Progressives and Obama: The Clash of Narratives
By now, across the progressive spectrum, some familiar storylines tell us the meaning of the Obama campaign. In a groove, each narrative digs its truths. But whether those particular truths are the most important at this historical moment is another story.
We can set aside the plotline that touts Obama as a visionary pragmatist who has earned the complete trust of progressives. The belief has diminished in recent months -- in the wake of numerous Obama pronouncements on foreign policy, his FISA vote to damage the Fourth Amendment and the like -- but such belief was never really grounded in his record as a politician or his policy positions.
A more substantial narrative concedes that Obama has "compromised" on numerous fronts but assumes he has done so in order to get elected president, after which time his real self will emerge. This kind of dubious projection is as old as the political hills, and inevitably becomes a kind of murky exercise in armchair psychology. All in all, projection is not useful for assessing where political leaders are and where they're headed.
In contrast, quite a few on the left -- some from the outset of his presidential race, others beginning more recently -- express appreciable disdain for the Obama campaign. The critiques of Obama's positions on issues are often on the mark. Overall, the fact that Obama brings civility and intelligence to public discourse that would be a welcome change in the White House does not alter the corporate centrist core of his espoused policies.
No matter how much we might like to think that people's reasoning and logic are the essence of political judgments, actual experience tells us different: The political stances of many people, including on the left, are contoured around their own internal emotional terrain. And there may not be a lot of sorting through contradictions or analysis of the current historical circumstances.
Yet we're in great need of willingness to acknowledge contradictory truths, to sort through them as a means of finding the best progressive strategies for the here and now. While some attacks on Obama from the left are overheated, overly ideological and mechanistic, there's scant basis for denying the reality that his campaign and his positions are way too cozy with corporate power. Meanwhile, his embrace of escalating the war in Afghanistan reflects acceptance rather than rejection of what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism."
To some, who evidently see voting as an act of moral witness rather than pragmatic choice (even in a general election), forces such as corporate power or militarism are binary -- like a toggle switch -- either totally on or totally off. This outlook says: either we reject entirely or we're complicit.
Such analysis tends to see Obama as just a little bit slower on the march to the same disasters that John McCain would lead us to. That analysis takes a long view -- but fails to see the profound importance of the crossroads right in front of us, where either Obama or McCain will be propelled into the White House.
Any progressive who watched the "faith" forum that Obama and McCain participated in on Aug. 16 would have good reasons to be negative when assessing some of Obama's answers. But McCain's responses were vastly more jingoistic, militaristic, fanatical and pro-corporate, while also making clear his enthusiasm for the worst of the current Supreme Court justices.
In an odd and ironic way, progressives who are unequivocal Obama boosters and unequivocal Obama bashers embrace similar concepts of limited alternatives in electoral work. They seem to rule out candidly critical support of a candidate -- viewing such an option as either a betrayal of the candidate or a betrayal of principles.
But supporting one candidate -- clearly preferable to the Republican -- should not require a lack of candor about the preferred candidate's defects. And progressive interests are not advanced by claiming, against the evidence, that it doesn't really matter which candidate wins.
We suffer from way too much political argumentation that seems to be on automatic pilot, either puffing up Obama as a paragon of progressive virtues or denying the real differences between him and McCain. The pretending that follows from faith or dogma is no way to mobilize a progressive movement.
Norman Solomon is an elected Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention. His book "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" has been adapted into a documentary film of the same name. He is a national co-chair of the Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
246 Comments so far
Show AllKateAlene
I found this online: "Nothing in the Constitution "chains" us to the two-party system. Only federal law does. A statute passed by Congress forces states to gerrymander their territories into single-member districts. This law entrenches duopoly politics, because a one-winner election turns third parties into spoilers and encourages voters to hold their noses and vote for one of only two candidates. Thus, states are prevented from using proportional representation (PR), which the Constitution would allow. By using larger, multimember districts and preference or party-list voting, PR would give third and fourth parties a chance. A bill in Congress, HR 1189, the Voters' Choice Act, would eliminate the single-seat requirement, allowing states to experiment with PR. The duopoly can be broken without having to face the Supreme Court or amend the Constitution. It's a legislative issue, like other election reforms, and progressives should be leading the way."
So now to ferret out HR Bill 1189 and read it!
dougnwagner,
You are doing good though, you are way ahead of me when I was 24 and still in college. And by the way, a person that can spin as good as you can will make a great lawyer. I may want to hire you some day, that is if I can afford you!
If you are ever see something hazy and watery in the distance, in the desert, on a hot summer day, let me spare you the effort doug, it's not water, trust me.
-tailcap
it's weird everything gets double-posted....the new system must have bugs!
Dougnwagner,
You just go ahead and believe Obama is an "antiwar" candidate and he "compromised" not capitulated on FISA in spite of promising a filibuster. Yours is a simple case naivety or self-delusion. Marketing tricks work best on young people because of their gullibility and inexperience.
I will add that you are a little green behind the ears and I am old enough to be your dad, when I was your age I thought that the enemy of my enemy was my friend. If your enemy is the Republicans then you are too inexperienced to yet understand the Democrats are not your friend, not if you are a true progressive.
I guess maybe you're not a liar and you actually believe in the marketing gimmicks sold by the Obama campaign. I will say you are in rare company because most Obama supporters concede FISA was a betrayal and understand that Obama intends to intensify the war effort in Afghanistan. You are truly in a class by yourself.
tailcap
oops! my mistake! new system and controls!
USAa: You're right when you say, "You need to be organizing regardless of who wins!"
I meant to say that but the thought got caught in a synapse which had been overwhelmed by the "clash of narratives" on this blog.
Here's an idea. Interested folks find a way to connect for the purpose of studying and learning the election laws that stymie multiple parties. First task could be as simple as gathering together websites dedicated to this area. Then we focus: what needs to be changed, and how.
To continue talking about this election is just so much moonshine.
Advice?
Kate,
You need to be organizing regardless of who wins! Obama and McCain support virtually the same neoliberal domestic and imperilaist foreign policy agendas -but like Clinton, Obama will pursure these repugnant objectives in a more sleek, sophistaced and effective manner - that's all.
And Thomas More,
I think the trend since Reagan has been in the other direction - devolution of power to the State and local governments, which are much, much more prone (more like compelled) to yeild to pressure from big business to abolish regulations, gut public services and replace it with coroprate welfare. Under pressure of these big businesses treats to move to a poorer, low-wage, low regualation state/county/city, states and regions are pitted in a race to the bottom.
Thanks Sir Thomas More. Thanks KateAlene for posting Huck's link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPbJY2rs0QI (posted by Huck) Good videos to watch on the left sidebar too.
-Vote your conscience, peace.
KateAlene August 20th, 2008 8:16 am
I'm going to vote Obama. Go home and have a beer.
Should McCain win, I have two options.
1. Roll up my sleeves and commit myself to work on a local to national level to create a representative democracy … which means change election laws to create viable multiple parties leading to a coalition government.
I'd suggest #1....especially at the local level. States are beginning to take back some of their powers they have ceded to the Federal government. You can really have a effect at the local and State level. I hope you take option #1. We need all the help we can get.
tailcap August 19th, 2008 11:24 pm
Tailcaps facts are as usual correct.
KateAlene,
You speak for many in your post @ 8:16. Thanks!
We must move from talking to action. There are so many smart folks on these blogs. Can a few start a national movement to break the two party stranglehold on we the people? This has to be a 50 state "take back the government."
I would much rather had seen that young, bright, witty lady featured on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPbJY2rs0QI (posted by Huck)spend her time and energy on organizing a 2009 movement to change election laws than to ask for Nader votes. Forget the bandaids, we need skilled surgery.
Or has our country become too big, too diverse for any governance we now know about? Is it time for another 1776?
I'm listening.
Stiv Whitman: Good post! I may add, how much coverage did Dennis Kucinich (both times he ran) or Mike Gravel get? Two Democrats with a progressive agenda. Zip.
The public falls for it year after year.
McCain is the corporate media's monster. He would be wouldn't stand a chance if, for example, they harped on McCain's affair. So it goes....
But how much coverage has Green Party Cynthia McKinney gotten? Zip.
Lesser-evilism has never been more potent. Yet it has never been more obvious that the whole game is rigged: the corporate media runs this show . .......
jerome irwin: Excellent post! I'm in total agreement with you.
trollwithpunches: Also an excellent post at 6:45AM! You hit the nail on the head. The hard-headed "realists" aren't realists but just "hard-headed" thinking the collaborators in the Democratic Party will change their positions and break away from the cozy relationship with their "brethren" on the other side of the aisle. Sometimes, it is a difficult to say, "we've been conned" by our own party who's real allegiance is to protect the rich and powerful and throw their constituents a few pieces of bread every so often to keep the citizens from a justifiable rebellion against inequality and tyranny.
Norman Soloman, knows better, but prefers being part of the "establishment of get along Democrats."
KateAlene: I respect your position on voting. American culture and politics has degenerated so much these past thirty years, that many Americans have already left. So-called liberals and progressives still spend their time watching Faux News and it indirectly shapes their opinions. All the United States can do is threaten weaker countries and build more death and destruction military bases around the world and will eventually be defeated. Americans may have to suffer the same fate as Germany and Japan did in WW11 before they (the survivors, that is) change their individual (which leads to collective) attitude about violence and empire and re-discover the grand art of getting along with others on this planet.
Good fortune to you wherever you go.
I'm going to vote Obama. Go home and have a beer.
Should McCain win, I have two options.
1. Roll up my sleeves and commit myself to work on a local to national level to create a representative democracy ... which means change election laws to create viable multiple parties leading to a coalition government.
2. Go to the land of my great-parents, either Ireland or Canada, and start over again.
I CANNOT do another Republican administration. I'm just not wealthy enough.
So let us all vote in November, and let the chips fall where they may.
For those of you high and mighty hard-minded "realists" who dismiss third-party votes as quixotic, wrongheaded and wring your hands about how they are enabling Democratic defeat, you really have to ask yourself why the Democrats have done nothing to oppose the most criminal and loathsome administration in history. Is it just because they want to win? Or is there a deeper motive? Do the Democrats really oppose war, wiretapping, expansion of the executive, further erosion of our civil liberties, expansion of free-trade, corporatism?
Cuz to some extent if you vote for the Democrats you are voting to continue all of these wonderful bipartisan things. You are voicing your support for more war, more erosion of civil liberties. More militarism, more corporatism.
Nah, Norman.
e
Winning the election is not everything. Morals and principles in this Godless, corportist world still trump all the political bullshit.
I say, vote Nadar or McKinney and send a strong message to the powers that be that, like that famous line in the film "Network" put it, "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOTD GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE" t
Then turn off the T.V. and all the talking heads forever and lead a moral and principled life with one's own self, one's family and one's community and do whatever needs to be done on a local level to tar and feather all the politicians, lawyers, corporatists, hedge fund investors and financial brokers and rund them out of town on a rail
dougnwagner: writes, "Obama is not perfect."
-no shit Sherlock, nobody is. It isn't perfection we are demanding it is an end to war! Obama promises an escalation in Afghanistan. What part of that last sentence is THE PART YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND???
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/obam-a20.shtml
McCain charged Obama with having "tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge." He continued: "Not content to merely predict failure in Iraq, my opponent tried to legislate failure."
In his response, Obama spoke not as an opponent of war, but rather as an advocate of a superior strategy for pursuing US imperialist interests by military means.
He chided McCain for "talking tough without acting tough and smart," while outlining a policy agenda that includes a continuation of the occupation of Iraq—albeit on a reduced basis—an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and its extension across the border into Pakistan. Finally, he put forward a policy of confrontation with Russia in the Caucasus that dovetails fully with the positions taken by the McCain campaign and the Bush administration itself.
Obama objected to McCain's charge that he had shifted his position on Iraq, arguing that he had been consistent from the start. Referring to his initial opposition to the 2003 invasion, the Democratic candidate stressed that he was not opposed to aggressive wars in general, but that he viewed the war in Iraq as a miscalculation. He insisted instead that "our first priority had to be finishing the fight" in Afghanistan.
dougnwagner August 19th, 2008 9:07 pm writes "tailcap, I can deny 1-3, 7, and 8 was not 'capitulation'."
-repeat you are either a LIAR or MISINFORMED
The legislation, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, includes the most sweeping changes to US surveillance law since the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 30 years ago. It further erodes the limited legal protections against indiscriminate and politically motivated government spying and constitutes a frontal assault on basic democratic rights.
The legislation allows the government to carry out the monitoring of every phone call, email and other form of electronic communications—millions upon millions of messages—sent between the US and overseas without the need to present any evidence that this spying is based on probable cause that targeted individuals are engaged in illegal activity. Instead, the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court will merely review the procedures used in selecting surveillance targets.
The law includes no penalties whatsoever for the government using its vast surveillance powers illegally. Even if the FISA court were to determine that a specific spying operation ostensibly targeting foreigners was really aimed at Americans, the government would suffer no sanctions and would be allowed to retain the information gathered illegally.
The importance of the retroactive immunity language was underscored by the White House vow to veto the legislation if any one of the three amendments stripping or limiting this provision were passed. While claiming that the country would face the threat of an imminent terrorist attack if the expanded government surveillance powers in the legislation were not enacted, the administration clearly saw allowing the lawsuits to go through as a more serious danger.
Just last October, an Obama campaign spokesman issued a statement declaring, "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
The linguistic contortions cannot conceal the reality: the illegal spying by the Bush administration is only "over" because it has been legalized by the Democratic Congress. Obama & Co. are embracing legislation that declares the wiretapping legal going forward, and retroactively immunizes those who violated the law since 2001
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/fisa-j10.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/obam-j23.shtml
dougnwagner August 19th, 2008 9:07 pm writes "forgot to point out that Obama was a Democrat who voted against Alito and Roberts
dougnwagner: I can deny 1-3, 7, and 8 was not 'capitulation'.
-you are either a LIAR or MISINFORMED
-tailcap August 19th, 2008 8:39 pm "-Obama did vote against both Roberts and Alito." Read it again.
Obama: "We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator in the Afghan border region...etc. Obama has called for increasing the military by 90,000 troops. More military spending equates to more money for the Military Industrial Complex which Raytheon is a part of.
dougnwagner: "...an antiwar politician like Barack Obama..."
-THE OBAMA PRINCE OF PEACE BULLCRAP MYTH:
Obama: "And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it?"
Obama: "We're going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support," Obama continued. "We're going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We're going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective."
Obama:"Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines."
Obama: "We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator in the Afghan border region…etc.
-http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/89833/
Raising eyebrows over his Iraq approach, a new report suggests Obama could recruit none other than Robert Gates if he becomes commander-in-chief.
-Richard Danzig, Obama's top military adviser and a former secretary of the Navy in the Clinton Administration, saying:
"My personal position is Gates is a very good secretary of defense and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."
-UPDATE: The Obama campaign released a statement responding to the remarks made on the McCain conference call.
"Throughout this campaign, Barack Obama has been clear and consistent in saying that we need to responsibly end the war in Iraq so that we can restore our military strength, finish the fight in Afghanistan and focus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11. Today, eleven months after Barack Obama called for more troops in Afghanistan, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supported that position while pointing out once again that the war in Iraq is shortchanging our effort in Afghanistan. Instead of questioning Barack Obama's consistent call for a new direction in Iraq and Afghanistan, John McCain should explain why he is offering nothing more than four more years of a failed foreign policy that has asked nothing of the Iraqi government, overstretched our military, failed to finish the job in Afghanistan, and failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice for over six years," said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.
Look Doug, vote any way you want to. Do you really think this forum is going to influence anyone? People in our respective camps have already made up their minds. Nothing is going to be determined here other than asserting self importance.
Coyote posted this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPbJY2rs0QI
And quite frankly it represents succinctly what I think most people in the Nader camp feel about the Dems and Obama. Get over it.
as i noted earlier
"the green party will not have legitimacy (will not be embraced by the average american voter - who unfortunately has been weaned on MSM disinformation) until it's demonstrated that it has the support to have representation in the congress. why would a voter vote for a party in a federal election that has not demonstrated that it can elect green congress people or senators ? (especially from very progressive districts)."
until an alternative progressive party has crafted and passed legislation in the national legislature, it is ludicrous to imagine a leader (charismatic and all, like nader) who would have any impact on altering the status quo. in fact the failures of such a presidency would reinforce animosity towards the green/progressive party and solidify the DLC faction of the party. also would the democrats be willing to work w/ a candidate that just de-legitimized their party?
green candidates polling below 5% election season after election season in the presidential contest only amplifies the otherness of progressive politics. each defeat reinforces the notion that the american public does not embrace policy positions proposed by the peace and social justice movement and the environmentalists. the solution is to take all of this misplaced angst and elect green congressmen from berkeley, ann arbor, burlington, eugene, boulder etc... show the average american voter there is a 3rd party and it has a voice in congress.
top down politics is a flawed approach to promoting structural change. the support must come from the grass roots...
it would be more effective to influence the dem party from w/ in instead of creating an alternative. the proof is on the table. after 15-20 years where are the green legislators (state or federal) who've made a difference. i've listed a handful of dems that support our ideas (kucinich, feingold, conyers, waters) where is the sole green rep that made a difference in federal politics? in state politics? i'm all ears...
the green legislators (like the independent bernie sanders) will find like minded progressive democrats and craft legislation, creating the real (not delusional or imaginary) framework for a national green party (presidential candidates and all). perhaps i'll see this before i die. in the meantime, w/out support for obama we will see a conservative supreme court for the next 20 years and our foreign policy will continue to focus around extracting natural resources around the globe.
vote your conscience...
...peace...
Good news Hillary supporters masquerading as Nader supporters: she gets to put her name up for nomination, both she and Bill get to speak, and McCain is doing better in the polls.
Happy?
tailcap,
I can deny 1-3, 7, and 8 was not 'capitulation'. And you clearly forgot to point out that Obama was a Democrat who voted against Alito and Roberts which implies he's the same kind of Democrat as those like Hillary and John Edwards who voted for the Iraq War, or those who voted for Alito and Roberts. Which shows that you have not grasped the opportunity that an Obama presidency has for Progressives. If Obama loses it will strengthen the hands of the Clintons and Al From. Notice how people (Clinton supporters like Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland who would have been her VP) that Obama is not 'attacking' hard enough? Notice Al From's article in the NY Times?
You and Huck can play the word games all you want. The truth of the matter is that an Obama presidency is infinitely more likely to bring about real change for REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL CONCERNS than 4 more years of the last 8. How you can justify SELLING OUT an antiwar politician like Barack Obama is up to you and whatever disgruntled faction you identify with. But people like you make it impossible to mobilize progressives and independents because you take a leninist party-line on issues like FISA, which you obviously don't understand that critics like Glenn Greenwald represent the interests of trial lawyers who make millions of dollars from litigating cases, when there are MANY OTHER legitimate concerns that FISA needed to be strengthened. REAL PEOPLE who live in the REAL WORLD have to live in a world of COMPROMISE. Obama is not perfect. I don't agree with his support of giving taxpayer money to religious organizations, his position on Israel and Palestine, or his endoresement of clean coal, but that doesn't mean wasting my vote on Ralph Nader, who dissed the Green Party in 2004, or on Cynthia McKinney, who doesn't have a 50 state organization behind her, is going to solve my REAL CONCERNS.
Even if a Bernie Sanders were elected president, the 9 Supreme Court justices would be Democrats and Republicans. I am not opposed to building a progressive party and am not dissing the Green Party, I am saying the Green Party and other progressive parties should measure their success by how many wins they have, not by how many votes they get for President of the United States. And I am tired of hearing criticism of Barack Obama that trivialize REAL CONCERNS that REAL PEOPLE have about the economy, healthcare, education, foreign policy, national security, global warming, and who the next 2 supreme court justices are, among many other issues.
And btw Huck, you could also get elected senator and filibuster since that seems to be your solution to everything? Or are you 'too prinicipled' ('too big'?) for compromise and strategic voting? You should get out a calcuator and see how many points you score playing out your sad advocacy for third party presidential candidates against Obama supporters like me and see how many adults give a damn. All people lie me will remember is your truly traitorous contribution to a John McCain presidency.
trollwiththepunches August 19th, 2008 8:49 am
"I will probably vote for the Conservative in order to prevent the Neo-con from winning. If I do pull the lever for Obama I will not delude myself into thinking that a vote for Obama is anything other than a vote for the lesser evil. I will not delude myself into thinking that my vote in the quadrennial national plebiscite has anything to do with real politics. It is doing my small part to prevent a less horrible outcome."
Thank you for your honesty, troll, and I agree. This is quintessential lesser-evilism and something I railed against as iammyself. I've since come out of the closet and faced the ugly truth about modern day politics in the USA and this is where I have to come down. In the current political reality, this is our choice: Obama or McCain for president. Third parties are great, and I used to be part of one (Green), but they will not win the presidency.
While the role of president should not be one of imperiousness, it now is (thanks, BTW also to the feckless Democrats). However, given the current reality, just hand the Republicans 4 or 8 more years and we'll see what "worse" can really be. We're neck deep in shit (thanks again to the DNC) and if we have one more neocon administration we'll drown in it. Think not? Go ahead, make my day!
Sounds contradictory, huh? Vote for Obama on one hand, but the Democratic Party is complicit up to their flag lapel pins on the other. Well, perhaps, but again, that's the choice we are faced with in November. The problem has been that far too very few of us have lifted our asses off our chairs to do ANYTHING civic or political-minded. I worked for the Green Party. I worked for the Democratic Party. I worked for an independent that took it to the incumbent Dem. I've written and volunteered and written some more. Has it helped...I don't know. What I can say is if just a fraction of the folks who just bitch and piss and moan would do just one f_cking concrete thing to improve things, then maybe...
Please, take it to the Democrats and force them to turn around. Just remember, it is the Democratic leadership and the DLC that have screwed us. Don't take out your anger and frustration in the wrong place.
[This break in our regularly televised bitch-a-thon brought to you by Ronco Democracy-o-matic...]
dougnwagner August 19th, 2008 6:04 pm writes, "Of course, your slimy logic neglects to mention that Obama was one of the Democrats who opposed Roberts."
-Obama did vote against both Roberts and Alito. But you cannot deny every right-winger Bush has put up has gotten Democratic votes. If you read my post again you'll see I never said OBAMA VOTED FOR ROBERTS I SAID 22 DEMOCRATIC SENATORS DID!
You cannot deny:
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.
8. Obama voted in favor of the FISA capitulation.
You may not like my "slimy logic" but how do you like my FACTS?
Did someone pull the string on Norm's back again? The song remains the same.
The commissar is in town again, and he's ridin' dirty on his high horse.
Norm, do you think people haven't noticed that you've published the same terse, vapid, shallow, elitist, and desperate rationalization of Obama – and neoliberalism in general – every couple months for the last year?
Being the self-anointed progressive god that he is, Norm has enlightened us as to what constitutes a true progressive and how a progressive movement must, well, progress. Norm has let us peons know that we are the simpletons in the iron cage; trapped by our all-or-nothing counterculture ideology.
The fact is that Norm's the one who has already accepted the big lie. Not only the big lie of Obama - dutifully outlined by people like Paul Street (Norm could learn a few things about supporting an argument from Paul, or any primary school student for that matter) – but the larger mistruths and injustices under the neoliberal umbrella: corporate party control of our electoral process; the utter destruction of public-private linkages in politics; citizen alienation from politics; the resultant amelioration of accountability for public servants; etc. Norm is the person who can only see the ONE predefined and sanctioned means to the progressive end. Norm is the one in the cage, and very little light is getting through.
Of course Norm can't really explain why democrats are the chosen facilitators of effective progressive action; he can only tell us that they are the only ones that can win, they are not as bad as the evil republicans, and they are the only ones receptive to progressive pressure. Norm, what happened to the pressure from the 2006 mid-terms? All those democrats and we got – nothing. Oh, that's right – they are just innocent bystanders. The real solution is more democrats, and more democrats, and more democrats… Norm, you know whose interest this supports, and it's not the interest of progressives.
Norm is a slippery one; you've really got to connect the dots on his BS to understand his true arc of lunacy. In one of Norm's previous installments, "Let's Party Like It's 1932", he let us know that Obama's shortcomings aren't really that critical because progressive action is really the responsibility of "we" and "us", not the elected candidate. Somehow this doesn't jive with the "to infinity and beyond" strategy of electing democrats to drive progressive change.
In the larger context of the least-worst argument, the "we" and "us" focus reeks of an Orwellian affirmation of neoliberal tenets: personal responsibility and individual pathology. Obama et al. are essentially off the hook for any substantive, personal responsibility to progressive endeavors; consequently, his failure is our collective responsibility and ultimately each voter's individual failure (see last mid-term elections). The least-worst, business party rubric shields us from the true barriers to an influential and participatory democracy, all the while positing that a minimalist or even regressive agenda is acceptable, if not inevitable. A future Obama administration, institutions, and modalities of power have already been stripped of their ramifications on individual plights based on Norm's ideological conflation of least-worst politics and neoliberal diffusion.
The superficial response to this latest installment from Norm is: "no crap". I don't think anyone needed Norm to tell us that blind allegiance and perfectionism are not constructive. I don't think all the narrative-drunk progressives Norm birthed in the article need his help to realize that there are substantive differences amongst the candidates – ALL the candidates (hint for Norm: there are more than two). Norm believes the progressive underlings are far too stupid to analyze the relevance, size, and importance of these differences in an effort to make an electoral choice. Norm has also done the hard work of determining that the variability in positions between Obama and McCain is large enough to outweigh the fact that, collectively, the McCain/Obama agenda is far right of center and the majority of the American people. In fact, it was easy for Norm because it doesn't matter: the democrat is the only correct choice anyway. Norm likes his analysis simple.
Norm, we of lesser minds are grateful that you have informed us that Obama is still progressive enough to support – thanks a million – couldn't have done it without you! While we're on the topic, can you tell us the threshold where a democratic candidate isn't progressive enough to support? Oh wait, you already have: there isn't one. The fact is, according to your logic, the democratic candidate can be nearly identical to the republican one on nearly all issues, but it is a progressive gap on a handful of issues between the two that precludes a robust and committed independent or 3rd party candidate from being viable. What a bunch of disingenuous garbage: you want the power, prestige, access, image, and spectacle of being associated with the left wing of the business party.
Bye the way, kudos to the a-hole that made "narrative" the latest political-elite buzzword to demonize dissent. Don't mind all that critique and critical analysis coming Obama's way; it's just part of the fringe narrative, a story, or a talking point; only the naive, divisive, and deviant are dumb enough to accept that "narrative".
Norm's indoctrination is evidenced by this wholehearted faith in the existence of "clashing narratives": a reified concept of propaganda and domination that only serves to further sever public-private linkages to the betterment of power elite that view citizens as debased "electors" to be assuaged every four years.
Norm, pat on the back for trying to infantilize the most vibrant and critical players in the progressive arena. Here is the problem: no one else is hearing the rose-colored and demonic narratives that you claim to be so influential. Most importantly, the "demonizing" you are attempting to castigate is, in fact, an extensive, thorough, and accurate debunking of Obama's progressive credentials. Maybe this is why you've had to try and marginalize these players by fabricating a narrative, with a narrative.
The meager critical and empirical analysis of Obama at the beginning of the article is done to highlight the similar, if not identical, conservative/reactionary positions and records he holds with McCain. The "vast differences" sited later in the article are based on one reality TV show, bizarro world, political spectacle that occurred on August 16th. A primary school critique would quickly highlight that the unsavory responses from McCain were likely crafted for the audience in an amenable "narrative". The same primary school student might characterize Norm's extrapolation of this event to stifle progressive dissent as "piss poor".
Norm, a true hypocrite, mentions the peril of progressive "projection" onto a candidate. This "projection" is a fallacy and construction that no progressive takes seriously; it is not an obstacle for the progressive movement. The real obstacle is creating an enduring and effective broad-based, grassroots progressive movement. This critical need functions in the same "pragmatic" realm that Norm cherishes. The pragmatic citizen requires a thorough examination of Obama and his potential responsiveness and malleability. This analysis may culminate in a progressive's astute and studied determination that Obama is not the right progressive to vote for (again Norm: there are more than 2 candidates) in order to achieve short-term or long-term change. One might even call this an informed democratic choice.
Norm can't be bothered with petty and vague concepts such as altruism and agency; what matters is pragmatism, compliance, and the appropriate level of dissent – we'll call it Diet Dissent. According to Norm, Diet Dissent "should not require a lack of candor about the preferred candidate's defects", but the candor is capped at a level short of exercising democratic choice – that is, if you are a true progressive, democrat, patriot, american, or whatever the hell Norm does have faith in.
Norm, what is with the months of talk about building a progressive movement that is influential? OK genius; tell us how it is done! How do we participate more frequently and effectively? How do we counter citizen alienation? How do we make politicians accountable? Where are all the leverage points on Obama to divert his overall alignment with state capitalism, empire, and corporate power? We already got the part about how it has to start with critical, but ultimately unwavering support for Obama. I also got the part about only voting for progressives (i.e. democrats with the "only chance to win" against republicans) in state and local elections as well. I know this will be hard for you; you'll have to write more than 500 words and substantiate your arguments.
To cast Obama as the turning-point lynchpin against decades of neoliberalism is disingenuous, dangerous, and subversive. We don't need a hollowed-out "progressive majority" – we need affirmative action against the sheltered mechanisms of the neoliberal umbrella: jingoism, plutocracy, state capitalism, etc.
We all know that electoral reform (e.g. clean, publically funded elections) and the removal of corporate capital from politics is essential. Both these concepts are antithetical to democratic party neoliberalism. Norm is quite aware of the pragmatic fact that even relatively small levels of 3rd party and independent turnout puts real pressure on the democratic party; in fact, it may be the only thing that does.
A child could argue his or her way out of Norm's 4 walls game. This piece is yet another installment in the ongoing Norm "narrative": Vote for Obama or you are not a true progressive and you are hurting the movement. I guess what Norm wants us to know is that a little bit of Diet Dissent (constrained critical thought, pragmatism, and blind allegiance) will allow anyone to work for the clampdown.
Heed the word of Norm:
It's "emergency time"; we need short-term action; no time to worry about long-term strategy or progress; no time for substantive analysis; obvious shortcomings and fallacies be dammed; there is only one solution; there is only one means to the progressive end; your ideals and basic liberties are a liability; the time is now, and now only; progress can only be made with the "right" decision, right now; a bad decision is actually a good decision; you will not survive John McCain; be afraid – be very afraid; Obama is the only option.
Hypothetical matchup: McCain (R) vs. Obama (D) vs. MLK (I) back from the dead, forced to run for president against his will, and polling at 20% nationwide; who does Norm support now? It's a No-brainer, right? McCain is just that bad!
Norm, you've become a self-pacifying nihilist. In short Norm, you suck! You are the one that is "projecting" your own needs and aspirations onto Obama. You are the one conducting a Dr. Phil, pop-psychology séance to alleviate your own cognitive dissonance with your marriage to neoliberal interests. Stop stifling dissent and Moveon. Get aboard the moving train with the rest of us. At least give us something we can use that isn't insulting, juvenile propaganda.
To the person voting for Obama because he's black. How about McKinney ? Think how proud your daughters will be that you voted for a woman, and black at that.
Karl Rove: Vote Republican or The Terrorists will get you!
Jim Glover and lisa3210peace: Vote Democrat or McCain will blow up the whole world!
Who's the bigger fearmongerer?
lillulu- "We all know the 3rd parties don't have a chance of a snowball in Hell, yet they keep telling people to not vote for Obama."
You're right, 3rd parties don't have a chance, which is why progressives should vote for McCain and other Republicans. It's clear that a progressive movement will never take hold in this country until the Democratic Party collapses, and the most efficient method of precipitating that collapse is to defeat Democratic politicians by voting for Republicans.
If you look at the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, it's clear that the country is 75% Republican anyway, so having a huge GOP majority will be nothing more than an accurate reflection of the electorate.
Doug, if Alito and Roberts were so appalling to Obama he could have demonstrated his rights under the Senate rules to prerogative to filibuster. Talk about misdirection. You people are masters at it.
jesusofjonesboro (1st post), yes you're right about that. The right-wing poseurs come here pretending to be progressives and bash Obama and tell people to vote 3rd party. We all know the 3rd parties don't have a chance of a snowball in Hell, yet they keep telling people to not vote for Obama. They almost had me hoodwinked for awhile.
OBAMA 2008
coyote and tailcap, I can see why my post was confusing if you hadn't been following my previous exchange with Jim, but I was being sarcastic.
And btw, Jesse Jackson is wrong about Obama, and frankly disappointing.
Tailcap:"The "HOW ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT?" argument is a staple DPA red herring argument because enough Democrats always vote with the Republicans to allow the confirmation of the right-wing justice."
Of course, your slimy logic neglects to mention that Obama was one of the Democrats who opposed Roberts.
Huck brings up an interesting point: Do the Dems not filibuster against right-wing appointments because they are cowards or as I suspect, because they have no principled opposition to the appointment?
As is often the case perhaps the truth is in the middle. The Democrats are both cowards and in agreement, for the most part, with the Republicans.
If Democrats actually opposed Republican policies they would, as Huck noted, use the filibuster. All it would take is 41 principled Democratic Senators to filibuster against war funding and they could have stopped it dead in its tracks many years ago.
NOW THAT THEY HAVE THE MAJORITY - WHAT IS THEIR EXCUSE???????????????????? Can a DPA answer that???????????????????????
Glover does not want to talk about Roberts, nor I suspect about Alito. The Democrats hold a tool to counter extreme judge ships and it is called FILIBUSTER. But guess what - like everything else - they don't have the backbone for it and my guess is because they are owned by the same interests as the Republicans.
dougnwagner writes:
"Obama is not a "war criminal" for opposing authoritarian dictators like Omar and Musharraf religious intolerance in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
-----
Unbelievable as it may seem, Obama's got no business "opposing" this and that in other places while THIS country is falling apart LARGELY because of its neo-imperial military adventures -- which are always undertaken on behalf of "women", "democracy", gassed puppies, "premature Kuwaiti babies stacked like cordwood", etc.
NO one has shown more authoritarianism than the Obama campaign -- and The CHANGEling and his blow-hard associates seem to have a bit of a "religious intolerancee" problem of their own, especially when it comes -- however alternately -- to Jews and Muslims.
If the Democratic delegates nominate this fraud, they'll be sorry sorry sorry -- especially if McCain turns out NOT to be the Republicans' nominee.
Jesse Jackson was right about Obama.
Jim Glover August 19th, 2008 4:38 pm
If you guys don't understand the danger of a complete right wing supreme court, I don't expect you to understand anything.
-Another DPA staple argument, the "HOW ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT?" argument. How about the vote on Chief Justice Roberts?
All 55 Republicans voted to confirm Roberts; 22 Democrats, including Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Patrick Leahy of Vermont, also voted to confirm Roberts, as did the one independent (Jim Jeffords). 22 Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, voted in opposition.
22 Democrats voted to confirm Bush's Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts.
The "HOW ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT?" argument is a staple DPA red herring argument because enough Democrats always vote with the Republicans to allow the confirmation of the right-wing justice.
jimmyjazz August 19th, 2008 4:28 pm writes, "coyote: "I don't think it's fair to call Jim a Democratic apologist."
-It is fair, I have sparred with him and he does support Democrats and Obama. Ask him.
Jimmy don't be fooled by the masters of obfuscation and misdirection. Glover has absolutely no insight on the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. The only change Obama can manifest is CHUMP CHANGE.
(2)Pacifism did not help Jews in the Holocaust, Palestinians in the Nakba, or the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan subjugated by Al Qaeda and their clones in the Taliban.
You cannot boil down all armed conflict into the 'bad' kettle. Were Che Guevara and Fidel Castro and the Cuban peoploe all 'war criminals' for liberating Cuba? Without Denmark Vesey, Frederick Douglass, John Brown, and many others who fought for abolition in the Civil War there would not have even been an Emancipation Proclamation. Obama is not a "war criminal" for opposing authoritarian dictators like Omar and Musharraf and religious intolerance in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"The Taliban, which have solidified control across Pakistan's tribal zone and are seeking new staging grounds to attack American soldiers in Afghanistan, have sided with fellow Sunni Muslims against an enclave of Shiites settled in Parachinar for centuries. The population of about 55,000 is short of food. The fruit crop is rotting, residents say, and the cost of a 66-pound bag of flour has skyrocketed to $100."
"Taliban Exploit Sectarian Rift in Siege of Shiites in Pakistan Enclave"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/asia/26pstan.html
"Pakistan Marble Helps Taliban Stay in Business"
July 14, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/world/asia/14taliban.html
"Meanwhile, [Obama's] embrace of escalating the war in Afghanistan reflects acceptance rather than rejection of what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism."- Norman Soloman
Is this the kind of 'candid support' Obama needs, based as it is on a complete misreading of the situation of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(1) Obama's real position:
"We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally."- Sen. Barack Obama, the next President of the United States
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event&event_id=269510
"McCain Outspoken in Defense of Musharraf"
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/28/mccain_outspoken_in_defense_of.html
If you guys don't understand the danger of a complete right wing supreme court, I don't expect you to understand anything.
That is fine with me... I enjoy it.
Cheer up, you may make things Worse.
That's correct !
Democrats have NEVER-NEVER-NEVER supported fascist candidates for the Supreme Court
Can you at least come up with some new fear-based lesser-evilism
"Overall, the fact that Obama brings civility and intelligence to public discourse that would be a welcome change in the White House does not alter the corporate centrist core of his espoused policies."
-----
When this debacle is past, a question up for debate by the three remaining adherents of the "left" may well be whether Hayden, or Solomon, was the crappier apologist for "post-partisan" flimflam.
To begin with, The CHANGEling's "intelligence" is NOT in evidence when he's off the teleprompter. And his ENGLISH isn't very good (and not in a hip or "black" or interesting way -- just in a plumb ignorant way that doesn't jibe with the supposedly-grand education and so on).
As for "civility", playing the Nice Negro, ca. 1960 while the uber-whites who run him scourge opposing candidates as well as other speakers of any discouraging word whatsoever about The CHANGEling's fake bios and flaky proposals, ain't quite "civility" -- an attitude which, in any case, is unequal to the savagery of the electoral circus, and to most of the politics espoused by ANY of the "Democratic" candidates, with the exception of John Edwards.
All that "my esteemed colleague" crap encourages the plain-vanilla unrich, out-saccharined by a bunch of mobsters -- most definitely including the nasty-nice Obama -- to feel out of it, as indeed the unrich (people without "primary care physicians", publishers, lawyers) ARE out of the electoral equation of the formerly-Democratic Party, now hijacked by the same saboteurs who set the party on its post-partisan slide in 2004, when effete snob John Kerry thought John McCain, now painted by last-ditch "democrats" like Solomon as the Devil incarnate, would be a great running mate.
Nader or McKinney.
coyote:
I don't think it's fair to call Jim a Democratic apologist. So far all he has said in the Dems' favor is that there is a chance they will prevent nuclear genocide with Russia. No one is really sure what he means by this. Besides this, all he has said about the Dems is that they can win, which is not something in favor of the Dems specifically since it applies to the Republicans as well.
You don't know what Jim "means by this" ?
Well, I'm not sure where you've been since 1980, but here in the United Corporations of America we have a cowardly party called the Democratic Party that has, since 1980 wanted people to support them because of who they weren't/aren't. They stand for nothing but corporate bribes and apathy. Fear-based Lesser-evilism is the entire platform Democrats run on today. It is their bread and butter strategy.
You really didn't recognize that attempt to scare you into supporting a bad candidate because if you don't the boogie republican is gonna get you.
Well, it seems you've missed most of the recent Democratic Party campaigns for higher office. You've not missed anything
If you don't know what I am talking about (Nuclear war with Russia) which would be the ultimate Genocide than you have never heard of MAD.
Any sane person understands the danger of this old threat that is now back stronger than ever... and if you heard it first from me...Good!
Fill you in on the Danger?
You are gettin Wacky on us now.
A primer for Jim Glover one of the great Democratic apologist of our time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPbJY2rs0QI
I don't believe Obama is an evil individual either. And neither you nor I seems to have any idea what you are talking about when you reference a potential "nuclear genocide with Russia". So now we have two things in common.
You have our attention with this Russian nuclear genocide threat, Jim. None of us has ever heard of this threat before, and I think it's safe to say any progressive would want to be informed about something of this magnitude. Please fill us in on the danger.
Hey Jimmyjazz,
I did not say Obama is the only way, I said I don't believe he is evil and he is the best chance we have to avoid nuclear genocide with Russia.
Now how about you explaining why Bomb Iran McCain is the better choice to avoid nuclear Genocide, that is if for you nuclear war is something important to avoid.
jstevens August 19th, 2008 2:54 pm writes, "You're making it too easy. How do we know the fringe candidates wouldn't change?"
-easy? You are easy! With the Democrats you have a KNOWN. They are KNOWN double-crossing, spineless, capitulating treasonous bastards.
With 3rd parties we get an unknown. I would bet you a nice sum neither McKinney nor Nader would support the war/occupations, protecting the criminals in the White House and the destruction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Do you seriously believe Nader and McKinney would continue the war/occupation?
Democratic Party supporters are EASY to market to. You offer them Pepsi or Coke, Levis or Wranglers, Celtics or Lakers, black or white, evil or good, that's it.
Keep buying the same crappy products and keep getting the same crappy results: a warmongering, imperialist police state.
Most Democrats basically can be boiled down to fear. They fear the worst so they opt for the inferior. They are afraid to think outside the neat little box the powers that be have created for them to make their "choices" in. They keep dutifully going down and and pulling the "D" lever no matter how close it is to the "R" lever.
I think to continue voting for Democrats in light of their refusal to end the wars/occupations and impeach Bush is a sign of fear, weakness, capitulation and even cowardice.
DPAs spend their time tearing down even the possibility of change they so claimed Obama would bring. Change? Don't hear the word "change" much anymore.
Vote for Obama, vote for the status-quo, vote for PTB (the powers that be), keep things the same. Feels comfortable. Both mainstream parties have the "official" aura around them that so entices Democrats. They need to buy the products on the top shelf, the ones the store owners want you to buy, the ones that are the name brands, that's why they put them there.
If Obama offered ANY challenge at all to the PTB he would have met the same fate as Kucinich, McKinney, Gravel and even Ron Paul. The reason we have Obama vs. McCain is because both have been vetted and blessed by the official political system and found to be viable representatives of the imperialist oligarchy/plutocracy that is the US.
Those that do not remember the past are bound to repeat it. Keep voting for Dems!
With Mccain in office, the Obama hacks can face EXECUTION as will the rest of the DemoCRAPic Party and in the meantime, true progressives and liberals will get a better shot at politics on all levels. There's no point in voting "Democrat" when the party shows itself to be absolutely no different from the GOP. C'mon Mccain, finish destroying what's left of America and let's get it the FUCK over with it !!!!
BTW, while I fervently oppose Obama and the Dems, I don't believe that third party voting is in itself a winning strategy. There are convincing arguments that *voting* is the real opium of the masses in modern parliamentary/representative systems; in a winner-take-all system this is all the more true. If you pull a lever for Green or Nader as a protest, that's great, but we should keep in mind the fact that this act by itself does little or nothing--as Jim Glover has pointed out over and over and over and over, third parties aren't going to win anything. So a vote for them is just two minutes' worth of protest--not exactly a staggering progressive achievement even if it is preferable to casting your approval for the Dems.
The rest of each four year period should be spend seeking ways of truly influencing things, though - protesting war and intervention and forced free trade by any and all creative means, going to SOA Watch's protest in Fort Benning (it comes just two weeks after the election!), supporting and working for public interest groups that put pressure on government "representatives", educating yourself in a serious way, and linking up with social activists from other parts of the globe (start talking right away with the many who speak English, and maybe start to learn a new language so you can communicate with even more).
This system is a joke. You can't work through it. If you care about anything, you have zero choice but to work around it. This sucks, but it is the reality. We should not start to think that by voting for a 2-3% candidate we have somehow done more than if we had been one of 287 people to vote for the Feminist Communist Black Queer Third World Liberation Party (U.S.A.). We haven't! That 2-3% is not ever going to turn into a 34%--not in a million election cycles, because they (you know who I'm talking about) won't let it. It is merely a protest vote and should be viewed by us as such. It can't be the sum of all political activity for four years of those who really care.
edit-
Jim Glover, I said you should be ignored until you made a point besides to assert how certain features of our political system make it impossible for a third party candidate to win. We were all aware of this even before the first of your thirteen helpful reminders. To point it out over and over is trolling.
You finally did make a different point, albeit a stupifyingly dumb one, by saying that Obama is the only way to "avoid nuclear genocide with Russia". Whatever that even means. Still waiting for your explanation.
This clip says it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPbJY2rs0QI
JimmyJazz,
Ha, I thought you guys were gonna ignore me.... You can't even do that... see, You need to get organized.
Like I said I don't think Obama is evil and that is why I don't think he will start a nuclear War.
McCain seems to be trigger happy... Bomb Iran McCain.
Obama is the better choice in our winner take all system.
If this concept is too simple for you than please vote for whoever you please.... If you get McCain, and more right wing supreme court and tax breaks for the rich, you will probably get what you are asking for.
You're making it too easy. How do we know the fringe candidates wouldn't change?
Why bother to even read the news or choose a candidate if it is all so very random?
However, I see that we have common ground. It is indeed noteworthy that every other candidate received enough votes to alter the outcome of the election. It was a close race.
Wouldn't it be great if McKinney went around assaulting the other Heads of State, also? They are "probably" jerks. I mean maybe. They could be, you know. We don't specifically know that they're not all jerks.
jstevens: Nader lost all of his moral authority in 2000.
-According to the official 2001 Statistics of the Presidential and Congressional Election of November 7, 2000, George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by 543 votes. It is noteworthy that every third-party candidate received enough votes in Florida to have cost Al Gore the election.
jstevens: Do you think Bush and Gore are the same, tailcap?
-Gore would have been better I assume, we don't know for sure, do we? Once in office people change. What did Gore accomplish when he was in a position of power? Nothing. Why hasn't Gore avenged his theft by running again? Ask him to apologize.
jstevens: McKinney assaulted a guard for doing his job, then cried racism. Illegal. Pathetic
-that is right-wing smear used by Republicans. SO WHAT! Big deal, she isn't responsible for killing anyone is she? How about Obama? I hold him personally responsible for all the deaths attributed to the illegal and immoral wars/occupations he supports by funding.
What's worse, pushing a guard who was probably being a jerk or funding illegal and immoral wars where perhaps over 1,000,000 have been killed over WMD that never existed?
p.s. Sorry for any grammatical or spelling errors!
lisa3210peace August 19th, 2008 2:11 am writes, "Your question is an answer; your 3rd party has been nowhere. that leaves only the Dems for better or worse or McCain."
-Lisa sorry if I insulted you. I am not a member of any political party. I do not know what third parties have been up to these last years. I would imagine they have been bashing their heads up against a wall trying to convince people like you that voting for pro-war, pro-corpoarate pro-police state Democrats is not in their interests, probably to no avail.
Democrats have proved beyond any doubt they support war, refuse to uphold the law ( impeach ) and enable Republicans to trample on our civil liberties.
The Greens oppose all these measures. I will vote for Cynthia McKinney. The "What has a 3rd party done?" argument is a red herring. Third parties haven't been in control of the Congress. The question YOU should be asking is what have the Democrats done for YOU these last 8 yrs. and what have Democrats done to oppose the Republican agenda.
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
tailcap: Nader is as egocentric as our current President. He was dangerous as a Third Party candidate. He would be dangerous as President.
Do you think Bush and Gore are the same, tailcap?
Does Nader think they are the same?
He stated as much in 2000 and it caused a lot of trouble (as in: The world used to have a chance and now it doesn't. Colossal Trouble.)
If he has since changed his feeble mind, he should apologize. (By the way, the necessity of an apology is not determined strictly by legality.)
You continue to assume that all democrats represent a "Lesser Evil" platform--that any fringe candidate is preferable. I disagree.
Nader lost all of his moral authority in 2000.
McKinney assaulted a guard for doing his job, then cried racism. Illegal. Pathetic.
Just for kicks, read her running mate's acceptance speech. I have seen more wisdom from the celebrities accepting their Oscar.
Ralph Nader never said Republicans and Democrats were the same. He said there's "not a dimes worth of difference" between the Republicans and Democrats.
You put forth Democrat propaganda. You have no honor. Do you lie as a habit, or just to get your way. Or, are you simply a willfully ignorant person spitting up Democrat propaganda because you soaked it up when they doused you in it.
Look at the 2006 election. Look at this fool Obama turning right at every opportunity. The Democrats have gone out of their way to prove Nader correct.
Although penny might have been the more accurate coin
Jim Glover
A quick note, peaceman and I don't see eye to eye on some issues, but pro-war he most assuredly is not. With a capital N. I'm sure you figured that out, but to make sure......Not!
Tailcap.....don't give up, we'll pull it out yet.
The decision is a moral one. The Democratic Party supports war, erosion of civil liberties and refuses to uphold the Constitution. If all the Democratic Party supporters could see this then a vote for a 3rd party candidate would be a wise choice, as they would win.
I am vehemently opposed to war. We do not need to have killing fields in foreign lands for the purpose of further enriching the already obscenely rich. A vote for Obama is a vote for a man that proudly proclaims his allegiance to the Military Industrial Complex and Big Oil.
Obama: "And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it? And I think that we should have been focused on Afghanistan from the start. We should have finished that job."
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.
That is why I cannot vote for Obama. As far as McCain winning- oh well. Obama can blame himself if he loses for not representing the wishes of the people to end the militarism not amplify it and want their civil rights protected not violated.
When Democrats were given a chance to vote for an outstanding, principled and truly progressive candidate (Kucinich) Democrats rejected him and chose Obama instead. The ugly truth is that Democrats today are really slightly left of center Republicans.
That's how far the political spectrum has shifted to the right. Those opposed to war will find no expression in either of the duopolistic mainstream candidates.
A McCain victory will accelerate the decline of the US as an empire, Obama's job would be to rescue it. Let it fall.
And remember Democrats do not OWN progressive votes. Votes need to be earned. It would be self-betrayal to vote for a candidate that promises everything I hate.
Go Greens! Go McKinney! Go voting for what you believe in in a world of blind flat-Earth Tweedle Dees and Tweedle Dums!
Jim Glover: "I don't believe he is evil and he is the best chance we have to avoid nuclear genocide with Russia …so sue me."
Nice try. The current bipartisan imperialist government of the United States has been a nightmare and a disaster for the whole world outside of our borders. That's a fact. So I can understand why you'd want to make a McCain victory look equally apocalyptic and the general election look equally high stakes. But you just flat made this up, you have to do better. Let's here you explain it: how exactly is Obama the only candidate going to help us avoid nuclear genocide with Russia, Jim? I'm intrigued!!
I've read the arguments and pleas on all sides - impassioned and logical many are, too.
Obama is indeed a fine and talented politician in that he clearly read the mood of the electorate, and for a brief moment many believed change was possible and something to believe in. All that grassroots money he was supposedly raising caught the attention of many. Here, at last, was someone to get behind. The FISA vote just after Obama became the presumptive candidate sadly and abruptly awoke me from that reverie. The cruelest of disappointments. Yet, now I'm cured. I'm free.
Representative government is already dead on these shores, as 2006 should have made crystal clear to me. My vote is going to Panama John-john McCain, the fake war hero. Then maybe as the FEMA camps fill and the voices of dissent fade or disappear in the night, my fellow Americans might wake up. The coup de tat is already complete. Since the 60s neither Republicans nor Democrats have protected, defended or preserved the Constitution of the United States of America and they have no higher Constitutional duty. Yes, the power of a strong, educated and secure middle-class scared the hell out of the real rulers and they DO hate you for your freedoms, alright. Their money bought the servitude of the Legislative branch and eventually the Judicial branch. It's already over and all elections since the unchallenged debacles of 2000, 2004 and 2006 are just exercises in self-deception, allowed by the rulers, the have-mores, and their minions-those representatives that never listen to you.
Some of you probably even believe you still have rights under the Constitution worth fighting some bad-guy commies or muslims or liberals over. Wanna bet? Heard a Democratic or Republican Party leader challenge 'free speech zones' or the illegal activities of NYPD Blue at the last RNC or the upcoming Denver debasement? Thought not. Habeas Corpus is gone. America is a war criminal. My countrymen, we are all guilty. The Rule of Law and responsibility for one's actions only applies to the unconnected and unwashed now. All citizen protections are null and void and your rulers they will not surrender what they have stolen but will continue to steal more. As GHW Bush was supposedly overheard saying at a private club to either Jeb or Jr, "Son, there's just two kinda folk, us and the help." You didn't deserve your Constitution and Bill of Rights because you didn't exercise them, guard them and protect them with your lives.
I'm finally tired of yelling to deaf ears and the voices or reason like Solomon and those before him since Gov. Reagan trashed California, later to become president. I will vote McCain from my overseas bunker to quicken the process, since pain and suffering are all most people seem to learn from. I wish you gullible, starry-eyed folk well, though. And whatever you do; never turn off your tee vee.
many of you miss an important point about Obama. The man is not, never was, never will be a progressive. He is a relatively conservative moderate Democrat. End of story. He didn't "run to the right" after the nomination. He actually tacked slightly leftward during the primaries because Hillary outflanked him from the "left." She positioned herself slightly to the left of Obama but also--and I think we might be splitting hairs and possibly opening cans of worms--I think she is slightly more progressive than Obama.
This doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't vote for him. It just means that you should be realistic about him. I think that's the main point Solomon is making here.
The critical question that has been reiterated here ad nauseum is, do you hold your nose and vote for lesser of two evils or stick to your principles?
I personally think it's a hard choice to make and neither one is perfect. I don't want to judge people on how they come down on this difficult decision and I'm personally tired of lectures from either side.
Looks like I got lucky and the storm didn't even knock out my power...yet.
I have always said I will give the Dems one more chance to turn this around.
Peaceman, you can keep your cape.
I don't agree with Obama's plans for Afghanistan. But that does not mean I will support the Republicans and make Rove happy by wasting my vote on parities that are not even organized to win anything... One more chance for the Dems.
I think Obama has shown he is the most willing to negotiate with adversaries and al Queda has declared war on all of us.
There are many officials in Pakistan and Afghanistan who would negotiate with the Taliban for Obama or he will get us bogged down there just like Russia did with twice as many troops.
Here is a good article on it http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-plans-for-afghanistan-could-mean.html
Obama will find out and he knows he makes mistakes and I know I do.
I don't believe he is evil and he is the best chance we have to avoid nuclear genocide with Russia ...so sue me.
If he doesn't live up to that and we are still around I will hammer president Obama and protest War like I always do.
This Clash of narratives is proof enough to me that progressives can not unite at this time... but if Obama wins we can still work for what we want and be more united.
Remember the people united cannot be defeated... the people need to win for a change...Nader and the Greens are even divided among themselves...This does not give the people more power, but less.
The truth remains, the simple truth that a vote that does not stop McCain is too dangerous for the Planet.
I'll stay with the obvious simple truths and leave all profundities to the 3rd party people.
Shalom
Dear CDers:
I have been increasingly unhappy with the direction of the Obama campaign since he secured the nomination and concerned about the narrowing gap between Obama and McCain in the polls. The election that was the Democrats to loose now seems to be the election the Democrats are intent on loosing. Now, reading the amount of hatred expressed toward Obama and the Democratic Party on this site, I am panicked. Many of you seem prepared to make symbolic votes of principle for candidates with no chance of winning. Do you really believe that there is no difference between Obama and McCain? Do you really believe that 2000-2008 would have been no differnent had Albert Gore been sworn in (he was elected, after all). If that's truly the case, then I would have to conclude that the left, which has not been a potent political force in this country for quite some time, is spent.
Samson 1:15 pm wrote:
"we must build our own political movement independent of the Democrats. Then, the Democrats can no longer try to force us into supporting a candidate that is only marginally less horrible than the Republican.
If we elect McCain, we lose.
If we elect Obama, we lose.
If we build a new political movement that represents us, then we can win."
Of course, Samson, that seems so obvious to us, but how can we convince our brethren of the truth of this? If NADERITES AND ALL OTHER PARTIES AND ORGANIZATIONS TO THE LEFT OF CENTER would cast their votes for McKinney, our movement would be off the ground and be an established, recognized, political force. The RebubliCrats lesser-evil game is scheduled to run forever. At some point we must say 'enough' or else forever remain political eunuchs; whiners and scribblers with all the political clout of a falling feather. Let's make this the year we all vote for someone we really like.
Samson 1:15 pm wrote:
"we must build our own political movement independent of the Democrats. Then, the Democrats can no longer try to force us into supporting a candidate that is only marginally less horrible than the Republican.
If we elect McCain, we lose.
If we elect Obama, we lose.
If we build a new political movement that represents us, then we can win."
Of course, Samson, that seems so obvious to us, but how can we convince our brethren of the truth of this? If NADERITES AND ALL OTHER PARTIES AND ORGANIZATIONS TO THE LEFT OF CENTER would cast their votes for McKinney, our movement would be off the ground and be an established, recognized, political force. The RebubliCrats lesser-evil game is scheduled to run forever. At some point we must say 'enough' or else forever remain political eunuchs; whiners and scribblers with all the political clout of a falling feather. Let's make this the year we all vote for someone we really like.
Like genetics, there is a "cosmic chemistry" that allots to the human race a percentage of by-birth pragmatists.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this long thread, in line with the power of issue-framing as cited by George Lakoff, is an important LIE: that health care reform, that getting out of Iraq are "progressive issues." I don't have the numbers before me, but a number of articles/researchers have shown that these are POPULAR positions among American voters.
It is TRAGGIC that Obama has moved to the right, and there is great deception in this. I thought he'd make a better "leader" than Hillary and feel betrayed. The argument of which will cause MORE HARM is a horrible "Sophie's Choice" to be confronted with, and makes me consider strongly voting 3rd party this time.
JIM GLOVER: How you can call Peaceman pro-war when YOUR candidate (others like LOBO GRIS added the details) has asked for increases in the military population, and supports the MIC... that's projection, sir. An unfair attack on a man of principle!
It's a shame that given the poor choices before us as citizens, too many in this forum thrust their pain and anger at one another. I already shared, Margaret Mead style, how I witnessed this very same thing as an impressionable child of 5 at sleepaway camp when "color war" was suddenly declared, and created passionate if artificial divides among former camper friends. ILLUSIONS! This is the quintessential moment to "break on through to the other side." The system IS what's killing not only U.S, but too many other nations and their peoples.
Obama and McCain are so close in the polls because Obama is not a good candidate.
I'm so glad to have voted for Ralph Nader the last three times and am leaning towards Cynthia McKinney this time around. It's not a wasted vote! I don't care who "wins". Pragmatism keeps everything the same and it's a ROTTEN system. We need to concentrate more on getting more independents/greens into elected offices at all levels. It's hard work! But we can't get there by supporting Republicans or Democrats. THAT is the losing strategy!
I admire people who: don't vote at all; or vote outside the sick two party system.
Anything that provokes a fratricide between the Reemocrats and the Demuglicans brings the rest of us closer to peace and prosperity.
Thoughts_Into_Action August 19th, 2008 2:05 am writes, "The Democratic Party is dead. Killed by corporate greed."
-oustanding post!
jstevens August 19th, 2008 2:06 am writes, "When the 2000 election is brought up, not only does Nader not apologize,.."
-what a foolish notion that Nader owes an apology. More than 4% (200,000)
Democrats voted for Bush in Florida, GO ASK THEM TO APOLOGIZE! Go ask Gore and Kerry tp apologise for not contesting the election vigorously! Go ask the Supreme Court to apologize. Go ask the over 50% of Democrats in Florida that didn't bother to vote at all to go apologize.
Nader legally ran as a third party candidate, he broke no laws and owes you NO APOLOGY!!!!
Lastly, you don't like Bush? Hey jstevens why don't YOU go ask your Democrats in the Congress starting with their chosen leader Nancy Peloci for an apology for not impeaching him?
ps While on apologies, why doesn't jstevens go ask his Democrats for an apology for continuing the wars/occupations and their FISA capitulation votes?
Here is something all you Cats may want to ponder outside your emotional rantings: Obama and McCain are within the margin of error in the polls indicating that it is anyone's race. And given we are just following on the heels of 8 years of GWB along with six years of war. For all you True Believers in the Obama camp, take a deep breath and ask yourselves why is Obama so close in the polls? Given the downward economic slide one would think Obama would be 20 or 30 points ahead. Perhaps you people ought to start preparing yourselves for your next political disappointment. As the election nears, the vicious adds following on in the footprints of the 2004 election know as "swiftboating" ought to hit the airwaves soon, thus finalizing Obama's legacy as another failed Democrat that just could not get it right. And the reason is simple: HE COULD NOT RUN FAST ENOUGH TO THE RIGHT, THUS TAKING ALL PROGRESSIVE FOR GRANTED. Poor Barack, if only he stayed on message and honored the progressive cause rather than undermining it. HE WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT! Instead, he will just be another Senator marching lock step with his corporate handlers.
mr scopes August 19th, 2008 6:43 am
That depends on who you ask:
Very true. I usually take anything said by the NYT with a grain of salt just as I would The Weekly Standard.
There is little doubt though that blacks are much more racist than whites today. I think we all are aware of that. I wouldn't have thought it was as high as 60% which that answer would indicate.
I think the perceptions held by blacks in the survey are quite telling.
Make no mistake, I don't suggest by any means racism is dead anywhere in the world, but its much, much different here, now.
We have two choices with main parties. Neo-con (McCain) and Conservative (Obama). There is no liberal/progressive choice.
I will probably vote for the Conservative in order to prevent the Neo-con from winning. If I do pull the lever for Obama I will not delude myself into thinking that a vote for Obama is anything other than a vote for the lesser evil. I will not delude myself into thinking that my vote in the quadrennial national plebiscite has anything to do with real politics. It is doing my small part to prevent a less horrible outcome.
I do believe that presidential elections are anathema to Democracy. They are to real politics what American Idol is to real music. Cover versions of real songs, lowest common denominator, intelligence-insulting, pandering. In the end, like American Idol, American President is a tightly scripted, reality-based show designed to sell advertising and leave the viewers with the illusion that their vote matters. Suffice to say--and I happen to have very good intel on this--American Idol is just as rigged as our elections are. They don't need Diebold machines on the show though.
Despite my cynicism, I would love to vote for something I believe in. Even there I have a problem. I love Nader's platform and respect the man but I don't see his candidacy was building anything significant in terms of a third party movement. I like the idea of supporting the Green Party but can't emotionally, viscerally get behind a McKinney/Clemente candidacy.
Though I would love to vote for an historic ticket of two women of color I am not particularly inspired by either woman and could not for one second imagine them being competent leaders. Clemente in particular is disappointing. I saw an interview with her on DemocracyNow where she confused Iran with Iraq and talked only about policies regarding race and gender when asked why she was running for VP. What kind of myopic lack of vision is that at a time when we are facing huge issues that confront our entire species?
Maybe I'll just write in Angela Davis.
Or not vote at all. Especially if it looks like Obama will win my state. In many ways not voting seems like the best option.
Jim Glover: You have a warped sense of fanaticism for the Democratic Party and continue to do their dirty work by making excuse after excuse for their treasonous behavior and will attack anyone not backing the corrupt Democrats.
You call me a political scab because I lock horns with union officials thinking like you do about how wonderful the Bush enablers are, aka Democrats.
I don't support peace? Are you stupid or just plain ignorant? Turn in my cape? Naw, it looks good on me.
McCain wants to show the Russians a lesson because their equipment shot him out of the sky when the Democrats in power at the time decide to invade Vietnam, killing and maiming several million people? He ought to be happy they didn't just shot him dead on the spot for the destruction he inflicted on people who did us no harm.
You vote for Obama and every Democrat you want to, Jim. I respect your right even if I disagree with your choice of candidates. BTW, Bill Nelson is another Republican light, but he's a Democrat, so he must be good.
Do some research, my friend, starting by looking up the word collaboration. I'm going to work now.
Peace and Harmony
If you have read this far, you are doubtless wasting your time !!!
I will vote for O(bama) because he is a Democrat. All the issues I passionately believe in as a liberal
(my Dad & others put together an earlier version of liberalism, I was only a boy) O has forsaken.
He will provide no leadership to Palestinians. He will not join to fight arrogant and counterproductive
sanctions (say of Iran). He will pretend that Russia "attacks" a poor helpless nation and that the
the US has the inherited right to fly in and sahy"Get out IMMEDIATELY !! Or else. Did the Russia have the
right to fly into Bagdad years and demand that the US get out...IMMEDIATELY ?? Of course we, the
mighty, would feel that that would be absurd for some reason...Would O be an advocate for African-
Americans, for Hispannics, for the poor? (If you think so you are a fool.) He will continue the "war
on terror" (eg in Afghanistan, in Georgia) and seek heroism. (So would John McCain.)
In the US we have two parties only and no tradition for coalitions. Breaking up the Democratic Party is an
automatic concession to the GOP.
And the "progressives" are mysteriously superior and know what is better for everyone else. How loveable
that is !
We knew what was better in 1980 too. Large chunks of blue-collar workers became "Reagan Democrats". Perhaps because minorities were "welfare Queens", who knows? The "Jewish vote" became even more conservative and
in the style of Joe Lieberman supported Republicans. Israeli censorship still reigns more in the US
than anywhere. And Reaagan won in 1980. And in 1984 too.
And will O(bama) act courageously to protect Palestinians (those "fanatic terrorists",he said)?
The subhuman species. Instead we support "our allies", the (US-) Israeli government. We fund their
massacres,torture, descrimination, stealing of lands. Their cutting off of both testicles of Palestinian
boys (It was "efficient" Ben Gurion said).We give the Israeli government billions every year.Settlement
(which discrimminate) are funded by the US. They have their own paramilitary and if they
feel like beating Palestinians, no one says a word.
And what about the Separation Wall in Palestine which MUST come down. What about the recognition of
a sovereign, independent State of Palestine not blockaded, not under threat by Israel and the US?
(Would we allow Russia or China to establish sites in a nearby latin american nation???)
And we liberals/progressives (if you MUST) remain...SILENT. Talmudic "rights" trump Palestinians ones.
And on and on. Am I angry? You bet!
Vote for O(bama). Expect absolutely nothing.(I am not certain he will be elected anyway. That is
our fantasy!)
Get ready for the down and dirty legislative work which awaits all of us, bill by bill, ammendment
by ammendment, in the years that follow.
A Liberal Democrat
Peter
Thomas More August 18th, 2008 6:20 pm
"Racism is not that large a problem anymore. The evidence is before your eyes in the Presidential candidate you are thinking of voting for."
That depends on who you ask:
New York Times
July 18 2008
Poll Finds Obama Isn't Closing Divide on Race
.... Nearly 60 percent of black respondents said race relations were generally bad, compared with 34 percent of whites. Four in 10 blacks say that there has been no progress in recent years in eliminating racial discrimination; fewer than 2 in 10 whites say the same thing. And about one-quarter of white respondents said they thought that too much had been made of racial barriers facing black people, while one-half of black respondents said not enough had been made of racial impediments faced by blacks.
The survey suggests that even as the nation crosses a racial threshold when it comes to politics — Mr. Obama, a Democrat, is the son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas — many of the racial patterns in society remain unchanged in recent years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/us/politics/16poll.html?scp=2&sq=survey%20race%20relations&st=cse
None of you know what the hell your talking about.
the losers constantly rotating the same lame arguements in their buttholes jus need to stop fringing-out and see the bigger picture.
Lol. I don't care about Rove or Rush or McCain. You think I care about telecom immunity and offshore drilling compared to the economic system which keeps a majority of the world in abject poverty and on the brink of perpetual starvation? You think I care about the dismantling of the New Deal compared to 200,000 Guatemalans who have been murdered in a genocide of our creation because they tried to nationalize some of United Fruit's land in their country? A million Iraqis were killed by U.S. economic sanctions according to the U.N.'s figures. 218 times as many Iraqi civilians have been killed by this war than Americans were killed on 9/11, using the Lancet study's number. The School of the Americas has been open since 1946--and you really think I care the *party affiliation* of the people running it?? What your posts really show is just how f*ing selfish the ideology of American liberalism is.
Lobo and Jimmy,
Maybe you can ignore me...If Daniel and me are the ones standing in your way to help McCain, lets see if you can at least accomplish that.
But as for me I need to sleep now and remember, Rove and Rush still love you.
Sweet Dreams!
Jim Glover
The Democratic Party is not entitled to progressive votes, they have to earn them. Being slightly to the left of the Republican Party is not going to cut it. If the Democrats refuse time and time again to listen to their constituency they only have themselves to blame if they lose elections. The political system and democratic process in the US is broken and neither party has any interest in doing anything about it. If the Democrats have to lose elections before they start listening to the US population (you know how a Democracy is supposed to function) then it is a small price to pay. Like McCain, Obama is a militant thug who is opposed to any fundamental change in either foreign or domestic policy. A vote for either McCain or Obama is a vote for the continuation of foreign policy that has killed countless people and will certainly continue to kill even more. Obama plans to send more troops to Afghanistan and perhaps even Pakistan will only be a huge disaster for the civilian population in the region. If you want to be a "Good German" while the policy of your candidate means murdering more people and ignoring any needed fundamental changes in domestic policy then by all means do so, but don't expect your obedience to impress anyone.
jimmyjazz August 19th, 2008 2:57 am
"But merely hammering away the utterly trite point that only a major party candidate can win in this system doesn't interest anybody. We all know this already"
It's not that a third party can't win, it is the fact that it is highly unlikely, in part because of the Jim Glovers and the Daniel Davids of the world.
Lobo Gris
Jim Glover: "The fact that Obama is not trying to prove he is a war winner in a time when the only way to win war is to end war is progressive enough for me."
So Obama's progressive enough for you personally. Another big revelation! You're just full of profound points.
If all you can do to address anti-Obama arguments is point out that we live in a 2-party system, then you might as well stop posting, because we all know it already. And you know we all know it already. Quit trolling with this crap.
Honestly, everyone should just ignore Jim Glover until he makes a point other than the fact that we live in a 2-party system.
Jim Glover August 19th, 2008 3:44 am
Lobo,
"
His stated desire is to end the war in Iraq and spend those hundreds of billions on improving America.
Now if he said I don't want to fix our broken military, he would lose just like Nader and the Greens."
What you said was and I quote from your own post:
Jimmyjazz,
"The fact that Obama is not trying to prove he is a war winner in a time when the only way to win war is to end war is progressive enough for me."
And this is what Obama has said:
August 6, 2008
More of the Same, Packaged as Change
Barack Obama and Afghanistan
By MARC HEROLD
"In mid-December 2006, a charter member of the U.S. defense intellectual establishment and enthusiast of precision bombing, Anthony Cordesman, fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, advanced a set of proposals which would allegedly allow the U.S. to win the war in Afghanistan.
Candidate Obama appears to have adopted wholesale what Cordesman was proposing about two year ago with one qualification: Obama recognizes that the U.S's traditional European NATO allies will not provide large numbers of additional fighting forces, hence Obama proposes rotating three divisions or about 10,000 U.S. troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.
Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That's what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that's why, as President, I will make the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win…. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, and more Predator drones in the Afghan border region.
That isn't shifting funds from Iraq to the domestic economy of the U.S., that is shifting funds from Iraq to Afghanistan
Lobo,
His stated desire is to end the war in Iraq and spend those hundreds of billions on improving America.
Now if he said I don't want to fix our broken military, he would lose just like Nader and the Greens.
Nobody can be elected and sound weak on Defense... That is Nader's job because nearly everyone on CD has admitted he won't win.
The 3rd parties won't win in this election! I think in this clash of narratives that is the only fact that we agree on.
I like to emphasize what most of us agree on in hopes we can go forward.
Cheer up, Rove and Rush still love you.
Obama? That would be a problem. What is not a problem is that we're bombing the only Nuclear Armed Islamic country on Earth, with 160 million Muslims and their Dictator our Man just fled to avoid impeachment and the ISI is riddled with Anti-American Pro-Taliban agents? Problem?
This is not a problem. We just bomb them. Bomb their wedding parties over and over. It's working too. Things in Khost are mellowing out, enrollment in girls schools is skyrocketing and first home buyers are getting credit like never before.
McCain. What's Right For Kansas. We bomb Afghanistan Iraq Iran Pakistan Somalia and Russia Simultaneously, yeah, let's not forget John's Red Nemesis.
Do they even have an Aircraft Carrier. We can take them.
Obama lacks the foreign policy experience for the job.
McCain: The Right Man For World War Three.
Would not avoiding World War Three BE PROGRESSIVE ENOUGH?
I mean, FISA won't matter if the world is burning. If the mid-east is a nuclear inferno, or our precious US.
We have forgotten the horrors of World War, it has been just long enough.
PROGRESSIVE in 2008 means avoiding World War in @009.