Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- More Damning Evidence Points to Pesticide as Cause of Mass Bee Deaths
- Nobel Peace Prize Jury Under Investigation
- 'Gasland' Film Director Arrested at US Capitol Hearing
- The Cancerous Politics and Ideology of the Susan G. Komen Foundation
- A Journey To The End Of Empire: It Is Always Darkest Right Before It Goes Completely Black
Popular content
Today's Top News
Panic Attacks: Voters Unload at GOP Rallies
The unmistakable momentum behind Barack Obama's campaign, combined with worry that John McCain is not doing enough to stop it, is ratcheting up fears and frustrations among conservatives.
A selection from the array of anti-Obama paraphernalia. Activists outside rallies openly talk about Obama as a terrorist, citing his name and purported ties to Islam in the fashion of the viral e-mails that have rocketed around the Internet for over a year now. And although true progressives and leftists find the notion that either Pelosi or Obama will lead us towards a 'hard-left' agenda, the real story here is the nature of how the right-wingers of America will react to an Obama Presidency. And nowhere is this emotion on plainer display than at Republican rallies, where voters this week have shouted out insults at the mention of Obama, pleaded with McCain to get more aggressive with the Democrat and generally demonstrated the sort of visceral anger and unease that reflects a party on the precipice of panic.
The calendar is closing and the polls, at least right now, are not.
With McCain passing up the opportunity to level any tough personal shots in his first two debates and the very real prospect of an Obama presidency setting in, the sort of hard-core partisan activists who turn out for campaign events are venting in unusually personal terms.
"Terrorist!" one man screamed Monday at a New Mexico rally after McCain voiced the campaign's new rhetorical staple aimed at raising doubts about the Illinois senator: "Who is the real Barack Obama?"
"He's a damn liar!" yelled a woman Wednesday in Pennsylvania. "Get him. He's bad for our country."
At both stops, there were cries of, "Nobama," picking up on a phrase that has appeared on yard signs, T-shirts and bumper stickers.
And Thursday, at a campaign town hall in Wisconsin, one Republican brought the crowd to its feet when he used his turn at the microphone to offer a soliloquy so impassioned it made the network news and earned extended play on Rush Limbaugh's program.
"I'm mad; I'm really mad!" the voter bellowed. "And what's going to surprise ya, is it's not the economy - it's the socialists taking over our country."
After the crowd settled down he was back at it. "When you have an Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans up there gonna run this country, we gotta have our head examined!"
Such contempt for Democrats is, of course, nothing new from conservative activists. But in 2000 and 2004, the Republican rank and file was more apt to ridicule Gore as a stiff fabulist or Kerry as an effete weather vane of a politician.
"Flip-flop, flip-flop," went the cry at Republican rallies four years ago, often with footwear to match the chant.
Now, though, the emotion on display is unadulterated anger rather than mocking.
Activists outside rallies openly talk about Obama as a terrorist, citing his name and purported ties to Islam in the fashion of the viral e-mails that have rocketed around the Internet for over a year now.
Some of this activity is finding its way into the events, too.
On Thursday, as one man in the audience asked a question about Obama's associations, the crowd erupted in name-calling.
"Obama Osama!" one woman called out.
And twice this week, local officials have warmed up the crowd by railing against "Barack Hussein Obama."
Both times, McCain's campaign has issued statements disavowing the use of the Democrat's full name.
A McCain aide said they tell individuals speaking before every event not to do so. "Sometimes people just do what they want," explained the aide.
The raw emotions worry some in the party who believe the broader swath of swing voters are far more focused on their dwindling retirement accounts than on Obama's background and associations and will be turned off by footage of the McCain events.
John Weaver, McCain's former top strategist, said top Republicans have a responsibility to temper this behavior.
"People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, the differences with Sen. Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared to Sen. McCain," Weaver said. "And from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive."
"Sen. Obama is a classic liberal with an outdated economic agenda. We should take that agenda on in a robust manner. As a party we should not and must not stand by as the small amount of haters in our society question whether he is as American as the rest of us. Shame on them and shame on us if we allow this to take hold."
But, if it were up to them, such hard-edged tactics are clearly what many in the party base would like to use against Obama.
That McCain has so far seemed reluctant to do so has frustrated Republicans.
"It's time that you two are representing us, and we are mad," reiterated the boisterous Republican at McCain's town hall in Wisconsin Thursday. "So go get 'em!"
"I am begging you, sir, I am begging you - take it to him," pleaded James T. Harris, a local talk radio host at the same event, earning an extended standing ovation.
"Yosemite Sam is having the law laid down to him today in Waukesha, Wis.," quipped Limbaugh on his show Thursday, referring to the GOP nominee. "This guy, this audience member, is exactly right," the conservative talk show host said of the first individual.
"You are running for president. You have a right to defend this country. You have a responsibility to defend this country and not just fulfill some dream you had eight years ago running for president against Bush. It's time to start naming names and explain what's actually going on, because, Sen. McCain, the people of this country are dead scared about what we face if you lose."
John J. Pitney Jr., a political science professor at California's Claremont McKenna College and former Republican operative, suggested core Republicans were acting out their longstanding frustrations with their self-proclaimed maverick nominee.
"McCain has always frustrated the Republican base," Pitney said. "In this campaign, he has alternated between partisan attacks and calls for bipartisan cooperation. It's nice that he thinks he can round up congressional votes the way a border collie rounds up sheep. But you can't be a border collie and a pit bull at the same time. The crowds want a pit bull."
There is also the belief that taking out Obama is the only way to win.
"They know that when McCain has taken off the Senate mantle and put the stick to Obama (celebrity ad, as a case in point), we get movement in the polls," said Rick Wilson, a GOP consultant not working on the presidential race. "They want McCain to call out Obama - on the Fannie/Freddie mess, on Wright, on Ayers, on guns, on [the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] - because they know that if McCain says it, it penetrates the MSM filter. ... Only McCain and Palin can really drive that message."
The two have begun to get more aggressive on many of these topics, with both discussing Ayers in multiple venues Thursday. The RNC is also going up for the first time with an ad featuring the former domestic terrorist.
It was enough to stir hope that McCain may stay on the offensive, even in Limbaugh, who has often criticized the Arizona senator for working with Democrats more than attacking them. The radio host praised his sometimes-nemesis for singling out Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) as partly responsible for the credit crisis.
"McCain/Palin fired back today in Waukesha, and 15 years of frustration is coming out joyously in the voices of GOP supporters at these rallies," Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail, arguing that Republicans were fed up with having been portrayed as the bogeyman for myriad issues since the Clinton years.
But to the exasperation of many in the party, Obama's pastor, the most damning of all his associations, remains off-limits, at the express desire of McCain. Palin ignored Wright and focused on Ayers when she was asked about the two in an interview Thursday with conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham. And McCain focused on Ayers only when he was asked an open-ended question at the town hall about Obama's "associations."
"It is a shame McCain took Wright off the table," lamented one prominent Republican operative not working on the race. "He is a legitimate issue, and we may look back and realize he was the issue that could have changed the race."
For now, though, party members don't seem to be looking back with regret as much as fearing what lies ahead.
"McCain is behind in the polls, and the Republicans have no chance of regaining control of Congress," Pitney noted. "Republicans are facing the prospect of unified Democratic control of the government for the first time since the first two Clinton years. And even then, Clinton's agenda had moderate elements (e.g., [the North American Free Trade Agreement] and deficit reduction). With Obama, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi in power, Republicans worry about a hard push for a hard-left agenda."
Amie Parnes contributed to this story.
- Posted in



288 Comments so far
Show AllIf only these inbred white supremacists knew that they're getting a Republican anyway with Obama, and the last thing on his mind as president will be "a hard push for a hard-left agenda."
But their hatred of blacks is too intense. They're the very worst America can offer.
Obama is not a republican. He is a centrist on many issues, but clearly left of center compared with his counterparts. What the hell do you people expect: a perfect candidate that fulfills everything you ever wanted?
You're such a bad apologist. Not a Republican? Obama's more conservative than Nixon and a traitor of the left, why don't you Democrats stop? Have you no standards?
And please spare us the Lesser Evilism, that's what caused the bloody mess we're in.
I am not seeing my comment when I post it. I think the opposite. Under Gore or Kerry there would have been a lot less damage to the economy, environment and our standing in the world. And a lot less people and animals would have been killed and tortured.
To Tetti-tatti:
Recently statements made by a senior British NATO commander in Afghanistan and a leaked communique from a British ambassador have radically changed perceptions of what's happening in Afghanistan. Amurka has a choice: Go with an aging, increasingly arthritic and inflexible Cold War fighter pilot who is forever re-fighting Vietnam, or a younger man with a background in community organizing among poor communities who is flexible enough to intelligently adapt to change. Not everything out of Obama's mouth as a campaign policy statement is written in concrete. The test of every president is how he adapts to changes initially out of his or her control. Personally, I'd rather vote for the younger more flexible man--even with superficial links to the Party of FDR--than the assiduously pro-Bush, neo-con tongue-bathing septuagenarian militarist who psychotically imagines that more tax cuts for the rich are going to somehow cut our way out of the current economic collapse.
Obama has changed his mind on the tax cuts--again.
"Itewould probaly take a decade to implement".
Funny--it sure didnt take that for Congress to implement the cut!
metal, it's a question of whether you want the elites to run the country or you want the people to run the country. This is why progressives enjoy watching the elites screw up. We want the people to run the country. So we need the elites to screw up more, faster, better, NOW!
To rtdrury:
It is exhilarating to contemplate a greener, more socialist democracy in the U.S. and I'm no fan of the current corporatists in both dominant Parties. But almost ANY other general election in U.S. history would be a better time to vote for 3rd Party spoilers than this particular one. This is the most critical juncture not just in U.S. history, but in world history. The human species is under the gun to get its act together in a hurry and the best situation in which to pass volumes of emergency legislation is with vote-solid single party control over both Congress and the White House. The Dems are poised to achieve that for the first time in three decades. If blown, this chance won't come again any time soon and, with respect to the global environment, it will be too late.
We face real, blood in the streets, social chaos in this country next year and I don't think a lot of you 'never a Dem' folks understand the historical or contemporary consequences of that. I have yet to see any of you comment realistically on that except to see some of you just damn the U.S. and all its people collectively. I love my country and I want to see it survive and change for the better. Not for nearly two hundred million people to suffer for the crimes, stupidity and/or apathy of the rest of them.
There's an old and very true saying, "When the U.S. catches a cold, Europe gets the flu." That was BEFORE globalism linked all the developed and developing nations in the world and made economic contagion even more likely. Global Depressions lead to things like World Wars. Do you get that? Have any of you 'hate all Dems' folks ever studied the history of the World Wars or what hurdles FDR faced in domestic politics as he proceeded to make change?
Events are going beyond even where a united Congress and White House might take it even if they called every decision right the first time. Duhhbya has left DECADES of messes to clean-up behind him. Moreover, the New Deal was an experimental process. It didn't happen overnight, although the first 100 days were crucial and FDR had his ideas lined up from his academic "Brain Trust" plus ideas he'd coopted from the socialists and Huey Long. There's going to be a learning curve for a DLC, yet anti-Bush/McCain tax policy man like Obama, but he's more likely to refer to successful policies of the New Deal than the Republicans and there is no time to waste on McCain under any circumstances. Next election I'll probably vote spoiler myself--especially if the myriad of progressive organizations in this country can get their polymorphous, micro-issue, cat herd mentality together in support behind one unified Progressive Party.
rtdrury,
How much you wanna bet that under Obama, the US and the world won't keep moving in the same self-destruction direction, albeit at a slightly slower pace?
Ever-dependent on exponential increase of throughput of energy and matter in order to create more paper/electronic fiscal wealth for themselves, the individuals that own and control the world's central banks did not count on the planet's limited resources running out. Every empire has imploded by over-reaching its natural limits. Obama is not as steeped in the cold evil of our current empire's extraction machinery, but he is nevertheless imbued by it just by entering into the political arena and making the kinds of compromises necessary to fight one's way to the top of the pile.
When he gets there he will face the same crushing of any remaining genuine altruism in his soul as all the other Presidents before him have in this century. He will not control, but serve under the thumb of the bankers, particularly with the powers now invested in their representatives. And these bankers are so addicted to their power that they won't see it evaporating on them as they continue to exercise it.
What we are facing is a total collapse of the empire and its economic system, along with the thumb that the bankers have over us. They can have their 800 concentration camps ready, replete with cattle cars and gas chambers (look up videos of this on the web), and who knows how far they will get away with crushing all that the USA originally stood for and its Constitution. They can repress to a certain degree, but eventually their power will totally evaporate, just as every other empire's power did.
This time, instead of another empire taking its place, because our resources will be so depleted, and the population so devastated, there will not be the means for another empire to take its place. But no Democratic or any other political party can serve as the alternative. Politics have to be transcended. All people will have to start listening to their truest needs and let those drive them, not parties and factions, opinions and belief systems.
"It is exhilarating to contemplate a greener, more socialist democracy in the U.S. and I'm no fan of the current corporatists in both dominant Parties."
I'm with you, metal.
I remember having a little dispute with a member of my community via the op-ed section of my local newspaper. I had written about the increasing march of fascism in the U.S. My detractor disagreed, but ended his piece by saying that he was ready for the event with his gun and hoped that I would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him to face (shoot) down whatever guns (like 50mm machine guns) should the event occur.
I've thought of this and wondered why the hell he would expect me to stand with him once it is too late, when he won't stand with me now while we all still have a chance.
Well, we still have a chance. I'd rather a have a corporatist Obama than a corporatist/militarist McCain. The lesser of two evils may still be evil, but it is less so. I'll take whatever odds I can get and try to take advantage of it.
.There is one more choice for the voter that you fail to note, perhaps because you fail to consider it. Instead of perpetuating the same Duopoly that continues on the same path regardless of which party occupies the White House or has a majority in the Houses, the voter can begin the process of adding elected officials who are responsible to the people of this nation and to the constitution as well.
Third Party presence in our government is necesary, and the history of these last eight years of Bush shredding our constitution while democrats picked their noses proves that amply.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"And a lot less people and animals would have been killed and tortured."
Might surprise you to learn that the practice of Extraordinary Rendition (kidnap... transport to foreign proxy prisons and torture, torture, torture), originated with the Clinton regime (PDD 39). What many people don't know is that the scheme was kicked off by Gore's "Go grab his ass" philosophy.
Whitewash is at a premium today.
The CIA was torturing people long before Clinton was president.
During the Reagan Administration, While Bush the First was president too.
See what former CIA agents John Stockwell and David Atlee Phillips have to say.
It's only just recently that people have become aware of it - we've seen the pictures now.
Nixon was more progressive on nukes and in funding what lame ass social welfare programs we have.
I didnt like Nixon. Come to think of it, I havent liked asny candidate we've had since, al that much. The ruling class is full of assholes.
I've been a damn Democrat forever. It is just a downright waste of emotion, to keep getting built up every four years--oh, things will change! Right.
"It is not true that it's one damn thing after another - it's one damn thing over and over." Edna St. Vincent Millay
That's our reality, and our challenge. Welcome to the human situation.
As usual with the Democrats, there are assertions unsupported by any facts.
Exactly on which policies is Obama 'center-left'.
Its not on war. He's was as belligerent as McCain in the last debate. He insists on keeping the war in Iraq going. He wants to have a surge in Afghanistan. He wants to expand the war into Pakistan. He says he's perfectly willing to attack Iran. With Russia and Georgia he's fully adopted the US propaganda and is violently beligerency towards Russia.
Is this 'center-left'? Or is this nearly identical with McCain and Bush?
Its not on health care. Obama opposes any sort of single-payer national health care plan. At first Obama was pushing a truly awful 'force people to pay money to the insurance companies' plan. But since that idea died a quick death in public opinion, he's changed that to some vague changes in the current system. But he strongly protects the interests of insurance companies and HMOs and the like.
Is this 'center-left'? Hardly. I'm old enough to remember when the 'center-left' Democrats used to push national health insurance. What Obama has is what has long been the Republican position.
Its not on the Wall St theft\bailout. Obama supports wall street. He supports all the bailouts of what now has to be a trillion dollars or more getting pumped into those firms. He's never said a word about going after the people who've committed the frauds or trying to get the money back from the executives and others who got rich off of this.
Is this center-left? Hardly. Again, Obama's position is nealy identical to McCains.
That's a short list. Its the same across the board. But we seem this sort of junk from Democrats who try to claim that Obama is somehow on the left (only if Ronald Reagan was the 'center') to try to trick and fool people into supporting their far-right, pro-war, pro-corporation candidate.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Yeah, thanks.
Cause I re-read mine--and it was crappy. I'm so tired of typing it. Maybe if someone could get a REPLY, after you state his record--nah. Not gonna happen.
lol
(1) Obama voted against the October 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq. He was one of the only DLC Dems that did. He insists on a clear time table out of Iraq.
(2) He is against Bush's and McCain's tax policies and THAT is one of the most important issues of them all right now. Revenue streams are limited and drying up as I type. I'm pro-single payer health care, too, but I understand current harsh fiscal realities. Obama has publicly said he believes health care is a right. McCain says it is a qualified "responsibility."
(3) Obama supports a more sustainable green jobs program and, like his other ideas about what to do about the economy, he is keeping many of those ideas close to his vest to avoid the pre-election corporatist propaganda onslaught that would immediately ensue otherwise. He can't afford to give the corporatists and their Big Media any ammunition this close with this big a lead in the polls and he knows it.
Ever heard of the "is-ought gap?" You 'no Dem is good enough' folks are imagining a better world and that's fine. Obama is directly engaged in the more difficult and dangerous work of realpolitik trying to bring a better world about from the highest political office in the land. The imagination never has to compromise. Our political system was designed by the founding fathers to compel compromises so that policies would be somewhere in the middle. This flexibility was part of our strength until Big Money dominated political campaign financing--equating money with free speech for the purposes of political campaigns.
(1) A essentially symbolic vote in the Illinois Legislature. Since attaining national office he has voted consistently for special revenue bills funding the war. His "time table" is clear as mud and leaves the giant bases, the Air Force bombings, and the Mercenary Army in place. None of this addresses his attitude on Afghanistan or the general "war on terror" which is, in both cases, beligerent and full of a contempt for international law that rivals Bush's.
(2) Single-payer would be CHEAPER than the current system, as multiple studies have shown. It would also relieve a burden on private business that hurts competition in global markets. This would be one good way for a "center-left" candidate to address the economic crisis. National Health Care is a hugely popular idea that would bring landslide victory -almost on its own- to any candidate espousing it. Yet Obama is not for it. For what reason OTHER than his support for the HMOs and Insurance companies? On taxes Obama is a bit better but hardly "center-left". Slowly ratcheting up corporate taxes to well below the level they were at during the time of our greatest prosperity and ensuring that tax-cuts stay in place for "families" who "earn" up to "$250,000 a year" sounds more like Ronny Raygun than Harry Truman.
(3) T.Boone Pickens supports "green jobs" for the love of Pete! EVERYONE supports "green" ideas -they're hoping it'll be the new "bubble". This would hardly make Obama exceptional. Why in the World? would he need to keep this "close to his vest"? What, the Corporate media would rail against Obama for being "green" and then cut to a commercial of "green" bathroom cleaner from a giant chemical company? This is the ridiculous "once he has the Imperial Sceptre he'll reveal how progressive he really is" argument repeated for the 12,000th time and taken to a silly extreme. What sort of automatons to you think people are? "Those Corporate bastids are scewing us again and Obama's trying to help. But those same Corporate bastids tell me Obama's bad, so I'm voting McCain?" On what planet does this make sense?
Brother, YOU are the one caught in "is/ought". You see how easily your counter-arguments can be refuted now, I hope. But faith-based concepts like how Obama is going the "...dangerous work of realpolitik trying to bring a better world about..." are your real problem. You are allowing you belief of what someone who employs Obama's vague rhetoric OUGHT to be and ignoring what his actions show he IS.
Vote for Obama on Nov. 4th, I don't really care.
But don't fool yourself that "our political system" is functioning ANYTHING LIKE the "founding fathers" intended. They didn't intend this de facto "two party system" just for starters.
Also don't fool yourself that "being in the middle" is a good tactic when your opponent is constantly pulling Right. This is what some of us mean when we compare Obama to a Republican. this stupid Clintonian "triangulation" and "centerist" strategey have allowed the GOPers to pull the whole game so far Right that Obama's "centerism" is now "center-right" not "center-left".
But most importantly, stop fooling yourself that we just "imagine" a better World, while Obam is doing "the work" to bring it about. This is just straight delusional, man. He is certainly better than some on policy, and he may indeed be a good person, but you have NO idea what any of us do outside of our comments here. Just as you have NO idea what Obama is really going to do -that's the purpose of the vaguery.
If you want to jump on the bandwagon and "hope" that Obama will "change" his stripes once he is in Power and doesn't need your vote anymore, go for it. Doesn't bother me in the least. Just don't get all "superior" about it.
Oh, and what fool told you the way to influence a political candidate is to pledge undying fealty to them months before the election? 'Cause they owe you an apology.
Don't Panic,
-matti.
I totally agree ...
I've got scroll marks on my retinas...
(1) Obama inconsistently voted against at least one bill containing funding for the Iraq War.
(2) Given current rapidly declining fiscal circumstances, Obama has probably had his experts run the numbers on transitioning the American economy from its present, for-profit, health care system hodge-podge to a single payer system. While the single payer system is superior and cheaper in and of itself for all the reasons you state, unless significant new revenue streams are found, and military/HSA budget priorities completely restructured in unprecedented short order, the U.S. cannot even afford to TRANSITION to single payer any time in the next two years at least. McCain's stated tax policy is far worse than Obama's but both of them will be forced by budgetary restraints to dump most or all of their tax cut proposals and increase taxes on the richest 2%. If whoever gets in the White House in January starts creating New Deal type work programs they will probably substantially increase payroll taxes on those jobs--even though it will be better to have them than not have them.
(3) Our legacy energy companies still fund bogus "research" against the existence of global warming--human inputs or no--and they scoff at the very notion of a serious economic transition away from our dependence on oil, coal and nukes. Their greenwashing is just that: Greenwashing. They don't actually believe in it. The pro-nuclear utilities and coal companies are lobbying for HUGE government subsidies to expand right now. We give them out to the oil companies as a matter of course. McCain has one of the worst voting records in the Senate against significant subsidies for alternative and renewable energy R&D.
To really put into effect a transition to a sustainable green economy would initially adversely impact the bottom lines of the oil industry, the coal industry, the auto industries, the auto parts industries, the heating & air conditioning & refrigeration industries, the home building and commercial development industries, and industrial agri-business. These industries, as Ralph Nader will tell you, don't like change or regulation. Any effective approach to lead them to that change will take a very expensive carrot and a serious regulatory enforcement stick. This change won't be easy but it must be accomplished. Here again, I think Obama is avoiding the details of this subject because to delve into it before this important an election invites multiple reactionary corporate and Big Media shit-storms that would be used to smear him as a "tree hugging socialist" and worse.
I never said or implied our political system is now functioning "anything like the founding fathers intended." As far as the founding fathers go, they deliberately designed a system that was intended to necessitate political compromise (hence two Houses of Congress and not one) and somewhat adversarial checks and balances between branches of the federal government. Some of them didn't like the idea of "factions" but those, like Benjamin Franklin, who were knowledgeable about the history of Republics knew they were, unfortunately, inevitable. Jefferson, who I greatly admire in most respects, envisioned a nation of farmer/electors whose paramount interest was the commonwealth of all the white male farmers, their families and the classes above. But the industrial revolution was already sinking in its teeth even before he passed from the scene.
I suggest you go and read some of my other posts on other articles. As I've said before, I despise the DLC and if it were any other election at any other turning point since 1930, I would probably vote third Party again as I did the last election. But this specific, particular juncture in history is unprecedented in economic, environmental and foreign policy ways that are too dangerous to risk a continuation of Bush-style neo-conservative policies. If McCain's and the GOP's operatives don't steal another election, and if Obama gets in the White House, we will all know within 6 months from now if he is going to tow the DLC right-wing line. But progressives in this country aren't going to mean shit to electoral politics except as spoilers with no Congressional voting coalition unless and until they UNITE into one Progressive Party. Then you will have the numbers necessary to push-pull the Dems and Republicans to the left. If they can keep their shit together and focus.
To Matti who said,
"But most importantly, stop fooling yourself that we just "imagine" a better World, while Obam is doing "the work" to bring it about. This is just straight delusional, man. He is certainly better than some on policy, and he may indeed be a good person, but you have NO idea what any of us do outside of our comments here. Just as you have NO idea what Obama is really going to do -that's the purpose of the vaguery.
"If you want to jump on the bandwagon and "hope" that Obama will "change" his stripes once he is in Power and doesn't need your vote anymore, go for it. Doesn't bother me in the least. Just don't get all "superior" about it.
"Oh, and what fool told you the way to influence a political candidate is to pledge undying fealty to them months before the election? 'Cause they owe you an apology."
Look, I'm sure what you do is very important, but presidents of the United States of America still wield considerable power to effect national and international change (for good or ill) in a very short period. It's not that I have such a clear idea of what Obama is going to do so much as the fact that it is f-ing obvious what that creaking bastard McCain would do and the U.S. can't afford to risk it. Not now.
I will add this: Many progressives, populists, socialists and communists of their era felt similar about FDR prior to his first term as you seem to about Obama. FDR was soon considered a traitor to his patrician class and I guess in most respects he was. Sometimes it gets down to how one feels about a particular individual.
I'm a caucasian raised in the Deep South in a generation that still remembers when schools were segregated. Desegregation on the buses and in the schools didn't happen everywhere overnight. When I was a very young man visiting the small town of Conyers I remember one emaciated, heavily wrinkled old black man in his late 80s or early 90s wearing tattered overalls. He saw me approaching and silently stepped off the sidewalk, stopping and doffing his cap with his head bowed in deeply conditioned fear and abject servitude when I was walking past him on the sidewalk. When I passed by he quietly resumed his walk the other way. As a city boy, I was astonished. I realized in my guts the first time--even though I grew up in the South--that that's the way it was for centuries in this country. Tied to the cultural whipping post. That's another reason why I want to see Obama have his chance. Even after Duhhbya it will still say something good about America. Obama knows he has a hell of a lot of black Americans' hopes riding on him and no one in that position is going to treat such expectation with indifference. To many of us he's just another DLC Dem but to many blacks he's the leader of the Joshua generation and he's poised to break the white establishment's ultimate glass ceiling.
My personal feeling about Obama is that he genuinely cares about people of all races and classes. He is too corporatist, but the present global economic cataclysm is going to reshape those attitudes in ways even he can't predict right now. I expect that he will be a conciliator and will try to do the best he can for as many people as he can. The GOP/DLC messes he will confront along with pre-existing unprecedented challenges would be daunting even for an immaculately conceived perfect super-progressive.
I think that with his early exposure to public schooling in an Islamic culture and his African American heritage he is and will be perceived as more culturally sympathetic to many Muslim cultures. I think more people (and leaders) of color from various troubled countries will be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt than just another WASP and that he might be, thus, better able to reach out to them with peace overtures and regional talks that include all the players.
Africa is one of the most troubled continents on earth and has been for some time. It is also one of the richest in terms of natural resources. I think Obama will be in a unique position to help effect more peaceful relations between African countries and to build a better relationship between them and the U.S.
I think he understands that open-ended war expenditures in a world with so many other urgent economic and environmental life-support problems to solve are not the way to go. He may not only be the best shot we've got--despite all his imperfections--but the only shot we've got at this crucial turning point.
As I wrote above. This is a "sleight of hand" attempting to make a symbolic vote in the Illinois Legislature into a real vote on the War in the Senate.
I'd ask "how stupid does he think we are?" except it may be that he was fooled himself.
Once again, into the breach...
It's my understanding that Obama voted against the 2002 AUMF in his State's legislature (when he was a State senator) where they crafted a symbolic resolution to address the issue at the State level. Obama also gave a detailed speech at an anti-war rally against war with Iraq on Oct. 2, 2002 that has been extensively quoted on several news sites, blogs, political sites, etc:
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php
Obama has an admittedly mixed record regarding defunding the war. He spoke out against using defunding as a political pressure tactic on the Bush administration to end the war but he also voted once against a bill containing further Iraq war funding. In 2007, Obama introduced a bill to remove most troops from Iraq within 16 months, a position he continues to hold, though an Obama advisor referred to this as a "best case scenario."
I wasn't lying, (insert name of offended anti-Obama progressive here). I took for granted that all the policy wonks and regulars on CD know all about Obama's symbolic vote as a State senator and his well known stance against beginning that particular war.
Obama isn't perfect, but he's up to bat with the Congressional bases loaded and he's the only one in position to hit a legislative grand slam.
.I trust you can understand that your claim of that vote was deceptive to say the least. Honesty would have insisted that you noted, from the beginning, that the vote was in the State Legislature and would have immediately led to the response that, once attaining a national platform he failed to follow through.
In that he is consistent in fact, he has changed his position since attaining the nomination, he has ducked more votes in the Senate than any other single Senator, apparently positioning himself for the run for the WH by having no track record to criticise. He is, sorry to say, a typical Chicago politician, one who excells at speechmaking and fails utterly to follow through with legislation.
No, Obama is not perfect, far, far from it in fact. I , for one, am sick unto death of bombast, tired of the flowery speeches and the knife in the back that is our current system of governance. I, for one, am simply sick and tired of the status quo, I am horrified that my 401K has shrunk by 25% in the past month ( thank goodness for good advice on my other investments) and I cannot support a candidate who supported the bailout that guarrantees those who perpetrated this fraud upon the American people will retain their ill gotton millions.
You see no alternative to Barack Obama, I see no hope in continuing to support this system in its present inculcation. Those of us who support third party candidates, whichever one chosen, all have that in common I daresay. Ralph Nader himself understands he has no chance of victory:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/034F2D9C770C268B862574DE000DE8D8?OpenDocument
Nader said he recognizes that he has little chance of winning the White House. But he emphasized that he's not running for himself.
"My concern is only building a political movement for social justice," he said. "My closet is full, but I don't have a white flag in it."
I do not take your choices from you but I cannot help but think I see further than do you......
"Where men build on false ground, the more they build the greater is the ruin." Hobbes, Leviathon
"Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt."
William Shakespeare, Measure for measure....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
If you're going to accuse me of deliberate deceptiveness and dishonesty in your first two sentences and that's the level you want to operate on, then, using that lense, how the *f* do I know you aren't some Republican operative working with the GOP vote cagers but posing as a progressive to encourage more naive progressives to vote spoiler in order to help elect McCain? You think I give a shit about your 401K or that you somehow think voting spoiler (= McCain) will change the f*ing status quo!!? Talk about self-deception. You smell like Republican all over, and your spoiler vote for McCain THIS particular election cycle will help cripple and delay ANY further attempts at building a political movement for social justice if McCain wins thanks to boobs like you.
Do don't see any further than your own goddamn wallet.
oh but Dem Party Apologists have an excuse for that too: you see, Obama's only moving to the center just so he can get elected. After he becomes President, he'll push a very liberal agenda and everything will be just peachy.
That's mass delusion at its worst. That's hoping that Ted Bundy stops killing after released from jail.
Comparing Obama after taking office to Ted Bundy trying to stop his killing spree. Shucks, with clear-minded vision like that who wouldn't be persuaded that tetti-tatti's neglected her meds.
So you don't refute the point?
So we can assume you have no evidence that Obama will "come out of the progressive closet" once in office?
Therefore we can assume that you admit this notion is "delusional" as ~tetti-tatti~ put it, or at least "faith-based" as I would?
A few points here:
(1) Obama has never said or implied that he "wants to extend the war into Pakistan." I think he is ignorant on the subject of Afghanistan but flexible enough to adapt to changed circumstances once he is more informed on the latest NATO considerations re the war (especially what the Brits are saying). I think he is being very careful re Iraq because of the extremely tenuous peace between the Shiia pols and Sunni sheiks right now. I'm not clear why he keeps dodging McCain's and Big Media's disinformation about the "success" of the Iraq surge except that this close to Election Day he might not want to wade back into that media storm so that the Republicans can paint him as "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" again. I think he is posturing to the Right on foreign policy because anyone who would actually be elected by our brainwashed electorate (which includes too many brainwashed Democrats) would have to posture to the Right on these issues. Eight years of Team Bush fear wrongly wedded to hyper-patriotism have done their work.
(2) One thing none of you people who want nice social programs and despise Obama seem to grasp is that, given current and unfolding fiscal realities, there won't be sufficient revenue sources for at least a year and a half (or more) for any new major spending. The U.S. was already the world's biggest debtor nation BEFORE the onset of the financial collapse. Our primary creditor nations are either afraid to lend to us or are already cutting back. Just because the Fed is running the printing presses to crank out new Bush II dollars 'round the clock doesn't mean that currency will be worth anything by January. Voting against Obama because you want universal health care or more money for education or more money for any social program in THIS election is far and away more delusional than anything I've said. Obama has already realized he has to substantially raise taxes on the richest 2%. He will not be able to afford to pass his tax cuts for the middle-class and working poor as they are currently proposed. If elected, he will soon realize that the only place he can afford to make deep cuts is the Military/Homeland Security budget and, if he's desperate, Medicare. I, for one, think he would be much more likely to make such cuts in the Military/HSD than McCain because I've been watching McCain's career for over two decades and he is firmly wedded to the Military-Industrial complex in ways Obama hasn't been around long enough to understand, let alone emulate.
(3) Progressives who think voting for a spoiler in this particular election will benefit them or the country in any way, shape or form if McCain benefits from their vote and actually gets into office will be rudely awakened from the real delusions here. If he dies early in office from his particularly aggressive form of melanoma Amurka will become an unending surrealist nightmare that may even drive Tina Fey mad. It's going to be bad enough with Obama--who will have a sharp learning curve as a DLC Friedmanite--and given the likely Congressional mix it wouldn't be any better with Nader (for those delusional enough to think he ever had a real chance in '08) even if mighty Yahweh worked a major miracle and made Ralph president.
.The more you go one the nastier you seem toget...I do not vote for a "spoiler" but you support a liar!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The more you go on the more pungent your 'fart in a trance with yourself' comments become. And the more naive you are revealed to be. All politicians are liars - even the best of them. Their lies and half-truths are endemic to the vocation. What matters most in this particular upcoming general election (which is taking place during an unprecedented and profound historical turning point in both U.S. and world history) is that you are voting for a spoiler and encouraging others to vote for a spoiler while GOP operatives nationwide are busting their asses to shred, steal and disqualify legitimate votes in order to steal a third presidency.
What we have in Obama and McCain is a choice between power and absolute power, respectively, with the pseudo-legalistic grid for thoroughgoing martial law despotism already laid out in advance by Bush II. In THIS election there is no third choice: Any claims to the contrary are the adolescent complaints of spoiled brats and ignoramuses.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." Lord Acton
Then, why did Obama vote for all those things that increased the debt so much? Because he took gobs of money fro insurance cos., his wife worked at a very well funded (by Kaiser) hospital, and, he buys the cxrap from HMOs tah HR 676 woudl "kill jobs"--right from teh GOP play book.
Whom is he "left of center" from?
War? no. Health care? No. Gun control? No. Death penalty? No. FISA? No. WallSt. bailout? No.Gay marriage? Maybe...no.
I dont see him as liberal in any way at all.
If his counterpart is Dubya--sure. Even half of the Senate? No.
War:Obama spoke out against the war before it began. He said "Iraq is no threat to the USA." This was right after 911 mind you.
Health Care: Obama wants to give us universal health care.
Gun Control: Obama wants assault rifles to be illegal everywhere
Death Penalty: He wants tighter regulations and mandatory DNA tests done.
FISA: I still can't believe he caved in on this one. That really pissed me off.
Wall St: Obama says he's for gov. regulations.
I hope, that is all I got:HOPE, that Obama is playing it centrist to get into the White House, where he will use better judgment than any other candidate.
Nader is great, but we must take this smaller step towards progressivism in Washington before we can GO GREEN or create a viable third party.
Chill out. We can't hand this election to McSame.
.I wonder where you get your facts from, certainly not from Obama's speeches, his web site or his debates.
Obama wants to give us more of the same health care that fails us now. His plan leaves 25 million of us without care, is still dependent upon for-profit health care providers and will continue to be the most expensive care in the world that refuses to provide life giving treatments again and again.
Obama made one speech, one that preceeded a talk by Jesse Jackson, one that no audio copy exists because noone paid much attention. Since that speech he ascended to the Senate and voted, time and again, to continue this war.
If all you have is hope then you have nothing. Every time you vote for the status quo you extend it, you vote for more war, more of the same damn thing in fact.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
.
Anyone who supports Barack Obama has to ask themselves the following questions.
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to raise the Pentagon budget?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for not supporting single-payer healthcare?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for voting for F.I.S.A?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting Joe Lieberman?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting the war in Iraq?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to escalate the war in Afghanistan?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to invade Pakistan?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to invade Iran?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for barely mentioning torture?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for not mentioning the poor and the working poor?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting the $850 billion Wall Street bailout?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for not mentioning corporate welfare -- corporate welfare averaging BEFORE the $850 billion bailout $125 billion per year.
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting companies like Wal-Mart's?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for taking millions of dollars from Corporate America?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting Henry Paulson, the former head of Lehman Brothers; or Robert Gates, the current Secretary of Defense?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for voting for the Patriot Act as well as the reauthorization of the Patriot Act?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting the bankruptcy bill, a bill that punitively affects the average wage earner?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting an increase in the US military presence throughout the world?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for taking impeachment off the table?
The answer to ALL these questions is the same .. BECAUSE OBAMA IS DOING THE SAME THING!
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
.
OBAMA IS NOT GOING TO GIVE US UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE--because, if he was, I might be voting for him, just for taht reason.
Hell, he doestn even support HR 676!!
Just remind those Nazis that the original home of the first Aryans was Persia. Should be enough to throw them into a deep 6, Iranians, Persians, they'll stroke out!
BillofRights
McCain's supporters remind me of Mussolini's black shirts.
And Obama supporters remind me of Hitler's brown shirts.
I don't think you have a very accurate image of Hitler's brown shirts.
Joe
And moonpies remind me of RC Cola and a song by R. Crumb about TV dinners.
Nah, if anything they are like the "Good Germans" that ignored what the brown shirts were doing.
But they're not even really that. I think they are mostly people who feel backed into a corner and have been duped again by the Two-Party Con Game, or they are people who pay more attention to TV image than substance, or they are people who feel that given the almost inevitible crudliness of our Government just the fact that he's half-black and wasn't born a millionaire is progress.
Or they know a good bit more about history, politics, economics and war & peace than youngsters whose most popular credible information source is The Daily Show.
Stop this dehumanizing bullshit! NOW!
BillofRights
With all this anger from the right, it makes you wonder if that is why McCain seems so angry too,nah he is just angry at being behind A black man who he insulted by addressing him as THAT ONE.
Couldnt it just be because he is losing?
One Palin rally supporter yelled, "Kill him!" about Obama.
The entire world is united in support of Obama. How about that? Except a lot of so-called progressives on this website.
There is no shame in voting your conscience or criticising Obama's stance on Iran or Israel or corporate-ties, but to write him off entirely when he represents a progressive step forward for humanity is a mistake too many progressives making.
I may not vote for him (I love Nader too), but I will embrace Obama as a big step forward when/if he wins. If his presidency goes well, it will open the door for a real third party: Green party.
"The entire world is united in support of Obama."
The entire world??? Be right back... got to check my address. ... hmmm, says Earth....
Idiot hyperbole aside, what makes you believe that your post deals with anything but "IF". I base my decisions on actions... not a perversion of the word... "hope".
Obama's actions speak much louder than do his words. He has acted against my best interests. He has proven himself to be an opportunistic liar. For those reasons and more, I will not support him... I will advocate against him. I do not need four more years of that crap.
Your exaggerated statement is one of the reasons people constantly settle for "more of the same". Learn to be discerning based on more than emotion.