Bill Walz
Chomsky is correct in his analysis. the real issue is - how do we expand the power of the electorate - the answer - short of a consititutional convention to institute a parlimentary system where governments operate by coalitions of parties, we can have instant runoff elections in which third parties can have real influence and voters can vote their real convictions without there votes being wasted, or worse, contribute to the election of the candidate the furthest from their convictions - ala - Ralph Nader and the Greens contributing to the election of George Bush over Al Gore. And oh yes - now is the time to agitate for national health care. The economic crisis makes Obama's plan unafordable. A Single payor system is far less expensive. Now is the time.

Up the thread RichM and mediaho had an interesting exchange, I thank you both. For me, mediaho revealed the limits of his reasoning when he said: "I voted for Nader twice before but watching him slobber all over Ron Paul did it for me."

I'm sorry mediaho, but what a moronic thing to say. I guess the Democrats doing the following doesn't do it for you:

1) Refuse to stop funding the war after promising to do so
2) Refuse to impeach Bush/Cheny
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers on the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war and get away with it
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10) Allow Guantanamo to stay open so they can torture outside US jurisdiction
11) Allow themselves to be pissed on by signing statements
12) Spearheaded bailing out Wall St. criminals without even one hearing
13) Now favor offshore drilling
14) Push for an escalation of war in Afghanistan
15) Saber rattle Pakistan, Iran and Russia
16) Admire and want to retain Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates
17)Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here:_____________________________________. (what's next?)

All that didn't do it for mediaho, it was Nader's "slobber over Ron Paul" that did it!!! That really did it for mediaho. What bull. I marvel at the patience of RichM. I only wish I had it.

No, imo they're serious and genuine, but they lack the power.

Topic for discussion:

If we progressives had a genuine and serious 3rd party alternative, there would NOT be 2 candidates--Nader and McKinney--running AGAINST EACH OTHER.

Breaking news- I had an interesting phone conversation this evening after I posted here. Someone from Obama's campaign called me. I was on their list due to a "manifesto" I sent to the website regarding all the qualms I have with Obama. Well I guess they never actually read what I sent because they wanted me to volunteer for them this Friday.

I declined, told her why, explained that I am a Nader voter, that I wrote in Kucinich in the primary, and bascially in a polite, civil way gave her a piece of my mind.

I don't think she was prepared for me. :D She tried to give me the "Nader helped Bush get in" spiel, but again, in a civil, polite way, I corrected her.

One thing that was interesting was that she even conceded to me a number of times during our conversation. I laid it on the line, the wars, healthcare, etc. Obama's change isn't enough change for me.

So someone in his camp knows that we are out there.

But I thanked her for her call and thanked her for calling me. It's nice to get things off of one's chest.

I really feel Chomsky is falling off his political astuteness, particularly when it comes to economic theory. Don't get me wrong, I became interested in political science because of Chomsky and political activism because of Nader. It's just the recent videos of Chomsky do next to nothing for me.

I will vote for McKinney because she is the best candidate. Actually, Nader and McKinney are equal in my eyes, but I lean towards McKinney because she is trying to build a progressive movement via the Green Party. I saw Nader recently at a super rally, and he is on fire as well. I am so happy to have two such solid candidates to choose from this year.

This will also be the first of many elections that I will vote for no Democrat ( and of course no Republican ). Despite Chomsky's acquiescence, the Republicans and Democrats represent an oppressive special interest empire, and I no longer want to participate in that problem, end of story. If you want to support war and classism whether on any scale, then support what you don't believe in and vote for it.

I have told many 'progressives' and minorities that when you get tired of being abused by the Democratic Party, come on home.

http://www.youtube.com/user/GreenProgress

The reaction from the Naderbots was predictable, wasn't it? If Nader himself told them they should vote for Obama they'd probably call him a "lesser-evilist" and switch their allegiance to McKinney.

You have to pick your battles - you can't change the government by starting at the top. A progressive president, even if elected, would be handcuffed from day one given the current composition of the Congress.

Work for change, by all means. Elect progressives to local and statewide offices. If you can't find one, run for office yourself! Eventually there will be a progressive base from which to launch a successful progressive presidential campaign. That day will come, but it is not here yet. This year, the best you can hope for is to get rid of the crew that has been wrecking the country and the world for the past 8 years. If you're so blinded by the Democrats' shortcomings that you can't see the difference between them and the Republicans, you're letting the "perfect" be the enemy of the good. And guess what? Your candidates aren't really perfect either. The only person whose positions you will ever agree with 100% is yourself. So we should all go to the polls and write in our own names? Yeah, that would do a lot of good.

Here's a conversation that reminds me of talking to a Naderite...

"Which flavor would you like, Johnny? Chocolate or vanilla?"

"I want strawberry!"

"They don't have strawberry here. You can have chocolate or vanilla. Which would you prefer?"

"Strawberry strawberry strawberry!"

"I'm so sorry, Johnny, but all you can get today is chocolate or vanilla."

"I don't want chocolate or vanilla! They should have strawberry! I want strawberry! Give me strawberry!"

"I agree, they should have more choices, but they don't. Your choices are chocolate and vanilla; which will it be?"

"I WANT STRAWBERRY! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"

Grow up, Johnny. Naderberry and McKinney Crunch are not available at this store. You're going to get chocolate or vanilla. Do you want a say in which one you get?

Nader is not a threat to the establishment. He and Kucinich serve conservative's purpose of giving us the illusion of democracy, though they are ridiculed at every opportunity (UFO's?). The moment they become a threat, conservatives will kill him physically and/or politically.

Obama has risen because he hasn't challenged conservatives like Nader and Kucinich have and talking instead about unity. But if he is the liberal Republicans say he is, he is our last best hope to prevent the culmination of the conservative's totalitarian plans.

mainart

I think Chomsky is being worn down by all his years of doing battle with the status-quo.. Now he is seeming endoseing it?

Professor Chomsky,thankyou, for the memories.

what is the purpose of this article? to change my mind about voting 3rd party? give me a break from the corporate choices thrust into our faces as if that's all we deserve. there are so many apologist articles lately i'm taken for a loop every time i log onto this site. the american sheeple can't think for themselves as they are too busy watching primetime TV where they get all their information that they take at face value and then they log onto here and see such articles and video clips. is it any wonder that they can form their own thoughtful, logical conclusions about the truth when all along we are urged to conform and follow the lesser of the 2 corporate parties both of which are destroying the country piece by piece on every scale imaginable..... you would have thought that great minds have a different agenda. it's sad to say that some of them are part of the problem.

"Obama doesn't represent real change. This guy is the biggest con artist in our generation by far."
--Ralph Nader

As is usual, Mr. Chomsky has a good point; but only if one desires to continue the status quo.

I believe only real change will occur when the system is brought down and a new one put in place.

I also believe that the American people are not up to the task of making a better world, more just, peaceful world. So vote for Mr. Obama and continue your slavery, and shut up and row.

Chomsky makes about the best argument that one can for voting for Obama. Here is why I'm not persuaded: it fails to take into account cause-and-effect. That is: how did we get here?

I argue that we are at this dark historical moment for many reasons, but prominent among them is the strategy of triangulation, which has seen Democrats chase the right without pause. The Dems practice a politics that divorces itself from the ideas that give politics meaning and which becomes an empty technical exercise in winning and propaganda.

This is not OK.

"ctrl-z October 21st, 2008 2:12 am

nadervoter sez:

In 2000, both Zinn and Chomsky were on Nader's National 100 group of major endorsers.
In 2008 they're not which only goes to illustrate that reasonable progressives can disagree about the proper course of action on a vote and which candidate to support."

What it shows is that Chomsky and Zinn learn from experience."

If they learn from experience as you say, then they certainly seem to be omitting the fact that both the D. and R. Parties are guilty of extreme genocide and ecocide, while the latter of course contributes ... what? More genocide; really omnicide!

Sure, Bush-Cheney have forced around 5 million Iraqis into being refugees, internally and externally displaced and left to starve, etc., while Clinton-Gore didn't quite do this. But both pairs are guilty of criminal acts of war throughout their respective two terms in office, genocidally murdering 1.5 million or so Iraqis, destroying Iraqis' medical or health care system (a hellishly genocidal thing to do!), etcetera. And the D. Party, DP, was voted into power in 2006 and has done NOTHING to curb this war; even funding it more than even Bush called for, numerous times too.

The U.S. doesn't have much good to refer to for any relatively recent precedent. Pres. LBJ was of the DP as was also Pres. JFK, and both were war criminals and genocidally so; although LBJ was evidently much worse, including vis-a-vis "Americans". And from what I've read from various evidently reputable analysts or authors, Pres. Jimmy Carter also is no innocent individual. He may have done some things greatly right, but (I've read) not everything and one of these was his administration's f*cking with Russia. What I read about this is that Russia basically invaded Afghanistan [not] before, but [after] Carter administration "antics" drew Russia in; or something of some such bad nature or sort anyway. If true, then could it have been due to Bush Sr having served as CIA director? After all, he enticed Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait so that the USA could massacre Iraqi forces.

I don't know what the whole truth (and nothing but the truth) is about those administrations of the USA, their doings, but none of them were innocent, and all criminally maintained the economic sanctions against Cuba and surely other countries; among other very bad, rotten, ... things these administrations did.

So, learning from experience, like that of U.S. voters always voting for evils (whether lesser or greater), it again seems voters are again being self-centered, thinking mostly about their own self-interests; or by far mostly, anyway.

As for Zinn and Chomsky, maybe they really are sincere and just too ideological, idealist, whatever; even when they work on seeming or trying to be reasonable. Or perhaps their call will turn out right ... this time. The future will confirm!

But I believe to have no illusions about the USA's extremely and constantly genocidal nature, nationally and internationally, and will [not] treat others as if they are expendable while we shouldn't be; or as if we shouldn't be the first to be expended!

It's obvious that Obama has the greatest chance of getting the election; if it's not stolen and handed to McCain, then it strongly seems that it is very certain that Obama's getting the election. I would not deny this, but I wonder why people bother wasting [much] time on McCain and Palin, trying to dig up and present more dirt on or of them, for they're both clinically treatable as unfit, to say the [least]. I've sometimes wondered if McCain's literally possessed by some sort of real but weirdly dumb demon, for crying out loud; and I despise demons. Be they dumb, or not, they're [evil].

Obama'ites, i.e., supporters, should have been working on answering the many criticisms of the critics of Obama, imo. If any of us have been at all mistaken because of misinformation being spread around, then this is something his campaign and supporters should have taken the responsibility to work on clearing up and as of months (or years) ago. But that wasn't done, so the or some (if not many) serious critics aren't interested in voting for Obama!

It's been the right thing to do to point out the blatant lack of fitness of McCain and Palin, but it's been the wrong thing to do to not do as suggested just above. Too much time was dedicated to trying to defeat blatantly and obviously unfit candidates; and that seems like a dumb waste of time, imo.

NO MORE GENOCIDAL WARS; NO more criminal U.S. and U.S.-NATO (and -Israel) wars; etcetera! END U.S. and NATO crimes (and Israel's). The U.S. is top commander of NATO, so end that bastard organization's crimes too! WITHDRAW! And provide reparations, internationally and nationally; to all people the U.S. govt and its ruling "elites" and constantly evil-leaning (lesser and greater) voters have WRONGED!

It's not utopia; it's DUTY! It's DUTY to stop this damn hellbent govt dead in its damn tracks! Then we'll be able to get the damn ruling "elites" who hide behind closed doors to plan, orchestrate, ... their ... programs, say. Their [damn] programs!

We do NOT need damn schoolbench pieces of paper called academic degrees to be experts in law as far as practical law goes; it's [common sense] for crying out loud! It's good to have real experts in law, such as Dr Francis A. Boyle, f.e., for they have the high accreditation that can be used for strong bases against the degreed opposers of [common sense] practical law; but we don't need the accreditation to be expert [enough] in practical terms. NOW, let's put this into [practice]!

And get Obama to run a real campaign!

Agreed Mr. Chomsky!

I don't think U.S. voters vote strategically. If they had, Nader's candidacy might have qualified the Green Party.

U.S. voters seem to vote on the basis of emotions stirred up by 15-second TV commercials in the final phase of the election.

So, the swing-state voting idea is probably lost on most folks, I think.

The "small differences" argument that Chomsky advanced in the video maybe isn't enough to kindle hope. The differences on major issues, such as the wars, economy, Wall Street bailout, healthcare, civil rights, etc. seem way too small to matter. Will Obama get the U.S. out of Iraq? No, he'll be ruled by Bush's generals. Will Obama oppose the Wall Street bailout? Oops.

When you reflect on the Clinton years, would a George HW Bush second term have been that different? Clinton signed NAFTA (Bush's proposal) into law. Clinton ended welfare programs (Republican dream). Clinton bombed Iraq, killing 500,000 children. He also bombed the Sudan and Yugoslavia. Clinton's environmental program was nil. How would any of that have been different under a Bush administration?

Here's one difference: maybe Bush would not have dared to attack welfare programs. Only the popular President Clinton could get away with killing such a vital Democratic Party-supported program, with barely a whimper of protest.

I find it to be a real tough sell to throw away my third-party vote on a narrow choice. My goal, as it should be for all U.S. citizens, is to broaden party participation. So, when the choice is so narrow, voting third party is logical choice.

Deciding between Obama and McCain is like a bad TV "reality" show, where you are given a choice of eating a beetle or a spider. Which is the lesser weevil?

-TIA

Chomski is a lesser-evilist and that's okay. If you listen to the video he does say important truths like we have essentially one party with two factions, the differences are narrow but the consequences are large over time. He also says the political establishment doesn't listen to the people and that they are well to the right of the people on major issues. He also says Obama is blowing hot air when he talks about "change".

Essentially Chomski is saying exactly what we are saying except he draws the conclusion that voters in swing states should vote for that sellout Obama if the election is close. That is the only part I disagree with. I wouldn't vote for Democrats or Republicans under any circumstance.

For me it's between Nader, McKinney or the Socialist Equality Party.

I respect Chomsky's opinion. That goes without saying. I still plan to vote for Nader, but I'm not going to bash anyone over the head for voting Obama. There's too many of 'em anyway. :) Obama has casters on his feet, McCain doesn't, which means he'll be easier to move if we push him. And that's what it's going to come down to really. If we want real progressive change, we the people will have to act. Obama's more malleable to our will I believe. I'm suspending the illusion that 3rd parties have a shot, but they don't need to win to make some sort of difference. And there'e always the chance that they'll snowball into something larger.

As long as McCain doesn't get in, I'll breathe a sigh of relief. But I won't rest easy either.

If only Nader had a million-dollar smile and a billion dollars. :( It would be so much easier. Let's face it. Not give up, face facts. It's looking good for Obama, and we need to prepare. Nader's not going to win. McKinney's not going to win. It's a damn shame, yes, but that's the here and now. People are just doing what they have to do. Voting for Obama doesn't necessarily mean that you're in favor of the status quo. It doesn't mean that you want the wars to continue. It doesn't necessarily mean that you want a kinder, gentler Empire. What it means is that you favor someone who has wheels, that isn't as hard to shift.

I'm not happy with Obama either. I get mad when people make him out to be a savior and smother him with blind love just like I do when people paint him as the anti-christ. He does come off as a pop neo-con at least half the time. He's not as far to the right as McCain. There's a better shot with Obama. That's why I am not going to be upset when Obama gets in office.

Hey Obama deserves the heat he's getting from the left-wing. I'm glad people here are giving him hell and showing support for 3rd parties. I've done it too. Righties keep calling Obama a "socialist." My oh my wouldn't it be nice if he actually was? Wouldn't be nice if he truly was "the peace candidate?" I've done it in my blog and here and in my discussions with people offline.

But we can shift Obama. WE shifted FDR didn't we?

Let's face it, Bush has nearly brought down the American Empire, people are demanding real change.

We've lost our economic clout. Our military is humiliated and over-stretched. To make matters worse, the public is growing tired of being governed by the rich.

Instead of establishing a meaningful presence as a "Third Party", we should all vote Obama and hope that he saves the American Empire.

Vote Obama 2008 for a smarter Neo-Con.

Weevils is just no damn good no matter how you wanna look at em, don't see much use in tryin to figure which is lesser. Them lesser weevils just sneak right up on ya. For you know it you can't tell which was the lesser or the bigger. Both end up eatin right through the profits in the end.

One key factor has been ignored. Change is happening at ever greater speeds. We exist in hyperculture. Washington by comparison is burdened by Eighteenth Century governmental architecture. Washington cannot cope and the system is breaking down. Neither Democrats or Republicans can contain the collapse. They lack the "change" systems designed and tested to effectively utilize human talent to make order out of chaos. I will NOT vote for broken people attempting to run a broken system. It's time to move on.

Small decentralized local associations of people working to harness change through the utilization of survival skill sets coupled with a clear understanding of the dynamics of change, and the intellectual capital necessary to make correct decisions will excel in an age of chaos. These small groups will be linked by necessity and common values and will ultimately form the basis of the new culture. Washington will not make one whit worth of difference to them because they will position themselves to overcome the negative effects of centralized government gone awry. They will live sustainable lives until their growth supplants the dominant culture.

Neon bunny,

As for Obama vs McCain, I HOPE you're right that McCain, as Pres., would be far worse. That should indeed be the case, but is it going to be? I wonder, and I certainly hope it'll be true; else the constantly genocidal USA (throughout history) isn't about to stop this "business" anytime soon. I doubt that the genocides by the instrument known as the superpower bureaucratic and military "govt" of the USA will be ending anytime soon with either the DP or RP holding the presidency of the country, but Obama will hopefully surprise the critics among us, for we certainly have a lot of reasons to not be believers yet.

Liberals are dangerous people; even Satan, i.e., Evil, is extremely and pervertedly liberal, and then very conservative about this, to conserve his liberally evil ways. Take it literally or metaphorically, how ever you wish; I believe the sh*t really exists, but am open as to how people wish to interpret the analogy.

I just overheard Obama and I think it was earlier today, with him saying that war criminal (many times over) Colin Powell will be part of the presidential administration. Obama's already recruiting known war criminals who have never been even indicted, so much less prosecuted, for his presidential administration.

Then I think of some of his top campaign advisers, who Obama said will be constituting his presidential administration. Some of these people are of the wicked or evil ruling "elites" too; just that provide different or some different appearances from their counter-parts who work with Repub. presidential administrations. People are regularly fooled by appearances; thinking they really mean a whole lot.

Well, I have to make [humanity] my top-most priority, so I would not vote to sic any kind of evils against humanity!

If Obama was truly honourable in terms of respectability in LAW, then he'd know damn well that the war on Afghanistan is one of totally criminal and gangster, terrorist, hellish aggression of conquest (attempted anyway) for ... [natural resources], "of course" and [as usual] of the USA and its ruling "elites" and puppet militaries, proxie govts, etcetera.

If people keep voting for lesser evils, then pretty soon that's all that'll be left for what appear to be humans on this planet.

SO, I HOPE Obama'ites will be stampeding hugely if Obama doesn't start to very immediately bring all of the USA's extreme and supreme international crimes to a full stop, withdraw the USA and its various coalition forces from where they have no business acting as they are, providing the due and huge compensation or reparations, etcetera; and of course to stop the extreme crimes of the USA and its ruling "class(es)" in the USA, South America, Africa, etcetera.

If Obama'ites do not do that, then those of us who said that siding with lesser evils is to side with evils, which also is actually true, then our calls and views will be vindicated. Else, we'll have an outcome to be very and pleasantly [surprised] about.

What are Obama'ites really interested in, only their pocketbooks, bank accounts, ..., or [humanity]? I wonder. So far, both RP and DP are extreme committers of genocide, after genocide, ... (and throughout U.S. history, relentlessly). "Man", it'll be difficult for anyone to convince me that we can truly trust Obama or any other DP candidate, besides Kucinich and other valid members who are never allowed to really run for the presidency of the country.

If they're not but a little interested in [humanity first], then let them suffer far worse economic decline than is already happening, I figure! STARVE! What do the Taliban resistance fighters have for diet? BREAD, and only that! So let the greedy in the USA STARVE!

I expect to be learning of Obama'ites massing together and [hugely], once he takes office in January; if Bush-Cheney don't establish martial law first and in terms that put off replacement of themselves in January, anyway. Will Bush-Cheney pull this "stunt" or even try? I haven't a clue; the future will tell us, and I certainly hope that the outcome will be 'NO'. They apparently have all they need already established to be able to do this, so they only need to commit another U.S.-manufactured false-flag event or attack. That's hopefully not going to happen, but would be very easy for this superpower govt to do. There are precedents, but none will happen this year; I hope.

And of course I don't mean that only Obama'ites should be hugely massing together in good stampede form, for everyone should be joining in these hypothetical demonstrations. And very maintained they'll need to be in order to be [effective], or to have a real chance of becoming effective. These will have to be too large for "law" enforcement to [not] be able to really do anything about these events!

Today calls for [revolutionary] action; just that it does not need to be and should not be violent. Only [infiltrators] from state should be the ones committing violent acts that cause police state to crack down on the real and peaceful, while affirmative demonstrators; f.e., like during the Montebello, Quebec (canada), summit for the SPP during August of 2006 or 2007 along the Ottawa River (there-abouts), the summit between terrorists Bush, Harper, and ... the pres. of Mexico, whatever the fascist's (and corporatist's) name is. Infiltrators that acted violently towards the police state there pretended to be among and with the real activists, but plenty of evidence was found to be able to realise that these were actors from the state forces. Real activist demonstrators should always keep this infiltration "business" of state in mind.

But the need for revolutionary movement is [obvious].

Would progressives Nader and Kucinich have risen in the polls of the sheeple like Obama has in this plutocracy?

In fact, Obama has shown plenty of courage, staying cool in the face of conservative's death threats for being too liberal.

How long would Nader or Kucinich last in this murderous atmosphere?

Lesser of two evils as an algorithm:

function lesserOfTwoEvils() {

partyX = 100;
partyY = 99;
electionYear = 2008;

while (partyX > 0 and partyY > 0) {
partyX = partyX - 1;
partyY = partyY - 1;
electionYear = election Year + 4;
vote();
}

}
Where does this eventually lead? People will always vote for whoever occupies X, until one reaches 0, the other -1. At that point, game over. NEVER vote the lesser of two evils when both parties are so clearly co-opted. It's just a downward spiral to the bottom.

"Neon bunny October 20th, 2008 3:30 pm

As someone who likes Nader (and voted for him in 2000), I'm voting for Obama this time.

Why? Because W. was far worse, far far worse than Gore.

McCain would be far, far worse than Obama."

YOU'RE A "little" confused. After all, Gore was [never] president, and Bush Jr was never v.p. So your comparison is baseless, although Gore sure profited, politically, from his two terms as v.p. while silently allowing Clinton to continously commit crimes of war against Iraq such that these were equivalent to acts of continual aggression, hegemony, and the always, ever-present U.S. hypocrisy; in addition to the genocide of minimally one million Iraqis and with some estimates saying higher, closer to 1.5 million, and then the criminal war of aggression upon Kosovo and all Serbs and innocent Albanians there, all of them living peacefully and respectfully together, only the extremely criminal, gangster, terrorist, ... KLA having been the USA's immediate instrument of evil there.

Of course there is also that the Clinton administration was very darkly involved in the assassinations of the president of Rwanda and the other president of a neighbouring country, the two of whom were to meet and try to make this area of Africa safe for inhabitants, etc. That's as usual, it's been very, very covered up, but a prosecutor in the related international tribunals wanted to also examine or investigate the suspected guilty U.S. officials, but was denied this essential or crucial right and due process of law for humanity.

And he maintained the criminal sanctions against Cuba as well as Haiti, in addition to those against Iraqis, etcetera.

He also and very much clobbered or began the destruction of the U.S. economy, compounding the pre-existing problem by multi-fold times. Besides trashing welfare, which was essential for the most needy, among other economic fouls he committed, including NAFTA, there's also the H-1B program, which was and still is for importing high-tech. professionals. And really, that's a program only for [replacing] U.S. citizen professionals; to satisfy the greed of the corporate pigs (chiefs and shareholders, both; most of course and as usual) of the U.S.A., recruting firm pigs, and the AILA (Americans Immigration Lawyers Assn) pigs, all who couldn't bring themselves to [respect] the rights of fellow citizens who were professionals in high-tech, as well as in other job fields, to employment, so income and therefore economic security of relatively reasonable kind.

Pres. GHW Bush established the H-1B program and apparently at the request of one of his sons who was then working for some law firm, starting out this program with 65,000 visas per year, good for three years each time, and renewable for a second round upon completion of the first round. The U.S. Dept of Labor, or else of Commerce, totally opposed this program, saying that no such visas could be justified; because there was an estimated 152,000 or so graduating students every year and in high-tech. as well as adequately related fields of study. The other part of the Dept's argument is that there were also many professionals in the USA, citizens, landed immigrants, as well as students who spent years at U.S. universities and colleges investing their money in the U.S. economy each of those years, as well as while working in the U.S. after graduating.

The Dept said NO visas could be justified, but Dr Norman Matloff of UC Berkeley argued that 15,000 could be justified per year, though only for people with master's degrees and PhD's, and only when such levels of study were really required. He said there definitely could be NO justification for lower qualifications, so including bachelor's degrees, which he said there were enough or more than enough holders of in the U.S.

Clinton doubled the number of visas, from the original 65,000 per year, or nearly doubled it anyway, and the number was not respected; it was found that the govt was issuing around 20,000 more visas per year than legally allowed, and this happened like every year. Then he raised the total to around 185,000 per year and only because he didn't play AILA's game of completing eliminating the cap.

NAFTA also hit U.S. high-tech professionals, besides citizens in other lines of work, too. This was nowhere as bad as the H-1B program for us, but still contributed to the overall impact.

U.S. professionals were already becoming homeless during Clinton's term, and Gore stayed totally and profitably silent the whole two terms; never doing anything worthy of note to raise any issues about all of these crimes of that administration.

That administration's war of aggression on Kosovo (along with the assassination of former Pres. Milosevic through the instrument known as the ICC, another tool of the rich-pig "elites" of the imperialist, colonialist, ... "West") was a real and serious stepping stone for ... well, a couple of things: Increasing the USA's and NATO's combined-superpower buildup in Eastern Europe and Central Asia; as well as increasing major heroin trafficking to the "Western" countries. There's BIG MONEY in the latter business too; it is not negligble!

Gore was never P., but VP; and profitably silent about it.

In 2000, both Zinn and Chomsky were on Nader's National 100 group of major endorsers.
In 2008 they're not which only goes to illustrate that reasonable progressives can disagree about the proper course of action on a vote and which candidate to support.

We progressives need to support each other even when we disagree about voting for Obama as along as we keep the goals in mind that Chomsky articulates and commit ourselves to long term organizing for change. (So, for example, when is the first protest against Obama's illegal escalation of the attack on the people of Afghanistan? Sign me up.)

Chomsky is correct that even minor differences between the parties can have significant impact on the lives of many. The Dems fought Bush on Social Security. Good, but they haven't proposed and fought for the kind of progressive legislation to ensure the long term survivability of the program. As a result, they guarantee that it will continue to appear to be in peril, and the public may end up supporting conservative proposals to gut it. Indeed, a Democratic president may be the one who signs that bill (remember Nafta, trucking deregulation, airline deregulation, banking deregulation, welfare deform, banking deregulation, commodity trading deregulation, telecommunications deregulation, energy deregulation, etc., etc.?) Same with education. McCain's proposals to marketize public education appear ugly compared to Obama, but Obama supports some market based approaches as well and they will undercut education to the point where it can't work leaving the opening for a conservation solution, again, just as likely to be endorsed by a Democrat down the road.

So, because Democrats give in too much, the notion that there sometimes better on some issues is no argument for voting for Obama---in any state.

Citizen voting is a private act, unlike a public meeting where elected representatives determine legislation and every one knows how many are voting and how they're going to vote. Given that reality, the argument for voting for Obama in swing states falls apart. How many people are voting? Are they going to vote for who they say they are, or switch inside the booth? Will every who says they're going to vote even vote? Will all the votes be counted? Will some be challenged and given provisional ballots? Will those be counted? Will the absentee ballots be counted? Given these realities the argument falls aside due to the complexity of situation. Vote for who you want to vote for and try to convince others to your point of view, but the act itself is individual, not open to the strategizing we often read about in the mainstream media.

If you're going to vote for Obama, fine. But if you're a progressive you should recognize that you are going to have to fight for everything you would under a McCain Administration. The moment he enters the White House, Obama becomes a prisoner of his top funding sector: corporate America. He isn't going to be fighting for you, he is going to be working on behalf of that part of society who first approved and nurtured his rise to political power---and it ain't the people.

Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.

Great thread folks. Always good to come to Common Dreams and keep up with the Real news.

In the video Chomsky observes that woman's rights, medicare, civil rights has all come about because of 'people simply not accepting the doctrine of elite rule'

And he admits that health care is the number one issue (I would have said number 2, the war is first). Anyway, and this is why I differ with him (or he differs with me), is that Nader is advocating for a health care system that comes closest to what the public wants.

Even after 8 years of Obama, the same issues are going to raise their ugly head, and people will wonder what can we do, and vote continue to vote for the lesser of two evils.

It would be a great day when reporters ask Chomsky and other 'progressives' why don't don't advocate voting for Nader.

Maybe continuous caving in, under the guise of compromise, by many on this website is why real change hasn't occurred.

Now Chomsky wants you to accept the doctrine of the lessor elite because it will lesser evil.

He could have said, vote the change you want to see, in which case he would have advocated voting for Nader like Chris Hedges did.

“Indecision may or may not be my problem.” --Jimmy Buffett

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." ` Albert Einstein

Honey come quick! There's another rhino in the back yard. Eugene was right!!

One more thing, Nader is corrpt. His globetrotting lifestyle has been bankrolled by the Plaintiff Bar, who are the richest elite lawyers in the country.

rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley

There are 6 candidates for President. All but one isn't worth their weight in spit.

Mckinney was vocal about 9 11 as a ongresswoman. She was demanding answers and asking tough questions. She was then harassed by the police in the capitol building on her way to work one day and subsequently arrested and charged with assault on a cop for what I understand was her pulling her arm from him as he had assaulted her by grabbing her arm to drag her back to the entrance of the building as he had not seen her ID. It's also my understanding congressmen enter that building daily without their IDs displayed and the fascist pig that grabbed her should have spoken to her without putting his hands on her.

rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley

"Our oligarchic class is incompetent at governing, managing the economy, coping with natural disasters, educating our young, handling foreign affairs, providing basic services like health care and safeguarding individual rights. That it is still in power, and will remain in power after this election, is a testament to our inability to separate illusion from reality. We still believe in "the experts." They still believe in themselves. They are clustered like flies swarming around John McCain and Barack Obama. It is only when these elites are exposed as incompetent parasites and dethroned that we will have any hope of restoring social, economic and political order." --- Hedges

No