Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama and the Progressive Base
A reasonably evenhanded biography of Barack Obama, published last year, describes him as "an exceptionally gifted politician who, throughout his life, has been able to make people of wildly divergent vantage points see in him exactly what they want to see." The biographer, David Mendell, reports that "the higher he soared, the more this politician spoke in well-worn platitudes and the more he offered warm, feel-good sentiments lacking a precise framework."
Now, less than four months before Election Day, with growing disquiet among significant portions of Obama's progressive base, the current negative reactions can't be dismissed as potshots from the political margins. Even the New York Times, in a July 4 editorial headlined "New and Not Improved," has expressed alarm: "We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama's shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games."
But on July 8, Obama made a valid point -- even if it wasn't exactly the point he was trying to make -- when he disputed "this whole notion that I am shifting to the center" and argued: "The people who say this apparently haven't been listening to me." Overall, his career as a politician has embraced conciliation and compromise rather than pushing against centrist corporate agendas.
These days, an appreciable number of Obama supporters are starting to use words like "disillusionment." But that's a consequence of projecting their political outlooks onto the candidate in the first place.
The best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is to not have illusions in the first place.
The more that spotlights move from Obama's uplifting eloquence to his specific policy positions, complete with loopholes and wiggle room, it's predictable that some of his progressive base will become displeased -- whether on issues related to the death penalty, fair trade, government funding of religious-based projects, Iraq, Iran, evenhandedness between Israel and Palestinians, gun control, or (perhaps most flagrantly) warrantless surveillance.
On Wednesday, when Obama cast a vote in the Senate to undermine the Fourth Amendment, he fulfilled his frequent prediction during the primary season that "I will make mistakes." This was a very big one. As an attorney who's well-acquainted with constitutional law, he participated in damaging one of the most precious provisions in the precious Bill of Rights.
Barack Obama is an extremely smart guy. And I can't remember a major contender for president less inclined to insult the intelligence of the public. Let's return the favor by directly challenging him when appropriate. We'd do him -- and the Obama campaign, ourselves and the country as a whole -- no favors by opting for silence instead.
We can help the Obama for President effort when we hold him to his good positions -- and move to buck him up when he wavers.
While speaking of the Iraq war, Obama made one of the most insightful statements of the primary campaign: "I don't want to just end the war; I want to end the mindset that got us into war." He needs to be held to that wisdom. Obama should feel enormous counter-pressure from the grassroots against the forces in the media and foreign-policy establishment that are pushing him to go wobbly on ending the Iraq war.
The vortex of what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism" is enormously powerful -- and, in the context of presidential politics, routinely enticing. To the extent that Obama gears up anti-Iran rhetoric that he seemed to have mercifully abandoned months ago, for instance, he may reassure some pundits and other influential power brokers in Washington, but at the same time he's liable to weaken some of the allegiance to his candidacy among progressive constituencies.
As an elected Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention, I've been hearing from people who are upset by the recent direction of the campaign. Some were always a bit skeptical of Obama but are becoming much more so. Others have been strong supporters from the outset. In the latter category, an attorney sent an email to me a few days ago: "I must confess that my enthusiasm for Senator Obama has waned in recent weeks with a number of his policy announcements (on FISA, gun control, etc.). While I of course will vote for him and help him get elected, I must say that I feel a bit deflated after having put so much hope, effort and money into his candidacy."
Obama and his top advisers will have to gauge the importance of such deflation and waning enthusiasm. A key factor in the election will be the extent to which the Obama campaign can pull off a massive mobilization of voters. Deflated constituencies don't mobilize as well as inspired ones.
Anyone who assumes that Obama will be elected president in November is on ground as solid as the assumption in 2000 that Al Gore would be elected president. On July 9, when releasing new results from nationwide polling, the Democratic research outfit Greenberg Quinlan Rosner reported that Obama has a mere 4-point lead over John McCain. Despite its propensity to spin for Democrats and its eagerness to note that Obama seems "well-positioned," the firm acknowledged "some diminished enthusiasm for the presumptive Democratic nominee and only small gains among independent voters."
Some progressives, now disaffected, might consider the prospect of Obama falling short on Election Day to be his problem, not ours. But this isn't about Obama. It's about whether the levers of power in the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court along with it, are going to be redelivered into the hands of the right wing for yet another four years.
We're facing the historic imperative of keeping McCain out of the White House. If major progressive change is going to be feasible during the next several years, defeating McCain in November is necessary. And insufficient. The insufficiency does not negate the necessity.
Under a McCain presidency, we'd be back to the square one where we've found ourselves since January 2001. Putting Obama in the White House would not by any means ensure progressive change, but under his presidency the grassroots would have an opportunity to create it.
Along the way, let's strive to eliminate disillusionment by dispensing with illusions. No one who is a presidential candidate can proceed to overcome corporate power or the warfare state. The pervasive and huge problems that have proved to be so destructive are deep, structural and embedded in the political economy. The changes most worth believing in are the ones that social movements can make possible.
Norman Solomon's books include "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." The documentary film of the same name, based on the book, was recently released on home video. Solomon is a national co-chair of the Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign.

267 Comments so far
Show AllNews Flash for Norman, "...with growing disquiet among significant portions of Obama's progressive base." As of this morning, 7/10/08, BHO HAS NO PROGRESSIVE BASE. He is a TRAITOR to the Constitution and to America and he should burn for it with the rest of the ANIMALS.
"But that's a consequence of projecting their political outlooks onto the candidate in the first place."
Yes, well, Obama used all those sadsacks to get where he is to day, he used their "hopes" as stepping stones to get what he wants. Power. Only the most intensely feeble-minded ever considered Obama their savior, or a "progressive" (what ever that means) for that matter.
Obama is like those fellows on; Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire, well, turns out he's not a progressive, just well spoken with good posture.
This November will be a repeat of the last three presidential elections. The Democrat can lose or win, but they will probably lose because they don't actually have anything to offer, and leftist value voters like me, won't vote for him. Obama's already pledged to defend the Israeli government, and to stand strong against Iran, he supports expansion of warrentless wire taps, more money for church controled "social services", etc.
Barack Obama is well on his way to losing this election, and with it, Democratic control of Congress. Good job, Democrats. Good job.
You know, I agree McCain would be a disaster. But if Obama is just going to McCain light then maybe it is better for the USA to fail completely. It feels like electing Obama is just delaying the inevitable collapse of what we call life in the states.
Maybe it is just better for it all to go down and for us to start over.
Obama might have excuses for why he panders to Isreal or the war mongers or give immunity to telecoms for breaking the 4th amendment but in the end they are just excuses.
Being a progressive and voting for Obama is like shooting yourself in the head.
Your choice is either McKinney or Nader, cuz a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.
You want to stay in Iraq? Vote for McCain or Obama.
You want to needlessly escalate the phony war on terror? McCain or Obama.
You want increase the military budget? Again, same choice.
Nuclear power is your fantasy? Ditto.
Block democracy in Latin America? Once again, either one of these corporate politicians meets your requirement.
Continue to deny Palestinian rights? John or Barack.
Foist discredited merit pay on teachers? Either Senator will do.
Spy on Americans without a warrant? Either the man from Arizona or Illinois is your man.
Continue to waste billions on over 700 military bases worldwide? Same, again.
Block the popular single payer plan from saving us from our health care crisis? Either water carrier for the HMOs will be right there at your side.
and on and on...
I caught a brief thing in MSM while I was eating lunch the other day. It was Obama's wife getting all giggly about diamonds. I wanted to punch her in the face and then send her to work in the African diamond mines.
It's really too bad we can't vote Bush into office for four more years, that way, we'd see him truly hit bottom and, possibly, the masses would storm the White House and deal with him the way he deals with those whom he hates. McCain is a loser and always has been and I doubt he will even be audible by November. Obama is simply too ambitious and not willing to face the music. The bottom is the only place from which our nation can change. We don't have much further to go to get to the bottom, but we're not quite there yet.
One more news release that supports my position.
I repeat here for those that might have missed it before:
Reagan, Bush, McCain, Clinton and Obama . . .
They are all from the same mold. If you want things to stay the same then vote to support the two party corporate system. Pick a Democrat or Republican and go with it. If you want things to change then make the change yourself. Vote for a third party. I don't care which one, Green, Libertarian, Constitution, whatever. But the first step in making things change is to change yourself. That you can control and that you can do. The rest is just wishful thinking.
Great article Norman. And thanks to all the genuine progressives here pressuring Obama to do the right thing.
Here we go again. When all other rationalizations fail - bring out the supreme court. Vote Nader or simply don't vote. It doesn't matter anyway.
NORMAN SOLOMON APOLOGIZING FOR THE DEMOCRATIC SELLOUT
"The people who say this apparently haven't been listening to me." Overall, his career as a politician has embraced conciliation and compromise rather than pushing against centrist corporate agendas.
-back in the day Obama supporters were hailing him as none other than the new Messiah.
-I disliked him as a phony from the get-go
"I will make mistakes."
-notice his "mistake" is to take right wing Republican positions
-wonder why he didn't make the mistake of taking leftist position
Barack Obama is an extremely smart guy.
-ok, and an unprincipled opportunist
gauge the importance of such deflation and waning enthusiasm
-it isn't about principles, it's about winning votes, PERIOD
are going to be redelivered into the hands of the right wing for yet another four years.
-despicable lesserevilism
We're facing the historic imperative of keeping McCain out of the White House.
-Solomon crying WOLF!
candidate can proceed to overcome corporate power or the warfare state
-Solomon sounds like a defeated Democratic Party apologist
I don't envy you Democratic Party apologists. You have the unenviable task of justifying all these sell outs through mind-boggling, mental-contortions and acrobatics which in the end are simply unprincipled capitulations to the establishment.
The bloggers of the far, far left (me included, of course) may have to admit we can either participate or secede to irrelevance (with Nader and most of the CD posters, such as the one above somehow hoping we can sink further to the bottom of something or other.)
The right, the center, the moderate left and the "little further left than mere moderate" are going to determine the election. The goal is to see to it that the "right" ain't the winner. Most of the gang here has now abandoned the goal, if indeed they ever embraced it in the first place.
I don't want to have to "pressure" Obama or anyone else into doing the right thing. I only want to vote for those who intuitively simply just do the right thing to begin with. Those of us who read his words carefully and listened to his rhetoric with care always knew Obama was not the right candidate for us.
It's time to vote outside the system at all levels of our government. Enough of us have got to say: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! We will no longer be held hostage by the Democratic party! Vote for Nader or McKinney or for ANY other candidate you want who is not Repub or Dem.
I, for one, never understood the "left" support of B.O. He has always struck me as Bill Clinton redux.
He gives good speech.
Daniel David July 10th, 2008 12:40 pm
If Joseph Stalin ran against McCain you would be making the exact same arguments, except- IN FAVOR OF MCCAIN!
Hey DD define far left. What is far left?
and he should burn for it with the rest of the ANIMALS.
**er
that's kind of vague isnt it?
technically humans are animals but who exactly do you insult by saying they are animals--when the sort of calculated brutality that we are talking about can ONLY be done by humans, the garbage species of Planet Earth.
You want to insult, call them humans.
"Putting Obama in the White House would not by any means ensure progressive change, but under his presidency the grassroots would have an opportunity to create it."
This is propaganda by an Obama delegate. The netroots can't influence Obama while he's a candidate, not about FISA, not about NAFTA, not about gun-control, not about the death penalty...and this is supposed to get better after he's elected?
Even for propaganda, this is outstandingly ridiculous!
I sent the following e-mail to a few friends last night. It has since been sent to many more.
[I will admit to being on the fence when it came to voting for Obama.
A number of his policies were of concern to me.
What he did today clinched it for me.
I will NOT vote for him!
I will either vote for a third party candidate or not for President at all!
I'm proud that my Senator pushed for the Constitution and will send money to him even though he and I differ on our opinions about Israel/Palestine.
I encourage you to visit
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/09/10244/#comment-320127
where you can read why I and others are disgusted with the Democrats and in particular, Obama.
I tried very hard to have HOPE as Obama claimed he would bring, but I have lost that hope through him.
This was my comment!
My parents told me when I was in my teens something regarding my responsibility that has stuck with me ever since.
"Ignorance of the law is NO excuse!"
In other words 5 one cannot legally use the excuse that they did not know what they were doing was illegal to escape liability for breaking the law.
Yet - this is exactly what the telecom industry is claiming as they attempt to avoid lawsuits stemming from their participation in spying on American citizens.
I wonder 5 why is it that large corporations can claim ignorance of a law to avoid responsibility yet ordinary Americans cannot?
If the present FISA bill is voted into effect 5 giving telecom companies the immunity they are seeking 5 what will stop every person, organization or corporation from claiming ignorance of the laws they broke and thereby making the claim they are not subject to criminal offenses or lawsuits?
NOTHING!
Since our Congress has seen fit to enact this law 5 the present law Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat - Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one" is defunct.
Prepare yourself for the use ignorance of the law as an excuse by every person, organization or corporation in the future.]
Of course, to be expected, many wrote back saying that I shouldn't do this because if I did McCain would get elected.
This was my final response to those comments.
[As Obama softened his stance on getting us out of Iraq without delay – I stuck by him.
As Obama placated APAIC – I stuck by him.
As Obama altered his stance on abortion I stuck by him though my concerns were growing.
When Obama threatened Iran – I stuck by him.
I really wanted to believe there was an honest politician that could get elected to the Presidency but Obama has crushed that HOPE of mine.
Placating the Right and Evangelicals will garner him no support from those who put him in his present position.
If he or his handlers believe they need the Right and Evangelicals in order to win, they only need look at the past when the Republicans took over by going against everything they were told that, they couldn't win if they concentrated on Evangelical issues.
Progressives CAN win if they stick to their principals.
Obama jumped ship first, I and others simply followed HIS lead!
The old excuse that if we don't vote for him someone worse will get in just won't work again. It's a "Red Herring" a ploy, and I won't succumb.
Obama, Should either get some guts and stick to his principals or stop claiming he Has principals that he doesn't have.]
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.
Jacob Freeze July 10th, 2008 12:49 pm writes "but under his presidency the grassroots would have an opportunity to create it."
-notice the mental-acrobatics.
This blogger appears to be completely oblivious to the fact Obama just ignored the grassroots activists that begged him to oppose the FISA capitulation in order to side with the establishment.
When I voted for Obama in the primaries, I didn't agree with all he said but I voted on his vision of "Hope".
Now, during the last few months, as Obama has moved to the right (not center), as I think of the future consequences of his stances, I say "I hope not".
These Anybody but Bu... I meant McCain arguments by liberal fellows like Norman really take the cake for total limpness. These folk need some sort of political viagra or something???
Obama and Progressive do not belong in the same sentence. Obama. Is not Progressive. there.
I agree with many of the comments above. Americans are like junkies who have to hit bottom before they will start getting better and we aren't there yet. Our economy is taking (as in going to get much worse), so whoever wins this election will be a huge looser. It might as well be McCain since he supported all of the present tanking economic policies. After the crash, maybe Americans, having gotten hungry for the first time in 75 years, will pay attention and not just drunkedly wave their flags.
Question - Will the ruling class, special interests and the MSM allow Obama to be elected if he talks like us? Maybe if and when elected he can be moved to the left where the majority is. I live in a red state so I can vote my conscience.
Normally I like Mr. Soloman, but he's turned into an Obama shill for sometime in this election. Too bad.
There's a lot of bull in this piece. Here's one little pile....
"We can help the Obama for President effort when we hold him to his good positions — and move to buck him up when he wavers."
So, how'd that work on FISA? Were you able to 'hold him' to his promise to filibuster any deal that gave the telecoms immunity? Were you able to 'buck him up' to make him value the constitutional rights of Americans to be 'secure' from unwarranted searches? Or did he do what the telecoms that have poured $270,000+ into his campaign acounts (maplight.org through May) wanted him to do?
As always, the answer is 'follow the money'.
And here's another little stinking pile of bull in this piece.
Obama has not 'moved to the center'. At best, the 'center' is where he was in the primaries'. Obama has moved to the far right.
-- Support the Bush\McCain plan for Iraq ('do what the generals tell him')
-- Unquestioning support of Israel, including going to war
-- Not willing to talk to foreign leaders of places like Cuba or Iran
-- An national security adviser board full of people who've made our past policies, and several of whom could be indicted as war criminals.
-- An economic adviser who's a friend to Walmart
-- Refusing to reconsider trade deals like NAFTA.
These are not positions of the 'center'. These are the positions of the far right.
And its not an accident. Its not that they need 'backbone' or 'viagra'. Its that these are the policies that the people who have flooded the Democratic campaign coffers demand and expect. This is the Democrats doing exactly what they promised to do in the back rooms when the big checks were being handed over.
The Dems obey their masters. To us, they lie and they con and they deceive. They say anything to us to lie to us to get our votes. Then they ignore us, call us idiot liberals and do what their paymasters tell them to do.
FUCKING HYPOCRITES!
You all whine..piss and moan..HEY..great..BUT..remember..ALL of this is paid for by YOU!
YOUR money is what they are using to TORTURE..MURDER..WAGE ILLEGAL WAR..AND ON AND ON..AND NOW..spy on all phone calls..
To rant on and on and on that is "Obama" or it's the "Right" or the "left" is all..WINDOW DRESSING..for..it is....YOU!
You people..are the ones FINANCING the whole show..making every minute of every evil deed..POSSIBLE!
You COMPLAIN..you whine..BUT YOU PAY! and you pay..and you pay..
WHY? why would you do NOTHING and yet PAY..out of FEAR...and ratioanlize away the POWER OF THE PURSE and pretend like it's the fault of EVERYONE else?
It make me almost ill..your SUPPORT..in the form of your dutifully sent in disposable BILLIONS..is the ONLY support they care about..MONEy is ALL that matters..if you do not understand this..and are incapable of imposing economic sanctions of yor own..THEN FRANKLY. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE APPROPRIATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE "WAY THINGS WORK" NECESSARY TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY ON ANY OTHER ISSUE..PERIOD..IF YOU PAY? YOU ARE COMPLICIT..A COLLABORATOR..PERIOD!
Wake the FUCK up!..the Blame game..is SLEIGHT OF HAND..to keep you..MAD and ..DISTRACTED so you won't notice the HAND IN YOUR POCKET making it all possible..well..again..WAKE UP!
Adios..Hypo-C's
"I agree with many of the comments above. Americans are like junkies who have to hit bottom before they will start getting better and we aren't there yet."
It's true we're nowhere near the bottom. But when we hit it there is a very great chance that instead of getting better, we'll become even worse. Instead of having actual "progressives" elected, we'll elect those who burn witches at the stake, talk to snakes and speak in tongues, and have pictures of Jesse Helms and General Pinochet over their fireplaces, hanging next to the sampler that says "Home, Sweet Home".
Oh, the 'fantasy candidate' line of bull is back again. The one that says that we should ignore what Obama says ... he's only doing that to get elected. Instead, we should create a fantasy candidate in our minds of what we want a President to be, then we should vote for Obama on the very bizarre theory that Obama is really our fantasy candidate.
Even the Obama quote in the article says that's a pile of crap. Where when he refers to people who are criticizing him and says "The people who say this apparently haven't been listening to me."
But hey, I guess once you've decided to plug your ears and say "Nah, nah, nah, nah ,nah" to make sure you don't even hear what the candidate is telling you, you don't hear him telling you're an idiot either.
"The bloggers of the far, far left (me included, of course) may have to admit we can either participate or secede to irrelevance (with Nader and most of the CD posters, such as the one above somehow hoping we can sink further to the bottom of something or other.)" I'd rather be a part of irrelevance than be part of complicity and duplicity. When the candidates of the two allowable parties are the ones who stack the electoral deck then the election itself is irrelevant. The Duopoly will do what it wants no matter what. Voting for Nader, 3rd party. etc., then becomes the only relevant thing there is to do. The trick is to vote for non-Democrats and non-Republicans in such large numbers that the Duopoly becomes irrelevant. That will not happen by doing the same thing over and over again. The crash is coming folks. Do you really believe that the ruling, elite. investor class, plan to pay the retiring baby boomers their just due pension and SSI? Sure they will. Collapsing the economy is their escape clause. It matters not whether McCain or Obama are at the head of the collapse. Run Ralph. Run!
I was suspicious of Obama from the get go. What alarmed me most was when he stated that he would reach accross the isle to strike comprimise. What crap!
We need a leader who will put Bush and Cheney, and people like them, in prison, not some appeaser who will sacrfice our Democracy to the facists. We must never forget that George Bush rode into office on a trojan horse named, "I'm a uniter not a divider."
The easy rule to remember is to NEVER vote for a candidate you see often on corporate TV. Especially not one you see getting any favorable coverage on corporate TV.
There's two ways you'd see a candidate often on corporate TV. One is they've taken a lot of corporate money, so they have the funds to buy ads on corporate TV. And those ads are approved by corporate TV and they are willing to show them. For the last point, note that we've seen several times where groups raise the money to show an ad, only to have the ad rejected because of content. Cash alone doesn't get you on the air. The content must be corporate approved.
The other way to get on corporate TV is the 'free' coverage their 'news' organizations give to corporate-approved candidates.
So, between those two, any candidate you see on TV frequently, especially one that gets any favorable 'coverage' at all from the 'news' is not the candidate to vote for. To get it down to one sentence ...
DON'T VOTE FOR ANY CANDIDATE YOU SEE ON TV!
The candidates you need to vote for. The candidates who will represent YOU are the ones not on TV. How often to you see former Rep. McKinney on TV? Or Mr. Nader? Or even Mr. Barr?
The candidates that you NEED to elect are the ones that will be ignored by corporate TV. And if a groundswell develops anyways, then they'll be the candidates being abused and ridiculed on corporate TV. When you see that, the only thing you should take away from that is that there's something going on out there you need to check out.
But to keep it simple ...
DON'T VOTE FOR ANY CANDIDATE YOU SEE ON TV!
For those of you who have supported Obama, as I did, call the campaign at (866) 675-2008 and ask for your contributions to be returned based on his cowardly position on FISA against the constitutional oath he swore and the many less agregious policy changes he has pulled after securing the position of presumptive nominee.
Two months ago, I could not wait for him to put HRC behind us. Now I actually feel for her and her supporters ONLY because of the crap Obama has pulled. I never thought that would be possible.
Here comes Bill Clinton's 3rd term of triangulation, pandering, disassociation! Hurrah for Slick Barry!
Solomon writes "We can help the Obama for President effort when we hold him to his good positions — and move to buck him up when he wavers."
Tell that to the tens of thousands of Obama supporters who organized their own social networking effort inside the campaign to try convince their candidate to do the right thing on FISA, and have been left with little more than treadmarks on their backs as the "Hope and Change" campaign bus merrily makes another right turn.
Fortunately, despite the predictable apolgetics and the time worn "lesser of two evils" argument advanced here by Denver bound Solomon, basking in his status as an Obama delegate, an increasing number of progressives, including many of Barack's grassroots supporters, have finally drawn the appropriate conclusions from Obama's rank capitulation on FISA and his latest bellicose statements directed toward Iran, virtually lip synching Condi Rice.
Solomon also writes: "Let's strive to eliminate disillusionment by dispensing with illusions." Damn straight. And that includes the illusion that Obama, David Axelrod, Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democratic leadership can count on progressives to dutifully fall in line this time around. One way to do this is to vote for McKinney or Nader. Another is to toss Nancy Pelosi out on her ass through a nationally supported and concentrated effort to elect Cindy Sheehan to Congress. And beyond the election, we desperately need to revitalize a independent mass movement for peace and social justice and return to the streets -- whoever wins in November.
Daniel David is on the 'far left' .... that's hillarious! I thought he was at DLC headquarters.
Since he's consistently opposed every 'left' point of view and consistently told us that we have to vote for whichever flavor of 'far right' candidates the Dems gave us, that's a pretty funny thing to say.
The day Daniel David starts telling me he can't support McKinney because she's not radical enough, that's when he's on the 'far left'.
"The best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is to not have illusions in the first place."
Norman, you're a funny guy. (And full of s**t)
:)
Vote Nader.
The Democratic Party will still be deeply split at convention-time and this new split cannot be hidden with political cosmetics of kissing and hugging on TV shows. The current division is not between supporters of Obama and Clinton but between those who are apparently always willing to swerve from principles for the sake of getting Obama elected President and those who draw a "line in the sand" at some point. Obama has become the leader of the first group and has thereby forsaken the leadership of the Democratic Party. He should have realized the depth of the split and should have either done what Teddy Roosevelt would have done, namely completely overpower his antis, or have stayed above the fray by explaining that he would not vote with one or the other group on FISA but, given the sure acceptance of the bill, would consult with all about speedy future revisions in his administration. He has done neither.
The second group has no leader but counts Feingold, Byrd, Biden, Clinton, and Dodd among its members. That is a pretty powerful group which may cause much trouble for a President Obama who has also insulted them numerous times by calling them "the no-change old-time politicians".
That same split can be found on "progressive" Internet sites although it is difficult to estimate how many of the anti-Obamaites are Republican "trolls."
Regardless of the certain "unity hosanna" at the convention, the split will undoubtedly persist into an Obama administration because his potential opponents for the 2012 nomination have discovered that Obama is not a "leader" but is more like a "weak reed" that bends to almost every breeze.
Maplight.org has a widget that shows the total contributions into all the campaigns. I've got it on my blog to remind me.
It shows Obama has taken in a total of about $295,000,000.00. Yes, that's 295 MILLION DOLLARS. And that I think is only through May, so the money he's been raking in since he got the nomination probably isn't included. Nor is the tens of millions of dollars of corporate 'soft' money that pays for the convention. Nor is other 'soft' money that will surround the campaign.
So, go ahead and call and ask for your $20 back.
Its a nice political statement. Don't get me wrong, I hope people do it. But don't expect it to have any impact. Your $20 is 0.00006% of what's he's raked in.
...it is better for the USA to fail completely.
Only then will humanity be safe from our corporate agression. Only then can our grandchildren rise up from their knees. We will need another Constitutional Convention to see which states will join together to form a more 'perfect' union. A union without corporate or christian citizenship.
I, like many others, really did listen to what Obama was saying and pegged him as at least a centrist - or more accurately a rightwinger.
Anyone who believed that Obama is a liberal was the victim of wishful thinking. In the past year, a "political compass" test at http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008 became available (it's still there) which asked questions concerning attitudes and beliefs. It separates not only right and left ideology, but also authoritarian and libertarian.
All the major candidates except Kucinich (if one considered him a major candidate) fell into the right/authoritarian quadrant. Kucinich was in the left/libertarian quadrant. For some reason, Ron Paul does not appear, but I think another similar one put him in the right/libertarian area. Obama was only slightly to the left of Hillary Clinton.
Obama is only a "liberal" in the current political atmosphere. I've read that Nixon would be considered very liberal by today's standards, and that no one has been that far left since he resigned from office. Not being a real student of history or politics, I cannot vouch for that statement although it seems to ring true.
I support and will vote for Obama even though my responses to the political compass put me to the left of Kucinich and perhaps even Nader (who is also to the left of Kucinich). In spite of my belief that the two major parties are run by global corporations, the democrats seem a bit less horrific. I don't believe a Gore or Kerry presidency would have put the US in such dire straits.
Yes, the lesser of two evils is still evil, but we don't have a lot of choice. As many astute posters have noted in the past, no one to the left of Obama or Clinton has a chance to become president at this time. Obama knows how to play the game, and we've seen what Republicans do. I might be wrong, but it does appear that it can't get much worse. With Obama it might get better, however marginally.
I would like to take a moment to snottily thank all of the people who caused Obama to be our soon-to-be Dem nominee without asking him to provide details and instead kissed his feet while he rambled on about hope and change !! You stupid people have created this mess, now what are you going to do to fix it ???? This is the WORST presidential election season EVER ! Where is Ron Paul, someone please convince him to run.
poopdeck ... in Denver, the line between the two groups will be clearly obvious as the fences and the riot cops keep concerned citizens away from the politicians and the corporate elite inside.
Come join us! Come in the millions. Let Obama and the other bought off fools see just how big the crowd is that is pissed at them. Let them hear your voices in the millions!
Come to Denver in August!
John,
You are exactly right. I will, repeat will, vote for Obama because the idea of the alternative is too frightening. But that does not mean he is, nor should be, immune from our disagreements with him, especially on FISA and the Iraq war. If we let Obama just waltz into the White House not hearing from us about our concerns, then we have no right to try and hold him to account when he enters the White House. If we ask for nothing, the we should expect nothing in return. This not only goes for Obama, but applies to every official in government(local, state, and federal) and other leaders such as CEO's, Labor Leaders, Economic leaders, and Civil Rights/Civil Liberties leaders. Every woman and man should be holding these leaders accountable for not standing up and fighthing for this Democracy.
"are going to be redelivered into the hands of the right wing for yet another four years"
Ummm.... isn't it clear that Obama IS the RIGHT? Perhaps not as far right as McCain, but not too far off either. There is no mainstream 'progressive' candidate. While McKinney and Nader are both running, without some sort of miracle of massive rebellion against the democratic party, their chances are pretty slim... so regardless of who wins the election, the right will in control again.
"thong-girl"'s idea about hastening the decent to the bottom isn't all that bad. Things need to get much worse for the soccer mom's to get politically active. Things need to be much more uncomfortable to get the average working stiff to take to the streets. Things need to be much more painful to shake the masses out of their TV and sugar induced stupors. Vote McCain to destroy the country to save it.
I love the circular arguments. I won't support any non-corporate approved candidates because they "cant' win". Of course, without support, that's a self-fulfilling statement.
The key to realize is that WE LOSE when the Democrats win. A win for the Democrats is a LOSS for us.
The only possible way to 'win' is to abandon the Democrats and support candidates who won't constantly oppose us and screw us once elected.
elmysterio ... why on earth vote for McCain?
If you don't care if the Dems win or not, then vote Green. The key is that a party like the Greens get benefits for the amount of votes they get. So, in many places a vote for the Green Party in this election might guarantee them a spot on the ballot in the next election. Different states have different laws and thresholds, but it could be something as low as 5%.
Also, if a party like the Green Party got 5% of the vote nationwide, then they'd qualify for federal matching funds in the next election. This would essentially DOUBLE the amount of money they have to work with.
So, why waste a vote on McCain? Vote Green and help build for the future. Better yet, go look up your local Green Party and start working with them to build for that future.
In case you missed it on FISA, Iraq Funding, Public Financing of campaigns, Nuclear, Bio Fuel, et al, Obama is a corporate candidate.
I'm really at a loss to see how a McCain win is all that much more 'frightening' than an Obama win. Get our your microscope and judge the small differences between a candidate that way to the right and one that is just very slightly not quite so far to the right.
This is Democratic Party propaganda. They keep spreading this myth about McCain being the evil bogeyman. But when you really look at positions, there's very little difference between Obama and McCain.
The Democrats use the 'politics of fear' just exactly like their cousins the Republicans do. Except instead of campaigning on a vague fear of terrorists, the Democrats create a myth of 'fear' of McCain to bolster their awful candidate.
Vote for Obama, and force him to move left by electing a seriously Democratic congress. The current system has worked for the Repugnants because they bought them all a line to stand in. We have to elect Democrats and make them create a line for Obama to stand on. And proper Democrats at that.
Obama's response to criticism from progressives has consistently been "If you say that you haven't been hearing what I'm saying".
That holds a major clue to his modus operandi: He wants us to "watch the mouth, not the hands" - listen to his platitudes and be hypnotized by his vague verbal acrobatics, rather than follow what bills he is signing and which constituencies he is pandering to.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court argument is all too strong: Bush's two terms have been a long-term disaster for civil rights and minorities, and at least one more Supreme Court justice might bite the dust even before W. leaves... If W doesn't fill that slot with another "Constructionist" Troglodyte, McCain will. Vote as you will, friends to our south, but think long-term consequences...
In the above article, Norman Solomon writes:
"On Wednesday, when Obama cast a vote in the Senate to undermine the Fourth Amendment, he fulfilled his frequent prediction during the primary season that 'I will
make mistakes.' This was a very big one."
Mistakes! MISTAKES!
This wasn't a "mistake," Norm baby. Barack Obama knew exactly what he was doing when he voted to trash the 4th Amendment – a vote that, in effect, places the president – and all future presidents – above the law. (Bye, bye, Constitution.)
Et tu, Norman? Have you, too, closed ranks with other deluded liberals into thinking that Obama is something he clearly isn't? Namely, a progressive.
How much further up AIPAC's ass does Obama have to crawl before it becomes obvious that he's as much a hawk on the Middle East as any self-abusing neocon? (Obama's new "rethought" position on Iraq is that he will "defer to the judgment of the generals." … Oh, great, that sure is reassuring. Now go find me a general in Iraq who's a dove, Norm baby.)
How much *more* Wall Street dough does Obama have to scruff up to convince you and your fellow liberal apologists that he's bought and paid for by Corporate America?
How many *more* countries does the US have to invade before rationalizers like you realize that Obama:
-- supported invading Afghanistan.
-- supports the US' continued presence in Iraq.
-- along with the rest of the Senate, Democrats as well as Republicans, gave George Bush the ok to invade Iran.
-- and is right on board with threatening Pakistan, Syria and God only knows what other countries suit his imperialist-defending frame of mind?
How much longer, Norm? How much longer? Tell us. Answer *that* question for us.
How much longer is it going to be before you and your fellow-rationalizers WAKE UP? Obama is not a progressive, he never was and he never will be. (See the following for just a few of his pro-corporate, pro-militaristic predispositions -- http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html )
Like others of your mindset, you have the nerve – THE COCKEYED, FACOCKTA NERVE -- to mention Barack Obama in the same breath as Martin Luther King, Jr. What Martin Luther King, Jr. said about "the madness of militarism" were words he not only went to bat for but are words that eventually got him killed by the political establishment in this country. Obama, on the other hand, is *supported* by the political establishment in this country! They love him. They know full well that, if elected, Obama won't make a peep as far as making any meaningful changes when it comes to either the political or the economic status quo
And you know it, Norman Solomon. So cut the crap, k?
If you can't tell the difference between Martin Luther King, Jr. and Barack (The-Hustler- With-More-Than-Two-Suits-in-His-Closet") Obama then more's the pity. Obama has voted for every Iraq War funding bill that's come down the pike. Think Martin Luther King, Jr. would cast such war-enabling votes?
See the difference there, Norman? Eh?
As for being a man of peace – pleeeeze! Obama has worshipped at the feet of the Israeli government's militaristic brutality so frequently and with such fervor that even Joe Lieberman would blush. … And you're comparing this cheap, transparent hustler Barack Obama to Martin Luther King, Jr.
For shame, Normon Solomon, for shame!