Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBeyond the Conventions
With varying degrees of confidence or even complacency, many people have assumed that the jig is almost up for the horrendous political era that began when George W. Bush became president. Always dubious, the assumption is now on very shaky ground.
The Bush-Cheney regime may be on its last legs, but a new incarnation of right-wing populism is shadowing the near horizon.
Much as modern capitalism is always driven to promote new products in the marketplace, the corporate-fundamentalist partnership must reinvent and remarket itself. We're now seeing the rollout of a hybrid product under the McCain-Palin brand.
Last night, after watching Sarah Palin's acceptance speech and the laudatory responses from many TV journalists, I remembered wandering around the floor of the Democratic National Convention a week ago. At the base, the two major parties are even more different than the speeches are apt to indicate.
Under the roof of the Democratic Party, notwithstanding its shades of corporatism and militarism and numerous other grave faults, there's a lot of longstanding and ongoing involvement from key progressive constituencies -- including labor unions, African Americans, gay rights activists, human rights defenders, environmentalists, fair-trade advocates, healthcare-for-all organizers, feminists, and on and on.
In contrast, the Republican Party is a political institution that views all such constituencies and activists (including last night's new target of derision, "community organizers") as enemies to be smothered and crushed. The party's latest "populist" packaging is another wrinkle in a timeworn pattern; the most avid political servants of corporate elites are eager to keep generating the anti-elites rhetoric and imagery of down-home regular folks.
At the Democratic convention last week, some of the speeches ran counter to basic progressive tenets of peace and social justice. But none came close to the zeal for social Darwinism, jingoism and militarism routinely spewing from the Republican convention's podium.
In ways too numerous to count and in realms too profound to truly evoke, this decade has grimly underscored that -- notwithstanding theoretical claims to the contrary -- it matters greatly who is president. From the Supreme Court to thousands of subcabinet positions to executive orders to a vast array of foreign-policy decisions including the potential use of nuclear weapons, the president is able to wield state power with consequences huge enough to be unfathomable.
A popular strand of analysis on the left has downplayed the importance of the president. The story goes that corporate forces rule, and the person in the Oval Office is little more than a figurehead for those rulers. There's some validity to that assessment, but in the face of experience it has tended to calcify into a form of denial.
With right-wing Republicans running the White House for 20 of the last 28 years, maybe the downplaying of the importance of the presidency has become a kind of coping mechanism for some progressives. Accustomed to a status quo that grows increasingly dire, we've settled into an uncomfortable "comfort zone" as familiar as it is macabre. At the same time, the cascading effects of right-wing control over most of the federal government have been cumulative and devastating.
Of course progressives should always keep organizing, educating, protesting and agitating. But the potential for achieving progressive changes in government policies is severely limited while the right wing is entrenched in the White House. The changes we need can only be propelled from the grassroots, but the possibilities are badly circumscribed when the far right maintains a grip on state power.
The election will happen in 60 days. After that, it'll be President McCain or President Obama.
We'll never pass this way again.
* * *
To see Norman Solomon's posts from the Democratic National Convention, go here.
77 Comments so far
Show AllThanks for adding the mention of delegate status.
"The election will happen in 60 days. After that, it'll be President McCain or President Obama."
Yes, we can tell you are frightened Norman and well you should be... but not for the reasons you profess.
When you finally do wake up screaming, roll over and realize with some clarity just exactly who you have been sleeping with, perhaps you'll understand that it is *YOU* who lost the good dream... *YOU* who manufactured your own nightmare.
You are part the problem... not the solution. Don't point your finger at me.
Dems are losing?
Not in the electoral college that will have the final word.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Dems have picked up NM CO NV OH and are only one point behind in FL which shouldn't matter since it stands now 301-224, which should even beat the Diebold thing.
________________________________________
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it and then misapplying the wrong remedies. " Groucho Marx
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
H. L. Mencken
Yes, Norman Solomon. I skimmed the comments. You and the "posters" need more emphasis on the problems of getting information because the mainstream media is so "compliant", i.e. not pointing out the "lies" often enough, whether in speeches, background or police actions in the streets. Prof. Ron Walters (U of MD) made a good point in re what you are saying, in an interview this morning on WBAI 99.5FM,NYC, "WakeUp Call" with Bernard White:(www.wbai.org it's archived on this Pacifica station)
"What a campaign is for" = groups getting our/their issues to the candidates
And, I too fear election "theft".
If the Democrats lose this election, they only have themselves to blame.
It has been said, after the last eight years of disastrous government in this nation you would think the Democrats would be winning by a landslide; they are not and there is a reason for this.
Time and time again we have given the Democratic Party a chance to stand up for what we believe in and they have failed miserably. This time if the party simply stood up and championed the interests of the people they would win overwhelmingly but they are not. Why should we continue to support them when they do not support us?
For Democracy to survive there must be consequences for those who hold political office who fail to represent the people who elected them; no exception. And once we the people understand that, it will go a long ways to fixing the broken two party system we have.
Mr. Solomon speaks of the 20 out of 28 years this nation was run by a right wing administration; it is the 8 years of Clinton betrayal I am more concerned about. The DLC and their right of center drift that lies at the root of the destruction of our nation through tactical retreat and global economics; through completing the job Reagan started and the continued unabated militarism of this nation.
We are not in denial Norman. We simply see no benefit in winning elections just to find we have simply lost again.
It is simple really. I shouldn't need a divining rod to decipher, contort some obscure meaning out of what my candidate believes in. There should be no doubt about what he or she stands for and if for whatever reason this is unclear before an election then it will be even more unclear afterward.
What is clear is Obama is supported by and in council with the same parasites that support and council the "opposition." In truth there is no opposition, they simply use each other to threaten the people with in each political cycle to get elected; period. After being elected they play this game of public opposition and private complicity right down the line.
Obama's health care proposal is a cruel joke. It will only cost us more in the long run and could quite easily result in more uninsured as businesses across this nation can no longer shoulder the cost will take this opportunity to dump medical insurance benefits; reward the parasitic health care system we have with yet another feeding frenzy; and probably will end with conservatives pointing at yet another failed liberal attempt at "big government" when in reality the system that would have worked was never given a try at all.
Obama's overtures toward AIPAC, his dangerous and troubling get tough talk about Afghanistan and even worse Pakistan, and the truly hypocritical issue concerning the Russian situation in Georgia, offer very little hope for a return to peace for this nation.
Also, Obama will not help working class America by cavorting with hedge fund managers, associates of Robert Rubin, and stalwart supporters of Walmart.
Lastly, I and perhaps many here are a bit put off by supposed "progressive" organizations who purport to represent this community making great leaps in logic to support what we clearly do not. I know the facts on the ground; the Democrats are the only other show in town right? The right has won election after election by fragmenting the left who if undivided could easily take control and move this nation in the direction it needs to go, right?
Well, we are still waiting for leaders who will do that. They don't have to be black or white or men or women; they don't have to be military or POW's,; they simply have to stand for what we believe in and have the courage to never stop saying so.
g
WELL SAID!
BUT I WOULD AD. . . .
I believe Obama's hope and vision is to restore the USA to its former respected place in the world in a new way. One can see how it is veiled in his rhetoric but it is there. We can only hope that he is not murdered using some obscure assassin. When I think of the charge against Obama that he supported that toad, Joe Lieberman or the many obfuscations, of Clinton and McCain to paint him “black” I have to laugh at the simplistic charges and the lack of understanding of what is necessary to be a politician in the USA. HOWEVER, like it oe not he is part of the DNC and the compromises he must make to have that support lift his idealism and turn it into an empty balloon.
But there are some who hold out the small hope that if Obama, the least of all the evils presented to the electorate, somehow becomes president he may become another great man in the office and in effect serve the people, the country and the globe. He is the only one, in my view, who holds that possibility, without question, if we join and accept some of the thinking written on the pages of common dreams and other liberal blogs, many agree with this idea. It is so because of his background, his actions in Chicago, despite his missteps, and the fact that this is the final chance at survival for the human family!
We must take this chance and hope that the creeping filth of corporate power in collusion with government and media that has brought humanity to this pass will not assassinate him; if he truly tries to affect the changes that must take place in America and the world, for make no mistake about it: survival is at stake.
Yes, many nations look to different nations and models other than the USA in this for leadership and assistance turning their back on the US and the rejection of the Bush regime. The USA can take on a new challenge, with a new leader, a new vision with a country and a congress that supports him! I believe Obama can assume a place in the world as one of the leaders of the world- rather than, the lone, dogmatic, power driven capitalistic - globalized monster eating everything in its path for it own advantage. I believe that Obama, in recognizing the state of this world, seen with the idealistic vision he espouses, is able to help the USA join with other nations in the world, not as the sole leaders but one as one of its important contributors. The USA is a technological giant it is time to use its strength to assist the world, as it once did, not only for its GDP but also the truth of its responsibility and concern for the problems humanity confronts.
Now, as never before, to the present degree, a great leader and vision is required to help draw the world back from the nightmare now taking place. The climate, energy, food, water, the oceans, forests, human health, world poverty and so many other issues will require a man that has the youth and the guts to try to bring about the change in the USA needed for the future generations who see his vision. Change is fundamental to his campaign alone, since he has captured the belief of so many whom once believed it to be impossible. However, in the end it all may be too late!
This expresses my sentiments exactly--but, better than I do! I'm "just here to learn"! LOL One thing--McCain terrifies me! I have finally rolled out the DVR and watched his adn Palin's speeches---brrr! Can you say Cold War? But, then , what evidence do we really have that Obama will do much differently? Being in a direct "swing state" (the one that "decided" 2004--it was stolen, the DNC had a "hearing", acted all "concerned" and nothing happened--samo/samo)I worked as hard for Kerry as I have any election in my life , even though I was NOT crazy about him. It did us NO good at all, the reports filed by Tubbs-Jones (RIP, great lady)and Boxer were "dissed" by DNC, adn here we are again. Ohio people are "stupid"? (WAY to win them over!!)Ohio has a LOT of , waht we call here, "Kentucky overflow"--its NOT a racist/elitist term! We tease each other about it! Obama was right abou ton e thing--alot of them, in times of crisis, which are almost constant here since the Clinton giveaway, all back to Reagan, people in working class neighborhoods like mine, turn to god and they hang onto their guns! (I am an agnostic who thinks all guns shouldx be thrown in the asea--no, wait--all metal--how am I still here? Try "no med. care" and my house is worth crap, but neither candidate is going to help)Times are REALLY rough here, adn I am NOT KIDDING! If a "progressive" wants to win Ohio (as I told the obama campaign when they were here--or tried to) they have to speak to "bread and butter" issues, because that is all alot of peole have left! Theirs Hopand adream is to eat, afford medicine adn keep a roof over their head.It is easy to blame them or cal them stupid--everything that made their livews worthwhile is gone.Speak to them--they will respond.
There are 3 items that suggest that Obama could be more to the left than people realize.........
1) His wife said that for the first time she was proud of America...This has been qickly buried because it is a very radical statement
2) He said it is necessary to change the mentality of the people with respect to war
3) He said Americans have to understand that they are no better or worse than anybody else.
These positions are extremely rare. I have never heard another politician with a chance to win say that. It might be a mistake to throw that away even though Obama is really not very satisfying right now. I find this election extremely difficult-------------------------------lizard
I'm with you on this one, lizard - this election is difficult.
I think Obama has, at his core, the ability to tap into something that many others have not. While he has equivocated and waffled a bit, I know he is a smart person and also a smart politician. The election for high office is a politician's game, and we should not lose sight of that. While I can't stand AIPAC or FISA (I wish he hadn't voted for it), it is not a straight line from here to the presidency. Many constituencies to satisfy and it is a true tight rope.
Your three statements tell me something of Obama and his wife. What's in their hearts can be tapped by us, but only if we want to and have the will to do it. What many often refer to as "political will" is mis-named. In a democracy, the real power comes from "popular will," meaning of course, you and me. We CAN help Obama realize what's in his heart (and ours) IF we want to and want to work for it. Obama is both an idealist and a pragmatist. He wants to do good, but has learned on the streets and in Congress that there are obstacles to overcome and go around. We can help in that regard. First though, we have to help get him into a position to do that. To do that, I'm going to vote for him. Then, I'm going to help him help us.
I'm sorry, but, these "statements" (esp. when you "go back" on them!!)signify nothing! He will be under the thumb of the same DNC that all Dem candidates are.I dont understand what you think these statements mean. Are they in "code"? Why is it so difficult to say "I am against war. We need to cut our military budget and spend it on things needed here at home". What he needs to emphasize, in swing states, would involve 1) health care for all (single payer) Dont say most people dont want it--that is a myth purpetrated by the insurance industry. Lets say you're correct--most pepoe dont want it--if it is best for the uS , which, when you look at what we get--and spend--is not debatable--shouldnt a leader be able to make decisions and convince people? 2) The free trade agreements and breaks to big corporations--3) Tax cuts rolled back at a lower rate than $250,000 a yr,. and sooner than TEN YEARS! Also, does the middle class really need another $1000? It sounds good, but, couldnt it be put to better use in social programs or to pay off the debt?Just describing problems gets applause (as in "There are blah blah people without {jobs, health care, houses}--and it is getting worse"--applause. )Well, we already know that--what are you going to DO about it?
"shouldnt a leader be able to make decisions and convince people?"
Yes, when he is a leader. Right now, Obama is a candidate and must walk a tight line. The American people, as you know, are immersed in falsehoods and marketing ploys and must be talked to a certain way. Yes, this sounds condescending, but think back for a minute. In 1984, Walter Mondale, Carter's VP, ran against Ronald Reagan. During one of the televised debates, the moderator asked the candidates whether they would raise taxes to cut the deficit. Mondale responded honestly and said, "Yes, I will raise taxes. The difference between me and my opponent is that he will also raise taxes, except he won't tell you that - I just did." Reagan, of course, promised the sky and moon and everything else. Of course, Reagan didn't raise taxes initially, but instead slashed social spending while building up the military and gave us "trickle down economics" from which we're still trying to climb out of. Mondale was thanked for his honesty by losing in a landslide!
Go figure, huh? So much for American voters appreciating honesty and straight talk from their candidates.
Obama is a smart man, not a perfect one. I think he will be a smart president, not a perfect one. McCain will be neither.
So, KDelphi, what I am going to DO about it is vote for Obama, do what I can to dump Pelosi and Reid, and work locally for every smart progressive cause I can (starting with a local town council seat). What are YOU going to do about it?
Ted
"The polls show across the board that the voters really want such a [progressive]change." --- Sampson's post, above.
.................................................................................
I rarely have disagreement with any of Sampson's posts. In this case, though, I can't agree with his term "...really want..."
I think the problem is that voters only MILDLY WISH for progressive changes.
If a majority of voters REALLY wanted such things, they could make a credible effort to demand them from the Dem party and, failing that, vote Green or some other progressive alternative in telling numbers.
Unfortunately, for decades voters have done neither.
This is because people buy into the media's crap! "Socialized medicine" blah blah. "Death tax" blah. "Drill here, drill now" blah. "Mortgage crisis--people need education..blah". "The free market is necessary for a free society blah,..." Sorry, people--its all a bunch of BS.
Norman Solomon says, "The changes we need can only be propelled from the grassroots, but the possibilities are badly circumscribed when the far right maintains a grip on state power."
But which far right? The DLC Democrats or the neocon Repugs? Is that a real electoral choice?
We've seen the Dems take power in Congress, but the policies remained the same. We saw "Constitutional lawyer" Obama vote on the FISA bill to strip U.S. citizens of Fourth Amendment protections. If someone told me a blue-dog Democrat would vote that way, I'd find it hard to believe.
It's correct that the base of the Democratic Party disagrees with the decisons made by elected Democratic lawmakers. However, the convention is the only "redress" that some in the base will ever get. But it's a false hope. The real-politic corporate decision-making commences soon after the lies are told at the convention and Democrats are elected - but elected mostly out of fear, not out of hope. Then, it's back to business, and corporations will expect payback for all of the campaign funding they've lavished. Corporations even write the laws these days for the legislators to push. Pathetic.
Norman Solomon wants to believe in the process and that Dem politicians are nearly begging to be persuaded by the base. But we just haven't seen that, year after year.
It may sound bad, but I just stopped writing to my representatives. Every issue was a loss. Why spill ink? Faced with a solid losing streak, changing horses just sounds like a common-sense decision, despite the odds. Why bet on lose-lose.
There are other parties, and they've got some good ideas. And they aren't afraid to voice those ideas. Why torture yourself, Norman. Vote Green. Remember the 500,000 mostly children killed in Iraq as a result of sanctions and bombing by the Clinton administration. Why are the policies so similar? Sure, there are differences, but things are so bad now that a narrow choice between two sides of the business party really is no choice at all.
-TIA
The Democrats have more elected officials than Republicans in state governments and it is growing. It hasn't mattered all that much because the Democrats have by and large rejected the progressive majoritarian policy wants of the people they are allegedly serving. I disagree that it is due to only a mild level of support for issues. It is more because it is very easy to MANIPULATE voters into voting against their best interests through visuals, through fear, through attacks on patriotism and masculinity - and this is made easier when there is no actual opposition party that has any real power.
This is why I am so commited to growing a progressive majority; the only way to do so is to abandon the Democratic party - even the "good" Democrats, who are enablers.
It appears that there’s a concerted effort on the part of Democrats to lose the election and keep the White House in the hands of Republicans. This is perhaps because the puppet masters believe that the Republicans are better enablers to carry out the designs of the powers-that-be. Two of Joe Biden’s recent pronouncements illustrate my point, and are sure-fire vote losers:
1) He’s said something to the effect that Israel should bear a nuclear Iran. This will run away the Jewish voters.
2) His purported wish to put Bush/Cheney on trial will not get the votes of progressives and independents because they’re too smart to fall for it. But on the other hand, it may lose Dems a good part of the popular voters who are looking for some action to improve the status quo, and not a trial show.
The puppets do what puppet masters tell them to do, hence Biden’s recent positions. A self-confessed Zionist would never say what Joe Biden has said, unless prompted by the masters.
.
If Democrats cannot beat the Republicans without the votes of the folks who vote Independent, then that is the Democrats fault, not the fault of the people who chose not to vote for them.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
.
I would like to know what Dem Party intends to do about Diebold machines in Ohio and other states. They threw the election for Bush over Kerry, adn they wil do it again, even though they now have a "paper trail" (you cant take it with you). Since teh DNc knows I voted for --other than Obama--in the primaries (and moveon.org is all wrapped up in Obama only too)(I was dumb enough to tell them why I thought someone else was better--didnt know they would become the Obama enforcers!), i have no idea who will be working th polls or checking up on voter challengers or voter caging.Not that it did us (or Tubbs-JOnes --RIP) any good in 2004--DNC just says "lets have a hearing a MOVE ON!". If someone is in touch with OhioDNC, they had better get busy on it!
.
Nader can win....... The voters will decide.
Nader will change things.
Nader is our only hope.
Nader is the only choice.
Fight the Two-party system.
VOTE NADER 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
.
.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
single payer national health insurance:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
No to nuclear power, solar energy first:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Open up the Presidential debates:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Adopt a carbon pollution tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Impeach Bush/Cheney:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Work to end corporate personhood:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
.
man i'm a progressive and i stormed washington and nycity back in the 60's. worked all the way through the 90's for change. i've seen this bleak slip into fascist state one dimensionality all my life.. i have a kid and I'm tired of it. i worry about the world for my little man. but politics is compromise. it is the nature of the beast. for me Nader is all ideas. i voted for him in the past but i've grown to think the man is all in his head. yes he has great ideas for governing but he's never held public office. he lacks something. i heard him speak and man he's complex. too complex. who wants to listen to him. Americans are dumb. they watch American idol. they spend time watching tv. i get the feeling that Nader doesn't know people. maybe I'm wrong. he's a good man i know that. one has to work within current realities. the reality is we have a choice to vote for two men one of whom will occupy the white house. which man is closer to your ideals? for me there is no doubt. obama. at least with him we'll have a voice that might be listened to. i think he will energize many of us who have been disenfranchised for too long. please progressives. unite under obama
Because Nader is "complex" and the U.S. electorate is "dumb" you are going to vote with the dumb to keep them dumb? Huh? We have more than "a choice to vote for two men one of whom will occupy the white house. which man is closer to your ideals?" NADER IS! You sound like a runner in an Olympic race saying to himself "I cannot win. I cannot win. I should give up". Where does that get him/you? If U.S. folk are dumbed down by watching "American Idol", you EDUCATE THEM. You don't do that by turning up the volume on "American Idol". Obama will NOT "energize" you and those that "have been disenfranchised for too long". How does backing a Corporate candidate "enfranchise" you? No sir. Never again should the people fall for the deception and backstabbing of either Corporate Party. "Progressives" will not "unite under Obama". Obama has used progressives and thrown them in the garbage heap. That IS disenfranchisement. Run Ralph. Run! Enough Corporate Party rule already.
you are going to vote with the dumb to keep them dumb?
i think it would be dumb not to vote against the radical right.
"You sound like a runner in an Olympic race saying to himself "I cannot win. I cannot win."
no i believe I can win, that's why im voting for Obama
"Obama will NOT "energize" you and those that "have been disenfranchised for too long".
How do you know? You make assumptions that are wrong. yes he has energized me despite what you may believe and he has energized millions who have been out of the dialogue.
Enough Corporate Party rule already.
I agree with you. we'll have it for another 4 yrs minimum. question is how best to dismantle it. Someone in the Presidential office who at least is sympathetic to what we are saying is far better than the Radical Right.
Rico:
“…but he's (Nader) never held public office.”
Just what those who’ve held public office have done for you, or will do for your ‘liitle man’? Also, isn’t voting for Nader or anyone else “working within the system’?
You claim to have been an activist since the 60’s, but obviously you haven’t learnt much. You also claim to be a progressive, but your statements point otherwise. Sorry.
salia said-
"Just what those who’ve held public office have done for you"
I backed Kucinich, a Democrat. he brought up impeachement proceedings which i totally supported. Kucinich was my man for president. Kucinich supports Obama forcefully. I am represented by
Barbara Lee in the House. she is a great representative and I support her votes 99 percent of the time. She too is a democrat. Both these people are on my side. DEMOCRATS!!!!!!
You accuse me of not having learned much! You don't even know me!or what I have done and continue to do! don't be sorry, you've made your point and attacked me. So live with it. And get ready for the counter because you asked for it and listen and take it like a man or a woman. You sound snide. don't make personal attacks when you don't know the person. sometimes you left (and I am definately left, so I am talking to myself here too) are as closeminded and idealogical, just like the right. Holier Than Thou. Know yourself. Keep an open mind and an open heart. Don't study war no more.
I happen to believe that a man such as Obama will bring about real change in this country despite what you all might believe, who have been kept out of the dialogue for too long. He is infinately preferable to the radical right that are very close to taking a firmer foothold in this country. I believe that Mr Obama carries with him many of the ideals of Martin Luther King. I also believe judging by what he spoke about in his acceptance speech he is in touch with the middle and poorer class. He has been on the ground and has worked with them! have you? I have. Given the realities of American politics he has had to make decisions that are compromising and some which really stink. I don't agree with him much of the time, yet he is my best hope and the hope of my children and for progress.
Kucinich's theme in his speech at the Democratic Convention was 'Wake Up America!!"
I believe that goes for you too "progressives"!!
Are you aware that Obama's campaign censored Kucinich's convention speech? He wanted to say something about charges on Bush et al. They took it out. Kucinich is a DEMOCRAT first. But, I live inOhio adn get email from his campaign al the time. He is most certainly NOT a "forceful supportet" of Obama--he is more "anti-McCain".
"Are you aware that Obama's campaign censored Kucinich's convention speech?"
I wasn't aware of that. I thought it was the best speech besides Obama's in the convention. It was still forceful and incisive, cutting to the bone.
"He is most certainly NOT a "forceful supporter" of Obama--he is more "anti-McCain"."
He sounded pretty forceful in that speech- in any event that's where I stand-Anti McCain/Palin.
I urge everyone who hasn't, to read George Lakoff's article on CommonDreams. He too urges cutting down the radical right effectively.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/02
Rico -- I'm not saying not to vote for Obama, but where does the idea that he will energize the disenfranchised come from other than PR? He has already had a part in taking away a significant part of your constitutional rights and has endorsed globalization (for example). If you think it is essential to vote for him, I wouldn't presume to dissuade you, but I see no logical reason or possibility that progressives should or can "unite" under him.
If you believe the election of Obama is necessary and fear a "wasted vote", you still might consider voting for a progressive candidate if you live in a "safe state", assuming you are truly a progressive and want to keep your values alive. You might also consider registering as a Green if the Green platform looks good and the values coincide with your own.
http://www.gp.org/
I am registered Green. and i am in a safe state. but i am voting for Obama and I am working hard for him. . I am going to Nevada to get the vote out as it is still up for grabs. i am not believing the hype about energizing the disenfranchised, I live with the disenfranchised every day and I see it, with my own eyes. People are energized by him in the African American community where I live. I fear the Radical Right. Politics is the Art of Compromise.
Rico -- Your reply is confusing to me as is your subsequent post.
One of MLK's most admirable views and central to his later arguments was his realization that there is no real enfranchisement with the military-industrial-complex calling the shots and becoming an end in itself.
Where has Obama criticised the MIC and corporate structure and called for its reform? All I've heard has been endorsements. Is this insignificant?
What is it about Obama that is MLK-ish? His race? His "essence", which somehow the Obamaites are able to discern?
What do you expect the MLK-like Obama to do? What specifically will justify all your work and enthusiasm?
Or do you believe membership in good standing in the corporatocracy is sufficient - equivalent to enfranchisement? If you do, I don't know why you are a registered Green.
Arry-Membership in corporatacracy ay? you know nothing about me yet you have assumptions which are wrong .so let me give it to you straight and clear some of your "confusion"
I am a filmmaker and have spent 30 yrs doing that. I have worked for social change all my adult life. My last feature films are about racism and homophobia and sexism. My films have been seen by millions people world wide. Google The Color of Fear.It is an immensely influential film. It was shown on oprah winfrey and millions saw it. I made that. Google Last Chance for Eden. I produced and edited that film. I made a film about the anti apartheid movement in america. i made a film about the Navajo Hopi land dispute. I worked in Hollywood and not on anything violent, cause I dont do that. the only violent film i worked on was a film called 'Romero' a feature about Archbishop Romero of El Salvador. I work for the machine for a while. but i gotta eat man. so does my kid. i worked for mtv and sam goldwyn and universal. i worked on some local tv, cut some movie trailers and worked for LucasFilm for a while. another corporation.. i try to do what i can.
I don't buy no stinking corporate food. I don't buy nothing that i don't need. i get most of my food from farmers markets. i don't watch no stinking telly. i travel by bike and mass transit. I recycle just about everything. I contribute to Greenpeace and KPFA.org for 20yrs. I don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. i am active in my community and my son's school. i teach little kids about filmmaking. i try and keep an open heart and an open mind.
as for Mlk obama connection all one has to do is read this, his closing statement at the DNC to see some connection-
"...it is that American spirit - that American promise - that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.
That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours - a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.
And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.
The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.
But what the people heard instead - people of every creed and color, from every walk of life - is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.
"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."
America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise - that American promise - and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess."
Words yes, but a promise. vote obama and crush the radical right. I hope that clears up your confusion.
Nope. Ronald Reagan could have spoken those words. Your lifestyle is irrelevant to the points I made which you didn't address in the least. Good for you, making those films.
You have the bug. What can I say?
Oh, Gawd. Been a long, hot, and tough day. Not likely Reagan would have spoken just those words. He certainly would have included the good old spirit of American enterprise, but it looks a bit like the "city on the hill", a bit Reaganesque. (Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in such speeches because they are essentially meaningless...besides I don't have a television and didn't see it.)
I ask you again, what do you expect to see from such words? A dismantling of the MIC? Or will we now raise ourselves (together) into a last effort to get a little more mileage out of the crumbling corporate system built after WWII (together)? How will the stirring words be translated into policy? What does rebuilding mean? Take Obama's statements together, throw in some nice speechifying, and, so far, it amounts to very little in the way of "progressivism" and a lot of disturbing anti-progressivism. How can you deny it? Specifics are important, particulary in such a context.
Do you understand that MLK's words about U.S. militarism are central and vital, not something you can shrug off in the rosy light of vague and stirring words?
BTW, I suppose (together) we will have to endure the loss of habeas corpus, the Fourth Amendment, etc. but at least we will be marching forward (together).
Excuse me. My mistake. Of course, your lifestyle is relevant to your belief in living in a corporatocracy. Unfortunately, there is a disconnect in supporting Obama in terms of enfranchisement which appears to me to be unbridgable.
I stand by the rest of my reply, however.
as the Great Sphinx said, arry
'don't expect too much'
I most certainly do not.
I wasnt disenfranchised ( I know alot of people are--but, if they were before--how long wil they stay once Obama is "gone"--I mean, are they Independents? (would be nice) Dems? GOP? I just hope they stick around. What if they are disappointed in Obama? I want to be able to support him--the political group I am in supports him (with caveats). If he would just bend (back! in some cases! Before he went right!)on health care; the war(s); FISA; guns; death penalty; helping with the mortgage crisis; I mean, gawd, throw us a bone! I know where you are coming from--but I am having some REAL trouble with this election!
Sure, I hear you. Let's put it this way i'd rather vote for the African American centrist than the far right elitist white folks. One of these groups is going to be President and the race is close. I'll vote for the Hope for Change rather than the jack boot fascists.
It is sobering to read the reasonable discourse. But may I remind all of you that the election is decided by who counts the votes.
The voting is as corrupt as anytime in our nation. The electronic voting will decide who is president, and who controls the electronic voting machines in key states?
McCain wins, we all loose.
Ohio was stolen in 2004--and will be again , unless the DNC does more than it did in 2004!
Suzanne Gentling
Very astute observations.
And absolutely terrifying, I think.
.............................. A Modest Proposal ...................................
Although I plan on voting for Ralph Nader, if my only choice was voting for Barack Obama or else voting for a *dead* John McCain ... frankly, I'd vote for the corpse.
I mean, let's face it, a dead John McCain will do far less harm than a live John McCain or a live Barack Obama.
Why wait for the inevitable? We all have to die, don't we? ... So here's my modest proposal. ... Summon Dr. Kevorkian to the Republican Convention. Have the good doctor ease John McCain out of this travail of tears. Then prop up ole Johnny-Boy, freshly-deceased -- and run that sucker for president!
In a heartbeat the title of "lesser-of-the-two-evils" would switch from a *live* Barack Obama to a *dead* John McCain.
I mean, how much harm can a dead guy do???
Stuff the guy! Get a good taxidermist, then tour the corpse around these United States of America.
Book that sucker on Oprah. Wheel that stiff onto the Jerry Springer Show. Nobody would lay a hand on him. How can you dislike a dead guy?
Come on, how many times have you dealt with a difficult person and, so exasperated, you yelled out: "Shut up! Goddammit, shut the f*** up! Just sit there and don't say a word!" ... Well, sir, there you have it, there's your perfect candidate -- John "Just-Sit-There-and-Be-Dead" McCain.
I guarantee you: a dead John McCain in the White House would all but guarantee world peace and environmental sanity.
The same applies to Barack Obama. Either candidate would win the Election in a landslide if they'd just be willing to "run dead."
So, come on, John McCain; or else how about you, Barack Obama -- just do it -- JUST DROP DEAD!
Once cremated, a grateful nation will *sweep* you into office.
Man, that is god damn funny. I always thought Reagun was already dead when he was up for reelection in 1988, and they just wheeled this stuffed body around with some standard vocalizations on a tape loop.
Normam Solomon implores us progressives to back Barack now, and then after he is elected organize to pressure him in our direction.
For those, like myself, who live in a safe blue state (California) why do we have to wait until after the election? Why not support Nader or McKinney now to build their poll numbers and votes, and thus force Obama to move back to the left BEFORE the election because he sees a significant faction of his constituency moving away from him and thus possibly losing the election? We can have our cake and eat it, as it were.
Where Obama is safe we can support/vote for those we believe in, and in swing states hold our noses and vote for him. Maybe we'd see Obama reacting to a dissertion from the left wing now, and not be faced with a President-elect who can continue to ignore us. Certainly with Palin on McCain's ticket, Obama now can move almost as far to the right as he wants without any concern, unless we show our numbers.
RFinston -- I have suggested, as have others (including some Obama supporters here) that there be a massive re-registration to Green Party. It's a very simple procedure. It would have a big effect if done in enough numbers.
But, of course, it's "Nah, I guess not...we'll see how it plays out", etc. What does it take to get people in this country to actually *do* something?
Nevertheless, I'm not a purist and will be happy to see votes from the "safe-states" or any other strategy accumulate in the true progressive party column. It is important to get those numbers up.
I think that these are very good ideas. It wil not do to pressure him after he is in office. (It may not do any good anyway)But we have to strike while the iron is hot! Allow others into the debates. Barr is on the ballot in Ohio--that might hurt McSame, also.For "reaqching across the aisle" and "bringign everyone together"--the Dem Party seems more divided then it has ever been! This election is such a disappointment.I wish we couold throw everybody out and start over. But, since we cannot--we should allow people into the debates that will challenge Onama to "look to his higher angels" as I think he put it.
Excellent posts, although they make me want to cry. I have zero enthusiasm for Obama and the Dems because of the many reasons listed by Samson and others. But I hope he wins - McCain/Palin seems even scarier. My state will probably go Obama so I can vote for someone who articulates what I really want: an end to the wars and war-mongering, single payer health care, freedom of speech, no nukes, reparations to the rest of the world for what our country has done...
Opal
I feel the same way--but IO live in a swing state--OHIO! What do I do? According to diff people on dif sites--TERRIBLE< HORRIBLE things wil happen if my one vote doesnt go for Obama! The CP-USA even want me to go door to dor for him--how do I work up the enthusiasm? Do I just go around saying "He's better than McSame". In my working class neighborhood, they prob would not respond to that.IN fact, most of them prob wont vote at all! But, if I vote Nader--THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WIL BE LOST AND IT WILL BE ALL MY FAULT! Any ideas how not to feel like "the enemy" from both sides?
What do you do? You remain true to your conscience. You vote for the possibility rather than the fear.
-- Norman Solomon
Thank you for joining in the discussion!
Do you think it should also be disclosed in this article that you were an Obama delegate?
Since you and Common Dreams decided that it would be useful to the readers to disclose your conflict of interest for the articles you wrote during the convention, it seems like it would be just as useful to do so now.
It is there , at the bottom. You just don't look carefully. You are making yourself look stupid. They are not hiding that he is a delegate. Apologize -----------lizard
Dittos. And I guess that's why comments weren't allowed for Mr. Solomon--at least for a while anyway.
I had no idea this guy was an Obama delegate, but that explains a lot.
Disclosure people. D i s c l o s u r e .
The Democrats are as intensely interested in a dollar as the Republicans. Just ask Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, John Corzine and any number of other extremely wealthy Demos. But the Demos don't want any blood spatter on their folding money, whereas the Republicans don't care and even consider blood money a sacred badge of honor. That's an analogy of how McCain/Palin will win the election. They'll roll their sleeves up, like Juan Peron, and show Americans the content of their wallets - all the grungy, wrinkled, blood spattered ones and fives and claim that they, and only they, earned their money like REAL AMERICANS, whereas the pussy Democrats carry around fifties and hundreds which they have steam cleaned and then dried in a microwave. As trite and stupid as that sounds, that's the way this election is going to be conducted and the Republican strategy will work yet again. How much faith do you have that middle class Americans will finally stop voting against their own economic self-interest and get rid of the Republicans?
Actually, as a factual matter, the California caucuses that chose delegates to the Democratic National Convention met in mid-April, and that's when I was elected as an Obama delegate. Since then, through the last day of the convention, every relevant piece that I've written -- appearing on CommonDreams through the end of the national convention last week -- clearly stated that I was an elected Obama delegate to the convention.
-- Norman Solomon
Inquiring minds want to know: Norm, do you believe Joe Biden or Obama has any intention of holding Bush accountable?
...or, how would you rate the importance of justice in the case of Bush et al and the moral, ethical, political, and social consequences of the failure of justice?
I watched pdamerica.org live from the Convention almost every day--it really WAS all about Obama, and , I must say, as one who has followed most of you guys for years, I was surprised. That is neither here nor there.In any case, is PDA considering filing impeachment charges against Bush? I dont even know if you can do that--that is just what I had heard. And I figured that the Rep.that would do it would prob. come from California--I am rooting for it.I think it would make a big diff. in Dem Party power, since they are curerntly seen as so conciliatory.
I watched pdamerica.org live from the Convention almost every day--it really WAS all about Obama, and , I must say, as one who has followed most of you guys for years, I was surprised. That is neither here nor there.In any case, is PDA considering filing impeachment charges against Bush? I dont even know if you can do that--that is just what I had heard. And I figured that the Rep.that would do it would prob. come from California--I am rooting for it.I think it would make a big diff. in Dem Party power, since they are curerntly seen as so conciliatory.
One point about fairness. CD is back to refusing to disclose that Mr. Soloman was an Obama delegate at the DNC. Since he comes from CA, its likely that this has been true ever since the Feb primary. But in the time between that primary and the convention, DC constantly ran Mr. Soloman's articles without disclosing that he was an Obama delegate. For a brief time during the convention, they did disclose this. Now CD seems to be back to trying to present Mr. Soloman as an independent journalist and is once again hiding his connection to the Obama campaign.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Obama has been alienating his progressive base for some time now: AIPAC speech, FISA vote, promising to increase the military, Afghanistan, etc. Nader is moving up in the polls as a result. You just have to wonder: Do they intend to lose ...again?
I think so. Think about it: If Obama wins, he's going to be a huge disappointment. You can bet he's been thoroughly vetted and will continue the empire's corporate agenda, increasing the military budget, more spying, more troops in Afghanistan, etc. There's no reason whatsoever to think otherwise.
Problem is: Obama as president means the Democrat Party will stand stark naked in the light. They will have lost their most valuable excuse and most of their political capital: The bad cop, the Republicans! Voters will then bail from the Democrats like we've never seen, weakening the party even more and destroying the duopoly's control - the lesser of two evils voting strategy that keeps democracy at bay and allows the country to be taken over by corporations. Third parties will grow into powerful entities as a result.
But if Obama loses, the Democrats can collect big capital. Nader and McKinney voters will be blamed for McCain - Howard Zinn said McCain is only slightly to the right of Obama ...slightly! Obama will further marginalize independents by voting for a few progressive bills, ones which the bad cops will oppose. The profile that will be designed around him will appear progressive. In my mind's ear, I can hear the speeches, the writings in The Nation, etc. Support for third parties will evaporate because they will have become pariahs (The Pariah Party)- the duopoly's dream come true. "Obama never got the chance!" they will rail as McCain completes the final flushing of American democracy.
It's a scam researched and developed by the duopoly and it's been working for the corporate empire for decades.
If there's any reason at all for voting for Obama this is it. Flush 'em out!
Personally, I can't support a duopoly candidate. I signed a pledge and can't go along with the killings - a million innocents in Iraq, mostly children. A couple of weeks ago, 60 children in Afghanistan killed by US air strikes.
"Personally, I can't support a duopoly candidate. I signed a pledge and can't go along with the killings - a million innocents in Iraq, mostly children. A couple of weeks ago, 60 children in Afghanistan killed by US air strikes."
Every time you fill up your gas tank you're going along with the killings---we all are.
That's why we ride our bicycles and eat locally. Not everyone can do that. And it's wasteful to go out and buy a new hybrid. Better to restrict our driving to the absolute essentials. Ride the bus if you live too far away to bicycle. Stay out of airplanes. Take the train.
But move in the right direction. I don't see Obama doing that. He is furthering the neo-con agenda, not fighting against it. Why would he choose Biden? Vote FISA? Wake up!
And don't forget to use your bike and eschew your car. Good for the old ticker. And keeps your body lookin' good.
Hank's right, folks. I lost 10 pounds without trying, just by bicycling to work four days per week.
It also helps one's mental outlook to get daily exercise. You don't have to carve out the time to do it when you decide that bicycling is your main means of transportation.
What doesn't work is exercising because "you have to do it." It's much better to integrate your mind and body by following your ideas to their logical conclusions. And that means making up your mind that biking is your main form of transportation. After a while, your body will crave doing it. It's a positive feedback.
Here's another way to think about it: It's your way of saying "FU" to Exxon Mobile.
-TIA
At this point, I'm not sure that McCain is even slightly to the right of Obama.
For instance, Obama has come perilously close to having the Bush administration negotiate a quicker withdrawal from Iraq than what Obama has been proposing. Obama got lucky in that the agreement Bush has negotiated gets the troops out only a few months later than what Obama has proposed.
Or, since Obama's energy plan seems to involve big subisdies to the coal and nuclear industries, and more big subsidies to the big three auto companies, and McCain is offering his own energy plan that includes alternative energy, again its very close to being at the point where the Obama plan is to the right of the McCain plan.
Or, on trade agreements they seem to be exactly the same. Both favor pro-corporate managed trade agreements and oppose any work to change this such that it favors workers or the environment.
Or, they both are quite happy to give the government power to spy on us.
The list could go on for awhile. But its interesting that its not at all a given that McCain is to the right of Obama.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Of course, the problem is that none of those progressive constituencies have any voice in today's Democratic party. We've all seen how the Democrats treat these constituencies. They won't do anything positive for them. Then what they do actaully do is hostile to them and against what these progressive constituencies want. But the Democrats think they have no where else to turn, so they don't care.
So, its a bit ridiculous for the Democrats to claim that they are better because they have some of the peace movement inside their party when they refuse to listen to the peace movement, refuse to do anything the peace movement asks, and instead actually pursue policies that run opposite to what the peace movement wants in that the Democrats fully fund and support our current wars. And the Democratic candidate gives an intensely warmongering speach promising more and expanded wars during his term.
At that point, it seems silly to then make the argument that the Democrats are better because they actually have a bit of the peace movement inside their party. Yeah, but its beaten regularly and kept chained away in a party dungeon unless the Dems need it to try to scam a few more foolish voters into voting for their pro-war candidates.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Or, to paraphrase what he says towards the end, the problem with voting Democrat is that the possibilities of progressive change are also severely limited with a Democratic administration. That's the clear lesson from both the Clinton years and the last two years with a Democratic majority in Congress.
The Democrats complain that the Republicans block any progressive change. But what they don't tell you is that they are just as good at blocking progressive change themselves. If they weren't, then the corporations wouldn't be giving them the hundreds of millions of dollars that they are pumping into Democratic campaigns this year.
You surely must realize that corporate money is not funding a vehicle for progressive change.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I agree. But, isnt anyone else SICK to DEATH of "better than"? I know the GOP are a bunch of fascists--petitioning them for REAL change is useless. But, if a candidate advertises himself as a "progressive" (or even just part of the Dem Party) dont we, as citizens,have a right to ask to for a redress of some of the grievances we have suffered atr the hands of these thugs? (and perhaps, some specific policy changes??) These neo-con basterds are LOADED! Dubya is planning to do speaking engagements to "replenish the coffers"-(he ONLY has $25 million)-WHY should we allow him to go home and live a happy, privileged life, when he is responsible for so much death and misery? It is very hard,for me anyway, to swallow. These were /are OUR Congresspersons who let most of this happen! The "fix it later" approach never seems to work, when they wont need our vote for awhile, plus they figure , where the hell else does the left have to go. As times get harder, and , there is not much left to lose, it doesnt seem to me that it is "out of line" or a "loser" to ask for some survival basics!--WHY cant we have thsi President charged?? WHY did they pass the FISA Amendments? WHY cant we have single-payer health care? (HMO employees wil "lose jobs" just doesnt hold water. Anyone who makes their living off others' misery deserves to be put out of business)WHY do we have to continue the death penalty, and on and on. I know that al of that is too much. But a couple of simple statements about ENDING the WAR(s), and providing EVERYONE (in the style of HR 676--Conyers sayd "yes we CAN do it!")with basic health care is NOT asking too much, for a promotion to the most powerful job in the country. Could we, at least, throw "poverty a bone"? Is the candidate not aware how many more pepoole are now below the poverty level, as compared to 8 yrs ago? (Just describing the problem does nothign to change it) WHY would the income tax roll=back take 10 years? Does the middle class really need another tax "rebate", or cant we start paying down the debt and investing in social welfare programs? Some things are so much better done as a GROUP--American. "individualism" is just starting to look like "I got mine--hell with you"! We have to WAIT, right? How many people will die (unnecessarily) while we WAIT? I dont honestly think that we can. I . for one, would like to see some really propgressive change in this country before I die. I figured that, after 8 yrs of Dubya--it was (pardon me) a "slam dunk"! If not now, when? If not us, who?? By the time we wake up in a Great Gatsby nightmare , it may be too late--certainly will be for those that are dead. We have a right to expect our rep. to rise to the occasion when disaster looms. Maybe things are still OK in some parts of the US--not here, in the Rust Belt! If we are "losing the middle class" (which you caanot have a democracy without), think what it is like for the truly poor. (I dont hear politicians even use that word anymore--I think we need to use it agian! Lots of people in the uS are just barely surviving. We MUST have change, and not compromise on matters of life and death. The Dems have been drifiting away from the "party of the people" for along time--the time to reach out to many of these disenfra nchised citizens is now. They are waiting for someone to stand for them.. The GOP certainly wont do it--will the Dems?
"I agree. But, isnt anyone else SICK to DEATH of "better than"? I know the GOP are a bunch of fascists--petitioning them for REAL change is useless. But, if a candidate advertises himself as a "progressive" (or even just part of the Dem Party) dont we, as citizens,have a right to ask to for a redress of some of the grievances we have suffered atr the hands of these thugs? (and perhaps, some specific policy changes??)"
KDelphi,
I'm going to attempt to answer your question from my perspective, knowing that you and I probably don't see eye-to-eye on how we want to move progressives to the fore (meaning - that we want similar things, but may disagree on how to get them).
Please know that I don't disagree with your call for redress and policy changes. I think all progressives want redress and changes. However, as one who not too long ago also screamed for removal of all Democrats, I have come around to a more conciliatory and targeted tactic - mostly, because the all-or-nothing approach usually results in nothing.
First, I believe that by voting for Obama, I am helping to stanch the flow of blood, literally and figuratively, that has flowed for the last nearly 8 years. While I know that Democrats also benefit from war, it is the Republicans that glorify it and will do anything to keep it going. And, their base wants it! Many on the left, including Democrats (I am not a Democrat, BTW), do not want war and have tried to exert their influence on their party to stop it. The thing that I have been hearing in this election cycle is that more of the progressive base of the DNC is starting to exert itself (about fucking time, too!) and is having an influence as we speak.
Secondly, I think there is a much more effective way of getting redress and sending a message to the DNC - target voting. The Democrats in Congress have been mis-led away from bold stances by two people. These two people, Nancy Pelosi in the Senate and Harry Reid in the House, have equivocated and stalled their party into near irrelevancy and it is their heads that should roll. That is true redress! If progressives can get it together enough to vote them out of office (which means, either Cindy Sheehan or the Republican), then we will send a clear and strong message to the DNC to stop fucking around! The party will have to take notice.
So, those are my strategies: 1. Vote Obama into office to give progressives of every color and stripe some breathing room to work, and 2. Get the current Congressional leaders of the Dems out of office as a strong protest sign. While I hate to see two seats go to Reps, I think it is necessary and something we on the left can absorb.
Oh, one other strategy: We, progressive citizens, must start our own revolutions. We must start moving our feet and hands and minds in ways that will start making changes in our society. Griping on the internet may make us feel better (or not), but only real, physical work will do the job. Write, run, activate, talk, listen, promote, campaign - just please, do something!
Parts of this post keep striking me. For instance, the part where he says that he thought it would be a slam dunk that we could get some progressive change after 8 years of Dubya. How the Democrats have worked to block that and prevent it from happening is very instructive to examine.
As the primaries began, it was well known that Hillary as the front-runner was representing the same center-right opposition to progressive change that Bill had represented.
However, it was also clear that it was likely that a big chunk of the Democratic voters would reject this. So, there was a Plan B in place called Obama. Obama based his campaign on big corporate contributions, especially from Wall ST. But, he presented himself as a more progressive alternative to the Clintons. Go back to the time of around when Obama was locking up the nomination, and you'll find many articles from Democrats patting themselves on the back for a progressive victory inside the party.
The problem is, it was all a fraud. It turns out that every time Obama presented himself as a progressive alternative to the Clintons, he was lying. And the first thing he did upon getting the nomination was to repudiate every progressive position he took in the primaries.
Thus, progressives should take note how even though this commenter felt is was a slam-dunk that we'd get some progressive change after 8 years of Dubya, it appears that the Democrats have blocked this. And they've done so in a manner that was highly deceptive. They presented a phony progressive choice to their party. And when their party decided to go in that direction, the Democrats instead said 'Ha-Ha, we fooled you.' Now we see that this faux-progessive choice is so far to the right that he's in danger of being to the right of McCain. And we see that the Democrats deceived the members of their own party in fraudulently presenting Obama as a progressive choice.
The message is clear. It is impossible to work for progressive change from within the Democratic Party. Note only will you get a rigged set of rules designed to favor corporate money in such a contest. But you can now see the way the Democrats will lie and deceive in order to block what should have indeed been a 'slam-dunk' of moving towards progressive change after Dubya.
The polls show across the board that the voters really want such a change. The problem is the role the Democrats play in blocking any such progressive change. And its no mistake or accident. The Democrats are well paid with hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate money to perform this role.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Some of us knew that he was a fraud but most people simply wouldn't listen. It was in his record, his speeches, his books, and ESPECIALLY his interviews with the corporate mainstream media. Since all of the true progressives were knocked out for the usual reason - no corporate sponsorship = no real media coverage, it left us with a woman who was better on domestic issues (re-read her speeches, interviews, and website) and both candidates disastrous on foreign policy issues. Progressives chose the more right wing candidate, and the one who has never sponsored a single piece of legislation nor provided any leadership on any issues. A blank slate; the trouble with blank slates is that Republicans are masters at filling them in to THEIR will and winning elections as a result.
I agree with this. There were other Dem nomiees who wer MUCH better on domestic policies than Obama --much more left, I guses I should say.I did not liek her "hawkishness"--but by the time it got to Ohio--it was obama and hillary.My degree is in psyh..-sorry--i just couldnt buy it from day one either. I voted hillary for health care--to this day, you would think I had commited an extreme crime agisnt humanity. When Obama had an office in Ohio after primary, I called to let them know why i thought they lost Ohio--they didnt want to hear, were very arrogant at hte time--and said they didnt need the rust belt, they had enough women, and they were going to "turn the deep south blue".Ok...and that makes me excited about Obama--how??? I talked to Obama supporters again--if they know hes not going to do anything on an issue (or wil be doing the opposite of what you want)they say stuff like, "But his position shluld give you hope at least". Wha...?
"The GOP certainly wont do it--will the Dems?"
During the DNC, I had some people ask me why people were protesting the Democrats and not the Republicans. This line sums that up. I expect the GOP to be the party that represents greedy rich and corporate issues. To me, trying to protest the RNC is rather futile because we know that party will always oppose our causes.
What's causing so much harm in this country now is the fact that the Democrats have stopped being an opposition party to those greedy interests. Instead, the Dems have decided that they get paid better if they switched sides to also representing those interests.
That's why it was neccessary to protest the Democrats. And that's why its going to be neccessary to treat the Democrats as the enemy for awhile and try to give them a bloody nose any chance we can. We need an opposition party. If possible, we need to try to beat the Democrats back into being an opposition party. I'm sceptical if that can work. In that case, what we need is to create our new opposition party. And the one thing we know is that the only time the Democrats won't be spineless cowards is when faced with an opposition party to its left. Then they become rabid, vicious beasts, and we'll have to fight them as if they are the enemy just to survive.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Samson, surely you know that there already is an "opposition party": the Greens. The Libertarians qualify, too, on the Right.
Yes, the Green Party could be a lot stronger. We don't get corporate money, so we run on volunteers. That means we're only as good as the people who show up to help. (Money would help, too, of course.) That's right, this is a pitch for members. Contact us at www.gp.org, or in Oregon, www.pacificgreens.org.
Oregoncharles
samson...i went to your blog last week and attempted to respond to your "let's damage the dems" post. i'm not too computer savvy and my post was lost when i tried to get a username. so since u have kinda used that argument here again, i'll respond now.
u seem to think that by supporting nader or mckinney and costing the dems the election, progressives will be showing their power and then gain respect from the dems when it comes to the 2012 election cycle. i suppose from a power/game theory pov, that argument makes some sense. but don't u sense that the times are getting alarmingly dangerous? environmental degradation, a down-spiraling economy and massive debt are bearing down on us. do we really have the luxury of time to be playing the political power game that u suggest?
u say we most likely need to create an opposition party. i'd say we need to create opposition parties (u do hint at this in the "opening up the system" part of your blog post). doncha think that, if we had 4 possible parties such as dems, repubs, social democrats and liberterians, the latter 2 could join forces with liberal dems and put a stop to our miideast/south cental asian follies and our dumb-headed drug war?
we spend a lotta time screaming at the dems for not being a fighting enuf opposition party. and surely there is much truth in saying that. but we are operating in a political system that was designed in 1789 and hasn't kept up with the evolving democratic thought that has led to some social democratic systems in western europe. the Nation's book editor daniel lazarre has written a decent book about this--the frozen republic. we're operating with an outdated political system that does not respond quickly enuf to the will of the people. i don't know what the hell to do about it, but i do think that this is where much of the problem lies.
Look ---> "u seem to think that by supporting nader or mckinney and costing the dems the election". You CANNOT cost the Dems the election by voting FOR McKinney or Nader. If the Dems with rock star Obama at the top and warmonger Biden on the bottom cannot defeat John McCain with his worn out persona, ideas and enthusiasm for the droll then the Democrats DESERVE to lose. Obama should be crushing McCain in the polls. Why isn't he? Perhaps, because the two parties are more alike then different, more Coporate than caring about the voters, more illusion, equally capable of marketing their messages to the masses that are programmed to accept it. No. Not me. Not ever again. I will never ever succumb to this opiate of the masses called the two-party system. Freedom and liberty means dumping both parties. Run Ralph. Run!
I'm sorry my paragraphs were--non-existent. I'm glad my points were so clear/
I'm sorry my paragraphs were--non-existent. I'm glad my points were so clear/