The problem is deeper than Obama..if the Democratic Party takes any action, it will just replace Obama with another corporate money magnet.

Obama would welcome a career change after 1/20/13 wherein he could easily land a corporate gig paying ten times what his current $400,000 per year dead end job pays.

The Party must change or no truly populist national candidate will ever make it to first base.

Yes, we need a McGovern like unselfish-for-the people President but in this day and age of big money and corporations who buy off the President and Congress the only solution is to let the Democrats wither away so we can build a better system around the OWS movement and challenge the Repigs.

In the meanwhile all of us need to concentrate on weakening the corporate grip. Rally against money in politics, citizens united ruling. For the immediate term we all need to buy less, drive less, cut off our cable TV, shop locally for vegetables and necessities and starve the corporations. Buy used stuff if you need something. No more iphone, ipad, ipod or new cell phones/electronic stuff. Make sure they become iFad and iGone! Cut back on usage at a minimum. Try and use public transportation as much as possible.

McGovern was no RFK or Gene McCarthy, a point driven home at the end of the 1968 Convention when McGovern went to the stage and embraced Humphrey in a big show of repudiation of the party's rebels who were in the streets of Chicago. McGovern may have begun his 1972 campaign then, but he also began to lose the 1972 election ...

You don't "force" Obama to do something, you replace him. You don't change the Democrats, you replace them. You send the Pelosi's and Reids on down the road and replace them with people that will do the right things.

Hooray for Dubet !!!

Do you think maybe FEAR was the stimulus for any Wall Street donation to Obama? Is it good to think they have reason to fear him? We can be nuts ourselves when we jump to conclusions over every unclear news report, and dig ourselves into unproductive holes. Occupy Obama sounds good to me. Let's not give up before even trying. Obama sounded good before he got in the White House. I think he might even be a human being, vulnerable to pressures, but it is difficult to think he did not start out with a good heart. And it is counter-productive to decide before we try it that he is hopeless.

Absolutely right. Still, this action makes infinitely more sense than Nader & Co.'s proposal that Oblahblah accept half a dozen polite debate partners. Electing a bunch of uncommitted delegates certainly won't change the Dim Party -- but it will ruin Oblahblah's little-p party, appropriately slated for anti-union facilities in the Confederate version of Wall Street.

Actually, I'd say Stauber is correct as most people didn't want to look behind the curtain. Plenty of evidence for that was generated right here at CD when Paul Street's very revealing reportage was ignored or worse. Obama conned the electorate with a huge assist from media. And they continue to do so.

A good start. A tire iron to the groin would be even better.

Do you really? Hope you are wrong, that is? I sense that you feel quite superior to those hoards of voters who are "ill-equipped to cast an informed ballot," as you predict (hope?) that fewer than 5% of these "ill-informed" OWS demonstrators will vote against the Democrats or Republicans.

This coming from someone who also writes "Obama is not the problem" because "it is Congress that finances war." As if it is as simple as that. Obama may not be the only problem, but he most assuredly is a huge part and at the root of the problem. Push back against Obama and you push back against his policies.

Rosemarie, with all due respect:

I agree that "Obama is not the problem" in the sense that he certainly didn't personally or idiosyncratically pop out of a vacuum and create or control Amerika's pathological politics and government. He is arguably a product or "effect" of a system.

But I think it is too simplistic to "blame the voters", i.e. assert that the voting public has the power and capability of electing righteous and responsible politicians more amenable to actually representing the ordinary unprivileged citizens who elect them.

The overclass and duopoly have constructed an authoritarian electoral casino in which house rules guarantee that top-down power will always control the action and come away with the lion's share of the take.

To invoke an admitted straw man for the sake of argument, the original electoral process dictated by the Constitution contained more checks than balances to restrict and channel the "average voter"'s power-- e.g., the Electoral College, indirect election of senators, etc.

During the intervening centuries, political parties emerged despite the Founders' antipathy and hopes of discouraging parties and factions; after various permutations, partisan politics have settled into the modern duopoly, like inoperable massive conjoined-twin tumors surrounding the Constitutional heart of the body politic.

True, voters still have the freedom to vote for non-mainstream candidates and even "write in" whom they prefer. But the deck or game is rigged to suppress and exclude candidates who do not belong to, or substantially conform to, the Republican/Democratic duopoly.

Even the well-intentioned progressive-liberal moderate "average voters" among my family and friends are thoroughly conditioned to orthodox, conventional lesser-evilism. My sister still adheres to the asinine belief that Ralph Nader screwed progressives and the nation in 2000 by being a "spoiler".

I haven't discussed this with them, but I'm certain that they will simply vote for Obama next year to prevent another "Republican nutcase" from taking office. And so on down the electoral food chain; they are trapped in a doomed habit of voting for the supposed lesser-evil Democratic congressional candidates.

And they're not likely to be presented with what they would consider a legitimate alternative. At most, they might vote for a "maverick", say a Green, candidate in a local election if for whatever reason they felt that the candidate was more decent or capable than the others.

But they're not about to "waste" their vote taking a chance on any newfangled exotic candidates, sorry to say.

So, while I agree that Obama et al wouldn't be in office if a bunch of damfool voters hadn't put them there, and I wish for a mass defection from the orthodox, conformist compulsion to march along in harness, I don't see any prospect for radical reform tantamount to revolution occurring via a spontaneous bottom-up voter rebellion.

Besides, it's past time to put Obama in the spotlight. He's been given a carte blanche for far, far too long. People could do worse than demonstrate against Obama himself. Maybe, by next summer, people will be out in the streets protesting him everywhere he goes.

I think it would be a good thing if the citizens in other countries know we don't approve of this murdering scoundrel. This man cannot be elected in 2012.