Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiProjecting 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.
226 Comments so far
Show AllObama - don't screw it up! That's what centrist Democrats always do - they screw up elections. They lose. They let us down. For a tirade against centrist Democrats, go to http://www.youtube.com/Eskit99 and click on "Obama - Don't Screw It Up!"
Hey Norman,
Screw your party and its neo-Fascist ObamcCain candidate and your bipartisan system of rule. Do you hear me? Screw 'em!
You and your ilk might want to consult a psychiatrist about your persistant delusions that Jack-Ass nation somehow represents a "choice."
I'll continue to vote Green in the hope that, once medicated, sometime in the future you'll finally join us in voting in someone who will represent the public's interest in Congress and a deconstructed White House.
Until then, sayonara American democracy.
No thanks to you Norm, after November 4th we'll all be waking up to "Hail Amerika!"
The Democratic and Republican campaigns run on fear. Republicans instill fear of a radical Obama presidency, while Democrats want voters to fear the results of a McCain-Palin administration.
What kind of democracy is this when citizens lack the information to make an informed choice? Where are we headed when people are afraid to vote for what they really want and believe in?
Vote for Cynthia McKinney on Nov. 4: "Real Change We Need".
John M. Wages, Jr.
Candidate, US House, MS-01
www.VoteJohnWages.com
" Such rosy assumptions are dangerous. They're apt to result in overconfidence, reducing volunteer energy and voter turnout for Obama."
I'll tell you what reduces "volunteer energy and voter turnout": voting for the bailout - on top of the FISA immunity, on top of every war funding supplemental. It's all in Chris Hedges' article, right next to this one. It makes Solomon's look like the boilerplate propaganda it is.
Too bad Norman bought into the PDA strategy so completely, to the point of blindness: the bailout vote just discredited it for all time.
Oregoncharles
Obama will respond to his corporate masters, exactly like McCain would.
The US will still use the power left in its decaying empire to invade defenseless nations for fossil fuel and geo-political hegemony.
You Lesser Evilists' stupidity make me sick.
Palin says that Obama palls around with black people, who don't appreciate the freedom of the country that enslaved their ancestors.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Who does he pall around with that is black>? Now that I think of it, that might be a very good question.
Do you think that Ayers is black or something??
Here's another reason not to be complacent: The Democrats may snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Gore won the 2000 election, but Democrats wouldn't fight to properly count the vote.
Kerry won the 2004 election, but Democrats wouldn't even pay to recount the votes in districts where the math had turned fuzzy. The Green Party and Libertarian Party chipped in some bucks to do so, but Dems couldn't be bothered with it.
Sure, racism is a big factor in the United States. That can't be denied. I'm not sure what can be done about it, as it's a long-term problem. Certainly, in the short term, the Democratic Party can work to ensure that states like Florida don't purge black voters from the master database, as Republicans did in 2000. Even though authors like Greg Palast exposed that sort of thing, the Dem Party has done nothing that I know of to prevent it from happening again.
As for the smears, yes, Americans are stupid enough to fall for them. The Bush campaign smeared McCain with some racist barbs back when the contest was Bush vs. McCain.
Well, here's hoping the U.S. is smarter than all of that (whimper).
Still, as far as working for Obama is concerned, I'd only work for a candidate that reflected a positive agenda. Here are some items that would preclude my support for a candidate:
* Voted for the PATRIOT Act.
* Voted to let telecom companies off the hook for illegal spying.
* Voted over the years to fund illegal wars.
* Voted to bail out Wall Street fraudsters with our tax dollars.
Whoops, looks like a tie between Obama and McCain there! They also tie for promising to bomb Afghanistan, Pakistan and continue the occupation in Iraq.
I think I'd be just as alarmed as Normon Solomon if there were something to vote for, some positive change, but I don't see it. Obama's smoother and doesn't use savage "Bomb, bomb, bomb" rhetoric like McCain, but he wants to do the same thing.
You really do have third-party choices. Can we help it if people reflexively vote two party or are swayed by racism or smears? Probably not. All we can do is vote intelligently, and that means neither of the two-party candidates.
-TIA
Wow, no one does gloom and doom quite like a Democrat. Even when they are winning they are whiny and depressing.
I remember a study an election or two back that said you could almost always predict election results based on some economic indicators. Bad economy means incumbents lose.
Actually kinda makes sense in a system where there is no real choices, but just a loud shouting match between the parties. If people are happy, they vote to keep the same people in. If people aren't happy, they vote in the opposition on the prayer they might make it better.
People ain't happy right now.
Add in a highly unpopular war, and the strange way that Obama has been able to con people into thinking he opposes it when he doesn't, the end result is a no brainer. And certainly in a year where Obama has raised over $400 million on contributions and McCain is down to trying to run on public funding.
Obama's been an obvious winner of this contest for months. In fact, it was obvious last spring that the reason the Hillary-Barack fight was so tough was that they were the two fighting over the Presidency.
But, nonetheless, the Democrats are all gloom and doom and chanting "the end is near." At least back in the day the Democrats were fun. Now they are just depressing.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Good points but Obama so sucks that it's been close.
I just love all these posters who are motivated to back someone out of fear. Don't you see when you do this you play right into their hands. That is exactly what they want you to do. They are controlling you and you don't even know it. Vote your HEART or don't vote at all. Show them you aren't afraid of their shit.
Those who oppose the two-party ruling-class consensus and its vetted candidates work year round opposing the system. Some work to construct third parties with little or no help from the Democrats, in fact, mostly it is flack and the same sort of arguments made in election years. You know, "Get real", "Third parties can't work", "Work within the system to change it", "You are just working for the 'other side'."
Here is the fact. The "U.S." -- i.e., the ruling institutions, parties, and people -- has very few friends around the world. And those within the U.S. who also are not friends of that same "U.S." need to stop supporting its institutions, parties, and people. Win Obama or win McCain, the vast majority of those opposing third parties here will continue to oppose them becuase in the end they believe in the "U.S. dream" and what it has brought them through its system of racism, militarism, classism, etc. The lack of analysis is mind-boggling.
The U.S. system and its people are increasingly an obstacle to the well-being of the planet, the peoples of the world, and global peace and freedom. As can be seen in Latin America and elsewhere, the peoples of the world are standing up to reject us and our system, our international institutions, and our CIA/military. Currently the peoples of the world largely see us as non-players, having given up our power and authority to an oligarchy. Whether they pray for us as they go against our government and our army, I have no idea. But clearly Obama will be little reprieve. He is a capitalist imperialist or he would have been shut out of the debates, news coverage and campaign months ago just as Kucinich, Nader and others have been. The U.S. is only a democracy if preceded by the word "bogus".
We can get on board with this global effort to create a better world or we can rot in this quadrennial con-game of mutual self-delusion that we play with each other fighting over whether we get the Republican iron fist or the Democratic iron fist in a velvet glove. Ask people around the world. Both fists smash and devastate in murderous ways. Either way the global system headed by the U.S. kills millions every year, by war, starvation, etc.
For the person who asked about Nader on Iraq, here are issues and his positions http://www.votenader.org/issues/
If you want out of Iraq, you won't get it with either McCain or Obama.
David Brookbank -- "Hasta donde debemos practicar las verdades?"
The world wants Obama!
http://www.theworldwantsobama.org/
And I'll project another 4 years of the same bullshit, with maybe some very minor reversals just so they can fool 95% of the people AGAIN into thinking that something good will happen. Just remember the $800B-endover folks and who voted for it.
Always follow the money. It will almost always tell you what's really going on.
And $800,000,000,000.00 is a LOT of money.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Regardless of what Nader says...it will be either Obama or McCain. Any vote that strays from Obama gives McCain and (Ugh) Palin more of a chance. What a catastrophe of epic proportions that would be. It should send shivers down the spine of any thoughtful person thinking about voting for Nader. Every four years isn't the place to work for a third party voice. That's a year round grass roots effort that needs to be put in place. To wait until a few days before the presidential election and expect to get more that a couple percentages is futile. We saw Nader's hand in Gore's defeat...which directly led to thousands of deaths in Iraq. Vote Obama!
1) The vast majority of votes for third party candidates will have no effect whatsoever on Obama's chances because they will occur in states where either Obama or McCain already has a big lead. There's never been a Presidential election in history where a Democrat has lost because of the presence in the race of a third-party candidate. Obviously, Bush "won" in 2000 because the Republicans stole it, not because Nader was in the race. Everybody who followed the election knows that. Why are you still trying to deny that the Republicans stole the Presidential election in 2000 (and 2004)?
2) There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Gore would not have waged war had he become President in 2000. The Clinton/Gore administration bombed Iraq intensively, and attacked Yugoslavia. Democratic Presidents throughout the history of the Democratic Party have routinely gotten involved in wars just as much as Republicans, and Democrats as well as Republicans in Congress have routinely supported these actions. Why would a Gore/Lieberman administration have acted any differently than past Democratic administrations?
3) Why would an Obama/Biden administration act any differently as far as matters of war than past Democratic administrations, or than Obama and Biden have acted in Congress? Both have supported and continue to support war. This will not change if they're elected.
4) Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had strong support from the Democrats throughout. Even the last two years when Democrats have had a majority in Congress, support for those wars from most Democrats has continued. And Democrats are almost unanimously opposed to impeaching Bush for his war crimes--not surprising, given that most of them are complicit in those crimes.
5) If you vote for war criminals, you're complicit in war crimes. It doesn't make any difference whether the war criminal is a Democrat or a Republican.
No.
And stop telling me what to do.
All you guys can do is project the horrors if Obama doesnt win.
I disagree with almost everything Obama has done since nominated.
Your "vote for Obama or else" arguments are not very convincing.
What has hje done that you are especially proud of?
Jeanot7 - Does it occur to you that Gore "lost" in 2000, in large measure because he was a terrible candidate? He ran a timid & constipated campaign. He fought for nothing, represented nothing, told no significant truths, & failed to give the public any compelling reason to vote for him.
He was supposed to be a great master of policy. It was said that he would "massacre" the dimwitted & ignorant Gov. George W Bush in the debates. When the debates rolled around, Gore didn't "massacre" anyone. He looked pathetic. He was unable to defeat the half-wit ignoramus Texas governor in debate. Most observers felt the debates were more or less a draw, with Bush far surpassing expectations.
Who did Gore choose for his VP? Why, that would be Joe Lieberman. Who did John McCain very nearly pick as his VP? Why, the very same Joe Lieberman. Isn't that interesting? What do you think it means, that the evil crazed warmonger McCain, and the sainted Gore, both have the same taste in running mates?
Gore won in 2000---the election was stolen.
He picked Lieberman to win Florida with its large Jewish vote. And it worked except for Jeb and Katherine Harris, and the Supreme Court.
Yet again, misrepresentations of the 2000 election.
Gore did not win his own state.
Gore did not win Clinton's state.
Either victory would have won Gore the election.
Hundreds of thousands of Florida Democrats voted for George W. Bush because they preferred him to Gore.
Go on, blame Nader for the Democrats' own failure. Don't ever get over it. Don't ever accept responsibility.
What are you all stressing over? There will be no elections this year. Something big is in the works and it will happen and the bad-guys will get into office no matter what we do …that is unless the big “R” is perpetrated.
Have you read the book "The End of America" by Naomi Wolf? The signs are all there for a takeover of the country by Bush. I'm just waiting for the "we must postpone the elections because of the present financial crisis in America" call from the White house. It's all over then. Read the book. Scary stuff.
Call me silly....but I do believe.
If they are winning….it will be a subtle take over. If they are losing, they will take over with force saying that it is for our own safety that THEY are taking control. And, those that need a father figure to “tell” them what to do in scary times will capitulate immediately.
Streetwise people will be the ones with the upper hand. Where to hide, where to get food and water will be the enterprise of the day. The elderly, infirm and those without extended family will suffer the most. Families may even be separated in times of upheaval.
I wonder if they will then bring the troops home to beat the crap out of us. They cannot sustain troops here and troops abroad. I may be wrong, my world history is not that astute ….I do not believe any empire was able to sustain both.
If you read the book, you see how Wolf reminds us how Stalin and Hitler had both troops to fight the war and those to subdue the civilians. Bet Bush has some troops ready here at home for his cause. And it probably will happen quick.
I heard Wolf interviewed last week on the radio and she sounded terrified, and very concerned. If you're not afraid, you're not paying attention. Active duty troops have been stationed here---for the first time since the Civil War.
Mad cow,
Erroll already pointed this out, but here's a link.
Obama has never stated what he means by a "residual force". In fact, he appears to contradict himself by stating that all combat forces will be redeployed, but that the residual force will be tasked with combat duties such as counter-terrorism and defending our bases and embassy.
The only specific statement about troops levels comes from the head of Obama's "working group on Iraq".
http://wizbangpolitics.com/2008/04/04/obama-adviser-calls-for-troops-in-iraq-thru-2010.php
The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."
Mr. Kahl is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign's working group on Iraq. A shorter and less detailed version of this paper appeared on the center's Web site as a policy brief.
Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign's Iraq position. Nonetheless, the paper could provide clues as to the ultimate size of the residual American force the candidate has said would remain in Iraq after the withdrawal of combat brigades. The campaign has not publicly discussed the size of such a force in the past.
Erroll shouldn't be throwing out fake numbers like 100,000 troops and 100,000 contractors, like they're facts.
Obama has thousands of advisors. They all don't speak for him or the campaign.
Is that anything like the "15,000 lawyers" that Kerry used?
He may have thousands of college and hs age kids working for him. If he is hiring 1000s of advisors, he should stop it, and give some of that money to the bailout.
madcow,
"Obama has thousands of advisors."
Speaking of "throwing out fake numbers", how many "thousands"? How does he have the time to meet with them?
"They all don't speak for him or the campaign."
People like Wolfowitz, Perle, and Kissinger weren't official spokesmen for the Bush campaign, but you would have been a fool to dismiss their importance to Bush's policies.
Besides, Mr. Kahl is not some unimportant figure, he is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign's working group on Iraq.
"This is not the first time the opinion of an adviser to the Obama campaign has differed with the candidate's stated Iraq policy. In February, Mr. Obama's first foreign policy tutor, Samantha Power, told BBC that the senator's current Iraq plan would likely change based on the advice of military commanders in 2009. She has since resigned her position as a formal adviser." - NYSUN
You can HOPE that if or when Obama makes it clear what his plan is, that it will contradict what his closest advisers say. But this seems more like an instance of Obama wanting to stay vague for political reasons, while his advisers accidentally leak his the details of his real plan.
Furthermore, though he hasn't stated actual numbers he has said, "I can't rule out, I won't rule out, private security contractors."
"Obama's proposed increase in funding to the diplomatic security division would ostensibly pave the way for a protective force composed entirely of US government personnel, but the process of building that force would likely take a long time. Short of dramatically reducing the US civilian and diplomatic presence in Iraq that necessitates such a security force, Obama may have no choice but to continue the contracting arrangements with firms like Blackwater if he is elected President."
By Jeremy Scahill, TheNation.com.
Okay, maybe Errol rounded up the figures (or he's read something we haven't) for the residual force and then roughly inferred the number of contractors from their current level (which I can't remember Obama ever pledging to cut), but the core of his argument remains intact. Obama could easily prove him wrong by actually explaining to the public the specifics of his plan. But then people might lose the illusion that he actually has a withdrawal plan, so it's a bad election strategy.
It's not much of a stretch to believe what the campaign says. The Iraqis want us out on a timeline. Obama wants us out on a timeline. Yes there will be a contingent to guard the embassy, but 200,000 seems way overblown. I'd say more like 1000 maybe.
z
"Maybe Erroll rounded up the figures...". You are right, as that is what I did. I had read that Obama had planned to leave as many as 80,000 troops in Iraq. In the comments I had stated that Obama plans to leave "close to 100,000 troops" in Iraq. In my mind, 80,000 is close to 100,000 and I went with that. Even if one goes with the 80,000 figure, it does nothing in taking away the fact that Obama wishes to leave a "residual force" in Iraq. The figure of 100,000 civilian contractors was indeed taken from Jeremy Scahill, who is considered pretty much the authority on these para military groups that are operating in Iraq. Taken together, that means close to [one must emphasize the word close, which is actually what I did before, or else the Obama supporters will claim that I am engaging in hyperbole] 200,000 military and civilian forces will remain in Iraq after Obama's phased [as opposed to immediate] withdrawal] has been finally completed. All this should indicate that Obama's plan to end the war in Iraq is a chimera designed to fool the public into believing that he is somehow more liberal than McCain. It is also reminiscent of Richard Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War which was also a chimera as Nixon instead escalated that conflict as well as extending the bombing into Cambodia. But one suspects that the Iraqis, like the Vietnamese, will not be fooled by the rhetoric coming out of the mouth of another deceptive American politician.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - Behind in the polls, Republican John McCain on Monday called Democratic rival Barack Obama a LIAR as he leveled his harshest criticism yet, and said the campaign boils down to one basic question: Who is Obama really?
(And can he shoot as well as Aaron Burr...)
uglyswine:
Would you change your mind if you thought that under one candidate there will be world war and under the other there won't?
What does that even mean? Neither candidate is going to get us out of the war(s).
McCain cannot "keep us in for 100 yrs", because he will not live to be 174 , or whatever.
Why dont you guys come up with something "wonderful" that Obama has done, and give peoel a reason to vote for him? Instead of fear-mongering?
For instance, what is the difference between what you said, and, "I hope it doesnt come in the form of a mushroom cloud?"
Neo-liberals and neo-cons.
But that's just it.
This a "floater" for a new Fear that will get us under control.
McCain will "start" a World War! BOO! EEK! UGABUGGAUGABUGGA!
Now vote Obama.
There's been an economic world war going on since 1980.
If you don't know that, more's the pity
I don't care, I don't care.
About one week after the 2004 elections, I put a homemade Nader 2008 sticker on the back of my car. It is still there along with my Yanqui Imperialists Out of Iraq Now sticker and Pope Paul VI's "If you want peace, work for justice" in Spanish. Though 4 winters of snow and summer heat have taken their toll, they are still there.
I intend to vote Nader and Gonzales in this election. Why? I oppose capitalist imperialists and will not cast my vote before such swine. Obama and McCain represent the two-party ruling-class consensus. These are thoroughly vetted candidates who, if they represented any threat what-so-ever to the system, would not be left standing and campaigning.
I understand why liberals and so-called progressives support Obama. Obviously they would. He is a bright, smiling, intellectual hopeful face -- if one has no analysis and no memory of history. Whose war was Vietnam? The ruling class. Who gave it to us? John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Under whose regime did hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die of starvation, illness and bombing? Bill Clinton. And who has promised to make war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Barack Obama.
Democrats, liberals and progressives want to go back to sleep. They want something they can feel good about so they don't have to rage against the beast in their own heart and soul -- that distorted, voracious beast that only this capitalist imperialist beast of a nation can provide us. A just world will be a world in which all that we steal from the world will have to shared. And these candidates -- and their patrons, sponsors, funders, and propagandists -- have no intention of standing for it or bringing it into being. Can Nader? Ah, now we can talk about it. Do you really want to work for peace and justice and a better country in collaboration with someone who really believes in that dream? Then you have no choice. Nader 2008.
David Brookbank -- "Hasta donde debemos practicar las verdades?"
How has that Nader thing been working for you these last eight years?
There are war crimes being committed by BOTH of the majors. As someone has said, "The two parties are just the two wings of the same bird of prey."
At least those who voted for Nader or ANY third party candidate have clean hands and a clear conscience.
i could care less which of the 2 wall street candidates win. i don't support obama and that is that. so if, somehow, the DPAs cry foul on election day, if their candidate blows it, it's more likely because he screwed over his base and tried to straddle the fence and cozy up too much with his wall street buddies, taking all kinds of campaign money from them, and not because of anything "stolen" you can be sure. sorry, i won't buy it and neither will the majority of americans.
ding! ding!
Truth is that both McCain and Obama have the minds of terrorists.
They both will bomb and kill innocent civilians in their desire to invade Pakistan, and Iran (Obama has implied attacking Iran).
So we have to Wall Street, pro military right wing candidates.
Thinkers see this, other equivacate.
Pretty dumb article as are the DPAs above making their usual snide little remarks against anyone that dares to not support Obama or his sellout Dims.
The recent largest transfer of wealth upwards from us into the pockets of the crooks that need it the least, Wall St. was assisted by the personal phone calls and lobbying by, yes you guessed it, Sen. Barak Obama. Some credit him with getting a critical number of Dims to change their votes.
yes, without a doubt. as i understand it, his voice was critical in getting some key reps to jump the fence over to the other side. his aide in this bailout farce is why it passed in large part. if this doesn't piss off progressives, then nothing else will.
They don't care. He's "electable" and they are cowards
Remember Maverick; a fast talkin',gunslingin', gamblin' con-man with a taste for cheap booze n' plient young wimmin'.
Great character for a TV show wrong characteristics for a President.
".... McCain can only benefit when progressives assume he'll lose...."
YOu got it all wrong, Mr. Solomon. Progressives don't vote for the same old, same old Obama from the Complicit Party.
Ralph Nader:
We just accept money from individuals, as long as it’s legal. We don’t take money from PACs (Political Action Committees). We don’t take money from commercial interests, which have a quid pro quo, like the oil companies, auto companies and insurance banks. We don’t do that. If people want to contribute, no matter who they are, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Green, whatever… you want to contribute? Welcome. There’s no quid pro quo (a Latin term meaning “something for something”). They see where we stand and they see our issues on the table. You want to contribute? We’re grateful.
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
i really like this about nader. what people don't realize is that if he played 'the game' that obama and mccain plays, then he'd likely boost his chances a 100 fold. but he doesn't, and therefore he makes his chances that much harder. if only more principled candidates started this same route. let's take money out of politics and vice versa. the only way to start doing that is the hard way. just stop it, period. set the example so that others may one day follow.
Nader stands for what the give away out of fear.
He's the patriot they could never hope to be
Nader has the character and strength they've never had
And they hate him for it
Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com
Norm Solomon is right. Let's all continue working flat out through the election.
If you're not in a battleground state, why not volunteer with MoveOn.org (or another progressive organization) to help by telephone in a state that is?
The GOP stole the last two presidential elections, and they are working to steal this one. You can bank on it.
Here's a gift -- a compelling free resource -- that I offer to you progressive patriots everywhere: You can now download for FREE a copy of my ENTIRE new progressive book at www.bushleagueofnations.com
My book is, "The Bush League of Nations: The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed – the GOP’s War on Iraq and America," by James A. Swanson (2008, published by CreateSpace Publishing and Lulu.com, 448 pages).
I ask for nothing in return for my book ... except that you consider using it as a resource to help kick out America's worst president and worst political party ever.
Go Obama!
Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
I'm with you !
EXCEPT...instead of cowardly lesserevilism and corporate whoring about
"Let's all continue working flat out through the election"
For the best candidate
GO NADER !!!!!!!
"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."
According to opensecrets.org:
The Republican Party has $149,697,928 cash on hand.
The Democratic Party has $141,609,828 cash on hand.
Soloman probably meant to use these figures instead:
Democratic National Cmte: $17,737,060 cash on hand.
Republican National Cmte: $76,467,053 cash on hand.
But it's misleading when you add in these figures from their campaign funds:
Obama: $77,404,118 cash on hand.
McCain: $36,370,792 cash on hand.
In total, McCain is only slightly ahead, and only because of the GOP funds.
More importantly, this fails to mention that Obama has already outspent McCain.
McCain: $194 million spent.
Obama: $377 million spent.
The same is true of the Parties:
The Democratic Party: $420,498,641
The Republican Party: $411,960,779
Only the Republican National Cmte. has outspent the Democrats.
Republican National Cmte: $169,277,583
Democratic National Cmte: $135,220,188
However, since I'm opposed to both of these neo-conservative candidates, all I see is a lot of wasted money.
NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2008 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released on October 06, 2008.
If the Democrats cared about winning in a fair election then they would have challenged vote-rigging and the electoral college.
This time around, the vote is rigged for Obama simply because McCain is a straw man candidate, he's unpopular and always has been. He already lost to Bush.
It's called power-sharing.
The words "liberal" and "conservative" are nothing but BULLSHIT words. I could very well say the same of "progressive" and "libertarian". Whoever wins the race will have to deal with a sellout Congress. It is already a given that Obama and Mccain have cozy enough relations with Congress so don't expect much. Let's focus on reforming Congress first.
I've read Zinn's remarks; I admire Zinn.
But these are so weak and equivocal that they are tantamount to wishful thinking.
Instead, we should wish that Nader will break 3%, especially now that he's running against the Green Party?
It's not wishful thinking to say that popular movements are what lead to change, and it's not wishful thinking to say that Republicans simply will never listen to popular movements, and that Obama will be much more likely than
Again, the "I give up" tone of the comments section is just pathetic. People in much, much more repressive countries haven't given up. Half the comments on these boards are "I give up." "We're fucked." "All of you are stupid and ignorant suckers." etc.
I guess Zinn would know nothing about how social movements are formed, and how they affect change. What a wishful thinker.. a "commondreamer" maybe?
.Give us Barrabas
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Yes, popular movements are the main thing that leads to change. But what happens to popular movements when they tie themselves to parties that are (despite their Presidential candidate's fraudulent claims) diametrically opposed to change, such as the Democrats? What happens when many of them harbor an utterly delusion belief that Obama, or whoever the currently popular Democrat is, is on their side despite years of acting in opposition to what they want? When they think that there's this "real," secret Obama who is on their side even though publicly he's clearly not? What happens when they only criticize Republicans for policies such as war or "welfare" for the rich or the Patriot Act, and refuse to acknowledge that the Dems they want to win have supported the very same things? What happens when they publicly guarantee their votes to Dems who oppose the policies their movements support, and even work on the campaigns of these Dems instead of working to advocate for the policies they want?
I'll tell you what happens, because it's happened over and over in American history (most recently with the anti-war movement): They become weak and ineffectual. They fail to reach their objectives. They die out.
It's the Killing, Stupid.
I would like to see a collective American voice in opposition because the two corporate candidates are so close. Zinn says Republicans are only slightly to the right of Obama. Slightly! (Asia Times interview)
Obama and McCain are murderers. Both enabled the illegal and brutal war on Iraq, where 1.3 million innocents - mostly children - have been killed as a result. And you're going to vote for him? What is wrong with the American people that they could in any way support someone who has supported the murder of innocents children. Especially considering there are other candidates who work tirelessly against the oppressive American system and have killed no one.
Remember, in Nazi Germany fathers put Jews in ovens by day and went home to have dinner and read stories to their children in the evenings. There were many officials who enabled Hitler, he didn't do it alone. And all of them who participated were guilty. A genocide has happened in Iraq and your Obama had a hand in it!
Can you not bring yourselves to rise up against it? Speak out, collectively at the voting booth? Zinn says in an interview in Asia Times that the Republicans are only slightly to the right of Obama. Slightly!
Standing up at my computer applauding your wisdom and (real) patriotism
Thank You
Let's hang together on this one. No one here can address what it is they like about Obama, why they think he will be amenable to pressure after he's elected when he certainly isn't now. Don't they know, candidates are always worse, not better, once they get into office.
The woman who called me today from the Obama campaign told me Obama voted against the war in the beginning! These people are delusional!
"He has to say these things to get elected!" they cry. Yes, and that's my point. He'll have to get re-elected too, won't he.
I saw a car today with two bumper stickers. One said, "Impeach Bush" and the other said, "Vote Obama."
My best to you!
Vote Nader, 08
actually October 6th, 2008 4:40 pm
"It's not wishful thinking to say that popular movements are what lead to change, and it's not wishful thinking to say that Republicans simply will never listen to popular movements, and that Obama will be much more likely than"
It is wishful thinking. Obama has already demonstrated on more than one occasion that he is ready, willing, and able to defy the will of the people.
The Wall Street Bailout bill and the FISA bill are two examples.
Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris:count the votes in both Houses; Obama was playing it "safe", at the very least. I am voting for him because the alternative is scarier. I am leaving my YES voting representative's line blank, as he is running unopposed. I hope we will get better Dems in future. Folks who want to build a third party, fine, but start between election years further down on the political levels. I think third parties are good for pushing issues and wish they'd be in the debates. At the very least to keep us awake. But Obama is aiming for the independent voters,yes?
Tell Obama to open up the debates. We tried like hell.
NYCartist October 6th, 2008 5:30 pm
"Lobo Gris:count the votes in both Houses; Obama was playing it "safe", at the very least"
Playing it safe? For what? The bill to pass? The public was against its passage by a ratio of 100 to 1
In the Senate where Obama has a vote the vote was 74 to 25.
In the House where Obama actively advocated its passage the vot was 263 to 171
Lobo Gris
We did "start between election years," but you didn't support us. It's you. We've been at it for decades. Again, it's you.
So now support your Obama who signed off on FISA, trillion dollar bailout, an illegal war that killed 1.3 million innocents, mostly children. You think someone who could do that will succumb to "pressure" once he's a shoe in? Dream on.
I am one who agrees with Norman.
Obama will only win if we work hard and VOTE for him.
Since we KNOW that Nader doesn't have a prayer (or a real campaign), then how can we support Nader with our votes, KNOWING that it will mean a McCain/Palin win? Because THAT, my pie-in-the-sky I'm-too-pure-to-compromise friends, is what will happen.
There has not been much talk about the tiny percentage of votes that Nader's ticket will divert. It could be more than enough for McCain to claim the presidency, especially coupled with Repub. voter scams, and other hijinks.
Why is is that progressives cannot support what so many working people and black communities want . . . a president who will engage this nation in a new approach to racism?
Racism is at the root of our wars in other countries: we bomb dark-skinned people with impunity in Iraq, Afghanistan. And then there's Katrina.
Why can we not- for once- support a candidate who will bring the U.S. dialogue about race to a higher level?
Nader has wonderful things to say on many topics, but I don't see his leadership much on women's issues and issues of race. Fine, give the man a place in the cabinet. That would be great.
But, as for president? I'm standing firmly by my African American community and givng them my support- working for Obama in 2008.
McCain/Palin represent the WORST sort of danger- not just domestically, but internationally.
Imagine, Cheny and his corporate cronies, continuing for four more years to work the puppet strings of our administrators? The "hot head" and "the dummy"?
We need to STOP McCain/Palin HOWEVER we can in this election.
Work for Obama, VOTE for Obama.
And continue to work like crazy to build a strong left after he is elected.
He's not our savior, just the best man for the job.
Your right, Nader doesn't have a chance. Neither do any of the other candidates who have pledged to end the war (McKinney and Baldwin). But while McCain is a murdering warmonger, Obama votes to fund the same war. If there were any justice in this world, they would BOTH face a Nuremberg-style tribunal.
But understand, this vote is not just about them, it's about each and every one of us and our morality. How can any one of us admit to our children that we voted for a murderer? The only choice, then, is to proudly vote for any one of these three.
"Since we KNOW that Nader doesn't have a prayer (or a real campaign), then how can we support Nader with our votes, KNOWING that it will mean a McCain/Palin win? Because THAT, my pie-in-the-sky I'm-too-pure-to-compromise friends, is what will happen."
Contrary to your lie, Nader is running a "real campaign." It's just that the corporate media choose not to cover Nader/Gonzalez.
How can one support Nader with their vote? By voting one's conscience and not voting out of FEAR as most Dem apologists are urging. I intend to vote for Nader/Gonzalez because I think that they will be the best candidates for the nation/world. I also absolutely refuse to vote for any of the Bush-enabling scum in congress who still call themselves Democrats. Screw them! If you want to vote for your DEAD Democratic Party candidates, so be it.
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Like voting for Dem candidates one voting cycle after the other.
The Dead Democratic Party has repeatedly spit in our face, taken a crap on us and essentially told us to "fuk off, we don't care what you think, we will do as we please FOR Bush" over and over again since 2000, yet you're still hugging them. That's the definition of a dysfunctional/abusive relationship.
People should vote their conscience and not vote out of FEAR.
*Nader/Gonzalez 2008, if there is an "election."
Talk about a "one issue" voter. Just vote in an African Am. and there will be a "new approach to racism"? How? What has he said he wil do? To me, it seems as if he has 96% of the black vote--so he takes them for granted, like he does liberals.No, I should say , like the Dems always do liberals.
He never mentions the Af. Am. community. If I were black and poor, I would feel abandoned.
As for working class and poor peoples--the only ones that are backing him are are the ones in unions, who vote however they tell them to. Obama is having real trouble with poor and working class. He basically offers them nothing.
He just bailed out Wall St. amd might as well have told the people harmed by this mess to go to hell.
We have alot of problems in this country now. Alot more than I have ever seem./ Racism is one of many. People keep saying it is all about race, but, the pols just dont bear it out.
Soloman was a delegazte for Obama. Are you PDA? Because alot of peoel I used to admire (who arenow very comfortable), were ther with PDA, and I found it shameful, the way these upper class neo-liberals were so self-righteous about their fake progressiveness.
I am a progressive (a real one) and will not vote for Obama.
Yes. I'd just add to not lump all progressives together.
Please make your case for your statements. And I want facts, not feelings. Votes, not campaign "promises."
So far the only commenters on this site who give lists of the candidates voting records have been those of us voting for other than one of the two corporate candidates. The Obama supporters need to do better if you want us to change our minds.
I just have to say: I have seen a lot of cars with "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers next to a sticker that says, "Vote Obama! George Orwell! Are you watching this!
I usually back away - very carefully but steadily - from anyone who would have 1.3 million innocent people killed for a career advancement, and who would take my civil rights away just so he can advance his career. "He has to do these things to get elected!" Yes, he does. That's my point. And the Duopolists control every aspect of the presidential campaigns and probably most of the Congressional campaigns. The only way to get rid of them is vote them out before they do more damage.
They will never let the people in - until we kick them out.
If Obama loses, blame the Duopolists, your real enemy. Yes, Obama is an enemy of the people.
Vote Nader, 08! And be proud of it.
"Vote Nader, 08! And be proud of it."
Forever the idealist, eh?
What is the color of the sky in your world...the Nader world?
But it's an interesting thought: How would Congress "work" if Nader were elected?
Penelope October 6th, 2008 3:47 pm
"Why is is that progressives cannot support what so many working people and black communities want . . . a president who will engage this nation in a new approach to racism?
Racism is at the root of our wars in other countries: we bomb dark-skinned people with impunity in Iraq, Afghanistan."
Obama wants to expand both the size of the military and the war in Afghanistan.
Lobo Gris
How can we vote for Nader? Simple. Conscience, and, it is the correct thing to do given the two corrupt Corporate candidates.
So what?
Nader, Barr & Paul are not going to be elected, period. We know with 100% probability that the Republican or the Democrat's candidate this year shall become the president of the US of A on January 20th at noon in 2009.
Enough is enough. Smart talk and dreamy rhetoric will keep us writing here but will change nothing if we do not organize our neighbors to get out and demand universal health care, education, middle class wages for all workers, and time to spend with our families, friends and neighbors enjoying the fruits of our labor.
I'm making a choice to vote for Obama because he is the better choice and after this election and he is elected I will be working to make sure that we demand that he do, not what he said he would do, but rather what we need him to do. That is my yes we can message. We need to realize that the power to change our world is in our hands if we get out into the streets with our friends, families, and neighbors and demand that we are heard and satisfied. – Remy Germain
"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." - June Jordan
Remy, this is not the only "message" youve written and then signed--Remy Germain.So , this is your "yes we can" message? Yes you can what? Talk about "dreamy rhetoric"! How did Obama become known on the net, at first? Obama girl! Think about it!! This has been the "original cult of personality".
Universal health care???We would be lucky is Obama even expands SCHIP--esp. after their Wall St bailout! His plan sucks to begin with, and it gets worse as he campaigns. It woudl help me, people I worked with, and family and friedna, not at all.
Education?? He is going to support "faith based inititatives" (unconstitutioanl),. NCLB (a military recruiting tool), and charter schools. These are also unconstitutional.
What is he going to do about "middle class wages"? I just dont get it. What is it you think you see/ What you want to see?
Cause that is just damn delusional. You cannot just "project" what you want someone to be onto them. Havent you ever been in love with the wrong person? It doesnt work. You "hope" that they wil be this or that--and then, they never are. It is not "fun" for me at all--to not be able to vote Democratic anymore, but you have to vote for who represents your values. Not someone you think you can persuade to do something that they have never given you any reason to believe that they wil do it.
I , and others, have gone back and forth on this. Some never wouldve voted Obama. For me, I tried. After 8 yrs of W, I thought sure the Dems would "do a progressive". But, everytime Obama votes--he proves once again that he is a centrist. More so than Gore or Kerry, I woudl think.
A person can only take so much crap from a party.
Yes. I'm voting for Obama and urging others to do so. I am not trying to change any minds. Doubt it's possible.
Remy Germain October 6th, 2008 3:54 pm
"I'm making a choice to vote for Obama because he is the better choice and after this election and he is elected I will be working to make sure that we demand that he do, not what he said he would do, but rather what we need him to do. That is my yes we can message. We need to realize that the power to change our world is in our hands if we get out into the streets with our friends, families, and neighbors and demand that we are heard and satisfied. – Remy Germain"
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 held up his middle finger and said f#ck you, I will do what I want regardless of popular opinion and you will still have to 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
Utter Nonsense!
Perhaps you can think first before you emote?
"I do not understand how universal bankruptcy can do any good or bring us nearer to prosperity."- John Maynard Keynes
It is for this reason that he made his vote.
You somehow believe that you have the right answer and it reminds me of what H.L. Mencken said: "There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong."
Remy Germain October 6th, 2008 4:31 pm
"Utter Nonsense!"
Again, not utter nonsense, but fact. Are you trying to deny the fact that Obama actively campaigned for passage of the Wall Street bailout bill?
Lobo Gris
Yes, Obama did vote for the bill. But he also said that once elected he would do what needed to be done to stop this from happening again with stricter laws, stronger oversight, and better solutions to handling the problems of this economy, which will be with us for years, if not decades to come. HE IS NOT PRESIDENT NOW AND UNTIL HE IS, HE HAS ONLY LIMITED OPTIONS!
You have complained about his military policies, but I will bet that when 9/11 went down, you were on the blogs posting about going and getting Bin Laden. Well, thanks to the current idiots in DC, that option was stopped short before its mission was accomplished to go into Iraq. BushCo not only depleted our current active military, but also our National Guard, which we need to protect our homeland HERE AT HOME! That can only be done by expanding our current military back to full strength, and if we are going to finish the first mission after 9/11, help battle weary soldiers who are suffering from a variety of health problems by getting them home for appropriate care and rest, and capture Bin Laden and his cohorts, we can only succeed in doing that with a larger military. It is unfortunate, but you can blame Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney for this practical necessity. NOT OBAMA WHO SAID DO NOT ABANDON THE SEARCH FOR BIN LADEN FOR INVASION INTO IRAQ! This is part of the clean-up from the Bush years, just like the economic clean up.
You have spent a great deal of time here supporting Nader, and yet you have offered no substantial ways in which communities can address the problems we face so that we can be self-sustaining and self-sufficient in these times of crises, and I have seen nothing from Nader or any other third party candidate that would offer a framework for such actions. Obama has consistently stated that grassroot actions would be needed if he was elected to insure that DC is held accountable, and that he welcomes such input, as should any decent candidate. BUT UNLESS HE IS ELECTED PRESIDENT BY OVERWHELMING NUMBERS, HE CAN DO NOTHING TO UNDO THE ACTIONS OF THE LAST 8 YEARS! And yet you advocate for someone who has been patently unsuccessful at doing anything other than split off independents and liberals who could actually work within the current party frameworks to create local groups to help Obama actually create the real change that needs to be made nationally, through local pressure on the system.
So stop promoting Nader, and start actually listening to what the opportunities are for you and your needs through local actions within local political frameworks. The People of this Nation have the power to change any party from within by creating new actions in our communities and in the parties that will force change through strong political pressure. Become active. Get our neighbors active to create changes within your communities to address the issues that Nader espouses, and you can do more to help create change than voting for Nader and splitting the vote. You need an environment in which change can occur first, and if you let McCain/Palin get in by default, you will never have the political environment in which to create the change you actually want. Elect Obama, elect liberal Democrats and Independents to Congress, and you create an administration open to community engagement and through that political change. Think and then act, and you can change what you want to change.
djnoll October 6th, 2008 6:37 pm
"Yes, Obama did vote for the bill. But he also said that once elected he would do what needed to be done to stop this from happening again with stricter laws, stronger oversight, and better solutions to handling the problems of this economy, which will be with us for years, if not decades to come. HE IS NOT PRESIDENT NOW AND UNTIL HE IS, HE HAS ONLY LIMITED OPTIONS!"
Yes Obama had limited options. He could have voted either for or against the Wall Street bailout bill. He chose not only to vote for it but to actively advocate that others do the same. But once elected he claims according to you that he will fix everything. Good luck with that. I judge candidates by their actions, not by their promises of what they will do if only everyone will elect them.
There was a man in a company once that started in an entry level position. He was given various tasks, all minor which he consistently failed at. The company boss called him in and said we have to let you go and explained why. The man cried no no promote me and make me CEO and I'll show you what I can do. Needless to say the company let him go, because if he couldn't even complete the lower level tasks how was he ever going to complete the tasks required of a CEO.
It's time to let Obama go just as it was with the man in the story.
djnoll October 6th, 2008 6:37 pm
"Become active. Get our neighbors active to create changes within your communities to address the issues that Nader espouses, and you can do more to help create change than voting for Nader and splitting the vote. You have complained about his military policies, but I will bet that when 9/11 went down, you were on the blogs posting about going and getting Bin Laden. You have spent a great deal of time here supporting Nader, and yet you have offered no substantial ways in which communities can address the problems we face so that we can be self-sustaining and self-sufficient in these times of crises"
How completely arrogant. First of all you don't know anything about me. Second the democrats do not own the votes, the individual voters do. If they want them they have to EARN them by addressing the issues of the voters who they are asking to vote for them, not by demanding it because they are the lesser of two evils with no place else to go. Wrong! There is another place to go there are third parties/independents who are addressing the issues of those from whom they are asking for a vote.
Lobo Gris
djnoll
You laud the fact that Obama wishes, not to decrease, but to increase, the military which has already terrorized millions of people in the Middle East and which Obama wishes to continue to do by sending even more soldiers into Afghanistan and keeping the military option open against Pakistan, Iran, Russia and who knows how many other countries. You state that we need to "help battle weary soldiers who are suffering from a variety of health problems by getting them home for appropriate care and rest..." What you are doing is treating the symptom and not the cause of their afflictions since Obama, the [alleged] antiwar candidate, wishes to keep close to 100,000 troops in Iraq [as well as maintaining 100,000 civilian contractors, which would include the infamous para military organization called Blackwater]and also redeploy approximately 10,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. By doing that, of course, Obama is then dramatically increasing the chances that more soldiers will end up in VA hospitals across this country, all for no justifiable reason whatsoever. It should be obvious that Obama does not give a damn about the welfare of those soldiers [nor about the welfare of the Iraqis and the Afghanis] and is much more concerned with his own political aggrandizement.
Enthusiasm is now the key to getting out our vote. We need to make sure that our enthusiasm for Obama and change is strong with our excitement so that we cannot wait to vote on Election Day. An enthusiasm strong enough to last all the way to his inauguration