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.
I’ve not been fooled by Obama. His ties to big money and old politicos from past adminsitrations are serious concerns. But, what’s our choice?? McCain??!!?? In this propaganda-enriched political environment, there will never be enough folks convinced to vote for any “third-party” candidates currently running (Nader, Barr, Harold Stassen is dead, I think).
So, many of us will have to hold our noses and vote for Oabama and try to believe that he may do something to turn the tide of this country away from it’s slide into fascism.
Even though I think he has many flaws, at least it will be a relief to have someone in the oval office who can speak the language.
What we really need to do is change the way we elect presidents and congresspeople. Only limited public financing should be allowed and we need to ensure the participation of more political parties. There is no way we’ll be able to break free from the mess we’re in if we don;t make some radical changes to the system. It’s up to us, the People, to stand u and do something to make that happen, as the folks in Congress aren’t going to vote themsleves off the gravy train.
Per a recent Nader/Gonzalez 2008 email:
“As we move toward November, and as Obama reveals himself to be the corporate candidate that he is, a significant portion of the American electorate will demand an alternative.
That’s why it is so important to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in as many states as possible.
And that is the important ground work we are completing now.
Come September, we will be in a position to demand open debates.
And present the American people with a viable candidacy that will shift the power from the corporations back into the hands of the American people.”
Nader/Gonzalez 2008
A deliciously accurate article, exposing the essential phoniness of Obama — the darling of the Big Money Guys, posturing as the “candidate of change.”
The iron-grip of the plutocracy on the political system has once again succeeded in producing a “race” between 2 pro-plutocrat pro-war candidates, separated only by relatively minor distinctions. For instance, as MacArthur points out, McCain is the “more honestly pro-plutocrat” candidate — but Obama is clearly “pro-plutocrat” enough for the hedge fund guys, & the boys at Goldman Sachs.
“It doesn’t matter who they vote for they’ll be voting for us.”
We have been lead to believe there is a difference between the 2 parties, when in reality they are both just puppets. Hand picked ‘choices’ for us to ‘choose’ from.
If they keep us believing that if we vote for the other one it will make a difference, then they have a few more years to accomplish their goals.
Its a divide and conquer strategy. A united public is harder to manipulate and control.
What is astonishing is that the ‘true believers’ casting their votes for Obama will be voting against their own values based on the mistaken beliefs about the record of the man. The authentic progressives actually look at the Cat’s record, his voting history, and follow the corporate cash, but no amount of factual information will induce his disciples to renounce him. Furthermore, the Green platform and Nader’s platform actually carry forward their values like repudiating corporate cash, end the occupation of ALL TROOPS, limiting the influence of special interests like hedge funds, restoring our rights, protecting the environment with authentic sustainable solutions, and on it goes in issue after issue. The irony of holding up Obama as an exemplar (as we are discovering) is misguided foolery. My guess is the sheeple will not wake up until we reach economic collapse or widespread suffering of an order of magnitude not seen in human history. Oh well, you can lead a cow to water, but you cannot make them drink it.
Amitola (1:09 PM):
“So, many of us will have to hold our noses and vote for Oabama and try to believe that he may do something to turn the tide of this country away from it’s slide into fascism.
Even though I think he has many flaws, at least it will be a relief to have someone in the oval office who can speak the language.”
These two sentences encapsulate very well why I will NOT be one of the “many of us” to hold my nose and vote for Obama, as I did for Kerry in 04. Contrary to Amitola and countless other “progressives,” I believe that Obama will do MORE than McCain to promote the country’s tidal wave toward fascism…and precisely because he DOES “speak the language”…or rather a language that is more dangerous in the slide toward fascism. The language that he speaks is a rare dialect called Faux-Progressivism, the language that reassures comfortable Americans that their comfort has nothing to do with the country’s malaise, that it’s ok for them to get “comfortable” as did Obama with the wealthy and powerful and not think about how the behaviors of their buddies in the corporate elite are living off the misery of the “classes.” The language puts a smiley face on fascism that tongue-tied linguists like Bush or McCain could not hope to do. As McArthur argues and Amitola agrees, there substantively is no difference between Obama and McCain but linquistically and stylistically there is a world of difference, and it’s a difference that dovetails with the plutocracy of celebrity associated with the “friendly” likes of Winfrey, Gates and Soros.
So right, if push came to shove I’d prefer the stolid McCain to the seductive Obama, but of course I’m not willing to limit my electoral choices to these two “evil” alternatives. Any vote for a decent third party alternative (even a dead Harold Stassen if all else fails) would be a blow for that reform in the “way we elect Presidents” that Amitola and I both support. Such a neither- of-the-above vote would start the ball rolling toward a situation in which the fascist-oriented parties would have to pay attention to reforming the “way we elect Presidents” or risk becoming irrelevant to the expectations of the people. If this result were to come out of the 2008 election we might yet see this election as a turning point in the world history of a movement away from fascism. a movement in which “we the people” and not “they the plutocrats” began to recapture control of our country as the people have begun to do in some many other countries around the world. Well, maybe not, but that’s MY form of “hope” for this election.
Amitola: “But, what’s our choice?? McCain??!!?? In this propaganda-enriched political environment, there will never be enough folks convinced to vote for any “third-party” candidates currently running”
So you are smart enough to see through Obama, but “others” won’t be convinced, so you must vote for Obama?
Then you say we must change the way we elect presidents and congresspeople, but you note that they won’t vote themselves off the gravytrain. Of course, you, voting for Obama and the Democrats, won’t vote them off the gravy train either.
As you seem to be unclear on which third party candidates are living, and which dead, maybe you could take this opportunity to brush up on their platforms. You may find that you are more in tune with the Greens, McKinney and Nader than you think.
My initial hope was that Obama would indeed be the “candidate of change.” The more I hear of his positions and his votes the more disappointed I become. Despite worsening conditions for most of society we still have a ways to go before we hit bottom. And I don’t think the populace will rise up and demand real change in the form of social equity and justice until that happens. It’s a gamble, but electing McCain would hasten our slide into the neo-conservative gutter which could lead to a real “canditate of change” in 2012.
Surprise! Not. Run Ralph. Run!
Centralization of energy is finally coming to be seen as a bad thing by the public. Now people need to realize that centralization of everything else, government in particular, can be just as bad.
Many of us are noticing that the representative system and centralized government turns every political candidate into a money/power grubbing whore. More from the necessity to win than by conviction.
McCain is conservative oligarchy. Obama is a liberal outsider who can only win if the oligarchy allows it. It decides who wins depending on who will profit them in the long run. They might have to throw the people a few crumbs to quiet them down, but the oligarchy’s grip on government remains. Obama like the rest of us, is today totally at their mercy.
Unfortunately, all politicians including Obama continue trying to bridge the gap between rich and poor using the oligarchy’s preferred method of raising or lowering taxes, when the oligarchy itself writes the tax laws.
There are better ways, like direct democracy by the referendum, or incorporating We the People, but these are seldom if ever discussed in a media that forms public opinion and give legitimacy to an issue. I’ve mentioned these many times with little or no response.
Senator Gravel’s National Initiative for Democracy got almost no response. The oligarch media didn’t pick up on it during his candidacy just as they didn’t pick up on McCain’s calling his wife the “c” word.
I’m still reading “The Audacity of Hope”. It’s really the only way to know what how the man thinks. So far, I like what he says quite a bit. It’s one thing to listen to his interpreters here and everywhere and another to see what the man himself thinks firsthand. His intelligence brings out the idiot in Bush/McCain.
His book gives me the audacity of hope.
BTW, the oligarchy’s party is fixing the polls so both candidates will seem to be running a close race. That way, when they steal this election, people will think it’s reasonable that McCain won. After all, they were running neck and neck.
Prescription for fixing a broken democracy:
1) Instant runoff elections
2) Campaign and election period limited to 3 months (the Brits do it) to get everyone off
this perpetual ongoing campaign that has become a diversion from putting real issues front center
3) Limit amount of campaign funding per candidate
4) ABOLISH POLITICAL TV ADS! Only allow candidates to speak (in standard medium shots) to explain their platform and policies without making reference to their rivals.
This will eliminate negative advertising!!! It will also take away the MARKETIZATION of
candidates (i.e. images, soft music, flags waving, symbols, etc) and will only broadcast facts. To that end, a rigorous fact-checking entity will screen candidate speeches for
any lies and manipulative tactics.
5) ABOLISH K STREET. Make it illegal for any lobbyist to have access to politicians—including providing ANY perks or indirect gifts (private jets, restaurant dining, etc).
6) TERM LIMITS!!!
7) Close down the REVOLVING DOOR of congressmen/senators working for think tanks and other high-paying (bribing) industries once the congressman retires.
The common denominator between all the above points is MONEY$$$$$!
Pavroviandog: “Campaign and election period limited to 3 months”
It’s crazy how long US elections are. A problem with your suggestion here is that with a set election date as in the US, where everyone knows when it will take place, such a plan would be hard to enforce. In Britain, the date is uncertain, that is why parties can’t stay in permanent campaign mode. When the US separated from the UK, they should not have thrown out the baby with the bath water.
A top tax rate of 39.6%?!! Are you kidding me? Is that the definition of the wealthy paying their fair share? Don’t make me laugh!!
Another Obama exposure- thanks John R. MacArthur. Another nail in the black coffin labeled, “HOPE 2008″.
“…the accommodating Obama looks like a better bet than the more honestly pro-plutocrat McCain.”
-good point, John McCain in an unapologetic warmongering plutocrat that defends the interests of his supporters.
Obama is a waffling, confused phony. He wants to be at once for the war and against it, for civil rights but capitulates on FISA, both for and against nuclear power and offshore oil drilling. What does the man actually believe?
Honestly, McCain is more honest about his evil intentions. Obama wants to straddle a fence and have one foot on each side of an issue. He has become blind buy his ambition to become president. He will probably lose because he seems dishonest.
Obama says this but then does that. My father (R.I.P.) taught me that the most important thing you have, and something no one can take away from you, is your word. Obama has none and stands for nothing, not even Black folks.
From Forbes:
“Traditionally, investment managers have funded fiscally conservative presidential candidates who promise to keep taxes low and regulation at bay.
McCain would appear to fit that mold better than Obama. McCain wants to keep in place President George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which are set to expire at the the end of 2010, and he would double a $3,500 deduction for parents.
Obama would let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making more than $250,000 per year. He proposes a $500 per person tax credit and would eliminate taxes for elderly people making less than $50,000 per year.
Some managers in the $2 trillion hedge fund industry say they are concerned that an Obama administration would lead to a tougher regulatory climate, citing Obama’s recent call for tighter regulation on oil speculators, including hedge funds.
But his plans for healthcare and education are resonating with many in the industry who say those issues are more crucial to the economy and their own pocketbooks than tax cuts and tighter regulation of their industry.”
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.
Looks like Senator Obama isn’t so much about change afterall; men will say and do almost anything to get what they want. We women, like fools, go along with the slick; just like a one-night stand; get screwed and no dinner.
I am, like a number of other Hillary supporters, just waiting for the deeds of change, not just the words of change. If these Obama reversals continue, I will have to write-in my vote for Hilliary Clinton on election day in November.
Support Obama, support the status quo, believe TV and mainstream media. Whatever you do, don’t take off the blinders. As long as we get a democrat in the presidency, all our problems will be solved. Bill Clinton was a great president, Ronald Reagan was a great president.
The Audacity of Hope should be followed up with The Audacity of the 2008 Election. It will be about the audacity of anyone challenging the status quo and thinking that they should vote third party.
I hope nobody who supports Obama actually had the audacity to look at his voting record.
Americans do not vote for a president, they vote against the other candidate and hedge their support to endorse a likely winner. The primaries were indicative that the Democratic Party base does not endorse Clinton policies – if given the choice. Voting against John McClain (yippie-ty-yay, mofo) may be the only choice this time and voting against Rush may be the only choice in 2012, but the only way the Democratic Party can get in front of the ball in the long run is to recognize the demand for a New Deal-type reform of the nation through government taking active control over business and its leaders.
You progressives really want a McCain administration dont you? Keep on talking Green and that is what you will get.
Vote Nader. or else vote McKinney. Or else vote socialist.
Don’t come home on election day and tell your children and your grandchildren that you voted for a party and a candidate who has ABSOLUTELY NO PLAN, NO INTENTION, NO INCLINATION WHATSOEVER to stop the madness of “politics as usual.”
There are serious problems that need to be solved. And neither party is anywhere *near* solving them.
You’re ok with that???
.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/04/natural-law-party-puts-nader-on-michigan-ballot/
Natural Law Party Puts Nader on Michigan Ballot - August 4th, 2008
On July 30, 2008, the Michigan Natural Law Party nominated Ralph Nader for president, and submitted the needed paperwork. Nader is now listed on the Michigan Secretary of State’s webpage as a presidential candidate. The Natural Law Party nationally went out of existence in 2004, but the Michigan party continues to run candidates and polled enough votes to remain on the ballot in both 2004 and 2006. In 2004 the Michigan Natural Law Party had nominated Walt Brown (Socialist Party) for president.
.
You progressives really want a McCain administration dont you? Keep on talking Green and that is what you will get.
.
Nader wins Peace and Freedom’s presidential nod
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 08/02/2008 06:21:39 PM PDT
SACRAMENTO—Ralph Nader has been selected as the Peace and Freedom Party’s presidential candidate, beating three other contenders at the party’s nominating convention on Saturday.
Nader and his running mate, former San Francisco supervisor Matt Gonzalez, will only appear as Peace and Freedom candidates in California, the only state in which the party is ballot-qualified. The consumer rights activist will appear on other states’ ballots as an independent, or as another party’s candidate.
Nader, the Green Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, also ran as an independent in 2004.
On Saturday Nader beat out former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, Gloria La Riva, the party’s candidate for governor in 1994 and 1998, and Brian Moore, a labor rights organizer and former Peace Corps volunteer.
The Peace and Freedom Party is the smallest political party recognized by the state with 56,364 members, or 0.35 percent of registered voters.
.
.
The states are coming in so fast now I don’t know the exact account…
Votenader.org should have it…
.
Voting the corporate candidates; the choice is either McCain or McO’Same.
And no, they aren’t exactly the same, but the aren’t exactly opposite either. They are just taking our country over the cliff at different speeds, and the lemmings will follow.
For many politicians, victory is more important than upholding principles. We are seeing that from Obama, and Hillary, and McCain.
What is the difference between compromise and caving in? Or worse yet, stating publicly that you are opposed to the war but in reality actually supportive.
The fact that the democratic party leadership refuses impeachment and many of the democratic voters don’t find that completely unacceptable is interesting. What would be an act or policy that is crossing the line?
I like it when people tell me to get real when I say I support third parties. If it gets any more real, we’ll all be dead.
-madlib: “Progressive Obama supporters”?
Are there many of these? Oh wait, here is one…
-Rmouse: “You progressives really want a McCain administration dont you? Keep on talking Green and that is what you will get.”
Yeah, shut up, you have no choice. Don’t like the abuse? Do what you are told or we will hurt you even more… Does this sound “progressive” to you?
There are lots of decent people running for congress and president in the US, ex: Cindy Sheehan. Help them bring your self-imposed abusive relationship with government to an end.
Sounds like there is a broken record in here.
Another article that should be subtitled—WHY NADER….And, we should let the clowns at CNN and other MSM that we see plainly how they are deliberately ignoring what may already be this election’s decisive factor…I am so SICK of media hacks making decisions that belong to the PUBLIC! If Obama/McCain are more or less tied, then NADER’s affirmed and growing 6% will make the difference—and Obama has sold his own ass and ours before he gets to the big convention. I am not going to vote for Obama, period.
Meanwhile…
http://prorev.com/2008/08/obama-in-some-serious-trouble.html
This is a GREAT article!!!! John MacArthur really, really exposes “Slick Willy II” Barack Obama for the pro-corporate, pro-elitist top 10% that he truly represents. I, personally, have never been impressed with Barack Obama. I think he’s a smooth talking, cliche embellishing bullshit artist. Poor and disenfranchised black people who are heckling him at his campaign rallies, accusing Obama of NOT representing working class blacks are RIGHT. Jesse Jackson was right. Further, if Martin Luther King was alive, he would NOT support Barack Obama. Rather he would see Barack Obama for the “corporate establishment oreo” he truly is. He’s so uncomfortably slick, hip, fashionable…and reeking of political opportunism. Like Hillary, he too has become a pre-packaged, public relations automaton. Where’s the beef? It was never there to begin with.
I hate to say it to you, fellow Common Dreams posters, but Barack Obama will be a black version of Bill Clinton. Yes McCain is worse than Obama, but the both will pander to the same ‘government within the government’ elitist scum who have been running this country into the ground since Ronald Reagan.
Want real change? Move to another country in Europe or Canada even, or focus on changing your own immediate life for the better. Don’t count on the USA ever becoming a progressive country that champions liberal ideals…at least not in the forseeable future. In fact as you can clearly see from the last 28 years quite the opposite effect has been happening…the USA is less democratic, more fascist, more of a class-based society, with less and less civil liberties. Obama will only further this downward spiral–just like McCain! The ‘old America’ which honored the Constitution and vaguely, remotely aspired to a classless, egalitarian society, is long gone.
.
Nader/Gonzalez are on the BALLOT with 23 states affirmed now and going for 45…
Whoo Whoo… Vote Nader 2008
.
.
http://www.pr.com/article/1100
Ralph Nader Goes to Washington… Again -
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.
.
I am not buying the “logic” of voting for Mr. Chameleon (Obama) just because McCain is worse. Obama is committing the classic bait-and-switch … he says and does all that he needs to in order to suck you in, and then he reveals the real deal which is nothing like it was originally stated. So we should reward him with the highest political office ? NO WAY.
Btw, I miss Scranton Lace ! It was the most beautiful lace produced in the US. They used old Victorian looms. Total shame they are no longer in business.
Nannie August 5th, 2008 4:47 pm
Are you trying to make a point???
Nannie (or some of the others)—
Please explain to me what on earth positive can come of “voting for Nader?” I know you think you says some nice things, but I’ve tried for years, without success, to have someone have a decent, thought out, strategic discussion on this issue.
I’m a 35 year steelworker, who had most of my pension stolen by Bush’s PBGC, (& then had Bush’s court issue a ruling that “steelworkers had no expectation of recieveing pensions.” My Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Oh) has fought like hell for us, even sponsoring legislation to reverse the injustice. The GOP has supported Bush, corporations.
That is just a small part of my personal background.
What I’d like to discuss, however, is the issue of voting strategically. In our nation, we do not have proportional representation. It is a ‘winner take all’ system. Therefore, those folks that voted for Nader in 2000 got nothing but Bush!
I’m strongly supporting Obama. I realize that he is NOT a Labor candidate, or a ‘left’ candidate. He is, however, the only possible candidate who can break the hold that the GOP has had on the nation. Obama supports a timetable to end the war, universal health care, and the Employee Free Choice Act. He is calling for a “Green New Deal,” to put the nation back to work on Green basic industrial jobs, and is for a federal jobs program to rebuild our naion’s infrastructure.
McCain/GOP is for staying in Iraq, basically forever. For privatizing social security and medicare. He has really no program for Green energy, and he is totally in support of corporate lawbreakers, would do nothing to address working folks’ needs.
In this situation, even with the critisisms I have of the Dems, of Obama, what on earth would ‘voting Nader’ get me?
All he would do is take votes from the Democratic candidate. Nader would be able to do nothing with whatever votes he gets, he will lose, of course, and the Republicans will stay in power. Further, in organized labor, we see Nader as nothing but a SCAB!! He is doing nothing but breaking the unity we need so badly to be able to beat the Republicans, our main enemy. Further, he was even a union-buster himself, breaking a union drive among his own workers a few years ago.
Please, I’m not trying to bang on you. I would like to hear some actual strategic thinking. Please explain to me—what on earth can Nader possibly offer me??
unionguy, you wrote: “All he would do is take votes from the Democratic candidate.”
But if I don’t want Obama as my President, I don’t care if Nader takes votes away from him.
Nader locked out banks of phone solicitors he had working for nothing, calling all day and night to work people for money/contributions.
When they tried to organize he fired ALL of them.
By doing zero between presidential runs to organize and build a platform and base, he has done 3rd party’s/progressive’s potential great harm.
When I watched him PAID, ON FOX NEWS, attacking the Dem’s to the exclusion of the Crime Cartel in power, I could see his true colors.
He owns stock in Raytheon=Cluster Bombs, and Dow=Napalm through his Fidelity Magellan Fund.
This is not a real progressive.
This Union Busting, Fox News Clown is wearing a disguise.
Tell me please: Why does he not organize at all between presidential elections? Who benefits from this?
Unionguy go to http://www.nader.org/
put in the search-pensions.
go to votenader.org for the issues they are fighting for.
Tailcap, Nader/Gonzalez need donations and plenty of them…give till it hurts…LOL
“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.””
“Liberal in their politics…Expecting nothing more than a hearing.” Barack Obama is talking about building relationships with liberal people that are also powerful. Attack Barack where it really counts, so that when he gets in office, he can’t go where he might, ie coal industry support. There is no such thing as clean coal and there never will be. Mining of coal is devastating to human communities and their environments, and the possibility of Co2 sequesteration is pure science fiction at this point. The economy boomed on Clinton’s tax hike of only 4% or so. At least it is a step in the right direction, though it could be greater, and I bet will be if the American people will get their asses in gear and demand it–in one huge booming voice–instead of sitting around complaining about the imperfections of the possibilities available.
Danna
A few months ago, I was cautiously optimistic on Obama, but his choice of advisors and his flip-flops on drilling and FISA are a wake-up call. It doesn’t matter to me that he may be doing this to “move toward the center.” If he’s so political that he’s willing to sell out his base, the progressives who catapulted him from nowhere to the Democratic nomination, then I could not support him. We need a leader who leads and who tells the truth regardless of the consequences. Even people who disagree with your positions may end up supporting you out of respect for your strength of character and your courage.
I will sign the petition to get Nader-Gonzalez on the ballot in my state, and I will work to get Nader into the presidential debates. However, I will support and vote for Cynthia McKinney. Why?
In 2000, I voted in the Democratic Primary in California. I supported Bill Bradley, which grew out of an interview I heard where he discussed a trip to Montana. After some problem with the plane’s navigation system, they flew back to Helena by following the Yellowstone River in the light of a full moon. I don’t remember anything else he said, but he was so eloquent, and it seemed to me that this man really did have the country’s best interests at heart. This reminds me of the infatuation Obama voters have with their candidate. Anyway, when he conceded to Gore, Bradley quoted Vince Lombardi, “Winning isn’t the most important thing…it’s the ONLY thing.” I profoundly disagree with Bill Bradley.
There IS something more important than winning, and that’s preparing the table for the next generation, so that we can win tomorrow. That’s what the abolitionist parties were all about in the 1840s and 1850s. Although they never won, they gave birth to the Republican Party (the GOP of legend, which was for small business and liberty; bearing no resemblance to the current party of the same name). Cynthia McKinney and the Greens are doing that right now. We’ve put together a platform that ties together all the progressive issues into a coherent vision of a future, an America, and a world that we can all be proud of. If the Greens get 5% of the vote on Nov. 4, the party qualifies for federal matching funds in 2012. That’s worth a lot more than an Obama victory, given how similar his positions are to McCain, and it explains why I support McKinney-Clemente rather than Nader this time around.
John M. Wages, Jr.
US House Candidate, MS-01
www.VoteJohnWages.com
www.RunCynthiaRun.com
Lisa what lies are you spreading? shame on you . Ralph is a hard working honorable person and I am pleased to work for his campaign.
Slurs and accusations are really all some people provide…
unionguy August 5th, 2008 5:50 pm writes “He is doing nothing but breaking the unity we need so badly to be able to beat the Republicans, our main enemy.”
-Unity? You mean the unity between Democrats and Republicans? unionguy what have the Democrats done for you in the last 2 yrs, 4 yrs, 8 yrs?
Unionguy what have Democrats done for you on NAFTA, FTAA, CAFTA, WTO?
Everything the Republicans have done they were able to do because the Democrats gave them the votes they needed. Screw the Democrats! Democrats refuse to impeach. They refuse to stop the immoral and illegal wars/occupations.
This is what Democrats have done:
Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
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
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10) Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here:_____________________________________.
A vote for Democrats does nothing to stop the Republicans! The Democrats are the best thing that ever happened to the enemy. The Democrats have allowed Bush to take a crap all over the Constitution. It is high time to break with the traitorous Democrats and vote for third parties like the Greens!
Green
Republican
Democrat
Invasion and Occupation of Iraq
Oppose
Support
Support
Patriot Act
Oppose
Support
Support
Invasion of Afghanistan
Oppose
Supported
Supported
Kosovo War
Opposed
Supported
Supported
Military Budget
Reduce
Increase
Increase
Israeli Occupation of West Bank and Gaza.
Oppose
Support
Support
Global Warming - Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Support
Oppose
Oppose and Failed to Act.
Right to Choose
Support
Oppose
Support (?)
National Health Insurance
Support single-payer national health insurance
Oppose
Oppose
Clean Water
Support
Oppose
Weak Support
Death Penalty
Oppose
Support
Support
Labor: Wages and Unions
Support
Oppose Workers
Minimal Support
(Global) Corporate Power Trade Agreements and Institutions (NAFTA, FTAA, CAFTA, WTO)
Restrict
Expand
Expand
Vote for Democrats? Are you NUTS!
Nannie August 5th, 2008 6:18 pm I am with you, but I’m going with Cynthia McKinney because she is trying to build up a party unlike Nader. Nader is a good guy but he’s not serious about building up a party he just want to raise important issues which I applaud.
lisa said “Tell me please: Why does he not organize at all between presidential elections? ”
A former supporter said he found out to his great disappointment that Nader only runs for the matching campaign funds he receives that keeps his organization going. He does not want to win, and if he ever won, he probably would have a heart attack as he knows what happens if you go up against the oilgarchs. Ralph lives well, and wants to continue living well, being President would be very troublesome for him.
McKinney might be the best bet if you vote 3rd party.
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.
.
http://cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
Dispelling the Myth of Election 2000
…. The Green Party’s explanation of the Florida vote…-interesting
.
The incredible brainless dunce, lisa3210peace, writes (6:14 pm) “Nader locked out banks of phone solicitors he had working for nothing, calling all day and night to work people for money/contributions. When they tried to organize he fired ALL of them….He owns stock in Raytheon=Cluster Bombs, and Dow=Napalm through his Fidelity Magellan Fund….This is not a real progressive. This Union Busting, Fox News Clown is wearing a disguise…”
Why don’t you try to provide some documentation for your hilariously ignorant smears?
We’ve already established, in other threads, that you don’t understand the difference between the various types of Fidelity Funds. And today, you accuse Nader of owning Magellan. But last week, it was one the “Spartan” funds, which is quite different. (Some of the Spartan Funds are BOND funds. Do you even know what a bond fund is?)
You don’t know which fund Nader holds, how much he holds of it, or what percent invested it is in Raytheon & Dow. In fact, the Magellan Fund holds 251 different stocks, and neither Dow nor Raytheon is in the top 10 holdings. The top 10 holdings comprise 30% of the fund, so the other 241 stocks make up 70%. On average, that would mean each of those 241 stocks is about 0.29% of the total. (Do you know how to calculate that, Lisa? You divide 70 by 241.) So let’s say for example that the Raytheon portion is roughly 0.29% of the total. So even if Nader really had $4 million in Magellan — which you haven’t proven, & probably can’t prove — it would only amount to less than $13,000 in Raytheon, & a similar amount in Dow.
And for this totally insignificant pittance — which probably isn’t even true — you are smearing someone who towers above the worms of the Democratic Party, in terms of integrity, truth-telling & a lifelong dedication to progressive ideals.
MiMiCcS (6:41 pm) -
Yesterday, on the Wasserman thread (at 7:34 pm), you wrote out what amounts to an interpretive history of the 20th century. This included some stuff that looked somewhat intriguing & partially correct, but also lots of stuff that was (to put it politely) off the wall. You seemed to be asserting, for example, that the Beatles’ appearing on Ed Sullivan in 1964 was part of some New World Order scheme cooked up by the Rockefellers & British intelligence. You claimed that “The good guys, those who believed in American sovereignty and the American system, lost to the Global Communists, now having turned Fascists, who endorsed the British systems imperialism and free trade polices…”
The poster ‘webwalk’ then said that you get this stuff from Lyndon LaRouche. And indeed, it does sound quite LaRouche-esque to me. So, let me ask you directly - is it the case that that’s where you get these ideas from?
It is nice to see so many progressives criticize Obama. It is even a relief that many that have chosen to support Obama do so critically instead of adopting the position that their candidate can do no wrong.
I choose not to vote for Obama because I see him as nothing more than a militant thug whose foreign policy isn’t much of a departure from that of Bush and has no real interest in tackling problems in the US such as health care reform. If Democrats are interested in receiving more of the progressive vote perhaps they should adopt more progressive policies instead of continuing to shift further to the right then throwing a tantrum when predictably many progressive voters choose to vote for a third party candidate. Democrats can’t seem to internalize that they are not entitled to these votes. I don’t see McCain and Obama as being worlds apart on issues that are important to me. The Democratic Party had an opportunity to reflect upon their centrist strategy that ultimately alienated so many progressive voters in 2000, but instead they chose to place full responsibility on Ralph Nader for simply providing people with an alternative. In 2004 the Democratic Party sought and succeeded in removing Nader from the ballot in a number of states. I find this anti-choice mentality in the Democratic Party frightening and antithetical to the concepts of Democracy. I can’t speak for others but the Democratic Party has a long way to go if they ever want my vote.
People please stop voting for the “least worse” candidate - It makes no sense - There are better choices. Put your support behind Nader/Gonzalez and lets at LEAST get him in the debates so the world can hear an intelligent man tell us what should be obvious to most people. That Obama and McCain are nothing but Corporate Candidates!!
Notice any similarities?
Don’t tell me bad things about Obama (A), I don’t want to listen, McCain (B) is scary.
Don’t tell me bad things about McCain (A), I don’t want to listen, terrorists (B) are scary.
Vote for A or we’ll scare you with B.
Lets make a decision folks,
A. Obama is the corporate elite, living in his million dollar mansion, in his gated community with his children attending private schools and running around in limos and private jets spending all the poor peoples money that he conned into believing he would represent.
B. Obama is just a buddy of the elite and generally works for securing a better future for most of us.
C. you decide.
I’m not voting for Obama, never planned on it after reading his book The audacity of hope, which scared me.
It’s not as if immediately after Bush won in 2000 — AND TO THIS VERY MINUTE — the Democrats have done nothing but fight, tooth and nail, to stop Bush and Co. at every turn.
In fact, quite the contrary.
As we all know, starting with Gore and the Democratic Party’s caving in on the vote recount, the Democratic Party has *enabled* Bush and Company on virtually every issue, domestic as well as international. The Democratic Party has *enabled* Bush on virtually every appointment, judicial as well as executive.
And for this the Democratic Party deserves our support?
The Democratic Party deserves our support for their criminal complicity in the Bush Administration?
The Democratic Party betrayed the antiwar sentiment in this country four times — count ‘em — ****FOUR TIMES**** in the past six years!
1.) In 2002, the Democratic Party told the voting public, in no uncertain terms, that the Congressional elections that year would not be about whether the US should or shouldn’t invade Iraq — invading Iraq was a done-deal, a bipartisan decision — instead, we were told that the 2002 elections would be about “other issues.” … In other words, peace was “off the table.”
That’s 1.
2.) In 2004, what could have been a national referendum on Iraq, a national referendum on war or peace — a war candidate, George Bush, versus a peace candidate, Howard Dean –instead became a choice between two war candidates: John Kerry and George Bush.
That’s 2. That’s the *second* betrayal in the past six years — by the Democratic Party — of the antiwar sentiment in the United States.
3.) In 2006, the Democrats captured both houses of Congress, chiefly because millions of Americans voted Democratic, hoping the Democrats would end the War. …
However, in the days that followed their stunning success, the Democratic leadership wasted no time making it clear to the American public that ending the War in Iraq wasn’t in the cards, it just wasn’t going to happen.
Ending the War … off the table!
Impeachment … off the table!
But just so the table isn’t completely bare, guess what? … The possibility of war with Iran: *ON* the table! … The possibility of war with Pakistan: *ON* the table!
That’s 3. That’s the *third* betrayal in the past six years — by the Democratic Party — of the ever-growing antiwar sentiment in the United States.
4.) Which brings us to 2008 …
Enter Barack Obama. King of the con men.
Wonder of wonders, Barack Obama the peace candidate, has now become Barack Obama the warmonger!
And oh, thank-you-thank-you-thank-you, Barack Obama, for finally “clarifying” your position on Iraq — Obama’s position now being that if the commanders in the field say we should stay in Iraq, we stay.
The fact that Obama’s now-clarified position is essentially the same as that of John McCain and George Bush has yet to make an impact on mainstream media, specifically, left-liberal media.
Moreover, Obama has the hopeful audacity to claim that — Hey, you misunderstood. I’m not a flip-flopper. That’s what I meant all along. No, really! Would I lie?
(In other words, it was *our* fault for not listening carefully.)
Obama supports two wars now in progress (Iraq and Afghanistan); and has shown a clear-cut willingness to engage in two more wars (Iran and Pakistan).
He’s four-for-four!
Evidently, Obama wants to be a war president just like George Bush and John McCain want to be war presidents.
All of which guarantees that the 2008 election will, once again, *not* be a referendum on war or peace.
Yay Jerry D. Rose
Thank you for bringing up using ones vote for changing the system, rather than a vote for or against one of two people who will work in that corrupted system.
pavroviandog
Thank you for your prescription for change, all very relevant.
In an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less that have amounted to fully half of the $340 million he has collected so far.
But records show that a third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more - a total of $112 million, more than the total of contributions in that category taken in by either Senator John McCain, his Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries.
Behind those large donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama “bundlers,” fund-raisers 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, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fund-raisers.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/05/america/bundlers.php
Obama may turn out to be a bad President. McCain is certain to be a bad one. The others can’t win. Nader seems to only care about his own visibility. Why doesn’t he nail a corrupt bastard who is doing the damage he complains about. With his connections he could expose illegal acts by a lobbyist or a politician. What he has wasted on political campaigns would have been better spent convicting one guy like Ted Stevens or Mitch McConnell or Tom Delay.
unionguy
actually we who voted against Bush did not get nothing but Bush. There is something called the dissenting minority, which means that Bush takes all only if the minority consents to his presidency.
Bush was never and never will be my president, was he yours?
“Obama may turn out to be a bad President.”
Many see this as a certainty, not a maybe, which is why they refuse to vote for him.
Barack Obama wears nice suits, doesn’t he?
That being the case, here’s how Obama can win the election in a landslide. …
Barack Obama should display two things on the lapels of his suit. … Affixed to one lapel should be a little notepad. You know, one of those little notepads that a detective carries. … And in that little notepad there should be a list of the names of every prisoner tortured as a result of US foreign policy. … Just the names.
And wherever he goes, Barack Obama shouldn’t say a word, not a single solitary word. Instead he should simply *point* to the list of tortured prisoners affixed to one of his lapels.
And each time he does this, he should hand out a card to whomever is present, the card stating: “If I’m elected president, on January 20, 2009, torture stops, renditioning stops. Americans don’t torture. Civilized people don’t torture.”
No words, no speech, just the list of people being tortured, affixed to one of his lapel –along with the little cards (his promissory notes) that he would give out, over and over and over and over, to everyone and anyone he meets.
And on the other lapel? …
On the other lapel of the real nice suits Barack Obama wears, there should be an electronic-counter that reflects the numbers at this site — http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
This is the running total of how much the Iraq War is costing US taxpayers — roughly $15 billion per month — now totaling over $542 billion.
And, like the notepad on his other lapel, all Barack Obama would do is to simply *point* to this electronic-counter. Point to this electronic-counter as it flips out the billions of dollars being spent to murder innocent people — while, at the same time, making rich those who profit from America’s military-industrial complex.
No words, no speech. Just point, dear Senator, just point.
So that, first debate — Obama doesn’t say a word. He just points to one lapel; and then to the other.
And when he points to the lapel with the list of tortured prisoners, he walks over to Charlie Gibson or George Stephanopolis or whatever Harry or Harriet Hairspray is moderating the debates and gives then his little “calling card” on torture.
Second debate — same thing.
Third debate — same thing.
30 second commercials — same thing.
Press conferences — same thing.
Barbara Walters interview — same thing.
Diane Sawyer — same thing.
Boy Scouts of America “speech” — same thing.
Now, if Barack Obama were to outfit his lapels with those two items, silent as a lamb, he would:
a.) Win the election in a landslide. (In fact, he’d be so far ahead in the polls John McCain would quit the race and take up chicken farming);
b.) Win the respect and the support of the overwhelming majority of people throughout the world; and
c.) No one would be able to accuse Barack Obama of being “an empty suit.”
But, then again, I’m obviously not talking about Barack Obama. I’m talking about a candidate with political and moral principles.
And Barack Obama, the con man who posed as a peace candidate in the primaries — Barack Obama, the “peace candidate” who supports two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and has indicated a clear-cut willingness to engage in two more wars (Iran and Pakistan) — *has* no principles. He *has* no moral integrity.
Challenge the political duopoly. Vote Green. Or else vote Nader. Or else vote socialist. Whatever you do, vote against the political duopoly known as the Democratic/Republican Party.
Vote against another phony “choice” — a choice betwen two war candidates: John McCain and Barack Obama.
As long as people keep thinking T.I.N.A. — that “There Is No Alternative” to the Republican-Democratic duopoly — as long as people keep buying into that con — the political consensus in the United States will, inevitably, move further and further to the political right. Count on it.
Who is responsible for the United States moving dramatically to the right in the past 40 years? … Surely it has to be those who’ve bought into the T.I.N.A. shell game.
There are countless brave and courageous people who “just said no” to political injustice. … Many of them put their lives on the line. … What is “voting differently” as compared to their sacrifices?
How much of a sacrifice is it to simply … vote your conscience?
Unionguy you write;
“He is, however, the only possible candidate who can break the hold that the GOP has had on the nation.”
How many people think like this. The GOP got the nation where it is with the help of the Democrats, not alone! Obama is going to continue helping, he might even place the final straw in the elephants mouth that breaks the nations back it is standing on.
someone said: ‘Ralph lives well, and wants to continue living well, being President would be very troublesome for him.’
i ask:
so you think whomever is elected is not going to be thrust into very troublesome affairs? specifically you think Ralph can’t handle it?
i say further:
Our government from the Top - down: have bankrupt this country, given away countless assets, corrupted themselves in every rediculous way, voted and promoted the perversion of The Constitution of the United States, whined and excused all their actions with the 2 party tag team co-operation.
Ralph is running (and has always run) for President for one reason that being: patriotic, responsible, and thoughtful toward the overall condition of this country. Ralph can handle these snakes, and it won’t be pretty. Alot of heads will roll upon Ralph’s term as President, and for just cause– not politics as usual. It won’t be pretty, it will be gutty, and just.
Or you can continue to allow your country to waller in the corruption.
As for you that don’t know these things about Ralph, check out the websites for yourself. www.votenader.org www.tamethecorporation.org www.nader.org
wild
Atheist thanks for the link…
.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
OBAMA TOP CONTRIBUTORS
” You gotta dance with the one who brung ya ”
.http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/05/america/bundlers.php
Read this also…
.
In the same issue of Harpers in which McArthur published the article on which we are commenting is another by Ken Silverstein exploding the myth of the Obama campaign as sustained by “small” donors.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/07/hbc-90003343
As an example, fund-raisers at which he appears are raising big bucks for the campaign. In Boston yesterday, any one who contributed $15,000 could get in the “photo-line” for a picture with BO, and you could even include your spouse at the bargain rate of $28,500. In Minneapolis on Thursday you can attend a dinner/reception with the candidate on a sliding scale of tickets ranging from $1000 to $28,500. (How did they get fixated on that number?). All this is but a prelude to the later conventions in Denver and Minneapolis in which both parties will soak their delegates for mega-money to attend meaningless “events” associated with the conventions. Most of the soaked won’t be hedge fund managers but they may feel that would need to be one to afford to “participate” in these fund-raising spectacles.
“We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.”
These were the words of Democrat Lyndon Johnson in his 1964 presidential campaign against Republican Barry Goldwater.
Shortly after Lyndon Johnson won the 1964 election, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (with only two dissenting votes). The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave LBJ and then Richard Nixon a “blank check” to prosecute the war in Indochina.
– Over 500,000 “American boys” fought in the Vietnam War … 58,000-plus came home in body bags.
– 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 Vietnamese were also killed … at least 900,000 of whom were civilians.
– Over 14,000,000 Indochinese were either killed, wounded or made refugees by US aggression in Indochina.
(A confused Democrat in 1964) … “Hey, what happened??? They told me if I voted for Goldwater that the United States would invade Vietnam. So I voted for Johnson, and the United States invaded Vietnam.”
Obama has promised “CHANGE” in 2008. How’s this for change?
Barack Obama’s *pre*-primary position on the war in Iraq. … “I’ll withdraw US troops within 16 months.”
CHANGED TO … Barack Obama’s *post*-primary position on the war in Iraq — re. his July 2nd speech in Colorado Springs:
“I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.”
In other words: I may withdraw troops in 16 months; but, if conditions change, I may not.
Meaning: Obama’s current position on Iraq is the same as that John McCain and George Bush.
Two-thirds of the American public want out of Iraq. … Who represents these millions of people? … Certainly not the “Democratic-Republican Business Party.”
Not even the left-wing of the “Democratic-Republican Business Party.”
If you vote for barack Obama
… you vote for US imperialism
… you vote to enable the military-industrial complex
… you vote for a candidate who supports two wars currently in progresss (Iraq and Afghanistan), and two more wars he’s shown a willingness to start (Pakistan and Iran).
Plus lots more pain and misery — read: “business as usual.”
If you vote for Obama, how do you rationalize your vote vis-a-vis your conscience?
I asked for a strategic discussion, and what I got, (unfortunately, as expected), is a bunch of rants! I want to see real changes, not imagenary dreams! When I read that the two political parties are “the same,” I really wonder whether any of the folks writting such blather actually live in this world, work for a living, try to pay bills, etc.
Strategic thinking reguires, first of all, that we start by understanding the REAL world. The starting point must be a clear view, positive/negative, otherwise of what we are dealing with. Furthermore, if we are actually progressive, activists, and want real changes, we need to analyse want we need to do, what our actions we do, to bring about shifts.
I asked, what can Nader do for me, because the electoral system we have in this nation is a capitalist controlled one, in which their is NO proportional representation, only winner take all. The next president, all of congress and the senate, at this time, will be made up of members of the Republican or Democratic parties. I don’t have to like that. It is a statement of fact! To vote for a third political party, at this time, absolutely favors the incumbent. It cannot elect a single person. Thus, if I’m campaigning for the right to organize, to change trade policy, for helath care for all and to end the war and have new Green jobs, (and I certainly am), I STILL have not seen one single logical point on what Nader brings to the table.
Further, in analysing the problems we face, the two parties are both political parties of capitalism, but they are hardly the same. The GOP is the MAIN party of outright ultra-right wing reaction. There are some conservative D’s, as well, but the MAIN party of capitalist reaction is the Republican Party. I spoke at the Democratic platform hearing in Cleveland on the theft of my, and other steelworker’s pensions, and on the fight for health care for all. The basic proposals that we need were adopted; support for legislation to reverse priorities in corporate bankruptcies, so workers, retirees come first. That is, in fact codified in S 2092 (introduced by S. Brown, D-Oh, & Durbin, D-Ill). While I asked that HR 676, (co-sponsored by D.Kucinich, D-Oh, & J.Conyers, D-Mich), the language adopted was for “universal, affordable health care for all.”
The Republican program on these issues are, first, that they support even further assaults on working folks, and authered legislation to further strengthen corporations in bankruptcies, rather than workers, and on helath care, they favor further privatization. On social securtiy, the Dems favor strengthening it. Obama’s position is the most advanced of any candidate in my lifetime, eccentially he is for removing the cap on social security taxes, so that the rich pay for it, also. That would make social security solvent until the year 9999!! McCain, the GOP, favor privitization! On the was, Obama favors pulling out. McCain, further war! On workers right to organize, Obama and the Democrats support the Employee Free Choice Act, which would again give workers the real right to organize without corporate intimidation. McCain states that unions have “too much power!”
Certainly, neither of these political parties are parties of labor and the people. But “the same,” hardly! As for “what Democrats have done for me lately,” (which someone above asked), I’ll answer that; Sherrod Brown fought like hell for us, sponsoring legislation to stop the GOP pension theft. Further, he set up mtgs with union reps and technicians from the PBGC so that we could help thousands of workers save their pensions, stop many types of theft that had been occuring. Dennis Kucinich mobilized the entire city, starting with org’d labor, and thousands of “shareholders” in Cleveland to save the LTV steel mill, which was being closed. He did the same to stop a hospital closing on the west side of Cleveland. Dennis and Conyers are sponsoring the only bill with any chance to create a real universal health care system, HR 676.
They aree the ‘progressives’ within the Democratic Party, you may say. that is true, but there is no ‘progressive ‘ sector of the GOP.
I am not “relying on” the Democratic Party, but am working, with all of org’d labor, and massive allies, creating a huge movement for change. It is this movement that can be in position to fight for health care, against the war, for the right to organize, for green jobs, etc, AFTER the election. If McCain is elected, there is no possiblity of being able to pass any of those needed changes.
That is a strategic plan. I still don’t see anything approaching any sane way of thinking that says that voting for Nader would, in any way, help bring about those changes!
tailspin,
Once more you are “johnny-on-the-spot,” pointing out, as you did in a previous post, that one reason — and just *ONE* reason — not to support the Democratic Party is that they allowed Bush and Co. to, as you put it, “spew 935 lies about the war.”
Exactly right!
And here’s the link to that documented fact –http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/lies-j26.shtml
Quoting from that link — an article by Alex Lantier, entitled “Study Documents Nearly 1,000 Lies From Iraq War Propaganda Campaign” –
“By the CPI’s (the Center For Public Integrity’s) count, the 380,000-word searchable database — available to the public at ttp://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/ — contains at least 935 demonstrably false statements made on 532 separate occasions by the following officials: President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan. …
“What it fails to examine is the way in which the Democratic Party fell into political lockstep with the administration in the months leading up to the war in Iraq.
“Omitted from the database are the lies told by the likes of the current Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton, who delivered a bellicose speech from the floor of the US Senate in October 2002, before joining the overwhelming majority of her colleagues in voting to authorize the Bush administration’s launching of a war against Iraq.
“Indeed, Clinton proudly noted that her husband’s administration had employed the same lies about Iraqi WMD as the pretext for launching cruise missile attacks on the country in the 1990s.
“The Senate was then — as now — under the leadership of the Democratic Party. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle declared at the time that America had to speak ‘with one voice’ in threatening war against Iraq.
“Then senator and current presidential candidate John Edwards wrote in a Washington Post opinion column just weeks before voting for war: ‘America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.’
“The Democrats at the time had the leadership of the Senate intelligence, armed services and foreign affairs committees, yet none of them pressed for investigations into the blatant lies being used by the administration to prepare for war.
“The reality is that both parties were quite conscious of both the phony character of the administration’s propaganda campaign and of the administration’s determination to manufacture a pretext for war no matter how contrived.
“They backed this campaign because the representatives of big business in both parties agreed on a strategy of invading and occupying Iraq with the aim of seizing control of the country’s vast oil reserves and establishing US hegemony in a vitally strategic region.
“Using US military power as a means of asserting American capitalism’s dominance and thereby offsetting its relative decline on the world market was a consensus policy within the ruling elite.
“Among masses of working people, however, there existed intense opposition to war. The barrage of lies and propaganda about an imminent threat from nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was unleashed in order to terrorize the American people into accepting a war.
“The Democratic congressional leadership was not a victim of this lie campaign, but rather served as a willing accomplice.
“Also missing from the picture provided by the Center for Public Integrity is the criminal role played by the mass media during the run-up to the Iraq war.”
… And this is something that the American voting public should *reward* the Democrats for?
If it keeps working, if they keep getting away with it, why shouldn’t the Democratic Party keep pulling the same con, the same shell game — election after election; decade after decade after decade?
Vote Anybody But the Two Parties
To me this article shows very clearly why Barack Obama does not and can not represent my class interests. I am a member of the working class.
The elections are a forum wherein the people are solicited to unite behind one variant or another of the program of the ruling class. The workers enter the electoral arena on the basis of their daily struggles for survival, but no one speaks for them. The only options open to them are one version or another of all-class unity.
People with a vision and a program make change. The elections themselves are a forum where the battle for the mind of America is being fought out. The question is: Will the ruling ideas prevail and allow the ruling class to preserve all-class unity – unity across the classes – and maintain their rule?
None of the solutions offered within the electoral arena offer any real answers to the millions of Americans who are engaged in a search for solutions to their plight. The ideological complex of all-class unity can ultimately only be a call for a fascist solution to the crisis.
The ties of all-class unity will finally be broken only when the working class becomes conscious of itself as a class, and politically independent, begins to move in its own interests.
“I want to see real changes, not imagenary dreams! When I read that the two political parties are “the same,” I really wonder whether any of the folks writting such blather actually live in this world, work for a living, try to pay bills, etc.”
So you are a Union guy? Do you think NAFTA was a victory for working class people or Big Business? What about Clinton’s Welfare “Reform”? Clinton managed to do what Republicans had long wanted to the welfare system. Do you think Obama’s pro-war positions in the Middle East will some how benefit you? How about the countless civilians that will continue to die and whose numbers will only increase if US violence is extended to Pakistan and Iran? What about Obama’s opposition to single payer health insurance that would provide health care to all Americans and give the government leverage to negotiate lower prices with health care providers? Has the Democratic Party tried to bring about any real change the last two years? Good luck seeing any real changes from Obama and the Democratic Party. Given his and the Democratic Party’s pro-business and shifting to the right politics progressive change should be on the level it was with Bill Clinton or possibly much worse.
If you want to vote for Obama go right ahead. But if you have great expectations I am fairly confident that you will be disappointed.
.
wild_watcher August 5th, 2008 8:31 pm
Ralph is running (and has always run) for President for one reason that being: patriotic, responsible, and thoughtful toward the overall condition of this country. Ralph can handle these snakes, and it won’t be pretty. Alot of heads will roll upon Ralph’s term as President, and for just cause– not politics as usual. It won’t be pretty, it will be gutty, and just.
Good post ~Wild~ I like it…
.
The election is beginning to really be rank. We need to get the maximum number of people to tell pollsters that they’re voting for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to get their totals up to 15 to 20 per cent or higher nationally to force Barak Obama to get back to where he was when he started his race for the presidency.
Well, I asked po-litely what Nader had done to organize BETWEEN presidential runs, and BANG-
Darn-Not a whisper except Obama Hate!
That is beause Nader has done NOTHING between presidential election years to build a base, to organize.
I challenge any Obama Haing Nader lover to provide ONE EXAMPLE!
HeHeHe
Just one little one.
lisa3210peace August 5th, 2008 10:16 pm
-Until recently most of Obama’s investments was tied up with conservative mutual funds. Obama also has stock with Skyterra Communications and AVI Biopharma, both happen to get a lot of money from a source Obama should be familiar with: the federal government.
Skyterra Communications and AVI Biopharma, aside from sharing the same deep-pocketed benefactor, the two have one more thing in common. They both provide services in an area that has become a hot-button issue on Capitol Hill and with the electorate: homeland security.
Lisa are you ok with Obama’s homeland security investments but not ok with Ralph’s having Raytheon stock?
Is there a conflict of interest there for Obama?
You claim Ralph is responsible for Raytheon manufacturing cluster bombs. Is it okay to pin any and all inappropriate activities and purchases made by Homeland Security on Obama as a kind of tit for tat?
Is there a conflict of interest there for Obama? Is Obama better than Ralph because his investment are with companies that eat at the governments Homeland Security trough instead of the MIC trough?
Nader doesn’t have the charisma, the money, or the big celebrities to help him out. It’s easy to laugh at someone who has the machine rigged against him I guess. Obama’s got the pyrotechnics and stacks of Marshall amps. Nader and all the other third party candidates have sparklers and whistles, if that.
Those people on the left who love Obama had better walk the walk and get on his case if and when he gets elected. It’s obvious that he’s playing for the wrong team here. It’s becoming more and more obvious by the day.
I keep saying it. I think he merely wants to make history and will kiss anyone’s ass to get the duke, including those of the elites.
I know I’m not voting for him. Whoever I do vote for, it won’t be a throwaway as far as I am concerned.
Btw, Nader’s done for ordinary people than either McCain or Obama. It breaks my heart to see the man ridiculed or dismissed.
Lisa,
What I find amusing about your Nader rants is that you paint yourself as some kind of barefooted hippy, living in a cave with no electricity and no coffee, angrily picking at the specks in the eyes of our most progressive candidates like Nader, while being completely oblivious the the humongous beam jetting out from the eye of your chosen candidate, the establishment’s very own pro-corportist, pro-war, pro-status quo, pro-FISA capitulator, SOB Obama.
Sorry, it’s hard to imagine the image of a no-nonsense, non-establishment, flower-child radical sporting an Obama sticker on her bicycle. And that’s the truth.
unionguy (9:03 pm) - You present several arguments explaining why you feel the Dems are a bit better than Republicans. Your analysis has both strengths & weaknesses.
On the positive side, you write “….the two parties are both political parties of capitalism….Certainly, neither of these political parties are parties of labor and the people.” This is a very important realization, & shows that you’re at least able to imagine what a real “party of labor & the people” might be. (That’s more than can be said of many people suffering under immense illusions about the Dem Party.)
On the negative side, however, you are investing way too much energy attacking the idea that “the two parties are just the same.” The problem with the Democrats is NOT that they are “the same as” Republicans, and no careful analysis of the 2 parties claims that the two are “just the same.” They are collaborating partners, but they are not “the same.” They both have different roles in the system, & different target constituencies. They also have different rhetoric, which is tailored to their particular constituencies; & which connects to their traditional postures in the overall system.
The Democrats function as capitalism’s “B Team.” They are always obliged to be subservient to Republicans; to try to “reach out to” Republicans; to “compromise with” Republicans. But the R’s don’t have to do the same things, because they’re capitalism’s “A Team,” & both sides know it. The R’s are allowed to steal elections, smear the patriotism of Democrats, and commit outrageous blatant crimes; but the D’s are not allowed to do the same things. Their role is limited to supporting Republican initiatives (& crimes). They are allowed to help the R’s commit major crimes, but they are not allowed to be the driving force behind them. They are not allowed to expose the R’s for their crimes — but the R’s are allowed to impeach Democratic officials for no more serious offense than consensual nookie.
The Dems are brought into power by the ruling plutocrats only when the Republicans have overreached, & stolen so much wealth that the country’s economy is forced to the brink of collapse, and the population is on the verge of getting very, very angry. At this point, the ruling classes understand that it’s better to temporarily work through the Democrats. For the general public, this amounts to getting screwed a little less roughly. But only for a limited time, mind you — then it’s time to bring back the Repubs, for some more truly violent maximum-strength screwing.
The Democrats are willing partners in ALL of this. They don’t complain about it; they don’t expose it. They are no more your friend than, say, a guard at a prison camp who happens to be a bit less brutal than some of the other guards. // From this sketch, you should see that they are an integral part of the system that oppresses working people — even if they are not the starring brutes. Their role, rather, is limited to SUPPORTING the starring brutes.
———-
Briefly, here are 3 other weaknesses in your analysis: First, you rely too heavily on the examples involving Kucinich & Conyers & Brown. These 3 guys are not at all representative of the Dem Party as a whole. Kucinich is far & away the best Democrat in the House, & probably in all of Washington. Conyers, meanwhile, is a coward & a sellout, but once was a good guy, & still is more a friend to labor than most Democrats (though that isn’t saying much). And Sherrod Brown is a much better-than-average Democrat.
Second, you are kidding yourself about the Dems’ position on the war. You wrote, “On the war, Obama favors pulling out. McCain, further war!” — That’s wrong. Obama is not in any way, shape or form for “pulling out.” On the contrary, he’s for EXPANDING the size of the military, & is talking about SHIFTING troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, which is not at all the same thing as “pulling out.”
Finally, you are somewhat asking the wrong question, by demanding, “what can Nader do for me” (in an immediate sense). That’s not the right question. If you know your labor movement history, you will know that back in the McCarthy era, the entire political Left of US society was systematically crushed. Under the banner of anti-Communism, it became unacceptable in US society to have any political position except support for capitalism. Anyone who had problems with that had to keep their mouths tightly shut, or face losing their jobs.
Therefore, the US became a society that had a powerful Right, but no Left. All electoral politics devolved into a choice between hard Right, and slightly-less-hard Right. // So, it’s not so much a question of what Nader can do for you in terms of putting nice meals on your family’s table tomorrow. It’s more a question that at some point, the iron grip of the 2-party monopoly must be challenged, & broken. Otherwise, there is no possible outcome except continuing cycles of hard Right government, puncuated by occasional “relief” periods where slightly-less-hard Right Democrats are allowed to come in & hold the reins for a brief spell.
tailcap sez…
“Sorry, it’s hard to imagine the image of a no-nonsense, non-establishment, flower-child radical sporting an Obama sign in front of their house. And that’s the truth.”
They’re being blinded and drugged by the man’s charm, rhetoric, and cult of personality. Many of them are also voting for Obama simply because they think he has the best chance of winning.
lisa3210″peace”
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.
Anything factually incorrect lisa3210peace?
Oh yea, why do you put “PEACE” behind your name if you support a prowar candidate? What is the part about Obama’s stated war plan you don’t get lisa3210peace? Are you confused lisa3210peace? Or are you dishonest?
p.s. If you have any honesty in you would take the “peace” out of your blog name and insert “war” instead. I won’t hold my breath.
How about lisa3210WAR?
lisa3210peace
“Well, I asked po-litely what Nader had done to organize BETWEEN presidential runs”
Nader isn’t running with a political party exactly what is he supposed to organize around. What has for some reason struck you as some profound observation strikes me as a somewhat meaningless one. What I think is noteworthy is your retreat from your previous statements about Nader once others questioned your claims. Honestly I have no idea what Nader does between elections and really don’t see what difference it makes.
There’s a factor more important than economics and that is the survival of the planet. Every few years scientist raise the estimates of global warming. Most scientist now think that the Permian Extinction was caused by extreme Global Warming. Runaway methane release caused sulfur dioxide producing bacteria to overwhelm the ocean and poison the atmosphere. This sulfur emitting bacteria has spread from 100 miles to over 900 miles wide area off the coast of Namibia Africa in less than 2 decades and now is appearing elsewhere in the Pacific. Obama will be somewhat better at pushing alternate energy and moving us away from greenhouse gases. Will it be enough to keep us from the point of no return? Probably not but I’ll vote for Obama not with the illusion of his being independent of the Oligarchy but with the hope that even more of the elite will see that it is in all our interest to save the existence of life on this planet. Even leftist leaders like Lulu of Brazil and Chavez of Venezuela have not done enough to stop the continued rapid destruction of the Amazon rain forest.
crooked—
No, of course NAFTA wasn’t a victory. The Democrats are also a business/capitalist political party, I agree, and there are dominant forces there that are pro-free trade, pro-war, corporate. However, at this time we are able to challange those forces and the most progressive forces in that party are asserting themslves.
Once again, what I have asked for (& maybe its just beyond the capablity of this blog), is for folks to try to think strategically about thsi important election. What is possible to unite people around a program to fight for real, needed changes.
I’ve been active in the people’s movement for 40 years. Very, very active in key struggles. I’ve seen periods of upsurge, and repression. The past 20 yrs, especially the Bush yrs are the absolute worst ever for progressives of all stripes. We’ve taken horrible setbacks in many areas, but people are coming together now at a level that I really haven’t seen in my lifetime. This huge labor/people’s movement, is backing Obama, knowing that he isn’t a perfect candidate. What this mass movement is doing is trying to help create the conditions that would allow this movement to win. This labor led people’s movement is fighting for health care, rights to organize, ending the war, new Green jobs, jobs program to rebuild infrastructure, etc. For the past 20 yrs, the ultra-right/corporate forces have dominated the govt. attacking every gain the people have made. These forces have been mainly, not totally, from the Republican Party. Some corporate Democrats, a minority, but allied with Bush, allowing shifts to the right.
This election is a time that real changes could be brought about, for the first time in two decades. It is too important to be decided by emotions! That is what the right has been so good at getting us to do. We are up against very powerful corpoate enemies. We need to really use our heads, think strategically so that we take avantage of these times. Politcal winds can shift very quickly agasinst us. We need to take advantage of every opening, every possible chance to defeat the corporate/right wingers. That will create a new balance of forces more favorable for the people to actually WIN!
A Obama presidency, elected at a time when the people are demanding change, and there is a strong, organized labor/people’s mvoement fighting for progressive cahnges, would be hard-pressed to move against its own base. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen, but it would be political suicide.
Try as I might, I still see absolutely NO place that a Nader fits in the picture of a real people;’s movement. We need to tie our political thinking to how to bring about changes in the real world.
lisa3210peace (10:16 pm) writes, “Well, I asked po-litely what Nader had done to organize BETWEEN presidential runs, and BANG-…That is beause Nader has done NOTHING between presidential election years to build a base, to organize….I challenge any Obama Haing Nader lover to provide ONE EXAMPLE!”
First, let me compliment your spelling. It’s almost as good as your political analysis.
But here’s an example for you: between presidential runs, Ralph Nader writes essays, articles, and books. And he lectures.
If someone like you read his books and articles, or heard his lectures, you would learn a great deal, and your understanding of politics would improve greatly. When you begin to gain some serious insight into politics, your “political consciousness” improves. If lots of people read Nader’s stuff, it would have a beneficial effect on the general level of political consciousness. More people would gain insight as t