Money Over Morals: Obama's the Candidate of the Hedge-Fund Partners
Among the several unpleasant outgrowths of the Obama-Clinton death duel, perhaps the most disturbing was the widespread perception that the junior senator from New York was more attuned to the cares and hardships of the working class than her chic counterpart from Illinois.
I still don't understand how anyone could have overlooked the damage done to blue-collar America by the former first couple's stalwart commitment to "free trade" -- in the form of NAFTA and permanent "normal" trade relations (PNTR) with cheap-labor China -- but evidently many did, particularly in states like Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Every time Hillary told the story of her grandfather toiling in a lace factory in Scranton I wished some comedian would say: "My grandfather sweated and suffered so much in that lace mill that Bill and I vowed that no one in Pennsylvania would ever again have to work in a factory. With NAFTA and PNTR our dream has been realized!"
But Hillary couldn't have gotten away with such hypocritical nonsense without Barack Obama providing her a pass on class, the great unmentionable in a country that pretends that everyone is born equal and anyone can become president. For all his supposed concern about regular folks, Obama's sympathy for the beleaguered people who still do manual labor remains suspect, while his willingness to appease the wealthy elites who preach the benefits of "free markets," low taxes and job-destroying trade bills appears entirely sincere.
Granted, Obama has made a few gestures toward reducing the vast gap between the lower-middle class and the richest 1 percent of Americans, who now possess about 22 percent of the nation's wealth (the top 10 percent control 48.5 percent). In August 2007, for example, he co-sponsored, with Democratic Senators Sherrod Brown, of Ohio, and Dick Durbin, of Illinois, the Patriot Employers Act, which would give a 1 percent tax credit to employers who, among other things, hired more American workers and paid their employees at least $7.80 an hour. Around the same time, pressed by his populist rival John Edwards, Obama also said he would support legislation to treat the income of hedge-fund managers as regular personal income, instead of the current practice of taxing it at the capital-gains rate of 15 percent. Meanwhile, the presumptive Democratic nominee has proposed restoring the top income-tax rate to the Clinton era's 39.6 percent from its current 35 percent.
But these measures are just a few raindrops on a scorched earth of class bias fomented by every president since Ronald Reagan. Obama's campaign autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, is stunningly frank about his affinity with wealthy donors during his Senate campaign in 2004: "Increasingly I found myself spending time with people of means -- law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists. As a rule, they were smart, interesting people, knowledgeable about public policy, liberal in their politics, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks."
If you think that this passage is merely foolish, you're missing the point. The Audacity of Hope is carefully calculated to present Obama as a non-threat to the big-money interests that pay for campaigns. Even so, Obama tries to have it both ways: "On core issues," he writes, "I was candid; I had no problem telling well-heeled supporters that the tax cuts they'd received from George Bush should be reversed."
But it's easy to be candid when you're talking about proportionately so little money: a 4.6 percentage-point increase in an investment banker's income tax to a hardly confiscatory 39.6 percent (the top marginal rate remained over 90 percent until 1964) won't make much of a dent. As Obama notes, "My own worldview and theirs corresponded in many ways -- I had gone to the same schools, after all, had read the same books, and worried about my kids in many of the same ways." Thus, "I know as a consequence of my fund-raising I became more like the wealthy donors I met, in the very particular sense that I spent more and more of my time above the fray, outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality, and frequent hardship of the other 99 percent of the population."
Flying "above the fray" (as a new senator Obama rode 23 times in corporate planes before halting the practice) is precisely what has let Obama raise so much money from the likes of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup.
With friends like Robert Rubin (now of Citigroup, late ruler of the Clinton administration's Treasury Department), Obama can afford to condescend to the laid-off Maytag workers of Galesburg, Ill., their jobs moved to dollar-an-hour Mexico. Sad though it may be, he writes, it's "hard to deny Rubin's basic insight: We can try to slow globalization but we can't stop it." Such clichéd thinking is one reason that the Employer Patriot Act is languishing in the Senate Finance Committee; it's why Obama proposes only tinkering with NAFTA, and why he barely addresses China, whose vast pool of low-cost labor is the far greater problem for American workers.
Meanwhile, Obama has stopped talking about making hedge-fund managers pay income tax on their partnership income at the same time as he proposes to increase the capital-gains rate to 25 percent. This is tactically clever, since it sends a friendly signal to the hedge-funders, while suggesting to progressives that he's no pushover for Wall Street. At 25 percent, those "smart" and "interesting" financial touts would still be paying far less tax on their hedge-fund income than if they had to pay the top income-tax rate. So far, Obama has outraised John McCain among employees of hedge funds $822,000 to $348,000 -- this although John McCain wants to leave the capital-gains rate at 15 percent and opposes treating hedge-fund partner income as personal income. But there's a money logic to this seeming incongruity: Hedge-funders specialize in predicting winning investments, and the accommodating Obama looks like a better bet than the more honestly pro-plutocrat McCain.
Obama spends so much time courting the rich that I'm not surprised that James Webb has removed himself from consideration for vice president. Webb is the most articulate Senate critic of America's class divide. "The most important -- and unfortunately the least debated -- issue in politics today is our drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th Century," he wrote two years ago. Webb understands that class stratification is aggravated not only by tax and trade policy but also by public schools that serve increasingly as holding pens for students who can't afford better private or parochial education. Attendance at an elite private school or university, as Obama well knows (and his Ph.D. mother appreciated), is one of the greatest aids to upward mobility in America today, as well as the best guarantee, along with a low inheritance tax, that people of means will maintain their children in the economic status they've become accustomed to.
Webb's bald rhetoric about "robber barons" and "class struggle" might have proven inconvenient for the boy wonder from Chicago when he was at a fundraiser on Park Avenue. But if Obama's candidacy fails, it might be Webb, and not Hillary, who picks up the pieces in 2012. Obama was right when he said that small-town, low-paid Americans are "bitter" about the broken promises of politicians. With "Democrats" like him and the Clintons leading the country, these left-out citizens might finally turn really angry.
John R. MacArthur, a monthly contributor, is publisher of Harper's Magazine and author of the forthcoming book, You Can't Be President: The Outrageous Barriers to Democracy in America.
© 2008 , Published by The Providence Journal Co.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
197 Comments so far
Show All"I understand how presumptuous Democrats may wish to commandeer my vote, with the excuse that as a leftist I should be a captive of their party, and vote for O'Clinton to spite McBush. They will wail that my vote for Nader is a wasted vote, perhaps even contributing to a Republican victory. But, I repeat, I will never again vote for war, and I will never again endorse the empire."
-Manuel Garcia, Jr.
i guess thats where i stand.
dougnwagner,
unionguy,
It is good to hear sane voices.
Nader is a Tool of the Republicans.
Obama '08.
Note: RN raised 8 mill, in 2000, 4 mill in 2004, and has one mill in 2008.
His nothingness is manifesting. His irrelivance becoming clear to all.
Yeah!
AllTogether---
I know you mean well. However, Nader is not (I do not give a good god damn WHAT he SAYS) any "tool" for the people's movment. He is, however, a wonderful tool for our enemies.I've tried and tried and tried to get folks to understand that we need REAL changes, not talk! We have built a huge labor-led people's movement that is fighting for change. Within this movement there are folks, groups, that disagree over various points issues, BUT they maintain our all-important unity in the fight to defeat our joint enemies---the GOP/corporate/ultra-right wing forces running the nation. Nader, however, does not! He is NOT part of the people's movement and, in his CONCRETE ACTIONS he is a SCAB, breaking unity to help our enemies. He cannot, will not, play ANY role in winning natl. health care, ending the war, Greening our nation, winning jobs programs, passing real labor law reform, etc. His role, unfortunately, is only in helping the opponents of these important goals.
I'd like to give a little analogy to this situation.
During the Daily News strike in Detroit, the workers were forced to walk out to attempt to protect their jobs and helath care, pensions, which the company was trying to steal away. In order to conduct a successful fight the workers needed wide unity (remember the old labor slogan; "united we stand, divided we fall"). Unfortunately, there was a young worker who patterned himself a "progressive," and he disagreed with the union's tactics, felt it wasn't democratic enough for him (even though all decisions were put to votes). He bcame very vocal and crossed the picket line. He led a few friends across the line, stating that he was going "build a better union after this strike!" His car had a "Think Globally, Act Locally" sticker and he said he was "more porgressive than the union."
This was a tough, difficult struggle, with many unions and the community supporting the workers, but the corporation was very rich and had strong support from the government. Ultimately, the strike lost and newspapers across the country used it as a precident to break unions at their shop.
That guy was so off base that he may still think he was (or is) "progressive," because of what he "believed," or "said." However, it was what he DID that mattered! I, and the strikers, couldn't care less what that asshole said. The fact that he crossed the line and aided their enemy is all that really counted! He was, and always will be a SCAB!!
Nader, in the struggles taking place today, has absolutely NO ability to get even a single piece of legislation INTRODUCED, much less passed. He might talk "good" but in reality all he is DOING is hurting the chances we have of electing folks that have pledged to support our needed changes and who the huge people's movement is supporting.
I could not care less what Nader SAYS, it is what he DOES that counts! He is now and forever will be a SCAB!!!
The only tool Nader's candidacy is a tool for is the Republican Party. Get your head out of your ass.
You want to withdraw troops from Iraq?
You want to pass serious reforms like the Employee Free Choice Act?
You want to invest more in oil drilling and oil companies or alternative fuels and America?
You want to have the next two justices of the Supreme Court that are appointed to believe in a woman's choice?
Then vote for Barack Obama and vote for the most viable progressive at every level.
Nader and McKinney are not viable and votes for them in swing states are not helping to build a progressive majority.
"The majority of a single vote (is) as sacred as if unanimous" - Thomas Jefferson, Founder of the Democratic Party.
unioinguy,
look, obama is not quite where we want him to be, agreed?
nader was not holding my hand during tough times in my life either. try to see his candidacy as a tool to be used right now. get single payer health care and labor law reform into the debates and millions more homes, it will only help the 'new' democrats.
i have always voted kucinich in the primarys (NH) and once contributed to his congressional campaign, he is one worth fighting for.
lisa---
Thank you!
I think that there are many very decent, good hearted folks that want change, but have no idea how to bring it about. Many are cynical because of the role played, particularly by the "Blue Dog" Democrats, as well as due to the complicated situation with the D's getting a slim majority, enough to block the right on many things (social security privitization, etc) but not enough to go on the offense. I very much favor a new political party, based on labor and the people. However, that can ONLY come to be at a time of a massive break away, that MUST include the bulk of org'd labor and the main forces in the minority communities, allied with women and progressive forces.
I was not trying to be "arrogant." That was in answer to the term another writter used. I actually was trying hard to be just the opposite. I hope like hell some of the Nader folks did read my last post, because I really don't think very many of them (any of them??) make the real life connections between the horrible misery of regular people and the extremely difficult, but absolutely nessecary task, of winning actual, real life changes that our people must gain, just to survive! It just plain isn't enough to "take good positions!" It is what you DO that counts!
What I don't think many of those folks, supporting Nader realize, is that there are tremendous, radical shifts taking place, especially within the labor movement. An entirely new, progressive leadership is in place, bldg wide coalitions, fighting for basic changes. Much of this leadership have anti-capitalist viewpoints, very pro-socialist ideas. But these are people have a real responsiblitiy to thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of people. In this resticted, controlled electoral system, the labor movment, the minority and women's movments are NOT going to jump into blind air, with no supports, to support a candidate who has "good positions," but absolutely no power, no base and, more importantly, absolutely NO TIES to the wider mass people's movement.
We need to work for the widest possible unity to defeat our main enemies---the ultra-right/corporate forces, which are, at this time, under the umbrella of the Republican Party. A big defeat of the right would create a new political situation. The progressive forces, now backed by a powerful, active, fighting massive labor-led people's movment, would be in position to push forward much more progressive, or radical, proposals. This situation would tend to isolate the conservative Democrats, who are at heart waverers. The power would be on our side and they'd gravatate our way. We could isolate the right-wingers. In that situation, the psssage of universal health care, labor law reform, Green jobs programs and and end to the war would be front and center. The people's movment would be fighting, then, from a position of strength.
unionguy; Thanks for your post. I read every word. I know how Nader busted up his own workers when they tried to organize. Locked them out and fired them all.
But the words you wrote that resonated with me were "Sherrod Brown, Dennis Kucinich, and many other Democrats fought for us."
The Republicans have always been blatantly against the average person. If something good is ever done in D.C., the Democrats do it.
jozef (above)----
First of all, just because Nader takes "positions," so what? Someone sitting on the corner smoking can "take positions" that are extremely progressive, but they have absolutely not a single atom to do with actually passing legislation, fighting to change real people's lives. The only difference between that guy and Nader is that the guy sitting on the corner is harmless. I only wish that Nader was causing no harm!!
However, you are totally wrong, amazingly and absolutely wrong, on the face of it, when you state that "there is no people's movement!" I certainly can understand your cynisism, however, if you do not see it. Without the active, fighting labor-led people's movement, there IS little reason to believe in real change, progressive change.
Let me point out a couple things here, based on my personal experience. In 2002 I saw Bush replace the head of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), the federal agency that is supposed to step in and take control of pension plans when companies declare bankruptcy. The co I wkd for, Republic Steel in Lorain, Ohio, called off the night turn and called in the day turn, declaring that they were now "bankrupt and a 'new co.'" They attempted to wipe out the union contract.
The PBGC, under Bush's new guy, stepped in, seizing the pension plan, but, for the first time, refused to pay many of the pensions workers had earned. Our union (Steelworkers---USW) fought like hell, organizing big, militant marches, filing lawsuits and working with some of the elected officials. We had 5 suicides, including Jay Schoeder, ygr brother of the Schroeder killed by the Natl Gd at Kent St 35 yrs ago. We had broken families, workers lost health care, etc. We won in Federal ct in Youngstown, but the PBGC appealed, rather than paying our pensions. The 6th circuit court in Cincinnati that heard the appeal was made up of 3 judges, all Bush appointees. They ruled that "steelworkers had no expectation of recieving any pensions!"
Meanwhile, Sherrod Brown (D-Oh), Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh) and many other Democrats fought for us. Sherrod has sponsored legislation that would outlaw the type of corporate theft that occured by reforming the bankruptcy system, so that in any bankruptcy, workers/retirees would have to be paid FIRST and corporate mgrs couldn't raid our plans (S 2092). Sherrod got us mtgs with the PBGC technicians (not the top politica appointees) so that we could save many pensions for the workers, regain thousands of dollars they had been illegally taking, for workers and their families. They put out letters of support and nearly all Democratic copngressmen signed in support of our fight, (while a tiny group of Republicans did). Many of the Democratic congressional reps have helped our people regain health care, some benefits. Bush, meanwhile, was attackingour living standards in every way possible, backed by the entire GOP House/Senate groups.
Just prior to this happening in this happening to us in Ohio, mills had closed across the nation, mainly due to pro-corporate trade deals. In South Chicago, that old mill closed, causing horrible misery to our people there. One of those working hard, as an organizer working with a pro-labor Interfaith group, was Barak Obama. Since becoming a senator, Obama has worked closely with Sherrod and our Union, fighting to support our folks. He supports S 2092, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)which would allow workers to organize without corporate intimidation and health care for all.
Meanwhile, there most assuredly IS a huge labor-led people's mvoement fighting for these and numerous other progressive demands (to stop the war, for a jobs program to rebuild our infrastructure and for Green jobs as part of a massive Green retooling of our nation). Literally, thousands of union, faith and progressive activists are going door/door each week, building wide coalitions, holding rallies, lobbying, petitioning, registering voters, etc. Organizing meetings are being held across the nation. Any of the folks on this blog could be part of this fight for change, led by labor and progressive allies. This is ABSOLUTELY a real people's movement, organized and determined to win real changes! This movement has no intention of stopping its fight after the elections. That is when its work will really begin in earnest, forcing that new government to pass the legislative changes we need, end the war, etc.
The Democratic Platform Committee, (at which I spoke last week), is supporting planks that will support all the changes the movement is fighting for, in some form. The Democratic Platform Committee asked for input, and over 30,000 mtgs of regular folks were held across the nation, almost all supporting progressive positions. Obama is supporting the legislative changes the people's movment is fighting for. We know NOT view this as a guarantee. What the election of Obama/Democratic congress does is give the people's movement a real fighting chance to get the changes we need passed.
Meanwhile, y best friend fell dead after recieving a letter from the company telling him that his family had now loat his pension and health care. My pension has gone from near $3000/mo, which I earned, to $125/mo, without health care and the PBGC is stating that I "owe them $70,000." Hundreds of other steelworkers have faced similiar situations.
I've seen unbelieveable misery, dispair, but still, a real fighting spirit! Those steelworkers, my people, are goddamned mad and are demanding real changes! Where you and other Nader supporters talk about "Nader's positions," what the hell does that do for me, for the people I live abnd work with? You see, I've asked and asked and asked and adked, the Nader folks to speak about what strategic plan they have to win real changes. We can't afford the luxury of listening to some guy that "takes positions" but does nothing! Nader has no representatives in congress. He has no influence with anyone there. Nader has no ability to get even the most minor reforms even introduced. Furhtermore, during all of these tough struggles, Nader is NOWHERE to be found! Nader supporters talk of Nader's "good positions," but not only are they worthless because they represent nothing, no ability to do a single thing for the people, Nader has never even attempted to help, stand with our embattled people anywhere. His "good positions" don't even address or support the demands the real people's mvovement has put forward. We who are fighting real life batlles, life and death struggles for real peole in disperate need, CANNOT AFFORD to go to these folks with "good positions" and empty hands!!
Finally, as I've shown, Obama and the progressive sector of the Democrats are, in fact, tied into and supporting the growing labor-led people's movement. At the time that a new govt is elected, hopefully with a progressive majority and with Obama as president, we are in position to really demand those changes we are fighting for.
As you can see, for us, all we see of Nader is a scab, shooting his mouth off, but actually only splitting the real movement for change. If that is "arrogant," then I've paid for my right to that arrogance with blood sweat and tears!
Hi AIT; I respect your logic and civility.
I was merely pointing out that a vote for Nader is a vote for lesserevilism, (unless Naomi Klein is wrong about Cisco Systems working "hand in glove with the Chinese government" on surveillance. Ralph's holdings in Cisco, 1/3rd of his portfolio, are a matter of record.)
lesserevilism is a (non) term, used ad infinitum on CD, that is a vacuous oversimplification when leveled at ANYONE as you quickly pointed out.
Nader, A Lesser Evil.
lisa peace,
just to let you know, that bit is not working. nader could be bought and paid for by wall street crooks, he is still talking about issues that work for me. obama is not.
but, thanks for the heads up.
Right now in Common Dream's Naomi Klein article about China being a Police Surveillance State she states Cisco Corporation works "hand in glove" with the Chinese government to do this.
A full one third of Ralph Nader's entire investment portfolio, millions of dollars, is invested in Cisco ALONE.
Shucks, That is straight-up evil; but you could still see him as a lesser evil I suppose.
Or support having millions of Dollars invested in Repression.
Google Ralph Nader Cisco.
Don't like being spied on? Don't support Ralph Nader, or, you are part of lesserevilism. What a moronic platitude.
Google Ralph Nader Skeleton Closet for some interesting reading.
'While Nader deserves credit for his eariler good works, he must, as well, get the criticism he richly deserves for slitting the people's movement at a critical time, in the face of our enemies, to absolutely NO good result." Says who? How does Nader who gives me and millions of people someone to actually vote FOR, someone I want, "slit(ting) the people's movement". Saying so is an arrogant statement to make. Perhaps you would do well to read what the impact of 3rd party candidates running during "critical time(s)". As for the "movement", there is no "people's movement". There is, however, the Zbigniew Brzezinski orchestrated corporate movement telling us that a Democratic Messiah hath come. He has not. Nader has and does stand with the working people far more more than Obama could ever imagine. Look at Nader's platform. Compare it and Nader's positions to Obama and see who the progressive, pro-working class candidate is. And then, in your infantile loyalty to a discredited Democratic Party go and vote for some lesser of two evils. No wonder so-called progressives get nowhere. They are too afraid, stuck in their stupor of loyalty to a Corporate Party orchestrated by a One Party system with two heads to make any progress happen.
unionguy August 7th, 2008 3:33 pm
I remember the most powerful moment in the primaries as the moment that a man hobbled up to the microphone and said he had woeked at LTV steel (I think) and told how he lost half his pension, couldn't afford to pay for health insurance and couldn't take care of his wife.
I'll never forget that. Is that pretty much true across the industry?
unionguy,
"The leaders are a different bag of beans! They are the misleaders, the splitters, the scabs!! They need to be insolated from the mass people's movement because their type of work is to split, rather than unite, the people."
perhaps nader stands with the people, why else would they have
" cut [nader] off from access he'previously had to political leaders, to labor and progressive movement leaders."
nader is still running on a progressive platform to which a workers/labor/people power movement should fit. if some of those who ignore him because of election 2000 rhetoric get behind him and get him in the debates, the ensuing conversation would only be a shot in the arm for such a people power movement. a movement we agree is the only way to affect change, no matter who wins the election.
AllTogether---(above)---
I certainly am "open to Nader's supporters," who are very much, in my opinion, misled. Many of thsoe folks are actually interested in making real changes. They are, however, being led off the track. We welcome them.
To those actually pushing the divisive splits in the people's movement---they are SCABS!! A scab is someone who crosses the picket line, breaking the unity of workers fighting for their goals. That is, in fact, all that Nader has been. Those "leaders" are not fighting for the people, only to split the movement for their own purposes.
You are correct that Nader has, in the past, done very positive things that helped the people. That was then, but this is now! People can play wonderful roles at one time, and absolutely horrible roles at another, or vice versa. While Nader deserves credit for his eariler good works, he must, as well, get the criticism he richly deserves for slitting the people's movement at a critical time, in the face of our enemies, to absolutely NO good result. In that sense, there is very much a difference between regular folks who are misled. I still have friends, union members in some cases, who are at this time planning to vote for McCain. They are still friends. I don't hold them in high esteem, but they are still friends and we will be involved in struggles for the workers together in the future. Hopefully, we can convince them to come around!
The leaders are a different bag of beans! They are the misleaders, the splitters, the scabs!! They need to be insolated from the mass people's movement because their type of work is to split, rather than unite, the people. There are consequences to actions. Nader said he was "hurt" because he was cut off from access he'previously had to political leaders, to labor and progressive movement leaders. Well, the fact is that in his case, those leaders have a responsibility to the people they lead and they've now seen that Nader will put his own ego before the needs of the people.
Further, when some honest folks that favor a new political party say that Nader can be a base for it need to study on these developments. A new political party can only comeout of the mass people's struggles for change. When the masses see Nader as a divisive splitter, there can never be any level of trust there. A new political party can only emerge in any real sense out of a solid base in the labor, minority people's movments, women's and progressive movmvents.
AllTogetherNow... August 7th, 2008 12:41 pm
Gotcha, thanks!
.
Nader will change things.
Nader is our only hope.
Nader is the only choice.
Fight the Two-party system.
VOTE NADER 2008… You'll be glad you did and so will I…
.
Thomas More; Thank You for taking time to reply.
And though a bit lost in the back and forth, you are quite right about listening to what the other peole have to say.
I've learned much, all sad, by reading thoughtful critiques of Obama's positions and reversals and AIPAC prostrating.
I just have a different perspective on the election than many posters, the same as some others. C'est la vie.
I see McCain's promise of a three front war as a guarantee of World War Three.
I see Obama avoiding this.
Maliki, Juan Cole and Noam Chomsky, I think share this opinion. Many don't; History cannot be foretold.
Thomas More,
i was commenting on the last post from unionguy. i guess i used hate in the last line because of his statement about nader being hated by a wider peoples movement...
i can't think of any posts in opposition to obama that i equate with hatred. i didn't mean that.
"to the vote nader crowd can i just point out the fact that if he would have stayed out of the 2000 election gore wins hands down and we're not in iraq. great idea. vote 3rd party. that'll learn 'em. might as well just go ahead and vote for mccain instead. morons." Bullshit ad nauseum. Nader voters would NOT have voted for Gore in 2000 if Nader were not on the ballot. They might, however, have voted for Donald Duck as a write-in vote. 350,000 Democrats voted for G.W. Bush in Florida. Sorry, but this must be repeated for ignorant Dems who refuse to accept that their candidate Al Gore lost to less than bright light bulb.
lisa3210peace August 7th, 2008 11:33 am
You should say what you please. Anyone can then disagree with you. Politely. If anyone gets personal without a fairly prompt "sorry, then its says something about them, not you.
At this moment GWNorth and I are deeply disagreeing about something but its perfectly civi and though I doubt we will end up agreeing, I'm sure we will each consider the others points and perhaps find a nuance we missed. Even in the heat of disagreement I have always found him/her civil.
I have nothing but contempt for racists no matter their color. We all carry a bit inside, a natural race pride and some just learned suspecion. The only pure non-racist I suspect would be God.
The tan crack? Any of my black friends would know what that means. Some would be offended, some would laugh and it would also be important who said it. For public consumption though, its a racist remark in my opinion.
Making a racist remark doesn't make someone a racist though. A racist soon identifies him or her self however.
"Neither rascist rhetoric or personal insults have any place in intelligent discourse."
I agree and I'd add CD would be better served without either.
Give those that you say are attacking you the benefit of the doubt though, maybe they just don't understand what you are saying.
Have A Great week
Pax
tailcap August 7th, 2008 11:50 am
I certainly agree with the first half of that statement. I believe it stems from the reaction to his convention speech.
I will politely disagree with the second half. In fact at this point I don't think he can win.
I think the PTB (powers that be) settled on Obama four years ago when he gave his speech at the convention that propelled him into his "rock star" status. He was a newer face, a blacker face, a minority face, that spoke vaguely but eloquently and carried almost no baggage unlike Hillary. He as groomed for this position as were other Oreos of note: Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Clarence Thomas.
The entire process is a charade made for the consumption of the masses who believe we live in a Democracy because you get to choose between a Black Democratic-Republican or a White "liberal" Republican, as some conservatives call him. I guess they use the term loosely.
And T.M when rascist cracks about Obama being whatever "with a tan" are posted (tetti_tatti) that is blatantly, (historically) 100% Rascist.
Rascism is Hateful.
Do you disagree with this post? Any small element of it?
If so try this. You are sitting around with several intelligent aware black people, you crack, "Ya know, Obama is nothin' but John McCain with a tan."
A. Would you do that?
B. Do you think they would find that witty, germaine?
C. Answer. They'd think you were just another dumb cracker, which you would be.
And Thomas More., Dumb Crackers and people who defend that kind of rhetoric are hateful too.
Neither rascist rhetoric or personal insults have any place in intelligent discourse.
T.M.,: Many are lucid and civil. It is this. When I express support for Obama or disgust for Nader (both feelings articulated endlessly by those 'against the 'dimocRats,')
I am called an endless stream of hateful names, hateful, stupid, pin-head, Lisa3210WAR, etc., by, particularly, about a half-dozen posters.
They then congratulate themselves in a mutual admiration stroking excersize.
I recall you Thomas More to be intelligent, I respect that.
My reaction though is this. These people are trying to bullly me, push me around. I won't reply with their kind of hateful invective on a CD thread.
But I won't be chased away by bully's .
For expressing what I believe. It's sad when just that is the basis for personal attacks.
Thomas More. Have a greatest day.
AllTogetherNow... August 7th, 2008 8:05 am
I am very curious to know why you equate some of the posters opposition to Obama as hate?
tetti_tatti "Obama is Mcain with a tan."
Calling black people x,y or z "with a tan," is long part of the historical vernacular of rascism in America.
Analogizing Obama as "the anti-christ," is hateful and ignorant.
To follow up these faux-pax by calling me a pinhead further reflects your ignorance.
You are a rascist, and you denigrate CD as such. Also with your stream of ugly-mouthedness.
Obama '08. No McCain.
Spew Insults and Hatred. Frustrated Scared People Do That.
unionguy,
great job working on building a base of people power. people bring the political changes to this country, not politicians. bringing folks together is far more effective than pounding at 'i'm right your wrong' wedge issues.
too bad you can't be open to nader and his supporters, in my opinion your wrong to only see far left divisive progress stoppers. its the election season, time for getting to know the candidates and getting your issues in front of them. nader is a civics activist, he can only bolster the mass movement behind obama and help to inspire them for the work ahead. although nader has been instrumental, it was public support that established legislation like the clean air and clean water acts, consumer credit disclosure law, occupational safty and health act, and most importantly the freedom of information act.
i believe in a peoples movement, and the work will always be there, but the election cycle is a window of opportunity, include nader and the issues he is championing, get them in front of obama and mccain. spreading your hate for nader is no better than those spreading hate for obama.
Yup, this place is getting full of ideological purists wishing to obtain martyrdom by talking 3rd party and Operation Chaos types who do not require description.
Of course electing Obama will not be a panacea. We need to win big, very big, in Congress, to send any message at all.
I guess 'Thoughts-into' considers himself a constitutional lawyer. Get a life. If you aren't willing to compromise, you can't build a democracy.
The late comedian Sam Kineson had a "remember this face" routine when he tried to steer people away from destructive choices.
Well, for Obama supporters, I'd say, "Remember this": Obama, a so-called Constitutional lawyer, voted to let the telecom companies off the hook for breaking our Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unwarranted searches.
So, remember this face when you want to pull the lever for Obama. Remember who just dissed the Constitution and aided the illegal actions of the Bush regime, which tapped our phones and filtered our e-mails.
Remember this face: :( ... and just say, "Nooooooooooooooooooooo to Obama!"
Look, anyone who can't follow the Constitution before being sworn in as President to protect the Constitution is going to screw you badly, just as badly as McCain. Why participate in the farce? Build a third party instead by voting third party. Screw them.
Thomas More August 6th, 2008 5:35 pm wrote- "Trouble is, I think the little shirt store is only offering one size and it can't be delivered before 2016."
That was great Thomas!
Unionguy, it's useless trying to reason with the Obama-bashers here. Some of them like Jay P are ditto-heads working with Rush Limbaugh in "Operation Chaos", and others are purists that want to be martyred by committing political suicide.
They know that no third party or independent has a snowballs chance in hell, and that voting for them is likely to put McCain in the White House, but they just don't care. I'm not arguing with them anymore, I just point out where they are coming from now and again, for the benefit of those who may not know.
tailcap August 6th, 2008 3:38 pm
Well said!
lisa3210peace do you ever write anything that's not ignorant?
since when mentioning Obama's skin color is racist, pinhead?
you're so blinded by your pitiful devotion to DemocRATS that you have to blow up on everyone who exposes them as the frauds that they are, black or white. Get a brain, toots.
Nannie---
What you forget, (again, again, againg and agina) is that absolutely NONE of those issues that you 'seem to' care about can Nader have one single atom of influence on getting passed. On a solid number of them, he can however, have a very good chance on assuring that they do NOT come into being by assuring a McCain win!
I laid out a strategic plan, one that is being followed, developed by hundreds of thousands, even millions of activists. We are building this huge people's movement, based on org'd labor and the African American people's movments. It is building up huge constituencies fighting for real, needed changes, including universal health care, ending the war, new 'green' jobs, protection of social security and pensions and rebuilding our nation's infrastructure. This is a movement that will be in place, fighting for change after the election, as well. The problem is, unless there is a defeat of our WORST enemies, the ultra-right, corporate forces running the nation now, we will still be fighting on the defensive, and will be unable to win on any of these demands.
I've asked and asked and asked and asked and, finally, asked, that someone explain to me how on earth Nader, in this electoral, winner take all, system where he cannot be elected, or even get many votes, where he will not elect a single member of his party/movement, etc., can be a real player in addressing the people's needs, helping pass the legislation we need?
The answer, of course, is that he will not!!
Hoodeet (above)---
Your comments are very much appreciated. You are correct that the conservative Democrats are part of the problem, and need to be targeted, as well. There have been many challenges to these 'blue dogs,' with a good number being successful. As well, I worked hard, with org'd labor in Ohio, to protect and elevate progressives here. That included a very tough reelection campaign for Dennis Kucinich in Cleveland, a race in which all, except org'd labor, desserted Dennis when he was under attack. The many so-called progressives, Greens, Nader-ites, etc. ran for the hills when faced with a real knock down, throw down political street fight. Organized labor, the Unions, backed Dennis. As well, the official Democratic Party endorsement went to Dennis. Also, we worked our butts off for Sherrod Brown, our wonderful, progressive new senator from Ohio.
Further, you are right on target in relation to the issue of bldg a third political party. We should look at our nation's history. Successful new political parties do not emerge from nothing, or only on election day. They are the product of wide mass movements for change that then are reflected in the form of a new political movement, when the old forms don't meet the needs of the time. The most successful of these new revolutionary parties was (believe it or not) the Republican Party. It was the product of a long battle against slavery, as well as for "Free labor & free soil." The majority of its supporters came out of the old Whig Party. It was a compromise political movement, opposing the expansion of slavery (not slavery itself). A large number of the radicals of that day saw the new party and Lincoln as "too moderate!" However, the struggles of the masses of people created an entirely new situation, and ended slavery (at a huge cost).
A new political party now must come from the real struggles of the people, not from a tiny sect running a porenial candidate. The masses at this time are calling for real changes, and are making up the huge Obama movement, supported by labor and the African American people. It is within this huge people's movement the real seeds of any possible breakaway movement lay. If the dominant party elected on a platform of change, do not carry thru, a breakaway is possible.
Another avenue for the development of this type of party is the Working Families Party, which works on the basis of fusion. They support progressive Democrats, but run their own candidates against corporate dems. They are maintaining unity with the main forces for change, while bldg a base for an eventual new party.
Nader, however, can only set this type of movement back. Far from working for unity with labor and the African American people's movements, there, among the wider people's movement, he is hated! Again, rather than thinking strategically, even on the question of bldg a new party, Nader's ultra-left supporters have separated themselves from the very base that must make up any successful attempt to form a new political party. The mass base of the people who want the war to end, who want health care for all and green jobs, is supporting Obama. The Nader forces are (correctly, in my opinion) seen by these forces as a scab movement of divisive splitters. There is less than zero possibility that this could be the basis of a new mass people's party!
Only by being WITH the people, in their tough difficult struggles for justice, can progressive hope to win the confidence of the people. In this case, Nader can NEVER do so!!
The Democratic Party will not allow Obama to be for health care, peace, justice and prosperity for all. Obama is following orders that are coming down from the top - the corporations. The corporations own the U$A and the only way for the people to get it back is to vote for NADER. He has been standing up to the corporations all of his adult life.
NADER NADER NADER NADER NADER NADER NADER
tailcap August 6th, 2008 4:26 pm
That was great! It encapsulates the total argument in a blindinly simple tale that even I can follow.
Trouble is, I think the little shirt store is only offering one size and it can't be delivered before 2016.
I can fully understand how many people see inside Obama's slick, media-prepped exterior and see a hollow shell. He makes a good, inspiring speech, but let's face it, his experience is seriously lacking and it shows.
He is weak on economics. Some of his proposals will increase unemployment, keep people from economically rising as fast as they could, and increase prices.
He is weak on defense and on exactly how he is going to draw down Iraq and leave a stable country so we don't end up back there in a few years in worse shape. After his trip to Iraq, his statement that what he found confirmed his prior views was disturbing. Regardless of how or why we got into a situation, I expect a leader to gather as many of the facts first, then make a decision, not the other way around.
He is weak on energy. His latest announcement of our becoming independent of Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil is simply not credible. He is blowing smoke.
He has demonstrated contempt for the struggling lower middle classes, especially in rural areas.
For twenty years he had voluntarily associated himself with radical African Nationalists, whose racist ideas are repulsive to the vast majority of Americans.
Even his Senate seat was won by effective default by the implosion of his opponent's campaign over a divorce scandal.
I'm surprised the right hasn't swift boated him off stage already. Since he locked up the nomination, he has changed every single position he stood for to get nominated, and has even lied about it in some cases that only provided fodder for McCain's campaign staff. I checked. Obama lied about what he said, just like Bush.
I can understand how some think that a vote for Ralph Nader is the only honest vote. And I would not fault anyone for doing so. We know where he stands. It is not going to change. My problem is that he is not going to win.
I do admire McCain for a few reasons, one is that he is not a typical Republican. His work with Kennedy and Feingold indicate to me that he is not afraid to buck his party to do the right thing. If you watch him unprompted discussing war, you can see the pain on his face. He is no George Bush. McCain has some credibility, whereas we cannot believe anything Obama says because it will change next week. I almost feel as though Obama is some kind of puppet, but can't quite put my finger on who is pulling the strings. I have no such views of McCain. Unless McCain picks some bonehead for a VP or Obama straightens up and stays put on a position, I'm going to have to go with McCain too. Not that I like him, but I just don't trust Obama to be able to lead.
Here's an analysis of McCain v Obama's actual tax plans.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411741
I respect your point of veiw. Who knows maybe you're right. I dedicate this parable to Sir Thomas More.
BLOODY SHIRTS
Your friend needs a shirt. The Big Shirt Store at the mall offers two and only two types of dress shirts. A white shirt and a black one. The white shirt is made in China and the workmanship is shoddy. It has loose threads and all the seams are crooked and most of the buttons are loose and some are actually falling off.
The black shirt is made in Indochina and is SLIGHTLY better. Some of its seams are not crooked but almost half are. Some of its buttons are loose and and one is falling off. Both shirts are of inferior quality but the Black one is slightly better. Both are expensive and are bought "as is" with no refunds or returns.
Conclusion: I must buy the Black shirt because it's better than the white shirt and I only have two choices. The shirt must be purchased at the Big Shirt store at the mall. - WHY?
- WRONG!
You tell your friend: If you were to bother to shop at a smaller store down the street you'd see they are offering well made shirts at an affordable price. The workers that made these shirts don't work in sweat shops and are a much better deal all around. You also inform your friend that by not buying from the little guy they may just go out of business. You also mention that if we all start shopping at the Little Shirt Store they will be able to expand and start competing with the Big Shirt guys.
Next day, much to your dismay you run into your friend wearing a black shirt. He's busy, hunched and bent over on the ground, trying to find a button that just fell off his new shirt as a seam in the back starts to rip. You look down on him and say, "I told you so!"
Your friend, not getting it replies, "It's ok, I'll take it home to my wife who can sew the button back on and repair the ripped seam. It's still better than the white shirt."
You scratch your head, look down, and say, "Good luck" as you walk off.
tailcap August 6th, 2008 1:05 pm
"-pure lesser-evilism, saying Obama is better than McCain isn't saying much."
Absolutely! But thats your choice. If you sit out or vote third party you are voting for McCain, at least thats the real effect I foresee.
I'd like to point out to those concerned by the way, that if anyone says something you don't like about a candidate you favor, it doesn't mean they favor the other candidate.
Defenestrator August 6th, 2008 2:35 pm
-ok you got me! But the main reason a large number of progressives, leftists etc. refuse to vote for Obama is the war. Some can argue as you have about hedge funds, this, and that, but on the war I got YOU! The war is cut and dry. Sorry about calling you stupid.
.
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
.
.
.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
single payer national health insurance:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
No to nuclear power, solar energy first:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Open up the Presidential debates:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Adopt a carbon pollution tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Impeach Bush/Cheney:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Work to end corporate personhood:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
.
I say "Whoop-uh-dee-doo" because, as I argued on a different site yesterday, Congressional approval ratings will ALWAYS be relatively low. NOBODY actually LIKES Congress, yet everyone seems to like their own Congressmen, provided they are of the same party. My point is that were you to change one thing (Iraq or FISA, admittedly BIG things) and the approval rating would be 50% because everyone on the left and most of the center see those as two huge blunders. If, by some fluke, the GOP were to retake both houses AND the presidency in November, and THEN accomplish nothing different from the Dems except to enact even worse laws, the approval rating would be 30-40% if only because the Republicans would all approve.
Again, everyone always hates Congress and say we need to "kick the bums out" or whatever, but they always seem to re-elect their own, as if it's the guys from the OTHER states that are the problem.
(9% is terrible, don't get me wrong. Had they stood up and sent Bush some bills to make him follow through on his veto threats, you and I would approve more of their performance. The guy on the right, on the other hand, would disapprove just because Democrats control Congress. And I guarantee you a lot of people in the center would say, "So what if they tried to do this or that? Bush vetoed it, and they couldn't get it done. I don't approve."
And, again, it comes back to this: There are no other options. Yes, pick the progressive. But voting progressive when that vote helps a reactionary get elected does not result in progress.
tailcap-
Thanks for calling me stupid.
If you'd notice, the article above is about Hedge Funds. Stupid.
Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama's Economic Policy
http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-taps-wal-mart-defender-as-director/79665/
look, other than nader clinging to some bush like idea of executive power, ending corporate personhood and instating election reform with the stroke of a pen, backed by some truth telling and blindfold removal of the american people, i don't know how a third party president can make any changes to the system.
as you said, amitola, 'the election is still a ways off' and nader is an important fulcrum for us voters to lever these issues onto the table.
"Progressive Obama supporters, you better step up to the plate and start defending your guy in these blogs! Don't you want to hang on to the progressive votes??? Time to go to bat for Obama if you don't like what you are reading here." Well. That's the problem, isn't it? The reason why progressives are going less and less to "bat for Obama" is because more and more of them are getting it. How is a more and more right wing Obama going to hang on to progressive votes other than by convincing them that they have no other choice. Ah. But therein lies the rub. There IS at least one other choice. And this other choice's platform is everything that progressives could hope for. It makes absolutely no sense to vote for someone one doesn't want. Run Ralph. Run! And as for "But, in this very important election, voting for any of the 3rd party candidates running is essentially a vote for McCain and the status-quo". Bullshit. Voting for wither one of two corporate candidates is voting the status quo. Where have you been? Since when are Obama and his main mentor Zbigniew Brzezinski not the status quo?
huzzah August 6th, 2008 1:06 pm
"Yeah, Samson, forgive me for not being clear about it in my post, but I understand how approval ratings work. That 9% figure is for Congress as a whole ans judged by everyone in the country. Whoop-uh-dee-doo."
Whoop-uh-dee-doo? 91% of the people in the country disapprove of Congress which is controlled by the Democrats and your answer is Whoop-uh-dee-doo? That's like Cheney saying..So
Lobo Gris
Also kudos to: LOBO GRIS, USAN (interesting perspective), and HUZZAH.
RICH M: Bravo! (What an argument, so well nuanced!) I just threw you a symbolic/virtual rose.
huzzah August 6th, 2008 12:35 pm
"Why don't we take the sweet potato and try to make a nice souffle or pie? Because, you know, a good sweet potato souffle or sweet potato pie is better than a mediocre cake."
Because you're trying to change the rules after the fact, which you won't be able to do. Once you accept the sweet potato you get it as is. After the 06 election people tried to make sweet potato souffle and not only found out that they couldn't but that the sweet potato they had accepted was rotten and inedible.
Lobo Gris
Why vote for Obama?
1. A vote for Obama will not end the occupation.
2. Obama wants to increase military spending.
3. Obama's advisers want to keep Bush's Defense Secretary Roberts Gates.
4. Obama has wants more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones.
5. Obama wants to add an additional 90,000 troops.
6. Obama wants to intensify the war in Afghanistan.
7. Obama wants to keep over 50,000 troops in Iraq to guard "our" oil.
amitola August 6th, 2008 1:02 pm writes, "voting for any of the 3rd party candidates running is essentially a vote for McCain and the status-quo."
-so in what way is voting for Obama not voting for the status-quo. He is backe by the status-quo even more than Obama. What have the Democrats done to change the status-quo?
This is what Democrats have done:
1) Refuse to stop funding the war
2) Refuse to impeach Bush
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers into the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10) Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here:_____________________________________.
Yeah, Samson, forgive me for not being clear about it in my post, but I understand how approval ratings work. That 9% figure is for Congress as a whole ans judged by everyone in the country. Whoop-uh-dee-doo. My point is that Republicans are going to disapprove of a Democratically-controlled Congress regardless of what it does or does not do, while we on the left are going to disapprove because of what it has failed to do. Example: I disapprove of the fact that Congress hasn't really done anything to stop Bush's war, and Republicans disapprove of Congress because the Dems' official position is against the war.
AllTogetherNow... August 6th, 2008 12:55 pm writes, "obama is still better than mccain"
-pure lesser-evilism, saying Obama is better than McCain isn't saying much.
When I pick up a rotten apple I throw it away, I don't inspect it to see if it has some tiny part that is not rotten so I can nibble on it while trying desperately to avoid the rotten areas. Lesser-evilism gives you a lesser. Guaranteed or you get your money back.
I'm just wondering, how will a Nader or a McKinney (or whatever presidential 3rd party person you wish for) going to make all of these amazing changes with a Congress filled with mostly Democrats (and some Republicans), and a Supreme Court stocked up with right wing freaks?
There is no doubt our country is in deep-do-do, and we need to make radical changes to our political system. But, in this very important election, voting for any of the 3rd party candidates running is essentially a vote for McCain and the status-quo. With him elected, you can count on 100 more years of continuous war, further erosion of our Constitutional rights, a financial collapse, etc.
So, right now I'm still thinking I'll have to hold my nose and vote for Obama. The election is still a ways off - we have to get through the conventions and then so-called "debates," and lots more pundit crap before that. Anything can happen between now and then. Frankly, I'm expecting a September or October "Surprise" - then Cheney and Dubya can declare a national emergency, cancel the election, put that creepy Chertoff in charge of the FEMA camps, throwing the lot of us who post on these sites in them while they pillage the rest of the country and world! Call me crazy.......
fine, work within the system, you want to move the democratic party to the left?
work on it during the election season. thats when its being pulled to the right.
to say obama is still better than mccain, doesn't move him to the left.
to say he's not as good as nader...
dougnwagner August 6th, 2008 8:25 am writes, "...for beginning to roll back the last 8 years than the quixotic musings of the unrealistic left..."
-what he seems to not understand is that without the Democrats we wouldn't need to be rolling back 8 years! What have the Democrats done to stop 8 years of Bush? Absolutely nothing but cowardly cave in after capitulation. Nor is he going to understand it.
Why do the Democrats insist impeachment is off the table? How do you get around that? What kind of mental gymnastics do you need to preform? How can you not conclude Democrats are traitors and instead conclude, "The Democrats will save us! Vote for Obama!"
Remaining with Democrats is like staying in an abusive relationship for the sake of the stockholders and the CEO.
UnionGuy is right on two counts:
1) Rants and criticism of the overall party policies don't solve the problem of strategic voting. (More below)
2) Strategic voting is not so much about the individual who wins the presidency, as about the possibility of negotiating some breathing space for the sectors of US society most affected by neoliberal and neocon policies.
Having said that, UnionGuy should remember that it was under Clinton that neoliberal policies most harmful to organized labour were implemented. Still, that damage is somewhat reversible, but a continuation of the right-wing Republican agenda, particularly with regard to the next Supreme Court appointments, would have long-term devastating effects.
Get another Democrat into the White House, make sure an effective majority of the most progressive people are voted into Congress (this includes opposing conservative Dems and tacitly supporting liberal Republicans, if there are any left, and actively supporting progressive Independents) and push like hell to give Congress back the power that has been illegitimately been concentrated in the executive by W & Co., because it's going to be very, very tempting for the next president to hold on to all that newly accumulated power.
Your work is cut out for you as citizens of a nation in crisis. And progressive congresspersons and potential staffers need all the backing and push from the citizenry to get into office and to remain faithful to their promises.
Put your energy into being watchdogs during the campaign and at the polls and fighting like hell to protect voters from being disenfranchised, be vigilant against fraud, counter every lie and innuendo in the msm by taking out paid ads (lots of time and legwork to raise the money!) and writing and calling msm outlets, including organizing boycotts of advertisers. Use all the means at your disposal but only to support progressives. If there is a strong Congress able to override presidential vetoes and McCain gets in (cleanly or not), half the battle is won.
If people want to build the third party the US needs so badly, they shouldn't be doing it at the 11th hour on the eve of an election, facing all the hostility and silence of the MSM and the understandable reluctance of a majority who still believe in the present electoral system.
It's crazy to invest so much time and effort in even the most wonderful candidates like McKinney and Nader when grassroot efforts are needed to hold all candidates for office accountable and to expose fraud, intimidation and lies at every turn.
Good luck, dear neighbours.
"In fact cake will never be offered as long as you're willing to settle for either turnips or a sweet potato."
That may be, but we have to eat, and the way the system is set up if we refuse the sweet potato we get force-fed the turnip. Why don't we take the sweet potato and try to make a nice souffle or pie? Because, you know, a good sweet potato souffle or sweet potato pie is better than a mediocre cake.
Thomas More … please don't lie. McKinney is running on the Green Party ticket and the Green party has been building a 'foundation' over the last three or so elections and will continue to do so.
That was my opinion. I don't ever lie, so I hope you were just overheated in your support of the Green Party.
There is absolutely no realistic chance of the Green Party candidate winning, nor is there any chance of building a national party foundation in the near future.
I'd suggest to you that we just disagree, not that I'm a liar.
PS ... and this from the same article. Now ask the question, how many progressives get weekly phone calls with campaign officials? Welcome to the Obama White House. If you've got hundreds of thousands of dollars to give, you get a voice. The rest of you are going to be out in the streets with the rest of us wondering how you could be fooled so badly.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10108268
"Finance-committee members participate in conference calls with top campaign officials every other week. The fundraisers meet quarterly, often with Obama dropping in. He lingered after the most recent meeting in June in Chicago, telling his staff he wanted to thank every person in the room. Some fundraisers who knocked on doors for Obama in such places as Indiana, Iowa and Pennsylvania got to spend time with Obama backstage before and after speeches on primary nights."
After being disgusted with the bull from the Democrats, I went to the local corporate newspaper. And even they can't miss the key part of the story.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10108268
Big fish supply large chunk of Obama's funds
...
But records show that one-third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more — a total of $112 million, more than Sen. John McCain, Obama's Republican rival, or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries, raised in contributions of that size.
Behind those larger donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama "bundlers," fundraisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000 each, including more than half a dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fundraisers.
-------
Smells just like a Dubya campaign to me. Same crap.
If someone has been running for President for 2 years and at this time there 'are many questions to answer', then all that indicates is that someone is hiding from giving the answers.
Go look at where he's raised his $350 million dollars and you'll know the answers. Obama's problem is that he has to stay vague because if he said what he's going to do for the people who've given him the $350 million dollars, no one else with any sense would vote for him.
Actually, that 9% is the people who APPROVE of the Congress. I'm guessing that's mainly the mothers of congresscritters and the people who've bought them with bribes, uh contributions.
Pretty much the rest of the country is united in thinking that they've done a very sorry job.
-------------
Thomas More ... please don't lie. McKinney is running on the Green Party ticket and the Green party has been building a 'foundation' over the last three or so elections and will continue to do so.
Gawd Democrats really will say anything to get people to vote for their awful, really-a-Republican candidate.
porterk August 6th, 2008 9:31 am
I wanted to say that Senator Obama has many questions to answer and questions about him don't indicate anything but his lack of answers.
Lobo, that 9% includes Republicans who are going to disapprove of ANY Democrat-controlled Congress, REGARDLESS of what it has or has not done. Do I disapprove of this Congress? Sure, but basically because they haven't stood up to stop the war in Iraq or things like the FISA vote. Does that mean I'd rather have a GOP-controlled Congress? Not a chance in Hell!
unionguy August 6th, 2008 8:50 am
"The times are shifting. People are extremely angry at the GOP/corporate forces running the nation.
I would say you are exactly correct. Even most conservatives are disgusted with these guys.
I'm don't know that much about Nader or McKinney except that they have no chance of winning and there won't be any foundation laid for a third party by supporting them.
Rich and some others are fond of talking about "thelesseroftwoevils", but thats what it amounts to. Choose Obama or McCain. One of the two will be President. The reality is that voting for anyone but Obama is essentially a vote for McCain in my opinion.
considerthis August 6th, 2008 9:36 am
Sums up the reality of the situation nicely. I believe Rich is right. The big money folks have lined up behind Obama. Doesn't mean he will win. But in any case its a choice between two people that aren't cake.
God damn it. I am so sick of all this shit. Did someone actually post way up at the top that, basically, a McCain presidency would be enough to guarantee us a truly progressive candidate in 2012? I heard the same thing in 2000 after Bush "won". And again after the 2004 election. It seems that we are being pushed toward the edge of a cliff. Now we have two choices. One guy will push us just as fast as we are going now, and the other will push slower or stop pushing. Evidently many here are willing to be pushed to the edge in the hopes that maybe the guy who will actually pull us away from the cliff will be popular in four years. If I'm teetering on the edge, I'm far more willing to settle for the guy who just won't push me. For all those that WANT to be pushed, if only in the hope that Nader or whoever will be able to win in 2012 -- Isn't it a huge assumption that there will even BE an election in 2012? I mean, the likelihood of World War III n a McCain presidency is substantially increased. I'm talking perpetual, large-scale war. Likely involving a draft and/or nuclear weapons. I wouldn't be surprised, given the expansion of executive power under the current administration, to see a hardcore sedition act and martial law in such a situation, complete with the suspension of the next election. Hey, it's no more hyperbolic than the assertions that Obama is a murderer -- assertions many here evidently have taken to heart.
People talk about the system being broken. Someone said that the reason Nader hasn't been successful politically is that the machine is rigged against him. EXACTLY! That's why he'll never win! So you can fix the system, either by working within the Democratic Party to push the party to the left, or by working at the local and state levels to build the Green Party's stature, something the Greens, as has been mentioned, have been lax in doing. The only other option is to replace the system, which involves armed revolution. Good luck with that...
And someone said that Bush was not their President, since they didn't vote for him. Nice sentiment, and one I'd agree with, were it not for the fact that the guy has had a direct influence on all our lives for the past 7 1/2 years. I don't care if you respect the man or not, but he occupies a powerful office, and all the clusterfuck that is his administration has had a sweeping effect on all our country.
If you want to vote Nader, then fine. I might do so myself. Or McKinney. It will depend on how close Obama and McCain are in my state. I encourage anyone who is in a battleground state to vote for Obama. Trade your vote with an Obama supporter from a state that's not going to be competitive. But if you vote live in a swing state and vote Nader, and the Nader votes in your state swing your state to McCain which gives him the Oval Office? Well, as we're falling from that cliff I'll be watching to see how many times you can pat yourself on the back before we are splattered on the rocks below.
Defenestrator August 6th, 2008 11:32 am
It's the war stupid!
Did anybody bother to read my post from Forbes Magazine?
They state that McCain is clearly better than Obama for Hedge Fund managers' institutional priorities. I guess nobody wanted to hear that.
Obama is evil Obama is evil Obama is evil!
"tetti-tatti" Can't resist? Have to get into Obama's skin color?
Yes, BECAUSE YOU ARE A RASCIST.
"Obama is McCain with a tan." What an ugly, rascist comment. Go swill some more Budweiser. Are your KKK dues paid up?
Eff Rascists. P.S. It always showed inside your hatred. (Calling Obama the Anti-Christ.)
You got a Confederate Flag and Swastika in you living room?
Eat Me.
considerthis August 6th, 2008 9:36 am
"Let's take a look at reality. We've been offered either a turnip or a sweet potato. A lot of us would rather have cake. Cake is not being offered at this time."
In fact cake will never be offered as long as you're willing to settle for either turnips or a sweet potato.
Lobo Gris
dougnwagner August 6th, 2008 5:44 am writes "Obama opposed the Iraq War when it mattered, in 2002."
-this statement made me lol. When Obama's vote didn't count is when he opposed war, when he became a US Senator the Republicans could count on his loyal support of the war.
Obama's "antiwar" speech:
"I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."
So you see, even when he so-called opposed war he didn't. Now Obama is pushing for more carnage in Afghanistan, more troops, more helecopters, and more Predator Drones for use in a "smart war".
-Anyone believing a vote for Obama is a vote against war is an imbecile.
#
porterk August 6th, 2008 9:31 am
"This article, and many of the comments here, must be the product of far-right-wing lurkers sabotaging Obama's campaign. Are you all McCain supporters, or what? Because that's exactly what you're going to get - McCain as president. The stupidity I see here is breathtaking."
Not nearly as breathtaking as your own stupidity in believing that continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils, which is the choice you are presenting, will bring about any change.
Lobo Gris
unionguy August 6th, 2008 8:50 am
"The times are shifting. People are extremely angry at the GOP/corporate forces running the nation. Change is in the wind. If progressive forces do not take advantage of the positive condidtions, the political winds will quickly shift again, against us"
In fact the Congress which is controlled by the Democrats has a 9%, let me repeat that, a 9% approval rating which is significantly lower than even Bush's.
Lobo Gris
considerthis (9:36 am) paints his idea of the "difference" between the 2 big business candidates as: "..... it's McCain or Obama. Search your soul — war or trying to avoid war; corporate gluttony or people have a chance to survive; …add your own….. Then make your choice."
- A more honest portrait would be along the lines of: "...war (mainly in Iraq) or war (mainly shifted over to Afghanistan); corporate gluttony, or corporate gluttony (with perhaps an extra crumb or two tossed to those who are going under)... add your own, then make your choice (which won't matter anyway, because the choice has already been made by the Big Money Guys, in accord with what THEY think best serves their own interests)..."
Obama has already shown that he accepts the "War on Terror" framework for US foreign policy, hook, line & sinker. He fully intends to continue it -- & hasn't expressed the slightest reservation or skepticism about it. That war is IN PRINCIPLE an endless war that can be fought ANYWHERE. It is also in principle a lie, because its purpose is not "fighting terrorism," but rather projecting US military power to resource-rich regions. To claim that an advocate of a "war" like this is "trying to avoid war" is just flat out dishonest.
considerthis,
Our concerns about Obama is not that he is imperfect; we can't find ANYTHING in him that will further left/progressive/labor causes. He will be another Bill Clinton.
A in this remark:
"I spent more and more of my time above the fray, outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality, and frequent hardship of the other 99 percent of the population."
Can't you see the stunning, arrogant, elitism in this remark? It sounds like something out of Victorian England! Yeah, sure, trust only only the well dressed yuppie elite to stay above the fray and thereby make sound policy decisions that the stupid lower 99 percent working stiff are incapable of!
Understand?
Obama = McCain with a tan.
Don't be fooled by yet another corporate-owned and financed DemocRAT.
VOTE NADER. VOTE MCKINNEY.
Let's take a look at reality. We've been offered either a turnip or a sweet potato. A lot of us would rather have cake. Cake is not being offered at this time.
I am so tired of supposed progressives/liberals degrading Obama for not being perfect or all things to everyone. The reality is, it's McCain or Obama. Search your soul -- war or trying to avoid war; corporate gluttony or people have a chance to survive; ...add your own..... Then make your choice.
This article, and many of the comments here, must be the product of far-right-wing lurkers sabotaging Obama's campaign. Are you all McCain supporters, or what? Because that's exactly what you're going to get - McCain as president. The stupidity I see here is breathtaking.
Rich---
I do appreciate your attempts to put an argument together to deal with the issues at hand, instead of just ranting.
Hoowever, again, the question I ask is what strategic plan the Naderites have that can help bring about changes now. The times are shifting. People are extremely angry at the GOP/corporate forces running the nation. Change is in the wind. If progressive forces do not take advantage of the positive condidtions, the political winds will quickly shift again, against us. The point I make is that the ability to make actual change possible, we need to create condidtions that make it possible. In our system, at this time, that reguires a huge coalition, and the defeat of the ultra-right (at this time, the GOP). This does not guarantee anything, but creates the possiblity for the huge progressive movement to win.
I also favor a new, labor based progressive political party of the people. Nader is not, nor will he ever be, the base for that develop, when it occurs. I was a founding member of the Labor Party, was a delegate for Jesse in the 80's, and am now working with the Working Families Party, which does have an actual base in the labor movement. A BASE is what is reguired to create a real break away movement. Any real third party must have a strong base in org'd labor, the African American and Latino communities, women's movements. Nader has NONE of these, nor will be ever. He is viewed in these key areas as a SCAB, a splitter who does have any concern for the real problems of real people. That view will be much further impressed on the people as a whole, (disspite the feelings of those among his ultra-left supporters). Further, a new political movement/party must come from somewhere, in this case out of the massive existing movement for change. If a new Obama administration is elected, on a platform of change, then fails to live up to it, the huge labor-led people's movment fighting for change provides that base.
Of course, the other possiblility, and one I tend to think more likely, is that the huge movement could actually succeed in winning changes needed by the people. This doesn't meet the ideological box that Nader's ultra-left supporters are trying to artifically jam the true political conditions and the huge people's movement into. Nader, by helping Bush/GOP/corporate forces defeat the people's asperations for change, actually and dramaticallly set back possibilities for a new political party.
Political conditions develop that can bring rise to movments that can qualitatively change our nation. This is one of those times. Only massive, wide and strong unity of the people can take advantage of those conditions. The Obama movement, with its weaknesses, does represent a movement that can take adavantage of those possibilities. Let's be honest here, Nader had abolutely NO base that can unite the people.
We will continue to build this huge labor led people's movment to fight for change, before and after the elections. Hopefully, after the election, there will be a more progressive majorities in the House/Senate and Obama is President. This will be a govt. that it will be possible to push to pass labor law reforms, an end to the war, Green new jobs and a jobs program to rebuild our nation and natl health care. It won't be easy, but it will be possible. With a McCain administration, it will be impossible. We will remain on the defensive and will face years of trying to fight off attacks. Nader, meanwhile, will be viewed by the wide people's mvoement with discust and hatred!
Please, please, please deal with the times that we now face, that demand a people's movement for change! Don't write about what Nader "says," let's (PLEASE) look at what results are. The people are demanding changes. I'd laid out where the massive labor-led people's movement is and what our strategic plan to help fight for it, bring it about, are. As yet, I have not seen one, single piece that can, in any way, show how Nader can do anything by running to help create conditions that can help bring about any needed changes for the people. I feel that many of the Nader supporters just don't really care, don't feel any responsibility to to people of our nation!
Just in case anyone here is interested in the 'real' Obama, what follows is his anti environmental record: not only is he a flip flopper and Hack but out to destroy the Earth on behalf of his corporate handlers in the coal, nuclear and bio fuel industries.
In May of 1998, Obama voted for a Bill condemning the Kyoto Treaty while in the Illinois Senate.
Obama pays lip service to the issue of environmental sustainability (no argument here) saying that climate change is "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation." Yet while he was an Illinois state Senator he supported numerous Bills drafted on behalf of the Coal Industry according to legislative records. He also acknowledged his very strong support for coal during his run for the US Senate in 2004 by affirming in a speech, "There is always going to be a role for coal."
Furthermore, Obama's campaign has accepted contributions from the coal industry to the tune of $539,597.00 for both Presidential and Senate campaigns as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics.
A key feature of Obama's environmental plan calls for "technologies to reduce coal emissions." But any authentic environmentalist will tell you of the scope of obfuscation in his statement: in the words of Meg Boyle (Global Warming Policy expert for Green Peace) recently noted, "Those technologies are risky and expensive" and "They cannot deliver in time to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change." Nor are they support by the Coal Industry who would need to implement them to be effective. Obama's environmental agenda is what is called "green washing" of which he and his handlers have become masters. The lip service environmentalists you might find on this site believe the tripe ad nausea.
Frank O'Donnell, President of the non-partisan Clean Air Watch noted that Obama is "Trying to straddle two political irreconcilable positions: taking decisive action against global warming while keeping a healthy coal industry" and "Obama's record certainly suggests that environmentalists aren't going to be calling the shots in his Administration without input from the [coal] industry."
In the Illinois State Senate Obama cast the following votes:
1997, he voted to divert sales taxes to fund grants to reopen closed mines.
2001, Voted for legislation that offered 3.5 billion in loan guarantees to build coal fired power plants with no concomitant protections to control carbon emissions.
2003, he voted to allow 300 million in taxpayer backed bonds to build or expand coal fired power plants
In 2005 in the US Senate, Obama voted for a Bill opposed by most Democrats which contained 9 billion in Coal subsidies.
In 2007, Obama sponsored a Bill calling for 8 billion in subsidies to a technology to convert coal to liquid fuel which the Sierra Club said that liquid coal, "releases almost double the global warming emissions per gallon as regular gasoline."
Obama's Presidential campaign asserts his views on coal, nuclear, and bio fuels. All of which are hostile to our Earth Mother. Nuclear has never resolved the spent fuel problem, i.e., radioactive waste outlives the containers they are stored in by hundreds of years, and the current political solution is to bury the waste. With regard to bio fuels, as more arable land transitions to higher paying crops for bio fuels, thus taking away land for food crops, food prices will soar, and worldwide starvation increase. Bio fuels also create as many unsustainable results as fossil fuels.
Obama, like McCain are both against the environment and whose policy objectives will diminish life on planet Earth. Hope may get a lot of mileage in the belt way where most of the herd feeds from the same polluted trough, but it has nothing to do with the reality of Obama and his contradictory and anti environmental record.
Please consider the election is less than a 100 days away, you can hold on to your strategy until you elect Ralph Nader in 2080 and it wouldn't make a difference. For now, in this moment, supporting Barack Obama and electing progressives to office and passing legislation like the Patriotic Employmers Act, tying minimum wage to inflation (an Obama proposal), and passing the Employee Free Choice Act is more important for beginning to roll back the last 8 years than the quixotic musings of the unrealistic left for Naderism- who didn't run as a Green in 2004.
to those who believe that not backing obama is a vote for mccain...
please concider it is early august, you can hold on to your strategy until november.
for now, in this moment, supporting the strongest third party candidate seems the best way to forward the issues we all believe in.
dougnwagner August 6th, 2008 5:44 am
"Obama opposed the Iraq War when it mattered, in 2002."
Are you saying it doesn't matter now? Obama has voted for every funding bill for the war, wants to expand the military and has a position on Iraq that is identical to McCain's.
"We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control. The fallout from the housing crisis that's cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle."
"It's a Washington where George Bush hands out billions in tax cuts year after year to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest few who don't need them and don't ask for them – tax breaks that are mortgaging our children's future on a mountain of debt; tax breaks that could've gone into the pockets of the working families who needed them most."
And it is the Democrats that stood there right along with the Republicans and passed the bills that allowed it to happen
"The Republicans who controlled the Senate last year refused to let it come up"
The Republicans did not control the Senate last year the Democrats have since the 06 election with a 51/49 majority.
""It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits"
Clinton, a democrat was president when all of that happened and in fact when NAFTA was passed the Democrats controlled congress too.
Bottom line, the Democrats are just as if not more guilty of all of the issues you bring up
Lobo Gris
And as for Obama's "Harvard" upbrigning:
"In a campaign in which Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has made liberal use of his globe-trotting 96-year-old mother to answer suspicions that he might be an antique at 71, Mr. Obama, who declined to be interviewed for this article, invokes his mother's memory sparingly. In one television advertisement, she appears fleetingly — porcelain-skinned, raven-haired and holding her toddler son. "My mother died of cancer at 53," he says in the ad, which focuses on health care. "In those last painful months, she was more worried about paying her medical bills than getting well."
'A Very, Very Big Thinker'
He has described her as a teenage mother, a single mother, a mother who worked, went to school and raised children at the same time. He has credited her with giving him a great education and confidence in his ability to do the right thing. But, in interviews, friends and colleagues of Ms. Soetoro shed light on a side of her that is less well known.
"She was a very, very big thinker," said Nancy Barry, a former president of Women's World Banking, an international network of microfinance providers, where Ms. Soetoro worked in New York City in the early 1990s. "I think she was not at all personally ambitious, I think she cared about the core issues, and I think she was not afraid to speak truth to power."
"A Free-Spirited Wanderer Who Set Obama's Path"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14obama.html