of being those things, liberals don't want that advantage.

Conservatives are reactionary agitators, which people tend to mistake for good leaders. But they lead through instilling fear, through punishment, through religious superstition and by jingoism.

Ornery, war mongering loudmouth conservatives have no cojones. They're in it for the money and their allegiance is to the power, no matter what.

That whole line of thought is just "lesser-evilism," with all its perverse logic.

RichM....OK, but you and some others keep saying this and granted your description as perverse logic is true, the reality remains that you can vote for one or the other if you want a choice of who will be President. Thats reality. So in light of that reality, whats wrong with "lesser-evilism," isn't that better than not participating in the choice?

"The US govt responds to the consensus needs of the power elite — not to what the general public wants or needs."

This is probably true of any Republic or Democratic form of government at various times, but as you pointed out many other times it represents the people and harness's the elite corruption. I think we are approaching one of those times.

There are various hints. The elites were desperate to protect and extend illegal immigration last year but they were defeated by a majority of the people.

The elites candidate's were Clinton and Romney, instead we have Obama and McCain.

At least this is my opinion.

One of the most discouraging things that happen at campaign time is the "tell them what they want to hear scenario." Basically, tell powerful PACs and others what they want to hear, and then when elected do your own thing. As a stupid voter with low intellect, I can't tell how much of the show is real and how much is pander. Just as McCain and Obama can "triangulate" so too can we triangulate. On one tip of the triangle is McCain. The other tip is Obama. The third tip is Nader. I'm a liberal Democrat. I speak only for myself. I need some meat on the plate. Keep giving me crumbs and I'll go with best progressive on the ballot. One whose positions never waiver. One who nails the progressive/liberal cause down every time. That's why they hate him so much.

Thomas More (9:35 am) - "So your contention is we'd be better off with McCain?"

- I didn't say that. Neither of the two is going to be at all responsive to antiwar voices, & this reality must be squarely faced. It does no good to frame the issue in terms of comparisons with McCain. That whole line of thought is just "lesser-evilism," with all its perverse logic.

kman2's implied scenario is that "leftwingers" would be "rewarded" with influence if they voted for Obama. That's not how things work in the White House. The US government is ALWAYS hostile to antiwar voices, & would not get more "friendly" just because antiwar types got hoodwinked into voting for Obama. The US govt responds to the consensus needs of the power elite -- not to what the general public wants or needs. This holds true regardless of which party is in control, & has been true for many decades. (It could well be argued that it's ALWAYS been true, even during times we think of as being exceptionally influenced by populism, such as the New Deal & the American Revolution.)

RichM July 9th, 2008 2:05 am
Is that how we'd have "influence on policy"? I think it's pretty clear that that's not how these things work.

So your contention is we'd be better off with McCain? That his policies would more closely coincide with ours?

Though kman2 (12:32) is clearly just looking for some attention, it's worth noting how hilariously wrong his basic premise is. He claims if we don't vote for Obama, we'll "...sit out an another election on (our) purist left wing perch with no influence on policy."

kmans's premise there is that IF leftwingers voted for Obama, we'd be rewarded by having "influence on policy." Just how is that supposed to work? Does anyone believe that there would be advisors in the White House, who (just as President Obama is readying to cave in to yet another rightwing initiative) would jump to the president's side to say, "Mr President Sir, you can't send those additional troops to Afghanistan!! After all, the leftwingers who voted for you would be so disappointed!!"

Is that how we'd have "influence on policy"? I think it's pretty clear that that's not how these things work.

kman2 July 9th, 2008 12:32 am writes "Someone needs to donate Nader a comb and he might get a few more votes this time"
- I don't understand why the animosity toward Nader. We do not have a two party system. Nader or anybody that qualifies can run. He has done no harm and broken no laws unlike Bush, which DemocRATS refuse to impeach.

More DemocRATS voted for Bush than for Nader in Florida in 2000(around 200,000 vs 90,000 for Ralph). Notice how DemocRATS hate Nader more than even Bush, which is why their leaders have successfully shielded him from prosecution for his many crimes.

So, you left wingers refuse to support Democrats? So be it. Good luck with that. Obama can win without ya. That's obvious by the current polls. You'll sit out an another election on your purist left wing perch with no influence on policy.

Someone needs to donate Nader a comb and he might get a few more votes this time. Not a bad investment for 99 cents, eh?

Obama knew he needed the support of those highly engaged party activists.
-calculator

"I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grass-roots movement
-let's see how many votes this will get me

he would support efforts to filibuster any attack on the ability of citizens to use the courts
-wonder how many suckers I can dupe (one born every minute)

deceptive claim that the "compromise" on FISA
-cover for saps

As Feingold says, "The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation
-true, someone inform dougnwagner please

Despite what some apologists for this sellout by Democratic leaders
-hello, open your eyes

It is unfortunate that they are not standing together on the right side of history — and the Constitution.
-maybe not but certainly on the right side of $$$$$ & the PTB (pwrs that be)

Stop throwing your votes away! Vote for 3rd parties! Punish the DemocRATS for selling out!

ike kay writes:
"The only hope for change is if the system comes crashing down as quickly as possible!"

Looks that what's going on, except for The One's plan to have his "post-partisan" coronation separate from the Democratic Convention.

John Nichols hasn't been as much of an uncritical shill for Barky as some of the celebrity left (Tom Hayden and Alice Walker come to mind) whose endless overblown opinions have appeared and appeared and appeared in every formerly-thoughtful political forum.

If the Democratic "leadership" and its collaborators are stuck on this cute-looking phony in the off-black birthday suit, they'd better get ready for a lot of former Democrats to vote for McKinney, Nader, or whoever the Republicans REALLY nominate.

A megalomaniacal mobster. Nice going, Democrats: John Kerry in blackface.

Nothing is going to change unless and until the political establishment in Washington recognizes the left in America as NOT an automatic part of the Democratic Party.

As long as a Democratic candidate can "take the left for granted," that's exactly what they're going to do.

It's happened time and time again.

Since he secured the nomination, Obama has told the left, clearly and in no uncertain terms: "SCREW YOU, SUCKERS! You have nowhere to go except to me."

And the liberals fall for it -- hook, line and sinker.

Remarkably, every four years the Democratic nominee says THE EXACT SAME THING. And guess what. The liberals obediently scruff it up.

Consider Ronald Reagan when he first ran for president, way back in 1968. Know what the mainstream Republicans said? ... "He's too radical to ever be nominated by our party."
... And what did his supporters do, how did they respond? Did they bug out, did they give up on their candidate? Disd they convince themselves that he was "unelectable"? Did they vote for someone else who *wasn't* as radical as Reagan?

No way. They held out. They supported their candidate, even though they were told that it was "impossible" that he'd ever be elected, let alone nominated.

And eventually ... Well, we all know where Ronnie wound up, don't we?

The more the liberal establishment -- with The Nation magazine as one of the liberal establishment's leading con-game-hustlers -- the more the liberal establishment keeps telling its followers to "vote for the lesser of the two evils" instead of voting for real change, the more the political system in the US will, inevitably, slide to the right.

Ralph Nader wasn't going to win in 2000, but he could have built a base of 5-8% of the voting electorate. IF THE LIBERALS IN AMERICA HAD ANY BALLS!

From there he might have gone to 10-12% in 2004. IF THE LIBERALS IN AMERICA HAD ANY BALLS!

Instead, they listened to the likes of the overfed, oversocialized (and I don't mean by socialism), over-coopted, cocktail-crowd at places like The Nation magazine. ... Face it, it's those kind of "cruise missile liberals" over at The Nation who are responsible for America's slide to the right. But notice that they've never taken responsibility for that slide; never acknowledged what voting for the lesser of the two evisl eventually brings about.

-- Will Obama put an end to American imperialism? No.

-- Will Obama do anything about the growing gap between the rich and the poor and the rich and the middle class? (Now greater than at any time since 1929). No.

-- Will Obama cut the Pentagon budget? No. (In fact, he wants to INCREASE it!)

-- When he was running in the primaries, Obama said he'd have the US out of Iraq within 16 months. Now -- now that he has the nomination -- he says he'll defer to the judgemnt of the generals. ... Which is precisely McCain and Bush's position!

-- Will Obama increase corporate taxation? No. Will he increase personal taxes on the rich? No. (In fact, his taxation plan for the rich is virtually indistinguishable from John McCain's.)

-- If elected, what will Obama do about corporate crime? ... Take a wild guess, Pilgrim.

Needless to say, none of Obama's pandering to Corporate America and, in turn, to the military-industrial complex greatly disturbs the cruise missile liberals over at The Nation magazine.

Why? Because with a Democrat in the White House things will be peachy-keen for them. They'll be a different "mood" in Washington. They'll get back on the A-list of the fun, groovy Democratic parties. They'll have "access" to the Democrats in power.

"Business as usual" will continue but, hey, imperialism, a bloated Pentagon budget, the increasing gap between the rich and the poor ... such things don't affect them. In fact, in the past 40 years, as America has steadily moved to the right, they've done quite well for themselves! Thank you very much anonymous, struggling, exploited masses.

"On the backs of the masses" ... oh, how de classe can you get!

The con, slick as it is, yet sadly so, so obvious, is that all parties concerned will know -- the powerful as well as those who serve the powerful on bended knees (e.g., The Nation magaine) -- that nothing fundamental will change. And that doesn't greatly upset any of these "opinion leaders." Obama's their boy! He'll put a happy face on imperialism, economic injustice and all the messy rest.

If you doubt any of this, you don't even need to wait and see if Obama is elected, he's ALREADY sold out his progressive supporters!
Since Obama's been nominated, he's:

-- betrayed the left with his telcommunications vote.

-- betrayed the left with his FISA vote.

-- shamelessly backtracked on his position on Iraq.

-- so fervently kissed AIPAC's ass that it would make Mo-Joe Liberman blush beet-red.

-- appointed as one of his top economic aides a whiz-bang who just LOVES Walmart's and all that Wal-Mart's stands for. See "Wal-Mart Defender to Direct Obama's Economic Policy" --http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/10/9534/

All this since he got the nomination. Can you imagine what he'll do if he's elected! If Obama is elected, at that point he'll have *no* electoral constraints on him, the result of which will be his screwing the left even more than he's doing now.

For the kind of presidency Obama would bring to Washington, issue-for-issue, see Matt Gonzales' article "The Obama Craze; Count Me Out" -- http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2008/Obama-Craze-Gonzalez27feb08.htm

Hi Little Brother and all...

I love, love, love Common Dreams posters because you all don't have a partisan stick up your rears like some other sites, but I also like the free exchange of ideas and the intelligent responses to those we don't agree with. I have seen the debates be a little acrimonious, but that is a rare things.

I appreciate your support so much,

Peace and love,
Cindy

I supported Obama throughout and blieved there was a posibility of true change. The only hope for change is if the system comes crashing down as quickly as possible!

Ralph Nader is a hero of mine. But people have to get real about this. Obama (for his faults) is our only chance to start on the long road back to even the pretense of a government which CAN BE MADE more responsible to the people. I think Obama is missing an opportunity in defending the Constitution here, but he can be brought around.

Nader Supporters; February 29th 2008 Salon.com article details that creep Nader's "proclivity to blast Democrats" and leave the Republicans alone.

It also details the creep's friendship with John McCain and his invitation to McCain in '04 to assist in his 'race'.

Salon explores whether or not (quite likely) nader plans to run yet one more tired time "to help his friend John McCain"

But what bothers me is Nader is invested in weapons manufactuers through the Magellan fund; these include Raytheon and General Dynamics.
Before divestiture (because of public embarassment) he had money in Petro-China...lotta human blood there.

Salon.com 2/29/08.

McKinney, Kucinich, so very much better.

Cindy, you WILL get some money from me when I get back home next week. I don't have much, but you will get some. Pelosi is a disaster that must be removed.

I would encourage all of you who are outraged at Obama to send your letters to him. even if you cannot see your way to following my suggestion. The only reason I suggested the money was that he has indeed proven himself a politician and not an idealist, this does seem to be the only way politicians pay attention.

And I'm no fool. But I do believe in giving it one serious try within the system before cashing in and making the way open for McShame by voting for Nader.

Have you indicated to your senators how you feel about their stance on the FISA bill? They pay attention when enough people call.

EJ

Wrong good man, if you're polled say you're voting for Cynthia McKinney, no matter if it's absolute or not.

I like what I'm hearing from John Nichols these days. Keep it coming, John. Don't be shy.

Wow! Cindy Sheehan, you're here. Hi there. Good luck to you, my heroine! I'm planning on sending more money.

Hey folks, Cindy needs money to upseat the traitor, Nancy Pelosi. Send anything you can. Nader is asking for small amounts and I think that's been a good strategy. How many of us have hundreds to give away to a political campaign? Not many. But 50 bucks, 20 or even 5 or 10 from enough of us can really add up.

Barak Obama is putting the politics of electing John McCain ahead of principles, and that's really weird. If he wants to step aside and let Cynthia McKinney be the Democratic candidate, she could win in a landslide, as she would get the public funding she needs to get her message out. Who says she can't be the Greens and the Democrats' candidate? Let's win one for democracy!

HELP NADER GET INTO THE DEBATES! go to votenader.org

Nader is polling at around 6%. Google/YouTube will be hosting presidential debates and any candidate who is polling at 10% or more is invited. Can you imagine McCain debating Nader, Obama/Nader? He will cream them. He creamed Robert Sheer (a progressive) These political shills will be a piece of cake for him - assuming they show up.

So, if you're polled, say you'll vote Nader! Here's our chance to bring the progressive agenda to the people like never before.

PASS IT ON!

1/3 off!! Hell, anybody that sent Obama money should send him a note and ask for their money back! Tell him you made a terrible mistake, you ment to send it to Ralph Nader.

Obama wants to be president more than he wants to be right. Though he thinks he wants to be right more than he wants to be president. But then, they all think that.

physicscitizen says "Write 1/3 all over the paper. In one line say that this represents what support is left after removing our 4th amendment right against search and seizure."

Helping eviscerate the Fourth Amendment is worth, maybe, just a little money? How far we have fallen. The drip drop wearing away of liberty.

Folks, I hear a lot about third parties, but most people still act as if there isn't one. You could go out and register as a Green today. Most of the PDA people should have done it long ago. If they had, the dynamics of party politics would have been much different now.

Now isn't this really your party?:

http://www.gp.org/

I agree with RichM and mainconnector. Nader has my vote all the way - and Google will invite him to debate McCain and Obama as long as Nader cracks ten percent in national polling. If people start answering polls with Nader the debate will be very interesting indeed.

Obama is a corporate goon who ran to the left of Hillary and then betrayed all of us who voted for him in the primaries. At least Hillary was upfront about it.

Cindy is of course correct. No politician listens to we the people unless we have money. Then it just depends on how much we have and what we can do to promote their programs of death and destruction.

Let me say up front I think John McCain would be a total disaster but what can you people expect from Obama who voted PRESENT 130 times while a state Rep. in Illinois-he didn't know what he stood for then and he still doesn't-the FISA bill that Obama has flip floped on just shows that he still can't make up his mind about anything.FISA is a bill to protect the climinal telecom's and some in this most criminal administration in history who run this country. Russ Feingold should be president of The United States he is a brilliant Rhoades Scholar that this country and the world so desperately need in these troubled times.

Dear Cindy:

I think that backing national referenda would be a big plus for your campaign. The issue put so much fear into the money-power, into most politicians and to the conservative and liberal establishments that they marginalized Senator Gravel's campaign in a few short weeks even though he received lots of popular support after short appearances.

Adopting popular referenda can separate corruptible politicians from true democrats.

If interested in backing national referenda, please let us know here.

For more information, see:

www.nationalinitiative.us

Not voting Obama or McCain is not the same as voting "none of the above". Take off the blinders, there's much more around you than the worn out pavement they are coercing you to follow.

From here it reminds me of when David Duke ran against Edwin Edwards for Governor of Louisiana. The Edwards bumper stickers said, "Vote for the crook, it's important". For those who would chose "none of the above" do you truly believe Obama and McCain eqivilent? If so there is a creek waiting for you and your compatriots.

Using national referenda to settle this and other issues has always had appeal to people who believe in democracy. However, it would require at minimum federal statutory law to set up the mechanism - and possibly a constitutional amendment, since more than a few legal scholars claim it would otherwise be an unconstitutional delegation of eneumerated powers by the congress to the people.

There would also have to be either no referendum campaign spending allowed, or a strict balancing of publicly financed spending -- to prevent big money from buying the election outcome.

Either way, you have the Catch-22 of getting an undemocratic congress to even consider a national referenda mechanism. What has become 'the Congress' is composed of institutionalized sell outs who know every well that if the genreal public started to legislate on key issues directly, the oligarchy's agenda would be in big trouble (we wouldn't be in Iraq, for example.)
The congress is unenlightend, sure, but they're no so dumb as to easily let go of their power in this way.

Despite all that, I still think it's a concept we progressive should push for. I think the general public would strongly support a referenda mechanism, if the technical (not political) problems could be worked out.

Cindy is right--he's not listening to us. He doesn't need us now that he has the nomination. Can't say that I'm surprised. So don't give him ANY money. Donate to Cindy's campaign or Nader's or anyone you can trust.

Cindy! Hey! I was busy writing and didn't see you come in!

I use a hundred words to say what you say in ten. Think of it as the scenic route...

Continued best wishes. ♥

Much has been made of Obama's supposed gift for "listening".

For all I know, there's a whole chapter on the Art of Active Listening in his vaunted Book.

But as a progressive Independent, I must conclude that when Obama listens out of his left ear, all he hears is a faint buzzing, like a swarm of bees. Or chirping crickets.

Despite the efforts of Obama zealots and allied lesser-evilists to contextualize or frame his position on FISA as acceptable, or at least tolerable, Obama has shown that he's as adept as any politician in resorting to glib mendacity to cover his tracks. I'm not going to rehash them here-- check Glenn Greenwald's archives, for starters-- but Obama has no problem blowing smoke, just like the others, when challenged.

So he's demonstrated that he can take a flawed position, "listen" to a howling chorus of negative feedback, and respond by bullshitting his way around the criticisms and sticking to the position that is most politically expedient.

And yet, supporters contend that even if he's a "centrist", that he will allow himself to be pushed into advocating progressive positions as long as his feet are held to the fire-- presumably because when he's in Presidential Mode, and out of Campaign Mode, he'll be able to indulge the progressive-friendly better angels of his nature.

Wishful thinking, I fear.

hi physicscitizen
Thank you for encouraging people to support my campaign...but didn't Obama already tell his supporters to basically bug off over this FISA thing...I think that shows that he will not listen to us.

IMO and through all my work since my son was killed, I recognized that we the people have absolutely NO influence on the president...so whoever is president in 2009 will continue the Bush cancer and spread it basically in its current form.

So, as you said, it is very important to support people like me who will be responsive to the electorate and be a check on the executive branch.

www.cindyforcongress.org

Cindy

mlee (1:02 pm) writes, "...In truth, Obama never was the great liberal hope.....He is simply the best, hopefully, of a very flawed lot of Democrats. However, the big issue here is this: Get rid of Bush/McCain. .....The election of a Democrat is simply the first step in righting some of the atrocities of the bush years....Obama has some good points. He is intelligent..."

- These statements are standard liberal hogwash -- just pathetic & feeble excuses for doing nothing. This kind of thinking can only lead to continuing in the framework of the 2-party tyranny. Mr mlee is wrong on every point.

1) Obama is not the "best of a flawed lot of Democrats" -- he was close to the worst of the lot. Kucinich, Gravel, Edwards & Richardson were all considerably better. Hillary was no worse, except for her grotesquely imperious personality & willingness to engage in dirty campaign tactics.

2) The election of a Democrat is not "... the first step in righting some of the atrocities of the bush years" -- it's doing something that makes no difference at all. Electing a Democrat "rights" nothing. The wars will continue, military spending will not be reduced, & government will remain completely unaccountable no matter what their offenses. Obama himself, with his FISA betrayal, is actively HELPING the Bush criminals to escape accountability, & HELPING them to violate the Constitution with impunity.

3) It doesn't make any difference if Obama is intelligent. Hillary and Bill are also intelligent. For that matter, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rummy & Rice are all very intelligent.

"We need to get behind Obama, and then keep kicking his butt." You mistakenly must have hit the "k" instead of the "l" on your keypad.

Republicans pander to their base and scare swing voters to vote for them. This has been a winning strategy for forty years.

Democrats ignore their base and try to look more Republican than Republicans. This has been a losing strategy for forty years.

I keep hoping the Democrats will prove me wrong on this observation.

Obama is messing up his image because he is using standard centralized decision making.

He could have called for time to have a binding national referendum on this bill (and in others).

He could call for the use of fast, inexpensive, safe, phone, online and even snail mail means for this referendum, (and ask to exclude unsafe, expensive voting machines).

In doing so, he would have been immunized against criticism and elevated to real democrat.

Direct democracy works where representative governmnent fails.

www.nationalinitiative.us

It is very tempting to spit vitriol at Obama because he did let us down. He has shown us that he is, in fact, a politician who might well be very similar to Hilary Clinton. I too find this very disappointing.

But unlike McShame I suspect he will listen to us.

And let's put this into some perspective. Even if we can no longer vote FOR Obama, mlee is right. McShame would simply continue the vile, cruel, bone-crushing soul-destroying march to evil of the American state.

I say let's try an experiment in using the purse against him. If you were thinking about sending his campaign some money but have now changed your mind (like me), divide that amount by 1/3 and send that to him anyway.

Write 1/3 all over the paper.

In one line say that this represents what support is left after removing our 4th amendment right against search and seizure and giving a pass to the telecoms against civil suits (There is no way they would ever fear criminal prosecution...who would you hit???). Say that your support is not gone forever, it can be won back by honest "Change you can believe in" (or some other suitable Obama slogan to throw back at him).

Individually we cannot have much impact, but I strongly suspect that when he sees his fired-up progressive base start melting away...saying the will NOT make calls for him, the will NOT rally for him, and we will NOT be giving him more money until he pays attention we might well see some shifting.

And if we do not, then you still have 2/3 of what you were going to give to send to Cindy or to many other House challengers that can really stir the congressional pot and need the money.

Instead of moaning and acting like everything about the Dems and Obama is imutable as stone, Let's try action first using the tools of the trade!

Nader will still be there if we cannot get Obama to come around.

Do you see what we keep doing: support corruption in the hopes that it will become less corrupt!?

It's like we expect Obama to have an epiphany once he gets into office. Now isn't it funny that so-called progressives rail against the religious right when they have their our own messiah?

Think about it.

For people who have been lied to by Bush and now by Obama, remember this. Anyone who votes for a known liar does not deserve that vote, but deserves to be a slave of liars. If you as voters don't have principles, don't expect the politicians to have any.

In truth, Obama never was the great liberal hope. He is not another MLK, nor did he ever pretend to be. He is simply the best, hopefully, of a very flawed lot of Democrats.
However, the big issue here is this: Get rid of Bush/McCain. Not Obama, not Clinton, not Edwards, or any of the others, can equal the kind of pure evil that vile group has perpetrated on the world for eight years.
To expect anyone to ride in on a white charger, and stand up for all that is true and good, is simply too idealistic. The election of a Democrat is simply the first step in righting some of the atrocities of the bush years--not a quick fix.
Obama has some good points. He is intelligent. He respects intelligence. That is something we haven't seen in a politician in a long time. He is a compromiser, which is hard for those of us on the left to take, but in reality, to win, he has to compromise. He is aware of the sorry state of this country, and he wants to be remembered as the one to put us back on the right track.
He is NOT EVER going to be what we, who read CommonDreams, want in a leader, but he is at least a person we can vote for without feeling we are betraying everything. If he gets into office, he can open the door to some change, provided the people who want change continue to keep the pressure on. If he does not get into office, McCain will lead us down paths I can't even think about.
We need to get behind Obama, and then keep kicking his butt.

It looks like Nader is going to be my choice this year. He obviously won't win, but I can't go along with Obama. Too bad Nader can't get into the corporate controlled "debates". He is the only one that really makes sense. I can't wait to see the upcoming "debates" about non-issues like "who loves America the most", gay marriage, abortion, flag pins, etc. People don't care or are too stupid to understand real issues like constitutional rights. Oh,...and the faith based initiatives shit really pisses me off. During the primary debates Obama reminded me of a preacher, so it follows that he'd play this card to appeal to the right-winng christians. Well, he and Jesus can suck it. We need more common sense and education, not religious insanity.

Poor Feingold did the best he could when interviewed by Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now" last month.

But even his usually believable matter-of-fact, crisp, intelligent speaking style-- generally a refreshing contrast to standard politician unctuous bloviating-- couldn't overcome the tragic truth that he was tapdancing as hard as he could to separate Obama's "wrong decision" from his overall excellence as a candidate.

The only thing missing was "Tea for Two" playing in the background.

I happen to agree with the perspective that it isn't so much a matter of Obama moving to the right (or "center", as we're now supposed to call it) since Clinton pulled the plug-- it's just that the clouds of incense have finally cleared to the point where we can now see Obama for what he really is: a conservative Democrat.

IMO, Obama came off as "progressive" only because he's run an innovative campaign, using "bottom-up" strategies that indeed engaged enthusiastic young voters. Even that seems to be changing as his campaign becomes Clintonized.

And now that the novelty has worn off, and Obama has shown us where he stands on issues like FISA the image of Obama as a political breath of fresh air isn't holding up at all. His inaccurate and inconsistent spin defending the indefensible is as lame and transparent as his undistinguished colleagues'-- e.g. HoJoe Lieberman.

Obama got a boost from desperate and wishful progressives and anti-Bushites, and of course the lesser-evil bloc is in his pocket one way or the other. But, just as with a booster rocket, now that he's reached the Presumptive Nominee altitude, the booster rocket is jettisoned, and the gullible progressives are abandoned to burn up as they fall back to Earth.

I never even jumped on the bandwagon, and I'M plenty burned up.

Obama showed his true stripes when he flip-flopped on the FISA issue. I admit, he had me going there for awhile. I was almost ready to forgive him for his cowardly vote for The Military Commissions Act that denied habeous corpus to those accused of terrorism. Obama is an opportunist who will say anything to get elected. Do not vote for any of the cowardly Democrats who betrayed their constituents for the few pieces of silver strewn about by the corporations that own these cowards' souls. Boycott corporate Amerika!

Hasn't Obama said that the bill does not prohibit criminal charges being brought against the telecommunication companies?

Seems to me that the majority of the U.S. voters don't care if the telecommunication companies spy on them because the majority of people do not do anything but work, watch t.v. and eat fast food. So the strategy that the Republicans take is that they are using this FISA controversy to say to them in a sound bite: "See, you are being taken care of with our internal spying."
So, perhaps these folks, who watch Fox News, just need some assurance that they are safe, and that this bill does the trick.
Because, you can talk until you are blue in the face, and no amount of facts will help them understand that in reality, they are less safe from our own government and its manipulation of them with this kind of legislation. Is there any example that this spying of our own citizens have hurt innocent, hard working people?

It's just weird that some people still expect the unprincipled showman Barack Obama to suddenly acquire real principles, even while he cooperates with the destruction of the Fourth Amendment and concentrates all his political showmanship on plans for a humongous nomination ceremony in Mile High Stadium.