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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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

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.

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. ♥

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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

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

EJ

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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!

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.