Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Fool Us Twice? Can Obama Get Reelected?
NEW YORK--Usually I don't care about political horseraces. Yet I am fascinated by Obama's reelection bid. Never mind what's good for the country. I'm dying to hear him make his case for another four years.
I don't pretend to be able to predict the future. But I have a rich imagination--and I still can't begin to guess how the president can convince a majority of voters to choose him over the Republican nominee whether he be Mitt Romney or she be Michele Bachmann.
Obama is good with words. But what can he possibly say for himself after this first fiddling-while-Rome-burns term?
The president only has one major accomplishment to his credit: healthcare reform. However--assuming Republicans don't repeal it--it doesn't go into effect until 2014. Which, from Obama's standpoint, actually helps him. After people find out how it transforms the First World's worst healthcare system into something even crappier and more expensive, they'll be burning him in effigy.
"Socialized" (if only!) healthcare has driven away the Reagan Democrat swing voters who formed half of Obama's margin of victory in 2008. Unless the GOP nominates some total loon (hi Michele) or past-due retread (what up Newt) these ideological reeds in the wind will blow Republican.
The other major component of the Obama coalition, young and reenergized older liberals, see ObamaCare as a right-wing sellout to corporations. Nothing less than single-payer would have satisfied them. On other issues it seems that Obama has missed few opportunities to alienate the Democrats' liberal base.
"The combination of Afghanistan and Libya could bring a bitter end to the romance between Democratic liberals and Obama," Steve Chapman writes in Reasonmagazine. "Many of them were already disappointed with him for extending the Bush tax cuts, bailing out Wall Street, omitting a public option from the healthcare overhaul, offering to freeze domestic discretionary spending, and generally declining to go after Republicans hammer and tong."
Chapman predicts a strong primary challenge to Obama's left flank--someone like Russ Feingold.
Lefties are also angry about Obama's other lies and betrayals: keeping Gitmo open, signing off on assassinations and even the torture of U.S. soldiers (PFC Bradley Manning), redefining U.S. troops in Iraq as "support personnel." Just this week he reneged on his promise to get rid of Bush's kangaroo courts and put 9/11 suspects on trial.
Everyone--left, middle and right--is furious about his Herbert Hoover-like lack of concern over the economy. While the multimillionaire president blithely talks about a recovery as he heads off to golf with his wealthy friends, unemployment is rising and becoming structural. Obama will surely pay for the disconnect between reality (no jobs, shrinking paychecks, hidden inflation) and the rosy rhetoric coming out of the White House and U.S. state media.
What, exactly, will be Obama's 2012 sales pitch? I seriously want to know. Think about it: how many other presidents have been so disappointing that they had to distribute lists of their accomplishments so their supporters would have talking points?
Among the highlights of one of these enumerations going around the Internet are:
"1. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending.
"5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB.
"14. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research."
I'm in favor of these things. (Although I'm not sure why, with real unemployment over 20 percent and the NSA rifling through my email, I should care about numbers 76--"appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court"--or 86--"held first Seder in the White House." Really?)
Will micro-mini-accomplishment lites be enough to pry liberal asses off the sofa on Election Day? I think not. On the Big Issues That Really Matter--war, the economy, civil liberties--Obama is a right-wing Republican. He's only a Democrat on the little stuff. Liberals won't turn out big for Obama in 2012.
That goes double for the youth vote, a big bloc for O in 2008. From student loan debt to unemployment (which hits Americans under 30 even harder than other age groups), Obama hasn't delivered. They'll sit on their hands.
"We've always known that lasting change wouldn't come quickly or easily," began Obama's official campaign announcement.
"Always known"?
Remember those Soviet-style "Hope" and "Change" posters from '08, presenting the skinny Columbia grad as a postmodern Messiah for a nation ravaged by eight years of Bush? Just guessing, but somehow I doubt Obama's propaganda would have gone over as easily with the caption "Change That Won't Come Quickly or Easily."
"It begins with us," will apparently be one of the slogans for Obama-Biden 2012.
That's the problem Obama faces next year. In 2008 he told us it was going to begin with him.
335 Comments so far
Show AllTed, very perceptive.
Obama has lost my vote, for the many reason you've given. Russ Feingold sounds interesting.
The sole mission of the Democratic Party is to collect more corporate campaign "contributions" than the Republicans.
There is zero chance that the Party will consider any candidate other than Obama since he is the best corporate money magnet the Democrats have ever had.
Unless Obama decides not to run, the 2012 election will be Obama vs. _________ ?
Phasor,
Give me the opportunity to vote for Ross Perot and I would be on a political high. He was the only presidential candidate who warned us about "Free Trade" agreements and how they would destroy this country. Now we have one foot in the grave and the other on a bananna peel.
This guy is a "true" American Patriot!
Note to the Democratic Party: If you nominate Obama I will vote for someone else. If you install ballot access and instant runoff voting I will show my thanks by voting Democratic Party as second choice.
Note to Gail: When the Obama administration trashed liberals the progressives were described as people who want Kucinich for President. I can't think of a better recommendation. BTW, Kucinich knows about resisting corporate power. He saved the people of Cleveland millions by refusing to capitulate to corporate interests. Go here to see Kucinich's trade positions: http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1466 I wish I lived in Ohio's 10th District, so I could vote for him.
What horseshit, with my apologies to horses.
Kucinich refused to capitulate to corporate interests alright, especially when he caved to the insurance takeover of our health system. He's a sellout, just like his master, Obama. Go try your Spin. Wash. Repeat. on DailyKos or FluffPo, please.
Being flamed by this rather obnoxious responder is almost a badge of honor around here. Don't worry about it She has a real problem handling opposing views apparently and thus becomes irrelevant in any political discussion.
So that's why he called Libya an impeachable offense? He's not perfect, but that doesn't mean he's a complete shill.
Ahhh the excrement's alter ego emerges. I guess the meds ain't working huh? By the by, oh pile of s&^t, my comment said nothing about Dennis, one way or the other, only about your childish invectives, regardless of which name you choose to post under.
True, if rich opportunists are patriots.
I like your comment Gail.
I remember Ross Perot, funny accent but seemed pretty genuine.
I didn't know he warned about "Free Trade".
I do remember he was some kind of a self made millionaire, which
means he would have great business senses
I think I would consider voting for him too.
There are more important issues to deal with right now.
Please follow these links:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-remembers-pumping-gas.html/?_login=32282ef268
http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-barack-obama-conclusively-outed-as-cia-creation/
http://www.fas.org/sgp/obama/presidential.html
So nice to see my thoughts on Obama articulated so well. I would prefer to see a Kucinich or Sanders type run; though I'm aware of the difficulties of "electibililty".
I am frustrated at the progressive media, such as Thom Hartman, that discourage the idea of another Dem opposing Obama. Personally, I'm not overly concerned as to whether the progressive opposing Obama be a Democrat or independent; we just need someone we can trust to follow through on progressive campaign promises.
I suggest that you look outside of the Democratic Party for your hopes for this nations political future.
OH HELL NOBAMA. I will be anti-campaigning with the laundry list of why nots. If the DNC doesn't hear from us they will just railroad that prick right over us again. I don't know who's dumber, the repugs or the demwits.
The DNC listens only to corporate "contributors".
What part of Rahm Emmanuel's rhetorical question (What are progrssives going to do , vote Republican?) didn't you understand ?
If anyone would have told me back then that I would place Obama lower on the evolutionary scale than Bush II, I never would have believed them. I was so proud of America when we elected him, my first moment of patriotic pride in a long, long time. Now, I despise the man. He lied and lied and lied and keeps on lying. Where is the "liar, liar, pants on fire" doll?
If Obama is all we have to offer, I won't even vote next time. It doesn't seem to matter, anyway. The law doesn't even seem to matter anymore. There isn't even a pretense of adhering to law in the country. Oh, I mean, unless you are just an average citizen. Legislators don't seem to think laws matter. I guess they think they're just "guidelines."
I'm going to change my posting name to "we-are-so-very-screwed."
Unless . . . Al? Where are you?
Beat me to it!
Of course, the poster you are responding to doesn't even seem to understand how the Blue Party primary elections work, let alone have a concept of democracy OUTSIDE of the pathetic "two-party system", so what's the point?
If all "we" get is Obama, then I won't vote, they say.
Yeah for democracy. :\
Not voting is not a solution...it gives both Dems and Repugs a license to claim that the voters are moving rightward, thereby rationalizing their ever rightward trajectory..
In 1912 Third Party candidate Teddy Roosevelt got 27% of the vote, more than incumbant republican Taft.
If there was ever a year a third party can get more votes 2012 is it.
Join your nearest Green Party. If you don't like the people, you think they aren't doing enough, roll up your sleeves, volunteer, get on a committee. The few who are now organizing with the Greens are in need of HELP!!
I'll join the Greens when I show up at a meeting and the entrenched folks finally admit that their party needs DEEP reform before it ever has a chance to do anything of much value in U.S. politics.
The German Greens should be the model -they are the most successful Green Party in the world.
Where is their ultra-exclusionary list of "10(!) Key Values", for example?
Or at least run a comment forum on the National Party site, and drop the ludicrous all-volunteer concept for pete's sake!
People should be discussing the Green Party on the Green's own site, not commondreams. And only the well-to-do have the means to work the kind of hours it takes to form and run a political party as unpaid volunteers.
Good luck,
-matti.
Just for the record, Matti, not all Green work is volunteer. As ballot coordinator for getting Nader on the ballot in my state, I was paid well. I did the same work for a Democrat once (what was I thinking?) and wasn't paid a cent, even had a hard time convincing the national campaign I had to be get postage money to keep the whole thing legal.
I remember the Obama campaign as an army of unpaid volunteers. And many of those volunteers had left jobs or school to join the campaign, with wild dreams of somehow attaching themselves to the new administration. Really sad to watch that stuff.
As for abmonishing us againinst discussion of the Greens on this site, well, what in the world do you think Common Dreams is? We'll discuss whatever it pleases us to discuss.
See, your response is typical of the Greens I have met.
1) All Green work I have seen is volunteer, and all that others outside of my State have seen is the same. So even if ALL is not volunteer, too much is, and THAT should change. Also Nader and the Greens parted ways in 2004. My experience is from after that. Perhaps your past experience is atypical? It sounds like its from 2000 to me. This is 2011.
2) You remember the Obama campaign wrongly. That "army of unpaid voluteeers" was managed by the real campaign who were paid some of the 3/4 of $1 billion dollars the Blues spent on Obama's campaign. That's a lot of ham sandwiches and coffee for the "army of unpaid volunteers"!
3) Your last is total B.S.. I absolutely never wrote that. I said Greens SHOULD have space ON THEIR OWN SITE for discussion. The implication is that this is ALSO as well as instead of discussions on CD. Are you really for real on this? It seems almost a willful misreading of my post.
-matti.
Your own words:
"People should be discussing the Green Party on the Green's own site, not commondreams. "
I wonder at your own self image to think you can decide what political conversations are acceptable here at CD?
The Green Party is yet in its infancy and thus I see nothing wrong with utilizing unpaid volunteers. Further, as a Party pledged to refuse corporate contributions that Party needs such volunteerism to continue to function. People find the time if they are passionate, wealth is not an issue I think.
I ,for one, see the Green Party as ,currently,the only hope in combating the corporatism that owns the two major parties. Perhaps you see otherwise, fine. Yet to seek to silence all talk regarding Greens here seems an awkward position, to say the least.
As to German Greens, perhaps a better example would suffice. After assuming power in the German govt Fischer "sold out" causing the Green Party decline there. Current approval ratings for them hover at about 18%
http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20110223-33279.html
I agree.
I was quoting the first poster in this sub-thread.
Se my post below for my concept of how such a third party might form and handle the 2012 elections. ;)
No concept of anything beyond the two-party system, huh?
Oh, I think I do. I think I've had a concept for over forty years. In fact, back in 1971, when I was passing out petitions and protesting how tuna fishermen were slaughtering somewhere around 200,000 dolphins each year in the Pacific alone, I was already working outside the system. In those days, almost everyone I knew was outside the two-party system.
I never did eat tuna again. Do you?
Third party, huh? That's a good one.
What you need is a freakin' different species of human being, because the one we've got is not sufficiently nor reliably smart, sane or good enough, despite how nice most of us are as children. If we were we wouldn't be where are we are now, because we've had all the knowledge, all the information we ever needed to avoid the current social-economic-environmental mess we're in. And we still resurrected the Inquisition and torture is now legal, and from what I can tell, it's more important to enough people that they save a dollar or two by going to Walmart, that they watch The Bachelor or Dancing With The Stars or whatever on tv, that they get whatever they want when they want it, and they can't be bothered to give up all their cheap crap just to make sure that the planet is able to sustain life for the near, much less distant, future.
But if a third party can do it, by golly you go for it. I can't wait.
So the "seems to" bit of my post escaped you, eh?
Relax.
"So the 'seems to' bit of my post escaped you, eh?"
Hardly. But I can't think any reasonable person would consider the "seems to" bit to be the pivotal point.
My own comment regarding Obama being all we might have available in 2012 does not preclude third party candidates, or fourth party candidates, or even tenth, ad infinitum parties, etc. This is a simple logic problem that a good number of intellectually competent high school students, and some gifted children, could readily understand.
Your shortcomings in this area along with a marked propensity to make assumptions and level unnecessary insults makes everything you write questionable. You may be the genius you appear to think you are, but nothing you've written supports it.
Raydelcamino -- bullseye as usual.
People act as if not voting punishes the two party monopoly. They don't give a sh*t. The fraud will just go on without you & they will say Americans are so pleased with the results that they can't be bothered to get their fat rears off the couch.
Vote Green Party or another 3rd party-- or write in Alfred E. Neuman. Take the infinitesimal opportunity to voice some displeasure with the current farce. Cynthia McKinney got my vote last time & will probably get it again.
http://www.gp.org/index.php
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/
http://www.lp.org/
Ted Rall always has something interesting to say & this piece was no exception.
The Repugs have an excellent chance if they can push forward one of their less visibly deranged candidates such as Romney or Pawlenty. However, Obama is one consummate liar and with enough corporate and banking dollars, it is hard to count him out.
The official corporate and NPR pundits have already written their analysis of the 2012 Presidential elections:
If Obama loses they will claim it is because he was way too liberal & leftist for the American voter.
If Obama wins they will say it is because he gave up his wild liberalism and moved to the center -- which for them is located somewhere between Mussolini and Pinochet.
Isn't that the truth. Back in 2007, you could barely get any dirt on Obama via Commondreams. In fact, commentary from the likes of blackagendareport.org wasn't even listed here until after Obama was elected even though Dixon and Ford routinely gave cutting edge commentary on Obama.
As Glen Ford said back in 2007, "Hillary Clinton and Obama are political twins...." (except, I would add, on education. Clinton was/is more liberal then Obama and Arnie Duncan) But you wouldn't get any of this kind of debate or commentary.
And when Obama came out and said he'd increase active duty military by 90,000, that Brzezinski was in the wings, and that AIPAC people like Penny Pritzer were in charge of his money campaign, he was still labeled as some outsider, grassroots movement...?! There was no movement, it was a bandwagon. And it's only because people "wanted" to believe, not because there was evidence to do so. And so-called progressive channels kept the con alive until Obama became the "establishment". Now that he's the system, the progressive attack him, but to the run up of the election, they thought they had an insurgent and they didn't listen.
Instead they thumbed their nose at people, sneering as if those of us who questioned Obama were too stupid to understand. And when some of us said, you'd might as well vote for Hillary Clinton, at least you know what you're getting (and the base would have stayed energized- rather than co-opted) We were labeled cynics and haters and fascist as they paraded around Sheperd Fairey's fraudulent/plagiarized propaganda.
The irony is too richly deserved: The quintessential poster of Obama's 2008 campaign turned out to be a fraud.
Lower than Bush? People actually said that he was worse than Bush? Or did they just say he was no better and he was a corporatist, too?
I probably wasn't reading CD at the time. I can't imagine why I would not, given how impressive the entirety of the site is.
No better was my vote.
Bush was an Imperialist-Corporatist (i.e. Imperialist whose Imperialism takes on Corporatist form).
Obama is/was a Corporatist-Imperialist (i.e.a Corporatist whose Corporatism takes on an Imperialist form).
Focusing on the interesting differences between Imperialism-Corporatist and Corporatism-Imperialist is a rather odd behavior if one believes in Democracy and Constitutional Republicanism, in my book.
So I don't, and urge others not to as well. ;)
-matti.
RACIST!
I am stunned that I registered just so I could make a reply to this--WJ: I agree wholeheartedly. To have considered those two people as similar, 2 years ago, would have given me a heart attack. I was spit on and had more than one dog sicced on me and lots of doors slammed in my face, but for once I would not chicken out--it was that important to me and my kids. As I saw it we must have Barack Obama in the White House.
WHAT do I do now? I won't vote for him but does that mean we guarantee a Koch fiend for Pres?? Are we stuck with a President who is selling us out at least as well as George did? OMG! Why can't we get another Dem?!
We're screwed either way. Nothing could make me vote for Obama again, nothing. I turned my back on the whole thing this past November and voted straight Green. And I didn't write this under the Reich article regarding Paul Ryan's Medicare plans, but others intimated it. Will Obama really stand up for Medicare with any kind of leadership? So far there's been dead silence. Maybe he'll show from feigned outrage, like when he wants to "shame" Wall Street. Today Boehner called out Obama for his lack of leadership on the budget. Always sad to have to agree with Boehner or any of the Repubs. They are often right about Obama but then it takes one to know one, right?
I am personally trying to pull myself away from all the news and what's going on right now as it is seriously affecting my nerves and my sleep badly.
BTW, looks like Russ isn't actually interested, maybe he wants to retire, or maybe he got enough money to not run.
""Senator Feingold is not running for President in 2012. Any suggestion he is thinking of running, planning to run, or interested in running is untrue. Senator Feingold is a strong supporter of President Barack Obama and wants to see him reelected in 2012," says Feingold Chief of Staff Mary Irvine.""
I would want to know Feingold's Israel and corporate connections FIRST.
All I have to hear is "strong supporter of President Barack Obama" to see that Feingold is still a company -- er party -- man. I feel the same way about Kucinich. I can't predict what's going to happen by this end of this year, say, with regards to what is going to be another painfully long, disgusting President campaign, but why would anybody be surprised when Kucinich comes out and tells everybody to support Obama? That is what stops me in my tracks about Kucinich. Company (party) first, the country and its people second.
At this point in the trajectory of the United States Corporate Oligarchy, it makes precisely no difference what the posturing political parties pretend.
This country and the people who loot it have metastasized and are destroying the larger system of civilization, and most tragically, the larger living system of the Earth.
At this point, being "fascinated" by Obama seems like a defensive distraction from the grief that our human world radiates.
Webwalk, astutely put. Sadly quite true. Hopefully people here on CD will begin to see the futility of reelecting anyone, the futility of paying taxes, and make the choice to just say no to those (**$^&*( creeps. It is time for a radical move, a general strike by all. But until all have felt the pain of this yoke, man will not stop shopping at smalwart.
Listing health care as an accomplishment is like saying one is lucky if a mugger only stabbed you instead of shooting you.
That aside, why would I vote for a lying, imperialist, fascist, war criminal? Now in the middle of 4 wars, not to mention all the other nasties (like Haiti, as just one glaring example). One would have to be a crazy evil moron to vote for Obama. That said, yes, he may well be re-elected; this IS the USA, after all.
Most US voters are not crazy, evil morons, they are afflicted with terminal denial syndrome, a condition for which the only cure is to smash your TV and radio, burn your newspapers, and other mainstream media print matter and repeat the following mantra:
HOPE plus two bucks buys a good cup of coffee.
CHANGE is what you put in the barista's tip jar.
FOLLOW the pied piper or the pied president and you will drown.
An explanation of a major factor in why Americans are like that is not the same as a refutation that they are. It is not just the media, but also the schools, churches, the entire exceptionalist culture, which has perverted the minds of most Americans. we have mass insanity here, and not just among the half which are Republicans and conservatives, or worse, although they have it the worst. People not only continue to listen to the corporate state propaganda, they pay big money to do so. The denial is part of crazy, evil, idiocy.
The empire is dying, and 'those who the gods would destroy they first drive mad'. Are we there yet? Just about. I expect things to get much worse before there is any chance at all of getting better, and it's not clear if it will ever get better or if the human species will just go extinct (taking many others with it).
Nuclear contamination, massiver pollution, climate disruption, destruction of food crops and other food sources, with genetic suicide, and maybe nuclear war -- any one of which could do us in, and all on a global scope. Did we think we would last forever? The vast majority of species are extinct. We are on a knife edge, and it is looking very bad because we continue to make the same errors, like an addict destroying himself.
The problem is not just some pied piper and perverted media; the problem is the people themselves who allow it to continue and don't break out of their mental cages -- it is that the people are crazy but not 'out of their minds', their conditioned minds which bind them to the paths of destruction.
Talking about if Obama will be re-elected as if that were important, in the bowels of the global, evil, fascist empire, is about as silly as talking about who will be in the captain's cabin as the ship continues on towards the iceberg. The only thing which might make a difference is a significant shift in the human collective mind. It's now or never.
I'm registered Libertarian, but if the Dems put up Russ Feingold, I would vote for him.
George W. Obama will never get my vote.
I wonder how it feels, knowing that your political leanings abet the wishes of such as the Koch brothers.? By all means, work for an end to even the weakest of regulatory powers, work for an ending to all entitlements, a continuation of our vile health care industry. By all means ......
Iowa is only 9 months away. If we're going to primary this SOBama, then we have to start NOW. Otherwise the choice will be Obama vs. Scott Ryan, or Scott Walker .....
Or we could give up on playing the DLC's rigged game, jump ship from the Blue Party NOW, use that 9 months to form a genuinely Populist "Left" (full-employment, end of Empire, limits on corporate and capital power, public health care, education reform adding true public tertiary ed. , etc.) Party, then hold a parallel "primary" -read National Party Congress with a opening nomination election - in Iowa.
Decent folks who stay with the Blues could be invited to come on over when the caucusing goes pro-Corporatist-Imperialist, as it inevitably will.
If things go right and there is the cash to force the TV and newspaper people to pay attention, such an event could get the ball rolling on a real national campaign.
Such a campaign could, as its very lowest goal, aim to force a real "Left/Center" compromise on the Blues, such as is not possible from within the Blue Party. Our Prez candidate could endorse the Blue one early in the fall -if certain requirements have been met- and drop out of the race, spoiling the "spoiler" fears, and bringing a big push against the Reds in the last 6 weeks.
One requirement could be support for, or dropped opposition to, our congressional candidates in exchange for our candidates caucusing with the Blues upon victory.
If just 100,000 people nationwide could be organized into a proto-party version of a Populist(left) Party by say, 8-1-2011, and each committed to donating just $1.00-a-day to said Party, then by the Iowa Caucuses (2-6-2012) they would have raised $18,900,000!!
That would be enough to run a well organized small party, get quite a few State Parties going and Congress and State candidates running, lay the groundwork to get the Prez candidate onto as many State ballots as possible, AND throw a decent looking National Party Congress to coincide with the Blue and Red parties' TV spectacles in Iowa!
If you even get a 25% turnout of the core 100,000 (due to financial assistance for attending) to the Party Congress, it'll be a bigger crowd than a typical Blue/Red Convention!
That should make a splash, and stimulate the growth that will be necessary over the spring and summer of '12 to bring the Blues honestly to the compromise table.
Am I dreaming?
No more than folks who think they can force a "Left/Center" compromise form wihtin the Blue Party!
And, unlike many of them, MY dream comes with a fairly detailed PLAN (there's more, kids ;) ) for making the dream happen.
-matti.
Yes, unfortunately you are dreaming. There is not a scintilla of a chance for a third party that isn't already organized to make it onto enough ballots to make a difference in 2012. Even the "organized" ones will not likely make it onto all ballots. And as Ralph found out, the Blue Party will pull out all stops, legal and otherwise, to smash democratic attempts to gain ballot access.
I am 63 and have lived through Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and the Bushmen. Obama is by far the worst president of my lifetime. And not simply due to the nearly infinite list of criminal, insane and immoral actions and non-actions he has taken but the monumental psychic damage he has inflicted on this country and the world. Plus, single-handedly bringing the Red Party back from the dead.
The 2012 election will see the first sub-50% turnout since 1996 -- another election just like this one, where a sitting Democratic president gave a middle finger poke in the eye to his base.
No offense.
But if every young person with hope succumbed to the despair of their elders, knocking rocks together to make fire would never have become a technic.
You despair because you lived in a world where the Blue Party were NOT horrible charlatans pushing a Corporatist or Imperialist agenda.
I hope because that is all they have been in my lifetime.
Sometimes memory is a weight that crushes, not a tool that uplifts.
-matti.
OK then, younger hoper, please just tell us how to do that! I think this is the time and we can't wait another minute. At least a 'strong' 3rd party noise might get the twins to ease back on the povertization of our country; maybe they would not be so free to do it out in the open, with a smirk, even though the 98% (or some majority number) of us are finally shouting and stomping in protest. The twins are not even slowing down!
I'm not quite clear on why you would want to form a genuine populist party, but not join the Greens.
If you think that you can get 100,000 people from the left to agree any better than the Green Party members, you are a dreamer.
Greens have been working for years to get ballot access and jump over other hurdles of the corporate party election system.
Why start all over? Why not bring your 100,000 people, their anti-imperialist ideals and all the money you think they have, and use the Green Party structure to make a difference?
I'm betting that you would be welcomed by the exhausted Greens, unlike trying to take over the corporate Democrats.
(By the way, I'm a Green Party member)
The Greens get funded by the right for a reason, and the right ain't stupid.