H2O, here is the link to the article on Nader supporting Edwards-
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/01/6100/

MikeBin:

Do you have a link to above? - No idea where to look
Mike - my vote is not for a party or an individual, it is for basic principles. The problem of "strategic" campaigns and "strategic" voting is that you outsmart yourselves every time. You might be amazed at the number of people who vote for a candidate because they admire his "gumption" - even when they aren't exactly sure what he is saying or where he is going. Obama is screwing up the same way Gore and Kerry did and a lot of people will just stay home because, for them, "lesser evilism", which is what a lot of Obama supporters are being forced into by their own candidate's stands, is not enough to bring them to the polls; it may bring folks like you, but it won't bring them. Only a candidate that offers them some real solutions has any chance of bringing these folks out, THESE are the people you need to win, and these are the people your candidate is throwing away with both hands. You want Obama? Have the Dem. steal Nader's platform and Nader's speeches (they used to belong to the Dem in the old days). Unfortunately it may be too late - by the time Gore tried that at the Dem conven, in '00, it was pretty obviously a fake. These "advisors" that you say Obama is listening to, who are they really working for, 'cause they are doing him no favors. If he is not smart enough to get better advisors.... as said above "Ah, pity the nation!"

H2O, Nader actually endorsed Edwards over Kucinich. The article is in the archives here at CD, you might want to read it. I could understand you voting for McKinney to support the Green Party, but not Nader. He has NO party and your vote for him builds nothing but his ego.

Getting back to the original article - here;s a little piece of doggerel I picked up that made me chuckle:

Ah! Pity The Nation

They picked their beau from column A
'Cause MSM said "He's OK!"
They told all their friends "With him we'll stay!"
Ah, pity The Nation!

They thought he was fine, they thought he was stout,
And then they discovered him catting about
He's being unfaithful of that there's no doubt
Ah, pity The Nation!

They bought the ring when he gave them a rose
Now they have found the ring's in their nose
What do they do now he's turned on the hose?
Ah, pity The Nation!

They could call it off and find a new beau.
But they fear ridicule so they still won't say "No!"
Their learning curve is so painfully slow
Ah, pity The Nation!

MSM has decided "It's A or it's B!
And B is a bounder as well, golly gee!
(But you aren't permitted to pick column C!)"
Ah, pity The Nation!

So they'll marry the cad, on bended knee
But they'll write him a note with a pitiful plea
"Oh sir, please, stop beating on poor little me!"
Ah, pity The Nation!

There are those tried and true who would make a good spouse
But these won't be allowed to come in the house
As they stick with this fellow as Lesser Louse
Ah, pity The Nation!

MikeBin:

Sorry! Forgot to check that thread!

I don't believe Kucinich "endorsed" Obama. His recommendation had to do with the Iowa caucuses - should he fail to get the minimum %, he recommended his supporters switch their votes to Obama, but I don't think he has actually endorsed Obama, per se.

As for the efforts to keep Nader off the ballot, this wasn't just a few bad apples - this was a concerted effort in several states, it's just that in PA they went a bit too far with public money and got caught.

The point being that obviously for the Dems, and apparently for their supporters, this election is not about ideas or policies or principles or any of that "silly" stuff, it's about a battle between 2 parties over who gets to hand out the goodies to their buddies. If it were about ideas, the Dems would not fear honest competition either at the polls or in the debates. If it were about ideas the Dems could simply neutralize Nader by co-opting those planks of his campaign that have the greatest appeal. But they can't because they would lose their corporate backers. "It's just that simple."

I, too, backed Kucinich and when he dropped out, to me the obvious choice was Nader because their positions were the same. In fact, though I make no pretense of speaking for him, I suspect if Kucinich had won the primary, Nader would not be running. I do believe the only reason he has entered these races is because time and time again the "Democratic" process has produced another crumby corporate candidate and the only way to keep vital issues "on the table" is to pick them up off the floor where the Dems have tossed them and run with them. Out of Iraq/Afghanistan, single payer, etc, are just "inconvenient truths" the Dems would just as soon bury - they may be popular with "the masses", those pesky little people whose votes they need periodically to gain power, but they are decidedly unpopular with the aristocracy whose money they want. Where you and I seem to differ is that I will not settle for less than we need and you will settle for what the MSM has told you is the "best" you can get, and Mike, that will ALWAYS be less than what we need, and increasingly so as time goes by, until we refuse to allow the powers that be to circumscribe our choices. It is not we with our votes but you with yours who are keeping all of us from getting what need. We and our candidates are not the "spoilers" here, it is you and yours.

Obama has flaws, he has disappointed me a few times but I still believe he is the best choice.I'll play the race card: we live in a racist society and many would rather have Satan as President rather than a Black man. They'll get their wish with McCain.
I respect Nader and Kucinich was my first choice but I cannot risk helping McCain win.
We could channel the energy and passion in these posts and DEMAND that the next President answers to the people instead of simply screwing them.
Guess I'm just a naive old hippy but if I give up hope I might as well give up life.

H2O,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Again finding that degree of security in a potential representative for securing one's rights seems very important. I am trying to sort that out. I'm not sure if I will ever vote again in this system.

H2O, Here's the link to the article in case it drops off-
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/02/10767/

H2O, I did answer your questions, but you didn't ask them on this thread. You asked them at 10:26 on Aug 03, on the thread about Obama and offshore drilling. If you need a link to the article let me know. It's on the left side of the main page with Obama's picture over it.

MikeBin 8/4 2:13AM:

You seem to know a lot about the Obama campaign - "it was his campaign managers who nixed it" referring to single payer. It is too bad he listens to bad advice, this does not bode well for an Obama administration. For the Rep. to attack single payer or "Medicare for all" they would be opening up Pandora's box for themselves. The Dems could pounce on them as enemies of Medicare and Social Security, 2 of the most popular programs the gov't has ever instituted. They could role out all the proof that it would save money and be truly universal. And, if as you say, "the people don't understand it" then why, every time it was mentioned in the debates did the audience cheer? Nice try, Mike, but no cigar - this issue is a winner with almost everyone but the insurance companies.

I hope the campaign has warned you what his next "compromise" will be so you'll have time to come up with a good excuse - it must be getting exhausting for you, as they are coming so fast and furious. I can tell when you start using Bush tactics ( Sadam Hussein=9/11):
" Voting for Nader = Voting for McCain

Voting for Obama = Moving toward Universal Health Care"
that you are getting desperate. Saying something a million times doesn't make it so. In Obama's own description of his health care plan in his latest fund raiser letter, the word "universal" is conspicuously absent. Did his advisors tell him to omit that as well?

Mike, you always insist that I answer your questions - so how about mine? Did you support Kucinich when he was in the running? And how about the debates? WHY is Obama afraid of Nader?

As for Nader or McKinney's snowball chances - summer will be over soon.

annamare:

I take you to be an honest seeker in the process. But I would say that I fear if you are waiting for a "legally binding" document before you cast your vote, you may never vote again. Any candidate can print out such a fine looking form, but you could never take it to court and you would be left where you are now. I look at their record, at their history, their analysis, and I always read between the lines. Then I compare what they actually say they intend to do and how they intend to do it, with what I think needs to be done. Don't know what else to say.

When I referred to "we", in "folding our cards", I was referring to the tendency of progressives to chicken out and vote for the "lesser of two evils" and their pitiful excuse for a platform instead of sticking to their principles. I am glad to see that you have not folded yours: neither have I.

Mike, In 94 I was only 24 years old and pregnant with my second baby. I don't remember, and only became politically active in 2000, when I decided that since the entire system was corrupt the only thing I could do was not vote. That of course was the year the vote was given to bush by default through our judicial system. Ironic in hindsight.

However I have since then voted for Kerry in 04, and not sure what I will do in 08.

I would have to research this "contract with america" I'm curious now. I guess I'll wiki it to start, thanks for the info.

Sometimes I think my ideas are absolutely crazy, and despair over what the answer is. But like you I do write letters and go to town hall meetings, and I called Obama's candidate headquarters to tell them what I thought prior to his nomination.

For the most part it seems our representatives are untouchable to us once we elect them and only accessible through controlled giant gatherings where they preach to the masses.

It feels like we have reverted back to a neo-monarchy and or we never really got away from it. I do believe that local and individual action ultimately is the key and I am learning the ropes on that one.

Well I can say that I think all of the people who participate in these discussions are awesome including you.

These are all really astute and wise comments from many people who have some great life experience and love in their hearts and real hope for a better nation and world. That is all that really matters in my opinion, knowing there are people like that. You just can't meet people who will discuss stuff like this very often in real life.

What we all do is our personal right to self determine in the end, but hashing it out with obviously wise and caring people is better than hashing it out alone.

Annamare, the Republicans tried the contract system back in 1994 with Gingrich's "Contract With(On) America", remember. It was a top-down, rather than a bottom-up approach. It was hugely successful in getting the sheeple to vote Republican and ushered in the Republican Revolution, taking control of the House for the first time in over four decades. Of course they violated nearly every part of the contract and never paid any price for it.

H20

You also wrote-

"The fact that "it's not in the cards right now" is not a reason to "not play the game", but a reason to reshuffle the deck. We keep getting bluffed into folding our cards too soon.

Shucks, another run on piece with too many words. Sorry, desperation, I suppose, born of a increasing sense of frustration at not being to persuade others of what I know to be true ….."

You seem to really want your vote to be aligned with the mainstream progressives. You use "we" to describe something that is ocurring that you are a participant in. I'm curious is it loyalty to group that has you "getting bluffed into folding y/our cards too soon"?

I don't have a representative candidate in mind yet who I critically see can actually represent me. My cards are not folded, and I figure that if no one can play the role of representing me, that responsibility falls through default back to me, much as I despise it, and as much as someone else would rather own it. The validity of our democracy rests on such valid and real representation. I hope someone in this circle can show me how I'm missing that any one of the candidates in todays day and age(special interest) using that same system of oral contracts, can satisfy this.

MikeBinSC,

I think you might be right when you say;

Voting for McCain = Even more without health care
Voting for Nader = Voting for McCain
Voting for Obama = Moving toward Universal Health Care

But the speed at which this movement goes may not be fast enough to prevent an out and out collapse of our system, political and environmental. In a sense your plan, which I feel is well articulated, does seem to come with pretty high risks.

I'm curious, at what point in the state of our Nation will a tiny bit of a movement toward where we want to be no longer be enough for you? Do you have a boundary around your support for Obama? What is your line on your support, or is it totally unconditional?

H2O,

You wrote in response to "the prince of bait and switch":

"I also agree that it would be nice to be able to coalesce around a single candidate, but here again, I think this is a degree of purity we don't need at this point and really can't afford to insist on."

I think it vital that we do come up with what degree of leadership we all could be willing to at least give our vote to. And make this very clear and printed degree the one our vote rests with. Getting this degree 1. Pinpointed most importantly, and also 2. It would be my extreme preference a legal guarantee from that individual, not a trick of words to win our vote. I don't think it's about them and their integrity, it's about us and ours. I'm starting to feel very picky about who I give my vote to if that person cannot guarantee me a level of leadership that at least satisfies a bare minimum of my expectations for representation. Since there is no candidate that within the system who can offer anything but a verbal promise of what they will do with my vote, which leaves them in essence able to do anything with it, I am left without much power. Our system has run on this kind of agreement between candidates and voters for some time, and it seems the outcome is always the same. The candidates though starting with good intentions, always come nose to nose with big money, big pressure and their own human limits to do the right thing in such a dynamic. When that same representative is completely severed from any contact with the majority of the public, we have no real way to even express our grievances. No modern day presidential representative has been shown to, in any real way truly be a representative for 'the people'.

The reason why Obama is just as good as McKinney or Nader(barring the belief he actually is a republican in disguise)is that they would not bring with them any fundamental change to the system. Nader or McKinney once swooped around in limos under tight security, and only meeting with high end individuals and representative of ours and other countries would fall under the same incessant and terrible reality that Obama is falling into. With only their own judgment to rely on and only themselves to be accountable to, they will all do basically the same thing. With a binding document with the voter, this might be counteracted, it is simply how we help ourselves to stay loyal to our pledges. The constitution became a written document, not because the people where not loyal to their movement, but because they understood the value of documentation and signatures helps humans do what they pledge to do.

I just sense that for all of us, when we vote for a person based on what they tell us, but we have no security for this exchange, and then that person breaks that understanding previously held, something basic needs to change.

We all of us do currently understand that this is how the system works, and there is something to having that previous knowledge but voting in it all the same that says something very important about us, the voters.

So declaring our grievance and independence from such a system, if we are aggrieved and desire independence, becomes very important.

You were asking me how I plan on doing this, well, I am only one person, and as I read my fellow progressives thoughts on this all, I realize that most of you still want to participate with status quo, you just aren't sure what the best representative for you is. So I think I'll wait until more of you realize that really your principles behind your vote, do not go with your vote for another who is totally free to determine how to principally make choices about our health, our security, our economy, etc.

My guess is the slow and painful progress through the years will be first, the disillusionment with Obama if he makes it, and though I will not vote for him, it seems as if he is the favorite amongst progressives, so he has a good chance to win. If no substantive change happens with him, which bless his heart, the reality is it won't,(but I pray a miracle can happen and he will) then a third party will eventually get a chance with the disillusioned masses. This person will also bless their heart be unable to alone change the fixed system....and eventually out and out revolution amongst the masses no longer able to bear it all any longer.
This would take many years to unfold and will be very painful. I pray I am wrong and my critical thinking is really not functioning well. This particular prediction will only even get a chance to unfold as long as our environmental systems that support humanity don't go through such a rapid and dramatic shift that we simply cannot make it as a species on this planet.

Ok....please forgive my massive ramblings, probably totally unforgivable.....

back to reality, this bare minimum, that most progressives could be happy with for a certain degree of representation in a candidate, would be......please H2O, or anyone do you know? Do Nader and McKinney meet this?

Navarro wrote - "The Democratic delegates can still walk off the happy-gas and nominate Edwards."

From your mouth to God's ear!
But, don't hold your breath!

Hank Fur writes:
"If he cared on[e] bit about "the people," he wouldn't have voted yea on the FISA bill. That was a vote directed at you. You should take it seriously and very personally."
-----
DO take it seriously and personally: do NOT vote for this "post-partisan" waffler if, God forbid, he should become the Democratic nominee.

John Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who promised he would, as president, put an END to domestic spying. For this and many other reasons -- including the fact that the unrich are in a depression, and WINTER is on the way, with fuel oil prices many in the cold-weather areas simply can't afford, period. (And this one can't be fogged-over by checking the tire pressure . . . in Wisconsin, Maine, Minnesota, people will simply freeze. to. death.)

The Democratic delegates can still walk off the happy-gas and nominate Edwards. If NOT, what's left of the left ought to be working on a coalition between Nader and McKinney, not wasting ANY time petitioning the Prince of Bait-and-Switch (John Pilger, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/26/10622/).

H2O, it wasn't Obama's corporate funders who nixed it, it was his campaign managers who realized that this would open another hole for the Republicans to get to him. The people don't understand single-payer because the right and the media has always called it socialized medicine, which it is not. Bush and the Reps would not even pass the funding for CHIPS(Childrens Health Care), remember.

Voting for McCain = Even more without health care
Voting for Nader = Voting for McCain
Voting for Obama = Moving toward Universal Health Care

If Nader or Mckinney had a snowballs chance in hell, I'd be on the bandwagon with you.

Navarro 8/3 10:36AM

Thank you! Glad you liked it. Wish I knew how to put it in graphic form. Feel free to do so if you wish, I would be honored.

MikeBin 8/3 12:26AM

Sorry you didn't like the food analogy. It seemed appropriate in the middle of so many food fights. Thanks for adding to it - "Nader's Salad" has a nice healthy ring to it! Thanks also for the web link www.hr676.org, it was very useful, especially the off link www.sickocure.org/speechless - "It's not good enough to just be better than the Republicans on this" (health care). You really should take this stuff to heart. I confess I am a bit surprised that you too have been involved in health care, as you seem so intent on electing someone who is only "just better" than the Republicans, which ain't hard to be, and he ain't by much. His "coverage for children" seems to consist of mandating that their parents provide it, which I suspect that they would be doing now if they could afford it. He deliberately refuses to mandate that everyone get coverage because he admits they can't afford it, and though he provides for subsidies, he obviously knows they won't be sufficient, because if they were, then everyone COULD afford it and a mandate would be feasible. And his subsidies are not for folks to get health care but to buy private insurance, which will only encourage the insurance industry to jack up premiums knowing they, like Big Pharma via Medicare Part D, can feed at the Fed'l trough. C'mon Mike, you know as well as I do that single payer, or this "pie in the sky" health care plan as you call it, is supported by a majority and that this would be a winning, not a losing, issue for him, as far as the public goes. But his corporate funders have nixed it. When he opted out of public finance, he made it clear that he will go where the money is, and the money is against single payer.

"Think about the children" - oh puhleeze! Mike, some of us have been thinking about the children since when you were a child - this Medicare for all has been kicking around since Truman, I believe, and we are no closer to it as far as political will is concerned though we have been through several Rep AND Dem admin. There were times when Dems had all the control they needed and didn't do it. Mike, they're not going to do it absent a demand and the only credible demand is fear of loss without it, and darn it, you know this is true! Look, if you want to keep eating your Twinkies, go ahead, but I reserve the right to advocate for a much healthier diet.

If the Nation were serious about its agenda they ought to expand it to include working for instant run off voting, they might include opening the presidential debates to include Third Party or Independent runs of those voices advocating their agenda, they might get off their knees and licking the hands of their perceived Masters. They might threaten reprisals against their Master if he fails to enact their agenda, they might educate themselves of the seriousness of climate change and insist in authentic action toward renewables and reject nuclear, coal, and bio fuels. They might start actually doing something that comports with their agenda rather than pay lip service to it. That is something they could do, but my guess is they would rather talk about it then actually doing anything about it by supporting candidates who will trash it.

Annamare, Obama said that he would "listen" to the commanders on the ground, but that he would "charge" them with developing the plan for withdrawal.

MikeBinSC

I don't know who Matti is......is she the word police for common dreams?

MikeBinSC

PS

The Nation, representing the leading progressive supporters of Obama did not write this letter because they feel he is still representing their vote and his promises to them.

Thus the point of the commentary that you are participating in, perhaps you would do better to write to The Nation and ask them what their problem is?

Annamare, wrote - "The three party system was created for checks and balances and is currently failing."

You better look out annamare, Matti is going to be all over this one!

MikeBinSC

Obama most recently said that if the military commanders on the ground agree with him, that he will stick with the sixteen month pledge.

This is how politicians become shifty, they claim to stand for something only if someone else stands there first.

I don't recall the Obama supporters asking him to defer to the wisdom of the military complex.

H2O

The letter I wrote to Nader simply questions if he would make his promises legally binding. Nader is a champion of changing or creating laws that protect citizen rights. If one of my rights is to be fairly represented by a government instituted to protect those very rights, why shouldn't the process by which this happen reflect this? The reason we are constantly creating new laws to protect citizens is because the Constitution and most laws are necessarily gray. It seems a lot of precedence for a massive breach of public trust has been created in past elections to create a great case for the creation of laws that protect our votes. How many times do we need to be betrayed by our representatives in head on collisions with corporate power before a legal safety restraint is demanded as a way to avoid the rate of lethal congressional collusions? The three party system was created for checks and balances and is currently failing. I'm asking for the power as a citizen to protect myself from unavoidable representative accidents. The safety belt I want to use is to make promises that candidates make to bring the vote to them, legally binding. How to write the letter or create the law is currently beyond me, even if the principal is not. Nader wants to be the safety belt for my vote, but I'm looking for how I am legally in the event of Nader selling out, protected. I'm looking for a legal standard, not an oral standard. Oral standards are waved about by all the candidates, and I don't need one of them crying wolf to me one more time. I really think this is basic, but can be made complicated by the belief that one human being can make an oral promise that will hold up under
real legal scrutiny. I mean if any previously promised pledge could legally hold up, wouldn't that leave us with a pretty strong legal case? Take Obama for example, as he goes back on his word and "sells out" could any supporter who gave him money based on an oral promise, at this point sue him and succeed in getting a settlement in their favor?
Better yet will they refuse to give him their vote? How well understood were Obamas morals and integrity? Apparently not well at all, politicians have as their weapon a constantly changing picture of reality that leaves them gracefully changing their stance. While the bulk of Americans still see the light on pulling out of Iraq, Obamas continued role as candidate for us, is clouding his vision.

What was his big selling point....change we can believe in?
Who of we believes that changing back to continuing a war is something they can believe in?

But who takes their vote and their candidates promises that seriously? It seems we have become adapted to playing our roles.

There is just something about humans that makes us insensible to our own rights and safety until someone else champions it for us.

I could ramble on and on with questions and thoughts, but I think that it is well within any candidates legal rights to make a contract with their constituents. Here in Oregon, Hillary Clinton, as a last ditch effort to get our vote presented an "Oregon Compact". Though it did not garner Oregons primary vote which went to Obama, I thought it was a first clumsy attempt by a politician to win votes with a pro quid pro. Why not????

In regards to a letter to Nader, I forwarded The Nations sentiments to him, he might get a lot of interest if he would offer a level of guaranteed representation as of yet unheard of. Any one candidate could, but it would be tricky, I suppose. But if more people refuse to vote for a candidate minus such guarantees it will sort it's self out.

Annamare, Obama still says American troops out in 16 months, just like he said in the primary debates. He said the same thing to Maliki in his visit to Iraq, and Maliki agrees. What is your problem?

huzzah,

just take one of your points of agreement, of two, that the voting American populace agrees on, a complete and immediate as possible withdraw from Iraq. Obama is no longer willing to even do that, and McCain has never been willing. Both candidates will not listen to the people they supposedly serve. Why? Because a vote for a condidate has never been conditionally given. No candidate has ever even been voted in by the people, even if the peoples vote has "always" matched the electorate vote. As our voice is ignored at this level the real question of integrity lies not with them, but us. How long will we consent to the kind of people we have become. Slaves to a lie, supporters to lies. I simply realize that unless I can have some level of guarantee from the person I choose to represent my voice, that they will represent my voice, I am the biggest player in the deceit, since I am the only one who plays my hand in it.

Can you or anyone explain how we continue to turn a blind eye to this most basic of facts?

Yes, oncemanc, and even if the Greens do manage to become a viable force in government, we will be spending much of our time removing the GINO(Green-in-name-only) infiltrators, because you know they will be coming. We already have a leg, arm and head inside the door in the Dem party, why not force the door open NOW, and start taking names and kicking butt?!!

H2O August 2nd, 2008 4:01 pm

"you're right, the far right took the Rep. party over, but they did it by being a CREDIBLE threat".

And what, pray tell, has been in the least bit credible in the tactics of the Nader camp? He never so much as attempted to spread his message from within the Democratic Party; in fact he went out of his way to alienate good progressive Democrats. In many ways he is a brilliant individual, but as a student of human nature and how to bring others to his way of thinking, he has become increasingly ineffective with each passing year. The far-right became a "credible threat" by worming their way into the Republican Party, the very tactic you seem to reject for the Democrats. The Democratic Party is a coalition in which the corporatists hold sway at the highest levels, but not by a huge margin at the grass roots level. We are free to decide for ourselves whether we can better promote our progressive agenda by taking over the Democratic Party of displacing it; but common sense tells me that the only realistic way to do it is from within.

MikeBinSC writes:
"H2O, that was , without a doubt, the most ridiculous bunch of run-on drivel that I believe I have ever read! Cupcakes, cookies, strychnine, arsenic, salad, veggies, breakfast, lunch, dinner-"
-----
Well, as grandaddy used to say, "Difference of opinion is what makes horse races" -- from here, H20's essay is brilliantly well-conceived, writing that should be put in graphic form and distributed widely.

It is now MISSING from these comments, however. Here's hoping he/she will post it BACK.

H2O August 2nd, 2008 4:01 pm

H2O, that was , without a doubt, the most ridiculous bunch of run-on drivel that I believe I have ever read! Cupcakes, cookies, strychnine, arsenic, salad, veggies, breakfast, lunch, dinner- What a crock of BS!

H2O, stop tossing Naders salad - He is not electable and niether is McKinney. There is ZERO chance of getting their healthcare plan unless Obama is elected!

Under an Obama administration, Tens-of-Millions of Americans without health coverage, including children, will be covered. Under McCain, which your vote makes more likely, the number of those without coverage, including children, will go over Fifty Million!

I have worked in the health care industry for the last thirty years in the radiology departments of hospitals in many states. I know that the medical system in America is broken, and you should too if you worked in it. You should also know that you can't get everything you want all at once. With McCain you get nothing, actually less than nothing, but with Obama we get started fixing the problem.

Your vote for Nader or McKinney, at best, with a lot of other fools voting with you, gets you McCain - That's the best you can do? If you want to work for pie-in-the-sky healthcare, go to www.hr676.org and work for change, don't waste your vote on a protest for unelectable martyrs.

Think about the children, not your selfish self H2O!

H2O--

"you're right, the far right took the Rep. party over, but they did it by being a CREDIBLE threat - 'If you don't adopt our agenda, you don't get our Vote'. They didn't do it by saying 'Pretty Please, be a nice guy.' That's the same strategy many of us are arguing for here."

You're right about the tactics of the far right, but they also told a narrative in which they weren't on the far right. They shifted the political spectrum to the right, called moderates liberals, called liberals the radical left or lunatic fringe, all while claiming to be centrists or, at the very least, representative of the majority of Americans. And, most importantly, they managed to convince a majority of the voting public of this. For any of us progressives, the worst part of that narrative is that, to that majority, we were the radicals, the socialists, the tree-spiking eco-terrorists who cared more about trees than about people, the abortionists who got off on killing babies and wanted to do the same to all Christian influence, etc.

I'm not so sure we can make the same shift, for we'd have to not only bring the hammer down as far as withholding our votes from those that don't advance our agenda but also convince a rather large segment of the U.S. population that they agree with said agenda. The fact of the matter is that it will be a hard feat to accomplish. What are a majority of Americans ready to agree with us on? Iraq. What else? The state of the economy, maybe? With almost any issue, at least a third are completely sold on the conservative/neocon ideology. Almost everyone has heard all the energy experts say that offshore drilling will produce no oil for ten years and then will cause only a negligible decrease in price, if any. Yet around half of Americans want to drill. Even though they know no real good will come of it. Everyone wants more affordable healthcare, gas, education, etc, but so many have bought into the "capitalist" idea that they aren't willing to let the industries that fleece them be regulated. Basically, once we convince people that there IS a problem with something, we have to go about convincing them that the free market will not fix it and that government can be a force for good, even if some people have to pay more in taxes. Not something most people want to hear.

We have to appeal to the moderates in one way or another. Or in multiple ways. We need to sway them toward our way of thinking and, YES, compromise with them at times. If we want Yellow, the right wants Red, and the center is Blue, then wouldn't we rather agree with the center on Green than see them got to the right and get Purple? Or Maroon, or Burgundy, or some other slightly purple shade of red? It's called compromise, it's a fact of life, and it's not always a bad thing. We have to do it on issues, and we have to do it where the Presidency is concerned.

The GOP is sounding the alarm at Obama, calling him the most liberal Senator in Congress. Yet, according to about half of the commenters on CD, Obama is a corporate shill who will differ in no way from McCain. Well, which is it? Aren't the two labels mutually exclusive? And whether or not Oba really is liberal, isn't the point that the GOP can successfully portray him as such? This is what I'm sayin' -- Obama's really a centrist. WE are leftists. But when McCain & Co. can convince so many that Obama is on the far left, well, what does that make us? Communists?

"Gee, Obama's evidently a radical liberal. But these people are even further to the left than him. What nutjobs. If Obama shifts further to the left, I'm definitely going with McCain." -- Johnny Moderate

All the talk about this letter being just a bunch of hot air, saying Obama will never address the writers' agenda because he knows he has their votes sewn up...Why would he address the agenda of so many others on here, when they clearly will never vote for him anyway? Several people have made comments about those who are "Democrats, all the way" or something similar, but I see twice as many people who evidently are more of the "Democrats, never under any circumstances" mindset. How is that any more helpful? If I know your vote is out of play just because I belong to the only major party that in any way represents my values, why should I bother addressing your issues?

All the ranting about Obama being the same as McCain is just stupid. I'm not being insulting here. It's those claims that are insulting. Of course they're not the same. Are they similar in some ways? Sure. Do I wish Obama were more progressive? Of course. Is Obama Karl Marx? No. I don't think I'd like him to be, and I know 90% of Americans wouldn't want that, either. So we go with a slightly left-of-center candidate. BFD. He can win. Of course, with McCain attacking from the right, saying Obama's too liberal, and so many CDers attacking from the left, calling him the same as McCain, it is possible no one will vote for him.

I don't care who you vote for or if you even vote at all. But instead of berating us on here for supporting Obama, flaws and all, why not go out and actually work for Nader? Go raise money for him. Hold rallies and register voters. Stop spamming the board. Nannie, I'm sorry if your physical state makes writing unique posts difficult, but the cut-and-paste thing really is tiresome. I'd wager that, even at a slow, hunt-and-peck, 5 wpm pace, you'd say more to us all (and better represent Nader) than in several "GO NADER!" postings.

I say all this as a 2000 Nader voter. As I've said before, had I lived in Florida or another swing state I would've voted for Gore. And anyone who thinks we wouldn't be better off had Gore been (s)elected than we are now is fooling himself. I'm perfectly willing to vote for Nader of McKinney this year if I know my state is out of reach for Obama, though I hope to hell it's in play. I fully urge everyone whose state is not up for grabs to vote Nader or McKinney. Let's get them the requisite percentage for Federal funding next election. I fully agree that Nader more closely represents my views than does Obama. But he can't win. It's all about the money, and he doesn't have it. Here's a question for all the Nader people -- Would you support Obama, at least as far as the battleground states are concerned, were he to push for Nader's (& McKinney's) inclusion in the debates? Call your local Obama HQ and tell them this. I guarantee you it will be far more effective at both pushing Obama to a more progressive stance and helping Nader get his message out than the rhetoric here than does little more than reinforce the GOP's assertion 90% of the population that the far left is ridiculously out of touch with the majority of Americans.

annamare:

I think it would be hard to get a "legally binding document" from any elected official regarding campaign promises just because I can't think of the mechanism that could be used to enforce it. We can't even get the Dems to impeach, let alone criminally charge, Bush for HIS crimes and we have that provision in the Constitution. I don't think there is any law under which you could sue or prosecute in a regular court, although wouldn't THAT be a great idea - a Political Breach of Promise Statute. But I like your idea of spelling something out so we could get a direct response addressed to our concerns.

Have you looked at the specific issues areas on Nader's site? Is a promise of pursuing single payer as a way to deal with the healthcare good enough for you in that area? Is a promise to GET OUT of Iraq good enough in that area? In other words, even if you don't care for the vagueness of "never selling out", are commitments to specific programs or policies good enough?

I'm not clear on exactly what you want. Would you be willing to post your letter to Nader on this site?

annamarie writes:
"What legal document shows we can count on Nader?"
-----
Particularly at THIS time -- since the Contract on America, the Patriot Act, and all that -- what's a "legal" document, ANYway? And SURELY you must be aware that there's no "legal document" that amounts to a hill of beans in enforcing the rights of the relatively-powerless and/or poor against prosperous politicians. (If there WERE such a thing, The CHANGEling could be booted out of the race for having flat LIED, in Iowa, about the imaginary "passage" of his -- and Exelon's -- "nuclear protection" bill ... )

Ralph Nader could have sold out bigtime, one supposes, just by NOT publishing "Unsafe At Any Speed" -- but it doesn't appear that he ever HAS sold out: the worst thing anybody can find to say about him, apparently, is that he's successfully engaged in capitalism.

A look at Nader's work, over time, suggests that he WON'T sell out -- at this point, why WOULD he?? And he has no young children, always a plus when it comes to actual bravery. (A look at The CHANGEling's actual record shows him sleazing, waffling, lying, or changing his position at every turn, taking LOTS of money from most of the wrong people, and so on.)

The coalition that the right-Democrats and The CHANGEling should fear is one between McKinney and Nader. And if Jesse Jackson goes ALL the way off the reservation, it could be a heck of a surprising election.

Keep your brains on, people: don't go for the happy-gas this time. Dukakis is Kerry is what's-his-name with the birthday suit and the big bankroll, allowing his clueless followers to shout down the black-community questions with chants of "Yes-we-can".//

H2O,

PS

Thanks for the suggestion to write a letter to send to Ralph Nader. I already did write a letter, and there is no response yet. I'm not sure Ralph will see the point, I'm glad you do though. Perhaps you will also write a letter and anyone else who sees this sense in demanding a guarantee in exchange for their vote? This idea of mine feels very embryonic, but it is neat to imagine what it would be like to be able to vote for a candidate that would stick with their promises. It's neat to imagine a people that knew the real value of their vote.

H2O,

Thanks for the input, I appreciate it and yes the idea of buying a leader seems as thought it is impossible because the meek are poor. But I thought there were enough of us poor meek loving souls that we collectively have enough money to at least try. (Isn't that how Obama made it so far,
minus any guarantees?)

This is what Naders site claims:

"In an era when politicians sell us rhetoric and then sell out our principles, Nader stands out as one politician that can be counted on to never sell out."

'There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship toward 'a new birth of freedom.' — Ralph Nader

What legal document shows we can count on Nader? I think that if he were ever to gain the position that Obama and McCain have, he would be just as susceptible to selling out
because he has nothing that legally proves otherwise. Please,correct me if I'm uninformed.

I think all these people start good but loose their way to the power of those who have influence in the circles they inevitably move in. These are large circles with a lot of "nice" people. Only by previously pledging to the unseen masses would that person have anything to counter such pressure with. Nader fools himself if he thinks he can stay loyal to his constituents minus any binding force. It just doesn't happen. It is nice to imagine any one person has so much goodness, or godliness but instead I like to keep our human limits real. Why is it only with banks and car dealers and lawyers we want to sign contracts for business in the modern era but politicians need only tell us what they promise and can then "sell out" on their promise? This is unheard of in most relevant areas in our modern lives!

Regardless, a claim can be found on Naders official site to work for the people, but it also lacks any legally binding power.

I think my vote is worthy of such power, that it should legally bind the person I place such sacred trust in, to secure my rights, and represent me, not fall into a system that works against them, and me both.

By taking this stance for my vote, I feel really good about the kind of agreement I will make with any person wanting to have the right to use my vote.

Would Nader agree to such a legally binding agreement, would he put his seal where his passionate and otherwise seemingly good intentions are? Would any candidate for president do this, and make it real?

.

http://www.pr.com/article/1100
Ralph Nader Goes to Washington... Again - The PR.com Interview
By Allison Kugel, Senior Editor - May 14, 2008

Ralph Nader:
We just accept money from individuals, as long as it's legal. We don't take money from PACs (Political Action Committees). We don't take money from commercial interests, which have a quid pro quo, like the oil companies, auto companies and insurance banks. We don't do that. If people want to contribute, no matter who they are, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Green, whatever… you want to contribute? Welcome. There's no quid pro quo (a Latin term meaning "something for something"). They see where we stand and they see our issues on the table. You want to contribute? We're grateful.

.

Dear MikebBin -8/1 7:22PM -

You are Right (in more ways than one) - I do NOT know what kind of healthcare plan would emerge from an Obama administration, but I DO know what he has proposed and it is NOT for universal healthcare, (even HE admits it) though he uses the term - rather like Bush calling his environmental proposal a "Clear Skies Initiative". And, if he compromises, as so many here seem to laud him for his desire to do so, it will be even more pathetic. I also know what an independent progressive, such as Nader or McKinney, is proposing and it is what we need. With regard to such things, the only "wasted vote", in my humble opinion (is that IMHO in net jargon?), is one spent on someone who has rejected such necessary solutions, rather like spending your money on a Twinkie instead of a salad, great sugar high but no nourishment. This country is suffering, not only from physical obesity but from political obesity as well - and both are killing us.

Mike, If this were just about me and my needs, I would agree - it would be selfish indeed. But it isn't. In fact, I am well aware that I probably wouldn't be around long enough to benefit from any plan that could be passed even if Nader were elected. I have been in the healthcare field for over 25 years. I have seen it being strangled, both from the point of view of patients as well as healthcare workers, under the private insurance model championed by both Dems and Reps. You must be one of the lucky ones who is either healthy and has no need of the system or who has, at least at this point, adequate "insurance" to meet your needs. But every time we support ANY poll who refuses to bite the bullet, cut the Gordian Knot, etc, we guarantee more will join the ranks of the uncared for. Will 2 people get measly help under Obama and 0 with McCain? Maybe, but under either thousands more will lose it, as neither proposes a workable replacement for the increasingly anemic primarily employer based system we have now. So if it shouldn't be about those needs, whose needs should this election be about, Mike? Corporate needs? Yes, they will be served with either one. Iraqi needs? Afghani needs? No, they will be served by neither one. American needs? Hmmm, aye. there's the rub. The Americans whose unmet needs I would like to see met, the ones whose needs I am voting for, are being championed by neither Dem nor Rep.

We can argue all day about whether "a cupcake is better than a cookie", or, if you like, whether "arsenic is better than strychnine", or, and I know there are some who will, whether it's about "a cupcake vs arsenic" but the fact is too much of any of those will kill us. Oh yes, I know the "arsenic will kill us faster than the cupcake". But those of us who are arguing for the salad instead seem to be meeting the same resistance as a parent telling a child he has to eat his veggies - he just doesn't want to hear it. Sorry folks, until we start eating our political veggies, not just for breakfast (local) or lunch (State) but for dinner (Nat.l) as well, we won't regain our health.

Ephraim:

I understand that you may be unhappy about Nader himself, but how do you feel about his stands on the issues? That's what I am supporting and voting for him or McKinney is the only way I can champion those in an electoral venue, as neither "Single Payer Healthcare" nor "Out of Iraq, locks, stocks and barrels" or, pick your cause, will be on the ballot. If I don't vote at all I will be losing my opportunity to vote for these issues. My only other choice is doing what these Letter Writers have done, and frankly, although I will continue to do that, I know that without voting for someone else until the polls come through, such letters will be a waste of paper or e-bytes (or whatever it is that wanders through cyberspace).

Annamare:

Great stuff!
With regard to your desire to find out how Nader would represent you, have you checked out his website www.votenader.org? If that doesn't answer you questions, maybe you could compose a letter such as you discuss and post it here, that way maybe a lot of like minded people would want to sign it and we could send it to Nader and see his reply? What do you think?

Have to admit, though that i kind of disagree with the one about buying the politician. The problem with that argument is that, although someday the meek may inherit the earth, as of now they are definitely suffering from a cash flow problem. If it is to be indeed a matter of who gets to buy the pol, we now how that one comes out. That's why I argue for using the vote - it's the only thing the pols need more than money - no vote, no office. That's why you see the Obama supporters spending so much time trying to debunk us 3rd party people. It's not because we're rich, shucks, we ain't - Nader's coffers reflect that, although he is doing amazingly well for someone who is so thoroughly trashed, interestingly enough, not so much by people who genuinely LIKE what Obama stands for, but by people who HATE McCain (but that;s another story), Only when the pols understand that until they champion solutions that will meet our needs they will NOT get our votes will they pay attention. It really is that simple. So, Mr. Obama, do you want our votes, or not? If so, this is what you need to do to get them. This is not about "purity", this is about necessity.

Little Brother:

Thank you! We are the few and the beleaguered, but perhaps not as few as we may think and if we keep trying maybe a few more and a few more. Here's to us veggie eaters. Now if we could only get more people to simply read the list of ingredients in the fine print on the back of the package....

Oncemanc:

you're right, the far right took the Rep. party over, but they did it by being a CREDIBLE threat - "If you don't adopt our agenda, you don't get our Vote". They didn't do it by saying "Pretty Please, be a nice guy." That's the same strategy many of us are arguing for here. If the Dem party had chosen a true progressive as their standard bearer, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe Nader would have entered the race. This is not about Nader, this is about being able to vote for a REAL change. I don't just want 4 quarters for a dollar.

And, if every time there is a progressive on the ballot, we have to forebear voting for him/her because it might jeopardize a corp. Dem's chances, we will NEVER get a progressive agenda in place.

Daniel David quotes the letter:
"If you win in November, we will work to support your stands when we agree with you and to challenge them when we don't."
-----
Suuure. SURE the celebrity "left" will challenge the Democrats. When Hell freezes over, which could be any day.

Trouble is, any POLITICAL "challenge" to The CHANGEling, were he -- Heaven forfend! -- president, would be pounced upon as "racism", just as it is NOW, (when his corporate organization's bought and bs'd the "post-partisan" pretty-boy NEARLY to the nomination of the formerly-"Democratic" Party).

McKinney or Nader for me, thanks.

Ephraim August 2nd, 2008 11:42 am

I never wrote, nor do I believe that "Nader is Satan and He Caused Gore to Lose". Neither do I believe that Nader voters are "Satans". I'm sure they all voted on principle as they had the right to do. However, those who voted for Nader in Florida and other closely run states should have asked themselves how a losing vote for Nader could possibly advance their principles more effectively than a potentially winning vote for Gore. I know about all the other goings on in Florida, but I contend that 5000 fewer votes for Nader and 5000 votes more for Gore would have created a firewall that would have prevented Bush from stealing Florida. One mistake in 2000, OK (actually, it turned out not OK, given that it led to the Iraq war); but if you, as a progressive, ignore the experience of history and in 2008 withhold your vote for the one electable candidate who, as President, would leave the door open for progressives, would be indeed irresponsible and unforgivable. To think otherwise is to fool yourself.

"All the Democrats are corporatists to the marrow". No they are not, including scores of Congressional Democrats. With a Democratic President and healthy Congressional majorities, they cannot help but wield more influence, prodded by people like me (and you, if you choose to do so). Achieving a progressive majority strictly through third parties will take and extremely long and maybe forever. Doing it through the Democratic Party is much more realistic. Remember, the far-right didn't try to replace the Republican Party. They took it over.

By the way, enough of the Democratic Party is non-corporatist to alarm Walmart into pressuring its employees to influence their votes.

Nannie August 2nd, 2008 1:10 pm

"Vote Nader 2008 you'll be glad you did and so will I…"

Signed, John McCain

Annamare wrote:

"One question that has stood out as compelling to me is how can Nader win? He can win actually, but you have to have a different frame of reference for winning which I have cultivated in my life over years of meditation and prayer and realizing through action what feeling like a winner really amounts to. It is not the old paradigm of one winner one loser, that black and white pattern is at it's end for an evolving humanity. If I vote for Nader, which I at this point am not committed to, here is how I would win. First I write a letter to Nader, requesting that in exchange for my vote and support he contractually spells out exactly how he will represent me. I sign this and he signs it, kinda the same idea of the value of signing (letter from The Nation to Obama) that initiated this big debate. Nader agrees. I now have a candidate that within reason has signed legally and binded himself to this. He is the only candidate that I can win with. Because I know that not having a binding pledge to represent my interest is not going to lead to democracy. I think most of us have so bought into the old paradigm, we are trapped. My kind of thinking is only the beginning, only my first weak stirrings of awakening to a new way of living. I am the government here, I am the rule. I would write into my contract all the desires and wishes so professed in The Nation letter, and yours that you profess. SO my contract for my vote would leave you all winners too. I think this "too" option, is better than the "one" option."

Thank you. That is the most insightful comment I've ever read on CD. Well done!

Belief is a powerful rejoinder against following one's own values. If something is disseminated forcefully enough in the commons it begins to take on a reality of its own; in this case, the notion that Nader cannot win. The fact is, until a critical mass is reached in the collective consciousness people will continue to 'believe' what some authority figure tells them. That is why the above aforementioned people continue to HOPE their agenda will be advanced by Obama, the ACCEPT LESS than their hopes demand, while voting for Nader will insure the agenda the claim fidelity too. They just cannot figure that out yet. Obviously, you have. Nice one!

.

"Nader will change things. Nader is our only hope. Nader is the only choice. Fight the Two-party system".

Thanks opeluboy, another new saying for my posts...I'll add:

Vote Nader 2008 you'll be glad you did and so will I...

.

One more note, for the person saying that unless The Nation letter has a check with six or seven figures he won't listen, I cannot help but point out that taken literally, this is not a bad idea at all. Why not make your contributions, be they money or your vote conditional? Isn't that what PAC's are all about? I see nothing wrong with buying your representative, we buy everything else that matters to us, including the food we eat. Why a politician should not be bought by those who care, and have moralistic and spiritual reasons is beyond me.
Can only the evil buy what they want to promote. Get on board folks we are a monetary driven system in the golden age. If you could buy peace and save lives with money, would that be so bad?

One more note, for the person saying that unless The Nation letter has a check with six or seven figures Obama won't listen, I cannot help but point out that taken literally, this is not a bad idea at all. Why not make your contributions, be they money or your vote conditional? Isn't that what PAC's are all about? I see nothing wrong with buying your representative, we buy everything else that matters to us, including the food we eat. Why a politician should not be bought by those who care, and have moralistic and spiritual reasons is beyond me.
Can only the evil buy what they want to promote. Get on board folks we are a monetary driven system in the golden age. If you could buy peace and save lives with money, would that be so bad?

Wow, I did read throughly every comment made so far. My feeling is that this exchange is pretty awesome as a whole, it cheers me tremendously as nothing else probably could. Democracy will not work without strong inspired individuals who know what they want and fight for it. This particular commentary group represents just that, and it gives me hope. Obama does not give me such hope, I don't know him personally and he seems very close if not identical to most politicians. One question that has stood out as compelling to me is how can Nader win? He can win actually, but you have to have a different frame of reference for winning which I have cultivated in my life over years of meditation and prayer and realizing through action what feeling like a winner really amounts to. It is not the old paradigm of one winner one loser, that black and white pattern is at it's end for an evolving humanity. If I vote for Nader, which I at this point am not committed to, here is how I would win. First I write a letter to Nader, requesting that in exchange for my vote and support he contractually spells out exactly how he will represent me. I sign this and he signs it, kinda the same idea of the value of signing (letter from The Nation to Obama) that initiated this big debate. Nader agrees. I now have a candidate that within reason has signed legally and binded himself to this. He is the only candidate that I can win with. Because I know that not having a binding pledge to represent my interest is not going to lead to democracy. I think most of us have so bought into the old paradigm, we are trapped. My kind of thinking is only the beginning, only my first weak stirrings of awakening to a new way of living. I am the government here, I am the rule. I would write into my contract all the desires and wishes so professed in The Nation letter, and yours that you profess. SO my contract for my vote would leave you all winners too. I think this "too" option, is better than the "one" option.

Most of you will scoff at my idea as ridiculous, and that is fine, but please give me yours that are better, that bring legally and democratically the real changes we all want and know are for the best in a system that is broken and corrupted, not some hoped for change that has no plan behind it. Or send me Obama's or Nader's or McCains written pledge that you have that guarantees the democracy we imagine we have, which is a leader that represents our voice.

Anyways I await Nader's response or lack of response. I plan to start systematically doing this with every vote I make, and I wonder how this could evolve into a system of voting that we could all participate in. I will then be contributing to change even if change does not happen. It is better than contributing to no change and no change happening. It is the ultimate better of two evils. ;)

Yup-- self-proclaimed "realists" who alternate between smugly or irritably extolling failed and bankrupt lesser-evilism politics and congratulating their fellow travellers like so many Critical Parents bonding in a Tough Love Support Group to commiserate about their hopeless pain-in-the-ass kids seems like a bit of a "lifestyle" to me, no?

oncemanc, I wasn't trying to intellectually convice you before of the irrationality of your claim that Nader caused Gore's defeat in 2000. All that's been done a thousand times, I've done it myself here a dozen times at least in other threads and have no desire to recapitulate the obvious. If you're too blinkered or brainwashed into believing the Nader is Satan and He Caused Gore to Lose thesis, there's no way I'll ever disabuse you of it. You'll labor under that tedious delusion for a few more decades, I'm sure.

I have no intention of voting for Nader again, having done so three times already. I feel he's burned thru his message more than enough, too few are listening and he's not scoring any points by running again. He's always known he can't win, that's not the point, he's merely been trying to get people to see how they have no real choice between a Dem or a Repug. 5% get it, 95% don't.

It's the same this time around. Obama may feel better than McCain, but his positions on the issues are as close to McCain's as Kerry's were to Bush's and Gore's were, in 2000, to Bush's. Gore sounds a lot different now than he did then, which is why so many were listening to Nader in 2000.

All the Democrats are corporatists to the marrow, and Obama's no different. But he's not as scary as McCain, so naturally he seems the better choice. Who knows what wars he might get us into, he certainly promises a few, and his deluded commitment to the phony War on Terror is reason enough to not vote for him. So I'm withholding my vote from any of them, and if that makes me "irresponsible" or "intellectually dishonest" by your reckoning, all I need do is consider the level of your reckoning on the election of 2000, how it was "won" and who lost it.

I will be voting for Nader or Green, and realizing that my vote will probably not go to a 'winner' (note: I said probably), and I accept that because rational people try to have realistic expectations.

I understand on a rational level that many voters will not support a candidate like Nader and that it is unlikely that he will win. But that is not the reason that I will vote for them, nor will it be a protest vote. There are plenty of Nader bashers on this this site who still use false arguments for their position, like he took the election away in 2000. That is irrational.

That people who are voting for Obama because they perceive or want him as a 'winner' is acceptable because everybody has a right to their opinion. But it may be irrational for them to think that Obama is going to bring about the change that they expect.

Why is it irrational? Obama has not delivered yet nor has he said that he would deliver on: Universal Health Care, Off Shore Drilling, total military withdrawal from Iraq, Impeachment, fighting corporate corruption, death penalty, etc.

I'm sorry, but is it more rational to vote for Nader and realize that he has very little chance of winning; or vote for Obama and believe that he will make at least some of the changes on the main issues that most readers profess to on this website?

I know what my main issues are and Obama is not going to address them.

so it goes

Vote Green Party or Nader or third party. Don't support the status quo of our elected officials who have unconditionally supporting the corporate elite.

"I agree that we should not be betting everything on the electoral system, but this whole community seems like a group of indie kids who are pissed because their favorite band hit it big. Naturally Obama must be labeled a sellout, and everyone will return to Pitchfork to find the next underground sensation, someone who won't let them down by actually attaining any popularity or influence. Are we a little too comfortable in our role as the radical fringe perhaps?"

Yeah, it does seem a little like a lifestyle, doesn't it?

opeluboy August 1st, 2008 10:27 pm

I, like you, have been planning for the worst. While I still have hope for an Obama Presidency, I am very concerned that there may not be elections at all this year, and we may all be under Martial Law because of the next false-flag attack or the totally manufactured economic collapse. And if they get the polls close enough, they will steal the election again and McBush will be inaugurated in January. So, hope for the best, but prepare for the worst!

Huck - You may be right. I am prepared for the worst. I have actually resigned myself to McCain being president. We live in a country comprised of ignorant fuckheads and asshats.

But I'm still voting for Obama.

nicksorrells - Haven't seen you here before, but you are wasting your time trying to be polite or logical with the anti-Obama crowd here.

Ask them how Nader can win. You'll get no answer. Ask them if they THINK Nader will win. You'll get no answer.

But they will intone: Nader will change things. Nader is our only hope. Nader is the only choice. Fight the Two-party system.

Ask them how this is going to happen.

All you'll get is Obama-bashing and will be called a coward, a fool, a sell-out, etc.

Waste of time.

Well at least you got a sense of humor; good thing because if I were you I would start to prepare yourself for the bad news.

Bush is statistically the worst modern president even worse than Nixon according to opinion polls. Obama has a slight edge over McPain and recent polls suggest McCain gaining in key battle ground states: Ohio, PN, and Florida. We are in the worst economic downturn in since the Great Depression, we are at war now longer than WWII and Vietnam. Despite all this Obama can only muster a 5-7 point lead and the swift boat attacks have yet to hit the airwaves. McPain will be your next president.

Huck - Ain't your son. I know this for a fact because my mother was not your sister.

Opie, here is your wake up call, son: Obama cannot win either!

"Get Nader in the debates and vote for him. He'll get the job done."

No, he won't because he has absolutely no fucking chance of winning! Jesus, are you people just entirely delusional or are you simply determined to elect McCain?

If you want to vote for Nader, vote for Nader. Make a protest vote. But don't try to convince any rational person that he can actually win. He can't. Not if everyone here plus all the CD Naderites voted for him and got their two friends to vote too.

Nader is polling in th 2-4% nationwide right now. Put him in the debates. He may hit 5%. This is not enough to win. That is not me being against Nader, it is me having a basic knowledge of math and a working relationship with this horrible thing called reality. Complain, call me a defeatist. I like Nader. If he had even an outside chance of doing anything but taking votes from Obama — and therefore electing McCain — I would vote for him. I'd tell everyone I know to vote for him. I'd send him money. I'd canvas. I'd man the phones.

He has no chance. Please, someone tell me how he can possibly win. I would love to be proven wrong.

But you can't. Why? It's fucking IMPOSSIBLE. All you can do is harass those of us reluctantly supporting Obama, imply we're scumbags, amoral, cowardly, etc.

I don't know if I can take any more of this adolescent fantasy land called Common Dreams.

Ephraim August 1st, 2008 3:55 pm

Interesting diatribe, but not one iota of what you wrote was backed up with any semblance of intellectual rigor. I guess that the less than parliamentary language indicates the mediocrity of your argument. I guarantee that if I were any undecided voter and you were trying to convince me to see things your way, you would have to do much better.

This board is presumably for those who wish to see progressive values hold sway in this country. We can't control what the conservatives do, or who the independents will vote for; neither do we know what, if anything, is in the minds of the merely lazy who stay home. We can't control when we might suffer a heart attack on the way to the polls - that's just a red herring. But we all control our own decisions on how we will vote (or abstain from voting) and should take responsibility for them. So, if we really want to advance our own agendas, we have to decide how we do so most effectively. We have the choice of voting for Obama or Nader or McKinney, none of whom is a perfect choice, but only one of whom will possibly be elected. There won't be a President Nader or President McKinney. As a supposed progressive, by all means withhold your vote from Obama in any way you choose, but if you live in a closely fought state don't pretend that your choice cannot tip the election McCain's way. It most certainly can, and, as one of many other contributing factors, it most certainly gave Bush the White House in 2000, given the narrow margin of the official result in Florida. To deny that is to shirk YOUR responsibility and to be intellectually dishonest.

H2O,
Any universal health care plan is better than NO PLAN! More Americans will die from lack of health care under a McCain administration, that you are helping to bring about, than will die in any foreign wars on Obama's watch.

H2O, you didn't answer this on the other thread so I'm reposting it here-
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/26/10622/
MikeBinSC July 29th, 2008 10:06 pm
H2O July 29th, 2008 3:08 pm
I'm sorry H2O, but your logic and your argument about the health care issue are both pathetic. You really don't know what kind of health care plan will emerge during an Obama administraton, but you do know what you'll get from McSame - Nothing! Your wasted vote for Nader or McKinney increases the likelyhood of a McCain victory, as neither Nader nor McKinney will break 10% together in ANY state. If McCain wins, I hope it is by a very narrow margin in your state so you can see what you did to your selfish self and others. It's not ALL ABOUT YOU and your needs H2O!

Well stated, H2O.

I'm still regretting that I faked you out with my tongue-in-keyboard joke about your comments being wordy. Your comments are always a pleasure to read-- because we're on a similar wavelength, of course, but also because you write carefully and thoughtfully.

It's especially refreshing after a series of manic ululations-- but the less said about that, the better. ;)

Perhaps nicksorrells has put his finger on the real nature of the dispute here.

It would seem that all, or at least most, of us actually agree that the positions listed in the letter are ones we would agree with, so the argument would seem to be how to "successfully pressure" the candidate/pres. "to adopt certain policies".

No matter how I try, I cannot for the life of me understand how saying to someone the equivalent of "This is what I want you to do, but even if you don't do it, I'll love you anyway" will convince him/her to do what you want if somebody else is plying him/her with big bucks to do something else. This "unconditional love" may be good for a mother to give to her child, but I think it is a completely counterproductive tactic here. The son can go out and do anything he damn well pleases knowing that mom will love him anyway. So what;s the point?

Similarly, given the history of the Dem. party over the last couple of decades, the concept that they "really are, deep down inside" better than their current positions indicate would be quite difficult to defend. In fact, a better case could be made, e.g. the Dem. congress of '06, that they wind up being worse, not better than, their rhetoric.

The question I keep asking people is, what is your breaking point? And none of these folks seem to have any. So if there are, on one hand, no consequences for "bad behavior" and, on the other, large rewards, why "be good"? Just because people like Zinn and the rest say "pretty please"?

Herb Boyd, editor of The Black World Today, said, on GRITtv, 6/30/08, 9+ minutes into the program, "Obama, short of child rape, is still going to get the Black vote." Is that true of Progressives as well? Good grief!

I understand Obama's powerful seductive pull. In '00 I sat in the parking lot of my polling place debating "Clinton or the Green for Senate?" I already had serious reason to doubt Clinton's bona fides but I SO wanted to believe, so I pulled her lever even though I had had a previous disillusionment of a similar nature on the local level, i.e. I was not a neophyte, I should have known better. After watching her for 6 years, I realized my error and vowed never to vote for her again. Fool me once, etc.,etc. (I had voted for Bill, mainly because of Gore, in '92, but after NAFTA, for Nader in '96.) After being kicked in the teeth by "charming" Democrats a couple of times, I have vowed to stick to the issues from now on, no matter how much my candidate lacks star quality.

So what I want to know is how many teeth are you folks willing to lose before you realize that you are toothless? And precisely who are the "hysterical purists" here, those who support Dems "short of child rape", or those who simply want what we so desperately need and have been denied over and over by the collusion of the 2 "major" parties?

For those who really don't care whether or not Obama will do anything constructive about anything, but only that he is "not McCain", I realize that McCain works well as the bogeyman for the Dems but I can't help thinking that this sounds an awfully lot like Bush arguing that Osama bin Laden/Sadam Hussein was SO awful that we needed to give him (Bush) free rein to do whatever he liked to stop him, no matter what happened to our Constitution in the process. However I humbly suggest that lack of access to health care may well kill more Americans than Al Queda, so I can't bring myself to vote for someone who clearly is more afraid of Harry and Louise than he is of bin Laden.

I really do find it so hard to believe that people as well educated and experienced as these cannot see that their love for candidates such as Obama is unrequited, that their "scolding" of him is equivalent to 30 lashes with a wet noodle and that they are simply enablers of his corporate policies. What am I missing here? Is it that these folks themselves have nothing to lose under the continuation of corporate rule - they will still sell their books and mags, still get their speaking engagements, still have their jobs and their healthcare and their homes, unlike so many of us "little folk"? What are they really afraid of?

And finally I can't help thinking that if these were the folks who were the opinion makers in the 1770's, we would still be a British colony. Thomas Paine is rolling over in his grave.

This is great! I'm really getting a karma rush out of all this apologizing!

Nannie, I apologize for calling you a Nader Ninnie on another thread.

.

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

Click the site and find out for yourself what Nader is doing and saying...

.

.

I'll say it again…

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

Never before as we do now

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

.

My Karma has been restored!

Damn, I feel better already!

Here, I'll start the reconciliation process-

I apologize to anyone that I falsely labeled a "brain-dead-ditto-head", who is not involved Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" program.

There now, that was easy!

Ok, ok, I'm not going to mention any names here, but now that the hysterical purists who proffered the false lesser-evilist-dichotomy arguments have been collectively bitch-slapped back to reality by all the signers of this letter, do you think that maybe, just maybe, we can begin to focus on what we can do to actually further a progressive agenda under an Obama administration? Do Ya think?

oncemanc: "But you can't deny Nader's part in throwing the 2000 election Bush's way."
Except that it's been denied, repudiated and proven WRONG about 8,000 times, here and elsewhere. But for the true believers in this myth, it's as if no one has ever even tried denying it.

It's bullshit, but bullshit rules for so many that it's taken on the character of scientific fact. Every one of these threads ends up the same way--blaming Nader for Gore's defeat. Ergo, how can anyone vote for Nader again, since that's obviously a vote for McCain?

I wonder what staying home and not voting for anyone is. Another vote for McCain? Suppose I have a heart attack on the way to the polls, am taken to hospital and cannot vote. Have I voted then for McCain? Are all the people who will die between now and November to be branded as cowards for actually voting for McCain? That's how much sense all the allegations make that a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. But we'll never hear the end of it. Bullshit will triumph over reason every time.

And what exactly is with the hostility to Obama supporters here? We don't begrudge you the right to not vote for him.
____________________________________

nicksorrells, have you actually READ many of the comments threads here? There are at least a half-dozen regulars who reflexively disparage and excoriate anyone who doesn't buy into the "Obama's way or the highway" theory.

I'm supposed to be getting work done, so I have no time to recite the standard lexicon of put-downs. And I don't want to Name Names, which simply invites further recrimination. But I invite you to peruse the comments and take note of whether the "condescension" is as one-sided as you suggest; they speak for themselves.

"We just happen to disagree with you" is not the polite norm here, alas.

And it's hardly to be expected that fatuous insults and cheap shots will not inspire spirited rebuttals.

homeward-angel August 1st, 2008 12:23 pm

...as I said before, it's called tactical voting, and it's a very legitimate tool as long as you use it with full awareness of the potential consequences of your vote in your particular state.

But you can't deny Nader's part in throwing the 2000 election Bush's way. Yes go read your history but then do your math. There were multiple causes that allowed Bush to steal Florida - badly designed ballots, voter intimidation and disenfranchisement, the Supreme Court, Nader - and if any one of those causes had been absent he could not have done so. If even 5% of people who voted for Nader had shown enough common sense to vote for Gore, the other factors would not have mattered and in particular the Supreme Court would not have been involved.

RichM,

If you believe this, then help recreate a movement which will place pressure on Obama concerning those issues. Believe me, I want that as much as you do. But while we're working on this, at least realize that there are several issues where Obama represents a distinct improvement over the status quo.

Yes, Obama "sucks up to the AIPAC." Would you rather have a president that makes unnecessary militant statements concerning Iran, or actually INVADES Iran? Once again, you give blanket statements which ignore very real policy differences. Caving of FISA because of political pressure is frustrating and disturbing, but it is not synonymous with not caring about civil liberties. Again would you rather have someone who caved of FISA, or someone who supports the whole Bush program concerning Civil liberties.

I would love for the Green Party to be in charge, I would love for the electoral system to be changed so that the Green Party would gain power based on the percentage of votes it receives, as in several European countries. I would love if we had universal health care, and an end to corporatism. But these goals will be accomplished largely outside McCain vs. Obama politics. When it comes to our actual electoral options however, we can vote for Obama, we can vote for McCain, or we can cast a symbolic protest vote.

RichM basically says my analysis is flawed since there is no left anymore to exert pressure. Well if he believes the left is dead, what's he doing here? Seems like this site has a rather optimistic, warm and fuzzy title to it.

And what exactly is with the hostility to Obama supporters here? We don't begrudge you the right to not vote for him. Even if we are completely wrong, we're still on your side, and I don't think we really deserve this kind of scorn just for having a different opinion on furthering the progressive cause.

nicksorrells (1:16 pm) writes some of the standard cliches of Dem party apologists:

"...Yet I can't think of one president who was considerably to the left of Obama overall. Sure you could make arguments for FDR, JFK, LBJ...but ...They were merely presidents that were successfully pressured by the left to adopt certain policies..."

- This "analysis" has big holes in it. FDR lived in a time when there really was a "Left" to pressure him, but that's no longer the case. JFK was the last president who thought that a president could shape policy more or less independent of the desires of the military-industrial complex -- and we all see what happened to him. No Democrats even flirt with that kind of independence any more. // LBJ, on the other hand, was indeed probably not to the "left" of Obama.

"...I don't get this idea that Obama must be a continuation of George Bush simply because he's not a Cynthia McKinney...."

- You're right that you "don't get it," because that's not what the argument is. Obama is a continuation of George Bush because like Bush, he advocates US empire, militarism, & corporatism. Obama supports warrantless government spying on the citizenry; hasn't in any way attacked the doctrine of preemptive war; threatens Iran & Pakistan; sucks up to AIPAC; & is a staunch ADVOCATE of the fraudulent "War on Terror." Just like Nancy Pelosi, he basically denies that the Bush administration has committed any crimes deserving of impeachment & prosecution. He's a continuation of Bush because he has in no way opposed Bush; does not in any way repudiate Bush, & openly vows to continue much of what Bush has done.

McKinney has nothing to do with it, apart from being an example of someone who is NOT a continuation of George Bush.

The signers of the Nation's letter, are in most CD'mers eyes, (and I think we can agree) are some of the most prominent "progressives" in our nation. They are the "thinkers", right?

These types of letters and endorsers always come. In every election. It doesn't matter if it's Kerry, Gore/LIEberman, Obama, or Spiderman. Whoever it is, like the little lemmings they are, they always endorse 'em.

This is their bread and butter. If they did endorse Nader (or any third party), they'd be out. Zapped from the offices of their publishers, zapped from the their "circle" of contacts that allow them access. Zapped--period.

Like clockwork. Every four years.

At this point in history, I thought they might be a little more ...reflective, and expand their horizon to encompass the needs of the regular citizen. That was too much to expect I guess.

Instead, its the same old smooze:"Trust us" they say. "Its not the right time for a third party". "Lets do this the right and Democratic way". "This will take time and work".

Uh, yeah. Right.

The cold and unfortunate fact is this:

The democratic party has failed in every possible area. Every single one. Not one area has gone untouched. Voting and expecting them to remember us after the election is sadly naive on our part. No, they won't respect us in the morning. They never have. Never will.

And they have the gall to ask us to "trust them" --again.

Uh, I don't think so, kids. I don't vote for murderers and thugs--and that's what Obama, The Nation, and their letter signers are.

Get Nader in the debates and vote for him. He'll get the job done.

"I don't agree with either. Politics is ALL about compromise. We can be as uncompromising as we want in our every day lives, but in Washington, compromise is the air they breathe - without it, nothing gets done. Some may think this is fine, but in the kind of society we have, nothing done means many suffer." Compromise?! The two party system isn't about comprise. It's about one giant Corporate Party with two faces offering the electorate the illusion of a dichotomy that passes itself off as requiring compromise. That's not compromise. That's a rigged system. Run Ralph Run!

In the last hundred years, progressives have established Universal Suffrage, Civil Rights, the right to unionize (even if it is being attacked), homosexual rights, progressive taxation, social welfare policies, the environmental movement, freedom from censorship, etc.

Yet I can't think of one president who was considerably to the left of Obama overall. Sure you could make arguments for FDR, JFK, LBJ, and others, but none of these were Eugene Debs or Ralph Nader style flaming liberals. They were merely presidents that were successfully pressured by the left to adopt certain policies. They were all connected to corporations in some way, they were all comparatively rich, they were all "elitists." I don't get this idea that Obama must be a continuation of George Bush simply because he's not a Cynthia McKinney. Most of the positive change in America has occurred under presidents whose views did not reflect either of these extremes.

And could Obama haters please stop the condescension? You aren't the only "enlightened" ones. We've read the other points of view, the conspiracy theories, the critiques of his past, his voting record, his childhood, his Chicago ties, and just about everything there is too read about the man. We just happen to disagree with you. Yes I am drinking the Obama cool-aid, but I am sipping it slowly and reservedly, and will have a Becks later for balance.

many posts here are missing the point.
'nader will never win' is not relavent.
for now he is in the race and there are months to go, why waste the chance to get the big issues on the floor by giving blind support to a candidate who has not earned it.
dog training 101: reward desired behavior.

Great letter--let's hope Obama reads it.

As far as Obama's energy policy goes, here's my idea: Get NASA working on it! Just like the space program, any scientific breakthroughs and research they do will be open source, available to anybody, especially industry. With their existing funding, and incredible pool of talented people, NASA surely can come up with some solutions, like better battery technology, solar, etc.

The problem with this written threat is that there is no ultimatum. The obvious and only ultimatum that applies is a commitment to another candidate. It wouldn't be John McCain, so who is it these people plan to vote for if Obama will not listen? I'm printing this out as proof positive that ultimately the real problem with an unfulfilled promise of change is that the necessary sacrifice, one's loyalty to decisions that are real. The Left is unable to adhere to loyalty to their beliefs, and commitments. This is the undermining Obama legacy, the real flip-flopper is each and every individual on the left that cannot themselves support their own convictions and like a child looks for some symbolic individual who will succeed or fail for them. Leaving them blameless and free to pursue their next victim savior. Obama will fail, he is in the laws of the system now, and it's dominant machinery. The only success that the progressive may and will ever have is not to an individual that cannot uphold their personal principals, but to themselves to do the lonely work of upholding them, each and every on, alone. That we, the we that adheres to the highest belief that we each have is the dream "we" that our ancestors imagined and we have yet to embody.

Do not vote for the liar. If you do, then you do not deserve your vote, and you'll be just another liar's slave. Forget about getting a liar to keep his word. If you as a voter do not have principles, don't expect the lying politician to have any.

Clark Kent-"a vote for nader is a vote for mccain"

puuuuuuuuleeeeeeas. Your asinine comment doesnt even deserve a response....

ok ok, we all know an obama presidency would be better than a mcmurder presidency. so how about this idea to all you "dont vote nader, hes a spoiler" crowd. If you live in a red state as i do, and your vote wont matter anyway, THEN VOTE GREEN PARTY, the greens need to get just 10% of the vote to be eligable for public funding in the next election cycle! that would be a huge boon to the greens who desperatly need that money to be able to compete anywhere near the level of corporate money that is currently fueling elections. And to all you BLUE STATE DEMS OR GREENS---vote green across all the lines until you reach the "who shall be president of the US of A line" then vote obama. You can have your cake, and eat it too!

ps-note to all you "nader spoils elections" crowd; go read your history! Al Gore won the florida election, it was the conservative Supreme Court that HANDED BUSH 2 the PRESIDENCY!!! i am so freckin sick of these morons who go on and on about how nader and the greens spoil the elections, giving more power to REPUGS! it is either a foul lie, or simply moronic and uninformed conjecture. if the DIMS dont want those votes (like my vote) going to other parties, THEN STOP DISENFRANCHISING YOUR CONSTITUENTS TIME AND TIME AGAIN!!!

Boy, can I talk 'em up, or what?

Chomsky and Zinn said it.
I believe it.
That settles it.

• matti August 1st, 2008 2:54 am

"Elect first, then invite the letter-signers above to do the "Demand" part for you. (They're smarter.)" -Daniel David July 31st, 2008 1:16 pm-

I can't get over this.

Do you realize this is actually a ROYALIST attitude? [...]
_______________________________________

Well stated! The rest is worth repeating, too, but for once I'll defer to brevity.

• I expect to continue to read and publish comments here as long as the comments feature is available, and it pleases me to do so. I do believe, in general, that not much actual persuasion takes place. The commenters are, by and large, firmly opinionated, and not likely to budge from their convictions. Personally, this isn't especially off-putting or discouraging; it's still worthwhile to consider new information and insights presented in the comments-- and scroll past tedious or pointless posts, mine included.

That said, I'm OK with impassioned pleas, e.g. kokuaguy's 8:45 am heartfelt perspective. I'm not buying it, but I can't fault kokuaguy for expressing it.

On the other hand, it strikes me that the realpolitikers here-- who are every bit as "purist" in their own way as the anti-duopolist idealists like Your Humble Narrator and others are constantly accused of being-- typically have a primitive, or limited, imagination regarding those who don't share their opinions.

I'm not going to single out specific commenters, because that just invites mano-a-mano flame wars. But I'm referring to half-assed denunciations that are warmed-over Critical Parent clichés, reflexive attributions of badness or madness, or hostile injunctions and put-downs.

These "as far as I can see, you (non-Obama supporters, usually) are just ___________", or the laughably inane guesses that anti-duopolists are wingnut plants, moles, or shills, etc. are fatuous. And, ironically, chock-full of projection.

Of course, we each must judge according to our wits and sensibilities. Anyone is free to screech, "I hereby reject and dismiss you because you are [Negative] [cynical] [unrealistic] [use big words to try to impress people]." If one feels compelled to reach such conclusions in order to reinforce one's own convictions, be my guest.

I just hope that commenters who take this approach don't delude themselves into thinking that such "gotcha!" smackdowns have any real weight beyond being bad guesses to justify hostility at their target's persistence in disagreeing and dissenting from the commenter's own convictions.

Hard to believe the Dems are promoting Obama's Berlin speech as a good thing. Did they listen to what he said? Oh, no, of course, not. They just stick to the political spin of how many people came to listen. Not a word about what he said.

What he said was that he supports and American empire and will continue Bush's policies.

Read this ...
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18292

Blind fool Democrats. They are proudly all marching in line to elect yet another pro-war, pro-corporation conservative.

Then, like after the last election they all seem shocked and surprised that nothing changed. They are so deluded that they think they can elect politicians who oppose everything they believe in, then they can just write a letter to the Congressman and suddenly the war will end and Bush will be impeached.

What a waste of ink.

If this wasn't attached to bundled contributions totalling six or seven figures, Obama ain't listening. And once he's in office, he's going to listen to the people who did give him millions.

These fools will be out in the streets of DC protesting all the awful things a President Obama will be doing and wondering why the world still looks a lot like it did under President Bush.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Little Brother July 31st, 2008 3:53 pm wrote-"It's faintly amusing to watch the pro-duopoly "pragmatists" put their heads together and nuzzle each other like a team of blindered Clydesdales, mutually affirming the idiocy and irresponsibility of those who persist in acting like the world is other than a two-inch strip in front of the eyes, dead-center, and surrounded by blackness."

Little Brother, YOU are the blindered Clydesdale with the narrow forward view, and you're not even the lead Clydesdale! Which means you always have the same view - The Clydesdale's ASS in front of you! I think I'll trust the wider views of those like Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, and others over yours - Call me crazy!

oceangrrl July 31st, 2008 6:56 pm

Point taken. I missed that.

Let me say then that it would be nice if we could all take care to keep personal remarks out of a discussion. It defeats your point and weakens your argument to use them. It's going to get away from us sometimes, but its easy enough to say oops.

I notice the more vitriolic the personal attack the weaker the argument or perhaps no facts at all.

The foul language as a habit is sophomoric and needless. It doesn't belong on a site for adults in my opinion. I am guilty of occasionally slipping myself, but you all know exactly what I mean.

Pax

Rasmus, I have to tell you that you have Nader wrong, and decades of service to this country prove that. He is running on conviction period, answers to nobody but his constituents, and plays by the most honorable practices of anybody out there. He is gaining now officially at 6 percent (last election the League of Women Voters' threshold for BEING IN DEBATES was FIVE percent. WELL?) The only way to get Obama off his compromising ass is to scare the shit out of him with Nader's cutting edge. The MSM are going to carry and dignify McCain's sorry ass to the wire telling us "it's so close! It's so exciting! Your choice!" So let Obama sweat and stand up for The Earth and The Constitution (for starters!)---If I vote for Obama I am approving his cowardice. Not gonna happen. NADER.