Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Ralph Nader Was Right About Barack Obama
We owe Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney an apology. They were right about Barack Obama. They were right about the corporate state. They had the courage of their convictions and they stood fast despite wholesale defections and ridicule by liberals and progressives.
Obama lies as cravenly, if not as crudely, as George W. Bush. He promised us that the transfer of $12.8 trillion in taxpayer money to Wall Street would open up credit and lending to the average consumer. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), however, admitted last week that banks have reduced lending at the sharpest pace since 1942. As a senator, Obama promised he would filibuster amendments to the FISA Reform Act that retroactively made legal the wiretapping and monitoring of millions of American citizens without warrant; instead he supported passage of the loathsome legislation. He told us he would withdraw American troops from Iraq, close the detention facility at Guantánamo, end torture, restore civil liberties such as habeas corpus and create new jobs. None of this has happened.
He is shoving a health care bill down our throats that would give hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to the private health insurance industry in the form of subsidies, and force millions of uninsured Americans to buy insurers' defective products. These policies would come with ever-rising co-pays, deductibles and premiums and see most of the seriously ill left bankrupt and unable to afford medical care. Obama did nothing to halt the collapse of the Copenhagen climate conference, after promising meaningful environmental reform, and has left us at the mercy of corporations such as ExxonMobil. He empowers Israel's brutal apartheid state. He has expanded the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where hundreds of civilians, including entire families, have been slaughtered by sophisticated weapons systems such as the Hellfire missile, which sucks the air out of victims' lungs. And he is delivering war and death to Yemen, Somalia and perhaps Iran.
The illegal wars and occupations, the largest transference of wealth upward in American history and the egregious assault on civil liberties, all begun under George W. Bush, raise only a flicker of tepid protest from liberals when propagated by the Democrats. Liberals, unlike the right wing, are emotionally disabled. They appear not to feel. The tea party protesters, the myopic supporters of Sarah Palin, the veterans signing up for Oath Keepers and the myriad of armed patriot groups have swept into their ranks legions of disenfranchised workers, angry libertarians, John Birchers and many who, until now, were never politically active. They articulate a legitimate rage. Yet liberals continue to speak in the bloodless language of issues and policies, and leave emotion and anger to the protofascists. Take a look at the 3,000-word suicide note left by Joe Stack, who flew his Piper Cherokee last month into an IRS office in Austin, Texas, murdering an IRS worker and injuring dozens. He was not alone in his rage.
"Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it's time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours?" Stack wrote. "Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country's leaders don't see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political ‘representatives' (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the ‘terrible health care problem'. It's clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don't get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in."
The timidity of the left exposes its cowardice, lack of a moral compass and mounting political impotence. The left stands for nothing. The damage Obama and the Democrats have done is immense. But the damage liberals do the longer they beg Obama and the Democrats for a few scraps is worse. It is time to walk out on the Democrats. It is time to back alternative third-party candidates and grass-roots movements, no matter how marginal such support may be. If we do not take a stand soon we must prepare for the rise of a frightening protofascist movement, one that is already gaining huge ground among the permanently unemployed, a frightened middle class and frustrated low-wage workers. We are, even more than Glenn Beck or tea party protesters, responsible for the gusts fanning the flames of right-wing revolt because we have failed to articulate a credible alternative.
A shift to the Green Party, McKinney and Nader, along with genuine grass-roots movements, will not be a quick fix. It will require years in the wilderness. We will again be told by the Democrats that the least-worse candidate they select for office is better than the Republican troll trotted out as an alternative. We will be bombarded with slick commercials about hope and change and spoken to in a cloying feel-your-pain language. We will be made afraid. But if we again acquiesce we will be reduced to sad and pathetic footnotes in our accelerating transformation from a democracy to a totalitarian corporate state. Isolation and ridicule-ask Nader or McKinney-is the cost of defying power, speaking truth and building movements. Anger at injustice, as Martin Luther King wrote, is the political expression of love. And it is vital that this anger become our own. We have historical precedents to fall back upon.
"Here in the United States, at the beginning of the twentieth century, before there was a Soviet Union to spoil it, you see, socialism had a good name," the late historian and activist Howard Zinn said in a lecture a year ago at Binghamton University. "Millions of people in the United States read socialist newspapers. They elected socialist members of Congress and socialist members of state legislatures. You know, there were like fourteen socialist chapters in Oklahoma. Really. I mean, you know, socialism-who stood for socialism? Eugene Debs, Helen Keller, Emma Goldman, Clarence Darrow, Jack London, Upton Sinclair. Yeah, socialism had a good name. It needs to be restored."
Social change does not come through voting. It is delivered through activism, organizing and mobilization that empower groups to confront the hegemony of the corporate state and the power elite. The longer socialism is identified with the corporatist policies of the Democratic Party, the longer we allow the right wing to tag Obama as a socialist, the more absurd and ineffectual we become. The right-wing mantra of "Obama the socialist," repeated a few days ago to a room full of Georgia Republicans, by Newt Gingrich, the former U.S. speaker of the House, is discrediting socialism itself. Gingrich, who looks set to run for president, called Obama the "most radical president" the country had seen in decades. "By any standard of government control of the economy, he is a socialist," Gingrich said. If only the critique was true.
The hypocrisy and ineptitude of the Democrats become, in the eyes of the wider public, the hypocrisy and ineptitude of the liberal class. We can continue to tie our own hands and bind our own feet or we can break free, endure the inevitable opprobrium, and fight back. This means refusing to support the Democrats. It means undertaking the laborious work of building a viable socialist movement. It is the only alternative left to save our embattled open society. We can begin by sending a message to the Green Party, McKinney and Nader. Let them know they are no longer alone.
- Posted in




390 Comments so far
Show AllAwww, y'all got disappointed with Hopey Guy? Weren't you listening? Well, they're gonna allow us another fake election this November, and then another in 2012. Y'all get out there and work for your corporate whores now, heah? And, Mr. Hedges, if McKinney and Nader aren't alone, I'd like to know who is.
Better start dispersing anti-incumbant fever spores in water supplies and public spaces now.
A severe nationwide epidemic of anti-incumbant fever during 2010 elections will be the only way to turn things around.
No election will turn things around. Sorry. Not that simple.
Here we go again. Haven't we been through all this already? Move on!
What did s/he say that was untrue?
No election will turn things around sounds true to me. If you had the stamina to read the whole article, you'd have seen that it will take a social movement to turn things around, not the kabuki theater of a US election.
But no, modern Americans want social change at the flip of a switch.
Sigh...
The election of FDR and Ronald Reagan each turned things around rather significantly. The people's movement had its role but leadership did the trick in the end. When a president can go out of his way to keep the status quo and fail himself, he could also go out of his way to break the status quo and be a real leader of change instead of lying about it and then backstabbing us like that.
"The tea party protesters, the myopic supporters of Sarah Palin, the veterans signing up for Oath Keepers and the myriad of armed patriot groups have swept into their ranks legions of disenfranchised workers, angry libertarians, John Birchers and many who, until now, were never politically active. They articulate a legitimate rage."
What is their "legitimate rage"?
Do they know? Does Hedges know?
Would they have even formed if a black man was not president?
Of course not.
There are legitimate reasons for rage in this country, but if you think they are to be found in these teabagger groups, you are deluded.
Yes, I was thinking that the other day on my morning walk. You see I pass this house, which has a truck with a big billboard on it promoting the teabaggers, and I just know that if Clinton had been elected or any other white Dem, there wouldn't be a teabagger movement. When it comes to the teabaggers it is strictly black-man-in-the-White-House syndrome.
All the teabaggers are doing is muddying the waters of the legitimate rage. That's one of the reasons we might get this crappy HCR passed. Take Stack's missive. That paragraph Hedges quotes -- and I have read the entire thing -- I would say that's broad angst, regardless of what party you belong to. But the MSM did a good job with categorizing Stack, as they do with any other terrorist.
I think you are both way off here to dismiiss the Tea Party as a racist reaction to Obama. If you remember, there WAS a considerable and quite successful populist-right reaction against the so-called liberal Clinton too. Remember the Contract With America and the Gingritch cngressional sweep?
The rage is ligitimate, but absent a left narrative, their rage gets directed in exactly the direction corporate america wants it too.
Absolutely, pjd412.
Have you, waiguoren and samalabear, actually talked to a Tea Bagger? And if so, gotten beyond the ignorance and drool?
There is a legitimate rage behind all of this. It has to do with many things, as usual ... and yes, racism is in there somewhere. But there is so much more -- and as pjd412 writes, the left is absent in addressing it, save a guffaw or two.
These poor, dumb clucks were sold a bill of goods the same as the rest of us. The American Myth of Exceptionalism and the American Dream never existed in reality -- but now it's become obvious even to them. And the fascist right is there with the quick and easy answers.
Heed the Hedges or pay the Palin. This ain't going to be pretty.
You say it has to do 'with many things, as usual...'
But you don't name even one.
I would never use the word 'racism,' because it is meaningless.
I still maintain these dolts are mainly motivated by resentment over a black president.
I call them dolts because they have been turned around, and are looking in the exact wrong direction, and if you don't think they were easily turned away from their true enemies because there is a black man in the White House, then there you are then.
Yeah, he's half white, we all know that, but in this country, in these circumstances, that doesn't matter a whit.
Huh? I thought this comment pretty well summed it up:
"These poor, dumb clucks were sold a bill of goods the same as the rest of us. The American Myth of Exceptionalism and the American Dream never existed in reality -- but now it's become obvious even to them."
I'm not dissing your claim that reaction to a black man being President is part of this -- it's just not the whole reason for the rage; far from it. I'm sure you have, but just in case -- read all the Joe Bageant you can.
Joe Bageant, exactly! If the left would listen to him perhaps we could rebuild a strong working class based left movement and together we could save ourselves and th eplanet from the banksters and corporatists before it's too late. Indulging in easy dissing of the poor misled teabaggers OTOH only plays into the elites divide and conquer plans.
Well, actually, in their distress - with the help of the media, the Tea Party types are clinging to the myth of exceptionalism even more tightly.
And yes, most of my siblings are Tea Party.
And, something Hedges needed to point out is the reason liberals are so useless in tapping the working class discontent. Liberals, for the most part, are rich, and rather like the status quo. And aside from some tiny groups of anarchists and wooblies in a few large US cities in the NE and NW, there is NO leftist working class in the US - zero, zilch.
When I go to the heartland - places like Lexington, Kentucky, what passes for the "left" is a laughably stereotypical mix of rich people, the artists or actors who beg for their patronship for whom their politics begin and end with gay rights, and writers for the libertine-oriented free-weekly paper that sits outside of a few edgy cafes in what is supposed to pass as a viable downtown.
There is zero alternate news programming like Democracy Now or our local "Rustbelt Radio" in such places. An exhausted person working 60+ hour weeks week in and week out in not going to be seen in the public library looking up Marx or Chomsky either. The only world-view they hear is Rush Limbaugh on every radio at lunch, and the snarking from the liberal snobs in the free-weekly with the gay sex advice and call-girl ads in the back. In such an environment, to expect the worker to understand their actual class interests is to expect them to imagine a unicorn when they never have even described to them what one is.
And, no, I don't know what the answer is, because we are up against those who spend hundreds of billions of dollars controlling the conversation in a direction that serves their interests. But we better start at least defining it correctly.
True words have never spoken. Thank you for comment, it is the most enlightening thing I have read on this site.
On target.
Very similar here in rust belt Ypsilanti Michigan although being near Ann Arbor there are a few old school SDSers who are out there in the cold protesting U.S. empire and you can get Democracy Now! although I just listen to the podcast.
I also agree that the teabaggers who are being misled are *far* less our enemies than the actual powerful bankers, corporatists, and war mongering neo-cons who are doing the misleading. The establishment and MSM would very much like those of us on the anti authoritarian activist left to move our focus away from concentrated wealth and power and move our focus to the disenfranchised teabaggers who we ought to be talking with and supporting their rage against the bankers while strongly confronting any offered racism, sexism, homophobia, anti immigrant views, anti corporate regulation, anti single payer healthcare views etc. Some of the teabaggers *do* have intelligent things to says about the banks, the Federal Reserve, the burgeoning police state at home, especially the more intelligent Ron Paul branch of the teabaggers. Really the corporate Glenn Beck branch of the teabaggers are not only the nucleus of a perhaps proto facist movement but also bait to distract leftists into making easy white trash jokes that only in the long run very much backfire and increase support for the right. It used to bet the left kew how to reach out to the rural working class and "redneck" stood for the red socialist bandanas many miners who supported the IWW and socialist wore. Now that the left has stupidly embraced culture wars issues like gun control we have cut ourselves off from being able to communicate with the rural working class and armed urban poor, stupid, stupid, stupid. I bet if the left instead advocated peasant militias like Hugo Chavez does
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5150
you might be surprised how many poor rural people and armed urban poor would join. Of course the elite New York Times writer pundit class wouldn't like would they? Too threatening to elite wealth and control...
Of course the Freedom Works/Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck supporters *are* hopeless and what we will do about them I have no idea. :(
Noam Chomsky admits that he occasionally listens to right wing talk shows - gasp! A smart man like Chomsky listens to meatheads?
He listens and says he hears credible complaints. Callers don't always have all the information they need - who does? - but they know there is suffering and that government and the filthy rich are a big part of the problem. They love their families, they want to live a meaningful life, they aren't really all that much different than you or me, they want a fair and equitable society to live in, not one where 2% runs the show.
The empire will continue to fuel animosity because it can only thrive on divisions. When we begin to make alliances with others who we typically malign, but who are also feeling the heat - watch out! The empire hates that!
Why not give the empire a run for it's money? Spoil its game plan.
Check out the polls. Most people are rather progressive. The majority wants out of the wars, they want a strong public option or single payer, they will pay more in taxes to protect the environment, etc.
We can capitalize on this. We the People are in the same boat. Unless we're rich and powerful, we are all to be used and thrown away.
Prof. & walker, I also listen to the hard right radio for the same reasons; to understand the hosts 'talking orders' from their Empire bosses, and to hear real people who believe the right express their real problems (which would never really be solved by the hard right (proto-fascist) claimed policies.
The main thing I would agree whole-heartedly with both of you is the need to an empathetic Global People's Movement to confront this damn Global corporate/financial/militarist Empire.
Kevin Zeese and Dave Beito at VotersforPeace are forming a people's "Anti-Empire" movement --- which will hopefully be Global, since a high percent of people outside America realize even more than good, working-class average Americans that the impact of this damn Empire, temporarily headquartered in the US is really Global Control.
Yes, solidarity and empathy by all average (non-ruling-elite) people in a Global People's Movement against Global Empire is our only hope today.
Hell, maybe even Obama would join it once we get it rolling --- because he sure as hell isn't going to lead it --- so maybe he'll at least get out of the way. We could even save a spot for him when he gets tired of shilling for the EMPIRE, and they turn on him with 'extreme prejudice', when his 'plausible electivity' fails, and they can no longer claim 'Plausible deniability', as the Secret Team's CIA says.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Okay, I confess, I voted for Obama. Was it so bad that, for once, I wanted to see a black man as president? His election made a lot of minorities feel empowered. A lot of tears were shed the night of his election.
Will I vote for him again? No, of course not. We all treasured the hope that, though he had mostly been brought up around wealth (private schools, etc.), his marriage to Michelle might have forged a connection with the underclass. We were wrong. Sorry to all the Hedges and Naders of the world that our votes only perpetuated the folly of Bush II. It was worth a try.
I'm sorry to say it but, yes, it was "so bad" that so many wanted to see *that* oreo as president.
Unless there's something special about electing a Black *man* as president, I don't see why people wouldn't have felt just as empowered with Cynthia. Of course, when I asked (on leaving the polling place) only one of a group of 8-10 young Black people coming out just behind me had even *heard* of Cynthia. And even she voted for Obama.
I think the take-home is that anyone sold like a "new! improved!" detergent is going to have just about that much "new" and "improved". I.e., nothing.
With all respect to you (and I do indeed respect you!), it wasn't "worth a try" because it was already obvious in 2004 that he was just a different color bottle with the same old same-old inside.
Of course there was something special about electing a black man president.
Are you kidding me?
And because he is less than the savior of the world, the good 'progressives' lay more scorn on his head than they did even for the likes of Reagan and the Bushes.
You people are a joke!
What, there was something special about electing a *man*? That was my question.
And I hate to break it to you, but there's quite a large continuum between a "savior of the world" and what we got stuck with. It's not the dichotomy you imagine.
Yeah, your emphasis was on the word 'man' and it was preceded by the word Black, I guess referring to Cynthia, who had and has about as much chance of becoming president as I do.
So if 'savior of the world' is at the top of the continuum, what's at the bottom?
Destroyer of the world?
And President Obama's place on this wonderful continuum is not up to an acceptable level, is that it?
You flatter yourself if you think you've as much chance as Cynthia to become president.
---------------------------------
And President Obama's place on this wonderful continuum is not up to an acceptable level, is that it?
---------------------------------
Yes, that's exactly it.
Why Vegas odds on my becoming president would be that much different from C.M. I do not know. Do you?
Self-flattery is a wonderful thing, by the way. Must be, cause I see so much of it.
So Obama is not up to snuff for you; in fact you apparently see him as way below snuff.
And your choice would be...?
And your choice would be...?
---------------------------
Were it within my gift, I'd choose a functional co-presidency, with Dennis as the titular president handling internal affairs, because he comes from a socially privileged (White male) but economically-deprived background and has elected experience in executive, legislative, and staff roles, and Cynthia as the titular VP handling external affairs because she has a socially-deprived (Black female) but economically-secure background.
VERY GOOD CHOICES: WOULD THEY WERE POSSIBLE WINNERS!!
"referring to Cynthia, who had and has about as much chance of becoming president as I do."
You were on the ballot? Damn! I must've missed it. I would have voted for you over the corporate/MIC shill who won the election.
Waiguoren:
You are wrong. We are always, and always entitled, I might add, to pour more scorn on supposed representative of the party of FDR, JFK and LBJ than on representatives of the party of Coolidge, Reagan and Bush. We expect no better from the latter but we have every right to expect better from the representatives of the party of the New Deal and Great Society.
We lay scorn on his head because in many ways he is even worse than odious war criminal Bush. For example he has more troops on the ground than even Bush at the height of the surge.
http://www.alternet.org/world/144449/obama_far_outdoes_bush_in_escalating_war_--_the_numbers_will_surprise_you/
He continued and expanded *Bush's* TARP bailout of elite banksters while millions of American were thrown out of their houses, legally defended *Bush's* domestic spying programs (read Gleen Greenwald to get up to speed there),
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
continues renditions, lied about a green jobs program. I am actually *less* able to protest against U.S. imperialist wars since Obama won as our local peace group (Michigan Peaceworks) was nothing but a shell group fro the Democrats and refuse to march against Obummer's escalations.
The sad thing is I voted for Obama after knowing better and having voted for Ralph Nader in 96 and Leonard Peltier in 2004. I am truly sorry for that decision and can only please believing Obama's lies about a green jobs program and confronting Hilary's war mongering. Mea Culp, sorry Cynthia McKinney. I shan't be voting for Dems ever again, good bye one term President, I will be voting Green from here on out. I will *never* listen to Dim party hack lesser of two evils rhetoric again so save your breath and keystokes Dim party hacks.
Yes, it was so bad. The color of a man's skin doesn't matter. Obama is just a slicker version of George Bush. Now we we have in the history books that the first black president was just a half-white house 'n---'/slave who just smiled nice and catered completely to massa; the banksters.
A black president? Sure that would be great! And there are many good black men that couold do the job. But not this one.
If you listened during the campaign, you would have known Obama/Clinton/McCain where all the same and all bad for the country. Yes, I worked for and voted for Nader.
But, on the bright side, your learning. :-) Hopefully many more will do so!
Remeber, your job is to vote for the best candidate, thats it, make up your mind and don't listen to the mainstream media and let them tell you who to vote for, because they are lying to you. Why did Nader 'have no chance'. Last I checked the candidate with the most electoral college votes won. Yes, the media convinced the cattle that only the republicons & demicons had a chance. How about for the next election we don't be cattle, and just vote for the best candidate, which will surely not be a republicon or demicon.
Am surprised you said "the color of a man's skin doesn't matter." Are you a resident of the United States? Ask any member of a racial minority in America if the skin color matters. It does. And Obama's election had meaning to blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other minorities. Wish politics was just about governing philosophy, but it is about so much more.
Why does everyone keep calling Obama a "black president". He is HALF-WHITE and that is the problem!
Wanda Sykes said that if Obama went off-track, she'd be saying 'What BLACK man You mean that mulatto?"
It doesn't matter what color or gender a president is. JFK was a hell of a lot better and maybe even LBJ and Carter too and all that despite being white but color isn't the problem. It's what each of them did or is doing as leader that will make or break them.
Yes, you have a point my "the color of a man's skin doesn't matter." sentence fragment was not the best I could have done. What I meant (hopefully explained better here) was that when you make a decision to vote for a man you should vote for the best man you can, regardless of his skin color. Sorry for my miscommunication. And yes, I certainly aknowlege the prejudice and racism that exists in some of the anti-Obama screeds, particularly on Fox.
Me too.
However, given a choice, I'd have preferred Desmond Tutu.
Perhaps it's true that we get what we deserve (punishment - for all the sins that Howard Zinn has chronicled).
Desmond Tutu? Give me a break. J.J. Walker would have been a better president than the clown we have.
This apology took guts. You have shown me that there is hope.
Thanks.
What's PUMA for "I told you so"?
PUMA? Oh really now. Hillary Clinton would've been just as bad, if not worse. Her commitment to real people was amply demonstrated by her own health care "reform" failures -- and her relentless pushing of NAFTA. And don't even get me started on her neocon foreign policy -- which, wouldn't you know, we're getting anyway.
I doubt that Hillary would have won against Mccain since she was a long known Democrat and a lightening rod. I used to believe her health reform back when she tried to push hers. Now, I am starting to see its flaws. You would be surprised to find out how many of us Democrats equated her plan with single payer at that time.
Percentage of Americans involved in Tea Party Movement: 11
Number of mentions of “Tea Party” past month in Lexis radio and TV transcript search: 1042
Percentage of Americans who favor socialism: 20
Number of mentions of “socialism” past month in Lexis radio and tv transcript search: 69+
Source: Danny Schechter
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24805.htm
Exactly we need to keep hammering points like this home.
Hedges is correct that going third-party won't be a quick fix, but there is an issue in today's headlines that's begging for socialists get involved and call out our differences with the Obama administration: health care. The socialist approach would be single-payer, which is popular when explained, and simply makes so much more sense than the corporate Obama plan.
That's the immediate opportunity to draw the distinction between socialists and corporatists like Obama.
" It is time to back alternative third-party candidates and grass-roots movements, no matter how marginal such support may be. If we do not take a stand soon we must prepare for the rise of a frightening protofascist movement, one that is already gaining huge ground among the permanently unemployed, a frightened middle class and frustrated low-wage workers. We are, even more than Glenn Beck or tea party protesters, responsible for the gusts fanning the flames of right-wing revolt because we have failed to articulate a credible alternative."
Chris Hedges is exactly right. No more voting for democrats. The party has lost its heart, its backbone, its brain (to be metaphorical about it).
Anyone who has listened to Nader knows how good he is.
Jim Shea
I'll continue to vote Democrat, not because they're a perfect party but simply because the only other option is so ridiculously insane. Voting third party only eliminates one more informed intelligent voter, giving the tea baggers a bigger vote come election time. I'll vote for a flawed party before I'll vote for one that is completely incompetent on every level.
May I suggest you ponder the good cop/ bad cop scam?
This is the logic that has brought us to this point: a series of "least-worst" choices still marches us toward what so few have the balls to point out: We plunge headlong into fascism, and Obama (which is better: Otoma or Obomba, it's tough to decide)has been a no less willing a handmaiden than Bush I, II, Reagan, Clinton--
"Democrats" who vote for illegal war and torture are no different from "Socialists" who do so, right?
Any clue who the last bunch was to support such abominations and call themselves "Socialists?"
Do you have a shred of evidence that Pelosi, Reid, Otoma, any of them, have cast a vote or filibustered anything lately? How in sweet jesus' baby blanket do you think we got Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court? And continued rendition and torture and no habeus corpus and the myriad of evils (*and they are aptly termed evil) outlined by Mr. Hedges in the article?
This is one of the few pieces I've seen in years that calls bullshit and draws the line.
But maybe you're young, and you just can't see it. But I'll try again:
Voting for Democrats produces precisely the same results as voting for Republicans. During W, Congress was controlled by a Repub. majority, and nothing was done, then they took the House and Senate, and still, the Reps. controlled, impeachment came off the table, the wars ground on, then BHO came, and suddenly, they still can't pass jack--
Don't count the "Healthcare" bill, as it criminalizes many, impoverishes many more, and cares for no one but the insurance companies.
So, again, pray tell, how are Democrats different?