Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why 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.
- Posted in
200 Comments so far
Show AllIt sounds to me that this author places the individual qualities of the candidate before party affiliation in the voting decision process. I see it the other way around. I put party affiliation, first, and individual qualities, second. If I'm not in line with the party's policies, then I'm not going to support its candidate for president. Further, it is not important to me what type of character a candidate has, if he doesn't, first, reflect my view on issues and policy matters.
Further, it is not important to me what type of character a candidate has, if he doesn't, first, reflect my view on issues and policy matters.
OK, but this is not the United States if Gr8ful 1997.
We already have a President who believes that now is the end-of-times. His name is George W. Bush and look where that got us.
We already have a President who believes that now is the end-of-times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore... Doaker? Where and what is your conclusion?
v.purto
Lindorff is right about the American Left being a joke right now. Quite simply it is because so much of the American Left are like Lindorff though, with his pseudo pragmatic approach against what he calls Left 'purists'. We'll never get beyond Republican enablelist Clintonism with this sort of 'logic' of Lindorff Thought.
Except that I've spend decades voting for the left--for example instead of for Clinton. It doesn't matter, because all those votes are is wasted protest votes, it turns out. They don't help to "develop the left" or to create a Third Party alternative. If they did, we'd have had a viable Third Party a long time ago.
The last time there was a viable third party was when Eugene Debs ran the Socialist Party. Maybe Norman Thomas, but by then it was dying away.
And back then, labor was willing to be part of that left. No more. Why would they. It would be a disaster for labor to pin its hopes on what calls itself the left in the US.
Excellently stated, yohocoma.
I think that Mr. Lindorff expresses an important point here, one that I've made often--including here at CD.
Movements are not built through voting. I'd love to be proven wrong about this, but the idea that voting for Nader is going to, in Lindorff's words, "'develop the left' or...create a Third Party alternative" runs counter to historical experience. Lindorff's reference to Debs is right on point: the movement was built through a long process of organizing and education not through the ballot box. Don't get me wrong--the political process is obviously important for any movement that aspires to shape the larger society in which it exists.
But a real left movement is precisely what doesn't exist at the present. As far as I can see, the movement around Nader isn't a left movement--it is a fitful expression of political frustration that rears its head every four years or so (sometimes with greater strength than at other times, but never with any considerable force). But it isn't a sustained movement.
None of that is any reason to throw in the towel and commit to a permanent rapprochment with the Democratic Party. It is simply to point out that for a true alternative to emerge to the present deplorable political system, it will require far more than the casting of protest votes every four years. That sort of behavior will lead precisely nowhere.
I agree.
I don't think your being "pseudo-pragmatic".
I do believe you are rationalizing a bit though.
Is it POSSIBLE that you are now simply sold, finally on one of the many marketing ploys that have been used to get you to vote Obama?
I'm sorry you wasted your time with "protest votes" while I usefully employed my time in "votes of conscience".
The "votes don't develop a movement or a party" line is clearly bunk, however. This is like that "mythbusters" show, you take an argument that only a nephyte or a loon would advance, then refute it and implied you have refuted all arguments available.
Its a Straw Man Mr. Lindorff, pure and simple.
To demonstrate, let's reverse the question, shall we?
What does voting Nader or Green do to HURT "development of the Left"?
Because we don't then do other things? That sounds like LAZINESS and a lack of urgency are hindering the development of the Left, note voting.
Because it makes Dems mad at us? And for this they bear no responsibility? Waaah.
Because my vote will then be "lost" or "wasted"? When did you all become Elector Princes? We don't vote for some grand strategy, we vote for CANDIDATES. We don't face some dire consequence if one candidate we don't support loses to another one we don't support. The theory that anything that happens for candidates I don't vote for has anything to do with me is ludicrous! This logic twists the ideal of the Social Good into a vehicle for the Repression of Political Liberty!
If you all are so flippin' worried about McCain and fired up for Obama why don't you do something to get the third of the Citizens who abstain from voting exited about him too. That way the Dems can win by more than 2% against overt fascists who proudly suck at the corporate-imperial teat, and you can stop worrying about a sad little 5% vote from us "We think the Constitution matters" folks.
So is it really my one little vote that's the problem here? Or is it something else?
Everybody just vote for who you want, and let the chips fall where they may. Why is anyone worryed anyway? The TV ads are effective, Obama will win and the Dems will gain substantial majorities.
"I joined the bandwagon against my class interests to show how much I don't like the ignorance of the working class."
Ugh. I need a drink.
Don't Panic,
-matti.
matti,
While you're getting that drink, let me take a minute to respond to some of what you've written.
First, I don't think Lindorff (or I for that matter) thinks that by refuting the false belief that voting will somehow build a movement he's refuted "all arguments available." You're overreading (and overreaching) here.
The "voting third party will build a left movement" notino is important to counter, however, precisely for the reasons you allude to--all too often voting is taken to be somehow a sufficient condition for the creation of such a movement.
It may be (as you claim) that only "neophytes" or "loon[s]" would make such an assumption; if so, I've met quite a few of them. They are often thick on the ground on the campuses where I've taught.
RichM (who posts here frequently) has often made the good point that a left movement requires building left culture as well. I think that's quite true. There was a time, for example, when a more vital left culture existed among the working class of this country. Although this culture was far from ubiquitous and never entirely secure, it energized and could mobilize working class people in ways that are hardly imaginable today. This is not to romanticize the past or the labor movement, merely to point out that the situation of the present is very different.
I'll go further, however, and suggest (tentatively) that the Nader phenomenon has been an obstacle to the creation of a left movement in at least one way. His candidacy in the past 3 elections has had the unfortunate effect--at least in some circles--of fetishizing the executive branch as the site of left struggle. As a result, far too much attention gets placed on the presidential election and too much energy consumed by promoting the candidacy of a candidate whose best showing was in 2000 when he almost received 3% of the popular vote. Focusing on the presidency has been a major tactical blunder of the left--assuming that one can even presuppose the existence of a left unified enough to have a conscious sense of its tactics.
I'll be bold and say that the left really has no business engaging in presidential elections at this point. Given the non-existence of large-scale left movement in this country, the presidency is utterly out of reach. We need to channel our energies far more productively if we really want to transform this country.
That doesn't mean sticking with the Dems or working within the existing parties to somehow radicalize them from within. I'm convinced (like the rest of you) that the Democratic party is not the arena in which this transformation will come. But I'm also convinced that focusing on third party candidates in U.S. presidential elections is (at least for the foreseeable future) a waste of energy and time. The left needs to act smarter than this if it wants to become a viable force in U.S. society.
Eric J-D October 17th, 2008 9:41 am, I generally agree with your points -- any true grassroots movement should work from the ground up electing local and state politicians and then shift to a national level using that as a base. Unless you're a billionaire like Ross Perot, acquiring ballot access, running a national ad campaign, and gaining attendant Big Media attention are impossible obstacles, as the presidential candidacies of Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney attest.
In 2000 -- as you cited, Ralph's best year -- he was treated as an oddball curiosity by the BM and usually asked why he was trying to take away votes from Al Gore rather than about his policies. It also helped that celebrities such as Bill Murray and Michael Moore were supporting him, but they haven't since.
I have had the misfortune of attending forums with representatives of third parties, the aim of which was to gather the various factions into some sort of united political front. Forget it -- these folks couldn't even agree on who should speak first and how long each person should be allowed to speak; Robert's Rules of Order were not in evidence. The left in America is diffused into small bands preoccupied with their own narrow, parochial interest, be it the environment, helping the indigent, ending war, vegetarian diets, or whatever. Since each group considers its particular issue of prime importance and often dismisses the concerns of others, our meetings quickly devolved into embarrassing displays of rank egotism and bitter vitriol. If these factions of the left can't agree with each other, how do they expect to get others in the general population to agree with them?
Case in point: Why are the Greens not supporting Ralph Nader this year? Is there that vast a chasm between what Nader believes and Cynthia McKinney believes? Or is it petty personal grudges at work?
As long as this is the case, the left will have little influence on politics in this country and we'll have either GOP or Dem candidates to choose from, as we do once again this year.
Fortunately, in Obama, we have a better and more progressive Dem candidate then we had in the last two presidential elections.
BTW, I disagree on one point: I think it is possible to take over the Dems from the inside, as Howard Dean's more liberal influence is gradually replacing that of the DLC-'Republican Lite' Dems.
I thought the purpose of voting was to vote for the candidate you preferred, not the one you expected to win. If one likes Nader, they should vote for Nader. If everyone refuses to vote for their preferred candidate because they don't think that candidate will win, then how is any candidate other than one of the establishment-anointed candidate ever going to win?
If I voted, I'd absolutely vote for Ron Paul, even though I know he has no chance of winning. But since I don't vote at the polls, but with money, I did give Ron Paul money, the first time I've ever given a candidate money.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
Actually that's A reson for voting. Not THE reason for voting.
Moreover, I do believe that voting to put an African American in the White House is in itself a progressive act of considerable significance, which all too many white leftists are unwilling to admit.
I felt the same way when President Unitard performed progressive acts of considerable significance in appointing Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice Secretary of State.
And let's not leave out the progressive act of considerable significance of appointing Alberto Gonzales the first Hispanic Attorney General.
“I felt the same way when President Unitard performed progressive acts of considerable significance in”
Quite so LB, clearly one’s genes are more important than what one says or does. Based on what this author is putting forward as “logic” I hope he has good genes.
Putting a progressive candidate in the white house who supports the people, and not the corporations, is a progressive act of considerable significance.
"Call me naïve..."
Okay - you are naive, as in very. Listen to your own words, bud:
"...a seriously flawed candidate..."
"...sold us all out..."
"...soaring but empty rhetoric..."
"...the Democratic Party has shown itself to be in thrall to the moneyed interests on Wall Street..."
"...escalation of the war in Afghanistan..." (note: there is no "war" in Afghanistan, either Constitutionally or officially.)
You wanna rationalize your surrender to the lesser of two evils, DL, fine. But don't be surprised when BO fails to live up to your false expectations.
But I don't have many expectations. I do expect that labor legislation making union organizing easier will pass, however.
And I think that the combination of some words of wisdom from the generals who are truly aware that the Bush doctrine is destroying their military, and the economic fiasco that is bankrupting the US, plus an awareness of recent history so evidently lacking in the current White House, will lead Obama to get the US out of its two wars as quickly as possible, whatever he's saying now. It's not a matter of my thinking he's a good guy or a peacenik. It's that he'd be crazy not to, and he's not crazy--which is more than can be said about his opponent, or his predecessors.
dlindorff October 16th, 2008 1:39 pm, Dave, having read your columns over the years and your pieces here at CD, I know that you're an intelligent and conscientious man and that it took some hard thinking to reach this decision to vote for Obama.
Having supported Nader in 2000, and voted for Greens and other progressive independents for local and state offices, I understand your reservations about Obama; I have the same reservations myself, and, like you, have been disappointed by some of his votes and his tacking to the 'center.'
However, I happen to know one of his relatives well and he's a solid, progressive guy who, if he thought Obama was a fraud, would call him on it and refuse to support him. He assures me that Obama plans to be much more progressive if he's elected, especially if he has a filibuster-proof Dem majority in Congress. Obama's pragmatic belief is that you must first have power before you can change things for the better.
Also, there is the man's incredible intelligence and breadth of knowledge which you touched on -- he even impressed dingbat NY Times neocon columnist David Brooks:
"Out of the blue I asked, 'Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?'
Obama’s tone changed. 'I love him. He’s one of my favorite philosophers.'
So I asked, What do you take away from him?
'I take away,' Obama answered in a rush of words, 'the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism.'
My first impression was that for a guy who’s spent the last few months fund-raising, and who was walking off the Senate floor as he spoke, that’s a pretty good off-the-cuff summary of Niebuhr’s 'The Irony of American History.'" [...]
"Finally, more than any other major candidate, he has a tendency to see the world in post-national terms. Whereas President Bush sees the war against radical Islam as the organizing conflict of our time, Obama sees radical extremism as one problem on a checklist of many others: global poverty, nuclear proliferation, global warming. When I asked him to articulate the central doctrine of his foreign policy, he said, 'The single objective of keeping America safe is best served when people in other nations are secure and feel invested.'"
-- David Brooks, "Obama, Gospel and Verse," NY Times, April 25, 2007.
http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/04/david-brooks-obama-gospel-and-verse.html
Reinhold Niebuhr? Could McCain summarize Niebuhr? I doubt it -- certainly not Junior or Palin. This gives me some 'hope' that there's much more below the surface than the politician Obama is revealing -- he has witnessed what happened to the 'elitist liberals' Gore and Kerry and is not going to let it happen to him.
There has been a lot of tiresome use of the word 'game-changer' by the Big Media lately; what would be a true 'game-changer' for this country with its horrible past of slavery and segregation is the election of Obama -- and I think he'll end up as one of our greatest presidents to boot.
Funny you note David Brooks, listen to his speech here to a YAF event, I just listened to, http://townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=22&ContentGuid=262733d6-55ad-4bb8-85bf-45edade9a221
Niebuhr is a great theologian, more secular leftists ought to read him, as he went through a Socialist period in the 30's and has many profound criticisms of the utopianism of many U.S. leftists. A.J. Bacevich in his new book bs. U.S. militarism has a bit to riff off of based on his reading of Niebuhr, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200711/reinhold-niebuhr/3 as do others in the pundit class like Peter Beinart, scored here in a piece from The Atlantic that cites Bacevich. http://mcmasterchef.blogspot.com/2007/10/bacevich-on-niebuhr.html
http://www.buworldofideas.org/shows/2007/10/20071014.asp
http://www.dystopian-paradox.com/2008/08/bacevich-niebuhr-and-connections/
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile.html
Bill Moyers Interviews Andrew J. Bacevich
verdiman October 16th, 2008 8:11 pm, I think you missed my point. Niebuhr went through many phases in his life, from socialist to conservative, but my point was that Obama even knew of him and could summarize one of his works. As I said, I doubt McCain could do that, and I know neither Bush nor Palin could. It shows a man who is well-read and thinks before he acts -- something we sorely need in this country at the moment.
Thanks for the links anyway, though.
And, BTW, in my opinion Peter Beinart is tedious bonehead, and so is New Republic publisher Marty Peretz. Both of them represent the worst of aggressive neo-liberalism and its embrace of the various Republican wars-for-profit, which requires them to constantly change their tune to accommodate reality, as they did on Bush's Iraq debacle. TNR might as well bring back Stephen Glass -- at least some of his fantasies were entertaining.
If Indiana is 'too close to call', Obama's won the election. I also have the same reaction when I see Virginia listed as a state in play. And also when I see Obama with a lead here in Colorado.
These were all safe Republican states in the past. Just the fact that the battleground has shifted to these states tells you that Obama is winning going away.
In other words, if your conscious says that you should vote for Nader, instead of for the pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-police state, pro-wall street candidate the Democrats have given us, feel free to do so.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Can't we please have articles called "Why I am voting for Ralph Nader" or "cynthia Mckinney" on common dreams!! All of these apologists for keeping this broken system the same, impeding progress, murdering valuable human beings - vote Nader or McKinney; stop rationalizing insane choices!
Insane choices? You mean not doing anything necessary to stop Sarah "Wolfkiller" Palin from reaching the White House?
You third party people don't even bother pretending that you can win. You cannot seriously claim that Ralph Nader will be president. It can not and will not happen. And you know it. So if you can't win, what is your goal?
The only effect you have is to deny votes to Obama and thus help McCain. is that your goal? Help the Republican? because that's what you're accomplishing.
Republican enablers, every damned one of you.
I think you misunderstood progressiveparty, kitty-- it says "STOP rationalizing insane choices", not "DEMONSTRATE rationalizing insane choices".
My goal in voting for ANY 3rd party candidate is to protest. I will NOT vote for anyone who endorses more war. At first I hoped Obama would be different. Then he he promised to appease the Zionists, possibly attack Iran, and "contain" Russian "agression." He wants to end the war in Iraq (maybe?) and murder more innocent people in the "right war" in Afghanistan.
How can any decent person vote for ANY of these people? To me, it's criminal. If everyone who hates this Douche Bag vs. Turd Sandwich (to borrow from South Park) system votes 3rd party, it sends a VERY LOUD message. If 1/3 of America refused to participate in this 2-party charade, why wouldn't the Dems shift and try to capture that vote? I think we should INSIST on a candidate who opposes war and wants to instead spend our resources on LIFE AFFIRMING items like healthcare and education. What good is democracy if the system is rigged and you have no decent choice? Why should I perpetuate that????
RichM October 16th, 2008 2:19 pm, the center of power of the Democratic Party is passing from Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council ('Republican Lite') to anti-DLC Dems like DNC Chairman Howard Dean and Barack Obama, so you cannot fairly equate the previous 'Republican enablers' of the DLC past with the new breed of Dean Democrats.
Obama may not be as progressive as many here wish, but he is also not as in-the-tank for Corporate Money as was the DLC of Al From. (Please spare me the Open Secrets link and the hysteria over Obama's 'ownership' by Wall Street unless you have thoroughly read the entire section on Obama's campaign funding and understand the methodology used by the Center for Responsive Politics to rate campaign contributions from corporate donors.)
More generally, there is an irony to the posts here proclaiming the Jesuitic virtues and indisputable purity of Ralph Nader -- while some of you excoriate Obama supporters as mindless 'Obamabots' who believe he can do no wrong -- a lifeform I have yet to encounter -- you write about Nader as if he has sprouted a halo and wings and is pausing here to run for president of us mere mortals before ascending to heaven.
In fact, both Nader and Obama are only mundane one-pantsleg-at-a-time human beings -- politicians, no less -- with ideas and plans, some good and some bad. Obama just happens to be a better and more inspiring politician than Ralph, even after Nader's years of seeking the presidency.
The Nader supporters here have convinced themselves that they can foretell the future and know in their hearts that a President Obama will undoubtedly be the 'pro-war, pro-Wall Street Democrat' who will sign over the country to Big Corporations and tell us peons to eat dust. The truth is, you don't know that -- it's more like a fevered religious belief than a reasoned opinion.
By the same token, how do you know that a President Nader, should that miracle ever occur, will not sell us out for some short-term gain -- how do you know he will fulfill all of his progressive promises, especially with a Congress dead-set against him?
I don't know what Nader would do as president and don't pretend to, but the odds are -- backed up by a bookie in Ireland who is now paying off on Obama bets [1] -- that Barack Obama will be our next president.
From his past record, he likely won't be as progressive as Nader voters would desire perhaps, but he also won't be the neocon ogre depicted in this thread by Ralph's supporters.
[1]"Irish Bookie Calls US Race Over, Pays Off on Obama"AP, Oct. 16, 2008
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ireland_obama_bookmaker
Touche--right on the money as usual, RichM. The gall of "kitty" and her ilk!
Voting Democrat - Don't you realize the only effect you have is to perpetuate the two-party duopoly, is that your goal? Help the Democrat perpetuate the corrupt system. Damn Democrat enablers. When will you realize the Dem's don't represent you! It's like being in a relationship of domestic violence, the Dems keep slapping you down and you keep going back to them for more because you don't know what else to do. Leave them!
Exactly, Marcelino. The metaphor of domestic violence is perfect. The Democrats shit on us all the time, vote for war, vote to fund an illegal war repeatedly, refuse to impeach the most vicious, corrupt and imbecilic president in US history, take incentives for alternative energy development out of the most recent energy bill, etc., and then they spout lofty, pseudo-progressive rhetoric come election time, and the "kitties" of the world say we all must vote for them! Just like a beaten-down, subservient wife, or like a passenger on a hijacked airliner, who likes her hijacker, these visionless, myopic individuals cannot fathom a way of life in which they are not enabling their own victimization. They would rather believe lofty rhetoric than do the work of examining a candidate/party's actual RECORD.
"You cannot seriously claim that Ralph Nader will be president. It can not and will not happen."
No third-party candidate stands a chance primarily because people like you are too frightened to engage in a collective act of repudiating the two-party system that has caused so much destruction to our country and to the world.
Can't we please have articles called "Why I am voting for Ralph Nader" or "cynthia Mckinney"
So far, the answer is no. Take a wild guess as to why.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmm...mmmmmm,
Astrological Alignments?
You said "take a WILD guess" ;)
But the real answer is "Bias", right?
That one was easy.
I'm glad this article is on here, and I'll repeat what I posted on the 'Why Change Has Already Won' article: It is the difference in Obama and McCain's character, not their policies, that I think is critical. One is very intelligent, reasonable, and a much more decent person. The other has pretty much done a bad job at whatever he's done in his life, cheated on both his wives, and both him and his running mate have been investigated for corruption. Not to mention his temper. Policies can change...Obama can easily adopt more progressive policies once the election is over with. Character is much harder to change, and it's obvious that McCain will never have a character as good as Obama's.
The Democrats have run a very nasty smear campaign against McCain. That combines with pure mythology as to who Obama is. This comment shows someone who's just buying into the Dem propaganda on both fronts.
It ignores corruption charges against Obama. But highlights ones against McCain. And it repeats that pure delusion that someone a servant of corporate power with hundreds of millions of corporate money in his campaign accounts is suddenly magically and mysteriously tell his corporate bosses to go stick it when he reaches the White House.
There is little or nothing that's true about any of this. But unfortunately, Obama is probably about to get elected on a combination of lies and smears. To me that speaks very poorly of his character. Especially when you add to this his constant willingness to lie and to say whatever he thinks will sell to any group or audience.
I'm voting Nader. But I'm not sure I'd vote for Nader if there were only two names on the ballot. The campaign he's run has been very disturbing to me from the beginning. And its always shown exactly the opposite of good character on his part.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
DLINDORFF writes: "...I do believe that voting to put an African American in the White House is in itself a progressive act of considerable significance, which all too many white leftists are unwilling to admit."
Obama is NOT an African American - he is a human being! What's important is NOT the color of Obama's skin, but the content of his character, as Martin Luther King said.
Obama's character traits are not particularly good, I'm afraid. McCain's are even worse.
-
PROGRESSIVEPARTY is right. It's time to end the two-party system that has failed everyone for so long, and for CommonDreams to acknowledge that, not excuse it.
If people think placing a black man in a very powerful position has significance, they ought to take a look at Nigeria. There, black men run the government, and the government has been as corrupt as anything for decades. Nigeria's government works with the West to ensure oil flows, unhindered, out of Nigeria to the U.S. and other nations. America has armed and trained Nigerian "security forces" who have shot and killed Africans protesting the theft of their oil wealth and environmental destruction. Shell Oil also hires these "security forces" to kill Africans who get in the way of their profits.
It is the height of racism to claim Obama represents all black people.
FELA KUTI, NOT OBAMA!
If people want a black man who is more representative of black people, generally, they should google "Fela Kuti". Fela Kuti was a famous African singer. He created his own unique style of music called Afro-beat, and was influenced by James Brown. His songs were political and filled with anger. In one song, "Zombie", Fela mocked the Nigerian army in the most sarcastic way possible. After hearing the song, a group of soldiers marched upon Fela's house, smashed down the front door, beat up everyone inside, arrested Kuti, and threw his mother out of a second floor window, killing her.
While Obama praises Ronald Reagan, Fela condemned Reagan, as well as Thatcher.
Admittedly, Fela was African, not American, but he condemned corporate globalization, and America and Britain's imperialist policies that impoverish millions for the benefit of a greedy, mentally disturbed, few.
Fela was no angel, but, unlike Obama, Fela had the courage to attack the political and corporate elite and face the consquences (beatings, the death of his mother, and imprisonment). Obama works with the elite and profits by it.
Fela died in 1997.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said Obama represents all black people. I said as a black man, he certainly has a perspective that is new for someone who is in the White House, and I'm willing to bet that it will make a difference in how he acts as president.
You want to dispute that?
DLINDORFF writes: "You're putting words in my mouth. I never said Obama represents all black people. I said as a black man, he certainly has a perspective that is new for someone who is in the White House, and I'm willing to bet that it will make a difference in how he acts as president. You want to dispute that?"
Yes, I do. Obama, as a black man, has no perspective worth having. Being black means nothing. I told you to look at Nigeria. There, black men are in government, and the government is as corrupt as hell, working for the interests of the West, primarily the U.S.
Obama has already praised Ronald Reagan and said corporate "globalization is inevitable" - an out and out lie! Nothing is inevitable in politics. Politics is not subject to the physical laws of the universe. People make decisions. Decisions can be changed.
Voting a black man into power means nothing. The color of a person's skin means nothing. Read my post below about Fela Kuti, also black, and unlike Obama tried educate the population about what was going on. He paid a heavy price for doing so.
Obama is out for himself - he's corrupt. If you don't like that fact, take it up with him, not me.
Don't compare a black leader in Africa with a black person in america. The experience is completely different. African countries have their own ruling classes, who grow up in opulance and are the oppressors, often, of other black people who are the working class.
In America, by and large, black people are oppressed, victims of petty and official racism, and have a world view shaped by that experience. Obama, as the child of a poor mother, married to the descendant of slaves, and with two girls who will grow up in a society that devalues them because of the color of their skin, has a world view that is decidely different from any president we have had in this country. To deny this reality is simply to avoid thinking, in order to fit some preconceived notion or political stance.
I'm not saying all black people in America are progressive. Look at Clarence Thomas! I'm saying that virtually all black people in America, and certainly Obama himself, have experienced and understand racism. How they respond to it may differ, but they all know it.
When was Obama "oppressed"?
Living in Hawaii? Where I got my teeth knocked out for being "WHITE" or at least "Howlie", and being "in the wrong bar at the wrong time" as one kind patron of the place explained to me?
At Harvard? Damn, they sure know how to "keep'em down" there don't they? Make'em Editor of the Law Review, that'll show'em their place! Y'sir!
Hell yeah Obama has "experienced and understand(s) racism"! Haven't we all? I'm from a pre-Caucasian European ethic group whose culture was wiped out so thoroughly scientists are only beginning NOW to figure out where we and our language came from! But when you or some other "American" sees me walking down the street, you'll label me "white" as if my people never existed! Why? Because we were wiped out long ago, before "white guilt" meant that all the "liberals" suddenly gave a crap and felt "bad" for the black people?
Look at all the evidence of how much the liberals care about black people now! Remember the urban ghettos? Good thing we got rid of those through gentrifying the minorities out of the market! Now they can live in crappy "garden apartments" a 30-mile commute to their jobs as cleaning ladies. Hooray!
Or what about Katrina? Wasn't it amazing when the Dems halted the Congress's ordinary business so that millions of liberals could rebuild the homes of all those poor black folks, and shore up the levees so it could never happen again?
Or wait, I'm making that last one up.
Class trumps Color in this World, dude. They can show you as many videos of as many dumb-ass "pale red-necks" spouting crap as they want, this ain't gonna come untrue.
Harvard Lawyers who float up through the political ranks faster than a hydrogen balloon and then get spread all over TV and get given a Nazi-Garden Gnome for an opponent can do just fine for themselves without my help.
You do what you want of course. The other arguments in your article were reasonable, even if I may disagree with your conclusions.
Don't Panic,
-matti.
Oh my god, you just can't leave well enough alone. The first rule of journalism on the internet really should be, 'do not engage those who disagree with me in the comments'.
You write an article, then argue with commenters who disagree with you, often in contradiction to the assertions of the article itself!
This is why most journalists let people disagree with them, and refrain from getting into defensive arguments with those who comment on their articles. You can't deal with opinions that differ from yours - you're obviously an egotist who just can't be wrong about anything. So you'll argue it to the death. You're right, and anyone who disagrees has to be put in their place. Often through the use of name-calling and other childish b.s. Just give it up! Lots of people don't agree with your positions, and their arguments are equally as valid as yours, if not moreso.
You have a coherent and achievable plan for accomplishing the "end of the two-party system"? By all means, let's hear it.
"If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line --but it'd better work this time"
--Dave Mustaine
"You have a coherent and achievable plan for accomplishing the 'end of the two-party system'? By all means, let's hear it."
My plan is simple: Americans must take responsibility for their political system, and for its actions. No individual can single-handedly save an entire country. No individual can inspire an entire population to rise up. People have to say enough is enough and DO SOMETHING! Not resign themselves to the inevitable.
Exactly!
Exactly!
The problem with the logic in this piece is that ...
-- The Democrats in Congress have been helping to make sure right-wing judges get on the bench. They haven't realistically opposed any of them. Thus, given the proven track record of the types of judges the Dems will support, its a pure fantasy to think that an Obama presidency would lead to any lefty leaning judges. There's no facts to back this up. Just delusions by Obama supporters.
--On labor laws, again we have the track record of this Dem Congress to go by. They've done absolutely nothing in this area with the majority in their hands. Why on earth would anyone think that when the same Democratic majority comes back next session with the same leadership, that suddenly and magically there will be pro-union labor laws being passed. These Democrats take millions in corporate money, and constantly show themselves to be servants of corporate power. And Obama was the least labor-friendly of all the candidates in the Dem primaries, with maybe only Mr Corporate Senator Joe Biden as a close second. So, again, given the facts that are clearly on the record, it seems like pure fantasy and delusion to think that a Democratic Congress would suddenly pass a pro-union labor law.
-- On the wars, Obama is even further to the right than McCain and Bush. Obama has promised to keep troops in Iraq through his term. And his convoluted language on withdrawal always said this. And Obama is promising to send the troops he takes out of Iraq to Afghanistan, and to use them to invade Pakistan. Obama has promised to invade Iran if Bush doesn't. Again, it seems pure fantasy that says that Obama will suddenly end the wars if elected.
I usually like Mr. Lindorff, but this article is quite bizarre. He acknowledges that he lives in a state where Obama wins easily, but then he says he's voting for a candidate that opposes everything Mr. Lindorff supports. And the reasons he's doing so are pure fantasy. Obama hasn't said a word that says he'll do anything that Mr. Lindorff suggests in this article. And the track record of the Democrats in Congress has to be completely ignored to even think that any of this might happen.
The Democrats are owned by corporate America. I wish people would get this delusion that they are really on the left, that they support workers, and that they oppose the wars out of their minds. Its pure fantasy at this point.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
It seems that we have a One Party State with Two Right Wings.
I'll vote Green.
I like to think of McCain as a "Nazi Garden Gnome" who has shaved.
The fact that Obama may not trounce him says a lot abut the Dems failure to appeal to the populace.
But I think Mr. Lindorff shows us why no one need worry overmuch about McCain.
All these videos of all these bigoted morons have had the effect of energizing the portion of the population that fails to vote merely out of apathy (a small but important group for the Dems) and helped sway a helluva lot of the fence-sitters.
NO ONE -excepting the bigoted morons themselves- wants THAT to be the "image of America" that the World has and we are saddled with.
That combined with the bribes -ahem, I mean "tax-cuts"- for flippin' 95% of the people should result in sure victory for Obama.
(Which leaves plenty of room to vote Nader in "safe states")