Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDefeating McCain: Ending Not Only Neocon Policies, but Also Tactics
It's true, as those commentators point out, that this episode is just the latest in the McCain campaign's increasingly desperate (and laughably inept) attempt to win by sinking lower and lower into McCarthyite muck. But it goes far beyond just the McCain campaign. The neoconservative Right has been doing exactly this for a long time -- playing frivolous games with the "anti-semitism" accusation, casually tossing it at anyone who utters any criticism of Israel or who advocates some even-handed approach to Israel's conflicts with its various enemies. As Joe Klein said yesterday:
Here we have the McCain campaign's execrable Michael Goldfarb slinging around accusations of anti-semitism--a favorite pastime, as we've seen this year, among Jewish neoconservatives. . . . I'd say that if we have a bigot here, it's Mr. Goldfarb who, if he's intent on calling people antisemitic--or any other epithet--should be required to provide chapter and verse, which he does not do on CNN. (I'd also like to know on what basis CNN's Rick Sanchez can stipulate that Khalidi is antisemitic.)
To put it mildly, there are many profound flaws with Joe Klein as a pundit and, unlike others, I'm not impressed by his vocal support for Obama this year. There are many former Beltway Bush enablers with their wet fingers in the air who have undergone similar transformations, who will, I fully expect, return to form once circumstances change. Needless to say, I take a backseat to nobody in criticizing Klein, but on this topic, I am impressed with what Klein has done and he deserves a lot of credit.
Although he began doing so a bit later than one might argue he should have, Klein really became the first person in a venue as establishment-serving as Time Magazine to explicitly criticize neocons for their Israel-centric fixations and, much more importantly, for their disgusting exploitation of "anti-semitism" accusations against anyone and everyone who disagrees with their views on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and, more generally, on the Middle East.
Having someone like Klein, in a place like Time, make those arguments without punishment is highly threatening to the neocons' ability to continue to intimidate people away from expressing divergent views by wielding "anti-semitism" accusations. And they know that it is threatening, which is why, once Klein began doing it, they engaged in a full-court swarm to attack and demonize Klein and even insinuate that he should and would be fired for his transgressions on the topic of neocons and Israel. The ADL formally condemned Klein, and National Review's Peter Wehner predicted/hoped/threatened:
For those who have been watching Joe Klein v. well, lots of people, here's the latest. It’s like watching a movie that you now know is going to end very badly, and very sadly.
Had it been 2003, Wehner probably would have been right. But it didn't end "badly" or "sadly" for Klein. Quite the contrary, he continued criticizing neocons at least as aggressively and unapologetically -- actually, even more so -- and not only was he undeterred by the standard neocon "anti-semitism" rants, he became increasingly defiant in his refusal to suppress his critiques.
Herein lies the great irony of the neocons' reckless and manipulative politicization of the "anti-semitism" accusation. It was once cliché that "anti-semitism" was the most radioactive accusation that could be made against someone, the Nuclear Bomb of political discourse. A central purpose of the ADL was to prevent the accusation and related issues from becoming "trivialized."
But the anti-semitism accusation has now become so overused, so blatantly exploited, and so recklessly tossed about that it has largely lost its sting. And nobody has done more to trivialize actual anti-semitism than the neocons and other assorted right-wing polemicists who indiscriminately use it as a club to beat anyone over the head who deviates from their dictates when it comes to Israel and other Middle Eastern policy issues -- from Jimmy Carter when he published his book on the Israel-Palestinian conflict to Jim Baker when the Iraq Study Group report was released. And it's perfectly natural that one of the most transparent abuses of the charge -- the McCain camp's attack on Khalidi -- came on CNN yesterday from McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb, a protegeé of Bill Kristol on loan from The Weekly Standard.
The serious pushback against the attacks on Rashid Khalidi is a welcomed sight. In Khalidi's case, the charges of "anti-semitism" are even more disgusting than the normal neocon exploitation, since it's occurring in the last week of a presidential campaign and, as Scott Horton pointed out, is so plainly grounded primarily in the politically useful fact that Khalidi is a Palestinian-American. The anti-semitism accusation is not just manipulative; it itself is bigotry of the highest order.
But this episode illustrates what neocons have been doing for years and, more significantly, signals that the efficacy of this tactic is finally coming to an end. Open debates about U.S. policy towards Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are vital, and people should be able to engage in those debates and be able to take legitimate positions, as Professor Khalidi has plainly done, without hordes of right-wing manipulators swarming on them with anti-semitism accusations.
Scott McConnell, editor of The American Conservative, this week wrote that he was voting for Barack Obama, principally because "John McCain wants to bring [neoconservatives] back, in triumph, on horseback." That's exactly right. The McCain campaign's repulsive McCarthyite tactics of the last several weeks are the hallmark of neoconservatives. That is who will be empowered in a McCain administration. Regardless of one's views of Obama, no other reason is necessary for strongly preferring McCain's defeat. It will be an important step not only to ending the neocons' policies (as McConnell says, "Unlike John McCain, [Obama] won’t try to bomb his way out of the mess"), but at least as importantly, also their lowly, toxic political tactics, so nauseatingly on display by the McCain campaign over the past several weeks.
60 Comments so far
Show AllThe article's title has precious little to do with the article.
What?? It is a very accurate title. We all know--well at least those of us who are serious about politics and not just claiming to be--what neo-con policies are all about. In this article, he exposes one of their nasty tactics: "...for their disgusting exploitation of "anti-semitism" accusations against anyone and everyone who disagrees with their views on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and, more generally, on the Middle East".
How could the title be more accurate???
Upon rereading, I agree with you. Sorry about that.
John Hawk
‘Anti-Semitism’
Let me clarify for the world what the term 'semite' or 'semitic', as a noun or as an adjective, refers to:
: A 'semite' is one who is descended from a 'semite' tribe of the whole entire Arabian Peninsula. A 'semite' speaks one or all of the 'semitic' languages: Aramaic, Hebraic, and Arabic. Most probably these languages descended from Sumeria. 'Semitic' is an adjective that, when used properly, refers to those who speak one of the languages of the 'semites'. It is a linquistic and cutural/tribal characterization, not religious or political.
:'Anti-semitic' is a perjorative word being used to slander and smear individuals who criticize something Hebraic. This is a false accusation. Hebrews who hate Arabs would then also be 'anti-semites'.
It is time to shut the 'anti-semite baiters' up.
Furthermore, most of the citizens of the State of Israel are Khazarian in ancestry, which is NOT 'semitic', but Euroasian. When I studied Hebrew and Arabic, I did not become a 'semite'; I simply learned a 'semitic' language. When one becomes a Buddhist, he does not become a Tibetan.
Are the Israelis so anti-Palestinean because the Palestineans are Semitic?
Kristol père would be utterly horrified at what depths Kristol fils has descended to.
I wonder about the moral compass of people who, confronted with the horrific incendiary racial smears the McCain campaign has indulged in with absolutely not the slightest compunction, continue to denigrate Obama & those who support him as unscrupulous.
Let's hear it, FundyProgs, GLENN GREENWALD IS A BRAINWASHED DELUSIONAL SELLOUT TOO, right? Right?
I haven't heard anyone who is against Obama use the arguments that McCain uses - we are against him due to his POLICY positions. You think too dualistically: us vs. them (dems vs. repubs). We think about what these POLICIES will do to the world. It's the basic core beliefs that are the exact same for Dems and Repubs. Dems, will however, throw us some progressive crumbs from time to time.
Huh? People have been commenting here for weeks about things specifically wrong with Obama's policy positions, such as his support for war, corporate bailouts, the Patriot Act, etc., as part of their justification for voting for Nader or some other non-major party candidate. In contrast, the majority of posts I've seen arguing for a vote for Obama talk about the differences between him and McCain in very nonspecific terms.
Maybe you're referring to McCain voters posting here? I haven't seen too many of those here, but in general I agree with your characterization if that's who you're referring to. I mean, all this talk about Obama being a socialist because he's proposed taxing wealthier people at a 3% higher rate is just insane! Obama himself does a pretty good job of refuting that one, pointing out that progressive taxation was first put into practice by Theodore Roosevelt.
You misread my post; I agree with you. Re-read my post, it was saying that the kinds of arguments that McCain uses against Obama are completely different than the ones non-Obama supporters are saying on a daily basis on CD.
I just watched a portion of McCain's Ohio campaign with Gov. Schwarzenegger of "Cally-fornia" where he made fun of Obama and said he had "skinny" arms and legs and needed to work out --- after bragging about himself winning the Mr. Universe title.
He went on to say McCain was "built like a rock" (haha), "was a POW" (of course), and a "war hero," (none of which qualifies him to be president even if he were a hero, which I don't consider him to be).
I don't understand why Americans like Schwarzenegger. He's a no-class act and looks like Frankenstein in the making. Of COURSE he has no class; he's a Republican, isn't he?! LOL
Hey, FDR and JFK were pretty skinny, too, Arnold. (So were Reagan and Bush 41, for that matter.) What counts is what is in a president's heart and head, not his biceps.
I saw that spooky tableau from Ohio the other night -- Arnold with his orange-tinted, dyed hair, and that thin, strained, grim smile on Cindy McCain's face. I was reminded of why Obama must win: to present America's best face to the world.
Arnold, America is better than the reckless and arrogant policies of the Bush 43 years. America is better than the ugly tactics and smears of the McCain/Palin campaign. And America is better than the cynical and divisive politics of the Bush/Rove years. Enough of your blowhard, know-nothing, self-righteous GOP rhetoric! Enough of your brittle, self-satisfied, small-minded, heartless GOP policies!
Vote Obama/Biden.
"Because America is Better Than This."
Hmm, an Austrian-born son of an SS man who worships who prizes muscle over mind -- where have a heard these themes before?
Not to mention that this miserable fookhead was shoehorned into the governorship precisely to help his Enron buddies steal -- how many millions was it? or was it in the billions? -- massive amounts from California citizens through electricity boondoggles.
Sargent Shriver, Maria's father, must be turning over in his grave at having granted this miserable son of a nazi political legitimacy in the US. (Has Oprah lost any sleep in the last few years after helping him pull off the Calicoup?)
Obama is supported by (and has pandered to) the Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC where the word "antisemite" is so commonly used it has replaced the word "Gentile".
Selected Remarks of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois
from his Address to Iowans
in Des Moines, 31 October 2008
~
“– we are one nation, all of us proud, all of us patriots. The men and women who serve on our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America.”
~
“I have had the privilege to witness what is best in America. I’ve seen it in lines of voters that stretched around schools and churches; in the young people who cast their ballot for the first time, and those not so young folks who got involved again after a very long time. I’ve seen it in the workers who would rather cut back their hours than see their friends lose their jobs; in the neighbors who take a stranger in when the floodwaters rise; in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb. I’ve seen it in the faces of the men and women I’ve met at countless rallies and town halls across the country, men and women who speak of their struggles but also of their hopes and dreams.”
~
“The American story has never been about things coming easy – it’s been about rising to the moment when the moment was hard. It’s about rejecting fear and division for unity of purpose. That’s how we’ve overcome war and depression. That’s how we’ve won great struggles for civil rights and women’s rights and workers’ rights. And that’s how we’ll write the next great chapter in the American story.”
~
“Each of us has a responsibility to work hard and look after ourselves and our families, and each of us has a responsibility to our fellow citizens. And that’s what we need to restore right now – our sense of common purpose; of higher purpose.”
~
By defeating McKane and electing O'Bama, do we avoid responsibility for the murder of innocents by US bombs and missiles during the reign of O'Bama? No. We each have personal responsibility to vote third party to help end the murder of innocents. Only a third party vote can help to keep the predator drones grounded. Vote third party and help achieve a populist shift away from the duopoly of death.
EXACTLY! But I've come to understand that Obama supporters don't care one bit about other human beings. Their lives are worthless to them. They don't care. They are accomplices to murder & it's fine with them. McCain may or may not kill more people; if it were you or your loved ones who were killed, would it matter which one was marginally worse? And I'm not convinced that it wouldn't be the same number of dead anyway.
Um, Dick Cheney just endorsed McCain. Obama can't be worse than either of those two.
They also don't care one bit about Obama's Bush-accomplice VOTING RECORD...which is why most Obama supporters NEVER talk about Obama's OR Biden's VOTING RECORD because they would then have to struggle to defend it. It's so much easier and simplistic for them to project their wishes and hopes on this empty suit who tells them anything they want to hear, and they are naive and gullible enough to buy it. The Fools.
I think it was you the other day who listed 4 examples of his voting record and/or what he has said outside of his "feel good" PR speeeches and an Obama sucker responded: "Assuming that is all true..." They didn't even know! Because they don't care. A candidate's VOTING RECORD should be the #1 criteria for choosing a candidate. But not with most Dem kool-aid drinkers. The #1 criteria for them is that big D behind the faux Dem's name.
The feel-good emotional "hope and change" drivel is all they care about and living with their delusional wishful-thinking and false hope.
Matt Gonzalez has written about it too:
Quote: On the street when I am approached by an Obama/Biden volunteer or someone who tells me they’re voting for Obama, I usually ask “What about the FISA vote?” And each time I hear in return “What’s that?” Or if I say, “You know he supports the death penalty,” I usually hear in response, “No he doesn’t.” End Quote
What Do They Have to Do to Lose Your Vote?
The Trail of Broken Promises
By MATT GONZALEZ
http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez10292008.html
I have yet to meet even one Obama volunteer who has any idea what his positions are! It's insane!
As long as there is an oligarchy, neocons will raise their ugly heads.
I'm not as sure as Glenn Greenwald that racism no longer works as a politcal tactic.
The country is in such tatters that even American Idol watchers can see it.
The country rightly, and simplistically, places most of the blame on Bush and the Republicans.
So they're going to vote for the pleasant sounding Democrat.
In spite of the fact that his skin is a different color.
Change any of these variables even slightly and I'm not sure that racist attacks wouldn't work.
They're just not working this time.
And the author thinks that the neoconservative ideology of the past two decades will end when Obama takes office? I certainly don't !
I agree with you. This is very naive.
To kill a cancer like neo-conservatism you're going to have to drive a stake through its cold dark heart.
Neo-conservatives will have to be prosecuted for war crimes.
And go to jail.
Lots of them.
The public will have to be taught what neo-conservatives are. And what they believe.
So they can be spotted and exposed.
Before the metastasize again.
Like Nazism.
I agree with you. Neocons are a disease- the worst kind of disease. They kill like the plague, AND they poison people's minds. Count me in on the stopping them gig.
Only ignorant dolts could fail to understand the core issues and the thrust of Mr. Greenwald's argument. Granted, the Democratic Party has its own neocons (Albright, Ross, Emanuel, Holbrooke, et al.) who are only marginally less deceitful and dangerous than the criminal neocon cabal that so heavily influenced and manipulated Bush administration policy and now has its tentacles deep in the McCain campaign machinery. And yes, Senator Obama, who, as you may have noticed, is running as a Democrat, has had to make concessions in order to get within spitting distance of the most powerful political office in the world. But the fact that so many progressive Jews are sheddiung their fears and inhibitions about criticizing Israeli policies, exceses, crimes, etc., and are at the same time becoming vocal defenders of those who are unfairly targeted by the neoconservative political machine, is enormously important and very good news indeed. Whether it is too little, too late, remains to be seen. But when one evil is obviously far more likely to bring on a nuclear world war and far less likely to be interested in forestalling looming total economic and environmental meltdowns, the lesser evil might just be the better choice, huh? Just a wild-a** guess.
cmichaelg49:polls are showing 67% to more of Jews are voting for Obama. Not all are progressive. Progressive Jews didn't have "fears and inhibitions about criticizing Israeli policies, excesses, crimes, etc." any more than we are inhibited about criticizing our own gov'ts politicies...etc. You can start with Phyllis Bennis, who writes for ISP-DC and regular folks like me. I already voted for Obama. R.wing Jewish radio show in NYC that I monitor for a few minutes at a time, is totally frustrated that so many Jews are not voting Republicans with McCain at top of ticket. It doesn't matter how many of the neocons may be Jews.
.It is a known fact that the jewish vote in this nation has always been overwhelmingly democratic, and it will be again this year.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Jews are complicated. So are Christians and Moslems. Traditionally Jews in the US have been to the left of Christians. Reactionaries try to turn national and religious feelings and fears into support for different kinds of authoritarianism. This year I see more people from all religions have turned away from reflexive and toward reflective reactions to conflict.
Joe
If you believe that ending neocon rule is as simple as installing the lesser of two evil corporatist CEOs... well, I have to point to simplistic analysis that is solidly based in delusion.
Obama is completely aware of his masters... and it isn't "We the People".
He is complicit in his intent and action.
"Hope" is a drug that you have been mainlining for far too long.
The title to the commentary is a stupid and dubious conclusion.
The problem is this: insulting, degrading and crude attacks on a candidate's character have proven far more successful than any discussion of issues. Like it or not, such tactics win elections, as we have seen with the current president's success. To think Obama will actually defeat McCain is naive. As McCain put it "We have him exactly where we want him."
With the advent of the internet this dynamic has changed. We saw in the last three or four weeks of the campaign that the targets of these degrading attacks were suddenly the recipients of large sums of money donated by people who were disgusted by the nature of the attacks. The internet was the means by which millions of people heard of these attacks and also the means by which they were able to donate within a few minutes of learning of them.
The fact is simply that, as a foreign policy vision, neo-conservatism is the only game in town. In order to abide by the spirit and letter of the 1954 ruling in Brown vs. the Board of Education, the US must abandon the illusion of separate but equal Palestines (one of which is to be designated Israel) and instead support a unified, secular, democratic Palestine with guarantees of civil and religious freedoms for all. If the neo-cons were truly interested in promoting a "beacon of democracy in the Middle East," as they have claimed in numerous papers, this would be the foreign policy vision that would merit their support.
ClassAct:how do you mix BrownvBd of Educ. with Palestine and Israel?
Separate but equal is not possible; separate implies unequal. Brown vs Board of Education has been cited in other US foreign policy areas, for instance, in South African apartheid struggles. See also this link:
http://www.nea.org/brownvboard/03knea-brown.html#brown
ClassAct:I think I understand,but I think it's a big stretch (having worked on a civil rights school case that followed in the decade after BrownvBd of Ed as a researcher). I don't see how a two state solution is the same as school integration. Thank you for your reply. One more question:what would you suggest is the solution? (My point of view is that it should be left to folks there, with a real solution. The Israeli's have a good peace group, such as GushShalom, PeaceNow, and there is more debate in news there than here. I do point out that Noam Chomsky said that based on South Africa finding a peaceful solution, Israel and Palestine could too.) And in the US, there is Jews Against the Occupation of Palestine and other groups of Jews supporting peace in Israel and protesting policies of our gov't in re finding peace in Israel. I think we need to push the US gov't.
The significance of Brown vs. Board of Education lies first in the targeting of schools: through them, the young might be taught the better morality of living in an integrated society and of equal rights and opportunity for all. Secondly, its concept that there can be no separate but equal was able to be extended to all public facilities: buses, lunch counters, water coolers, restrooms, etc., and that it could be enforced through the access to funds where there was any kind of funding from the US government.
Its application to the ideas of separate but equal states can be drawn from the case of South African apartheid where the issue had been evaded through the construction of bantustans, nominally "independent" states consisting entirely of native blacks that were in fact entirely controlled by the greater South African state. Similarly, the two-state solution in the Middle East would entail a Palestinian state that consists of persons excluded from Israel through conditions imposed by Israel and so confined to lands designated by Israel behind a wall built by Israel that is patrolled by Israeli security forces.
The reality of Israel is a blight upon the concept of civil society in the modern world. One shudders to think what a political tinderbox the world would become if the West were to devote itself to restoring pre-Alexandrine kingdoms on a first-come, first-served basis.
ClassAct:working hard to link BrownvBd of Education to Israel policies is not halal nor kosher.
You make Bantustans, and a Palestinian "state" sound like America's "Indian" Reservations.
ClassAct:I don't see how you can take a court decision in the US and make it relate to foreign countries.
While i agree with much of this post and think it is a good one, i can't go along with the age old thinking "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
What has Obama said or done to stand up for Khalidi? Every time something like this happens it is certain people in the press who speak out-not Obama himself.
Obama has presented a very appealing screen for many, many people to project their hopes and dreams upon. And i think he is quite intelligent and likeable. But he has done nothing and said nothing in his political career to make me think he is any more progressive than Bill Clinton, quite frankly. And the fact that he appeals to so many disenchanted conservative republicans is just more proof of how conventional he is.
I think he will win and i think it is the only way americans will be forced to face the fact that we are in a time of major global transformation-- and putting a nicer guy in the white house with a multiracial background is much too superficial for the time we find ourselves within. It doesn't matter. The paradigm is shifting whether we like it or not. That includes the american empire as well. He still has the american exceptionalism mentality. And MLK would not be pleased with his miliaristic urges in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
MLK didn't say we should leave Vietnam because it wasn't practical, did he?
I agree with much of your agreeing; though I wish Kalidi, as well as people in his position, would stand up more, in addition to I'll Bomba Too. Instead of the meager "I will stick to my policy of letting this idiot wind blow over." he would do us all well to take Hagan's approach in North Carolina to Dole's fascist attack - sue for libel.
"Hopefully" if Bomba Too gets elected he'll return to his more human acture of pre-Rev. Wright and pre-acting presidential upon gaining the nomination, where to me his rhetoric ("I'll kill bin Laden" took a major turn toward militancy as he bent to political pressure. In my eyes Obama has the most mature character structure of any candidate since RFK, so I'm giving him my vote and drinking from the elixir of Hope and hoping he'll revert to a more mature human quality once he assumes the power of the presidency, and using that power to confront directly the issues of "Haters/terrorist" he side stepped with Rev. Wright, and the NeoCon fascist attacks he's side stepping during the elections home stretch - and thus make Greenwald's prophecy accurate.
One can wish for McCain's defeat simultaneously while wishing for Obama's defeat. It does not negate the hundreds of reasons for not voting for Obama.
progressiveparty:"wishing" doesn't make winners, only losers. While you wish for McCain's defeat and DON'T vote for Obama, you get a McCain win.
I do find a McCain win scary; I find an Obama win scary, too. Even if I were not in a safe state, I still would vote for Nader or McKinney (or any progressive). And it's even tactical: since the only thing those of us without money have are our votes. If they see a larger and larger percentage of voters not voting for them for policy reasons, this will help persuade them that there is support for a progressive agenda. I also refuse to be complicit in the murders of human beings all over the world, too.
Progressiveparty: thank you so much for saying you are in a safe state. I do think everyone should vote as their conscience says. I am more scared of McCain administration than an Obama administration. I am thinking of Supreme Court, for starters. I think there should be progressive political parties and that they should start from the ground up. What is your opinion of some of the strident comments saying they are for McKinney or Nader? I wonder at their motives. Some are so long and offensive, I don't read them all the way thru and not the repeats.
I am FOR voting for Nader or McKinney; no matter where you live. I don't believe in supporting a murderous thug (McCain or Obama). I am against: pro-war, pro-nuclear, pro-"clean coal" (sic), pro-corporatism, pro-military spending in the stratosphere, and FOR: single payer health care, gay marriage... I find very little agreement with ANYTHING in Obama's positions or votes as a U.S. Senator. I'm not a safe state voting advocate.
progressiveparty:nominations to the US Supreme Court in the next Administration. I prefer Obama nominations to McCain possible choices. I voted for Obama in a "safe" state.
progressiveparty, I admire the purity of your spirit and your idealism... but you're putting your money on a solar-powered Yugo in a NASCAR race. Good luck with that.
There you go again with that analogy!
Maybe you didn't see my correction of it before?
If "independent" or "third-party" candidates were "solar-powered Yugo(s)" and they were in a "NASCAR race" then they would be racing against ONLY other "solar-powered Yugo(s)"!
NASCAR is STOCK CAR RACING.
The cars must all be "stock", which in this case means "basically and fundamentally the same". This is the WHOLE POINT of stock-car racing. Drivers and crews must find "an edge" either in structural differences to their car -within the rules- or by skill or luck on the track.
If the Election system was really like NASCAR, then Nader -by virtue of being on the ballot in 45 States- would be on "basically and fundamentally" equal footing with Obama and McCain and Barr and McKinney, and your whole premise would collapse.
It would work if you said "Formula One" not "NASCAR". But then, "Americans" don't know Formula One, do they?
Sorry to get "all serious" over something you likely thought was just pithy and a bit clever. But, whether you intend to or not, you are spreading around a false and destructive meme. So I'll be hear to discredit it.
.Heres a longer view of things.....
A McCain victory may be anathema to progressives, but an Obama victory may very well put many folks back to sleep, secure in the false notion that a progressive now leads our nation. Anyone looking for a revolutionary change in our governance, anyone hoping for real election reform that takes the money out of the equation, anyone seeking a peaceful solution to the problems of this world, anyone wishing for universal health care,or an improved educatory system, or an end to corporate personhood, or a real effort to find green technologies should remain wide awake.
P.S. Why not capitalise the 'A' as well NYCartist, then you will not be mistaken for a trucker. ;-)
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee:I didn't realize it until I typed it,but I could also, under your suggestion, be mistaken for a NY and CA rtist. (Humor is fun. Thanks.)
.Ok now I am completely lost...but chuckling as well...thanks for lightening up this somewhat somber place.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee:you are welcome. Do the folks with long polemics realize few, if any, read all the way thru? Do they care?
Windbags are not usually the most sensitive, aware people. I doubt if it ever enters their minds that most people barely get past the first line of their diatribe.
Not again--another Obama supporter telling a lie of omission to frighten voters into voting for the candidate of his or her choice.
NYCartist, you must know that your comment only makes sense in swing states--and then only if the two corporate-imperialist candidates are running neck-and-neck. Progressives in states safe for either wing of the duopoly need to realize that they can cast a vote for Nader or McKinney and send a strong message to the major parties that they have to EARN people's votes instead of bullying people with fear tactics like yours that exclude the most important consideration: The (admittedly archaic and undemocratic) ELECTORAL COLLEGE!
By the way, does the NY in NYCartist means New York? NEW YORK IS A SAFE STATE for the Democrats, is it not? Every progressive in NY could vote for the candidate who really represents their views and the Democrats will still get all the state's electoral votes anyway. But you knew that, didn't you?
bildad:I'm not a Cartist. (Humor is still good,yes?) I am old enough to never feel safe about a vote. Upstate NY is mostly Republican, although urban small cities are probably heavily Democrat. We have had dirty tricks in NYC, believe it or not:police giving out bogus flyers (off duty but their guns were showing)in one recent election in minority neighborhoods. Long Island counties are heavily Republican. Nothing is to be taken for granted. NYC is not prepared for the heavy turnout. Mayor (20bn)Bloomberg has cut the Bd. of Elections budget (see CommonCause, who says they're having a "spitting match":mayor and Bd. of Elec., mostly "hacks",not my word but I agree)(and cut it when there was a huge city surplus).
I already have voted for Obama. And, believe it or not, CommonCause did a 50state study and NYS voters, 30,000 are in for a surprise:the Bd of Elec has "purged" them from the voter rolls and they don't know it, for minor discrepancies, typos by clerks, such as you have heard about in other places where it's been publicized (and stopped in Court in OH, I think).
Why are we so certain this will be the end of the conservative right's assault on us? Won't they lead the opposition to a Pres. Obama?? Isn't it true that conservatives are much more effective in opposition than they are in power? While I despise Obama & McCain, I think it's a fantasy to think that the aggression will simply go away due to losing in this election cycle.
In certain ways, Obama represents what many Democrats consider Neoconservatism with a Human Face. If he becomes president, and whether he really wants to or not, he will be forced to defend American hegemony because, along with blazing greed and primitive acquisitiveness, the idea that "We're Number One" is in our very blood. He might be considered a great president in the future if he could fashion a way to undermine the need to maintain hegemony while appearing to do precisely the opposite.
Obama has already promised to try to bomb his way out of this. The only thing he's said is that he'd change targets from Iraq to Afghanistan, Pakistan and likely Iran.
And actually, he hasn't said he'd even change targets away from Iraq. He's just promised to have less US forces on the ground. But in the Democratic strategy proposals, that's also always been connected to a larger use of airpower. This tries to maintain the power of the American empire, but just lessen US casualties. Since Obama and the Democrats plainly don't care how many non-Americans they kill, this is fine with them.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"