Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
2008 Is Not the Year for McKinney or Nader
We've all had the experience: you get off the interstate looking for food and are confronted with the choice of food-like commodities at the gas station's convenience store or food-like commodities at one of several fast food joints. It's not what you want to eat but, if you're hungry enough, you'll find the healthiest option among those available.
Politics is a lot like that. In my home town of Carrboro, NC, fresh, local, and organic food choices abound and it is easy enough to elect a progressive to local office. But nationally, we find our choices limited in much the same manner as our options along the interstate. Progressives who've studied our political system and history understand why you can sometimes elect a Dennis Kucinich to Congress and why he will never get far in a presidential race.
Over the past few elections, progressive voters have had the choice of supporting a single, high-profile third-party/independent candidate, Ralph Nader. This year, Nader is running as an independent and the Green Party ticket is headed by former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. While the choices are perhaps more tempting, supporting either of these candidates this year would be a big mistake for the Left.
Those on the Left understand that, in 2000, Nader did not cause Al Gore to lose to George Bush. Gore did that all on his own. Nonetheless, Nader and his Green Party strategists made a tactical error in 2000 when they brought the campaign to the close, battleground states in the waning days. The narrow victory that the Supreme Court handed to Bush in Florida casts Nader's 90,000+ votes there in bright relief. New Hampshire was another state where Nader's vote total was far in excess of the Bush margin of victory.
Nader also did a disservice to his supporters and to the nation by arguing that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Eight years later, we know that there was a big difference in such areas as war and peace, government regulation, civil liberties, court appointments, rule of law (and international law), environmental policy, and more. These are differences that have had serious consequence for the well-being of Americans and of people around the world.
Supporters of McKinney and Nader will correctly point out the many issues on which their candidates stand out: universal healthcare, a reduction in the military budget, an end to the death penalty, over-turning of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act, an end to the drug war and its handmaiden, the prison-industrial complex, full equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, etc.
But the fundamental reality is that neither McKinney nor Nader will come close to the 2% of the vote Nader received in the 2000 election. What they might achieve is winning enough votes in a key state to tip the race to the Republicans. That would be a tragic outcome.
In 2000, the economy looked strong and the nation was at peace. Progressives, unhappy with Bill Clinton's various turns to the right, were looking for an alternative. Few imagined Al Gore losing the race or the Supreme Court taking a close victory from the hands of Gore and handing it to Bush. Eight years later, we see how short-sighted that evaluation was. The risk is even greater this year. With major domestic and foreign policy challenges already facing the United States, we can not risk placing our government in the hands of a deregulator and saber-rattler like John McCain.
Barack Obama, though a moderate on most issues, is the only candidate who holds out the hope to move the country forward. Progress, however scant, on a host of issues, is desperately needed, as are regulatory agencies that will actually regulate and Supreme Court justices who will uphold civil liberties.
Supporting Nader or McKinney this year is a luxury we cannot afford. We live in a time when small differences are amplified and the differences between Obama and McCain (to say nothing of Palin) are significant. For the progressive voter there is no responsible alternative in 2008 other than wholeheartedly supporting Barack Obama.
- Posted in
541 Comments so far
Show AllThank you Coleman, Finally someone has published something to appeal to the realistic side of progressives on this site. Before the host of comments about how Obama is one and the same as McCain, I would like to reinforce the sentiments of Coleman, who was as you can see and active member in GREEN PARTY USA.
He makes a great point through metaphor about electing progressives to local office. This is the key statement that we progressives must take to heart. We must build up the local offices with congressmen like Kucinich. The political system that is firmly in place cannot be broken in a single blow by trying to elect a progressive president against all odds. We must chip away at it, not only by electing progressives at all the lower levels, but by changing the way most Americans THINK.
We must discuss, debate, and reason with our fellow Americans. Most of the country does not understand truly why this economic crisis happened. Most do not fully understand how trickle down economics has failed us and led us to be the third worst developed country in terms of wealth gap. Most do not understand that our Imperialism is breeding more "terrorists" than it is killing. Most cannot understand how our civil liberties are being lost.
Only when Americans become educated on these things can we as a country move forward. We progressives are far too few. A true grassroots movement to educate and elect from the bottom up a progressive mindset is our only hope.
‘Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until they have rebelled they cannot become conscious’
--George Orwell
Nader responded to this at the debate last nite by saying something like "it's a great idea, what are people waiting for? But Progressives still need a national standard-bearer to increase visibility." I personally voted for Obama, but I anguished for a couple weeks weather I should vote for Nader instead. I know many progressives around here (well, hippies anyway) who really like Nader but I don't tell them to vote for Obama...instead I tell people I know that support McCain to vote for Obama instead..it's working, here and there.
Please don't censor this post also.
This is an article that spews all the lies and dirty tricks the Democrats preach.
Shame...
.
Anyone who supports Barack Obama has to ask themselves the following questions.
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to raise the Pentagon budget?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for not supporting single-payer healthcare?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for voting for F.I.S.A?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting Joe Lieberman?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting the war in Iraq?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to escalate the war in Afghanistan?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to invade Pakistan?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to invade Iran?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for barely mentioning torture?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for not mentioning the poor and the working poor?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting the $850 billion Wall Street bailout?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for not mentioning corporate welfare -- corporate welfare averaging BEFORE the $850 billion bailout $125 billion per year.
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting companies like Wal-Mart's?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for taking millions of dollars from Corporate America?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting Henry Paulson, the former head of Goldman-Sachs; or Robert Gates, the current Secretary of Defense?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for voting for the Patriot Act as well as the reauthorization of the Patriot Act?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting the bankruptcy bill, a bill that punitively affects the average wage earner?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting an increase in the US military presence throughout the world?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for taking impeachment off the table?
The answer to ALL these questions is the same .. BECAUSE OBAMA IS DOING THE SAME THING!
.
yadda yadda yadda - get a new post, nannie, you spamming one-trick pony Nader troll.
.Instead of displaying the manners of a goat and the intellect of a moss covered rock perhaps you might answer the questions , or can you without feeling your loyalty threatened?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
She posts the same gd thing at least twice on every thread; I believe it is her blog manners that need correcting. Your amateur psychology practice is going nowhere, so don't try and analyze me o superior one. I'm simply fed up with lazy fools posting the same drivel over and over; nannie is the worst violator and I'm calling her on it. Sorry to have offended your tender sensibilities.
.Again you post a childish invective and fail to answer the fucking questions! Your posts are not models of intellectualism thus criticising others lessens your own reputation and does nothing to that of she whom you condemn.
If you are fed up with lazy fools then you must dislike yourself pretty much. Answer the questions Nannie posted, as you object to having seen them so many times you must be familiar enough with them to be able to answer them...or is it that the truth those questions contain makes you uncomfortable in your choice of candidate?
That moss covered rock is doing quite well....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Hey wcdevins, your a little early tonight...
Up to your usual I see.
Oops this is Friday no school tomorrow..Mommy let you stay up?
Yeah, I figured I'd show up on YOUR thread and rant on the same way you do on every other thread in this forum. Can't handle your own medicine, eh?
Obama's trying to get as many independent/centrist voters possible. Why should he criticize McCain, if it will turn off a lot of potential voters.
.Why criticise destructive platforms, madcow? Esepcially if you support them yourself....Obama is in favor of far too many on that list Nannie so astutely provides. You seem to put political expediency before moral rectitude. What standards do you apply to your candidate?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I appreciate the rational, thoughtful responses to the rational, thoughtful article. Soon will come the angry insults.
That being said, the biggest problem with Obama is the same thing that was the biggest problem with Clinton/Gore: "progressive" types will assume that, just because a Democrat is in power, things are all OK. People assumed that because Clinton was raised by a single mother, he'd be good to the poor. Instead, the median age for people who lost benefits in the "Welfare Reform" package was under 10 years old. People assumed that, because Al Gore had written some smart, insightful books on pollution and the environment, things on that front were good. Instead, emissions standards stagnated. That's so say nothing about other horrible policies like the sanctions and bombings of Iraq, as well as violence-based policies in Kosovo, Somalia, Colombia, escalation of the War on Drugs, etc., etc., etc.
During the past 8 years, the Left has been energized like never before. Bush has maybe done more to organize the Left than any Leftist ever has. What we need to fight is complacency among people who pay attention when Republicans are in power, but assume that things are fine when Democrats are in power. Smart people realize that progress will not happen under Republicans, but can happen under Democrats- but only if they are pushed.
.Just as you predicted, only the first insult comes from a 'loyal'democrat, not at all what you thought I imagine:
wcdevins October 24th, 2008 11:02 pm
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Not a loyalist, just a realist. You see things not as they are, but as you wish them to be.
.You still posted the first insult, regardless of how smart or knowledgeable you believe yourself to be...I wish you were not the product of two first cousins mating, but I guess Ill just see that as I wish it were....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I never stooped as low as you and nannie and some of the rest of you Naderites. My insult was about her politics and her posting practices, not her person. When nannie learns some web etiquette I'll lay off.
You are the one making the ad hom attacks, but I guess two wrongs make a right in your fantasyland of Nader ascendency. Anyone who disagrees with you must "be the result of two cousins mating." Your ugly attacks reveal your true ugly nature. You think your little attacks are cute? I think they are desparate and dispicable, sort of like the McCain campaign. But then your Naderites are McCain supporters in reality, aren't you? Many of the Nader trolls here continue to make personal attacks on everyone who does not share their fringe views. Have you ever offered a real insight as to why I should vote Nader? Until then, maybe you need a little Emily Post post yourself, RD.
.You are self deluded beyond belief. That is very, very sad. Perhaps you are as young as your posts indicate you to be, but perhaps not. Here is an example of your bullshit, and just from this very thread,imagine if I took the pains to check on all your "contributions " to intelligent discourse:
"I'm simply fed up with lazy fools posting the same drivel over and over; nannie is the worst violator and I'm calling her on it. Sorry to have offended your tender sensibilities.
yadda yadda yadda - get a new post, nannie, you spamming one-trick pony Nader troll.
Gee, I wonder why the third party fantascists ignored this one? They are so ready to jump on every other comment..."
......
So, maroon, which is it, self deluded, really mentally ill, or just sophomorically immature? It is true that I respond to you sans politeness, it is a reaction to the abysmal stupidity that you display and that I have abhorred my whole life. Noone here should suffer because your parents did such a poor job raising you.
You are perfectly within your rights to disagree with the opinions of Nannie or anyone, but you are certainly not exempt from criticism and the exposing of the delusion of yourself as a polite or even meaningful poster here. So try answering the questions posed instead of demonstrating a childish inability to participate. I doubt I will respond to you any more, like your cousins, outofcontrol-z and others, it isnt my province to combat your poor toilet training. Others have noted the facts of your uselessness, so , rather than descend into your own personal hell of childish semiliteracy and pointless insult Ill just let you wallow alone, as you deserve.....Sheeesh you are stupid!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
You are an insulting boor. It's OK for you to call childish names because you are a superior Naderite. You have proven yourself as pompous, self-obsessed, trivial and childish as anyone here, myself included. You claim an intellectual and moral superiority while hurling names and ad hominem insults, because you are one of the chosen. I believe it is you who needs to grow up.
By the way, you and the rest of the third party faithful HAVE continued to ignore my inquiring posts - I do not see why you think my pointing out your failing is somehow childish or stupid. You'll only engage on a repetitive, nah-nah-nah, childish level (you, nannie, tit-for-tetti, z - you all know who you are) so I have lowered myself, to my own discredit, to your level.
.Vapid ,empty, sophomoric and self jusification for rudeness on your part that BEGAN this exchange not as you would believe
(psychosis much?) was in response.. You are certainly the product of disinterested parents and are in desperate need of a time out...Thats all, ffffolks.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Infantile boor.
"Finally someone has published something to appeal to the realistic side of progressives on this site."
Progressives who HAVE a realistic side are already backing Obama. The remaining Naderite holdouts are a lost cause. Most have long since decided that they will never support anyone with a D after his name.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; you waste your time and you annoy the pig." - Robert A. Heinlein
So Naderites are a lost cause? Oh you mean like David was a lost cause against Goliath, yes I see. And why should we support the Demok party when it's hostage to criminal elites? I suppose next you will try to sell us Microsoft's operating system. I run Linux on a PowerPC myself. And I'm voting third party. You like the roller coaster ride you take with the elites? You like the blood of a million Iraqis on your hands?
.A closed mind is like a closed door, you simply cannot see what awaits you.
I do not argue with your choice of candidate, though I see Obama supporters castigate Nader voters and, in the same post at times, accuse those voters of "hating Obama". Like your own attempt above, equating support for an independent or third party candidate with being unrealistic. I think it unrealistic to support someone who calls for policies of which I disapprove. I think it unrealistic to continue to support a party ( democrats) who have betrayed everything progressives stand for. I think it unrealistic to vote for the same people, the same party and expect differing results.
My vote is not cast for the candidate I think will win, thats a stupid game and shows more about individual weakness than astute politics. My vote is given to that candidate who best makes his/her case for the course of this nation, and ,for me, that candidate is Ralph Nader.
There have been endless posts enumerating all the reasons to vote for Nader, just as there have been numerous posts showing why Obama is unworthy of progressive votes. All one gets from the Obama supporter is that Nader cannot win.So freaking what! Or that maybe, once Obama gets elected he will start listening to progressives. He doesnt listen now when he wants my vote, why on earth will he listen when he doesnt need it anymore?
Ralph Nader is, for me, the best choice in this race and has already gotten my vote, just as he did in 2000 and 2004. You may vote for the candidate of your choice and thats how its done. But keep the platitudes and childish crap to yourself. I am of voting age and able to make my own decisions. You think that progress can be made by supporting cowards, crooks and liars, and both major parties have their share of those, so be it.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
In fact, what I resent most about the Democratic Party leadership (and some followers) is that they work just as hard as the republicans to squash true democracy, the right to speak. And they work just as hard to not follows basic laws and ethics every time they try to squash Nader, McKinney, Kucinich, etc. When Obama didn't say one word in protest when Kucinich was wrongly excluded from the debates (along with Mike Gravel), that is when he lost me in spirit.
The democratic party works hard at projecting a facade of unity, but puts zero effort in actually working together with the voices that have a different point of view.
So if they aren't listening to people who care about our society, but you know they listen to corporations, why exactly are you supporting Obama? Because you have a chance to change him? Wouldn't you want to vote for and elect someone who you 'don't have to change?'
Here we have Nader who meets all of criteria of what progressives want, and the 'democrats' try to make him look bad.
And Obama supporters have quietly accepted that their 'elected officials' didn't impeach a war mongering, unelected president sociopath responsible for many thousands dead, all for corporate profit. That is the final blow, that at Bush's level of illegal activity, it wasn't enough to convince congress to impeach.
so it goes
People who murder people aren't "progressives". Perhaps that's what the real problem here is. You vote for your party of murderers, and that makes you guilty.
Democrats, by and large, are just middle-of-the-roaders, mixed in with--and they'll never admit it--republicans.
It must be a horrid battle within these people, trying to decide what and who they are.
Let's call them the "pretenders".
I think I might understand them now. They're terrified and angry everyone won't join them in the Kool Aid line.
.
If Democrats cannot beat the Republicans without the votes of the folks who vote Independent,
That is the Democrats fault, not the fault of the people who chose not to vote for them.
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
Another "progressive" who supports a right wing war monger. His support of Obama just points to one more Republican wannabe dressed as a Democrat and pretending to be a progressive speaking for the left.
"if you're hungry enough, you'll find the healthiest option among those available..."
In a country that boasts an epidemic of obese artery-clogged diabetics, the analogy that he would apply to build support for Obama is so deeply flawed as to be ridiculous. How about the option to just say "NO!" to crap food? I wondered if Coleman ever thought about that choice... so I hit Google.
Obama IS the epitome of junk food. Slickly packaged, no real substance and unhealthy for our future. Google hits for Coleman's pic certainly seem to reinforce the point poor choices and that his definition of "healthy options" lacks credibility... either that or eating disorder...and if you are wondering, yes, I stumbled upon the YouTube post... WHAT THE!!!
"While the choices are perhaps more tempting, supporting either of these candidates this year would be a big mistake for the Left."
I assume that Colman is talking about the co-opted left like MoveOn... muzzled and now supporting a weak candidate who believes that war will give him credentials to appear "experienced". In the meantime, Obiden will continue to whisper sweet bombings into his ear.
"A true grassroots movement to educate and elect from the bottom up a progressive mindset is our only hope."
This is the spin that has only gained any degree of credibility through the continued issuance of Obama propaganda posts on CD. The choice of "The Party" CEO, leaves only a right wing war mongering Republican wannabe who is intelligent enough to lie (err... adjust position) and appear as though his deceits are "hopeful"... and a true Republican with all the disgusting accoutrements that goes along with that title.
The question we should all be asking is "How did we get here?" Nobody seems to want to take a stab at an answer.
Okay, here's a clue. It wasn't because right wing Republicans within "The Party" started a movement to educate and elect from the bottom up... a fascist mindset.
Perhaps it was because they understood the use of high volume rhetoric that charged up a majority??? Perhaps it was because nobody said "our only hope is to tone it down and quietly educate in the hopes that "one day we will have a voice".
We know where your "solution" leads RepublicanTroll... and it isn't in the direction of positive change. Want proof? Look in your bank account, 401(k), out your window at the increased number of homeless, at the empty Treasury, the empire building fodder enclosed in war coffins, the price of food, the continuing dependence on foreign energy imports, the global economy, the basement level education and health systems, the crumbling infrastructure, the general level of despondency revolving around "no choice"... and of course, the insane level of fat-cat corporatist wealth that has been "captured" through the class warfare that you want to ignore.
... and you want us to support a man whose most important priority is himself?
Don't you get just an inkling of the level to which you have been co-opted? Don't you understand that some of us can clearly see it... and reject your absurd "solution" outright?
The time to act is NOW! America may not be as willing to listen as progressives might like... but there is no other time in recent history when America has been primed for an alternative to what *you* support.
No real progressive has any delusion that a political alternative to "The Party" can wrest control by voting... but we CAN make a statement of our discontent. We can demonstrate opposition. Voting for The Party only accelerates the drive towards war and fascism... and produces a mandate for much more of the economic pain that Obama openly and willingly facilitated.
We have rewarded them enough. Do NOT vote for The Party.
.We may not always agree, toast, but I stand and applaud this effort!
This nation needs, and desperately, a real opposition party, the lack of which has brought us eight years of the worst President in American history.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"Only when Americans become educated on these things can we as a country move forward. We progressives are far too few. A true grassroots movement to educate and elect from the bottom up a progressive mindset is our only hope."
Interesting. Problem is, anything involving the democratic or republican party for that matter, can't come from the bottom up. As well as the Greens.
A few months ago, I attended a local "Get to know Ralph Nader" meeting. The whole time was taken over by "Greens" who did nothing positive, but piss & moan and whined for money (and mailing lists) from the Nader campaign and the "wrongs" done to them. I was totally turned-off.
I do respect Greens, and have in the past voted for many. But, after all this time, and considering where we are today in this country, I'm more than a little suspicious that any dubious claims of "change" can come from such what appears to be, at least in my eyes, a less than focused and organized group of people.
And voting for Obama--as much as I'd like to--just isn't something I can bring myself to do. The democratic party simply has way too much blood on its hands, in its history, and from the current prospects, too much in its future.
Talk all you want about things changing. The evidence clearly shows otherwise.
Stop the murder. Stop the thievery. Vote Nader '08
We've all had the experience: you get off the interstate looking for food and are confronted with the choice of food-like commodities at the gas station's convenience store or food-like commodities at one of several fast food joints. It's not what you want to eat but, if you're hungry enough, you'll find the healthiest option among those available.
After recovering from a serious two day bout of food poisoning courtesy of Taco Bell, I feel like Uncle Sam after a steady diet of Iraq and Wall Street.
""Those on the Left understand that, in 2000, Nader did not cause Al Gore to lose to George Bush." Then he proceeds to lay out arguments saying in so many words that Nader did just that."
Democrats specialize in lies and double talk. Just another example.
And of course, we get the typical spin that says that someone like Obama who seems to be channeling Ronald Reagan every time I hear him speak is really a 'moderate'. Yeah right.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
Rich,
You get extra points for using the word "horsepucky". I also agree with the rest of what you said.
"The maximum argument is that IF you live in a battleground state, it's OK to cast a tactical vote for him, ONLY to defeat McCain, who is even worse; and ONLY if you do it with no illusions. "
- so true.
...and I also give bonus points for "Horse pucky"
I was going to say don't take the bait RichM.
"Supporting Nader or McKinney this year is a luxury we cannot afford"
I just can't wait to see the responses to this article. The lesser evil being evil argument will be flying all over the place.(lol) I personally thought it was a good article. But who cares what I think. (lol)
.You are entitled to your opinions, of course. But justifying an article that clumsily does this just is impossible:
"Those on the Left understand that, in 2000, Nader did not cause Al Gore to lose to George Bush. Gore did that all on his own. Nonetheless, Nader and his Green Party strategists made a tactical error in 2000 when they brought the campaign to the close, battleground states in the waning days. The narrow victory that the Supreme Court handed to Bush in Florida casts Nader's 90,000+ votes there in bright relief. New Hampshire was another state where Nader's vote total was far in excess of the Bush margin of victory."
Nonetheless my fat white ass....
What a childish effort to restate tired cliches this author displays, and a clumsy effort at subtlety as well. Tired old cliches seem all the democrats have to offer these days ( and for a decade at least). I fail to see your reasons for preferring this article, just a silly bit of sarcasm is all...
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Every four years, the evil Democrats will tell you that 'this is not the year.'
But, if you listen to the Democrats, it will never be the year.
I can't think of a better year to vote for either McKinney or Nader. Obama is winning big, so almost every state is a 'safe state' now. When you see Virginia and Indiana in play as 'swing states', the election is heavily tilted to the Dems already.
Also, we have a race where Obama and McCain are in constant agreement on almost every important issue. And if you want any alternative or to express any opposition to current policy, McKinney or Nader are your main options on the ballot.
Wars ... both McCain and Obama support the wars in the Middle East and promise to continue and expand them while in office. If you want opposition to this, go to McKinney or Nader
Economy ... both McCain and Obama support the current system. Obama offers a few minor tweaks. But even this his economic policies sound a lot like Ronald Reagan to someone as old as me. Perhaps both telling was the way they both ran back to DC in tandem to support and push for the $800 billion giveaway of our money to Wall Street. Again, you have to go to McKinney or Nader to get an alternative.
Police state ... both McCain and Obama support the police state that has been built here. Both support the Patriot Act. Both support more spying on Americans. Again, telling was when Obama rushed back to DC to vote in favor of a FISA bill that gave the government broader spying powers and gave the telecoms immunity for their previous illegal spying. Again, you have to go to McKinney or Nader for an alternative.
This list could go on, but if you are really happy with the Bush years, and only want a few minor tweaks in the direction we are going, vote Obama.
If you want real change, vote McKinney or Nader.
And ask the Democrats this question ... when will it be the year to vote for real change?
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
You are right on, Samson. Even for quaking fearful Democrats, this is the best year to vote 3rd party. There is no way in hell that McCain is going to win.
Anyone that wants an end to the wars, the police state, and the corporate welfare economy, as you so clearly pointed out, should vote for McKinney or Nader (and I would suggest McKinney is the better choice), to show our ruling overlords that we are not complete idiots, and we know that Obama is a corporate whore.
Nail, meet head. They've been saying that since 2000, at least. Since I was old enough to vote and can remember. They might've been saying in 1996, but seeing as how I was 16 then and couldn't vote, I couldn't bring myself to care.
The real irony is the campaign banner of "Change!". If they wanted change, they'd be supporting an overhaul of the two-party system.
~Samson's~ points shpuld be well taken but I'm sure some will just chalk them up to "Obama Hating".
The Stark Truth is that 2008 is a MUCH BETTER year to vote Nader (or Green if you really want to for some reason) than 2000 was!
The continued push on CD and other sites to repudiate voters to the Left of the current Dem candidate is getting stranger by the day.
HELLO! We are not your problem this year! The percentage of actively participating Citizens that are willing to look outside of the Dem/GOP box is smaller than ever, our votes don't "belong" to your Party and your Party doesn't need them to win.
Most bizarrely, this is happening as Obama is making a remarkably effective "turn to the right" that feature a tax-cut Bribe for 95% of taxpayers. Obama is decimating everything but the craziest, most bigotted portion of the Republican support, actively siphoning previously commited McCain voters to his side. Meanwhile the MSM convenient focus on the looniness and unatractiveness of McCains die-hard supporters is sending "fencesitters" to Obama in droves.
So, given all this, why the continued efforts to sway those who are remaining Left?
Perhaps they are just baiting us.
If so that is extremely uncool.
Don't Panic,
-matti.
.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_...
Third Party Presidential Candidate Debate
Thank you CSPAN....IT was Great, Fantastic
Ralph Nader and Chuck Ballwin Debate on Oct 23rd
Chris Hedges Moderator
.
Agreed - best year ever -- don't throw your progressive vote away on Obama, especially if you are in a red state or safe state.
"I would rather vote for what I want, and risk not getting it, than vote for what I do not want, and be sure to get it." -- Eugene Debs
Four pillars of the Green Party:
Ecological Wisdom
Peace
Social Justice
Grassroots Democracy
In the words of Dennis Kucinich, "Courage, America!" It takes raw courage to stand up for your vision when you are not sure to get it. But you won't regret it. Even if things get worse before they get better, you don't regret doing what you know in your gut is the right thing.
Hey CD, how about some truth in advertising here. The blurb at the bottom of the piece emphasizes that this guy was once a green. But then it goes on to say he's currently a politician and an office holder. But it doesn't mention his current party affiliation.
This is written by a Democrat, right? Its rather misleading to emphasize his former Green Party connections without being told the truth about his current party.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
Hear hear! The trickery is getting stupid.
If Osama is elected we will be talking four years from now about how nothing has changed. Oil wars won't be ended, Dubya and co. still won't be in jail, the economy will be MUCH WORSE, corporations will still run the country, patriot act won't be repealed.
Just wait and see...
You lose all credibility by calling him Osama. You are like the racist Arab bashers on right wing talk radio.
I kind of like the sound of "Osama." What's the difference if one is on the payroll of the CIA, and the other, the CFR? Same New World Order.
BTW, the real Osama had nothing to do with 9/11, and the video that shows him taking responsibility has been proven a forgery. The dude's been unfairly maligned, even for the Wahhabist Neanderthal that he is. His women have been mostly PhD level college professors. He had a crush on Whitney Houston, too.
***
911 was an inside job. Cheney suspended the Constitution via the imposition of Continuity of Government on 911. Congress has been denied access to the COG details. COG is martial law. http://prisonplanet.tv/alex_jones_live.html
Yeah. And the "progressives", Democrats in wolves clothing, will be telling you and us that" this is the most important election of our lifetime, and that, this time, you HAVE TO vote Democratic. S.O.S.
Just as as dose of reality, here's what the candidate is really saying.
"Senator Barack Obama said Wednesday he would order a surge of U.S. troops – perhaps 15,000 or more – to Afghanistan as soon as he reached the White House.
“We're confronting an urgent crisis in Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama, the Democratic contender and now clear front-runner to replace George W. Bush, said Wednesday.
“It's time to heed the call … for more troops. That's why I'd send at least two or three additional brigades to Afghanistan,” he said in his most hawkish promise to date."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081022.wcampaign_speech23/BNStory/Afghanistan/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20081022.wcampaign_speech23
----------------------
Sounds to me like if you want a continuation of the Bush policies, and his lovely ideas like 'the surge', vote Obama. If you want real change, vote Nader or McKinney.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"