Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAn interview with David Sirota
Sheldon Rampton and I could see it coming soon after the Democrats took control of the Congress in 2007. In March, 2007 we pointed out that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with the support of MoveOn, was advancing legislation that would fund the war in Iraq while giving Democrats PR cover, allowing them to posture against it while the bloody, brutal occupation of Iraq continues. We were attacked at the time by Democratic partisans, but unfortunately our analysis has proven correct and today the war in Iraq is as much of an interminable quagmire as it was when the Democrats took control of the House and Senate in January 2007.
Democratic political activist, columnist and author David Sirota has also strongly condemned this failure of the Democrats and "The Players," DC's professional partisan insiders such as MoveOn. On May 24, 2007 he wrote: "Today America watched a Democratic Party kick them square in the teeth - all in order to continue the most unpopular war in a generation at the request of the most unpopular president in a generation at a time polls show a larger percentage of the public thinks America is going in the wrong direction than ever recorded in polling history. ... That will make May 24, 2007 a dark day generations to come will look back on - a day when Democrats in Washington not only continued a war they promised to end, but happily went on record declaring that they believe in their hearts that government's role is to ignore the will of the American people."
This month, more than a year later, the Democratic controlled Congress once again gave the Bush Administration funding to continue the Iraq war well into 2009. David Sirota now has a new book out: The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington. In it he expands on his criticism of the Democratic Party and its partisan, professional antiwar activists in the leadership of MoveOn.
Sirota writes in his new book (page 82), "The absence of a full-throated antiwar uprising is tragic at a time when the country appears more skeptical of knee-jerk militarism than ever before. ... When this particular war does eventually end, both AAEI and MoveOn will undoubtedly claim that their narrow, ultra-partisan Beltway strategies were the key. They are, after all, experts at media promotion, and such a laughable yet easy-to-understand story line will be fairly simple to sell in the same era that has seen politicians and television pundits originally lie the country into the conflict. But what will be little discussed is the possibility that ... their strategies prolonged the Iraq War at a time when Democrats had the constitutional power of the purse to stop it immediately." Sirota concludes, "The Players may actually not mind the war continuing, because it preserves an effective political cudgel against Republicans. Actually ending the war, after all, means less fodder for the next television ad."
I recently reached David Sirota via email in the middle of his grueling months-long book promotion tour. He was "exhausted and tired from the tour" and "hiding out" over the 4th of July weekend at the home of his in-laws in rural Indiana, but he responded quickly to my questions.
STAUBER: What inspired your commitment to populism? Have you read the classic book Populist Moment about the powerful 19th century movements that were eventually done in by the banks and Democratic Party co-optation? And if so, what lessons do you take from it for 21st century populist progressive movements?.
SIROTA: My commitment to populism was originally forged from working with people like Bernie Sanders and Dave Obey - two very different politicians who, on economic issues, are populist to the core. My career has been one centered around the concept of social justice - and that probably was forged even earlier than my politics. I grew up in a progressive family, among progressive friends, and with constant progressive influences in my life - from school to summer camp. In writing the book, I studied a lot of populist history, including The Populist Moment.
STAUBER: You are a mainstream Democratic partisan who is embracing populism and in your book you criticize MoveOn, Netroots mavens like Markos, and other Democratic leaders for their single-minded partisanship. What sort of response has your advocacy of movement building received in those Netroots quarters?
SIROTA: I would hardly say I am "a mainstream Democratic partisan" - ask any "mainstream Democratic partisan" who knows me if I'm one of them, and they'll say the same. I guess I have been "a mainstream Democratic partisan" at a few past moments in my career - namely, when I was the spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee. But that was a two-year stint (and indeed a proud one) out of an entire career that has spanned working for Congress's only independent, for Brian Schweitzer (hardly a typical Democrat) and as a progressive journalist. So far, the response to the book - and to the critiques in it - has been nothing but positive. As I say in the book, the Netroots is not a monolith - and I think people in that community have seen my writing as respectful and fair.
STAUBER: When the Democrats realized that the "gift" of the Iraq war -- as Mario Cuomo has sarcastically called it -- had given them control of the House and Senate in 2006, Pelosi and other leaders obviously decided to play it safe, not investigate this Administration for its many possibly impeachable offenses, and not force an end to the war by refusing to fund it. Apparently they hope that Iraq will play out politically in a similar fashion in the 2008 election and provide a Democratic victory. Do you agree with this analysis and whether or not you do, how do you view the failure of the Democrats and major collaborators like MoveOn to force an end to the war in Iraq after the 2006 elections that were such an anti-war vote?
SIROTA: Yes, I think Democrats are hoping that they can do nothing substantively to end the war, but get the sizeable antiwar vote in the general election nonetheless. The strategy is a predictable reflection of an unfortunate reality: namely, the reality that there in fact is no strong antiwar accountability system that is willing to use the election as an instrument of pressure. Instead, there are groups like Moveon.org that have built up an enormous capacity for pressure, but are using that enormous capacity as an appendage of the Democratic Party, regardless of whether Democrats use their congressional power to end the war.
STAUBER: MoveOn is not a movement although it wants to be perceived as one. It is a brilliant and effective fundraising and marketing machine, but 95% or more of their so-called members ignore any particular email appeal. These 3.2 million people on the MoveOn email list are the object of marketing and fundraising campaigns, but they have absolutely no meaningful or democratic control over the decisions of organization, there is no accountability from the leadership to the MoveOn list members, and those of us on the list are unable to organize and communicate amongst ourselves within the list because it can't be accessed by the grassroots at the local or state level. MoveOn, the Democracy Alliance, and the various liberal think tanks that have arisen to fight the Right are clearly a force able to raise millions of dollars for Democratic candidates and launch PR and messaging campaigns, but none of them are about empowering a populist grassroots uprising. Or am I missing something?
SIROTA: I believe Moveon.org, the Democracy Alliance and the array of left-leaning institutions that have arisen in recent years possess a vast amount of potential for a progressive movement - but it is only potential at this point. That's for many reasons - one of the biggest being the utter lack of small-d democracy. You cannot build a movement if you are unwilling to give up power to the rank-and-file.
STAUBER: Barring a military or terrorist attack that the Republicans could exploit, it seems certain that the Democrats will be able to win a solid majority in both the House and Congress this fall given the twin energy and economic crises, and the continuing war in Iraq. If Barack Obama loses the White House, do you see the Democratic Congress in 2009 any more likely to stand up to John McCain than it has to Bush on issues like this long, continuing war in Iraq?
SIROTA: No
STAUBER: I have read Obama's autobiography and he is certainly an impressive person and thinker. However, his policies and political stands to date are rather mundane. If not for his opposition to the war before he was in the Senate, I doubt he would have defeated Hillary Clinton for the nomination. More recently he seems to have come under even more controlled management by his political handlers and pollsters, almost desperately trying to make his image as mainstream as possible. As a Democratic activist and a populist, how would you advise Obama right now?
SIROTA: Obama's latest flip-flops are not moves to the "center" or the "mainstream" - by the empirical public opinion data on major issues, his moves are ones away from the center and from the mainstream. That's not surprising - he has surrounded himself by Washington insiders whose definition of "the center" is radically different from where the actual center of American public opinion is. If he continues down this path, he will hurt his chances of winning the election. I would advise him to remember where mainstream public opinion is on issues like trade, the war and civil liberties is - and instead of going to the center of a corrupt Washington, go there.
STAUBER: If and when populist forces build an email list as big as MoveOn's -- and most of that list was built by MoveOn's posturing as an ardent anti-war organization, which it is not - - and harness it for real grassroots empowerment, that is when we might see some exciting political developments that combine the Netroots and grassroots for fundamental change. I'd love to see a MoveOn-type organization that would actually trust and empower the millions of people on its email list so that the decision making, organizing and money benefit the grassroots and grow power from there upward, one in which the structure at the top is accountable to and elected by the members. It's hard to have a political democracy when we don't even have democratic organizations or movements. I've talked with some of the leadership of MoveOn about this, but they have no intention to democratize and will remain a top-down marketing and fundraising organization. How do you view this challenge of building a powerful new populist movement serves a movement rather than serving a Party or a small elite of decision makers who fund and run liberal think tanks?
SIROTA: It's a huge challenge and gets to a deep psychological issue. Are we willing to think in movement terms, or are we going to keep succumbing to partisan terms foisted on us by a shallow media? Breaking free of that latter propaganda is no easy task - it requires a real commitment to grassroots organizing and education. That's unglamorous stuff - the kind of stuff that doesn't get you media accolades in the 24-hour news cycle. But it's the kind of stuff that builds real power. I would say that if the institutions of the much-vaunted new progressive infrastructure are interested only in being celebrated in the short-term, meaningless media cycle, then they should do what they are doing. But if they are interested in actually building a movement that wields real power, they need to radically change from autocratic institutions looking for applause from Big Money, Big Media and big politicians, to democratic institutions looking to make meaningful change. There's a reason why the labor movement continues to be the most durable and powerful movement apparatus in human history: it is fundamentally a democratic movement. Trying to build a progressive movement on an autocratic model is a concept that may change the deck chairs on the Titanic - but ultimately a concept that leaves everyone on a sinking ship.
STAUBER: What is the best way for people to find out more about your writing, work and new book?
SIROTA: The best link for my website is www.davidsirota.com and the best link to buy the book is at Powells: http://www.powells.com/biblio/0307395634
John Stauber is the founder (1993) and current executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy.
120 Comments so far
Show AllThe good new is people like Ralph Nader can run and with very little effort we can be educated to understand why he is correct.
The bad news is apparently both Democrats and Republicans like the way things are and will make believe that they are bickering with each other, as they maintain the status-quo. So life on this planet will continue to die off and humans all over will keep suffering.
Every day there is an article on this site pointing out how little Obama will do to change:
econmic power - help the mortgage banks - not the borrowers,
health care in the US,
change our Middle East Military buildup,
support Nuclear Power. etc., etc.
Not to mention the Biggest Democratic sell-out: Not impeaching Bush and Cheney.
Vote for Ralph Nader - show you care.
People say, we can't vote for McKinney or Nader, that is just helping McCain to win because neither of them have any chance of winning. But one of the posters here has very wisely indicated why you SHOULD vote for a third party: Because that is the way politics works! If you tell the Democrats you are voting for party 3 unless they support A and B and C, then the Democrats will be forced to adopt those policies in order not to loose your vote (of course, for this to be extremely effective, you need to get together in some kind of organization and tell the Democratic candidate as a group you will not support him because he has not adopted A, B, and C, and by not supporting those policies you are loosing X number of votes). Well, I don't like lying and deceit, but if you are comfortable with that (perhaps all is fair in love and war and politics) why couldn't we do this. IF you believe in the Green Party's platform, for example, register as a green. Tell everyone you know that you are voting green. And especially, if a POLL taker comes up to you or calls you on the phone, TELL THEM YOU ARE VOTING GREEN. Act for all the world like you are supporting and voting green, even if you are one of the people who I have described at the top, that is, you believe if you vote for third party it will just be helping McCain to get elected. Just pretend they DO have just as much a chance of winning as Obama or McCain. Then, on election day, once you are in the voting booth, if you still believe that voting green will simply help McCain get elected, well just pull the lever for Obama. There. The Democrats hopefully got the message that you do not agree with their policies (through the initial phone POLL), but if they still didn't listen to you, oh well. At least you tried to get that message through. True, you wimped out in the end. But nobody has to know you did it. Voting is anonymous, so noone (but yourself) ever needs to know who you actually voted for.
So there are at least 2 ways to get the message to the Democrats. We can do it the wimpy way, as just stated, if we are thinking strictly short term. On the other hand, we can do the hard, uncompromising blunt force message, which is simply NOT voting Democrat until they get the message. Trouble with this scenario is, how many election cycles will it take to get the message through to the Dems? Can we afford more Bush-like terms?
But what we really should be asking is, why do we continue to use the antiquated system of voting for representatives every few years in order to get our wants and needs addressed? Its as stupid as continuing to use the internal combustion engine to get around. Some ideas for a better way - Have everyone take a poll of their views on different issues, like abortion, universal health care, whether they are in favor of the war, etc., etc. Then once the desires of the entire population are recorded, use a computer to find the best match between candidate and what people want. That's one way you could do it, assuming you want to continue this silly idea of having a main leader to represent us in the federal government. But I am really thinking that maybe this national initiative is what we need. If we could get something like this enacted, the first law we the people should get passed is: every year or so, the citizens shall determine the salary of their representatives in House and Senate. Ha, then those rascals might not be so inclined to only follow their own interests and those of the lobbyists.
MikeBinSC -- If it gets to that, I hope you're right, of course. So far, all I have seen - relentlessly - is a man who seems to think the presidency is a corporate position, who takes bundles of money from Wall Street, and whose plan of action is to drag out this mess (and illusion) for a bit longer. I don't think he has a radical or creative bone in his body and that is troubling to me. He seems to think only in the narrowist corporate and imperial terms.
He advocates war crimes and voted to gut the Fourth Amendment. We simple can't ignore these egregious things.
(Clinton, BTW, and his advisor Robert Reich, came into office as strong advocates of deregulation. The boom of the Clinton years was carried on the back of urgent problems that were never addressed. It seems to me that Obama intends to carry on that tradition as far as possible.)
"Nader should have been running for the last four years, having built up a better base." Nader will be on at least 40 states ballots, theoretically enough to get the electoral votes to go over the top. How is that not organizing? Just because YOU have not heard of what Nader has been doing over the past 4 years doesn't mean he was doing nothing. You rely on the media and as a result you don't know. You say, "but when he tries to run again in four years the internet will not be like it is today. Censorship and on a meter." Do you have any idea what Nader is doing to preserve Internet neutrality? Didn't think so. Go ask Obama or McCain about net neutrality and see if they know their elbow from their buttocks on the matter? The reason why you can say, "Why is it that the progressives get to this part of the election season without a viable candidate" is because YOU are the roadblock to having such a viable candidate. YOU!
Why is it that the progressives get to this part of the election season without a viable candidate. Nader should have been running for the last four years, having built up a better base.I live in a latte sipping area and cannot think of a moment before four months ago that I heard him speak as a potential leader. Vote for him now, but when he tries to run again in four years the internet will not be like it is today. Censorship and on a meter. Who is going to be watching the bandwidth. Good luck grassrooting in that atmosphere. How good will Obama be, that remains to be seen, how bad will McCain be just speed up the free fall we are in right now.
BTW Arry, I agree with much of what you said in this comment - Arry July 14th, 2008 9:42 pm, including the possibility of plunging into jack-booted fascism, and the need to push toward localism, but I think there is room for you to be wrong about this statement - "My opinion is that to looking for another FDR in Obama is a forlorn hope. Another Clinton, maybe…"
While Clinton and Obama certainly share a lot of similarities, the situations that each will have encountered in office are very different.
First, Clinton had to operate under a Republican Congress for most of his time in office after the Gingrich Republican Revolution of '94 and the "Contract ON America", which BTW is almost complete now. He also was never really challenged with a very serious crisis, the likes of which we are about to see. His major crisis was self-induced, and now we're all wearing the "Blue Dress".
Obama OTOH will assume the office with solid majorities in both the House and Senate. He will be immediately confronted with an economic situation very similar to the one FDR faced, with two or maybe three wars going on at the same time. The situation will force him to be more than Clinton was, and should also enable him to do more, but as you know, only time will tell.
No, Arry, I wasn't speaking to you. I find your comments like this one - Arry July 14th, 2008 9:42 pm, probing and insightful. I don't always agree with all the points, but they make you think.
I'm speaking to those who seem to worship at the feet of the "lesserevilism" idol, but don't want to offer any plans or ideas for making things better. All they offer is non-constuctive criticism with no logical path to a solution that will actually help.
I too, have been doing all I can since the overturning of our democracy by the SCOTUS in 2000, but now it seems that it's not us-against-them, but us-against-us, in a circular firing-squad with no direction. WE NEED A PLAN!
"...none of you are really that deeply invested in your beliefs..."
Whoa, MikeBinSC, you don't know that's the case.
You may not be speaking to me (among others)... I don't know.
I have been on been on a county council and various boards and planning committees in the Green Party. We've helped elect a number of Greens to school boards, planning commissions, and town councils. We sued the authorities in Ohio in what was obviously a rigged election. (The Democrats didn't care.) We have fought for healthy food and for the integrity of local businesses.
I also work extensively in relocalization projects in the fields of energy and agriculture.
I was one of the primary authors of one of the strongest pro-Bill Of Rights, anti-"PATRIOT" Act resolutions to be passed and which has been the model of many others.
I also helped author an impeachment resolution locally which barely failed.
I do walk the walk, MikeBinSC.
I hope you can tell that I'm not holier-than-thou. I'm just a hard worker.
But, perhaps you aren't talking to me. I rarely say to someone, "Vote this way or you are a fool."
I'll take the safe state strategy and the all state strategy, anything and both. We just need the votes, but most of all, we need to break the cycle of corporate consolidation and cultural invasion. It gets worse decade by decade regardless of which corporate party is in power. Doing the same thing every election just won't work. And hoping against hope every time should teach us a lesson.
This blog has become overpopulated with a bunch of whining, self-righteous, holier-than-thou purists, as out of touch with reality as the Bush administration. Your arguments that only seem to revolve around lesserevilism reminds me of those really strange monks who won't walk around without closely inspecting the ground for each footstep, lest they might step on an ant or some other insect.
I'm not criticizing the monks, as they have chosen that as a way of life, it's just that none of you are really that deeply invested in your beliefs. You need to come up with some ideas and plans that will make things better or STFU!
atelios, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think we, all progressives, should take it a step further by actually changing our registration to Green. As the Dems see the numbers rising in the Green and falling in the Dems, the message will become very clear - Either move the platform to the left or lose your base.
Directdemo: "Your comment makes it sound as if I should just shut my mouth and I don't take kindly to calls for my voluntarily censoring my arguments." Please. Quite the contrary. Keep speaking up. We love it. The more you say the better our non Corporate Party arguments become. I wouldn't censor anyone, especially not the way Democrats shut up Ralph Nader. Shut up Mike Gravel. And shut up Dennis Kucinich. We could do without the projection and the use of the Karl Rove tactics. Besides, they don't work.
"Mr Nader and the Greens please stop this train."
The train has left without you. Evil is more than George W. Bush. It is Barack Obama masquerading as something other than George W. Bush. S.O.S. from Democrats. Have you not been paying attention over the past two weeks to Obama revealing who he really is? You do really deserve more of the same. And by voting for more of the same, you, are going to get it.
Here is the link to change your registration to the Green Party online, check it out -
http://www.switch2green.org/
If everyone would do this, we could have a big impact, and you can still vote however you want in the primaries and the general election.
"Start with things as they ARE, not as you wish them to be." Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals"
Progressive-Populist-whatever! I haven't seen any 'MOVEMENTS' like what appeared in the '60's for nearly 25 years. There have been brief swells and one exception (the Immigration movement)-but hey! Where are the feet in the streets? All I've seen on blogs including this one, is whining and crying and moaning about whether or not Obama will bring about any change. Considering the total MESS that the Bush administration leaves behind, which is getting BIGGER every second, "Progress" will mean getting back to the Clinton years. I am NO fan of much that was accomplished by the Clinton administration, but face it-President Obama isn't going to make everything right within the first 24 hours of inaugural. Electing Obama WOULD make it a thousand times easier to GET OUT ON THE STREETS in numbers and let him and the Congress know what we really want.
Just as an aside. I joined Move On at its inaguration, only to leave when I discovered it was a mechanism of the status quo powers like Pelosi. Move On is part of the problem.
Nice to see there are a few authentic progressvies still offering insight instead of bombast. Well done!
In my opinion, Arry has it right. Understanding that requires a big jump away from: discussion of what groups have been dishonest with us?, which party presents an honest face?, which leader will be loyal to the people and to the Constitution?, etc., etc.
Trust your instincts and take a good look at your own experience. Don't put your faith in a save from someone based on "Hope" or in a party based on "Loyalty" and so on. We were kicked in the teeth badly after the 2006 election where we had poured a great many $$$ into a lot of successful campaigns for Democrats and enjoyed a few months of euphoria, then got slammed down. Enough of that!!
Support local sustainability efforts: Buy from local farmers. Shop at locally owned stores. Employ local independent plumbers, electricians, etc. when you need them. Find a doctor and a dentist that are NOT on the "approved list" of the big insurance companies. Weatherize your home. Plant a garden. Get to know your neighbors.
NAO and MikeBinSC -- My opinion is that to looking for another FDR in Obama is a forlorn hope. Another Clinton, maybe...
There are certainly similarities with the '30's in what is rushing at us like a freight train, but the changes that have taken place since FDR can't be ignored.
What has happened is that the aftermath of WWII constitutes, IMO, a distinct era of United States history which could probably be labeled the "corporate era". The proactive federal government that FDR helped create was, paradoxically, an open door to proactive corporate/government collusion which took off hyperbolically after the war, the seeds of which were in the industrial production engendered by the war (and the banking structure that sustained it) and the fruits of which are authoritarian, invasive, destructive and disintegrating society we are now witnessing. (The community and soul-destroying nature of the era was effectively covered over for most of its existence by the primary practical "science" of the era -- marketing... and the consequent white noise.)
We are now (again just IMO) in the feverish and disintegrating end of that era which is best typified by desparate consumerism and "flash". Of course, jack-booted fascism is a distinct possibility in any disintegrating complex society.
Obama hasn't shown the slightest understanding, even by a hint, of where we are in history, and it is unlikely that "adjustments" on the federal level could solve the major problems anyway.
The real work is being done by those who are nurturing democracy and building an alternative society. Sounds utopian, but this time it's not. This time it's a matter of survival and the coming conflict will be primarily between a system of relocalized communities (worldwide) and an empty and wounded but dangerous and very ugly corporate entity.
You heard it first here. :-)
I would dearly love to know the real reason that Pelosi won't lead the impeachment investigation of Cheney and Bush. Obviously there won't be enough votes to actually convict them, but it would certainly restrain them from doing too much more damage as they have been.
jozef,
To answer your question, "Why not be the change you want to be and stop telling the rest of us not to be the change we want."
I am the change I want to be. I fight for greater (direct) democracy on a daily basis. Part of that effort is getting people to join with me. So arguing for change I want is part of that. Your comment makes it sound as if I should just shut my mouth and I don't take kindly to calls for my voluntarily censoring my arguments.
Debate is part of the democratic process, being against that is being anti-democratic. Someone talked about strips showing above, maybe your true stripes are showing now.
I, too, find it fascinating that, two days after Cynthia McKinney got the nomination of the Green Party, the big blogger sites I follow - from Kos to HuffPost, MyDD, TPM, and Open Left - have precisely ZERO diaries on McKinney's nomination. What does this say about the 'Netroots' and their independence from the Democratic Party?
Let's not forget that Democrats are ultimately the greater of the two evils.
At least with a Republicans we clearly know who our enemy is.
Don't be fooled by a Democrat ever again. Vote McKinney or Nader.
Maybe we can find out what happened to Rove?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpYWf5HAjLw
"5280, Lieberman changed his stripes after the 2000 election, and progressives threw him out of the Democratic party for it. Don't you remember that, fool?" Changed his stripes? No he didn't. He just changed jackets. The stripes were always there.
I agree and we don't have to make up our minds until we vote if we don't want to... a secret ballot is good too.
It's only three trillion more for the next four years of war. At these prices we need an accounting of what that little tiny "surge" bought us.
We are going round and round here.
Let me see if I have this correct. We are supposed to register Green but vote Obama because the others (including, apparently, the Green candidate McKinney) are losers. Huh?
And we are supposed to support Obama because 3rd parties have never been a viable option in this country, but we have to keep trying to build one anyway. Huh?
See, here's my problem with all this "party" stuff. Too often it just gets in the way of actively supporting the people who champion our causes, whether it's healthcare, or out of Iraq, or the Constitution, etc.
Again I say that voting for the lesser of two evils at the national level while waiting for the time it takes to build a 3rd party from below is like continuing to drive our SUVs while waiting for hydrogen fuel (even assuming that's a good idea).
So let me ask, if there are two progressives (suspend you disbelief for a moment here) running against each other, for whom do you vote - the Green or the Democrat, e.g.? Some might say the Dem. (as in Kucinich) to encourage a progressive movement in the Dem. party. Some would say the Green to build the party up. So guys/gals what do you say?
Given that such a plethora of riches is pretty much a fantasy right now, my question for the Party purists: 1) to the "#?!* the Dem" faction (my computer doesn't seem to have any swear symbols), if there is a progressive Dem. (I mean a real one, like Kucinich) running, would you support him/her? 2) to the "3rd parties are losers" crowd, if there is a progressive indy running, would you support her/him? I guess my question boils down to - what is more important here, the Party or the cause?
I suggest that while we are having this debate, the new Rome is burning. I am a pragmatic idealist. For me I could give a hoot about Party: as suggested elsewhere, Party seems to be more about "organization" as in how to get people together to do something. But aren't we being told as well that in this "new age" the internet might be able to perform that function just as well? I just want to find someone who will commit to, say single payer, out of Iraq, impeach the bad guys, etc. If he/she wears a D on his/her shirt, that's OK, if a G, that's OK too. I don't want to be limited in my choices by Party loyalty, whatever party or no party. I can't afford to cross my fingers and "hope" for a major party to "come around" on the one hand, or wait for a 3rd party to get its act together on the other. That is why it was perfectly logical to me to vote for Kucinich in the Dem primary, then switch to Nader in the election in '04 and probably do the same again in '08. They both stood (stand) for the same things and these are things I VERY much care about. I don't care about designer labels on my political sweatshirt, I just want it to keep me from freezing.
All I am saying is that all this "strategizing" is not only driving me crazy, in my humble opinion it is HURTING the causes we say we believe in. So the heck with party, I'll pick the progressive, if I can find one and I humbly suggest that if you really want to see "change you can believe in", you will too.
BARELY HUMAN: It comes down to a ZEN balancing act in that it's imperative we do--as individuals--change our lives, but at the same time we must help to build a more just, sane society. I agree with others that collapse may now be immminent. A vehicle traveling out of control will eventually be MADE to come to a stop. That vehicle is the US under Bush and the complict democrats, or one party under oil/militarism and the big pharma drugs necessary for keeping the population docile. Oh, let's add to that the more subtle "medicine" of media, the mental drug equivalent required for a state of mass hypnosis.
WE, contributors to this forum, are the minority of awakened citizens... perhaps as a cold travels from person to person by sometimes invisible mechanisms, our AWARE consciousness also is proving contagious as the majority of US citizens certainly recognize something is profoundly wrong. while some of that number may be merely responding to basic greed and resentful of gas prices, MANY sense the injustices being done in their name, and genuinely wish to DO something about it. The question is HOW with tasers, the world's largest military, a lying media, judges with loyalty oaths to a dangerous regime bent on willful massacres as state policy armed against such initiatives. Oh, and the new homeland security spy-on-citizens status. What a free country!
No Arvy, You do not understand exactly but you are close.
No Formula... except you are what you think!
Watch what you eat before you eat it.
and Cheer up, things could be worse!
Welcome to the Society of Fatalists.
Love.......
So, if I understand correctly, the Glover formula for the "greatest democracy on earth" actually comes down to accepting the inevitability of an evil outcome and chosing whichever you perceive as being the lesser of two, or the least of three, or whatever. The same applies with a vengence, I would assume, to the U.S. version of "freedom and democracy" packaged for export, by force of arms or otherwise, to other beneficiaries of the imperium.
Jeez, I thought I was the fatalist around here!
Voting is not being the change you want. Voting is telling others (the government and the people you vote for) to be the change you want. Being the change you want involves stuff like growing your own food, taking the bus or riding a bike, putting solar panels on your house, direct action, conscientious objection, strikes, boycotts, not paying taxes, etc. It's changing how you live your own life--something people rarely do, and why things don't usually change unless major crises like crashes force them. Most people would rather argue about which political sports team or daddy figure will save them, do what they want, and take responsibility for them.
If the Greens get 5% of the National Vote that will insure a Seat at the Table. Currently any authentic progressvie is on the outside looking in. All the rationalization otherwise will insure MORE OF THE SAME.
For once, empower your life instead of taking crumbs off the table from the patriarchal enterprise.
Maybe you are not taking evil seriously enough..
Maybe Bush isn't as evil as you would like?
the Devil comes in many disguises even as the non satanic voter...also the lesser of three evils and the lesser of four.
But maybe we are giving evil a bad name.
Maybe Satan is a con.
If you think we are on a fast track to hell, you can decide to stop the train or help keep the same crew engineer and conductor and perhaps just let them know of your displeasure at the next stop!
Mr Nader and the Greens please stop this train... I heard you could if everybody just believed that evil is everywhere except in the politics of 3rd parties. Say what?
Nader is not even on this train???
"The way I see it vote democrats on a national level in places where it matters (swing states). And vote for what ever third party you want to in safe states (like say Illinois).
Think about it for a little while and determine which way you need to vote. I don't like the lesser evil defense, but in my opinion as in most people who criticize that rationale, the federal level is an impenetrable fortress."
_
"Think about it for a little while...". Yowza. We've been thinking about it for 40 years! "...the federal level is an impenetrable fortress" only if you say and believe so. Why not be the change you want to be and stop telling the rest of us not to be the change we want.
Moveon.org has been a Democratic Party operative from the get go. There are so many groups and people now making a good living on the peace and social justice movements. One needs to question these people and groups as their financial well being depends upon the continuing of their so-called struggles. Paying off the Working Assets credit card is, after all, supporting your local progressive group. Is it not?
The problem is that the supposedly "lesser evil" seems to get more evil with every popular endorsement of its true allegiences. If not now, at what point does the non-satanic voter finally refuse to provide that endorsement?
Have we all forgotten the "less evil" positions taken prior to the previous election, including Pelosi's declaration that impeachment was "off the table"? How do you like that result so far?
Rich Griffin July 13th, 2008 12:36 pm
"Great article and great interview!! It's time to do the REAL work & stop worrying about getting approval from others. We all have to sacrifice for real democracy to occur. I hate Moveon.org - they could have been such a strong force but they chose their nice homes, their cars, their goodies, rather than true democracy."
whatfools July 13th, 2008 12:43 pm
Thoughts_Into_Action July 13th, 2008 4:21 pm
Turce July 13th, 2008 6:38 pm
RickinSF July 13th, 2008 11:40 pm
Congratulations for recognizing exactly what MoveOn.Org is and what they are truly interested in. Thanks for pointing out they are not interested in anything but money. Kudo's to you all.
Lesser of evil is not important? OK, you can have the greater than.
How do you like it so far?
"Yes, I think Democrats are hoping that they can do nothing substantively to end the war, but get the sizable antiwar vote in the general election nonetheless. The strategy is a predictable reflection of an unfortunate reality: namely, the reality that there in fact is no strong antiwar accountability system that is willing to use the election as an instrument of pressure."
It's not that there is
" no strong antiwar accountability system" it's that without any real alternatives, the Dems know you will vote for them and so they don't give a crap what you think. The mistake of our progressive alliance -- netroots and beyond, is that we have not united to form an alternative party and we have not united behind a progressive alternative candidate and platform. Instead it's the same old "support the lesser of evils" that gets us nothing and condemnation of any progressive that dares suggest an alternative.
You reap what you sow . . .
Perhaps my advanced age and the resultant loss of brain cells is affecting my capabilities for logical thinking. Or maybe I'm just failing to fully appreciate the deductive underpinnings of those arguments that favor what appears to be a kind of "locked-in" voting stategy.
Could someone please explain in terms that a simple-minded creature might be able to comprehend how voting repeatedly for non-representative candidates is expected ultimately to result in representative democracy? In circumstances where a candidate's (or party's) expressed views and actions strongly indicate that they don't give a damn about winning your vote beforehand, how is it likely that they're going to alter their "representational" positions after you give it to them?
The Republicans and Democrats have failed the people. It's time for something more than an election in which voter simply opt for the presumed lesser of two evils. I dislike being told Obama is the only viable choice given what Bush has done to the country, especially when he keeps insisting he's not interested in providing opposition, and has little concern for the tattered constitution, hearing that McCain will maintain the unhappy and destructive status quo. No matter the outcome, a vote for a third party candidate may be a small step in the right direction, but it's the only rational move one can make. The alternatives are continued capitulation, or revolution.
I'm done being held hostage by the Dems. I will be voting for McKinney this year. My first time voting against the Dems.
What a disgrace the Democrats have been. They did nothing with their majority since 2006. Impeachment off the table and now FISA. These bums are helping Bush cover his crimes. And who knows, maybe they are covering some of their own.
What I know for sure is that I'm done with the Democratic party. They don't represent me at all.
Obama is also the biggest political disappointment in years. He talks the talk during the primary about Change We Can Believe In and then as soon as the primary is over he shows his true self. A constitutional scholar that sells out the constitution. What a disgrace.
I only have 4 words for the democrats, Pelosi, move on, Sirota and the rest of that bunch:
speculation, triangulation, corruption and oppertunism
sums it all up, really
oregoncharles July 13th, 2008 1:07 pm
Isn't Sirota a great example of the very problem he describes? He's done splendid work documenting the Democratic Party's betrayal of the populist values he supports, and of the anti-war movement, but he never draws the lesson. He never even proposes a CONCRETE way of pressuring the Democratic Party - just something vague that someone else could do. Apparently he learned nothing from his time with Bernie Sanders, and remains a "Democratic operative" at heart.
How is this different from MoveOn
.....................
Well stated Charles, Sirota, in my opinion, while an eloquent scribbler of words, is focussed upon the money, and his opportunity for making it remains better if he whitewashes the problems and remains an insider.
Hank Fur July 13th, 2008 1:38 pm
Sirota has to know that there are already alternatives to the two-party monopoly: The Green Party and Ralph Nader's candidacy are two that spring to mind. These choices have been there for years but progressives refuse to put effort into making them viable and helping them grow. Democrats have succeeded in keeping the herd fenced in. Sirota completely ignores this. Our country is heading towards fascism at a pretty steady rate. Taking over one or the other party will take decades if not longer. We don't have time! We need to resist NOW!
NOW!
..................
After reading a Sirota article in which he misquoted the words of Barney Frank in order to make his point, an attempt somewhat subverted by a link HE himself provided that cited the Frank statement correctly ( editing function turned off???) I have always read this author carefully and with great scepticism.
I would love to see Nader included in the coming Presidential debates, but it wont happen. Both candidates, both Parties in fact, are very jealous of their exclusivity and both are very aware that Nader would chew them up and spit them out.
coooo interview..
Vote Third Party not just in the presidential race but other races as well. Any elected representative who voted for the funding of the war and not for impeachment is not worthy of being reelected.
VOTE THIRD PARTY, don't waste your vote on the corporate democrats or republicans.
NAO, thanks for the kind words. Your comments indicate a deeper level of understanding of our present situation than most.
I think FDR's ability to empathize with the common people was in part due to his debilitating illness. The jury is still out on Obama, but being black in 20th century America has to be a plus, and I don't think anybody could sit through 20 years of sermons from Rev. Wright, and not have some compassion for oppressed people of all stripes. My gut tells me that he will rise to the task. I hope I'm right, as he will surely be tested.
The way I see it vote democrats on a national level in places where it matters (swing states). And vote for what ever third party you want to in safe states (like say Illinois).
Think about it for a little while and determine which way you need to vote. I don't like the lesser evil defense, but in my opinion as in most people who criticize that rationale, the federal level is an impenetrable fortress. When a castle's walls can not be breached, their remains only two strategies, deception (Trojan Horse) or you simply mine under the walls.
That's why we need get involved on a local level. Undermining the Federal Government from the local level. And the only way to do this is to create direct democratic institutions and use the ones already available to us.
I've always liked the green party but I won't become an active member unless they avoid the trap that is a federal strategy.
I like the idea of funneling a bit of cash through the "escrow account" that's supposed to help keep Obama honest: http://www.democrats.com/
Pass this on to your favorite "hope you can believe in" Obama supporter friends!
ChrisHorton July 13th, 2008 8:05 pm
"Also, don't wish for or imagine causing (and taking the blame for) the coming crash; it doesn't need our help. But the more we can organize and build before it comes the better we will be able to lead people in blocking a fascist solution."
Chris, we agree on this. The time between now and the elections would be the worst time for a crash to occur, although, it would not be much better under a McSame administration. The crash could be used by Bush or McCain as a cause to implement the draconian measures set out in the special Presidential Orders for response to an emergency situation or crisis, which could be economic, rather than a disaster or terrorist attack.
I would personally rather take my chances with a slow semi-controlled meltdown under Obama, but there is no assurance that it can be postponed. My point was to see if those calling for a crash, on the hopes that it would create the conditions needed for change, were serious or just blowing smoke. I think the lack of responses answered that question.
Some others here seem to think that I have a direct line into the Democratic Party. This couldn't be further from the truth. I registered as an Independent, but I am a realist and don't allow myself to indulge in political fantasy. If she had a chance, Cynthia McKinney would be my choice over the other candidates.
I have gotten my phone calls and letters from the DCC and the DLC, and I told them not to expect any support from me until they showed some spine in the legislative arena, and that I might directly support some progressive Democratic candidates, but not through them, as money donated to them goes to support candidates with views that I could not support.
I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and would advise others to be as well, as it is the best $20 you'll spend this or any other year. I'm not telling everyone to vote Green, as I think that would be a mistake this year, unless your vote for Cynthia won't cause McSame to win in your state, but I would advise all of you with progressive views to register as a Green, right now, and send a message to the Democratic Party. Here is the link to do it online in all 50 states -
www.switch2green.org
tetti_tatti writes:
"Obama is McCain with a tan.
Don't be fooled by a Democrat again.
Vote McKinney or Nader."
Sounds like a good start.
Another thing to do:
give MoveOn a piece of your mind at
http://pol.moveon.org/feedback/fb/form.html?tp=suggest
. . . and send a copy to David Sirota [ds [at] davidsirota.com] for archiving. If you're feeling especially active, paste in a copy at the Contact page at JohnEdwards.com.
The Democratic "leadership" is beyond reason. The only hope is that the convention nominates Edwards, period.
Mike Bin in SC,
No takers, are there? No surprise.
I like your style; however, I am not convinced that what you are recommending will achieve your purpose. In fact I seriously doubt it. Markets are not so easy to comprehend, let alone dictate. A million people just may not even budge the market; it is so contrary. You just have to be around for a while to learn how tough it is. Further, boycotts are notoriously difficult to organize and implement. They virtually always fail. And that is what you are talking about here.
First, people do not like to put their money where their mouths are. Secondly, people get real confused about money in a hurry. Ask them to go over a cliff and they just might do it. Ask them to do something with their money and watch the consternation and confusion in their faces.
Thirdly, the market is already down over 20%. Who wants to confront that? Most people want to hide. They do not want to confront reality. And now you want people to pull out their money? Yikes. That sounds like losing money to most people.
But if what you say is true, and I am inclined to believe what you say, you will get your results in due time. And the world will take a very hard look at the whole situation. All of this discussion will not matter, because fortunes will have been lost. Sooner or later, folks will, indeed, put 2 and 2 together and they will act, just as they did in the 30's. It won't really matter even if McCain is in office. They will be furious and fully ready to storm the gates. Either McCain will come around or he will be quickly removed from office or something even much worse. And, that is if McCain wins, which is highly unlikely. All of this discussion here about 3rd parties, etc. is weak. The country is not going in that direction. Tried that; did that. It is over. And folks engaged in the discussion are simply going to have to get over it.
But there are "times that try men's souls" and you seem to comprehend that we are right on the edge of those times. I believe that you are correct. Subsequently, I believe, in "the fullness of time", you will have your way. But also as they say, "Be careful what you wish for." This is NOT going to be easy.
Can Obama rise to the occasion? Maybe. FDR certainly did. This most likely will be one of those occasions where "the times make the man".
Just have a little faith. Sorry to say that this is about all that you can do anyhow.
Thanks for the idea. It is a good one.
NAO
To all lesser-evilists who may read this: You're all barking up the wrong tree. The rottenness of our society results directly & inevitably, not from "Bush," not from "Repugs," but from several far more basic aspects our social structure. Namely, our national life is thoroughly dominated by corporate & military power. Our domination by Wall Street & the military-industrial complex, & by the ancillary institutions of the national security state, is the defining feature of our society -- and it's not even "on the table" for discussion. Both parties are so subservient to it that they refuse to even speak of it.
Under these conditions, the few significant differences between D's and R's have very little importance. Arguing about them is like arguing about the "best" position for deck chairs on the Titanic. Dem Party loyalists are like Titanic passengers who sputter furiously, "But if you put the deck chairs over there on the right side of the deck, we're going to sink!" They're somehow unable to see that if you move the chairs over to the left side, we're also going to sink -- because the placement of the deck chairs doesn't address the fundamental problem.
MoveOn.org, Inc., lost me when the Petreaus/Betray-us ad came out.
Can they be so out of touch that they couldn't see that this would provide the enemy with a club with which they'd be beaten?
The collusion between both parties makes political life in America feel like a contorted episode of The Twilight Zone, which may be an apt metaphor for humanity's current condition.
"If anyone thinks that it will be easier to organize resistance under Insane McSame, rather than under Obama, they are not being honest with themselves."
Actually, I remember during the Clinton administration that most Democrats made barely a peep as Clinton enacted conservative policy (welfare reform) after conservative policy (NAFTA and GATT). After all, the right kept screaming about how "liberal" he supposedly was. It was much like Republicans today not recognizing Bush's profligate spending and growth of government power. The difference is that the Democrats aren't screaming as loudly about how "conservative" Bush supposedly is. (He's fascist, not conservative.) I think if Gore was president the Republicans would've opposed invading Iraq and PATRIOT Act and the Democrats would've supported them. (Oh, wait, most of them did support them.) The black and white thinking inherent in the two party system seems to blind half the country to their leader's crimes.
AdeleTheCzech (10:19 pm) writes the standard lesser-evilist line:
"...If you believe there isn't a dime's worth of difference between this Democrat and this Republican, I refer you to the last shameful, wretched, horrible seven-and-a-half years under Bush/Cheney."
- Actually, the Democrats spent the last 7 & 1/2 years proving that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. The Democrats collaborated with the Republicans on every single crime, & never made a serious attempt to resist any of it.
Why don't you speak to that issue? Let's hear your refutation of that simple point.
Nader...McKinney...Nader...McKinney...? Oh please. This is not 1992 and neither Nader nor McKinney is Ross Perot (whose fame and millions at least bought him entry into the debates).
If you're going to take the trouble to vote, please remember that we have only TWO real presidential choices. If you believe there isn't a dime's worth of difference between this Democrat and this Republican, I refer you to the last shameful, wretched, horrible seven-and-a-half years under Bush/Cheney.
Of course, if you're going to go out and vote for Nader or McKinney, you're throwing away your vote in order to "make a statement." That's your right, but it sure isn't helpful.
The Democrats are treating the Iraq illegal occupation like the Republicans treat abortion. They are against it in election years. In between elections they do everything they can to make it worse.
Republicans killed any legislation or program that would reduce unwanted pregnancy or improve the position of women and children so that they would be less likely to be desperate enough to think abortion would improve their life.
Democrats willingly fund the illegal occupation and allow military changes like stop loss, lowering recruit standards, and hiring mercenaries that are necessary to continue the occupation.
Afraid to try to solve a problem in order to keep a political issue alive is the ultimate in corruption.
Chris Horton I don't understand your comment. I said whom I felt I liked insofar as humanity and ethics. I said I despise MoveOn, so what was your point exactly?
Chris -- Well then I guess the question is organizing for what. If we are speaking of major boycotts, for example, as I think MikeBinSC is, "high hopes and expectations" is not exactly a likely foundation.
I've got to get out of here for awhile, so can't get into this now, but I think the conversation needs to get a bit more specific if we are to shed some light onto the subject. It might also uncover what we are implicitly saying about the nature of our current situation.
That the Democrats "control" the Senate is an illusion. They do not. As long as their "majority" consists of Joe Lieberman there is no Democratic majority in the Senate, and the Democrats are not in control of Congress. Lieberman, along with about six or seven DINOs is the reason that Congress has not discontinued funding the war, refused to perform their constitutional duty to hold Bush and his conspiratorial cronies responsible for their contempt for our laws and the Constitution, and have allowed the Republicans to advance their agenda in general.
Another illusion is that the Democratic Party is "progressive". There are a number of Democrats who are progressives (actually I prefer the label "Liberals" - there is nothing wrong with being a Liberal!), but the Democratic Party is just slightly left of center, and to win any national election I realize that is exactly where they must be.
I am a Liberal - capital L, and proud of it - backed Kucinich (and still do), then Edwards when Kucinich dropped out, then Clinton and now finally Obama, and I do so because a vote for anyone other than Obama at this point will help elect McCain to a Bush third term. I know Obama is not a Liberal, (or actually as liberal as I would like him to be), but a vote for him still represents a vote against continuing the Bush catastrophe.
If "Progressives" want to end the conservative agenda, especially the appointment of possibly three ideologue Supreme Court Justices in the next presidential term, we must support Obama because doing anything else is supporting McCain and the continuance of the Bush agenda.
MikeBinSC, you're barking up the wrong tree. Progressives aren't budging an inch from our platform. The Demoks recieved their instructions for earning the progressive vote many months ago. The ball is in the Demoks' hands. They are to impeach the top two criminals and remove all Americans from Iraq by election day or progressives are writing in third party candidates. You might want to try talking some sense into the Demoks. See what you can do. And remind the Demoks that they get full blame for any Repuk wins.
Got it. Sorry. But I still beg to differ.
Organizing with an Obama presidency will be easier. It's easier when peoples' hopes and expectations are high and easier when the government is at least somewhat responsive.
"You cannot build a movement if you are unwilling to give up power to the rank-and-file"
"You cannot build a movement if you are unwilling to give up power to the rank-and-file"
"You cannot build a movement if you are unwilling to give up power to the rank-and-file"
"You cannot build a movement if you are unwilling to give up power to the rank-and-file"
"You cannot build a movement if you are unwilling to give up power to the rank-and-file"
"Arry and others: beware the fallacy "the worse the better". Some were complacent about Hitler's victory in Germany, saying "now the people will learn their lesson".
No, Chris. You are jumping to an erroneous conclusion and missing my point. My points (or questions) were exactly what I said, not that I'm eager for a McCain presidency.
The question still is: Why would a nation under an Obama presidency be a fertile field for the necessary organization? I don't think it would be. In fact, it would be just the opposite, in my opinion.
That's not wishing for a continuation of the neocon era. It's facing the facts in the hope of something creative coming out of it. If we don't put all the elements - good and bad - into the mix, the final product will be fatally flawed.
MikeBinSC and others: the biggest problem with the Kucinich Campaign was not having a way of reaching the people in the face of a deliberate organized campaign of media silence. I still regularly meet people who share his views and don't recognize his name. We need our own voice that can reach the tens of millions, for organizing as well as for getting the many silenced news stories out!
Also, don't wish for or imagine causing (and taking the blame for) the coming crash; it doesn't need our help. But the more we can organize and build before it comes the better we will be able to lead people in blocking a fascist solution.
And I agree:" Don't cut off your nose to spite your face! A McCain presidency will spell the end of America and the end of any chance of turning things around before it is too late. Anyone who is serious about changing the system must start organizing NOW! IT'S ALL ABOUT ORGANIZATION";
And I agree that supporting the Greens will contribute to stopping McCain.
Arry and others: beware the fallacy "the worse the better". Some were complacent about Hitler's victory in Germany, saying "now the people will learn their lesson".
Turce and others: Keep your focus. Move-on is not the answer, not the form we need, but if you put them on a scale from friend to foe, part of the solution to part of the problem, where would they be? Say, compared to McCain, or Lieberman, or even Clinton?
Thoughts_into_action: The DLC is what we are up against, the organized party-within-a-party of the Corporate Democrats, the "do it with Vaseline" crowd. It dominates the Democratic Party, but it is not the same as the party. As I explained above, the Democratic Party isn't really a party at all, it is a stage, a legal framework for politics. If the right wing of the Democrats have a party within the party, so should we.
tj: When you are organizing at the local level and you go to talk with union local leaders and local meetings, you see how much these institutions and their members represent the best of democracy, even in their present reduced, stymied and legally hamstrung condition. However corrupt or clueless many of its upper-level leaders may be, labor by its position in society is an expression of the working peoples' resistance to being treated as commodities and profit centers. Our weakness is a reflection of the weakened and diminished state of the labor movement.
As for white working people in the South, they are ours to win back from the Repugs. Having their natural opponents, the local ruling classes, on the Repug side will make this vastly easier.
Just finished watching McKinney's acceptance speech in Chicago (Green party convention) - a brilliant speech!!! (: I'm so torn: Nader or McKinney?? Can't decide! Loved what she said about working with other small parties, too. I believe this will be repeated on C-Span at about 10 p.m. tonight??
Want direct democracy?
http://ni4d.org
Always hated MoveOn, I do understand the need to have some Politicians use the term 'Progressive Democrat' to define themselves, I know what the Populist movement was, where women whom played a great part in that movement are always left out, I have always supported Dennis Kucinich and will never stop no matter what country I live in. Insofar as Cynthia McKinney there are others of far greater conscience, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, Sheila Jackson-Lee and most assuredly Dennis.
Whatever the title, the Candidate and their vote record, dedication to the representation of ALL citizens, strict adherence to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, a pro-Peace Platform, an advocate of ALL Human Rights, and much more is what I require of the person I vote for. I do KNOW when we, Veterans for Peace were at the Hearings on the Hill, IVAW Winter Soldier testimony UNDER OATH to shut up the nay sayers, the "Oh yeah, real hero's not even sworn in, they were just fightened of getting court martialed.", many of the same comments and most from CD posters. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey amde a few promises, they were kept. That is what I find to be the sign of a True Leader.
I'm not suggesting that electing Obama solves all our problems, I'm just saying that resistance would be easier to organize under his administration, as opposed to a McSame Administration. In either case, we still have the MIMIC to deal with.
You are right Arry July 13th, 2008 6:01 pm
Nobody should ever have had the illusion that Barack Obama was ever a progressive, I argued this point with others on this blog during the primaries. He has always been a centrist, just like the Clintons. All you had to do to know this was to listen to his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He told everyone, in no uncertain terms, that he did not see red states and blue states, he only saw purple United States, and everyone working together for a better America. But, that is stil