Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Projecting an Obama Victory
Projection is a psychological hazard of politics. What's "obvious" to some doesn't occur to others. So, these days, it's hardly reassuring when some progressives roll their eyes at the latest McCain-Palin maneuver and express confidence that few voters will be swayed by the latest slimy attacks on Barack Obama.
The poll numbers so far this month, combined with ample media hype, have fostered the belief that the current economic crisis is close to dooming the McCain campaign. But any crystal ball that offers assurance of an Obama victory is a piece of junk.
Twenty years ago, presidential nominee Michael Dukakis emerged from the Democratic National Convention with a 17-point lead in a Gallup Poll. One of the main reasons that the lead disappeared was a scurrilous TV ad, linking Gov. Dukakis to a prisoner who committed a rape during a weekend furlough. The commercial included an ominous photo of the African-American convict, Willie Horton.
Now, a "Willie Ayers" ad is getting plenty of media attention, and Sarah Palin is accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists." The McCain campaign is eager to implement desperate measures for its desperate times -- making preposterous claims to link Obama with terrorism -- scraping toward the bottom of the barrel and heaving larger quantities of mud.
Any confidence that such tactics will have scant effect on the electorate is misplaced.
There's also the matter of race -- and, more to the point, racism. "Many older Democrats quietly admit they will not vote for Mr. Obama because they fear he would put too many blacks in power, or be hamstrung in office by racial opposition," the New York Times reported from Florida on Oct. 4.
This fall, no one knows exactly how much we'll see of the "Bradley effect" -- named after the defeat of the black mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley, who received conspicuously fewer votes from whites than election-eve polling had predicted when he ran for governor in 1982.
Polls involving a black nominee "have tended to undersell the level to which race negatively impacts voting -- particularly among whites," political reporter Chris Cillizza wrote on washingtonpost.com four months ago. "That is, a black candidate tends to underperform his or her polls on Election Day, as some voters who may have told a pollster they would support an African-American candidate ultimately decide against doing so."
The Bradley effect has a long history, Cillizza noted. "In other races involving a black candidate -- most notably Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gantt's candidacies against Sen. Jesse Helms in 1990 and 1996 as well as L. Douglas Wilder's victorious run for the Virginia governor's mansion in 1989 -- the Bradley effect came into play."
Some political analysts say that the Bradley effect has diminished and will have little or no impact on Obama. Maybe they're right. But I doubt it.
Along with throwing mud and benefitting from racism, McCain stands to gain from the fact that the national Republican Party now has a lot more money in the bank than the Democratic Party does. And in many states, a wide range of anti-democratic measures -- including purges of voter rolls and very unreasonable requirements for voter ID on Election Day -- will work to the benefit of the McCain-Palin ticket.
Overall, the polls showing Obama with a sizeable lead should be taken with a box of salt. The count on election night could be close. In the meantime, McCain can only benefit when progressives assume he'll lose.
Such rosy assumptions are dangerous. They're apt to result in overconfidence, reducing volunteer energy and voter turnout for Obama.
Assume that the economic crisis has doomed the McCain campaign? He hopes you will.
- Posted in
227 Comments so far
Show AllThe Rove machine will be running full throttle during the next month to derail Obama's lead, or if that fails, to create an "emergency" that will result in cancelling the election.
raydelcamino October 6th, 2008 12:22 pm
"The Rove machine will be running full throttle during the next month to derail Obama's lead, or if that fails, to create an "emergency" that will result in cancelling the election."
Why would they want to cancel the election? The ruling duopoly wins regardless of whether the winner's name is McCain or Obama.
Lobo Gris
As Jesse Jackson put it in his article some weeks days ago:
“We need the leadership Barack will bring. However, the burden of fulfilling the Dream, mending the broken promise, falls on all of us. I recall the story of a meeting that labor leader A. Philip Randolph had with President Franklin Roosevelt regarding a long list of discriminatory practices blacks were facing in society and the workplace. He clearly presented the case to the president, who listened carefully and responded. Roosevelt said: "I can't just give you the rights you seek. I wish I could. I agree with everything you've said to me. Now go out and make me do it." Barack will set the tone. He will provide the vision and inspiration to move forward. But it is up to us to do the work, to demand the change that must come if the Dream is to be fulfilled. We must make it happen.
Positive activism has always been the key component in the creative tension that leads to change. The tools are ours - demonstration, legislation, litigation - and each has a place in the work of building a just, equitable society. It is the effort of committed citizens engaging in positive activism that helps make a president great."
Fear defeats more people than any other one thing in the world.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
So as June Jordan put it: "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."
Be kind to yourself. Take heart. Then organize, organize and organize
This is the next Obama con.
When his progressive supporters start to realize that he's not going to do a thing they want him to do, and his votes for FISA and bailouts and his support of more war are not aberations, this is what they'll be told.
They'll be told they didn't organize enough. They'll be told they didn't work hard enough to MAKE Barack do what they want. The progressives will be told it was there own fault Obama is so bad.
That's the next Obama con for after the election and he 'disappoints'.
When of course there was never a doubt that Obama is always going to do what the money tells him to do.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Remy Germain October 6th, 2008 4:29 pm
The event that best predicts how Obama will act once in office is the recent passage of the Wall Street bailout bill.
Not only did Obama vote for it with e-mails, petitions, and phone calls running 100 to 1 against it's passage with only 4 weeks to the election, he actively campaigned for its passage. He basically said f#ck you, I will do what I want and you will still vote for me because there is no alternative. If you believe that then you should vote for him, but with no illusions that you will change him after he is elected.
Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris
Excellent comments along with Samson's at 1:03 am. It seems apparent that Obama believes that he can get away with anything because he seems to believe that he can take his followers for granted. His fans seem to have this unsupported belief that they can somehow change the agent of change despite, as has been pointed out, the entreaties by Americans to the Democrats like Obama not to bail out Wall Street. Could it be the fact that Goldman Sachs was his number one donor [whose former CEO was Henry Paulson] could have influenced his decision to back the financial interests? Or does he feel that he will do whatever he wishes because he believes, as the great Obama, he holds such sway among the people? Either way, if he gets into office, he realizes that he will have the power to do almost anything he wants.
You only have to look at what is going on at the other end of Norman's leash.
Well said, RichM.
Anyone who supports Barack Obama has to ask themselves the following questions.
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to raise the Pentagon budget?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for not supporting single-payer healthcare?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for voting for F.I.S.A?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting Joe Lieberman?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting the war in Iraq?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to escalate the war in Afghanistan?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to invade Pakistan?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to invade Iran?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for barely mentioning torture?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for not mentioning the poor and the working poor?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting the $850 billion Wall Street bailout?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for not mentioning corporate welfare -- corporate welfare averaging BEFORE the $850 billion bailout $125 billion per year.
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting companies like Wal-Mart's?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for taking millions of dollars from Corporate America?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting Henry Paulson, the former head of Lehman Brothers; or Robert Gates, the current Secretary of Defense?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for voting for the Patriot Act as well as the reauthorization of the Patriot Act?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting the bankruptcy bill, a bill that punitively affects the average wage earner?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting an increase in the US military presence throughout the world?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for taking impeachment off the table?
The answer to ALL these questions is the same .. BECAUSE OBAMA IS DOING THE SAME THING!
-- Barack Obama and John McCain both want to increase the Pentagon budget.
-- Barack Obama and John McCain are both fond of Wal-Mart's -- with Obama appointing Josh Furman, a strong supporter of Wal-Mart's as his chief economic advisor. See http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/10/9534/
-- Barack Obama and John McCain both voted for the FISA bill.
-- Barack Obama and John McCain both support the $850 billion Wall Street bailout.
-- Barack Obama and John McCain both support Henry Paulson, the former head of Lehman Brothers.
In an interview he gave to the N.Y. Times on September 20, 2008, Obama said that "he does not rule out retaining Mr. Paulson, a Republican. The two have spoken almost daily since Treasury put the mortgage giants Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac into government conservatorships two weeks ago, and Mr. Obama speaks highly of Mr. Paulson."
-- Barack Obama and John McCain both support Robert Gtes, the current Secretary of Defense.
In a June 29, 2008 "Times of London" article Richard Danzig quotes Obama's top military adviser as saying: "My personal position is (that Robert) Gates (Bush's Secretary of Defense) is a very good secretary of defense and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."
-- Barack Obama and John McCain barely if ever mention the poor ... the working poor ... torture ... impeachment ... corporate welfare.
-- Barack Obama and John McCain both support Joe Lieberman -- with Obama going out of his way to campaign for Lieberman in 2006, in Lieberman's primary fight against antiwar candidate Ned Lamont.
-- Barack Obama and John McCain both oppose single-payer healthcare.
-- Barack Obama and John McCain both support the war in Iraq. Both want to escalate the war in Afghanistan ... Both support an invasion of Pakistan ... Both support an invasion of Iran.
Note: During the primaries Obama vowed to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months. However, immediately after he captured the nomination from Hillary, he said in a July 2, 2008 speech in Colorado Springs:
"I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.”
In other words: I may withdraw troops in 16 months; but, if the commanders in the field advise against withdrawal, we stay.
Finally, here's one way Obama is *different* than McCain. ... Obama has taken significantly more campaign money from Corporate America than John McCain.
“It seems that the vast majority of comments on Common Dreams are Republicans pretending to be Liberals or Progressives supporting third party candidates. There are, however, a few down right scary characters that bend toward very violent right wing ideologies.
Thoughtful dialog is missing because of this phenomenon.” – Dr. Robert
Absolute truth. Good to see people not falling for it.
These "Nader supporters" are part of the Republican effort to split the leftist vote, which Nader has accepted money and support from. He's working for Republicans, he cashes their checks, and accepts their volunteers. Many of those volunteers (or maybe just one or two with many accounts?) are here hoping to convince actual liberal progressives to vote for Nader and thus help McCain. They're working for Rove whether they're paid for it or not.
Most of them won't even be voting for Nader, they'll be voting McCain like the good little Republicans they are.
By the by, has anyone noticed how the "disgruntled Hillary voters for McCain" have disappeared of late? They're gone, but we have more Nader posters than ever. I smell a talking point change / strategy shift. New marching orders for the covert keyboard warriors of the Republican party.
I'm not fooled.
.
.
.
.
Kitty,
You believe that “A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.”
That being the case, I’d be interested in your response to the following questions.
1. Is it fair to say that you believe in “T.I.N.A., -- that is to say, that “There Is No Alternative” to the Democratic/Republican duopoly -- that the only choice a voter has is between Barack Obama and John McCain?
2. You write: “He (Nader) is working for the Republicans, he cashes their checks, and accepts their volunteers.”
Surely, you’ll agree that there are many Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are fed up with the Democratic/Republican duopoly, and for good reason. And that, as such, Ralph Nader draws votes from all three of these groups. … So here’s my question:
When Nader receives money from Republicans and/or assigns work for them as volunteers, is the money and time he’s receiving from these Republicans going to promoting progressive positions, McCain positions or Obama positions?
Also, what about “Democrats for Reagan” or “Democrats for Nixon” -- when the Republicans received money and volunteer-time from these Democrats, were they using that time and money to promote Republican positions or Democratic positions?
3. How likely is it, do you think, that Ralph Nader would “sell out” his positions to a Republican point of view?
4. Do you believe that everyone to the left of Barack Obama *owes” their vote to Barack Obama, regardless of how many major disagreements they have with him?
5. Let’s say Joe Lieberman was still a Democrat and that he was the Democratic nominee for president. … And let’s assume that Joe Lieberman is not as right-wing as John McCain. … Would everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman *owe* their vote to Joe Lieberman?
6. The political consensus in the United States has shifted dramatically to the right in the past 40 years. For example, Republican Richard Nixon signed more progressive legislation in the 1970s than did Democrat Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
How did that happen?
Who is responsible for the political consensus in the United States shifting dramatically to the right, if not the people on the left who for the past 40 years voted for the lesser of the two evils?
7. Most advanced industrial nations have strong third party movements, as well as progressive parties that are part of coalition governments. … But not in the United States. … Why do you think that is?
8. In any given presidential election, 45% to 55% of eligible voters don’t vote. … So let’s say that 50% of the voting public doesn’t vote this November. … And then let’s say that these are the results this November:
Obama – 21%
McCain – 19%
Nader, McKinney and all candidates to their left – 10%
Not voting – 50%
Ralph Nader and all candidates to his left in 2000 received approximately 3% of the vote -- if they receive 10% of the vote this time, do you think that would have a significant effect on the political consensus?
In other words, do you think if Nader and Company received 10% of the vote, that that would pull the political consensus to the left, regardless of who won, Obama or McCain?
(Continued)
9. Given the above voting results, how do you think the political establishment would react to 60% of the voting public *not* voting for either of the major party candidates? … Do you think that that would result in the political consensus moving to the left or moving to the right?
10. Your position, kitty, is that a-vote-for-Nader-is-a-vote-for-McCain. And that, as you put it, “they (the people who support Ralph Nader) are working for Rove, whether they’re paid for it or not.” …
If that’s true, then how far up the ladder does that go? … Is Ralph Nader himself working for Karl Rove and the Republicans? …
If so, what about the 45 years of work Ralph Nader has devoted to getting progressive legislation passed?
Ralph Nader, as you may know, is responsible for more progressive legislation than any one Senator in the history of the United States. … Far more! … But your position seems to suggest that Nader himself is, as you put it “working for Rove.” How can that be?
11. You write:
(Posters here at CommonDreams.org) are hoping to convince actual liberal progressives to vote for Nader and thus help McCain.”
This gets back to Question 3, above, “Do you believe that everyone to the left of Obama *owes” their vote to him, regardless of how many major disagreements they have with him?”
Barack Obama is not a liberal and he’s not a progressive. One does not become a liberal or a progressive simply by virtue a.) their rhetoric, or b.) their being less evil than their opponent.
To be a liberal or a progressive, a politician must, in fact, champion liberal and progressive positions.
We know how Obama stands on the war, on the Middle East, on the Pentagon budget, on impeachment, on the bailout.
We know he’s against single-payer health insurance.
We know that he’s taken significantly more corporate money than John McCain.
These are not liberal or progressive positions. Barack Obama is a corporatist. He’s beholden to corporate interests not progressive interests. For more evidence of this, see the following -- http://newsblaze.com/story/20080302075722tsop.nb/topstory.html
Therefore, my question, kitty, is this -- Do you have *any other reason(s)* why a progressive should vote for someone who is not a progressive, other than that he’s the lesser of the two evils?
12. Approximately, six weeks before the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore was trailing George Bush in the polls -- whereupon Gore changed the rhetoric of his campaign, i.e., Gore began to “move to the left,” if only rhetorically.
The press dubbed Gore’s move to the left “Nader Lite.”
In other words, Gore was moving towards Ralph Nader’s positions. Again, if only rhetorically.
(Note: Harry Truman did a similar thing in 1948 when he was trailing Thomas Dewey in the polls. … Truman’s advisors suggested that he move to the right, to which Truman replied: “If a Democrat runs as a Republican, the real thing will win every time.” … And what happened? Truman, rejecting the advice that he move to the right, instead moved to the left -- and won.)
Ok, so that’s what Gore did in 2000 -- trailing Bush, he “tacked left” and closed on Bush, to where in the final days of the campaign the polls were just about even. … But, in the final days of the campaign, for some inexplicable reason, Gore sent out his attack dogs to savage Ralph Nader -- i.e., Gore moved back to the right -- and lost.
And so here’s my question … What do you think would happen if Obama after he captured the nomination from Hillary had moved to the left instead of moved to the right?
(Continued)
In recent years, it’s been traditional Democratic strategy to move to he left during the primaries, then, the nomination in hand, to move back to the right.
And this is precisely what Barack Obama has done. For example,
-- After he captured the nomination from Hillary, Obama voted for the FISA bill, after vowing during the primaries not to.
-- After he captured the nomination from Hillary, Obama suggested that he might keep Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense.
(In a June 29, 2008 "Times of London" article Richard Danzig quotes Obama's top military adviser as saying: "My personal position is (that Robert) Gates (Bush's Secretary of Defense) is a very good secretary of defense and would be an even better one in an Obama administration.")
-- After he captured the nomination from Hillary, Obama indicated that he might include Henry Paulson in an Obama Administration.
(In an interview he gave to the N.Y. Times on September 20, 2008, Obama said that "he does not rule out retaining Mr. Paulson, a Republican. The two have spoken almost daily since Treasury put the mortgage giants Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac into government conservatorships two weeks ago, and Mr. Obama speaks highly of Mr. Paulson.")
-- After he captured the nomination from Hillary, Obama changed his position on Iraq.
(During the primaries, as you may recall, Obama vowed, if elected, to withdraw troops form Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration. … However once he captured the nomination from Hillary, he changed his position. … On July 2, 2008, in a speech in Colorado Springs, Obama stated:
"I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.”
In other words: I may withdraw troops in 16 months; but, if conditions change, I may not.
… Meaning: Obama's current position on Iraq is essentially the same as that John McCain and George Bush.)
-- After he captured the nomination from Hillary, Obama appointed Josh Furman as his chief economic advisor, Furman being a strong defender of Wal-Mart’s. … This, after Obama, during the primaries (“tacking left”), criticized Hillary Clinton for serving on Wal-Mart’s board of directors for six years. See the following -- http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/10/9534
-- After he captured the nomination from Hillary, Obama indicated that he wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan. (In a July 14th "New York Times" op-ed piece, Obama proposed sending 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.)
In short, Obama’s positions on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran – now, *after* the primaries, after his lurch to the right -- are the same as those of Bush and McCain.
-- In fact, after Obama captured the nomination, he suddenly became a darling of the right.
So delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" -- whose editorial board generally reflects not just the right-wing but the right-wing within the Bush administration -- so delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" regarding Obama's post-primary lurch to the right, that on July 2, 2008, they published an editorial entitled "Bush's Third Term." In it, they gloatingly stated: "“Maybe he (Obama) is worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate running for it (Bush's third term).”
As previously noted, traditionally, Democratic candidates “tack left” during the primaries, and then once nominated, quickly “tacks right,” i.e., moves back to the center. … And it is there, in the center, that both parties vie for that 1% to 2% of the voting public that can go either way, Republican or Democratic.
Now, to appeal to these voters, both the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee can take safe, “middle of the road” stand on the issues. In other words, in vying for these centrist voters, neither party will take a stand that will greatly upset their corporate backers. BUT! …
To the left of the Democratic/Republican duopoly is 45% to 55% % of the voting public that doesn’t vote. … And the vast majority of these non-voters don’t vote because they are fed up with the Democratic/Republican duopoly. … They feel that whoever wins, Democrat or Republican, that nothing fundamental will change. Thus, they don’t vote. …
So that for a Democrat to win, all they would have to do is to tap into even just 3% or 4% of the 50% of the public that doesn’t vote. …
*But* to do that they would have to take left-wing stands that their corporate paymasters wouldn’t appreciate nor would they condone. …
In other words, a victory for the Democrats is there for the taking – all they have to do is (like Gore could have done in 2000) move to the left and they will gain more than enough votes to win.
But they don’t do that.
Instead, they move to the center because that allows them to run a “safe race,” where not only safe stands can be taken but where nonsense issues come to dominate the campaign, such as, Sarah Palin’s children, Barack Obama’s lapel pin, whether Joe Biden made eye contact during the debates, whether Sarah Palin will appeal to hockey moms. …
Everything except what affects the felt-lives of millions of average Americans.
Now, that being the case, kitty, with Obama in a position to win the Election *by a landslide* were he to move to the left, with that being the case, why shouldn’t Obama lose if he refuses to speak to the concerns of the overwhelming majority of Americans?
The Election is a competition. … Let Obama compete for votes, just like all the other candidates.
Worse yet, Obama and the Democrats know they can win the Election by moving left, but they refuse, given that they represent the interest not of the democratic-many but rather of the oligarchic-few.
Do you recall in 2006 how just before the November Congressional elections the Democratic leadership said to the public: we are in unity with the Republican Party regarding America’s position on Iraq; Iraq policy will be *bipartisan.*
In other words, the Democratic Party leadership said to the public, and in no uncertain terms, that the 2006 Congressional elections would *not* be a referendum on whether or not the United States should invade Iraq.
Notice how the same thing happened with the $850 billion bailout. ... The Democratic leadership made it quite clear that, like the Iraq invasion, the $850 billion bailout bill would be a bipartisan policy.
In other words, “T.I.N.A.” strikes again! ... The Democratic Party is once again saying to the American public: There is no alternative, you have no choice; if you don’t like the $850 billion bailout, tough! Moreover, to further rub your nose in it, guess what -- you have no choice, you *must* vote for either one of the major party candidates ... suckers.
Is it so hard, kitty, to accept the fact that millions of voters on the left are fed up with how consistently and how systematically the Democratic Party has *enabled* the Bush Administration to get away with its criminal and unconstitutional behavior? ... Is it so hard to accept the fact that they want to express that frustration by voting for a third party candidate?
Is it so hard, kitty, to accept the fact that millions of voters -- on both the left *and* right -- are fed up with the Democratic/Republican duopoly; and that, as such, they want to express that frustration by voting for a third party candidate?
Or is it all just a Karl Rove plot?
It’s interesting that you end you post with the words, “But I’m not fooled (into voting for Ralph Nader.)”
Ok, that’s your preference and that's your right. Vote for whomever you please. It’s also *my* right to vote for a third party candidate.
It’s the height of arrogance for anyone to assume that because I’m a progressive, I owe my vote to a candidate, Barack Obama, who, clearly, *isn’t* a progressive.
If that's not the epitome "Orwellian," then I'd don't know what is.
(In fact, my politics are noticeably to the *left* of Ralph Nader. ... You might have figured that out from my username -- “wsws.org site” -- that’s the website of the Socialist Equality Party. I took that as my username hoping that people who read my posts will check it out. Why not tell me what you think of it, kitty. ... By the way, some username for a McCain mole, isn’t it?)
People on the left who vote for “the lesser of the two evils” -- as many liberals and progressives have been doing for quite some time now -- are the primary reason why the political consensus in the United States has shifted so dramatically to the right.
As for being fooled ... this past Saturday, Ralph Nader was interviewed at the Commonwealth Club. (See www.votenader.org for a video of the interview). Ralph made the point that the powers-that-be in Washington, the politicians and the lobbyists, i.e., the representatives of the “oligarchic-few” -- they’re *laughing* at the general public. They’re playing us for fools.
They’re laughing at the general public because 40 years ago they couldn’t have imagined -- in their wildest dreams! -- that they would be so successful “shifting wealth upward” -- shifting financial assets from the poor and the middle class to the economic elite.
The oligarchic-few -- via their political mouthpiece, the Democratic/Republican duopoly -- got away with bailing out Chrysler in the 1970s. That at a measly $1.7 billion -- and with extensive Congressional hearings *before* the bailout!
They got away with sticking the public with the bill for the savings and loan bailout.
And now they just got through a bipartisan bill looting an already-depleted national treasury for a cool $850 billion.
They’re laughing at ordinary citizen like you and me, kitty. And they will keep on laughing unless and until a strong progressive movement in the United States says: STOP! ENOUGH! THE PARTY’S OVER!”
And that will happen only if people support candidates outside the box, outside the Democratic/Republican duopoly.
A strong third party movement will either force the Democratic Party to the left, or else replace the Democratic Party -- a third party being, at last, a truly oppositional party.
And support for a third party movement needs to develop whoever is in the White House, Republican or Democrat.
What would help the progressive movement more -- McCain in the White House but with Ralph Nader and all candidates to his left garnering, say, 9% to 10% of the vote ... or, a right-leaning, corporatist Barack Obama in the White House and a weak progressive movement?
Keep in mind that during Richard Nixon’s six years in office, there was a strong progressive movement in the United States and, as noted previously, Nixon signed more progressive legislation in the 1970s than Bill Clinton did in the 1990s.
No, it’s not likely Nader will win. This time. But if 9% to 10% of the public votes for Nader and Company next month, coupled with approximately 50% of the public *not* voting, such a result, such a repudiation of the Democratic/Republican duopoly, will bring into serious question the legitimacy of the political establishment in the United States. And, if nothing else, it will force the political consensus to move significantly to the left.
A third party movement must establish a foothold in the American political system, or else in a few years lesser-of-the-two-evil proponents such as yourself will look back fondly on how “liberal” George Bush’s administration was.
.How do you do it?
A marvelous and very thoughtful rebuttal, a fine narrative illustration of why you are a good citizen and why the one to whom you addressed this will never , ever respond, not in kind, not unless that response is couched in another thoughtless and nauseatingly boring mantra illustrating only that our electorate is getting the governance that they deserve.
One does not have to be a Nader supporter to see that you have done your homework and those petty and silly termites who post one line childishness have simply NOT.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
wsws. org site
I agree with ardee. I am simply in awe of not only the facts and logic that you present but also the indefatigable energy that you exhibit in your comments. Often times when I comment on many of the so-called liberal sites I feel hesitant in doing so for fear that I will somehow be labeled unamerican for not daring to support Barack Obama. Thankfully, I do not have to feel that way here as well as realizing that there are actually others who share the same thoughts that I have regarding Obama and the support that I feel should be necessary for third party and independent candidates.
Thank you, comrade-posters. Your kind words are greatly appreciated.
Actually, erroll, it's interesting that you mention the term "un-American." ... Isn’t it funny how people who dissent in, say, France are never called “un-French.” ... Nor are those who dissent in Italy called "un-Italian."
Likewise, have you ever heard a Danish dissenter called “un-Danish”? ... Never happens, does it?
In fact, I believe the only two countries where such a categorization exists are Israel and the United States. ... That is to say, if someone in the United States disagrees with a government policy, there are x number of people who will automatically call them "un-American." (As if the United States wasn't *founded* on dissent!)
The other country that runs this game is Israel. ... There, too, x number of people, Jews and non-Jews, if they hear someone dissenting from a policy of the Israeli government will immediately label the dissenter "anti-Semitic." (Or if the dissenter is Jewish, a “self-hating Jew.”)
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that there are a remarkable number of votes in the UN General Assembly in which it's the US and Israel on one side of the vote, and *every other nation in the world* on the other side of the vote!
Indeed, the power elite in Israel and the power elite in the United States have every reason to be radical in their categorization of dissenters. ... It’s a psychological necessity. ... For starters, it takes an extraordinary amount of cognitive dissonance for Israel and the United States to talk self-righteously about “weapons of mass destruction” when the two countries in the Middle East that we *know* have weapons of mass destruction are Israel and the United States.
Moreover, both countries make no secret of the fact that they are quite willing to use their weapons of mass destruction. (A position that perhaps makes them “anti-homo sapien.”)
Talk about deep-seated psychological denial -- it’s not for nothing that the United States government calls its deadliest intercontinental ballistic missile “The Peacekeeper.”
Or that the Israeli government calls its armed-to-the-teeth, West Bank-occupying army its “Israeli Defense Force.”
This kind of psychological denial is not only Orwellian, more to the point, it requires from its citizens blind, unmitigated patriotism. The kind of patriotism that equates political dissent with national treason. ... In other words: “un-belonging.”
The following is an excerpt from Andrew Bacevich’s book, "The End of American Exceptionalism." ... Notice how Bacevich’s observations apply to both the United States and Israel.
Bacevich writes:
"According to (C. Wright) Mills, the power elite and those trafficking in ideas useful to its core membership share a 'cast of mind that defines international reality as basically military.' ... For members of the power elite, imperfect security is by definition inadequate security. Where gaps exist, they need to be filled. Defenses must be shored up. Yet, ultimately, as the writers James Chace and Caleb Carr once observed, absolute security 'cannot be negotiated; it can only be won.' And winning implies the possession of military might along with a willingness to use it.
"In consonance with this 'military ascendancy,' these American hawks are inclined to see the United States as already beset by actual dangerous threats, with even greater perils lurking just around the corner. With a low tolerance for uncertainty, they are highly tuned to the putative risks of waiting on events, while discounting the hazards posed by precipitate action. ...
"For his part, Vice President Cheney was ... explicit. Even a remotely suspected threat (that Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction) could provoke a sufficient rationale for action. 'If there's a one percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon,' Cheney once remarked, 'we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.'
"Perceived threats, even when faint, improbable, or (like that Iraq nuclear program) at worst distant, invariably demand an urgent response, which no less invariably involves enhancing, reconfiguring, deploying, or actually using American coercive power."
This is not only the mind-set of the power elite in the United States, it's also the mind-set of the power elite in Israel.
Indeed, hawks in the United States are becoming more and more like hawks in Israel, in that, as Bacevich puts it: ""Perceived threats, even when faint, improbable, or (like that Iraq nuclear program) at worst distant, invariably demand an urgent response, which no less invariably involves enhancing, reconfiguring, deploying, or actually using ... coercive power."
Moreover, this is a mind-set, a "cast of mind," that neither major party candidate is willing to challenge -- Obama no more than McCain.
We know all the things Obama and McCain agree on internationally.
-- They both want to increase the Pentagon budget.
-- They're both willing to fight on in Iraq.
-- They both want to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
-- They’re both willing to invade Pakistan and/or Iran.
And with no weapons -- including nuclear weapons -- “off the table” in any of these wars.
And these two (corporatist) candidates are supposed to represent *oppositional* parties!
If, in 2004, the Democrats had opposed Bush with the same passion they opposed Nader, they would have a.) won in a landslide; and b.) been a truly oppositional party -- which they'll never be as long as they’re part of the oligarchic-funded Democratic/Republican duopoly.
.There is little in the way of thought in your own dialogue, Mr. Germaine. You have but one post it seems and that one is more than a bit sophomoric.
What part of free speech and supporting the candidate of your choice is lost on you? What is wrong with a rebuttal to the words you fear so much it drives you to post like a high school sophomore?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
This is the same pile of Obama-hating bullshit that you've posted previously.
q
wsws.org site
Bravo. Well said. Anyone with a scintilla of objectivity should be able to determine, after reading what you have written, that the differences between Obama and McCain are very minimal as both are certainly tied to the pro-corporate, pr-military interests.
RichM nailed it and so did you wsws.org. At least I always find you guys, Little Brother and Samson worth reading to name a few. We are going to have to wait on Solomon.
"...Sarah Palin is accusing Obama of 'palling around with terrorists'."
___________________________________________________
Now, this is just the plain truth! I saw it with my own eyes during the run-up to the passing of the reprehensible "bailout"-- er, "rescue"-- legislation last week.
There Obama was, smilin' cheek-by-jowl with President Unitard and that Paulson character-- an economic terrorist if ever there was one.
Now there's an ad waiting to be made! Greens should do that one! Too funny...
This is 2008, not 1982, 1988 --nor any other time in history.
Times require that democrats have complete rule. Democrats are best suited to manage the angry citizenry here, while republicans are best suited to use their brand of thuggary on foreign peoples.
Obama is going to win easily, maybe even by a landslide.
The fix is in. The deals were done. No impeachment for the presidency. Yes to a bailout for Wall Street. Deals cut. Presidents made.
Next up: President Obama.
Any bets out there?
Why does Obama refuse to debate Nader? Ahhhh, I get it. The fix IS in.
We can beat the MSM by using the INTERNET...
Spread the word.Go to all the blogs.
Nader for President.
What say you America ?????
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
...and so will McCain.
.
Nader/Gonzales is looking better and BETTER...
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
Support by giving DONATIONS to make this happen ...
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!! WORLD PEACE !!!!!!! End THE WARS......
.
And not very likely to win. Think before you vote. Want a Third Party? Start working local. What party is Nader building? I think his criticisms are great, but he's not a party.
to hell with your "party"! Nader is the only candidate not in the pocket of Wall st., therefore able to enact single payer health care, and end the endless wars!
Not the only Cynthia McKinney of the Greens wants those things as well. Alas due to the slander and lack of coverage by the corporate owned MSM neither McKinney or Nader will break 5% this year, that is the sad truth much as i wish it was different. :(
.
Again...
We can beat the MSM by using the INTERNET...
Spread the word.Go to all the blogs.
Nader for President.
What say you America ?????
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
It's a fantasy to think that, even if Nader could win, he would somehow be able to enact single-payer healthcare legislation without the Democrats. There might be reasons for voting for Nader. But that ain't one of them.
----------------------------------------
Another world is not only possible, she is on her way.
On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.
- Arundhati Roy
Voting "third party" progressive is the winning strategy for the people, because the progressive platform is the winning platform for the greatest benefit to the people. Voting for any party that benefits elites, e.g. Demoks/Repuks, is the losing strategy for the people.
The founding of this nation did NOT rely on political party organization. Instead, such organization was STRONGLY opposed in much of the thinking of the times, specifically in Jefferson's circles. Enlightement thinkers viewed organization itself as a corrupting element which is why they viewed political parties, corporations, banks and standing armies all with a similiar contempt. It was no accident that a government founded on high suspicion against organizations became so influential.
While the USA's influence has since greatly eroded, especially over the past eight years, enlightenment principles including deep suspicion and contempt for organizations live on in the social democratic governance that thrives over much of the planet today. In those societies, latching onto whichever political party seems most likely a "winner" is seen as a LOSING strategy, because it's seen as effectively offering one's self into bondage. The only WINNING strategy for the people is voting their very own individual interests, which equate to the public interests, and are by definition the opposite of elite (Demok/Repuk) interests.
Spot on!
NYCartist
You are right. Nader is "not a party" which is why he is running as an independent which, as far as I can determine, is his constitutional right to do so, despite that the Democrats and their [alleged] "party of the people" would wish that he would do otherwise. The Democrats were at one point for equal opportunity and equal rights. Apparently these rights come to a halt when an independent candidate dares to challenge a Democrat for public office.
The level of the presidential race Corporate Party (with two heads) rhetoric is, as usual, abysmal. Neither McCain nor Obama offer any specifics on how anything can improve in the USA. There is lip service but upon close examination the rhetoric is just that, all talk, few plans and much more of the same old same old. Ralph Nader offers specific plans but the electorate is bored by them. They see Ralph as not sexy nor having perhaps an "exciting" running mate that hunts caribou and moose leaving the snow red as a result. The electorate will get what it votes for, and once again, they will get exactly what they deserve. Good luck with either Obama or a McCain at the helm of the Titanic. Both are oblivious to the iceberg just ahead. Here in Vermont early voting has started today (10/06/08). And I cast my ballot for the best candidate with the best ideas on the issues without any loyalty to either Corporate Party that has consistently screwed the electorate. Enough is enough.
.
CSPAN VIDEO...PLEASE WATCH
http://www.cspan.org/search.aspx?For=Nader
RWH: Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader (I) "INFORUM" Event
This week on Road to the White House, Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader held a campaign event in San Francisco at the Commonwealth Club of California. Mr. Nader answers questions about his presidential campaign and past runs for the White House. The independent candidate will be on the ballot in 45 states this Nov. 4th and is polling 5 to 6 percent nationally, according to the candidate's website.
Sunday : Washington, DC :9-05-2008
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008…
.
Spread the word about the video on CSPAN...
ROAD TO THE WHITEHOUSE...
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008…
.
Norman Solomon:I heed your warning;have been thinking same. As a reader of DailyKos, I do not see lots of progressive "overly" optimism there. Nor do I hear it on the radio (Pacifica, nor most specifically, WBAI 99.5FM, my main station, nor on the two shows I listen to on WLIB: Mark Riley, "Politics Plus" and Imhotep Gary Byrd's "GBE Night Flight". I think there's finally the long delayed talk about race and racism in our society. It's been a long time in coming. I think it's a problem,but I'm more worried about voter disenfranchisement and plain old theft on Election Day. We've got that history,too. And, sadly, negative ads work. But, keep hope alive, to borrow from Mr. J. Jackson.
Bill Ayers is not Willie Horton.
The Willie Horton ads claimed that Dukakis put Horton on the street, and then Horton killed. The ad tied Horton's crimes to Dukakis' actions. Dukakis was made to look guilty.
Ayers' actions preceded Obama. Obama has no guilt.
The smear is transparent.
Alan MacDonald
Truth 2 Power,
I would be more inclined to vote for Obama if he actually said he agreed with Ayers and that the country needs a continuation of the American Revolution against this ruling-elite 'corporatist Empire' that runs our whole country while hiding behind the facade of its TWO-Party 'Vichy' charade of a government.
You say "Obama has no guilt".
I say, "Obama has no GUTS --- to even 'speak the truth' that Empire has captured our democracy, and certainly not the guts to actually take-on the 'power' of the empire.
Truth to Power indeed!
Keating Economics: John McCain and a Financial Crisis
http://www.keatingeconomics.com
The ads, as Mark Crispin Miller so eloquently describes, are really just cover for the election rigging - the "reason" everyone will cite to explain why Obama lost, despite the polls, etc.
Tired of hearing "not likely to win". Why is winning so important to you? What do you win? The chance to have a corporately controlled murderous thug who thinks it's o.k. to kill hundreds of thousands of human beings, supports brutal economic policies, pro-war militarism, disastrous bailouts, and will only tinker at the edges of a system that is broken?? Anyone who is truly anti-war, and truly progressive, can only in conscience vote for Nader or McKinney. Flame me all you want, you know it's true!
Amen.
Humanity loses with either party.