Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhy I’m Voting for Obama
Okay, I was going to vote for Ralph Nader this November 4.
It was an easy decision. I live in Pennsylvania, which is now, according to all the polls, reliably in the Obama column, with the Democratic candidate holding an insurmountable lead in the polls of 14 percent over Republican John McCain-enough to overcome even the most devious Republican vote suppression techniques and voting machine chicanery.
I was going to vote for Nader because I find Obama to be a seriously flawed candidate. He ran early on an anti-Iraq War platform, saying not that invading Iraq was wrong legally and morally, but that it was "the wrong war." Since then, he has backed away even from saying he wanted the war ended, opting for a 16-month withdrawal timetable that would have the killing and dying in that sad land going on longer than most wars this nation has fought. He has also called for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, despite clear evidence that more troops just will make the situation there worse, and has called for an expansion of the US military budget, to increase the size of the Army and Marines, which will only encourage more warmongering, more killing and more waste of precious resources.
Obama also sold us all out by going along with a bill sought by President Bush granting immunity to telecom companies that aided and abetted the illegal and unconstitutional spying on Americans by the National Security Agency-spying that we now know is massive almost beyond our imagination, even including the monitoring of private family conversations of American service personnel in Iraq, of journalists, and almost certainly of Bush administration political "enemies." By backing that obscene bill, Obama has made it almost impossible for victims of this police-state surveillance campaign to sue and find out what the Bush/Cheney administration has been up to all these years.
In so many ways, Obama has tacked to the middle or even the right, while spouting soaring but empty rhetoric about "change."
Meanwhile, everything Ralph Nader says makes perfect sense. He has consistently called the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the crimes that they are. He has consistently called for a nationalized health care system, which every other modern nation has long since proven to be a more cost-effective and health-effective way to run a medical system than the failed free-market approach advocated by Obama and the rest of the Establishment political system. He has correctly denounced the economic bailout as welfare for the rich and for the corporate criminals who have been sucking the life out of the US economy for years.
And yet, I think I have to vote of Obama this year.
The reason is partly because I know I would vote for Obama if I lived in Ohio or Indiana, where the race between McCain and Obama is too close to call, and so, to vote for Nader when it is simply safe to do so here in Pennsylvania is really a cop-out.
But even more important, when I see the hate-filled racists and right-wing yahoos braying at McCain and Palin rallies, when I hear people calling for Obama to be killed or lynched, and when I see the rabid hate mail circulating in email inboxes falsely labeling him as a secret Muslim, a terrorist, a Marxist and a black nationalist, I want to see the man resoundingly win this election.
But it's more than that. I also, perhaps against all logic and experience, admit that I expect something good of an Obama presidency.
Call me naïve, but based upon my own life experience, I keep thinking that a guy who has worked as a community organizer, a Harvard Law School grad (and even law journal editor!) who could have named his price at a Wall Street law firm, but who chose instead to be a political and community activist, a guy who has relatives who live in humble surroundings in Kenya, and who spent some of his childhood actually living in a Third World Asian nation, not to mention a guy who has surely felt the sting of being called a nigger, has to bring something new to the White House. Certainly no other president in the history of the country has come to the office with such a background.
Sure Obama is no leftist candidate. But if he were, he wouldn't be heading for an election victory. He wouldn't even be the Democratic nominee. He'd be, at best, where Dennis Kucinich is-holding a seat in Congress where his every progressive effort would be stymied or mocked by the House leadership.
The unfortunate reality is that the true left in the US is a joke (many of its purists even mock successful left candidates political figures like Kucinich, for god's sake!). Fractured and fractious small groupings have little or no link to the organized labor movement-traditionally the bedrock of any successful left political power. And the labor movement itself is as weak as it has ever been and keeps growing weaker. The left in the US, such as it is, has even less connection with the broad mass of the American public, thanks to years of successful propaganda linking it to Stalin, Mao and Soviet Communism.
I have no illusions about the progressivity of the Democratic Party. Certainly it has its progressive elected officials who have made it into office-people like Kucinich, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Russ Feingold, Rep. Maxine Waters and the like. But clearly, the Democratic Party has shown itself to be in thrall to the moneyed interests on Wall Street and in the corporate suites.
That said, there are important things that could happen-and I stress the word could, not would-if this election were to be won by Obama and by Democrats in the Congress. One of these things is that there will be new Supreme Court justices named over the next four years. Some will inevitably replace some of the aging "liberals" on the bench (some of whom have not always been so liberal on economic issues). Some could also replace current conservative justices (Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, both obese men, don't look terribly healthy to me, Justice Kennedy is getting on in years, and even Chief Justice Roberts, while looking hale, has a problem with epilepsy or some other ailment that has caused him to collapse in a frothing fit of unconscious on occasion).
Also important is legislation to make it less of an obstacle course for workers to win union representation and labor contracts on the job. A major reason that unions have shrunk from over 30 percent of the workforce in the 1950s to just 9 percent of the private workforce (and 13 percent of all workplaces, public and private) today, is that labor law has been whittled away and turned to management's advantage to such an extent that it is almost impossible now to win a union election. Employers who break labor laws suffer no penalty even when found guilty, and workers who are unfairly fired for union activity can hope, at best, if they are lucky, to win reinstatement and back pay after fighting for years. Most just give up.
If a Democratic Congress passed new labor legislation and a President Obama signed them into law, as he has promised to do, and if new pro-labor officials were appointed to the national, regional and local labor relations boards that adjudicate labor issues, we could see a genuine revival of the labor movement in America with consequences for workers' lives, and for the political system that would be far reaching and profound-and that could even pave the way for a resurgence of a left/labor political movement.
Finally, with respect to war and militarism, I tend not to take Obama's warmongering seriously. Given the man's background, I am confident that he is not a militarist by nature. It may be politically opportunistic for him to try during this campaign to out-tough McCain on Afghanistan while calling for a wind-down of the war in Iraq, but it would be a disaster for him to pursue a wider war in Afghanistan after taking office, ensuring that his presidency, like Bush's, Lyndon Johnson's and Richard Nixon's before him, would be dragged down by an endless bloody conflict.
A President Obama will have his hands full trying to deal with an unprecedented financial fiasco, and will want the wars off his plate as quickly as possible. Maybe I'm being a Pollyanna, but I simply can't see a smart guy-and Obama is a smart guy-getting dragged into another quagmire.
Besides, I have a darker vision, which is that the crisis of global warming, so long denied by the Bush administration, is going to make itself felt soon in ways that will be impossible to ignore, and which will demand a crisis response. Obama, I believe, will be the right person at the right time, to lead that response.
And that brings me to the final reason I am voting for Obama. As crazy as John McCain clearly is, with his default setting on war as a solution for all problems, this sickly and possibly terminally ill old man has chosen to have a certifiable right-wing, closed-minded, bigoted and stunningly ignorant religious zealot as his back-up. Sarah Palin, as vice president, would in all probability end up becoming president during a McCain first term.
This country and the world simply cannot risk having as the leader of America an end-of-times believer at this critical moment. It's not just the polar bears and the wolves in Alaska who would suffer under a Palin presidency. It would be all life on earth.
200 Comments so far
Show AllYou have made it clear in your article that you would rather have Ralph Nader as president than Barck Obama, yet you plan to cast your vote for Obama in what is now an "Obama safe state." Obama: A man who is the presidential candidate of the party which has fought to sabatoge and blackout Nader's campaign every election. A man who shares virtually none of Nader's stands on issues, and has refused to even meet with the man over the last 2 years. A man who you claimed in this same article, is a sell-out and a fabricator. And why? Well, according to this, because you want to make racists and biggots in this country angry, because you fear a McCain presidency, and because you hope that Obama does not follow through on certain proposals he has made (and DOES follow through on things he has not claimed to he will do).
You say that you are voting for Obama because it would be a "cop-out" not to do so. You justify this by saying you would vote for Obama in a swing state, for worry that McCain might win. That is exactly what defines a cop-out: Compromising your principles and caving into fear by doing what is easier. The fact that you now plan to do this in a non-swing state, where your vote does not help or hurt Obama and you can vote "guilt free" (as some would say) for who you believe is the best choice for president, makes it even more of a cop-out.
This article promotes exacty what is wrong with the political world today. It shows how one party can scare us into voting for them, or anger us into voting for another, even when we don't like the name by the lever. This is exactly what they will do until we start supporting someone else.
Do not call for real change in something unless you are prepared to follow through with some of your own.
I believe David Lindorf has written an amazingly absurd article. He makes a good case for Obama being a sellout and concludes by endorsing him. Chomski did the same thing except he explained it better on the video and said to vote Obama only in swing states.
Call me naïve, but based upon my own life experience, I keep thinking that a guy who has worked as a community organizer, a Harvard Law School grad (and even law journal editor!)...
-okay you are naive
Obama was a community organizer for a scant time, I believe it was from June 1985 to May 1988. By late 1988 he entered Harvard Law School He sure does get a lot of mileage out of those three little years doesn't he?
Sure Obama is no leftist candidate. BUT...
-this is pure DPA-ism, Dave basically says that to defeat the enemy one must become the enemy. In other words, the best way to defend yourself from Republican attacks is by becoming one. Ends justifies the means.
But clearly, the Democratic Party has shown itself to be in thrall to the moneyed interests on Wall Street
-right David, but that's okay, vote for them anyway
Finally, with respect to war and militarism, I tend not to take Obama's warmongering seriously.
-well if he doesn't really mean what he says than he is a fraud. Right Dave?
And that brings me to the final reason I am voting for Obama.
-lesser-evilism, gee I wonder why this doesn't come as a surprise.
Dave Lindorff says:
I was going to vote for Nader because I find Obama to be a seriously flawed candidate. … In so many ways, Obama has tacked to the middle or even the right, while spouting soaring but empty rhetoric about "change."
Sounds observant.
Dave Lindorff says:
Meanwhile, everything Ralph Nader says makes perfect sense.
Solution seems obvious.
Then Dave Lindorff says:
Because Obama is expected to win, to vote for Nader when it is simply safe to do so here in Pennsylvania is really a cop-out.
Wow! Candidate A is no good, but is expected to win for whatever reason other than the issues. Candidate B would be a good choice based on the issues. So Dave concludes that voting for B is a cop-out????
I have said many times at this site that it is my personal belief that most Americans are obsessed with voting for the winner, which of course can destroy any democracy by turning it into a mindless popularity contest between corrupt and evil but electable parties. Dave Lindorff demonstrates this phenomenon by writing an article describing his flawed logic for the purpose, I assume, of convincing others to do the same.
With a population using this kind of logic, I consider it impossible for America to elect an honest and competent government. Poor America.
What a dumb article, we start out with this:
"Obama... a seriously flawed candidate..... which will only encourage more warmongering, more killing and more waste of precious resources."
"Obama also sold us all out "
And ends with this:
"I expect"
"I keep thinking"
"things that could happen"
"If..."
"It may be..."
"I simply can't see.."
"Obama, I believe..."
"Sarah Palin, as vice president, would in all probability..."
That's all Obama voters have left. I'm done with hoping, wishing and thinking...
I can understand a progressive voting for Obama if one is in a swing state, to prevent a McSame presidency. But I don't understand voting for a candidate like Obama when one's own state is already sewn up by Obama. Then, voting for Obama is the ultimate capitulation to the corporate duopoly. I don't see how it is a "cop out," as Dave calls it. It seems it is a cop out to vote for a candidate who is so compromised, so UN-progressive. Because in the final analysis, what is recorded is an affirmation for a candidate, not all of one's considerations about the candidate. Morally, I can excuse voting for the lesser-of-two-evils ONLY when one is compelled to do so because otherwise McSame -- clearly a more dangerous man -- might win. But if I vote for McSame without such an imperative, I am freely voting for him, and not for another, more deserving, and truly progressive candidate like Cynthia McKinney. In either case, voting in a swing state or not, I must then share in the responsibility for the imperial policies he enacts when he becomes president (assuming the oligarchs allow Obama to win). But that responsibility in my mind is greater when I have freely voted for Obama, living in a state where he doesn't need my vote. So it seems Lindorff has succumbed to a cynical sort of pragmatism wherein voting ceases to be an act of conscience and becomes instead a sort of pathetic hope for relevance.
wc652 October 18th, 2008 10:38 am, good point. Obviously, the progressive message has failed to sell, either due to a 'failure to communicate,' the media ignoring our candidates, or the messenger, or all three; from FDR's VP and 1948 Progressive Party nominee Henry A. Wallace to George McGovern to Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, the progressive populist antiwar message seems to lose very time. (Of course, this could also be the result of vote tampering, but I won't go there.)
In the meantime, 'soft' progressive Barack Obama is our best hope for a shift away from Reagan-Bush neoconnery this year.
Henry A. Wallace bio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace
"The Ghost of Vice President Wallace Warns: 'It Can Happen Here'"
by Thom Hartmann, Common Dreams, July 19, 2004.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0719-15.htm
RSJ,
Thanks for the links.
Henry Wallace contributed immensely to FDR's New Deal,
and it was a shame that FDR dropped him from the VP spot in the 1944 election.
Why? A question that lingers in history.
wc652 October 18th, 2008 10:28 pm, you're welcome and I read somewhere years ago that Truman, when he was a US senator, had become a thorn in FDR's side, so FDR brought HST into the tent to shut him up. Imagine this country if Wallace had become president after FDR's death -- perhaps there would have been no CIA and no Pentagon Cold War build-up -- there might not have been a Cold War at all.
Harry Truman did some good things, but even he admitted at the end of his life that among his mistakes were establishing the CIA and letting the brass hats at the Pentagon lead him around by the nose to get more money.
I don't have a link handy for this, but I read that the Cold War was one of the greatest con jobs ever perpetrated on the America public -- when the KGB files were opened after the fall of the USSR, it revealed that there were no plans to actually invade and occupy the US, or start a war with the West. The Soviets were hard-pressed to keep up with America and Europe, and Stalin and his successors were paranoid that the US might get some enormous technological advantage -- along the lines of another atomic bomb -- that would force them to either surrender or be destroyed, so they spent most of the nation's wealth on military hardware and spying to find out what we had in the works. The CIA and Pentagon both knew we were ahead of the Russians, that they had no serious plans for invasion or pre-emptive war, and that the amount to counter their intelligence operations and conduct our own would have been a fraction of what we spent during the 40s through the 80s, but continued to promote the scary 'Red Menace' to Congress and the White House to expand their power and the profits of the Military-Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned us about. We are seeing the same tactics today regarding the so-called 'War on Terror.'
Dave,
Thanks!
Like Ira Chernus' statement today, an excellent commentary!
Also provoking much enthusiasm, with 185 posts.
So many posts, for whatever reasons, are determined to revive the candidacy of George McGovern, the truest progressive populist who has run for president in my lifetime.
As I've written before, I revere G McG, and I voted for him in 1972.
But he lost 49 states!
Shall we also run Obama's campaign into the ground?!
If you vote for Obama, you may well run every progressive populist issue into the ground. THINK before you vote. Nader '08.
"The reason is partly because I know I would vote for Obama if I lived in Ohio or Indiana, where the race between McCain and Obama is too close to call, and so, to vote for Nader when it is simply safe to do so here in Pennsylvania is really a cop-out."
What the hell?
I agree with most of Lindorff's reasons. I, too, will vote for Obama, and I'll make sure everyone I know goes out and votes, too. The reason is not my expectations of Obama, but my fear that somehow, someway the Republicans will fix the vote. I fear the purging of voter rolls and the domination of the paperless voting machines pre-programmed to give a narrow Republican majority. I am certain that nothing less than a 20+ point margin of victory is required to pull in a 1%age point win. Fool me once (2000), fool me twice (2004). In 2006, I contend, the margin of victory was in the 60% Dem to 40% Rep range in fact, but counted out as a narrow 51% to 49%. They've had two years to improve their methodology -- don't count your chickens (or your votes) until the Diebold machines have had their say.
Always liked Lindorff's writings, probably will yet again. And we share the same alma mater (Wesleyan). But this drivel? This type of weakness and complicity? He's totally and completely undermining his own better judgment, just as Obama has on nearly every issue. And the part about Obama being mocked were he the same on the issues as Kucinich? BULLSHIT. Handsome, commanding presences like Obama (or Edwards) could deliver Kucinich-esque platforms in a manner that would demand attention. Sadly Dennis gets dismissed in part for his physical stature, etc. If Obama is as good as people say he is, he could say just about anything and people would love him. Right now he says a whole lot of crock-of-shit nothing and the world adores him. Imagine if he actually expressed the views of the majority of Americans, like NADER does.
Looks like Dave drank the Kool-Aid and is abandoning all elements of objectivity and principle. He's going to play the naive, "hopeful" card now. Maybe he should keep his integrity intact and vote Nader with the expectation to push Obama once he's in office. He can't even do that in a dead-certain blue state. Did his manhood fall off?
I should note that I did read the article to at least give Lindorff's argument a chance. As a fellow Pennsylvania voter, this is all the more galling.
Generally, truly, sadly, ultimately pathetic.
why do so many people feel the need to get personally insulting with lindorff over what most of us think is a temporary lapse of judgment? a couple weeks ago, during the short-lived congressional rebellion against the bailout, his posts were a clarion call for continued activism. i guess the recent cromag outbursts from some of the mcCain/pallin supporters freaked him. he's one of the few writers at CD that will interact with commenters. argue with him...don't insult him.
Capitulation among the opposition is what LED TO BUSH IN THE FIRST PLACE. The "commie" rag PWW is probably endorsing the democrats again as well. Lots of mean talk from hard-hitting "progressives" over the years, but when push comes to shove they hand us the Democratic rope and tell us to hang ourselves with it.
If I didn't have Nader or the Greens on the ballot, I'd probably not bother to vote. And I'm encouraging EVERYONE to vote third party -- left/right, up/down, fascist/libertarian, theocratic/humanistic. Whatever your preference -- don't vote for a corporate candidate because we're ALL getting the bad end of the stick.
I worked on Nader's campaign in 1996 as I also worked to establish the D.C. Green Party. I spent the next 8 years helping to build the Green Party. I've served as the Chair of the Steering Committee for the D.C. Statehood Green Party and the Humboldt Green Party. But I will vote for Obama this year.
First off, as far as I am concerned Nader will kill the Green Party. I supported his campaign in '96 because he ran as a Green even though he was not registered as a Green. I can relate to the reason Nader gave at a talk recently as to why he is not on the Green Party ticket and that is due to all of the infighting. This is the problem I have found on the left. It is impossible to get anything done because one or two people can disrupt the process. But by running against the Greens Nader will effectively kill the party. If he was not running people on the left would vote for McKinney. Nader also mentioned recently that he does not want any position except for being president which is why he will not run for Senate or Congress. If he really wanted to create change he could by running for an election he could win.
My decision to vote for Obama was swayed by reading his book Dreams from My Father. I know he does not stand with me on many issues, but I also feel that he is a person who can bridge divides. It may be the lesser of two evils, but McCain/Palin are horrific in my eyes. They cater to the two lowest common denominators of fear and hatred and I believe they will make the world a much worse place. I spoke to a friend recently who never votes. She considers herself a Republican because her parents were John Birchers. She told me that Obama is a Muslim and mistreats women. This is the campaign McCain/Palin are running. This is what we will get if McCain/Palin are elected.
I believe the future of the world will be better with Obama in office rather than McCain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
David said:
"And that brings me to the final reason I am voting for Obama. As crazy as John McCain clearly is, with his default setting on war as a solution for all problems, this sickly and possibly terminally ill old man has chosen to have a certifiable right-wing, closed-minded, bigoted and stunningly ignorant religious zealot as his back-up. Sarah Palin, as vice president, would in all probability end up becoming president during a McCain first term.
This country and the world simply cannot risk having as the leader of America an end-of-times believer at this critical moment. It's not just the polar bears and the wolves in Alaska who would suffer under a Palin presidency. It would be all life on earth. "
I applaud you for this comment. I agree whole heartedly. Thank you so very much.
Light Eyes
I disagree. The country needs either real change, someone who's got enough courage to PROSECUTE the former Bush administration, or it needs more of the same. It DESERVES more of the same. If things get worse, much worse, maybe people will finally wake up. Evidently, times are still pretty damned good -- people sure as hell aren't asking for much.
I would vote for a candidate who I think would PROSECUTE the Bush administration, and I consider any candidate who's likely to sweep them under the rug once they leave office to be a satellite member of the same junta.
No one is ‘Right’ because no one is “Left” to truly stand up to the power and corruption that engulfs everything and practically everyone. And those who did; were promptly assassinated.
So what if Obama supported this or did not support that. If he were truly LEFT, he would be RIGHT with Nader…in a corner where no one can really hears anything he has to say. The Democratic Party would have abandoned Obama just like they did Sharpton in the 2004 primaries. He would have been mocked and the general public would have accepted it.
If anyone truly wants to change politics, they would have to “play along”…undercover to infiltrate and THEN bring them down. The question is, will OBAMA be the ONE to do so? However, it doesn’t really matter.
A politician can be no better than his constituency; and with that said, the average American citizen is no better than GWB. WE VOTE EVERY DAY WITH OUR SUPPORT to this capitalistic system that was created for the rich...by rich. And then we have the nerve to condemn the politicians we put in charge; the corrupt corporations we support as consumers; and the wars we finance as taxpayers. But God forbid if we speak a word against the patriotic soldier who “actually” makes the decision to go and kill...for oil.
Each complainer could refuse to work, refuse to shop, and then participate in civil disobedience; thus sacrificing themselves and their families. But that would be foolish, unproductive, and anti-American...RIGHT?
Like Obama said, change STARTS from the bottom up...and that START goes far beyond a vote every four years and daily opinions on a message board.
I'm voting for Obama because I can't bear more neocon rule, watching Republican idiots, racists, warmongers, superstitious women slavers, anti-science, book burning, creationists, jingoists, criminals, murderers, thieves, nazis, liberal bashers, 45 new nuke plant proposing cancer causers, etc. and etc. spout their lies on the media, so I'm voting for change.
I would rather vote for Nader and Kucinich but since the sheeple won't elect them, voting for them would help the McCain/Palin troglodytes get in, with their finger on the nuclear button and the rapture a touch away.
Obama is smart and cool and looking better all the time.
skidog
Well said,sir.I too will be voting for Obama.Living in Colorado,I'll be urging others to do the same.Our first priority is taking down the Repubs,which obviously is a daunting task,even after the Bush reign-of -error.
Lindroff,
I did not read your article but I surmise you are voting for Obama because you are a unprincipled, idiotic, democratic shill.
I bow down to your keen insight and massive intellect, sir. Of course you are right in your unstated thesis that actual reading is often a waste of one's precious time. For those of you like yourself, who already intuitively know and understand everything, one can only hope that the great teeming masses out there will see the light and begin moving away from fact-based ideas and toward a surmise-based reality where we all know the truth all the time.
And what are you doing for your country?
I am in total agreement with the author.
I too have recently come to the sad realization that once again I must vote the "lesser of two evils".
Many here must realize we do not live in a democracy; even the republic we once lived in is now, one part oligarchy, one part plutocracy, and one part despotism.
I wonder often just what third party proponents think their candidate could do if they did get elected. Hell, a president from the major parties can't do anything in the interest of the people even if they wanted to.
Corporate America governs this country. Until it is so utterly destroyed through the eventual spiraling down caused by the greed, exploitation, and corruption that is unsustainable, consuming everything in it's path, the suffering and misery of the common people on a global scale will go unabated.
The current economic "crisis" is only window dressing for what is coming. You see the powers that be scurrying around trying to keep up appearances in pretense that things will continue as before with them as the masters of the economic universe and the rest of us as slaves. The party is over folks and what we need to do now is focus on how to turn the suffering and misery of the masses into a ground swell of our own that will spare nothing of the old order. It is our only hope.
Most of the in fighting between those on the left that this article refers to as a joke comes from those that do not understand building consensus. Nor will they be of any use when the opportunity for change presents itself. If you want to challenge what we all see as wrong, change the hearts and minds of the people; they are the problem and always have been. Government is not something that is done to us, it is something we have simply failed to take responsibility for.
g
Dave Lindorff is going to vote to continue our system of limiting our selection of any elected official to a choice between just two candidates---and these are often referred to as 'Twiddle De Dumb and Twiddley De Dumber' or 'the lesser of two evils'. A vote for Nader or McKinney or Barr, or any other candidate, is a vote to open up our political system to more choices and the offering of more ideas on how our government should or could act. No, Dave is happy with this seriously flawed system and his vote will allow it to continue.
It is true that no one but the two corporate funded candidates will win this time, but a sizable vote for the non corporate candidates will hopefully open the door of possibility for the future. That is why I am voting for Ralph Nader. Not only is he the best candidate based on his platform and history, this may be the start of having candidates concerned with the working people of this nation on the ballot. If the massive bail out of the bankers didn't show you who our government is beholden to, maybe the lack of any support for real quality health care for all of us should. Be smarter than Dave. Don't vote corporate. But don't be too scared. Obama will win. You can vote on the issues not the personalities of the corporate duo.
I agree completely with your response to the 'liberal intelligentsia' Dave Lindorff. Liberals always complain that their is no choice in the elections so they cave in and vote for the lesser of two evils. We have two of the greatest choices we will ever have in Nader and McKinney yet liberals will not even support people that represent their own interests. They think they are voting strategically. The reasoning goes I will not vote for the third party candidate or independent because other people will not so they don't have a chance. In otherwards they are not voting their wishes but are voting on how they perceive other people will vote. How could the 2 party system ever change with that kind of reasoning? It is much better to not vote than two vote for either of these two corrupted parties. If you vote for them you are complicit in their war crimes and their attack on civil liberties and the constitution. How do you expect any good progressive candidates to come forward and run if you are not going to support them? Do you think the democrats and republicans are going to put forward instant runoff voting or proportional representation? They are doing just the opposite, they take every opportunity to keep third parties off the ballots and rig the debates.
"How could the 2 party system ever change with that kind of reasoning?"
It has changed! It has shifted to the right, and so it will continue. This is the logical consequence of "triangulation" with a partner that moves continuously rightward. It also follows from an opposition (sic) party that fight third parties with a gusto that their bipartisan buddies will never face.
Democratic partisans analyze this situation and conclude that more of the same is the only permissible response. Thus we arrive at an insane political moment in which Nelson Rockefeller would be too far left for today's Democrats.
"Nurse, tell the patient to continue hitting his head on the pavement until he heals."
moonpie writes:
"This was kinda funny for a while. It was kinda sad for a while, now it's just getting really ...creepy. You people are starting to remind me of Jehovah's Witnesses."
-----
Amen. Vote for Nader.
Nanoo
Looks like another sell out now, for this author. When are the people going to wake the fuck up? Just how would you feel if they passed a new law saying we are only going to have the two parties, you know the ones, from now on? Think that's far fetched? Hell, I didn't think they would pass laws like the patriot act, military comm. act, fisa spying, ect. Hell, I didn't think that our military would actually allow planes to crash into buildings, even the pentagon. Like they don't have radar and have never heard of high jacking. Perhaps they don't think they'll need a law about restricting 3rd parties, since they have been so marginalized. There's the old saying I think applies here, Use It or Lose It. Haven't we lost too much already? Why I'm voting for Nader.
I buy Mr Lindorff’s argument and strongly wish for Obama’s success, even though personally I cannot vote. Notice how the author said,” And yet, I think I have to vote of [sic] Obama this year.” His qualifying words “this year” leaves me to believe that he agrees with my argument as follow:
We know that both McCaine and Obama are in the service of corporations, although one of them apparently less so.
We also know that Obama has changed his stand on some of his popular positions, and that he just might actually change more for the worse if elected, although the article argues that he may not, based on his background and education.
For the sake of argument, let’s now assume that once Obama is elected he turns out to be even worse than Bush or McCaine, or worse yet, he’s bumped off and the party hack Joe Biden takes the helm. Who are we then going to vote for in the-after-Obama term? Back the the Republicans again?
What I’m really trying to say is that the system as a whole sucks. The system is so stacked against the people as to always give them a choice only between bad and worse.
Yes, the system has also given you the choice of voting for a third party candidate who is for sure as likely to be a president as I am.
People must replace the system to make it democratic. Otherwise, we will always have to choose between Obamas and McCaines, as we’ve done so for decades.
So, when Mr Lindorff said "this year", maybe he was hoping that the system would have changed for the next time around.Aman
Yes, Obama is probably the best we can get, yet probably not that good. He's kind of like a Bill Clinton in a black man's body. Given that, almost thirty years ago the US started to change drastically. Very little of the spirit and hope of the pre 80's years remains. We were so selfish and self absorbed that we had to get rid of Carter and his calls to live within our means in order to have Reagan - who would let us have it all. And all we did get - the corruption, the wars, the deaths, the lies, the destruction of regulation, the outsourcing - the gutting of our country...and the people went along with it...electing over and over the worst leaders. The US is a backwards place with things like the death penalty and the largest prison population in the world. Engaged in wars and troops stationed in countries around the world - 737 foreign basis. Now we kidnap, torture and engage in wars where we were not even attacked. Our government wiretaps us..nothing happens. We are really at low point. Maybe Obama is the best we can hope for given how backwards things have become.
Minor correction: Senator Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat (I wish he were, but I suppose it really isn't all that important).
Just a few words:
It pains me to see liberals going at each other in this way. I'm planning to vote for Obama and my wife is planning to vote for Nader. Our politics are identical in terms of philosophy and policy. Our difference is a strategic one. I believe that it is still possible to take control of the Democratic Party and make it answer to us. My wife does not. Neither of us have absolute conviction in our beliefs and we both concede that the other may be right. We also have both spent many quiet moments alone arguing with the ghost of Eugene Debs.
My wife and I get along just fine and not just because we have lots of sex. We really respect each other.
There are so many smart progressives here. All are worthy of respect. We're all in this together.
A intelligent and insightful comment here. People have lost the respect needed for dialogue. Most of the comments you see in forums across the internet, here being no exception, reflect rule of the mob mentality; he who shouts loudest rules or at least he thinks he does. Generally it is the quiet contemplative ones that are worth listening to but cannot be heard above the din of the crowd.
I wonder how many even know of Eugene Debs or the hundreds of stalwart individuals who have fought for dignity and justice, that have gone before us with little chance for success but sacrificed themselves just the same. My respects to you swampus.
g
This was kinda funny for a while. It was kinda sad for a while, now it's just getting really ...creepy. You people are starting to remind me of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Compromising has got the US to where it is today, politically. Every compromise is another nail in the coffin of our system of government and our way of life.
i am very disheartened by such an article. i don't know whether to laugh or to cry at this justification to vote for obama. i would no more vote for mccain/palin just to help make a woman a VP for the first time in the states, then i would to vote for obama just because he's half black and to help elect the first tanned skinned man to the presidency. i guess his voting record and empty rhetoric are merely things to brush aside as less important. that is the reason the left is dead...because of DPAs who don't want to build a movement but continually support corporate pro-wall street thugs who should be prosecuted.
ironically reading such articles like this makes my conviction to support 3rd parties like nader/gonzalez all the more intense and secure.
I'm voting for Obama and live in the "Battle Ground" state of CO. I find much truth in what DL says. I empathize with the great hatred for Democrats voiced by so many here. They have been a disappointment lately. To say they are the same as the republicans is simply wrong. At some point, one has to stop screaming with rage and jumping up and down and tend to ones wounds. The scars may remain, but a great deal of healing is possible.
First, I'm with David on this one. I applaud his decision to vote for Obama and exactly because of the reasons he stated.
Thank you, David.
I'm hoping other lefties will wake up and make the same choice.
The argument about Obama "representing all black people" is not the point.
Who stood behind the podium and was silent while the audience called for Obama life? McCain. McCain was willing to let hate rule his campaign.
And, Palin" She has been whipping up derision and sneering at Obama since day one. She has no hesitation to use the most hate-filled, disrespectful and bigoted approach to get her crowds cheering.
It's horrifying to watch as people are encouraged to call for Obamas head. To actually see her reveling- smiling!!- over people chanting to assisinate him.
THIS is the "leadership" that we risk having in the White House, not just as VP, but, YES, as PRESIDENT!!!
We have sunk SO low, it's truly unbelievable.
And frightening.
And to the person who posted here that "Obama has no perspective worth having" I'm incredulous!!
Here's Obama- who understands what racism is about, not just because of his own experiences (which we must appreciate, have surely included epithets of the worst & most racist kind), but that he understands poverty and racism because of his organizing work in Chicago (a U.S. city with a large percentage of African Americans).
I really don't understand how any progressive person could not see that this is a distinction worth fighting for, worth VOTING for.
For once, let progressives stand with people of color- who are justifiably proud that Obama has come this far. Sure, there's Condaleeza and Clarence, so what. Obama is not them.
I'm voting Obama and will argue that he find a place for Nader in his cabinet- we COULD have the best of both worlds.
As I mentioned in another post, Obama has refused to even MEET with Nader over the last 2 years. He wants nothing to do with him, and dismisses any questions made to him about Nader. You want to vote for Obama, fine. He's your choice for president. But don't try to pretend that we can have the "best of both worlds."
Also, I am not interested in Obama's experiences. I am interested in his qualifications and accomplishments, which do not impress me. Simply being involved in something does not qualify you to run it. If someone tried to tell you McCain was better suited to handle military decisions because he was in the service for years and Obama was not, would you agree with them?
>>For once, let progressives stand with people of color- who are justifiably proud that Obama has come this far. Sure, there's Condaleeza and Clarence, so what. Obama is not them.<<
Most people voting for Nader are voting for him because they believe he will make a better president than McCain or Obama. That's the progression we should be striving toward, instead of settling as too many people are doing.
You realize we vote State-by-State right?
Where I live, Obama could shoot a Iraqi baby in the face and still win by 10%.
So I can vote Nader -for example- and "risk" nothing.
In other States it is different, and I understand that.
Also, you realize that your visceral reaction to Palin and your tying that to support for Obama just proves how easily you can be manipulated right?
The way you can spot the desired winner in this country is to see who can throw the bird to his base and openly violate his own talking points and still somehow fall UP in the "polls".
In a modern U.S. election, the majority votes for the one who hase been sold best on TV -just like how they choose fast-food franchises to eat at.
This year that person is Obama. This whole "racist right" thing -while utterly true- is just the "nail in the coffin" for the GOP chances.
When people say they will do things because of what they "felt" while watching something on TV it makes me very concerned.
When people can't see that that is what's happening, that the TV (and therefore the ownership class) is the source of their supposed "feelings" I get just a little nervous.
Don't Panic,
-matti.
OK, this is the same reply I had to another Obama article here, but it applies just as well ...
All this debate about 3rd parties is ludicrous. Anyone who seriously thinks any of the third party candidates is worth a vote of any kind has officially and professionally lost it. I don't personally know what it will take to get a truly viable third party candidate to inspire Americans to actually vote that way in droves, but given the stark divisions of the past, I would find it very difficult to believe there is anyone that could be properly vetted to the point a majority of Americans would be comfortable with him or her. You'd almost need a beloved former President or a high profile Senator or Representive or even Governor or visible Citizen who would be truly willing to seperate his or herself from their former parties / affiliations for a higher cause. Teddy Roosevelt is about the only person that even remotely comes to mind from the past century (Perot, you say? Please!!!). And these third parties based on one common theme or collection of unalterable / uncompromising beliefs have no real future either.
So, what does that leave us with? I believe Barack Obama will transcend his party's strait-jacketed philosophies to change the country. Can he reveal every single thing he's going to do to upset the traditional apple cart of the Democratic Party? Of course not; otherwise he would never have become the nominee. Will he be open minded and not locked down by those philosophies? Yes. Will it help if the Democrats gain a filibuster-proof Senate and House? Absolutely. Will Pelosi and Reid get pushed aside in the avalanche towards a new Democratic philosophy? Yes, because they are the old guard. The new Democrats coming on board will no longer feel beholden to them and will eventually take over the leadership or at least neutralize the existing one. Congress has nowhere to go but up and they will be held to task in the afterglow of this election. There's nothing like a good ole fashion economic meltdown to get things rolling.
Third party in 2008? Absurd! Stop wasting time and just go with Obama, a true independent Democrat, one that will reshape the party for generations to come. You watch.
When does his triangulationist cocoon open and the Progressive Butterfly Obama emerge? Some time in Spring?
or,
I bet if I just write a whole bunch of assertions no one will question whether any of them make any sense!
Thank you for playing.
Another meaningless post ... congrats!
I bet you the governor of California could do it :-)
Actually the Gover-nator makes more sense than most of the posters here. If only he could talk where we could understand him. Or write things down...
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
I live in a state that has virtually no chance of going blue this time around but I still don't know what's to gain from voting 3rd party at this point and why only on a presidential level? We may not have much to gain from Obama and yes, I too am disappointed that he voted for FISA and flipped his position on oil drilling but we're going to have to start somewhere. I don't understand how these self-congratulatory folks can pat themselves on the back voting for people who have no chance of winning at all. Obama may not win my state but I'll be happy to help him win the popular vote and see what he can do for a change. What's to lose at this point? If he does turn out to be a huge disappointment, then who knows?
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
What's to lose at this point? Only your good conscience! How can you vote for someone you cannot completely endorse? This man will be acting in YOUR name for the next four years. Even if the votes don't "really" count, the popular vote will allow the prez to say "so many million people voted for me. I have their support" when he commits all sorts of atrocities.
I understand the disillusionment with the voting process, but voting while shrugging you shoulders is just wrong. It's better, then,to not vote, and instead create a mass, public protest against the elections. If there are enough people who are only voting for Obama for the reasons this author mentions, then it is not too idealistic to believe that.
"Finally, with respect to war and militarism, I tend not to take Obama's warmongering seriously. Given the man's background, I am confident that he is not a militarist by nature."
Which part of his "background" is it that makes you confident of this? His votes for the largest military budgets in history? His votes for funding the Iraq war? His votes for funding the Afghanistan war? Aren't these things you should be taking seriously?
There is no rational reason to vote for Obama if you are a progressive and want progressive policies.
He just told you last night that he supports the foreign policy of Dick Lugar, a hard core right wing hawk and the economic policy of Paul Volcker,as staunch a supporter of the status quo that led to the financial mess we are in as you're ever gonna get.
So that's it then: change equals status quo. Orwell would have been impressed.
I still respect you Mr. Lindorff, you are one helluva a reporter but your analysis is wrong.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
Obama was also against the FISA bill before he was for it. I respect Dave Lindorff, but I see no logical reason to expect that Obama will deliver more progressive actions than he is promising now.
ANYBODY BUT THE TWO PARTIES.
Or if you live in Pennsylvania!
"The reason is partly because I know I would vote for Obama if I lived in Ohio or Indiana, where the race between McCain and Obama is too close to call, and so, to vote for Nader when it is simply safe to do so here in Pennsylvania is really a cop-out."
I'm a Pennsylvanian, and I still plan to vote for Nader. How is that a cop-out? How is sending a message to the Democrats that their half-baked "change" isn't enough a "cop out?"
At this point in the game, I'm not going to blast anyone for voting Obama. I can see that a lot of it has to do with strategy, but as I said before in a previous thread, I would rather vote with my conscience than play chess.
When will be the right time for 3rd party candidates, the ones who propose real solutions and lasting change?
You can be optimistic that Obama will do the right thing because he's not a blue-blooded WASP, but as of now, he's not showing me much of anything.
I hope I am wrong. I really do. And I also hope that the people get on Obama's case when he doesn't deliver. I know I will.
I wanna like the guy. If you put Nader's brain in Obama's body, Obama would get my vote.
"Finally, with respect to war and militarism, I tend not to take Obama's warmongering seriously."
How can we afford NOT to take warmongering seriously?
Btw, hasn't Obama against impeaching Bush?
Your reasoning makes sense. I would add this: Obama IS showing you something. Every time he opens his mouth it is in support of corporate financial capital. Just look at what he said last night: Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker. That's who he pals around with. He forgot to mention Larry Summers, Laura Tyson, Roger Altman and the guy behind the recent bank debacle, Robert Rubin.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
hey dave
thanks for the discussion..i have just moved back home (northern nevada) and thought i would register (first time since '92 and no it was not for clinton, but mr perot as i heard him say on the radio that if elected he would sell the white house airplanes) to vote in the local elections..i do not do tv (since before mr. carter), so i have none of the sound bites to sway me one way or the other in the national elections..so far i expect it is none of the above, but i do enjoy reading the posts for and against as the folks attempt to define a feeling with logic..your contribution is appreciated..'n no i am not new to this site as i have enjoyed reading it on a daily basis since aug of 2000..
ken
To all those who think that voting for the lesser of two evil candidates is best to avoid the chance the most evil candidate winning the election, such as what Dave Lindorff expressed in this article, well I recommend that you consider following the idea of having a Vote Pact or Creative Vote Liberation. The idea is explained in these two websites.
http://www.votepact.org/about/
http://www.votebuddy.com/vbsol.htm
Dave, I will be voting for Nader (and I live in Indiana), but I appreciate your style of not preaching to the choir with various pontifications like Ira, Hayden, Katrina, and most everyone else who writes here. It is refreshing that you can at least respect diversity. That said, I find your views to be a monumental rationalization, but also reflecting the same right I demand for myself, i.e., the freedom to think!
Good call.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
Right, he was also against the Iraq war, before he was for it via his funding votes
He was against FISA, before he was for it.
He was for solar and wind, before he was against it by the offsets created in his plan on behalf of coal, nuclear, and bio.
He was for diversity, before he was against it, name one true leftist advising his campaign?
The pattern is pretty obvious, we will get eight more years of the same...
Ursa
Whose finger would you want close to the red button?
Nader is the best choice and has my vote;
I come to this website to read the opinions and listen to the discussions, then form what I feel is a collective intelligent decision.
Nader is that choice for me, but I don't feel the need to belittle or mock anyone that hase formed a different opinion than my own
If McCain wins, be prepared for the consequences. I see a lot of name calling and mockery of people that have different views and opinions. It’s interesting how some of the people are so self righteous that they are really just the otherside of the coin. No better than some of the people there criticizing.
I've always found Lindorff, a bit of a loon. And, after he confirmed to me on Daily Kos that the sole source he had for an alleged "Secret Pentagon Report, " on Martial Law was White Supremacist Hal Turner (a recently retired New Jersey talk radio show host, for his squalid background see,
Neo-Nazi Threatmaker Accused of Working for FBI | Hatewatch http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/01/11/neo-nazi-threatmaker-accused-of-working-for-fbi/
) I added him to my list of unreliable sources, to riff off of the Howard Kurtz weekend show on CNN on the MSM.
Sean Hannity's relationship with Hal Turner - Neo Nazi/White http://dallassouthblog.com/2008/03/25/sean-hannitys-relationship-with-hal-turner-neo-naziwhite-suprema...
Well, Dave, if you vote for a candidate who opposes what you want, then you make a farce out of your vote.
Here's the candid phrase whereby I commend you for your honesty, if not your reasoning:
"...against all logic and experience..."
I argue that wishful thinking is a poor rationale for a vote. Go ahead and be irrational as is your right, but please also ask yourself why you might not be persuasive to voters who, oooooh, let's say ... don't believe in war or the financial sector's ransom or retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies spying on citizens or the exclusion of other voices or of granting license to the Bush administration.
Go ahead. Vote for the bipartisan buddy. I can't stop you.
But is this progressivism???????
Up to this point, I can't recall reading a single column by Lindorff supporting
Nader's 2008 run.
I think the real purpose of this article is to make people who want to vote for Nader feel bad about their vote. I don't know how long it will be before the so-called left gets its act together and starts opposing the 2-party system. It has to start somewhere and Nader is the most prominent third party candidate who is doing everything he can to change this corrupt system.
I will vote for Nader. I think it is an outrage that he and others are excluded from the "debates". This needs to change.
This guy Lindorff is really mixed up. After the mid-terms, when we all realized we'd been snookered. He railed against the Democrats. He had had it with them, he said.
And here he is again, back on square one. It feels so much safer in the pen?
I was thinking a similar thing.
Why would it be necessary for the author to tell us he wanted to vote for Nader?
Then I thought of all the hatred the Obamists cast on Nader voters and the fear CD seems to have for a McCain win. (Although I do see remarks of hatred and fear cast "both" ways.)
But they know that fear and hatred will not attract would-be Nader voters to Obama. So they perhaps are using another tactic here: pretend to be one of them ("I voted for Nader in 2000"--but not in 2004).
I think the real reason for this article was a last-ditch effort to tell people they shouldn't vote for Nader without stirring up the antipathy usually caused by telling people how to vote.
I agree with Dave Lindorff on this one.
Are we still croaking or are we boiled yet?
Our one-party corporate rulers don't care who wins. Both candidates have been corporately vetted. Just look at who they give money to. Obama: 22 million from the financial industry. McCain: 19 million.
The Duopolists, who are really in charge, care more about maintaining control than they do about any one candidate winning an election. It's the "lesser of two evils" strategy, "good-cop, bad-cop", always running an immensely SCARY! candidate along with a seemingly milder mannered one. Both share the overall agenda. You can fool the people most of the time, and they know it. Are we boiled yet?
When Duopolists see significant numbers moving to alternatives, as has happened recently, they pump up the scariness. Dave fell for it! .... again. Their worst nightmare would be for an Obama win with a 8-10% voting for Nader. Ouch! They want to be sure our views never materialize into votes. we'll never see just how many of us there are. The one-party colludes in this scam. And it works beautifully, over and over again.
Dave, after the mid-terms you wrote that you had had it with the Dem party. That was it for you, they're a lost cause. Now, here you are again, back in the pen ... where we all belong.
But not me! I'm voting for Ralph Nader. You wouldn't want Ralph and his supporters to simply go away, would you? What kind of country is that, where only the corporations have candidates? No opposition? Isn't there an "f" word for that kind of political system? Is that what you're supporting .... "this time?" How many times in the past 20 years or more have I heard, "It's just too important .. this time!" The standards are lowered, the lines are moved back to accommodate.
The "lesser evilists" out there should be heaping praise on Ralph Nader and his refusal to enable the corporatist one-party system.
Crying and begging at their feet does no good, haven't you noticed? It just makes you shorter and it makes the Duopolists stronger.
Voter Nader! and be proud. Someone has to keep the fires burning.
Yes, we should fight to keep the fires burning, and voting for Nader is one way. But what if the Repubs could gloat that this election proved how Obama was way too far left (imagine!) in the minds of the people. This might do a lot to douse those fires by letting conservatives drag the spectrum even farther right. I think this stuff does trickle down when it comes to getting things done at the grass roots. And we're not going to be able to simply vote real change in one way or the other. Just something to consider. I definitely agree with voting for Nader in states where the vote is wrapped up.
Obama may have scored very well against Mccain but what if the debate had actually included Nader, Mckinney, Barr, etc ... ? How would either of these candidates actually fared? The author FAILS to take into account the fact that the so-called "debates" were RIGGED to exclude 3rd party candidates. Without giving the others a chance at debating, the author shows his utter partisan bias by saying "vote for Obama". The author is a LOSER.
Excellent article.
To all those saying or implying that this is the "same old" justification for voting for the lesser evil we hear every four years, you didn't read the article very carefully. Lindorff points out numerous positive reasons to vote for Obama that are unique to him and to this year, including important facts about Obama's character and background and the opportunity to send a smashing message against racism and hate. There is nothing "same old" about these points. None of them could have been advanced in favor of voting for Clinton, Gore, or Kerry.
I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000. He's a great guy. But this year the Democrats have nominated a truly unique and remarkable person, who has the potential for genuine greatness. I'm voting for Obama for essentially the reasons Lindorff lists.
Mr. Lindorff, you cite potential labor legislation as one of Obama's attractions. I'm not sure I understand what makes you think that an Obama presidency will have any more of a postive difference on labor unions than McCain.
An example, USAToday reported in November 2006:
"Sen. Barak Obama, D-Ill., praised a union-led campaign to change working conditions at Wal-Mart (WMT), telling activists Wednesday that their efforts are part of a broader debate that is needed about jobs and economic opportunity in America.
The senator, weighing in on the increasingly politicized debate over Wal-Mart, told a conference call with the union-backed group WakeUpWalMart.com there is a "moral responsibility to stand up and fight" for a better economic future with adequate wages, health care and retirement benefits."
And then, in The Sun (NY) June 2008:
"Just days after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Obama is naming as his economic policy director an economist who has clashed with critics of Wal-Mart by defending the company as a boon to poor Americans."
A man with Jason Furman as his economic policy director will not be doing anything to help labor unions anytime in the near future.
Obama and most of the Democrats running for election this year in Congress have pledged to pass the labor reform law in question relating to union elections.
That is why unions are so aggressively out there in this campaign. It is a historic opportunity to get the labor movement back on track. If this law is passed, and it should be a priority in the first 100 days of an Obama administration, there will be a wave of union organizing across the country. No longer will emplooyers be able to stall off and delay elections for years. Workers will only need to turn in signed cards from a majority of workers. And employers will not be allowed to refuse to bargain.
Union membership will soar, and with it the political power of workers, which will have a salutory effect on the progressiveness of the Democratic party.
This alone makes supporting Obama important.
"Obama and most of the Democrats running for election this year in Congress have pledged ..."
What kind of sucker would believe anything the Democrats pledge? Didn't Obama pledge to vote against FISA, by the way?
Union membership in it self means nothing, if they continue to mobilize members to vote against their self-interest - i.e. voting for the Democrats. There is no reason whatsoever for the Democrats to change any of their pro-big-business policies so long as they know that they have labor in their pocket. Unions endorse just about all Democratic Party candidates - and that has only made things very significantly worse for working people.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Hmm...Islamst website lauding the Iranian regime which tortures union activists and working class leaders and leftists in the notorious Evin Prison in Iran. Anti-Imperialism of fools, aligning with a theocratic, bourgeois regime.
LOL!
And that coming in the comments on a site that supports the most violent and virulent imperialism -- -come on --- I'd take some criticism if it were on a genuine anti-imperialist web site. But on a place like this that supports that Democratic Party's candidate that continues to pledge killing of more people in Afghanistan and Pakistan --- sorry, but the kind of human rights violations the Democrats that his web site supports, have partaken in --- frankly, that pales in comparison to the rest of the contemporary world combined.
If the leftists of the US had united behind someone like Nader, maybe, just maybe I'd give you guys some credibility, but - the fact that all you can do is unite around a despicable war monger like Obama --- who wants to destroy Iran (to save the Zionists) --- come on --- you guys don't have even half a leg to stand on. Especially considering the crap that this web site promotes in the name of "progress."
I have no problem whatsoever supporting Iran against both the Republican and the Democrats, and the leftists who support the Democrats. The leftist Democrats are just as complicit in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands as the neo-cons. Because, now you guys are getting ready to elect yet another despicable fool. If the direct victims of US imperialism, in the past 7-8 years - mostly Muslims, thinks that your kind of leftism/democracy is for the fools --- well, most of us have good reason.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Now you're starting to sound (and it pains me to say this) like a Dem Party Apologist. This is a regression for someone like you. It's one thing to urge a purely tactical vote against McCain in battle-ground states, but it's quite another thing to pretend that Obama is going to have "a salutory effect on the progressiveness of the Democratic party."
You of all people are well aware of the basic nature of the Dem Party. It can't be changed -- it's a big business pro-war party. It's the party of the Clintons, Pelosi, Schumer, Robert Rubin. It can NEVER be a party that defends working class interests. It never was that, and acts primarily to prevent any such party from emerging.
The fact that labor unions support the DP has far less to it than meets the eye. The leadership of the unions has become generally co-opted & feeble, over the decades. The unions are no longer organizations that fight for workers' rights. They never support strikes. They have become institutions which partner with employers, to force workers to accept wage cuts, job losses, & diminished conditions. The unions' support for Democrats does not portend any great strengthening of unions under a Dem administration. It's merely a reflection of the fact that they, too, have nowhere else to go. Unions have supported Democrats ever since WWII, have been sold out by the D's left & right, and the weakness of their current position is all they have to show for the strategic mistake of binding themselves to this treacherous party.
Dave, you said it better than I ever could.
Nader would make the best Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice, EPA Chief, Sec'y of State, or any cabinet position.
Uh, gee...eze....then why had the dem party shunned Nader, instead of offering him such a post? Why haven't they tried to form a coalition, or offer to toss a bone, or include him in the debates?
Instead they have done everything in their power to silence him, get him off the ballot in many states, and shut him out of the "political process."
The truth that you fail to recognize is that they (the dems) are only the other half of the one-party system with two right wings. Voting for them only insures that this false dichtomy will continue.
"I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency."
Chris Hedges wrote that a few days ago. Amen, because that's the finest, truest description of that failed party I've read.
Dave,
I like your writing generally. I am disappointed in your response.
Yes, the fascistic Palin and hysterical right wing are scarey; yes, they make me want to pull the lever for Obama; yes, there is a feeling - that goes beyond reasoned positions - that a lot is at stake and that the choices are stark.
But there are reasons to vote for Nader anyway.
From one point of view, a third party left wing vote forces Democratic candidates to adopt the most left wing position that they can get elected on, and to stick with it - vs. tacking right after they get the nomination, assuming they've got the left in their pocket. As someone (perhaps you) wrote a while back, Obama's right tacks were not politically necessary - he did it because he felt he could.
From a second point of view, choosing to vote for Nader - in states where Obama is either far ahead or far behind - will not hurt his being elected; but it will strengthen his ability to run more to the left once in office, since he can point to a larger left-of-Democrat demographic vs. a centrist electorate. What is the "cop out" in such a pragmatic approach?
But since you must understand this latter point, why will you vote for Obama? I guess it is a feeling of high stakes that has made you ignore this pragmatic-progressive approach. Instead - in the capacity of political writer - you approach your task with a Sartrean ethic: in acting for yourself, you act as you would have all people act. That is, you wish to 'set a good example' to other progressives. I guess we can't be trusted to act pragmatically, on the basis of whether or not a progressive vote threatens an Obama victory in any particular state...
Same 'ol boring repetitious(sp.?) (every four years) rational to vote for a war monger. I wish you Democrats would at the very least come up with some better excuses about why you guys love a war monger.
The one about Obama is not really who he has said who he is (wink wink) all along is so old. But really, the electoral politics in the US is now totally irrelevant, the economic crash has taken on a life of its own - and neither of the two war candidates Obama/McCain have a plan that is going to work - both being beholden to the super duper wealthy and the big corporations are not going to make any major changes to rescue the economy.
So, yes, it is the economy - and as dude said "the sucker is going down" Enjoy the ride down, maybe something more principled will rise from the crash - but until it does - things are gonna get seriously worse.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Lindorff is simply betting here, as he himself says, that Obama will perhaps partially fulfill at least some progressive/left expectations. He isn't saying he KNOWS Obama will surprise us all and morph into Eugene Debs once he's in the White House. He's making a gamble, and I see no reason to say it's foolish. He may have a point. Around this time every four years the "left" has to capitulate to the Way Things Are and realize we're not going to get the candidate we want no matter how hard we try or how much we protest. Nader is always there if we want to vote for him again, and I've done so twice. But he's no more electable than Kucinich. The Democrats decided it was going to be Obama this time and our third party pipe dreams are no closer to being realized than they've ever been. Most of Obama's supporters don't even know, or care, that folks like us exist. That's why Obama's paid us no attention since getting the nomination. We're a disposable bunch to both parties because they have no intention of ever responding to our agenda, whatever it is. We're only noticed in the blogosphere, and most Americans don't pay much attention to the kind of sites we haunt. Most of this year I've sworn I wouldn't vote for Obama for all the reasons exhaustively given. But now I feel just as driven by the winds of fatalism as Lindorff. McPalin is a prospect too grotesque to even contemplate. I'm willing to gamble on some remote possibilities for change under an Obama administration.
"McPalin is a prospect too grotesque to even contemplate."
The Democratic alternative is just Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin in slow motion, with comforting and soporific rhetoric thrown into the mix.
I feel much of this too, but (at the risk of sounding like a broken record) believe that it's not simply a question of whether or not to vote for Obama.
For one, it makes a big difference if you live in a "battleground state." I believe that no progressive should vote for Obama, if he/she lives in a state that's definitely going for either the R or the D. If it's close, that's another matter, & a purely tactical vote is justifiable.
Secondly, the attitude with which one casts a tactical vote for Obama (merely to keep the overt fascists out of the White House) is also important. It's one thing to have silly illusions in the Democrats. It's something very different to be clear on the fact that you're simply casting a purely tactical vote, & will continue, in all your interactions with your personal circle, to be generating awareness of the horrible deficiencies of Democrats, & of the 2-party system.
We have a two-party system in this country? That sure is news to me.
Then why call yourself a progressive..call yourself a Democrat in waiting.....for what, I am not too sure.
The third party ranks will grow, especially if Obama sells out the dreams of all the new voters they have inspired. I too, want to believe that Obama will move the country to be a more just and humane type of society. If Nader gets enough votes, Democrats might take notice. We'll see.
Obama is the lesser of two evils. Americans regard voting for an independent or 3rd party candidate as wasting your vote. I was for Ron Paul in the primaries. Will probably vote for Obama.