Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLefties for Obama
If you have decided to vote for a third party candidate for president, or not to vote at all, because you can't stand voting for the "lesser of two evils," this message is for you. Though I'm supporting Obama and the Democrats, I understand and respect your choice.
You may be taking a lot of criticism for standing on your principles. I know how the criticism can hurt. I took the same kind of heat eight years ago as a Ralph Nader supporter in a razor-thin election. I've never regretted that choice. I felt totally comfortable with it in 2000, partly because the outcome was a foregone conclusion in my home state. My vote would not make any difference one way or another.
This year is very different, because in my state the Obama - McCain race is much too close to call. If that's true in your state too -- or if there is any chance Obama might not win your state -- please consider carefully the other big difference between 2000 and 2008. Back then, I failed to imagine how much damage eight years of Republican rule would do. Now, the thought of another eight or even four years of the same seems intolerable.
Imagining what the Supreme Court might look like four years from now under a President McCain makes the thought even worse than intolerable. And if a President McCain were to die in office . . . Well, golly gee, sometimes the good old English language just doesn't got the words to express the horror.
When the greater of two evils gets bad enough, the lesser is so much less that it really is the better choice. So I am out there working for Obama and the Democrats. I won't scold you or look down on you for taking the opposite course. But I'd like you to consider changing your mind.
No, Obama is not the kind of crusader for progressive causes that you and I would like to see lead this country. But he has a different view than you or I might have about how government works. In his years as a community organizer, he learned that you should never expect government officials to initiate change. That's not their job. This is a democracy, and they are elected to do the will of the people, to bend whichever way the political wind blows.
Obama really means it when he says, in effect: "Making change is your job. I want you to pressure me. If you put a lot of pressure on me, I'm willing to bend to your will. But the conservatives are always out there putting pressure on me from the other side. You have to create a political wind strong enough to blow the opposition away and blow your elected leaders to the left."
With Democrats in power in Congress and the White House, the doors of power will be open at least a little bit to progressives. We won't get all, or even most, of what we want. But there will be people in Washington willing to listen to our views. Some of them will be in pretty high places. And they'll know that our movement will get attention -- even in the Oval Office -- if it's massive, well-organized, and highly visible.
McCain and Palin aren't going to move an inch to the left no matter how powerful the political winds are. They'll claim that their victory gives them a mandate for right-wing intransigence. And if they win, the disappointment may take all the wind out of the progressives' sails. After eight years of fighting Bush, who will have the energy left for another four years of the same? A McCain victory might convince a lot of people, across the political board, that we are just fated (or doomed) to have Republican presidents forever.
I'm especially concerned about the huge numbers of young people supporting Obama, thousands of them working full time on his campaign and learning invaluable political skills. If he loses, most of them may be so dispirited that they'll give up on politics altogether for a long time, perhaps forever. If he wins and then doesn't produce the change they want, they may turn their energy and skills to the left, as so many did in the '60s.
And it's pretty predictable that a President Obama would not produce nearly as much change as most of his young supporters want. He has chosen to be a compromiser. He understands how much power conservatives have these days. A president who wants to get anything done must have a working relationship with those conservatives, or else they'll simply block everything.
So he has taken all sorts of moderate stands to let conservatives know that he doesn't plan to shut them out. The alternative is to stand on principle and paralyze the government, insuring there won't be any progressive change at all.
The few changes the Dems would bring may not seem very significant to you. But they could mean a great deal for those who have no voice and no power at all.
Here at home, there are millions of poor people who depend on government programs for their basic needs; Democrats will respond to some of those needs, while Republicans will ignore them and blame the poor for their own suffering. There are nearly 50 million without health insurance; Democrats are at least moving toward covering all the children and most of the adults among them. The number of unemployed grows daily; Obama's talk about giving them jobs, by rebuilding the infrastructure and creating alternative energy technology, won't all be translated into action, but some of it will.
On the other side of the world, people in Iraq are suffering daily under a U.S. occupation that Obama would significantly reduce and perhaps eventually end completely. Around the world there are government leaders eager to talk with the President of the United States, talks that Obama would have but McCain would reject. Then there are all the non-human species who are at risk every day from the Republicans' callous disregard for the environment. Democrats won't save all of them, but they will give many species a better chance to survive.
The voiceless depend on us to speak up for them -- not just on Election Day but every day after that. We have to keep pushing relentlessly to the left. We have to recognize that in politics no one wins all the time. But even a small victory on one issue can make a huge difference for a lot of people, most of them people we will never see. Yet all our pushing for victories will do little good unless Obama and the Democrats win.
240 Comments so far
Show AllAlan MacDonald
"there’s no real separation between Wall Street and Main Street" -- Barack Obama
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/establishment_messiah/
No thanks, Ira.
I'll vote for "democracy advocate" Ralph Nader --- the only presidential candidate not afraid to call the ruling-elite 'corporatist Empire' hiding behind their two-party 'Vichy' charade of a government, what it really is --- an Empire.
It is clear to me that Ira has made conservatives and even moderates into stereotypes (although I appreciate the Palin-English humor.)
Let me unpack the sterotypes one by one...
McCain would "... make the Supreme Court worse than tolerable" because Ira would like the court to legislate from the bench? I find activist judges somewhat frightening. You just don't know what they will make into law next, over the will of the people, who elect legislators to write law.
Interesting Ira feels Obama is influenced by public opinion, whether left or right leaning. I certainly don't see that in Obama's voting record in Congress. If you compare voting records, McCain is the moderate. That's why he is having trouble motivating the "conservative base," whatever that is ... see http://www.ontheissues.org and click on any issue link to examine every candidate's voting records and statements. I love the graphical nature of the site and that it is "just the facts" ... even better than "straight talk."
- I was a young person once, supporting anybody but Ronald "Ray-gun." I got through the 80's just fine. Let's not bleed our hearts out over the youth vote, please.
- Democrats are the progressives? McCain has the most progressive health care plan ever (again covered extensively in today's WSJ), and is the only one who has the will to painfully fix (which means cut) entitlements before it's too late. Obama will add a nationalized health care entitlement to this load. Second, McCain is willing to put a freeze on all government spending except the vital services of defense and SS, Medicare, Medicaid. Third, Just last night he talked about a new plan to buy mortgages and refinance them. I call that maverick-progressive. This isn't "trickle down" stuff, and the Reagan conservatives can't stand it. I could go on and on...
- "They'll (McCain-Palin) claim their victory gives them a claim for right-wing intransigence"? Talk to Joe Liberman about intransigence, please!
"Here at home, there are millions of poor people who depend on government programs for their basic needs; Democrats will respond to some of those needs, while Republicans will ignore them and blame the poor for their own suffering." 1. Ira, please define "basic needs." I had a friend once buy food for us during a really lean month (we are self employed) with her Ohio Direction Card because there was no way she could spend $200/mo on filet mignon, brie and artisan bread for herself. 2. I've never heard a Republican "blame the poor for their own suffering" unless that how he translates an appeal for personal responsibility.
"There are nearly 50 million without health insurance; Democrats are at least moving toward covering all the children and most of the adults among them." McCain voted against the mandatory child healthcare law because of the attached pork, and because it would force families to enroll for Medicaid and invite government interference and mandates into their lives. McCain's healthcare plan will cover everybody, and increase wages for some. Those employers who are covering health care premiums will pass along $2500 per person, $5000 per family if the employee takes the credit, alleviating them of premiums. Pretty radical.
"On the other side of the world, people in Iraq are suffering daily under a U.S. occupation that Obama would significantly reduce and perhaps eventually end completely." At this point, Obama, McCain and Bush Iraq "exit strategies" are almost identical thanks to the Petraeus Strategy. Afghanistan is another issue. Obama reminds me of Johnson: I'm afraid he will escalate that war and turn it in to another Vietnam.
"Around the world there are government leaders eager to talk with the President of the United States, talks that Obama would have but McCain would reject." Ahmadinijad and Kim Il Sung have been comitted to totalitarian world domination for decades. Can you imagine Churchill wanting to talk to Hitler?
"Then there are all the non-human species who are at risk every day from the Republicans' callous disregard for the environment. Democrats won't save all of them, but they will give many species a better chance to survive." ... callous?? Has this fellow ever visited the third world or China? Americans across the political spectrum are decades ahead here. My eyes don't water and sting here in the U.S. I can breathe and my clothes don't smell of burnt rice paddy or steel mill. I can drink the tap water without getting giardia. And non-humans are better off too. Look at all the deer!
I'll skip many of your points. Others will take them up. I'll choose war. Without a doubt McCain promises to remain Iraq until we "win". What does "win" mean? Does it mean when we secure lucrative oil contracts for Big Oil?
What right do we have to be in Iraq in the first place? The pre-emptive war against Iraq was not UN sanctioned and is an illegal war of aggression that was one of the reasons for the conviction of Nazis during the Nuremberg trials. Wars not only kill combatants and civilians alike for the profits of a few, but starves social programs that help people which Pugs hate. Pugs are good with massive military spending but oppose spending one red cent for people.
Both Dims and Pugs want to increase military spending. Why? We already spend more than the rest of the world combined. As bad as the Democrats are on the war the Pugs are even greater warmongers.
The majority of the American public wants an end to war. Both the Dims and Pugs are ignoring the public. They do as they see fit to enrich Big Oil and the Military Industrial Complex and ignore the will of the people.
The US needs to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible because they are the cause of the problems not the solution. The only reason we are there is to steal their oil. The Iraqi people want the US out and if you believe in democracy then the will of both the American and Iraqi people should be respected and the US should withdraw immediately.
Time to repudiate both parties of war and greed and start voting 3rd party. I would argue that Pugs are marginally worse than the Dims on almost all issues but both represent Wall Street not Main Street and both are for war and war-profiteering. A vote for either is a vote for the SAME.
Hic'Have a brew o' koolaid sez:
"Time to repudiate both parties of war and greed and start voting 3rd party. I would argue that Pugs are marginally worse than the Dims on almost all issues but both represent Wall Street not Main Street and both are for war and war-profiteering. A vote for either is a vote for the SAME."
Here in the real world:
Vote 3rd party, Get McSame.
Aren't you tired of Bush?
hey, ric abrew, you do get it. for once, you write something that makes sense. it's a good idea, and i'll apply for the job. unfortunately for you, when and if i get it, you'll be posting your meaningless dribble elsewhere. the very first requirement here would be that posters have a basic grasp of the english language. see ya, clown.
You misspelled "Abreu", lino, and have clearly failed to master even the basic rudiments of capitalization.
Don't let the window slam down on you on the way out.
Thanks brother!
Don't let the window slam down on you on the way out.
I'm cutting to the chase here with respect to those who say vote for Nader or McKinney.
What non-two-party Presidential candidate said something like, the first thing he would do if elected would be to dissolve the military, and within the week he would be assassinated?
The only "third-party" candidate with anything close to the political gravitas to survive in the White House is Kucinich, and he is not "third-party." Also, FYI, Nader more than likely has Parkinsonism, so while he does have a certain gravitas, his VP running mate is a virtual unknown (thanks to the MSM).
I suspect that in the deep psychology of America, what drives the baby-boomers is that they remember where they were when JFK, MLK, RFK et al were ASSASSINATED. I am 65. I know exactly where I was when Walter Cronkite reported the JFK assassination. I cried. And cried. And screamed.
I suspect that, with Palin crowds yelling death threats to Obama, he knows the danger. Some humans achieve a charisma that is recognized by all. They are sometimes called prophets. Their uttering goes to the Deep Structure of Human Consciousness and Conscience.
If ever there were a time when we need a real prophet it is now. The only prophet I can think of who was influential in old age was the Buddha and McCain ain't. Meanwhile, another sage has said, "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him."
If memory serves that is the title of a book.
CDers need to distinguish between idealism and realism, and, as others have argued here, recognize that building a third party really does require hard work over a long period of time, while so far any existing third party is marginal.
Hope is not a policy. It is an aspiration. We are suffocating in lies and duplicity and nearly 8 years of totally failed GOP policies. EVERYONE knows this now. EVERYONE knows that Dubya's Administration is destroying the world of Humanity.
In the theatre, a central question is WHY Nancy Pelosi said "Impeachment is off the table" (and by the way, there is a huge difference between Brit and US language about what is off the table and what is on the table, to say nothing of Robert's Rules of Order).
If you live in San Francisco, depose Pelosi. Depose any Bush Enabler. Anywhere.
-30-
"If ever there were a time when we need a real prophet it is now."
In the absence of same, who, as you note, would probably just be assassinated, let us take ourselves to great ideas. We have those right now and can act upon them. Many, many good examples will be just as good or better than a single charismatic oracle.
Oh please. You say, "Meanwhile, another sage has said, 'If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him'" The author was no sage. And the book has nothing to do with "killing". It is a metaphorical way of arriving at the point where the Buddha is no longer needed. In other words, to hell with this pseudo-Buddha you refer to as Obama. And to hell with McCain. With them we get more of the same. It's not that Nader supporters operate under the delusion that Ralph will win. It's that we operate under the recognition that one of the two party status quo corporate politicians will win and that voting for them is this same old fork in the road we can no longer traverse. So take the road less traveled and stop heading down the same decrepit path.
You are correct, a spiritually enlightened leader would never be a part of any corrupt system (system meaning an organization of man, not the broader Reality in which we all live), or even work within one for change. Why? It is impossible to make evil, good. One must start with goodness and build upon it. I just learned today that Obama is struggling to quit smoking. Why bring this up? Because it's futile to look to any individual for salvation; for that, we must find it within ourselves. Obama must face his own inner demons just like the rest of us. While he seems sincere and genuine, he is still as confused and lost as everyone else, and cannot bring us anything that is not the outcome of the corrupt, greedy, and exploitative construct, which he presently serves and believes in, albeit in a slightly modified form. Likewise, WE must transcend the conditioned 'confusion box' that we are imprisoned within--the cage of ignorance. The problem we face is that we do not know that we do not know, while believing we know. If enough people undergo an inner revolution, an outer revolution (not a violent one) will follow. Meaningful 'change' cannot be brought about the other way around, meaning from the perhiphery inward. This has been the elephant in the room that mankind has refused to face for millennia, and is why it begets essentially the same results--war, misery, and self-destruction. The mystics of all ages have tried to convey the same message, but the masses have preferred turmoil over harmony. And all because of deep misunderstanding of life and the Reality in which they live.
Okay something along the lines of Democrats have to cave in and support the Republican agenda or be assasinated. Or if you don't vote for Obama the Big Bad Wolf will get you!
Gee, I wonder why MLK didn't just sit in the back of the bus and that way he could still be alive today. Old man you make a good argument for being a coward. Nice job old man.
My heart skipped, I thought the above post was for me. Then I saw it was for RichM. I don't know if Rich is "floating above the fray" or not, but I would say just about every post I've read by him is right on the mark.
In fact the only post I've ever read I disagreed with was when he sent a Billary supporter (Rockerbabe) basically to hell. I was like, hey let her stick around, all opinions are valid (even if wrong which is a matter of opinion itself) and we can have fun with her yet.
rich m, go back and read the entire post. for once, when using quotes, try not to paraphrase and try not to take things out of context.
"don't kid yourself that you're somehow floating high above the fray here, the only guy in the house that's level-headed and thoughtful." back to you, pal. i don't have time for kidding myself. but i do make it a point to amuse myself daily by reading posts here from those who are doing exactly that.
Shirley Chisholm did not run for President. She was a candidate for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. She lost the nomination. I think you know what I meant, but some people never miss an opportunity to imply that others are less informed than themselves.
Dugali
totally agree with Ira on this one. Just check out what the Journal Nature has published on Obama and McCains SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY advisors. Or go to this youtube link which sums it up:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EMu6hxngvDI
The funny thing is, that my Republican friends agree with McCains choice because they argue that these advisors are networked well enough to get the right scientists for the job???
It is called the "KY Factor"
We are screwed either way; Republicans screw us dry, Democrats use KY.
Received similar email from commondreams about rehabing Obama before the elections and my position, outlined in an email to the editors here, was that we need to expose Obama's policies, especially his foreign policy, on as wide a scale as possible and have him take a new position.
The following article, "Obama - America's "Second Chance" or is its last", is intended to do that; the article can be found at
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/09/24/p28984
The article was submitted to commondreams long before that email they sent out, and resubmitted after the email (twice) and they have failed to bring to you a very important analysis.
Regards,
Maher Osseiran
maher@mydemocracy.net
___ This is a cluster F⊃ck of
___ Tyrannosaurus train WreX
Namaste
Characterizing oneself as a "leftie" does not make it so. Our actions determine our values not our sentiments.
LEAKED! Questions that got banned from last night's town hall "debate"...
"Senator McCain, regarding our hostages in Guantanamo, in your opinion does their experience being tortured by us for the last five years qualify them to be presidents of their respective countries?"
More banned questions at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuQDTjx-ygM
"Imagining what the Supreme Court might look like four years from now under a President McCain makes the thought even worse than intolerable. And if a President McCain were to die in office . . . "
It would make Palin's "End Days" look like "Happy Days"
"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
It finally good to see a piece on this site where a writer actually acknowledges the fact that the USA is a first-past-the-post, winner take all system (which, by its' very nature, favors two parties to the detriment of others). It is even better that the writer urges readers to take into account the vote total as it relates to that relic which must be abolished, the Electoral College, in their particular state. This was the calculus I used in 2000 to vote for Nader, as I was and still am in California, hoping my small contribution would help Nader reach the 5% threshold. That did not happen and history has moved on. Unfortunately, Nader is now a relic fading into obscurity and irrelevance.
Far too many denizens of this site, by virtue of their postings, seem to be ignorant of the mechanics of the American voting system. Furthermore, they seem to think that the USA has a European style parliamentary apportionment system, where votes up to a certain number (either 5% or 10%) means they will be included in the legislature. That is simply not so no matter the vehemence of their postings on this site.
If Professor Chernus really respected the decision to avoid voting for either flawed candidate he would not be wasting his breath on this rather vapid article whose only aim is to demonstrate his actual disrespect. And if Obama really wanted to change things in a way that would reform a system designed to help only the successful and privileged, he wouldn't need pressure to do so, nor would he be so susceptible to pressure from the right. Voting against principle for a man without principles is a foolish course of action.
what sheer nonsense.
take this: "Obama really means it when he says, in effect: "Making change is your job. I want you to pressure me. If you put a lot of pressure on me, I'm willing to bend to your will. But the conservatives are always out there putting pressure on me from the other side. You have to create a political wind strong enough to blow the opposition away and blow your elected leaders to the left."
now if there ever was a paragraph more idiotic, i can't think of one lately in another article. the fact is he NEVER said such a thing and why in the world would he? it's all about the MONEY. his bread is buttered by the elite. what a crock of an excuse to use the so-called "power" of the republicans, as if the dimwits that have control of congress since 2006 are cowed into submission again and again. so we can't expect change from him b/c it's our damn job? what about doing what is fair, balanced, and progressive? what about all that pressure on him to NOT SUPPORT the freaking bailout? hello? i couldn't even leave a damn message to his campaign headquarters because his lines were inundated.... heck i'm sure he received even more emails. what does it take short of a riot? a riot around the country? the fact is, politicians are supposed to be responsive to their constituents and they should have a say in what or what does not get put on the agenda and get taken seriously. they are not supposed to get short shrift b/c the candidate would rather support and do the bidding of his elite wall street cohorts instead and bail out the rich greedy pigs. he flat out didn't care.
Sorry, but it's time to face facts.
Nader doesn't want to be President. He just wants attention. If he were serious about getting elected, he would have built a campaign between 2004 and now and we would be hearing from him. The people supporting him would be pouring money into his campaign. He may have some good ideas and I have nothing against him, but presidential he's not. He lacks the motivation to pursue it seriously.
Now you have 3 choices. YOu can not vote, in which case you better keep your pie hole shut for the next 4 years. You can vote for McCain/Palin and God help us all. You can vote for Obama and least start moving in the right direction (left).
have you ever heard of a media blackout? i guess you pay too much attention to the corporate media who would never give him his due and still nader is having a hard enough time getting coverage in an ELECTION year. give me a break will you. why don't you do a bit of homework instead of assuming he didn't do a thing to build a campaign. did you try and help for example and have good insider info? he's not with the greens anymore b/c of some issues that i agree with.
the motivation part is where you got me. it's so totally laughable i don't know what to say. visit www.votenader.org and click "issues" and you might know that he was motivated enough to put up specific categories of where he and the other candidates differ and also his agenda regarding many issues. he's the only candidate that will campaign in all 50 states and spends his time and energy trying to talk some sense until he's blue in the face to close-minded DPAs that seem to never stop blaming him for this or that... he has made countless speeches, participated in dozens of rallies and protests, and still makes no apologies b/c he believes in the good fight and refuses to back down.
Nader has some extremely good ideas--not all that difficult to do. Just about everybody knows the 2 parties are way too dependent on big $$$, etc, etc. Still, he makes a lot of sense and he brings out valuable ideas.
But he's a fairly weird, deeply authoritarian, egotistical gadfly who's about as presidential as McCain might be a good ballet dancer. Putting up ideas and talking points and explaning how he differs from other candidates is like breathing for most of us. It's called bleating; some of us don't have a clue and out bleating isn't worth a s**t, others like him make a certain amount of sense. Bleating is not what is required.
It's called ORGANIZING. Did you notice what Obama did. An unbelievably sophisticated, detailed, brilliant organizing campaign that organized and energized millions of young people. It's incredibly difficult, time-consuming, exhausting thing to do. It requires lots of people skills (that you have to develop--no courses or short cuts for that), you have to be able to trust, delegate, and resolve the inevitable human conflict issues that come up.
Nader for all his good work and ideas, is a crappy, authoritarian, insensitive person. He'll never get anywhere as a politician; that's just not his thing. Meaning, he'll never be able to build a solid network so that a time can come when running a presidential candidate would make sense.
Now, he's just an egotistical gadfly who can only put McCain/Palin/Rove in the White house by skimming off progressive votes from Obama.
I doubt if you have a single clue about what ORGANIZING really means.
.Please, stop holding back, let it all out you will feel so much better afterwards...I do not know Ralph Nader personally, nor do you I suspect. Yet you make so many judgemental calls about his personality, his motivation and his supposed flaws as to make me wonder at your perception of your own ability to judge.
I support Ralph Nader's candidacy becaue of his positions as outlined by his speeches, his platform, his writings and his career of supporting the American consumer. I leave the psychological assessments to others.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Thankyou Ira Chernus for giving the lefties a reality check.
of course, tee weck, you come to mind.
perhaps cd should change its subhead of "breaking news & views for the progressive community." there are SO MANY of you on here now without even the slightest progressive viewpoint to express. more and more we find here on cd sheer hate, illiteracy, shrill whining, and vitriol.
the complexities of the political game is as foreign to most all of us as is the possibility of a comfortable retirement for any of us. those of you who watched or listened to last night's "debate" are well aware of the fact that mccain's handlers did a poor job of controlling his pent up anger. they took him to the opposite end of the spectrum. so condescending was he in his speech effort, so out of his natural comfort zone of said anger that he nearly blew a fuse just by attempting to be a good guy. pathetic. then we have obama. here is a man who - while many of you here hate him for his, ah, shall we say color - at least thinks before he opens his mouth. some of you should take his momentary pauses in his speech pattern and instill them into your own writings. think before you speak.
of course, there is another possibility. once every four years the perennial-loser-election-altering nader raises is selfish little head.
mr. chernus expressed a pov, not enticing or exciting in style. only a suggestion that we all think about the dire situation we're all in. obviously for some of you, that will be challenging.
Hey! I got it! Put lino in charge of filtering out the posts that aren't "progressive" and from those that are. The ones that don't meet lino's standards because they aren't pro-Obama, and hence not "progressive" can be deleted or sent to a Republican website for publishing. Now that would be a really dumb idea wouldn't it lino.
See my 11:59AM response to quark.
You're the one who should "think before you speak." Don't kid yourself that you're somehow floating high above the fray here, the only guy in the house that's level-headed & thoughtful.
Your comments show low political consciousness -- a typical Dem Party Apologist. You accuse Obama critics here of "hating Obama because of his color." This accusation is idiotic & beneath contempt. Obama is criticized here because his policies stink. He's a sellout to Wall St & a proponent of US militarism. It has nothing to do with his color.
Then you pull out the canard of calling Nader "selfish." That's an ad-hominem slander, at the same level as whispering that Obama is "secretly a Muslim." (You'd doubtless be able to perceive what's wrong with this kind of filthy ad hominem if McCain did it.) If you have some specific criticism of Nader's stand on issues, enumerate them. If you can't do that, you have nothing to say.
You don't have a clue about the meaning of ad hominem. It means getting personal with the person with whom you're debating, instead of sticking to the topic being debated. If you think Obama is low scum, and you're debating with me, calling him that is not ad hominem--it's your opinion of him and as extreme as it is, if what we're debating is Obama's readiness to be president, you're opinion of him has absolutely nothing to do with ad hominem--getting personal with me, the person with whom you're debating. But if I attack you personally by telling you that the reason you don't like Obama is that you're racist, that's ad hominem debating--getting personal instead of sticking to the topic.
If I was to tell you in a debate that you drop words like 'canard' and 'ad hominem' because you're simple-minded and insecure about it, and you hope that dropping fancy-sounding and pretentious words will fool people in thinking you have a f****g clue about what you're bleating about, now that would be ad hominem debating.
But I would never do that...never. That would be ad hominem debating. And certainly not up to your exalted standards of discourse...I believe that's how you described what you do in these posts.
Speaking of having a clue:
______________________________________________
ad ho·mi·nem /æd ˈhɒmənəm‑ˌnɛm, ɑd-/ [ad hom-uh-nuhm‑nem, ahd-] –adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
It occurs to me that the relational dynamic of progressives, like Professor Chernus, who support the Democratic party is parallel to an abusive, personal relationship. The type of thinking that I hear from these individuals sounds like someone in an unhealthy relationship. For example:
1. "With Democrats in power in Congress and the White House, the doors of power will be open at least a little bit to progressives. We won't get all, or even most, of what we want. But..."
Sounds similar to, 'I know he doesn't treat me well , but I don't think that I can do better.'
2. "No, Obama is not the kind of crusader for progressive causes that you and I would like to see lead this country."
Again, sounds like, 'She's not really what I'm looking for, but I don't think that I can find anyone else.'
3. "You have to create a political wind strong enough to blow the opposition away and blow your elected leaders to the left."
This, one of my favorites, sounds like, "She's not what I want her to be, now, but I am going to CHANGE her!"
Progressive Dems, you deserve better, and you can have it! If our system legitimately allowed for more than 2 parties to participate in politics, then you could vote for a candidate/party that actually represented your views. And, the way to get to that kind of diverse system is to vote 3rd party, now.
In politics, and in my personal life, I will choose NO relationship over an abusive one, any day.
I am gr8ful for this insightful comment.
Thank you.
For the person who wants to vote for Obama because he's black and you don't wan't to lose face with the Grandkids- vote McKinney then you can say you voted for the first black woman running for president !!!
Here's my take on things, and I'm still totally undecided.
In some ways I hope McCain wins, because it's going to take things getting much worse before people realize real change needs to occur. The American public will stand by while millions of foreigners are slaughtered by our intervention, but will only get thoroughly riled up when their precious money is at stake - evidenced by the recent awakening of the American public on the bailout situation. I'm
disgusted ! But anyway.....
Then I sort of hope Obama wins, because if McCain wins, it will be 4 more years of- "the Democrats would have made it all better" (with no evidence of course), thus prolonging the agony yet again.
In the end the public will get the president they deserve, so I don't see much choice then but to vote my conscience. I'd like to try and manipulate the outcome, but it's bigger than all of us, we have let it become that way. I'm not blaming- it's a lesson learned, never trust the magicians they're always trying to get you to watch the right hand while the left hand does the dirty work. As GW would say "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
I'm not getting fooled again.
Clearly history is not something every one here has studied, but please, try to do your homework before making unsubstantiated statements like "vote McKinney then you can say you voted for the first black woman running for president !!!" Shirley Chisholm was the first black woman to run for President.
As the ignorance of so many is displayed here. Most American's have no common sense! They will cut off their own noses to spite their own face! Then whine and bellyache they have a nut job like Bush!!!! If Nader ever got to be President you would find he is the same as the other two candidates! So grow up! Be my guest throw your vote away on the loser Nader!
"...he is the same as the other two candidates"
Right there you prove what an ignorant person you are. It's people like you who work against positive change in this world, and against real freedom and democracy.
"...throw your vote away..."
The only way to throw your vote away is to not use it. If you say that my throwing my vote away NOT voting for EVIL, but instead voting for someone that I know is GOOD, then you have no concept of what civic freedom means, and how it's meant to be used.
I suggest you go do a little more learning about what it means to be free in a Democratic society, because it is apparent that you either don't know what it means, or just don't believe in it.
Count me in and lets keep the pressure on for him to talk before shooting. Enemies like Chavez? Let's see Hugo sends cheap fuel oil to the poor in this country, the Saudis send 15 men with box cutters.
I finally understand why the Common Dreams editors decided to hide the comments by default. The vile nature of much of the comments really takes away from the substance of the articles presented here. I'll keep them hidden, mostly.
If Nader had built a movement after 2004 I might respect him more, but at this point he reminds me of McSame: using the unrealistic 3rd party approach that has failed twice before without giving a damn about the political realities.
I can only assume that Naderites are personally sufficiently insulated from all the shit that's going to hit the fan under another Republican administration - shit that won't happen under Obama.
Reminds me of "Better dead than Red". Better keep our ideological purity, even though we enable policies that have the opposite effect of what we're striving for. No matter, onward purist soldier!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Let's elect Obama and support Progressive Democrats of America http://pdamerica.org to convince him that progressive policies make sense and resonate with people's ultimate desire for peace, sustainability, and responsible economics.
I finally understand why the Common Dreams editors decided to hide the comments by default.
________________________________________
It's hardly a mystery, quark; Editor Craig Brown, like yourself, thinks "progressive" means supporting Democratic candidates, especially presidential candidates, and subscribing to the classic liberal belief system which presumes that the Amerikan political process is essentially sound and functional, and that progressive change is accomplished by constant citizen "pressure" on lesser-evil, aka Democratic, candidates and politicians.
Like the moderate liberals of old, presumably Brown hews to a standard of lily-livered civility and subdued, courteous, pleasant, positive, "constructive" discourse. Overweening passion, justifiable cynicism, and especially Uncouth language is viewed as "hate speech"-- or "vile", as you would have it.
Judging by commenters in recent months who have either earnestly begged-- or viciously commanded-- we interlopers who take a more rigorous and radical view of progressivism to Get Lost, I gather that there was a time when only polite, right-thinking moderate progressive commenters turned up here for choir practice. And I infer that it was deference to the howls of protest from the soft-skinned that prompted the simpatico editors to launch the Great Comments Reformation.
I can certainly understand that those who found solace and inspiration in a milieu worthy of a badminton court would be appalled and horrified at the proliferation of commenters who heartily believe that if you're NOT angry, you're not paying attention. And that it's productive, if not constructive, to express passionate views.
Incidentally, notice that those who affect to deplore what they perceive as negativity or nihilism do not scruple to resort to rancorous insults and gratuitous attributions of madness and badness when taking issue with putative "haters" and "purists". Go figure. Who is more of a purist than the embattled and frustrated Proud Impurist in high dudgeon?
So, to return to my original point, it's not very difficult to work out why Craig Brown would prefer to lock us in the basement. The savings in smelling salts alone makes it a smart move.
Since in all likelihood you'll keep this reply hidden, mostly, I won't trouble either of us by responding further to the familiar reductionistic, primitive, and clichéd argument dismissing us "vile" commenters as Purists. It might result in the creation of a second sub-basement of comments.
'Progressive Democrats'?? Ha ha ha ha! That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Progressive Democrats. heh heh, that was a really good one. Like 'Military intelligence'. lol
Honestly T _ W E C K,
My comment above had nothing to do with you, it's just a weird coincidence -- that I must have subliminally seen your screen name, and embellished upon it, for my posting this afternoon.
It's pretty funny nonetheless ( enliven October 8th, 2008 1:01 pm ).
Namaste
Yee Haw! Another "progressive" Democrat telling people how they should vote. See below (TIA) for a logical well-reasoned argument against Obama. Keep reading for my less-than-intellectual summation of Obama: BO is a Corporate Tool of the Worst Kind. He professes change, yet serves his corporate masters at every turn.
quark you write:
"Let's elect Obama and support Progressive Democrats of America...to convince him that progressive policies make sense and resonate with people's ultimate desire for peace, sustainability, and responsible economics."
Uh...yeah right. What political cartoon have you been watching? Doesn't work that way my naive deluded comrade. Good luck convincing Obama of anything once he is "elected" Supreme Commander.
I think Chernus is sincere in this essay, but he is completely wrong about how progressive opponents of Obama think. Chernus is also wrong about how the political process works and has worked in the past.
Chernus' errors are quite common among loyal Dems. Here they are:
1. The Supreme Court canard. Democratic President Clinton nominated conservative Supreme Court justices. There are no liberals on the Court. During Bush's presidency, Democrats in the Senate approved, with scarcely an objection, the right-wing scoundrels that we have now, with their "unitary executive" theories going largely uncontested. This "win the Supreme Court" argument by Chernus and others would be meaningful if you could demonstrate that Democrats have made a difference on the Court, which they haven't.
2. The "I need to be pushed" idea. This argument is entirely wrong. You can't push an elected representative. You can only threaten to not support them during an election - that's the only leverage we the people have under this system. To see that this is true, all you have to do is open your eyes to the Wall Street bailout. About 60 percent of Democrats supported the bailout despite pressure from their constituents (i.e., voters) not to do so. Obama has already proved that the push strategy doesn't work. He voted for the FISA bill despite promising not to do so. He let the telecom companies get away with violating our Fourth Amendment rights - a very important statement about upholding the Constitution, which Obama refused to do.
3. The need to compromise and the "Republicans are too strong" argument. Actually, Republicans never compromise. They resist, which is a very fine model for an effective party. Ever since the Democrats took power in Congress, we've seen no progressive measures from them. We've actually seen a lot of awful legislation passed that might have been championed by Republicans during the Democrats' two-year Congressional reign. It's near complete capitulation by the Dems.
4. The poor, health insurance and the wars. Obama led the Wall Street bailout. He's also said he'll not be able to do the social spending he promised because of the bailout. I don't see how that helps the poor. Obama's healthcare insurance proposal is just an insurance industry plan, and so there's no gain there, no change from the status quo. On the wars, Obama supported them by voting to fund them year after year. He plans to attack Afghanistan and bomb Pakistan. He plans to be ruled by U.S. generals on the ground in Iraq, with no time table for withdrawal (same policy as McCain). No matter how much these facts are explained, loyalist Dems are unable to see it. I don't know why they don't get it. Obama's been very clear on continuing the so-called global war on terrorism, which he plans to escalate.
Chernus is a faith-based Democrat. Obama's platform is nearly identical to McCain's - at least on most of the important matters. Loyalist Dems typically can't see this, no matter how many times the facts are explained.
Also, a common trait of loyalist Dems is to fixate on an ideal politics that has no historical precedent. A typical blindspot, for instance, is how they remember the Clinton presidency. While Clinton rhetorically sounded like a liberal Democrat, his policies were right wing. Clinton passed some of the most regressive measures ever, including cutting people from welfare. Welfare once was a long-time principle of support in the Democratic Party, but no more. Clinton passed NAFTA, the trade policy that surrender's U.S. laws to private commercial interests. Protection against corporate concentration of power once was a Democratic Party principle, but no more. Clinton's environmental policy didn't exist. Clinton's Iraq embargo killed about 500,000 Iraqi children, according to the Red Cross.
I only bring up Clinton's reign because Obama is a politician very much like him, with near identical "hope" rhetoric. However, Obama's hero isn't Clinton. Obama has instead professed his admiration for Ronald Reagan.
-TIA
Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. So-called progressive Democrats are living in a fantasy world.
TIA kicks ass again!
Whew ! Who knew the Naderites hate Obama more than McCain ! Its sinister and disturbing but that sems to be the gist of these posts. Why is that ?? Do Naderites actually buy into McCain's supposed maverick image or is it because they are sooo disappointed with the Democratic Party that they chosen to hate it. Its been established repeatedly with incessant pounding that the Republicans and Democarts are the same. Good. We know that now. So why the Obama bashing ? Do you really care which one of them is better ? They are the 'same' by your atmospheric standards and only Nader can reach above the clouds. So why such vitriol against Obama ? Since this is a supposed 'Progressive' forum im assuming there arent any racists so that reason is out. Do you really think Obama is more violent than McCain ?
On most issues ive found CD posts to be spot on right and so much more evolved than the general riff-raff. Its a truly Progressive forum for the most part. but i cannot fathom this distaste for Obama. Is it because he isnt the Messiah 'we' made him out to be ?? Ignore my late night rant ....
The point is that "progressives" by-and-large are fooled into thinking that the Democrats are actually BETTER than the Republicans. They wear rose-colored glasses about this guy who pretends to be a progressive, and pretends to be a champion of change. And people come around here fawning over Obama all the time, so obviously there's going to be more discussion about Obama.
Well, after reading the professor's article, my mind is not changed. I am still voting for a 3rd party candidate because I believe doing so will help move our society towards real democracy. I find it insane that the entire political discussion in our country is narrowed down into 2 (similar) points of view i.e. Republican and Democrat. I believe that as more people vote 3rd party, over time, the political arena will expand to include more voices thus democratic.
If I did not have a 3rd party candidate to vote for, I would not vote. As a matter of principle, I will not support a candidate who is going to promote using my tax dollars to kill others in war, as well as a host of other policies that I disagree with.
"And it's pretty predictable that a President Obama would not produce nearly as much change as most of his young supporters want. He has chosen to be a compromiser. He understands how much power conservatives have these days. A president who wants to get anything done must have a working relationship with those conservatives, or else they'll simply block everything."
So in other words, more of the Nancy Pelosi DPA style "change"....whoopee. More Patriot Acts, more spying/wiretapping, more war, more deregulation, more bailouts, and on, and on, and on (see Chris Hedges piece from yesterday for the full record).
Some "change." I didn't see the word "compromise" in the definition of "change" when I looked it up in Webster's.
Oh, usrcjp, but we have been told that the Great Noam would disapprove of you if you did! Shame on you! How dare you disagree with Jesus!
"Oh, usrcjp, but we have been told that the Great Noam would disapprove of you if you did! Shame on you! How dare you disagree with Jesus!"
Man alive do I wish for a Second Coming if only so that Jesus could kick the elites asses all over the whole damn nation.
I could imagine him walking onto the set of The 700 Club and throttling Pat Robertson.
"You give me a bad name."
Then old Pat goes flyin' through a wall.
Call me crazy. I don't care.
Thanks Mr. Chernus. I was torn between voting for Obama and Nader but you have convinced me with your persuasive arguments.
Can't wait to pull the lever for Ralph.
What a thoroughly stupid and predictable article coming from a typical, cynical and morally bankrupt DPA. What crap! What an easy decision.
I understand and respect your choice.
-no, really?
This year is very different, because in my state the Obama...
-okay, very predictable, the tone changes...
Imagining what the Supreme Court might look like four years
-this is a typical red herring because Dims always break ranks and support right wing justices like Roberts
When the greater of two evils gets bad enough, the lesser is so much less that it really is the better choice...
-wrong! when the lesser gets bad enough that is when you go 3rd
years as a community organizer...
-boy the DPAs sure have gotten a lot of mileage out of that one haven't they?
Making change is your job.
-Obama: Bailing out Wall St. and supporting war is mine!
With Democrats in power in Congress and the White House, the doors of power will be open at least a little bit to progressives...
-yeah sure, can we have your word on that one?
McCain and Palin aren't going to move an inch to the left...
-pure lesser-evilism
After eight years of fighting Bush...
-yeah right! More like after eight years of giving Bush even more than he ever dreamed possible including retroactive immunity for his crimes and the tabling of impeachment.
If he loses, most of them may be so dispirited...
-what a stupid comment. Never mind that Dims allowed Bush to trample the Constitution. Worry about dispirited Dimwits!
He has chosen to be a compromiser...
-read capitulator
The few changes the Dems would bring may not seem very significant to you.
-duh
part 2
There is no longer room for letting our candidates swing powerlessly back and forth in the wind(par.7). The powers the executive branch already has, and mostly exercises in the interests of huge corporations, are enough for a tyrannical government to take our country and rule it at any time, without regard to even the façade of democracy. Climate change will decimate, possibly destroy civilization within our lifetimes if we don’t take all possible actions to stop it immediately. There is no time left for the 100 million or more people in the world who will be made homeless by rising sea levels in just a few years if we don’t drastically change our way of life. Hundreds of millions are already suffering and dying, and that will get worse because for now we have the military power and the willingness to use it to enforce our will.
To continue eating a wasteful diet of meat and luxuries that consumes land, water and energy far beyond what is needed is morally reprehensible and practically impossible; to continue to rely on cars, trucks and planes in the face of much more efficient and equitable choices is just as bad. Everything we do is equally impractical, as well as reprehensible.
The military is an enormous waste of needed resources, and our way of life is our way of war, because all we do is war. Our agriculture and our industry are each a war on Nature; our economic and justice systems are a war on the poor and increasingly the middle class and the Earth itself; our transport is a war on the air and our own lungs and heart and legs; our governance is a war on citizens which we cannot afford any longer to leave in the hands of those who are enemies to us and our planet.
The ecological, economic, political, physical and emotional health and other systems we depend on for our lives cannot be left in the hands of someone we merely impotently hope will do us right, absent any evidence whatsoever. We cannot afford any longer to project our desires onto intentionally ambiguous blank-slate candidates; we must find and lift people who actually believe what we believe, want what we want and will do what we know is the only way forward out of the darkness of the last few and next few years.
J4zonian
Very well said. Great comment, J4zonian.
It is a difficult decision, and I understand those who see a vote for Obama in a swing state as a practical necessity. I also think they are wrong, and I think it is unfortunate the political situation has been so exploited by the right, and we have been so susceptible to trauma-induced paralysis that we are afraid to ask for or work for what we want, or for what we need.
McCain and Palin would move to the left. In fact they already have, trying desperately to distance themselves from their own corrupt far right policies. (par.9) Of course they’re doing it by lying and flip-flopping and probably have no intention of doing anything differently, but if the whole country moves to the left, where its true desires pull it, neocons will have to change or be left on the fringe with neo Nazis and other tiny hate groups. Exactly how far left we go depends on what arguments are insistently proposed and what values, images and stories are kept before the public, so having actual liberals running for office who have the heart and brains and voice to get those ideas across to the public is crucial. Right now only a tiny sliver of even the Democratic party is making those arguments or framing issues productively. It’s made harder by our corporate, right wing media, but easier because most people in the US already agree, deeply and forever, with most of the left’s positions. We need someone who can and does articulate our values and visions and not fall victim to Rovian attacks, distractions and deceptions. The victories of Democrats are now made easier, not harder, by parties and candidates on the left who articulate a true ecological, economic, peace and freedom platform.
We don’t have simply a case of one evil being so bad; we have a case where one evil has pulled the “opposition” so far over to its side Darth Vader’s dialogue is what comes to mind. And that’s happened because our political system is a psychological system, like a family, with its own ways of operating. Those ways are logical and consistent, but they’re not obvious without time and effort spent reading about, learning about, talking about and understanding them.
We have 3 crises right now: global climate catastrophe, loss of rights and the power corporations have over our lives. They are so intimately entwined we cannot possibly solve one without making substantial progress on all.
We can hope the Democrats suddenly reverse decades of rightward drift and begin to take action, or we can take action ourselves and let the Democrats either come along or be left behind with the Republicans, who will be pulled left as well as we better make our own case and not theirs for them. For decades we have been able to let the political pendulum swing back and forth and hope. Compromise has been unpleasant, and unfortunate, but all we could get. (Or so the argument goes.)
See part 2 following
"Obama really means it when he says, in effect: "Making change is your job. I want you to pressure me. If you put a lot of pressure on me, I'm willing to bend to your will. But the conservatives are always out there putting pressure on me from the other side. You have to create a political wind strong enough to blow the opposition away and blow your elected leaders to the left."
Oh stop it... yer killing me.
Okay Obama baby... I take the challenge: justify your FISA vote and reverse it in the first hundred days. Promise the absolute and uncompromised return of Habeus Corpus in the first hundred days. Promise to close Guantanamo in the first 30 days. Outline the specific steps you guarantee to take to permanently reverse the failed Freidmanism and how you plan to influence your fellow democrats to do the same in the first hundred days. Promise to reduce the time and money spent in the next presidential election campaign by at least half and promise to spend that money to help replenish and re-invent our ailing public schools and mental health systems (in the first hundred days). Decline the next donations you receive from the same people that sponsored your vote for the bailout bill that forbade you to match the money you gave to the errant and broke banks with money to absolve and re-finance mortgages, lost 401ks we were forced to invest in or have no retirement funds at all. Promise to engage in constructive dialogue with Iran immediately. Do all this, dear Obama, and I might reconsider my decision not to vote in your two party party.
(Moeseager... is that you? The last thing I heard is that you were in France! I saw you in the distance at Shakespeare and company in the nineties but thought it was a dream... I was too timid to approach... I hope you are well my brother)
Obama had my vote - a long time ago. Change? Things HAVE changed: more than anything: he himself.
Let's teach these Dumbocrats a lesson: let's make them disappear. This country is bad enough with ONE hypocrite rich man's religious 'party': we certainly do not need two.
And, how can I possibly vote for a candidate who wants to continue our little dirty Nazi wars?
I'll vote for my DOG sooner than that.
Anyway I'm 'safely' in Texas where the outcome is already dee-sahded.
Ira, the actions of the Democrats belie your belief that they will change things, they will not. Democrats are addicted to money and will support anyone who gives them their next fix.
There is no good answer here, only bad choices. I have discounted both candidates and parties and I'm preparing for the worst. The Democrats just gave seven hundred billion to the rich. The rich already own 90 percent of the wealth. America is too far gone to be rescued by the likes of Obama.
Only someone in denial would place their trust in Dim's or Repug's. Do you have your wood cut, your extra food supplies and water, your outdoor cooking utensils,
your extra blankets, medicines, and silver and gold coins? Do you have your solar radio and supply of candles? Do you have your gun to resist the bank cops when they come to take your home? Have you set aside some pet food for your cats and dogs? Do you have first aid supplies? Do you even have enough matches?
Sorry Ira, I'm depending on me, not Washington.
Oh yeah, the majority of the public wants free universal single payer healthcare. Obama just wants to make it more affordable. So does he really have his ear to the ground when it comes to the rank and file?
thegreatrockyhill October 7th, 2008 9:53 pm
"Oh yeah, the majority of the public wants free universal single payer healthcare. Obama just wants to make it more affordable. So does he really have his ear to the ground when it comes to the rank and file?"
Of course not. In fact he wants to force parents to buy health insurance for their children whether they can afford it or not. Sorry son we can't eat tonight because we had to buy your health insurance or Obama will fine us for not doing so.
Lobo Gris
"Making change is your job. I want you to pressure me. If you put a lot of pressure on me, I'm willing to bend to your will. But the conservatives are always out there putting pressure on me from the other side. You have to create a political wind strong enough to blow the opposition away and blow your elected leaders to the left."
Why the hell can't Obama do the right thing without having to be told? Does he have no conscience? The solutions are right there and are not that complicated, at least not for the most part. Obama is a smart man. He knows better.
Yes, the people need to get up and shout, but in reality, we really shouldn't have to. They are there to serve our best interests, not to go any which way the wind blows.
I'm sorry, but the above statement is a cop out. If that's the way Obama feels, then he's telling me that he doesn't have to take responsibility for the decisions he makes and the ramifications that follow.
I'm still voting Nader. Sorry. Nice try though Mr. Chernus.
I'd say how (or whether) you vote depends on what you want. "Progressive" and "leftie" are pretty vague. For me, the two biggest problems that the world faces are (1) the combination of corporate capitalism and US imperialism and (2) growing religious fundamentalism (Christian, Muslim, Hindu). I think that a vote for Obama would strengthen US imperialism because he knows better how to avoid offending European elites than a Bush clone like McCain does. On the other hand, McCain might strengthen US fundamentalist Christians. I'm not voting for either of them.
So has anyone thought of the possibility that Obama is just saying this shit because it's what he thinks he needs to say to get elected and he doesn't mean it, or am I too naive and hopeful?
.Of all the arguments this one is the most specious, sorry to say. Do you vote for someone who says things with which you disagree because you just know that he really doesnt mean them? Do you then believe that he will reverse himself when elected? What about his concern for reelection? So , in order to really understand where Obama stands you will have to await his second term in office...Is this any way to run a nation? Goodness no.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Ya think? Really? Nah. Couldn't be.
http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/
OPEN THE DEBATES:
Here's what you can do:
Write a letter to the editor about how important it is for Cynthia and Rosa to participate in the debates. See the Talking Points below for ideas. Keep the letter short and focused -- five or six sentences is good. We're aiming for 100 letters sent by Greens to newspapers and news web sites all across the US. Visit the letter-writing page to look up a newspaper and post a letter -- use the provided text as a basis, or write your own:
http://www.democracyinaction.com/dia/organizationsCOM/Greens/pickMedia.jsp?letter_KEY=474
Go viral! Forward links to video clips of the Green ticket widely (http://www.youtube.com/user/RunCynthiaRun).
Recommend and promote video clips and articles with positive coverage of Green candidates by 'Digging' them (http://digg.com/).
Promote the McKinney-Clemente Power to the People campaign on Facebook, Myspace, and blogs. Don't forget to add links to these important web sites:
http://votetruth08.com/
http://www.rosaclemente.com/
http://www.gp.org/
State and local Green Party and other Green campaign sites
Host a Debate-Watching House Party:
http://www.democracyinaction.com/dia/
organizationsCOM/Greens/event/distributedEventSignup.jsp?distributed_event_KEY=179
Contact TV, radio, blog sites, and urge them to cover the campaign. We'll provide a list soon of the top 50 that should be targeted, with their contact information.
Other actions: write an op-ed column or article and submit it to a newspaper or news web site. Post a message on an e-mail bulletin board. Call in to a radio talk show.
Make a donation to the McKinney-Clemente campaign to help the candidates travel around the US for media appearances and campaign events:
http://votetruth08.com/index.php/contribute/donate?task=pre_paypal
..
Professor Chernus,
I want to believe you, but I can not. What you are having is wishful thinking.
What Obama said and his voting record including his latest shameful votes
on FISA and the Bail-out bills contradicts every word you have said.
Obama and McCains are both war-mongers and are beholden to big business/Finance.
Obama got more campaign contributions from Wall Street than what McCain got.!!
Every one should vote his true choice and not the lesser of two evils, otherwise
the situation will stay same-ole-same into the foreseeable future without any
possibility or probability of CHANGE.
If the Greens are on the ballot in my state, I will vote for them. I prefer them
because they have the organization for a vialble third party.
Nader is a good guy but he has no organization in place. He just pop up every
four years and then vanishes again.
Yes, McCain might win, but with preseverence and as more people wise up, eventually a progressive third party will succeed. It is a difficult, hard and
long road but has to be travelled if there will be any hope of REAL CHANGE.
Moe Seager
PARALYSIS of ANALYSIS. You're on the side line of history pleading for company. Fear driven - not balanced as you say. So, you had a brief period with third party work and retired after one season. Sir, there's no instant gratification, no quick fix solutions to reclaiming a democratic republic from the grips of the Democratic-Republican- Corporate Management cabal. Mr. Chernus comes on board to aid Commondreams editor to plead with millions of us to stay the course: vote Obama, the Democratic party, again!! Because again the Republican candidate, McCain, is a bigger evil than the sell out Obama and the Dems.Sir, you sound the same type of apologist as we heard from Kerry-Dems four years ago. are sell outs. Again the dems are sell outs. Selling out the energized youth and non-white campaigners mislead to believe that this presidential ticket and reformed party would finally work for "Change We Can Believe In". How will you explain to millions of these activists that the future is rigged against their having any meaningful impact upon the crises? What, they should hold protest rallies against the man and the party that seduced them, recruited them and betrayed them?!The dems convention, excluding and marginalizing activists not in line with moderate reforms, not in line with Obama's absence of policy details on health care, sustainable energy, touting war perpetuation in Iraq, Afghanistan and now threatening to military adventurism in Pakistan!! Don't you guys read and listen to the prevailing world wide revulsions against U.S. wars in these countries? Have you guys forgotten Obama and his fellow dems were elected on a mandate to end the wars? And he shows every sign of continuing the wars. Surely you know that Obama's biggest single bloc donors are Wall Street interests bent on profiteering even now that Obama voted to bail them out of unethical and criminal financial conspiracies. Hey, I think your wing of the oligarchy will win. Then you can apologize month after month for his administration's and Congess' do little - do nothing next four years. See you in 2012 and 2016 - alarmed and warning us again to chose the lesser of 2 evils. Again, again, again. See you on the side lines of history.
Obama just voted to tax us all 2300 dollars with the pro corporate bail out.
thanks, Barack
On this basis alone he deserves no support.
And how many times do progressives need to shoot themselves in the head with their support of neo liberals, whether it be Carter in 76 and 80, Clinton in 92 and 96, Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.
Everyone of these men sold us out on every core issue of our politico-economy.
It will happen again under Obama.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
"Here at home, there are millions of poor people who depend on government programs for their basic needs; Democrats will respond to some of those needs"
Ira, the people do not need the Demoks to feed them fish. Rather, the people need the Demoks, and the elites whom Demoks serve, to get the hell out of the way so the people can feed themselves. Dependence on far-flung power centers is exactly the problem. We progressives have a clear solution: LOCALISM. Local independence.
We have a two-party system, as flawed as it is, and taken over by corporate interests. Professor Chernus, thus has a view not based on electoral system denial, but on electoral system understanding—in swing states, he says, vote for Obama.
I'm not in a swing state, so I don't need to even think about voting for the corporate, militarist Obama. But I totally respect the argument Chernus makes. In fact, a vote for Obama in a swing state CAN BE a vote for your conscience, with no illusions about who Obama is and what policies he represents. Here's how.
Imagine you went to bed on election night before the final result was determined. Imagine you wake up in the morning and go to the radio/TV/computer/paper to get the result. Which one of the two, Obama or McCain would you feel better about winning? Which one of the two would you feel worse about winning? THAT is the choice. What is your feeling? Does any progressive here actually imagine you will feel better about McCain winning than Obama winning?
In the long term, the solution to this dilemma is easy to understand (but challenging to do). We need to create a true multi-party democracy without the undue influence of private money. That means proportional representation in the House and Senate, a runoff system for presidential elections based on the nationwide popular vote, debates open to anyone on the ballot, public financing of campaigns for anyone on the ballot, and much more. After this election, after we elect whomever, that is one of the things we need to do: fix the system.
Earthian October 7th, 2008 6:48 pm
"In the long term, the solution to this dilemma is easy to understand (but challenging to do). We need to create a true multi-party democracy without the undue influence of private money. That means proportional representation in the House and Senate, a runoff system for presidential elections based on the nationwide popular vote, debates open to anyone on the ballot, public financing of campaigns for anyone on the ballot, and much more. After this election, after we elect whomever, that is one of the things we need to do: fix the system."
I'm sure you've heard the term "You can't get there from here" As long as people continue to vote for one or the other of the duopoly in power there will be no change. They both like the system just as it is. After all, it works for them, they share the power and although they know they will swap it back and forth they also know that one or the other will hold the presidency and the houses of congress. The only change that will ever happen is if a third party/independent gets a high enough percentage of the vote to actually threaten their hold on power, or god forbid if someone outside the duopoly were to actually get elected. That is why it is important to vote third party/independent wherever you live. If you live in a swing state so be it. If the duopoly really wanted your vote maybe they should have adopted some of the issues that were important to you instead of demanding it because they are less evil than the other guy. In other words they want your vote for free without having to do anything for it. What a sweet deal for them that is if you give it to them.
Want real change? Vote third party/independent, and not just because you're in a safe state that won't threaten one side or the other of the duopoly.
Lobo Gris
I could care less about whether the pro-war, pro-corporation, pro-bailout Obama candidate wins or whether the pro-war, pro-corporations, pro-bailout McCain wins. That's just a question of what puppet or frontman you want on TV representing the same interests.
And, if you were paying attention last week, it was the Republicans that were more likely to revolt against Wall St and corporate power. The Democrats are so submissive to corporate power and have moved so far to the right, that it may very well be true that we are better off with more Republicans in office. And while Obama has only shown his willingness to suck-up to corporate power and money, McCain has actually occaisionally shown some independence.
Note also this is typical Dem. There's an assertion that Obama is better than McCain, but nothing to support that. Because there isn't much to say in support about it. Why do you think the Dems keep wanting to talk about Gov. Palin? Its because they have almost no issues to run on against McCain because Obama and the Democrats have pretty much adopted the Repubilcan issues. From bailouts to wars to sending out jobs overseas to spying on Americans, the Democrats are essentially identical to the Republicans.
And, if you elect Democrats, how on earth do you plan to try to 'fix the system'? The Democrats are a block to fixing the system. The Democrats work hard to destroy the Green Party and any other independent party. The Democrats work hard to keep any competition off the ballots. And there's not a snowball's chance in hades of the Democrats supporting proportional representation or instant runoff voting.
If you want those sorts of changes, don't vote Democrat.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
No. We have a ONE party system. The Hydra Corporate Party (with two heads).
How about The Janus Corporate Party? One Creature, one Head, but one adorned with two Faces, apparently in opposition?
Why not spell it, "J'anus Corporate Party"?
Classes it up a little bit, dontcha think?
funny.
Nice one, _ L I T T L E _ B R O T H E R
the double double about face
__ ( front & back, from Greek history ), and now
__ let's add the top / bottom matching GIGO orifaces
Namaste
""Obama really means it when he says, in effect: "Making change is your job. I want you to pressure me. If you put a lot of pressure on me, I'm willing to bend to your will."
Kiss my ---
There were millions of emails against this bailout and in support of another measure to help regular folks with mortgages and small businesses. There were petitions with thousands of signatures.
Thanks Obama ya really bent to the voice of the people.
It seems most Democrats, or at least Ira, doesn't need to think about what Obama votes for and what he votes against.