[Dialogue] Emailing: It’s Not the Man, It’s the Movement - CommonDreams.org.htm
Harry Wainwright
h-wainwright at charter.net
Sat Jul 5 17:29:40 EDT 2008
<http://www.commondreams.org/> Common Dreams NewsCenter
<http://www.netrootsnation.org/> Net Roots Nation
Home <http://www.commondreams.org/> | Newswire
<http://www.commondreams.org/newswire.htm> | Contacting Us
<http://www.commondreams.org/contactingus.htm> | About Us
<http://www.commondreams.org/about.htm> | Donate
<https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1493/t/105/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_K
EY=1869> | Sign-Up <http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1493/t/24/signUp.jsp?
key=1439> | Archives <http://www.commondreams.org/archives.htm>
Discuss this story
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/themes/common-dreams/images/
icon_comment.gif> Discuss this story <> Print This Post
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/plugins/print/images/print.g
if> Print This Post
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/03/10086/print/> <http://www.
referralblast.com/cs/com/co1.asp>
<http://www.referralblast.com/cs/com/co1.asp> E-Mail This Article
Published on Thursday, July 3, 2008 by TruthDig.com
<http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080702_its_not_the_man_its_the_moveme
nt/>
It’s Not the Man, It’s the Movement
by Amy Goodman
I was on a panel at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado this week when
Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter asked me, “Is Obama a sellout?” The question
isn’t whether he is a sellout or not - it’s about what demands are made by
grass-roots social movements of those who would represent them. The question
is, who are these candidates responding to, answering to?
Richard Nixon’s campaign strategy was to run in the primaries to the right,
then move to the center in the general election. Bill Clinton’s strategy
was called “triangulation,” navigating to a political “Third Way” to
please moderates and undecided voters. This past week, Barack Obama has made
some signal policy changes that suggest he might be doing something similar.
Will it work for him?
Take the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for example. A Dec. 17,
2007, press release from Obama’s Senate office read: “Senator Obama
unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications
companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd’s efforts to remove that
provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the
constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator
Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do
the same.” Six months later, he supports immunity for the companies that
spied on Americans.
I asked Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., about Obama’s position on the FISA
bill. He told me: “Wrong vote. Regrettable. Many Democrats will do this. We
should be standing up for the Constitution. When Sen. Obama is president, he
will, I’m sure, work to fix some of this, but it’s going to be a lot
easier to prevent it now than to try to fix it later.”
Feingold and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., are planning on filibustering
the bill. It will take 60 senators to overcome their filibuster. It looks
like Obama will be one of them. Disappointment with Obama’s FISA position
is not limited to his senatorial colleagues. On Obama’s own campaign Web
site, bloggers are voicing strident opposition to his FISA position. At the
time of this writing, an online group
<http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA>
on Obama’s site had more than 10,000 members and was growing fast. The
group’s profile reads: “Senator Obama - we are a proud group of your
supporters who believe in your call for hope and a new kind of politics.
Please reject the politics of fear on national security, vote against this
bill and lead other Democrats to do the same!”
Then there were the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on gun control and
the death penalty. Obama supported the court in overturning the 32-year-old
ban on handguns in the nation’s violence-ridden capital. It’s the court’s
most significant ruling on the Second Amendment in nearly 70 years. And in a
blow to death-penalty opponents, Obama disagreed with the high court’s
prohibiting execution of those who were found guilty of raping children.
In a Jan. 21, 2008, primary debate, Obama called the North American Free
Trade Agreement “a mistake” and “an enormous problem.” He recently told
Fortune magazine, “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated
and amplified … my core position has never changed … I’ve always been a
proponent of free trade.” This, after the primary-campaign scandal of the
alleged meeting between Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and a member
of the Canadian consulate. A Canadian memo describing the meeting suggested
Obama was generally satisfied with NAFTA. Goolsbee described the accounts as
inaccurate. Now people are beginning to question Obama’s genuine opposition
to NAFTA and “free trade.”
Then there is the floating of potential vice presidential candidates.
Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post was on the Aspen panel and noted
that he has been receiving e-mails from gay men who angrily oppose former
Sen. Sam Nunn as an Obama running mate. They can’t forget Nunn’s key role
in shaping “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which prohibited gay men and
lesbians from serving openly in the military. The e-mails trickled up,
prompting the writing of an influential Capehart column, “Don’t Ask
Nunn.”
It may be the strategy of the Obama campaign to run to the middle, to
attract the independents, the undecided. But he should look carefully at the
lessons of the 2004 Kerry campaign. John Kerry made similar calculations,
not wanting to appear weak on the war in Iraq. Uninspired, people stayed
home. There are millions who care about the issues from which Obama is
distancing himself, from FISA to gun control to gay rights to free trade to
the death penalty. Rather than staying home, they should recall the words of
Frederick Douglass: “Power concedes nothing without a demand.”
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy <http://www.democracynow.org>
Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 700
stations in North America.
(c) 2008 Amy Goodman
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and
discover new web pages.
*
<http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Farch
ive%2F2008%2F07%2F03%2F10086%2F&title=It%E2%80%99s+Not+the+Man%2C+It%E2%80%9
9s+the+Movement> Digg
*
<http://del.icio.us/post?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Farchive%2F2
008%2F07%2F03%2F10086%2F&title=It%E2%80%99s+Not+the+Man%2C+It%E2%80%99s+the+
Movement> del.icio.us
*
<http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.or
g%2Farchive%2F2008%2F07%2F03%2F10086%2F&h=It%E2%80%99s+Not+the+Man%2C+It%E2%
80%99s+the+Movement> NewsVine
*
<http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Farchive%
2F2008%2F07%2F03%2F10086%2F> StumbleUpon
* <http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http%3A%2F%
2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Farchive%2F2008%2F07%2F03%2F10086%2F&=It%E2%80%99s+N
ot+the+Man%2C+It%E2%80%99s+the+Movement> YahooMyWeb
* <http://technorati.com/faves?add=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%
2Farchive%2F2008%2F07%2F03%2F10086%2F> Technorati
Discuss this story
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/themes/common-dreams/images/
icon_comment.gif> Discuss this story <> Print This Post
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/plugins/print/images/print.g
if> Print This Post
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/03/10086/print/> <http://www.
referralblast.com/cs/com/co1.asp>
<http://www.referralblast.com/cs/com/co1.asp> E-Mail This Article
145 Comments so far
1.
Rich Griffin July 3rd, 2008 12:14 pm
I disagree with this article; I regard him not as a sellout but as
simply no good at all - a useless vessel, signifying nothing. There is no
valid reason to support Barack Obama, not even fear (justifiable) of John
McCain. It’s time to end the catch-22 of viability and for more & more of
us to support only alternative parties to break the stranglehold of this two
(sic) party system.
2.
jesusofjonesboro July 3rd, 2008 12:16 pm
Miss Goodman’s advice notwithstanding, I probably will sit out this
coming election, at least at the presidential level.
For me, Obama’s persistent tack to the right puts not only his
integrity but also his intelligence into question. He clearly intends to
out-Clinton the Clintons, exploiting issues and ideas rather than truly
believing in them.
For example, anyone with half a brain knows that “free trade” is a
completely meaningless concept, a slogan used to grease the skids for
abusive corporate practices. One can promote trade without supporting “free
trade” agreements. Why isn’t Obama taking advantage of the widespread
disillusionment with these unholy pacts?
jj
3.
Nannie July 3rd, 2008 12:24 pm
.
VOTE NADER 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
.
4.
Nannie July 3rd, 2008 12:26 pm
.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008
<http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638>
&cid=N00009638
OBAMA TOP CONTRIBUTORS
” You gotta dance with the one who brung ya ”
.
5.
workreno July 3rd, 2008 12:30 pm
Hail King Obamcain
lie to us
steal the wealth of our nation
please make all our decisions for us
kill us
enslave us
teach us that thinking is dangerous
Hail Obamcain
6.
skepticism July 3rd, 2008 12:36 pm
The left has no power. It has an opportunity to gain some in this
presidential election season. If the left is loudly part of the coalition
that elects Obama-especially if it can be visible by huge vote margins in
jurisdictions perceived as liberal/left-then the left will be perceived as a
constitutency that matters.
I agree with Amy Goodman that the left should be loud in its
opposition to Obama’s positions it disagrees with. But threatening to stay
home simply has no effect. If the left is not perceived as part of the
coalition that elects Obama, and hopefully a wave of Democrats in other
offices, some of them genuine progressives, then it will stay quite
irrelevant.
I’m all for a viable third party. I’ve done a lot of hard work in
my life toward building one. But its not a viable option at the presidential
level in this year. We need a left third party as part of the equation. (And
an independent protest candidate like Nader is NOTHING of the sort-voting
for a partyless, movementless icon like Nader is the perfect example of
doing absolutely nothing.) I’m for continuing to build that at the local
and state levels.
But in this year, the left’s best option is to be a part of a
coalition that has motivated a lot of new voters, young voters, people who
aren’t going to hear the left if it talks to itself about staying home. Get
visible, be part of this. As Amy Goodman says, it is the movement not the
man. This election is just one step in a process. You don’t change a
country by electing one individual. You change it with long term strategic
action.
7.
Deran <http://myspace.com/draftmckinney2008> July 3rd, 2008 12:41
pm
The big flaw with Ms. Goodman’s analysis is that there is no
“movement” to pressure Obama. There are his believers, and there are his
main donors, there is no movement. There is no organization, not even as
loosely defined as say the Rainbow Coalition. It’s just people logging on
and believing that Obama will save them. If there were a movement, I think I
would have seen them doing something? Right? Not just “believing” and
donating money.
8.
5280 July 3rd, 2008 12:53 pm
First of all, hamming it up in Aspen with these cretins exposes your
credibility (once again.)
As you stated here Amy, a third party is really never an option, is
it Amy? It never will be with progressive fakes like yourself.
Vote for Nader and turn-off the MSM (this includes fakes like
Goodman)
9.
luckylefty July 3rd, 2008 12:55 pm
All in an atomized country suffering from Kitty Genovese Syndrome
where NOBODY that matters wants anything to change, EXCEPT, that things
should get better for them and fuck everybody else. This was always an
authoritarian, patriarchal society based on exclusion, imposed weakness, and
exploitation, just as we were a slave Nation of 3 classes: Masters;
Overseers; & Slaves or that we were conceived in genocide. None of that has
changed. The Roosevelt Legacy was a social mistake that has been mangled and
raped to death and Mr. & Mrs. America DON’T want it back - the choices and
decisions required by Freedom; economic, social, political, & personal
terrified them. Such a life would cost them their fixed creation, flat-earth
model of life. “Whaddyamean I gotta let black kids go to school with my
kids, or a black family down the block. No way Jose.”
Never forget: Nixon was elected in ‘68 to put the blacks, the
women, and the protesters in their place. He did. He killed them, ritually
shamed them, and extra-legally executed them.
Beyond that, they just couldn’t handle the leisure time. It made
them crazy.
It is the doom of men that they forget.
10.
Nietzsche July 3rd, 2008 12:55 pm
I’m voting for Obama. He is black. Maybe you can’t see what that
means unless you are in the Southern Bible Belt where you can still hear
race baiting sermons and the N word still used in some paces without fear of
giving offense.
I waited in line to vote for him in the primaries. When I got inside
there was a 90 year old black woman waiting in a wheelchair with her
granddaughter. I am in no position to understand what that day meant to her.
She had lived through the lynchings during Jim Crow, drunk at the colored
only water fountains, maybe lived in one of the “nigger houses”, shacks
which housed black farm workers who worked until they were old and broken
for somebody else’s profit. Her Grandmother may have been born a slave.
I don’t care if it is only a symbolic gesture. I’m voting Obama
because he is black.
11.
Kristina40 July 3rd, 2008 1:00 pm
You are apparently not looking very hard Deran. There are plenty of
supporters “doing”. They’ve even set up a blog on the Obama site calling
him out on issues they disagree with.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/3/7211/98156/400/545723
Thousands have signed up for that group. Most supporters with any
sense don’t believe he will “save” us. No one person can accomplish that
anyway, to think so is naive and counter-productive. What draws me to Obama
is his ability to get people involved and working to improve our system. His
community organizing backround is unique in a Presidential Candidate and he
has obviously learned much from Alinsky. Now for the reality check, what
exactly will he get accomplished if McCain is elected? He has to play this
like he’s playing it. Were he to come out and agree with everything we want
he would NEVER GET ELECTED IN TEN LIFETIMES. This country has never been
into political sharp turns, change occurs gradually…
12.
RichM July 3rd, 2008 1:03 pm
Nietzche (12:55) writes, “I don’t care if it is only a symbolic
gesture. I’m voting Obama because he is black.”
- Your sentiments have some nice (or at least understandable)
qualities, but your position is ridiculous. Would you vote for Condi Rice,
or Clarence Thomas, on the same basis?
13.
workreno July 3rd, 2008 1:06 pm
Nietzsche has takin the bait.
14.
chessgames56 July 3rd, 2008 1:09 pm
Obama is as much ‘white’ as he is black. What a foolish reason to
vote for Obama. Condi is black, would you vote for her for same reason?
Looks like Obama disillusionment has finally set in, as I knew it would. A
politician that comes into power within a corrupt party and system, cannot
help but be corrupt himself. It really only a matter of degree.
15.
atheist July 3rd, 2008 1:16 pm
It’s not the man, it’s not the movement, it’s slick packaging and
marketing !
16.
lwhunt330 July 3rd, 2008 1:18 pm
I agree with Deran. If there is a movement, Obama has just spit in
its face, like John Kerry did to his most passionate supporters. This is
exactly what Obama is doing; spitting in the face of those who most
passionately supported him and worked for his nomination. Now, knowing that
we have no place else to go, he is diluting himself with stupid
triangulating stances that will cost him the support of millions and loose
him the election. He doesn’t deserve to be president if he is this stupid
and corrupt. It most likely will take the Democrats another four years to
learn this lession, and another four years of a Republican president for
Americans to finally wake up and realize they have been sold a bill of goods
by both parties.
17.
Meg July 3rd, 2008 1:21 pm
Amy Goodman is not a fake and I’d like to see anyone here compare
their contributions to a better world to hers. Having said that, I do not
agree with this article and I am resigned to possibly never vote again
(meaningless IMO if there isn’t at least a 3rd party)if there continues to
be only a choice between mean or meaner. I wish I had the optimism displayed
in this article.
18.
Nathaniel Heidenheimer July 3rd, 2008 1:21 pm
Goodman has a lot of good things on her shows. That said…
She is funded by foundations for a reason…. THE WE HEAR YOU BUT…
….PUBLICATIONS.
The job of these nich marketed pubs are always to speak out loudly
in opposition to the Corporate Scumm Bendovercrats so that the listner
thinks “they are on my side” Then when time comes, they are used to say
“even though we disagree with Obama on A-Z we think you should still vote
for him beause blah blah blah.
The fruits of forty years of lesser of two evilism will be Iran- for
Chase Bank.
I think the most usefull thing we can do is write about media
deception strategies on mainstream media (preventing our marginalization and
taken-for grantedness that will ocur if we ONLY type here) and lead some new
readers back to the rich democratic discourse on Common Dreams-MOSTLY IN THE
COMMENTS SECTION! JUST SO CAN WE COUNTER THE GATEKEEPING STRATEGIES OF THE
KAPLAN FUND!
19.
Nathaniel Heidenheimer July 3rd, 2008 1:21 pm
Goodman has a lot of good things on her shows. That said…
She is funded by foundations for a reason…. THE WE HEAR YOU BUT…
….PUBLICATIONS.
The job of these niche marketed pubs are always to speak out loudly
in opposition to the Corporate Scumm Bendovercrats so that the listner
thinks “they are on my side” Then when time comes, they are used to say
“even though we disagree with Obama on A-Z we think you should still vote
for him beause blah blah blah.
The fruits of forty years of lesser of two evilism will be Iran- for
Chase Bank.
I think the most usefull thing we can do is write about media
deception strategies on mainstream media (preventing our marginalization and
taken-for grantedness that will ocur if we ONLY type here) and lead some new
readers back to the rich democratic discourse on Common Dreams-MOSTLY IN THE
COMMENTS SECTION! JUST SO CAN WE COUNTER THE GATEKEEPING STRATEGIES OF THE
KAPLAN FUND!
20.
alexnosal July 3rd, 2008 1:22 pm
Rich Griffin… you’re absolutely right!
Third party is an option… simply vote for an alternative party and
then we might have real change. Don’t get fooled by corporate America’s
shell game (Democrat or Republican?), turn off your TV and start asking real
questions of your elected officials.
21.
Nietzsche July 3rd, 2008 1:23 pm
Of course not, but he is not Rice or Thomas. He is a charismatic
politician AND he is black. I am sure he is saying whatever he thinks will
get him elected.
It may be too much to hope for that he plans to bring criminal
charges against telecom Inc. but it’s possible, and the bill allows for the
possibility.
Thoreau complained that his government was also a slave’s
government. If my government could have a black man as president it would
make up for a lot.
Everybody knows that a good percentage (how much I don’t know) of
criticism of Obama is inspired by his color. You don’t hear the talking
heads on TV say much about that.
22.
jesusofjonesboro July 3rd, 2008 1:25 pm
skepticism, if Obama is abandoning all of the positions for which I
have been supporting him then voting for him would also have no effect.
jj
23.
Daniel David July 3rd, 2008 1:26 pm
Thank you, skepticism and Nietzche above, for two good analyses from
two different perspectives. Both are worth reading again slowly if you
half-skimmed them.
The substance of Obama’s “hope” campaign is not that he himself
is some kind of messiah, or magician, or in any other way larger than life.
(Although being nominated for president while being mixed-black and having a
black family is a HUGE thing in itself for this country-as Nietzche’s
90-year-old woman could tell you from her wheelchair.)
The important part of the “hope” is what we individual citizens
can gin up and keep ginning up until we have soundly defeated John McCain,
his party’s philosophy, and his promised clones of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts
and Alito. Because those clones, if elected/appointed are going to slap
citizens, and slap citizens, and slap citizens again FOR YEARS until you and
your kids are exhausted, humiliated and thoroughly subjugated. They will do
it on cases of THEIR choosing, not yours. We have A VERY GOOD CHANCE to
avoid this-this year-and we had better take advantage, because 2012 is
probably too late. They just need one more for complete control. (P.S.
Nader/McKinney etal are NOT in a position to rescue this-not now, and not
even, if by some miracle, one of such was to be elected in ‘12, or ‘16 or
‘20.)
As for Obama tacking to the right, we can all question whether that
is the best strategy to win-and we can all attempt to influence him with
loud public opinion. But to criticize him mercilously as a sellout and some
kind of bum-when he’s all you’ve got and a TERRIFIC candidate at that-is
the worst of anti-hope, and it’s coming from very questionable places of
deception. The mere fact that all the GOP can muster is an adulterous beer
dealer for their party of “family values” tells you this. Right now, there
is a lot of “hope” for better. It is my hope, your hope, our hope. Don’t
be part of drowning it in darkness.
24.
abramawicz July 3rd, 2008 1:30 pm
GOODMAN: warning to Obama and progressives.
Goodman lays out a situation, while refraining from telling
progressives to do something - on the one hand, she ‘counsels’ the Obama
machine that centrism (aka shift right) may hurt his campaign; on the other,
in the article title and concluding sentence - she suggests that “power”
(including “power”-ful politicians like Obama) will respond only to
demands, in this case, demands by progressives.
Don’t stay home disgruntled and feeling impotent, exercise
democracy and make demands of Obama, Goodman writes.
Good advice - the question is, how? Should progressives merely
demand and criticize? Or should they say, ‘Voting for you depends on your
supporting pre-nomination positions, and not moving right as you are?’
My view is that progressive who supported Obama should now withdraw
support and hold their vote in escrow.
To this, I would add only the point I made in a post elsewhere: that
the absence of a progressive third party in American politics makes this
more difficult to do; and that, if there were a unified third party, Obama
might have been prevented from leaning right in the first place.
25.
abramawicz July 3rd, 2008 1:35 pm
RE: LACK OF PROGRESSIVE THIRD PARTY PREDISPOSED OBMAMA TO SHIFT
RIGHT, AND LIMITS EFFECTIVE PROGRESSIVE RESISTANCE
For those interested, I make the third party argument here:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/02/10035/
abramawicz July 3rd, 2008 12:05 pm
WHY THE OBAMA SHIFT RIGHT: BECAUSE THERE’S NO PROGRESSIVE THIRD PARTY IN U.
S.
26.
doughyden July 3rd, 2008 1:45 pm
I will not vote for Obama. He is a liar. Period. You can wiggle and
explain and parse all you want, but from public campaign financing to NAFTA
to FISA, he has lied, lied, lied.
I don’t care what the alternatives are. I will not vote for a liar.
I will vote for Nader. Voting one’s conscience is never wasted.
I think Obama will be elected. Having said that, I guarantee this:
after one year of Obama’s presidency, we will still have over 100,000
troops in Iraq; we will still be fighting Iran (assuming that the shrub
starts it, which is a dead solid certainty), we will still have NAFTA in its
present form, FISA will still be in effect without significant change, we
will still not have universal health insurance, and the left wing will be as
ineffectual as ever. Mark my words. If I am wrong on any of these
predictions, I will gladly kiss your ass in Macy’s window and give you 30
minutes to draw a crowd.
27.
FreeTheMedia July 3rd, 2008 1:45 pm
Perhaps another question that should be asked is not just “who are
they answering to?” but “who has greater influence over the candidate? The
public or the big money donors?”
If we are going to have a conversation about the “center” and
Obama “moving to the center” then we must realize that the political
climate has shifted. Voting to give companies retroactive immunity for
violating the Constitution is not a mainstream position and if it is being
touted as the “center” then the center has obviously shifted to the right.
Certainly it is good that there has been outrage over Obama’s
complete reversal on the FISA legislation as well as his shift on several
other positions and it should continue. If Obama is honest about his
approach toward real “change” in this country, then we must ask ourselves
why he is following the playbook of the same old Democratic Party…shifting
his positions to the right to gain votes. This is an indication to me that
the same forces are at play with Obama that have always been in play and
those forces are not the American people.
Amy raises good points about putting pressure on Obama, but we need
to be ready to vote in mass for a third party candidate (Nader or McKinney)
if Obama is not responsive to the people.
- Chris
http://chriscommons.blogspot.com
28.
John Freeman July 3rd, 2008 1:45 pm
NOBODY with any integrity seems able to get elected as president in
this country. The population is just not bright enough to hire on merit. We
are just about on a par with the Good Germans who hired Hitler.
29.
skepticism July 3rd, 2008 1:48 pm
Nader is not a third party. He is more of a “messiah” figure than
Obama will ever be.
Nader is an independent voice accountable to no party, to no
movement. His voice is important but it does nothing to further a
progressive movement or a left third party to vote for this particular
messiah.
The alternative to Obama is to get out and do the nasty, gritty,
dirty work of trying to build a third party. The only viable left party in
this country is the Green party. If you don’t want to throw in with Obama
and the possibilities there, then get out and build the Green Party.
30.
Tom Joad July 3rd, 2008 1:53 pm
I agree with Nietzsche. I don’t care what Obama has to do to get
elected. Just “Git Er done.” If he is elected it will be the best thing
this country has done in a long long time.
31.
abramawicz July 3rd, 2008 1:55 pm
THIRD PARTY NEEDED? AGREED. BUT GOODMAN’S POINT IS THAT
PROGRESSIVES MUST MAKE POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE - E.G., THROUGH 3rd PARTIES
As I argued above and elsewhere, short of taking power, third
parties could enforce accountability.
Rich Griffin July 3rd, 2008 12:14 pm
“I disagree with this article; I regard him not as a sellout but as simply
no good…It’s time to…support only alternative parties.”
32.
LiPo July 3rd, 2008 1:56 pm
I agree with Daren: there is no “movement.” We will get what we
deserve, which is another corporate-owned president. There are differences
between Dems and Repubs, but at the core they are both rotten. Vote Nader
and maybe one day we will get some relief.
33.
safiyyah July 3rd, 2008 2:05 pm
It’s the man, its the lack of a Movement. We have traveled from the
lack of a Movement so-called ‘Rainbow Coalition’ to the lack of a
Movement, Obama, the so called ‘Change’ guy. And we still have nice
liberal types trying to get us to go with the corporate Democratic Party guy
because they don’t want to truly build a Movement, or don’t truly know how
to do so? It will take more than votes.
34.
Nietzsche July 3rd, 2008 2:07 pm
The objective here is defeating McCain. Obama has the best chance of
doing that. Try to imagine a McCain Presidency. If we still have any rights
left when George FINALLY leaves, I can assure you they will not be there
after his first term is over.
I don’t want to live in a totalitarian state. Some of the comments
here suggest to me that some people wouldn’t mind at all. I am sure the
really big money is all for it. They love talk about numerous third party
candidates.
If the richest 1% has more wealth than the poorest 90% now, they
will be a lot richer after four more Republican years. Guess where that
wealth will come from?
35.
baruch July 3rd, 2008 2:09 pm
Of course Obama’s a sellout. How else did he get where he is? They
are all sellouts. And, as much as I wish I could be naive and hopeful, I am
not. If Obama is ever inaugurated, which could happen (and I am not going to
say “elected” because we do not elect presidents in the US, they are
appointed by nameless faceless behind-the-scenes players) he will have the
leeway to do perhaps a few things he believes in, and he’s probably not
that terrible a person. Certainly he is more developed morally and
psychologically than Bush, so he may do some good things…but he will be
there serving the agenda that politicians in the US serve.
The “movement” in support of Obama does demonstrate a deep hunger
for change. Belief in and service to the two party system, though, cannot
result in significant change, and we are still deeply mired in that
particular bullshit.
36.
jclientelle July 3rd, 2008 2:17 pm
The best thing about this situation is the 10,000 Obama supporters
who have petitioned his website for a change in his FISA stance. That is 10,
000 people understanding an issue and deciding to take an independent
action. It’s a little seedling that has to grow.
It’s also significant that the website, particularly the critical
part of it, has not been shut down (yet?). Does that mean that some in the
central administration or techies of the campaign truly care about free and
independent participation in electoral issues? I suspect so.
37.
Nietzsche July 3rd, 2008 2:18 pm
Thank you baruch. When you are deeply mired in the shit, the first
priority is getting out. This is no time to leave the horse and wagon where
it is and shop around for another farm.
38.
Rockerbabe1 July 3rd, 2008 2:30 pm
Is this discontent I hear? Senator Obama acting like a politician?
Running as a “liberal”, but moving to the center so he can govern? For
shame!
Senator Clinton is looking better and better!
39.
abramawicz July 3rd, 2008 2:30 pm
FreeTheMedia July 3rd, 2008 1:45 pm
“the same forces are at play with Obama that have always been in play….Amy
raises good points about putting pressure on Obama, but we need to be ready
to vote in mass for a third party…if Obama is not responsive to the
people.”
Agreed. To which I would add only: a coherent third party must exist
to make a candidate accountable - either in terms of ‘contracting’ to
positions, or facing consequences if they abandon those positions.
To be ready to “vote in mass” for a third party requires the
existence of a third party that progressives are tuned into in advance.
40.
abramawicz July 3rd, 2008 2:38 pm
Rockerbabe1 July 3rd, 2008 2:30 pm
“Senator Obama acting like a politician? Running as a ‘liberal’, but
moving to the center so he can govern? For shame!
Senator Clinton is looking better and better!”
Nah, the Democrat electorate rejected Clinton for her positions, but
also her unecessary caving in to the right; now they can do the same with
Obama - whereas defeatists who supported right wing Clinton as “realistic”
gave up that power in advance.
Obama ‘protesters’ are being consistent in their demands and
expectations.
41.
jesusofjonesboro July 3rd, 2008 2:39 pm
Folks, our first priority needs to be cleaning up Congress,
replacing not only as many republicans but also the accommodationist
Democrats as possible. With stronger, more Progressive majorities in both
houses - and especially in the Senate - we have less to worry about with
regard to the person sitting in the oval office.
I understand the “anyone but McCain” sentiment but I don’t think
that electing Obama will mean a lot without plenty of Progressives in the
Congress to check his rightward drift.
jj
42.
RichM July 3rd, 2008 2:40 pm
abramawicz (2:38 pm) - Did you say the other day that you are the
same person who posted at CD under the name of ‘baska’ last year? Just
curious. :)
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.g
if>
43.
Coyotita July 3rd, 2008 2:50 pm
“Vote for Nader and turn-off the MSM (this includes fakes like
Goodman)” -
This is one of the battlefronts in this war (campaign) for the
future of our great country - where the left is so far out there, that they
are standing elbow to elbow with the far right. I do believe that many who
are making their voices heard on the Obama website are sincere, but I also
suspect that some on the far right are standing with them (wolves in sheep’
s clothing). And when the insulting infighting starts is when I get off the
Nader and far left bandwagon. That is not to say that I wouldn’t add my
voice to those who seek to influence Obama to stand his ground on this one.
True, the real threat to our nation’s security is the government’s
heavyhanded surveillance, but those on the far right, doing the fear
mongering work of those who want to manipulate the public for the continued
hold of the few over the masses, will frame it as the exact opposite of
“risking our security.” But strategy has its place, and I, having said my
piece against the FISA Bill, will sleep well at night. Demos have got to
stop reacting and start responding to the events set up by the far right
syncophants of the powerful.
44.
frank1569 July 3rd, 2008 2:52 pm
There are, in fact, two men running who have never wavered from
their “core” principals: Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, and lifetime public
servant Ralph Nader.
Stop being “disappointed” by corporate-approved-and-paid-for
candidates doing what corporate-approved-and-paid-for candidates do, and
start voting for real leaders who will deliver a real revolution.
45.
wobblie July 3rd, 2008 2:55 pm
it’s clear Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! are shifting right along
with Obama.
VOTE NADER that’s what’ll scare the one party system. Even if he
gets only 10% of the vote, it’ll scare the beegeezus out of the
establishment and force them to take the issues seriously.
Otherwise, they’ll just go on doing what they’re doing - that is
whatever they want.
46.
Mayari July 3rd, 2008 3:09 pm
I agree with Jim Hightower: I’m a part of the Obama Phenomena. I’m
more a fan of the Phenomena than the man.
The biggest, most effective lobby right now working to get Obama to
change his mind about FISA is at mybarackobama.com
story: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&addres
s=132x6450928> &address=132×6450928
Obama’s campaign is an opportunity to become part of an enormous
grassroots movement, and try to influence it’s direction. I think that any
leftists not joining in are foolish.
47.
bigchange July 3rd, 2008 3:47 pm
Isn’t anyone else voting for former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia
McKinney???
She takes the right positions on the issues in favor of peace-loving,
working people, and she’s got more guts than any other politician I can
think of, (see the documentary American Blackout), and as a bonus
…she’s a black woman!!!
48.
bildad July 3rd, 2008 3:48 pm
A note to skepticism: Nader is not really a man without a party. The
Green Party is set to nominate a candidate for whom the majority of us did
not vote. If we were as democratic as we pretend to be, Ralph Nader would be
our nominee, even though in the face of intra-party squabbling he declined
to actively seek the Green Party nomination. He has ALREADY won the popular
vote in the primaries. His showing in the California primary alone should
assure that he will be drafted as our candidate at the convention in Chicago
this month, but with our ridiculous consensus system (not to mention the
fact that we allow registered Democrats to ascend into the hierarchy of the
party where they disrupt and sabotage the party at every turn-see numerous
articles on CounterPunch by Joshua Frank, et. al., for evidence)smaller
state Green parties and Greens in states without ballot access have too much
power to defeat the will of the majority of Greens. I’m willing to bet that
there will be quite a ruckus at the convention over this. Nader is already
at six percent in the CNN and AP polls. Ten percent will get him into the
Google debates-and that could change the dynamics of the race, since
millions of people will get to compare the sound-bite and platitude-ridden
stump speeches of McCain and Obama with the specific plans, positions and
solutions offered by the Nader-Gonzalez ticket.
“It’s better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote
for what you don’t want and get it.” - E.V.Debs
49.
auspiciousbunny July 3rd, 2008 4:15 pm
My friend called Amy a “liberal gatekeeper”, at the time I believe
he meant she wouldn’t “open the gates” to allow other theories on who was
behind the Sept. 11 attacks.
But I also think he meant more than that.
Having in the past donated money to Democracy Now for several years,
it’s now my opinion that is Amy Goodman is also keeping the gate locked on
alternatives to the current two-party system.
Every election her coverage has been basically the same. One
interview with Nader and a few other candidates, but incessant coverage of
the major players. Even when she is addressing an issue that is screaming
for Nader’s input, where he would have expertise, she often gives off the
vibe that she wouldn’t dare even mention his name. Instead, she finds
people inside the party establishment to talk to about “the candidates.”
Listening to Democracy Now during the run up to each major election
has started to make me ill just a little too frequently. There is far too
much wasted airtime devoted to already media-saturated Democratic (and
Republican) candidates and their “positions”. The positions don’t vary on
Democracy Now. They are the same on the mainstream news. It’s not like Amy
Goodman is scathing in her analysis.
It’s at the point where I don’t tune in just to avoid getting
disappointed with her, and very annoyed. I don’t like to waste my time. If
she wants to provide Democracy Now she should rethink her strategy for
covering presidential elections.
This year my funds are going to Nader, and to other alternative
candidates, not to gatekeepers.
50.
abramawicz July 3rd, 2008 4:25 pm
RichM July 3rd, 2008 2:40 pm
abramawicz (2:38 pm) - “same person who posted at CD under the name of
‘baska’ last year?”
Yes - mentioned to explain my interest in your “plausible” comment
vis-a-vis my understanding of your earlier views.
As I recall, we both see third parties as vital, but have a dif pov
re whether capitalist politics is by definition a con, and consequently re
whether third parties should ever seek to exert pressure on the ruling
parties.
Based on my understanding of your position, I was struck by your
provisional interest in the ‘Obama movement as transitional third party’
view.
51.
ezeflyer July 3rd, 2008 4:46 pm
Obama may not be responding to the wishes of his money supporters as
much as to threats and offers he can’t refuse from the dominant right wing
media.
52.
auspiciousbunny July 3rd, 2008 4:56 pm
Mayari
I’m foolish because I won’t support someone who supports war,
NAFTA, surveillance, and the big insurance companies, to name a few things?
Or, in other words- instead of my simply supporting independent
candidates who are upfront and honest in their opposition to these things,
what you’re telling me is, it would be wiser for me to put energy into
trying to change some corporate candidates mind?
ha! Brilliant.
53.
atheist July 3rd, 2008 4:59 pm
More backtracking from Mr. O:
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) promised primary voters a swift
withdrawal from Iraq, in clear language still on his website: “Obama will
immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two
combat brigades each month and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq
within 16 months.”
Not anymore. Heading into the holiday weekend, Obama and his
advisers repudiated that pledge, saying he is reevaluating his plan and will
incorporate advice from commanders on the ground when he visits Iraq later
this month.
A top Obama adviser said he is not “wedded” to a specific
timeline, and Obama said Thursday he plans to “refine” his plan. …
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11517.html
54.
kman2 July 3rd, 2008 5:17 pm
“I don’t want to live in a totalitarian state. Some of the
comments here suggest to me that some people wouldn’t mind at all. I am
sure the really big money is all for it. They love talk about numerous third
party candidates”
I agree…many people on Commondreams truely do not want free
thinkers on this website. They are a left wing purist group who sit on their
rigid perch and throw stones at anybody who talks about reaching across the
aisle. Everything has a simplistic answer. Nothing is grey. It’s whatever
Nader says. Anybody who talks of cooperation is a sell out. It’s a recipe
for losing…..again and again and again.
55.
george w. bush July 3rd, 2008 5:19 pm
Obama’s sashay into the middle of the quicksand has inspired me
greatly, to vote against him.
56.
george w. bush July 3rd, 2008 5:20 pm
He’s not really dancing with the creeps who brung him, he’s
dancing for them.
57.
jozef July 3rd, 2008 5:24 pm
The McBama show is showing itself to be more of the same. The poster
above is correct. There is NO movement. There is, however, the corporate
show brought to us by the DLC. This show is a Madison Avenue construction.
McBama is NOT anti-war. McBama has done everything that he needed to get the
nomination, i.e., he co-opted the peace movement, the social justice
movement, liberals and progressives alike. So what else is new for the
Democratic Party and those who are compelled to vote for the lesser of two
evils? In Feb 07, McBama said “I have a plan to bring troops home by March
2008″. Now he is saying that he will do what is necessary in the name of
the national interest. Well duh. Translation, McBama is refining his message
on Iraq the way he has refined it on FISA/telecom immunity. So then, the
presumptive commander-in-chief, is showing himself to be the neophyte that
he is. But, we the people, have been here before, We’ve had this done to
us, and far too often. McBama is now a contradiction that is unacceptable.
He is showing himself to be a hypocrite. McBama said in the past that the
“war is a mistake”. Now, it appears he’s going to ask the generals what
they think? He made us believe he knew how to get out? Well now. It is
voting for Obama that is a mistake. Another indicator that this is precisely
the year to support 3rd parties and independents. McBama has just waffled on
the fundamental issue, getting out of Iraq. And what will those that
believed in him use as an excuse this time? Run Ralph. Run!
58.
CBolin July 3rd, 2008 5:32 pm
Good piece by Amy.
I am registered Elephant right now, but had considered voting for
Obama in the fall elections.
His position on FISA has made me change my mind, along with his
pandering religiosity last week. More and more, he’s about the same as
McCain on the important issues.
Which means they are both owned.
Looks like I’ll be voting for the Libertarian, again.
59.
musicmarc <http://musicmarcgmail.com> July 3rd, 2008 5:34 pm
Wow. How quick everyone is to jump ship.
Those of you who will not vote in the next election (at least not
the presidential part) shouldn’t be writing anything here!!
The rest of you should just give it some time. Sen. Obama is an
unbelievably intelligent man. If he isn’t voting the way he is suppose to
(to satisfy certain people) or he’s changing positions about certain
subjects… then he probably has a long range plan. The fact that he’s not
“wedded” to a specific time-line for withdrawal could mean he’s planning
on pulling all of the troops at once.
The way I see it, is we either get Obama or we get McBush. The
thought of McCain running the country makes me nauseous. Obama on the other
hand is a positive, intelligent thinker, who is willing to learn from his
own mistakes, and to listen to what people have to say. He doesn’t have a
specific agenda set out for him as Bush has with the PNAC.
I voted for Nader in 2000 and for Kucinich in 2004. I would be
voting for Dennis again this time had he stayed in the race. I like Nader a
lot… still, but I think that Obama is the best man for this job right now.
So let me know when you want me to throw you all life jackets.
60.
jozef July 3rd, 2008 5:38 pm
“Those of you who will not vote in the next election (at least not
the presidential part) shouldn’t be writing anything here!!” Why not? Is
voting for “None of the above” a less valuable ballot to “cast” than
voting the evil of two lessers?
_
“Wow. How quick everyone is to jump ship.” Sorry. many of us were never
“on the ship”. We didn’t fall for buying the passenger tickets in the
first place. Bon voyage on the replay of the Titanic.
61.
skepticism July 3rd, 2008 5:39 pm
bildad said: A note to skepticism: Nader is not really a man without
a party. The Green Party is set to nominate a candidate for whom the
majority of us did not vote. If we were as democratic as we pretend to be,
Ralph Nader would be our nominee, even though in the face of intra-party
squabbling he declined to actively seek the Green Party nomination. He has
ALREADY won the popular vote in the primaries. His showing in the California
primary alone should assure that he will be drafted as our candidate at the
convention in Chicago this month, but with our ridiculous consensus system
(not to mention the fact that we allow registered Democrats to ascend into
the hierarchy of the party where they disrupt and sabotage the party at
every turn-see numerous articles on CounterPunch by Joshua Frank, et. al.,
for evidence)smaller state Green parties and Greens in states without ballot
access have too much power to defeat the will of the majority of Greens. I’
m willing to bet that there will be quite a ruckus at the convention over
this. Nader is already at six percent in the CNN and AP polls. Ten percent
will get him into the Google debates-and that could change the dynamics of
the race, since millions of people will get to compare the sound-bite and
platitude-ridden stump speeches of McCain and Obama with the specific plans,
positions and solutions offered by the Nader-Gonzalez ticket.
--
I hope that people recognize this for what it is. Naderites have
tried to co-opt the Green Party and when they have failed to discredit it.
And no the white males who support Nader-he of the recent revolting racist
comments-will not support a powerful black woman like Cynithia McKinney.
But the reality is all this is the best argument for practical
involvement in politics, namely progressive organizing with in the Obama
campaign, building a progressive constituency among those who have never
heard the fractious blather of the left, but who have been energized by what
Obama symbolizes culturally about change in this country. The left needs to
reach those people, and join with them, and build a left constituency within
the Obama phenomena. No, Obama is not going to do anything for us. It’s a
long term building for change that requires a movement. Standing aside from
the Obama phenomena and not connecting and being unheard guarantees
irrelevancy.
The organizing by Obama supporters to protest his FISA position is
inspiring. This is the kind of action that the left needs to be involved
with. People need to keep in mind that it won’t bear fruit anytime soon.
Obama is not likely to respond, but it is an effort building a constituency
toward the future. Can the left just stand aside with a hands-off attitude
when millions of new voters, young voters are tuning into Obama? Get out,
get involved, critically.
Standing aside, voting for an old iconic figure as a protest, that’
s same old same old. The left has no power today after so many years of
doing the same old same old. Try something different.
62.
jozef July 3rd, 2008 5:49 pm
“And no the white males who support Nader-he of the recent
revolting racist comments…” Baloney. You listen to the main stream media
“news” about Nader and you eat up their interpretation. No wonder you fall
for Obama. You talk of the “left” needing to do this or do that? To jump
on board the Obama band wagon. Just who is this left? Liberals? So-called
progressives? Is Ted Kennedy left? Really? Dennis Kucinich? Well now,
Dennis, according to the media is so far to the left that he is in outer
space with the UFOs? And, Adolf was to the left of Attila the Hun. There is
no main stream candidate that is of the Left. No amount of semantics can
change that, and no amount of making excuses for McBama can bring back the
luster to, “Change you can count on”. Don’t give this guy your money. If
you do, count the change(s). It’s obvious and should be more than just
disturbing. Run Ralph. Run!
63.
Little Brother July 3rd, 2008 5:53 pm
“’Wow. How quick everyone is to jump ship.’ Sorry. many of us
were never ‘on the ship’. We didn’t fall for buying the passenger tickets
in the first place. Bon voyage on the replay of the Titanic.”
I agree…many people on Commondreams truely do not want free
thinkers on this website. They are a centrist accomodationist group who sit
on their rigid perch and throw stones at anybody who talks about returning
principle to politics. Everything has a simplistic answer. Nothing is grey.
It’s whatever [insert “electable” Democratic candidate du jour here]
says. Anybody who talks of dissent is a purist. It’s a recipe for losing
…..again and again and again.
64.
Thomas More July 3rd, 2008 5:56 pm
“Condi is black, would you vote for her for same reason?”
Good God, Please No!
With all respect to Amy Goodman, I frankly don’t know who Obama
really is or what he is going to do. And at this point I don’t see how any
one else does either.
65.
skepticism July 3rd, 2008 6:00 pm
For folks who aren’t Nader true believers, you may not realize this
will be Nader’s fourth run in a general election campaign. He has his true
believers. They sure are here telling people not to believe that anything
positive can happen, not to support the Green Party and McKinney, or take
progressive action with the Obama campaign. Do nothing. Do nothing. That is
not what Nader dedicated his life to. It is sad that people using his name
are preaching this all over progressive internet sites.
Furthermore, Nader’s comments were racist. Pure and simple. They
were disgusting. Its not the first time Nader has made disgusting bigoted
remarks, back in 96 he made a disgusting homophobic slur. He’s not perfect
and never has been. I will always greatly respect Nader and the immense
contribution he has made to the betterment of people’s lives in this
country.
But I don’t think the Naderite phenomenon has much to do with Nader
anymore. It’s a pretty scary phenomenon that projects a two-front effort to
campaign against progressive action either within the only viable third
party, the Green Party, or within the Democratic Party.
Progressives have options in 2008. Work within the Obama campaign,
as well as campaigning for progressive Democrats down the ballot, and/or
support Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party and Green Party candidates down
the ballot (or some creative mix of both of these). Don’t listen to those
who advocate that the left maintain its irrelevance. There are new
oppportunities with changing times.
66.
doodledoo July 3rd, 2008 6:03 pm
I see Nader’s candidacy as as big a problem for us as Obama’s
candidacy. They’re both splitting the progressive vote.
We should not expect the progressive movement to be effective until
all elements of it unify to support a single presidential candidate.
If all forces of the left, including followers of Ralph Nader, were
to pool their votes for the Greens, while no one on the left voted for
Obama, the Greens would easily qualify for federal funding and the
progressive movement would finally be off the ground.
67.
opal July 3rd, 2008 6:25 pm
The corporate elite will not allow anyone to reach the US presidency
who doesn’t bow down to AIPAC and refrain from presenting a fundamental
threat to big oil, big pharma, the insurance industry, the corporate
military industrial complex. That’s gotta be a given.
Vote for whoever you want but barring some big surprise either
McCain or Obama will be Prez. The work of progressives goes on regardless.
I have a lot of respect for Amy Goodman and I believe she knows all
this very well.
68.
r jackowski July 3rd, 2008 6:28 pm
We don’t need a Party. We don’t need a leader. We already have too
many ‘followers’. One plain, honest, ethical man like Nader is all we
need. We have him. Now all we need are informed voters.
69.
MiMiCcS July 3rd, 2008 6:36 pm
Looks like we have 2 choices, the white old McCain and the
charismatic (half white) black McCain called Obama.
This comment defines racism “I’m voting Obama because he is
black”. Just remember, racism is a 2 way street. Read Obamas “Dreams From
My Father”.
There are no suprises here, there is one party. Coke or Pepsi, Red
or Blue, and this year, Black or White. No change. Same-Same.
70.
jozef July 3rd, 2008 6:54 pm
What is this pap:
_
“For folks who aren’t Nader true believers, you may not realize this will
be Nader’s fourth run in a general election campaign. He has his true
believers. They sure are here telling people not to believe that anything
positive can happen, not to support the Green Party and McKinney, or take
progressive action with the Obama campaign. Do nothing. Do nothing. That is
not what Nader dedicated his life to. It is sad that people using his name
are preaching this all over progressive internet sites.”
_
When did any Nader supporters ever say “not to support the Green Party and
McKinney”, or “do nothing”? By all means, vote for Cynthia McKinney. What
Nader folk have been saying is DON’T VOTE FOR EITHER OF THE TWO CORPORATE
PARTIES! I have NEVER said vote for Nader. I have said, “Run Ralph. Run!”
What is so hard to understand about that? And please don’t talk about
people using Nader’s name and “preaching this all over progressive
internet sites.” Ralph Nader IS A FRIGGIN’ PROGRESSIVE. Look at his
platform. NO TO NAFTA. NO TO THE IRAQ WAR. NO TO FISA TELECOM IMMUNITY. NO
TO TORTURE. NO TO EXTREME RENDITION. NO TO THE PATRIOT ACT. YES TO SINGLE
PAYER UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. NO TO CORPORATE WELFARE. You Democrats and
so-called Progressives are so brain washed by the Democratic Party and Saint
Obama. McBama IS NOT PROGRESSIVE. As for Ralph. I have my disagreements with
Mr. Nader on issues. But you know what? My conscience doesn’t bother me
when I vote for Ralph. I sleep well knowing that Nader’s platform is my
platform. Can you say that about Obama? McBama who takes impeachment, along
with Nancy Pelosi, off the table. McBama who knows Bush lied us into war and
now over 1-million people are dead. C’mon folks, you’re starting to sound
like the sheeple in Germany in the 30s. The savior is here. The savior is
here! Vote for the savior, our LEADER!
_
Yeah right, Nader people “do nothing”. It’s Barak Obama who HAS DONE
NOTHING! Come on. Off the top of your head, what has anything Barak Obama
done to make life better for you? Ask the same of John McCain. Then of Ralph
Nader. If you don’t know, look it up. You should know. And if you don’t,
ask yourself if your party loyalty to the Democratic Party isn’t messing
with your head? It is. You who find it acceptable to leave Mader and
McKinney, even Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel out of the “debates” Yes,
we could use informed voters. That is not what the Democratic Party wants.
It wants Nancy Pelosi style loyalty. No way Nancy. No way Democrats. No way
Obama. And no way, John McSame.
71.
Huck July 3rd, 2008 7:11 pm
I respect and admire Amy, but I think the answer to her question is
obvious. Had Obama been true to the grass roots on FISA he would have not
shifted his position.
I think this shift is the first of many more to come if he is
elected. The simple truth is that you cannot satisfy both the center and the
progressives at the same time. (Note the few voices on his own web site
offering angry rebuttals over his switch.)
My guess is we are in for Bill Clinton part 2 if Obama is elected.
Clinton had a populist message too, and when he won, proceeded to run away
from the grass roots for eight years in his eagerness to satisfy the status
quo entrenched elites.
So much for the progressive movement. May it rest in peace until the
sheeple reach a critical mass and say enough!
72.
Scott ffolliott July 3rd, 2008 7:28 pm
On January, 20 2009
Privatize social security: What party is more likely to rob
Americans of their most valuable asset?
Re: Alter and Goodman
“It seems that as Emma Goldman said, ‘I think voting is the opium
of the masses in this country. Every four years you deaden the pain.’ It
is, therefore, our challenge to emphasize what we do everyday to create
economic equality rather than the absurd belief that voting in general
elections will change our lives.”
Organize, organize, organize!
We need to take our bodies daily to work, to Congressional offices,
to schools with the message that we demand full economic equality.
73.
Huck July 3rd, 2008 7:29 pm
jozef, yeah, and what about the Obama “true believers?”
74.
Nietzsche July 3rd, 2008 7:31 pm
What do we have to lose by giving Obama a chance? Consider what we
have to lose if we don’t.
75.
dablackanarch July 3rd, 2008 7:32 pm
As an anarchist, I have no horse in this race. However, as a rabid
lefty, if I was a statist, Cynthia McKinney would get my support right down
the line. I mean, how much of an idiot do you have to be to not see that
voting for her will further your interests more than anyone else?
The Greens are (for now) a party that seems to, at least for now,
point the guns at someone other than the people. Until the last politician
is hanged with the guts of the last religious leader, this’ll do.
76.
Huck July 3rd, 2008 7:37 pm
What do we have to lose?
How about life as we know it on Planet Earth.
Maybe you’ve been in a vacuum lately, but the polar ice cap may be
melted as soon as this year according to recent studies. What does that mean
for the two leggeds?
Wars over drinking water to start.
Better wake up people, because life as you know it is undergoing
transformation change and not the kind Obama speaks of.
77.
RichM July 3rd, 2008 7:51 pm
abramawicz ( 4:25 pm) - Egad. I have to admit, you’re very
observant. I never would have dreamed that anyone here would notice a little
thing like that!
But you’re quite right, re the “plausible” comment, which I used
the other day to describe Dave Lindorff’s article of a few months ago. I
did call his theory “plausible” even though I never really believed it. I
guess you could say I was either feeling generous & kind-hearted that
morning; or that I basically like Lindorff & would lean towards giving him
the benefit of the doubt, if at all possible; or just that I was beginning
to have some doubts myself, in mid April.
Up until that point, Obama hadn’t impressed me - but he also hadn’
t horrified & disgusted me, either. (Now he has, many times over, ever since
his AIPAC speech.) Also I had sympathy for him when he was under fire from
the Right (the Rev. Wright business, the Bill Ayers thing, flag-pin in
lapel, the “bitter” brouhaha, & that unbelievable Philadelphia debate,
where Stephanapoulos & Gibson joined with Hillary to gang up on him). I
thought he handled all that with remarkable dignity. So I was having some
weak moments, wondering if I’d overlooked something about him.
Tip O’ the Hat to you! I can’t deny that you caught me in a moment
of weakness & self-contradiction, there. It was indeed a departure from my
usual perspective.
78.
anwong July 3rd, 2008 8:11 pm
Barack Obama is just classic Americana. As Ben said in Arthur
Miller’s play:
“A salesman is somebody way up there in the blue riding on a smile
and a shoeshine.”
Yes we can!
79.
Dogface July 3rd, 2008 8:15 pm
Amy is right and I do not have time to read the other 76 comments to
give a thoughtful reply.
One guy on this list even asked how can we do anything, we do not
have an organization………OMG!
There are millions of US out here. I read your comments all the
time. WE are right here!
We organize in the streets and we stay in the streets until someone
does as we ask to be done. Justice is justice and just because it is a law
does not make it just. Things in this country must be set right. We owe that
to the rest of the world.
OH…… you say they will shoot and maybe kill us… excreta. Baby
it’s been like that for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Change does not come without a price. What made those previous
generations so brave? Well maybe their food wasn’t tainted with hormones
and ever other possible poison known to mankind.
Yes, these kinds of actions put our lives and our families’ lives
at risk. Time is running out for this planet. The rich and richer do not see
this …or even feel it.
Yes we want to be good people. We do not want to hurt anyone, but
then no one listens to us and this poor old sod of a world rolls along. I am
afraid that she will manage quite nicely to roll along with out is.
Therefore, if you want change….. we set aside our differences and
we all stand side by side in the middle of the street like Gandhi and Martin
Luther King.
80.
workreno July 3rd, 2008 8:32 pm
The only “movement” I can detect in this article and the misguided
rants of DD and company is one of the bowel.
81.
Dogface July 3rd, 2008 8:48 pm
See how those hormones make men chicken shits.
82.
Shada July 3rd, 2008 8:49 pm
I was not and still am not an Obamaphile. At least I am not
heartbroken or shocked and disillusioned by his latest position switching. I
am bemused by the so-called “true liberals” or “progressives” who
overlooked his flip-flops and his mis-representations, his lies (dates and
events in his book)and his associations with the privileged. These are the
same people who “forgave” his every contradiction simply because he wasn’
t that white bitch Hillary Clinton. I didn’t start out a fan of Hillary’s
but I must say I became one because of her resiliancy and because she ended
up NOT being the darling of the self-righteous progressives.
83.
Dogface July 3rd, 2008 9:00 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html
See Obama is listening. When we stick together…they hear us. We
hold his feet to the fire.
84.
Forward July 3rd, 2008 9:24 pm
Thank you Amy! To all those who say they are not voting or voting
for Nader, you are simply stepping aside and letting others choose the
political leadership of the most powerful country in the world at this time
of extreme peril. The helpless of the world will be the ones to suffer the
most from your self-rightousness.
The threat to our democracy from corporate interests is clear, and
anyone who is paying attention knows that our candidates are compromised by
those corporate influences, so what? The point is, if you want to affect
social change you do so by any and all means available and that includes
voting for the candidate that will cause the least suffering and will be
most likely to
respond, however timidly, to social pressures from outside the corporate
elites.
That candidate is clearly Barak Obama.
Thanks Amy for your customary clarity and courage to speak the
truth.
85.
Soeharto July 3rd, 2008 9:51 pm
I think the left should vote tactically for McCain.
86.
Mark Kienan July 3rd, 2008 10:21 pm
Obama is starting to look like the rest of the democrats in the
senate and congress…no different than Republicans.
Obama’s vote for FISA disgusts me.
His start to flip/flop on Iraq also disgusts me.
Obama is showing that he is not prinicipled. He is another politician that
betrays our constitution and the american people.
I wish I could get my money back.
87.
ezeflyer July 3rd, 2008 10:34 pm
We can vote for an intelligent man at the top of his class or we can
vote for another privileged son of the oligarchy, at the bottom of his.
88.
abramawicz July 3rd, 2008 10:52 pm
RichM July 3rd, 2008 7:51 pm
Laugh - candor. It seems many progressives were stirred by the Obama
movement vs. the politician - even those who rejected both. Insofar as
Lindorff/your comment endorsed the third-party potentials of the movement,
your ideas may yet be “plausible”: short of changing the Obama machine,
who knows how many people (engaged in ways a Clinton campaign could not) may
take their engagement in other directions?
89.
Big_Money July 3rd, 2008 10:59 pm
If the Nation were a Car, the President is not the person at the
wheel. He’s the guy on the roof with a megaphone. Why are you worried about
the way this fella drives? He’s not going to be driving. Wouldn’t you
rather have him on the roof with a megaphone than McBush? Obama looks and
sounds a whole heck of a lot classier than the alternatives.
The Nation is bankrupt, change is a-comin’, maybe not just the
change you’re hoping for. Wouldn’t you rather have someone who the Intl
Community likes up on the roof, when the engine throws a rod?
90.
Nannie July 3rd, 2008 11:14 pm
.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
single payer national health insurance:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
No to nuclear power, solar energy first:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Open up the Presidential debates:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Adopt a carbon pollution tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Impeach Bush/Cheney:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Work to end corporate personhood:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
.
91.
Freddy July 3rd, 2008 11:14 pm
I’m 64 years old. I have never been able to vote for someone as
president whom I really wanted. I’ve always had to settle. I’m tired of
it. I didn’t want Obama, but I was willing to go along. Now I just feel let
down again. Maybe I’ll skip the presidential vote and just go with the
other races. Four more years of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1,
Clinton, Bush 2. The Democrats have been a bust. All talk, no balls. There’
s no party, no candidate for me.
92.
Nannie July 3rd, 2008 11:16 pm
.
VOTE NADER 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
.
93.
culicomorpha July 3rd, 2008 11:36 pm
My goodness. How much more transparent does it need to be for you
people to see that McCain and Obama are practically the same man?! Oh sure,
they have different skin color, but beyond that?
And Daniel David, spare us your Supreme court hoohaa. Judges, all
judges, are by definition, defenders of the people who hold the power, i.e
the people who make the laws. They are in the business of protecting and
siding with the monied interest. Period. Always have, always will. There is
no such thing as a liberal judge. Besides, I prefer a fast collapse in
confidence, not this slow, painful drawn out death of what little democracy
remains. Get it over with already, so that the delusional can snap out of
their spell and we can get on with things.
I agree with dablackanarchist: if you believe that the state is
really a good thing that is actually interested in your welfare (a premise I
think is obvliously patently false) then McKinney is a far better choice
than MacSame or Obamacain.
I’ll just add this thought: for all you folks who think that it is
the Obama movement that is so valuable, what will you do if all this effort,
all this social networking and effort, achieves nothing? What if Obama says,
in essence: So?
How is this different from Dick Cheney?
94.
rocket July 3rd, 2008 11:44 pm
Dear Amy,
Whattsa matta for you? (as we say in Eye-Talian)
Obama is a flake as I have said in these pages before. “A MAN WHO WILLA NOT
STANDA FOR ANYTHING WILL FALL FOR NOTHING”. Watch the Republican attack
dogs tear him to shreds and devour him in November!!
95.
KEM PATRICK July 4th, 2008 12:18 am
Ahhh ~AMY~ what happened? Your mixed emotions are sticking out like
a great big pimple on the nose of a beauty pagent gal taking third place. It
appears to me that you are obviously disappointed with Mr. Obama and it
shows, even though you are sitting on the fence with this article while
trying to hide your hurt feelings.
At least that’s how I see it and I do admire you and almost always
agree your opinions.
Tell it like it is ~AMY~. ___ Obama has decieved many, over 18 million so
far who voted for what they believed was his honesty, his integrity, and the
hope of real positive change from a fine young man, ___ a “rare
statesman”. Skin color or race was not an issue with most white people.
Obama is the greatest orator I have ever heard or seen, and he does
it without saying much of anything of real substance, but his speeches are
both inspiring and marvelous. The problem is, he’s a damn con-artist liar
and it’s gonna catch up with him. We Americans voters are often classified
as sheep, but we’re mostly intelligent sheep. Obama has switched his
positions on far too many serious issues and he cannot hide it, much as he
will attempt to do so.
As to his being Black? That should not make a smidgen of difference
if he is black, half black, pink, purple, yellow or green. He is a human
being and we are all the same. We don’t all get treated the same, but that
is because some people judge others by their race or the color of their
skin.
It is what is under the skin that counts and Obama has finally shown
his true “colors” and it is not black he is showing, ___ it’s white. ___
He has waved the white flag and surrendered his soul for power. I feel sorry
for him. All he had to do was continue on with what he preached during his
primary run and not play political games.
He couldn’t however, he was already bought and paid for, the “rare
statesman”, sadly was a fraud. ___ ~NANNIE~ here is correct about that,
check out the link she posted. July 3rd, 12:26pm, the forth comment from the
top. One cannot sensibly argue historical facts.
“Subtlety may decieve you, integrity never will.” ___ ~Oliver
Cromwell~
96.
anmlntwk July 4th, 2008 12:28 am
Until Obama regains his “hope” and “audacity”, I will be sitting
this election out. I don’t know why I should be surprised by his right
turn, but I do feel betrayed. The thought of a McCain presidency is
abhorrent to me, but I can not bring myself to vote for a person who has
turned his back on his most loyal supporters.
97.
rdnewhard July 4th, 2008 12:35 am
I am an 84 yera old who first voted for FDR. While I agree with
Amy’s analysis and call for demanding more from Obama, I am also amazed at
the want of leadership in Democratic presidential candidates. Bil Clinton’s
triangulation was at most a strategy for power not a strategy for dealing
with the problems of this society. Obama is backpedaling so fast his front
wheel will overtake his rear wheel. It was not always like this. FDR faced
up to the corporations. Harry Truman was not afraid to push Medicare or, as
a Senator, to go after war profiteers We get the weenies the DLC, the
beltway Democrats and corporate America offer us. A Kucinich is deliberately
bypassed in the primary debates. Democrats must ask why their leadership is
so afraid of this world. Why. with the politically weakest President in
memory the would not impeach for obvious violations of his oath, but the
Republican’s would over a sexual issue.
Robert Newhard
98.
twistoflex July 4th, 2008 12:37 am
Representation is the basic con that they use to prevent democracy.
99.
workreno July 4th, 2008 12:43 am
One more time for you slower slaves .
It doesn’t really matter which don the mafia selects in November.
You will all still be nothing more than food to either of them .
Spend a little more time here where you might have a snowballs chance in
hell of actually creating a “CHANGE” in the world.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/
100.
Progressive101 July 4th, 2008 12:51 am
Early on in Hillary Clinton’s run for the Democratic nomination,
she basically told the anti-war movement to take a hike. Look what it got
her. Is this Obama’s strategy now? It is odd that the politicians will play
to this and that special interest group while consistently ignoring a very
large segment of progressive voters. The Democrats have a false strategy
that progressive voters will always vote Democratic because they wouldn’t
dare vote Republican. That strategy failed in 2000 because progressives
voted independent. In 2006 the Democrats obtained a large progressive vote
to stop the war. And what did the Democratic Congressional majority do?
Defied the voters and continued funding the war.
101.
KEM PATRICK July 4th, 2008 1:13 am
Obama didn’t vote to fund the war this time, he skipped out and
didn’t bother to vote and he was in DC.
“It’s not the man, it’s the movement.”
Really? I wonder how the Cubans and Batista would have fared if
Fidel has skipped out on “the movement”? Sorry, it’s the man _____ who
never was.
102.
KEM PATRICK July 4th, 2008 1:23 am
This is true.
The lengthiest “news” segament on CNN today concerning Obama, was
what type of a dog he will have as a pet when he enters the White House. His
wife says they talk about it every day, but haven’t yet decided on a breed.
Only in America.
103.
Nannie July 4th, 2008 1:28 am
.
Debates, are what I want to see…
Good honest debates between Nader and whomever , one on one ,or all
candidates in standing, with no moderators from MSM. At a table like the old
Buckley days. On PBS maybe , no commercial interference. Whoopee , wouldn’t
that be wonderful?
.
104.
PissantNobody July 4th, 2008 3:42 am
Amy is getting the drubbing she deserves in these posts, and maybe
less than she deserves. She has become too comforatble with her fame and
growing bank account, maybe? I used to find her a breath of fresh air, but
just like CD, after a while, you realize that she is really a reformist who
does a lot of complaining, but is very short on political program. For those
who don’t know, a reformist is someone who believes that capitalism - if
only it had the right leadership - can be made kind and gentle. Of course,
that notion is demonstrable rubbish, and reduces to perpetuating imperialist
injustice. Surely she is not that naive, so I am beginning to wonder about
her integrity.
But, alas! If I were a rising star, showered with champaign at every
turn, would I have the courage to call for the communist overthrow of the
Anerican oligarchy? If she did, Democracy Now! would be Democracy Then! very
quickly. Her case illustrates the folly of putting your hopes in an
individual. It is a principled proletarian political party (say that tens
times quickly!) of Leninist stripe that is needed, and I definitely don’t
see her helping to build that. Oh, Amy - that I could say otherwise! Instead
I must expose you as another dangerous agent of liberal capitalism. In many
ways, it is the liberals, more than the conservatives, that are holding
society back, because they confuse and sap the energy of good hearted people
who would otherwise go further left, and help build the party of
international socialism.
105.
gutprobe08 July 4th, 2008 4:00 am
Any real change toward ‘rule by the people’ in this country would
first have to overcome The People’s own resistance to even trying it.
It speaks for itself that, no matter how badly America’s oligarchs
abuse the mass of people, the most serious reformers like Nader, the Greens,
and other progressive alternatives on the ballot, never draw more than a
small fraction of the vote. Never.
This isn’t a reason to give up on radical reform efforts, but it
may be a reason to do more creative thinking - outside the rigged political
box of national elections.
The Greens in Europe, who’ve now gained increasingly potent
footholds in several national parliaments, almost all started out slogging
through local and provincial politics; gradually getting elected to run
towns and cities; moving upward into coalition-determining power positions
in parliaments and ministry chief positions in national governments.
Most of us want rapid change in the rotten US system. But most of us
also know that even if a seemming lite reformer, like Obama, gets elected,
he will have little if any mandate from the people, and little if any
radical base in congress, to challenge the ologarchs head on; to do
something as direly needed, for example, as changing the constitution to get
private money out of election campaigns - a sine qua non issue, as far as
I’m concerned…
Assuming no bloddy revolution: Building a political base within a
non-democratic system with the intention of making the system democratic
from inside, means you have to announce your aim: to take power away from a
few entrenched people and redstribute it to the many. But ‘the many’ have
to be on your side to begin with, and they must have some experience and
confidence at making radical changes at the local end of the power spectrum,
before their inate fear and institutional conservativism can be overcome on
the really meaningful issues .
We want instant relief from the outrages of a gradually-fashioned
and now entrenched and complexly interlocked fascist oligarchy. All well and
good. But I think too many American progressives suffer from the political
equivalent of the Rolaids syndrome. Political Heartburn? Take an Obama (or
even a Nader) and watch it disappear!
If only it were this simple. We need patience with the fact that it
will never be even remotely this simple.
106.
ToeBot July 4th, 2008 4:44 am
There ain’t no movement, unless your considering ‘the same old
song and dance.’
107.
OldBadgertoo July 4th, 2008 6:05 am
The movement? Isn’t it time the US stopped looking for
self-appointed messiahs and starting forming a genuine left? “Centrist” in
American terms means supporting faith based initiatives, hand guns, the
death penalty, restrictions on abortion (pro-life stands which don’t,
somehow, find themselves discomforted by the pro-death attitudes of those
other policies) and a host of other policies which in Europe are the
province of the far right. The work that needs to be done, and it won’t be
done by Obama and the Obamacans, is in the formation of a genuinely social
democrat party for America. As far as I can see, the mere suggestion of this
will prove to offensive to the majority of “centrists”, even centrist
Democrats, that it will never happen. What a tragedy for the US and the
world.
108.
Huck July 4th, 2008 7:33 am
Obama will never appear in the same forum as Nader to debate the
issues: he does not have the backbone for it.
109.
Huck July 4th, 2008 7:36 am
Besides if he did, he lose another 15-20 percent of those who
recognize that lessor evilism does not serve them any longer, and join a
true transformational movement seeking authentic change and repudiating
those who pay lip serve to change but never deliver it like Obama and his
handlers.
110.
Nietzsche July 4th, 2008 8:11 am
I think some neocon agents infiltrated this site overnight.
111.
hedology July 4th, 2008 8:16 am
Democrats and Republicans alike are so elitist, and so far out of
touch with USA public, and have gotten so comfortable inside their pig
troughs, it would be wise to vote massively for Ralph Nader, for real and
not zilch change.
112.
Jim Glover July 4th, 2008 8:31 am
Run for your lives!
Obama is killing us and making us slaves while the neo cons have
invaded this site!
So what transformational movement delivers change without lip
service?
113.
wnoons July 4th, 2008 9:01 am
Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.
114.
Jim Glover July 4th, 2008 9:02 am
OK, Illegal Drugs!
115.
Agi July 4th, 2008 9:02 am
I supported Nader in 2000 and 2004. I am supporting Obama in 2008.
The stakes are too high this time. We are one justice away from a far right
SCOTUS. If McCain wins, the court will certainly begin rewriting the
Constitution. For me, at least, this one reason alone is enough to support
the Democrats in this cycle no matter what Obama stands for. Small steps.
http://politicjock.blogspot.com/
116.
Jim Glover July 4th, 2008 9:08 am
Did Satan ever come as a woman?
117.
Jim Glover July 4th, 2008 9:12 am
I’m with you, Agi.
118.
liveinthenow July 4th, 2008 10:01 am
Who are these idiot “undecideds? How can anyone who has lived
through the last 8 years not know where they stand and what they believe in?
I remember in 2000 just after the Gore/Bush debate a roomful of these
imbeciles were being interviewed. They all seemed just so stupid and
wishy-washy. If I were so dim-witted that I couldn’t make up my mind so
late in the game, I would be too embarrassed to admit it on national tv -
and would keep my mouth shut! Why are we letting these “scarecrow-brains”
tip our elections every time!
Maybe I’m just jealous because Obama is “courting” them instead
of me- a true-blue liberal and proud of it. I’m not calling the real
conservatives stupid- most of my own family are republicans- but they have
their reasons. They know why they vote the way they do and don’t waver back
and forth.
If Obama leans so far to the right in an effort to get my
conservative mother’s vote, he will surely loose mine and not get hers
anyway. Why should she vote for a fake? And as far as the idiot undecideds
go, who knows what they’ll do come election day. If there is something good
on tv, they might just stay home anyway-if they can make up their minds what
to watch!
119.
Big_Money July 4th, 2008 10:36 am
liveinthenow July 4th, 2008 10:01 am asks - “Who are these idiot
“undecideds?”
Many many many many of them are people who see two obvious choices
both of which they find unappealing or unacceptable. Like someone who doen’
t like Bud and doesn’t like Miller in a bar that only serves the two. Why
even bother to drink? Why even bother to vote?
Remember, please, that there are enough Americans out there who
won’t even bother to vote, to sweep someone into power who isn’t
Obama/McBush (Bud/Miller).
What makes them idiots, in my humble opinion, is not that they can’
t form a preference for the two obvious choices, but that they feel like
there’s no sense in backing someone else, because there is no sense in
backing someone unless they’re fairly sure that that someone will be a
winner.
The self-fulfilling prophecy of the idiots, I dare say.
120.
KEM PATRICK July 4th, 2008 10:45 am
I’m with you ~Jim~ the Supreme Court is priority one.
121.
Dogface July 4th, 2008 10:50 am
To Nanny: Yes, you are right. Nader has always brought those issues
to the attention of the public.
Freddy: Me too.
To KEM PATRICK and Pissant:
Get down on your knees and thank god that there are people like Amy
Goodman out there. It is NOT up to her to fix things for us. She does her
marvelous and dangerous work by bringing the unheard and the under reported
stories, with painful detail, to the ill informed of this country. It is
then OUR responsibility as citizens of this country, and to each other to do
something about it.
Amy has paid her dues in bringing the light to the darkest places of
this earth. What amazes me is that she is still alive and is still trying to
expose the truth. If you knew more about her history, you could not say what
you have said about her. Do not take my word for it. Just find her story and
see how many times she put herself in harm’s way to get to the truth. She
is not an embedded caricature of our lazy and timid media.
To Rdnewhard: Me too. I do not have all the time in the world
waiting for the people of this country to demand, that which is theirs -
A-JUST-SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.
Our form of government has taken a few hundred years to build.
Sometimes human kind cannot grasp the meaning or passage of time and they
cannot equate it with the length of their own immortality. We are just blips
on the scales of time.
Government is a structure. It is neither good nor bad. It is like a
hammer. You can use it to build or to destroy. It depends on who is managing
it whether it will be used wisely or not.
IT IS THE PEOPLE’S DUTY TO INFORM THEIR REPRESENTATIVES HOW THEY
WISH THEIR GOVERNMENT TO BE RUN. We do not do this by remaining in our
armchairs.
Government is a delivery system and to tear it down would wreak
havoc on this society for years to come. And that my dears, is something you
do not want to witness.
No one takes notice of you until you start talking very loud.
122.
andrews July 4th, 2008 11:00 am
Robert Newhard - thank you for sharing, and speaking up.
I would love to see common sense policies from Nader, Ron Paul,
Dennis K, etc., but I don’t think they can get elected. I’m guessing
anyone who gets elected as president has to pay respects to the different
power centers, like the Cuban’s in Miami, Jewish lobbyists in NY area, all
down the line. I don’t know for sure, but it makes sense.
Maybe Amy did hob-knob with folks that people don’t agree with in
Aspen. However, I don’t think we can separate ourselves from anyone we
disagree with, and still wish to make changes for the better. There’s
definitely a risk of us becoming more compromised, especially when incomes
are so inter-dependent. But I won’t ever agree with separating ourselves,
even from exploiters. Didn’t Ghandi try to influence the British by shaming
them?
It would be great if Obama gets elected and becomes a Trojan horse
for the progressives, but we’ve had too many pipe dreams lately. I hope the
folks who post on common dreams, who are fed up, angry, and much more
informed, keep growing and learning how to influence more people, raise
awareness, even outside of this forum. That feels more American to me, or at
least how I grew up. The sharing of information on the Solar posting
yesterday was inspiring / energizing.
Authority figures or television shows can attempt to tell us what is
patriotic, or what is American, but it’s not genuine influence, or genuine
power. We don’t need the “brand” of Obama, or “US” to point to hope. If
Obama says things like “this is our time”, or whatever it is, let’s take
that and run with it ourselves.
123.
KEM PATRICK July 4th, 2008 11:06 am
I didn’t say anythng bad about AMY here ~DOGFACE~. I said I have
always admired her and I always have and still do, she’s super and I’m
very aware of her history.
I don’t happen to agree with her hedging on this article, but I
understand it. I’m not a ~YES MAN~ personality type and several other
people have disagreed with Amy on this one ~HOGFACE~. You knit picking names
to chide here? ____ Well yes, you are, get your pooper scooper out and do it
up right. Woof -woof.
BTW ~DogFace~, I don’t agree with what the Pissant posted however.
124.
MikeBinSC July 4th, 2008 11:16 am
IT’S ALL ABOUT ORGANIZATION
This is the only way progressives can hold Obama’s and the
Democrats’ feet to the fire, and at the same time, create a viable third
party, the Green Party, and make the progressive voice heard. It would take
a massive amount of organizing and cooperation, but it could be done, and I
would love to be able to vote for progressive people like Cynthia McKinney
and even Ralph Nader knowing that my vote was not putting Bush III in the
White House.
First of all you would have to organize all the progressive outlets
on a common thread and around a common mission. By progressive outlets I
mean websites, news sources, blogs, radio and podcasts, and print media. I’
m talking about MoveOn, CommonDreams, TruthOut, BuzzFlash, DailyKos,
HuffPost, AirAmerica, NovaM, DemocracyNow, The Nation, Mother Jones and all
the rest! I’m talking about an Internet Progressive Revolution here! This
can’t be done on a piecemeal basis!
And here is the mission -
Get every single progressive Democratic voter to change their registration
from Democrat to Green. Even if we got eveyone to do this, we would not have
enough to win an election, so they can, and still should, vote Democratic in
November, but we would be well positioned to make demands on the new
Democratic power structure by threatening them with mass losses in the 2010
elections for the House and Senate, as the entire House stands for
re-election every two years, along with one third of the Senate.
By 2010, we could make the Green Party a viable alternative if
threats are not enough, and should we still need it. I would hope that we
don’t need it, as the time available to make a course correction to save
this country, and this world, is growing very, very short. We are in that
proverbial quandary of an irresistable force on a collision course with an
immovable object, and it ain’t gonna be pretty! The perfect storm of
financial and economic failure, war without end, global warming, peak oil,
food shortages, water shortages, resource depletion and dying oceans is
bearing down on us at breakneck speed and the ship’s crew is
asleep-at-the-helm!
Mike B. in SC
125.
KEM PATRICK July 4th, 2008 11:20 am
Sounds viable to me ~MIKE B~
126.
ardee July 4th, 2008 11:28 am
PROGRESSIVES HAVE NO BALLS
Sorry to be so rude but someone has to say it. For decades now the
Democratic Party, its Progressive wing, its Black Caucus, its elected
Representatives and Senators have brayed the liberal line. But, every single
time it came to action they waffled, wavered, and fell back.
One may ascribe this to what ever reasons preferred, complicity,
cowardice, pandering to the large donors, political realism, an effort to be
bipartisan, whatever! The end result is exactly the same, a victory for the
radical right. Barack Obama is no different from any of them and his stance
on FISA is simply his truth revealed. He is, by his own admission a centrist
and a globalist, and his idea of fixing NAFTA will not coincide with the
progressives wishes for that treaty that has eroded the position of the
American worker.
As to those who attack Ralph Nader, who try to shift the debate from
Obama’s infidelities to those who gave him the nomination, well, nice try,
and you seem to have learned well from Karl Rove, congratulations.
The only hope for the progressive movement in this nation, in fact
the only hope to stop the creeping ( galloping?) fascism that extends its
tentacles into our legislative process is the growth of third party politics
pledged to shun the corporate money that controls our governance today.
When the American voter rejects the quick fix as illustrated by
those who say that voting for such as Nader or McKinney simply makes it
likely that McCain will win I say …so? Voting for a candidate who
immediately shows his true colors after tricking everyone to vote for him is
to elect McCain’s twin. McCain wants to stay in Iraq, Obama wants to wage
war in Pakistan…big difference, I see dead people. Reject the so-called
quick fix and consentrate on REAL solutions, and accept that those take more
time to effect. Wake the hell up and reject both major political parties as
irrelevent to the goals of progressive voters.
“You can recognise a pioneer by the arrows in his back.” Beverly
Rubik
” All truth passes through three stages; First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self
evident.” Arthur Schopenhauer
127.
andrews July 4th, 2008 11:43 am
ardee- I hope you didn’t think I was stabbing Nader in the back, I
just don’t think he can get elected. Nader is a change agent, and I admire
his passion, and we need him. I could be wrong, maybe he can be elected, but
I don’t think that movement can build enough consensus - i hope I’m proven
wrong.
I’ve traveled to Chile a couple times, and was surprised to hear
their citizens talk about Pinochet. One older gentleman told me during the
60’s era, the US was going through it’s transformation, leaning more to
the left, and France had even more change, but Chile was farthest of them
all. He said “people were entertaining all these ideas, but nobody was
working, the country was in dire straits, and Pinochet put the country to
work”. This guy was a conservative, but I thought it was interesting.
Sometimes the progressive forums remind me of what this guy from
Chile said “lots of ideas”, but not enough organization. That’s why I
liked what Mike B had to say, but still think it could be a challenge.
I’ve worked in corporate America and watched over the last 10 years
where they’ve made investments to track metrics (revenue, cost, margin,
units, etc.). It’s been an interesting evolution, not easy, and definitely
focused more on profits, obviously.
But we could learn something from what the corporations do, by what
is measured across a large number of people. I haven’t seen too many
comments about Ross Perot’s recent charts. Whether or not you agree with
what he is measuring, the presentation is impressive.
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/
I wondered if the progressives could ever launch something like
this, with a holistic view, and add more things to be measured, so all types
could see it, whether its % of population in prisons, dollars spent on war
on drugs, etc. This is no simple task and takes time, but hopefully this
will help spark ideas from people more informed than I am.
Keep the posts going, but think about how to improve the
communication of your ideas at the same time.
128.
Samson <http://www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com> July 4th, 2008 11:59
am
If Obama is going to ‘distance himself’ from what we believe, then
we should ‘distance ourselves’ from Obama.
129.
Samson <http://www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com> July 4th, 2008 12:09
pm
There’s a line of bull that I’m getting sick of hearing. Its the
“we’ll hold Obama’s feet to the fire” line of bull.
First, how’s that working with the Democratic Congress? If electing
Democrats means we can then pressure them to get what we want, then we
should be seeing this working already, right? So, how’s defunding the war
coming along? Have you been able to “hold the Democrats feet to the fire”
and make them end the war? Or maybe impeachment, how’s that coming along?
Have you been able yet to “hold the Democrats feet to the fire” and get
impeachment yet?
Or, this bit about the Telecom bill is a good example to watch. But
not a perfect one because Obama can still switch his stance again and the
telecoms that have put $270,000 into his accounts can still get what they
want. We’d only really know where he really stands if it comes down to a
one vote margin in the Senate and he has to decide. But still, its an
interesting case study. Using the networking tools on Obama’s own websites,
can progressives ‘hold Obama’s feet to the fire’ and get him to help stop
an awful bill that gives away our rights but means big bucks to his big
contributors.
What I’m trying to point out is the realities of power in America
today. As a citizen, we get exactly one chance to ‘hold a politicians feet
to the fire’. That’s on election day. That’s the one day every four years
you get a ‘vote’ in what’s going on in this country. Every other day for
the next four years, the politicians listen to the people who put six figure
contributions into their accounts. Heck, you’ll never get in the door to
even talk to a President Obama. Exactly how are you going to pressure him?
Exactly how are you going to ‘hold his feet to the fire’.
You get one say in things every four years. That’s when you still
get a vote. If you give away your vote, you get nothing. That’s what the
Democrats are trying to con you into. Give away your vote and vote for their
candidate chosen to represent their contributors’ interests. Give away your
vote and vote for their candidate that doesn’t give a damn about by your
interests. Its all a con to get from you the one thing that you have that
they need … your vote.
130.
barely human July 4th, 2008 12:21 pm
“Don’t be part of drowning it in darkness.”
I’m afraid we’re more than halfway to the bottom of that ocean
already.
131.
jozef July 4th, 2008 12:23 pm
“Thank you Amy! To all those who say they are not voting or voting
for Nader, you are simply stepping aside and letting others choose the
political leadership of the most powerful country in the world at this time
of extreme peril.” This is nonsense. It ignores the reality that is the
electoral college. As an example, here in Vermont where Obama received one
of his largest margins of victory, it is guaranteed that Obama will win the
state in November. How is my vote or not voting (actually voting for none of
the above)going to change that? It is not. The idea is to give Nader (and
other non Dem/Repub candidates) the most amount of votes in building a
counter vote to the status quo. That can be done by vote-pairing, i.e., I
vote for Nader and I get a right wing friend or family member to vote for
say Bill Barr, or anyone other than McCain. Simple as that. It doesn’t
affect the outcome of the general election and allows me to vote my
conscience, which by the way, is a good thing, and build third parties. For
more info on vote pairing see: http://www.votepair.org/ Run Ralph. Run!
_
Speaking of affecting the election, there is too much acceptance of the “a
vote for Nader is a vote for McCain” nonsense. And the, “we can’t have
McCain” mindset. As previous posters have stated, it doesn’t matter. The
Dems in Congress have shown over the past 8 years that there is little
difference between them and Republicans. And Obama is confirming that every
day now. Perhaps, in the near future he will start wearing two U.S. flag
pins to go along with the 1/2 dozen or more that he stands in front of? It
is a sign of personal, political and national insecurity.
132.
Samson <http://www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com> July 4th, 2008 12:26
pm
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form
of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the
people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying
its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not
be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they
are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
133.
jozef July 4th, 2008 12:39 pm
The last sentence is what needs to be done. The first sentence,
however, presumes the existence of a “creator”. There is no creator. The
founding fathers were not so self-evident when they said “that all men are
created equal”. They excepted black people who they owned as slaves and
women who were left out of the process and voting till the 1920s.
134.
Thomas More July 4th, 2008 2:46 pm
Little Brother July 3rd, 2008 5:53 pm
Think away…..
Freddy July 3rd, 2008 11:14 pm
I know exactly what you mean. But don’t desert us now. Better to
have the closest to the mark than nothing. Vote for the Candidate, not the
Party….everytime. I’d vote for Jim Webb everytime and he served as a
Republican.
Who cares what they call themselves as long as they come as close as
possible to your agenda. There are some here that want all or nothing and
they can be assured they will get nothing. At our age we know better.
Don’t desert us now!
rdnewhard July 4th, 2008 12:35 am
Great post, please speak up more sir, we can use all the wisdom we
can find.
P.S. Daniel David…someone just came in and offered me a beer, I
refused in honor of your complaints about Amnesty John. Wine instead. My
tribute to you for the 4th!
May God Bless America and all who serve her. May all of you and your
families have a happy and safe weekend holiday.
135.
jclientelle July 4th, 2008 7:55 pm
Two reasons for progressives not to sit out this election:
1. Regardless of your take on voting this time, the elections
provide an opportunity to talk with your neigbors, co-workers and people in
your organizations about the issues YOU think are important. It is a good
time to find out what they are thinking. Try saying what you say in
cyberspace with live humans and see how it flies. (Suggest not using the
word “sheeple” in the first sentence.) Listen to what they say. They are
paying some attention for the first time. It is a good opportunity to
sharpen one’s ability to communicate and to influence other people.
2. You can vote as you wish, even go to the booth and vote for
nobody. I have done that. But doing nothing registers worse than zero on the
Richter scale. It is a signal that the voters are apathetic, which is
excellent news for those who want to stifle and kill democracy.
BTW - If you can catch Democracy Now’s Fourth of July program with
different actors reading excerpts from Howard Zinn, check it out. Need some
inspiration sometimes. Malcolm X’s wise and funny speech is particularly
pertinent to this election. “It’s not the man, it’s the movement.” Thank
you Amy.
136.
ardee July 4th, 2008 8:21 pm
andrews July 4th, 2008 11:43 am
ardee- I hope you didn’t think I was stabbing Nader in the back, I just
don’t think he can get elected. Nader is a change agent, and I admire his
passion, and we need him. I could be wrong, maybe he can be elected, but I
don’t think that movement can build enough consensus - i hope I’m proven
wrong.
Andrews,
I was not attacking an individual with my post but a concept that
one can continue to repeat the same mistake, over and again, and expect a
differing outcome. Many will excuse Obama’s rightward shift as “politics
as usual” and ignore the teachings of history that clearly show no
corresponding swing back to the left after being elected. Both major parties
are doing the bidding of those who pay for that priviledge, the large
campaign donors who have the ears of both sides of the aisle. Only by
refusing to participate in a sham by voting fpor centrists and globalists
can we hope to make a dent in the status quo.
I do not vote for Ralph Nader in the hopes that he can win, he
certainly cannot, though, were he included in the debate process you might
see a surprising swing towards him. No, I vote for Nader, not onlybecause he
best represents my vision of rthis nation, but to show the Duopoly that runs
this nation that an increasing number of us are disatisfied
137.
hoytdouglas July 4th, 2008 8:58 pm
First they laughed at Nader, now they ridicule him; it is time to
vote Nader into the White House so that the ruling elite will fear him and
the common man.
138.
doodledoo July 4th, 2008 10:27 pm
hedology July 4th, 2008 8:16 am wrote:
“Democrats and Republicans alike are so elitist, and so far out of
touch with USA public, and have gotten so comfortable inside their pig
troughs, it would be wise to vote massively for Ralph Nader, for real and
not zilch change.”
But Ralph is a finite being and an icon without state and local
representation. The Greens, on the other hand, have a few hundred state and
local representatives now in office, good state recognition, and the
guarantee of continuity it any one person leaves their ranks. They are the
present leaders of the US left. Ralph’s best contribution would be to throw
his support to Cynthia McKinney. If all progressives did that, we’d finally
have a cohesive movement.
--
gutprobe08 July 4th, 2008 4:00 am
Right on. A really well thought out piece. Excellent food for
thought.
--
Freddy, don’t despair. Why not vote Green? If everyone who felt as
you do did so, Cynthia McKinney would reign.
How many times do some liberals have to see the two-party’s
good-cop/bad-cop routine performed before they will realize that a vote for
the good-cop is a vote for more of the same old hot, wet, packaged barnyard
fertilizer, always and forever, world without end, Amen. A question for
those who do not believe that: what would be a good year to vote for someone
we really like?
Our masters will always present us with an undisguised wolf
candidate and an opposing wolf candidate in a sheep suit, the only
difference between the two being, the wolf in the sheep suit will be
slightly less barbaric while thoroughly screwing us over if elected.
139.
dcb July 5th, 2008 1:26 am
skepticism July 3rd, 2008 1:48 pm : “Nader is not a third party. He
is more of a “messiah” figure than Obama will ever be. Nader is an
independent voice accountable to no party, to no movement. His voice is
important but it does nothing to further a progressive movement or a left
third party to vote for this particular messiah.
The alternative to Obama is to get out and do the nasty, gritty, dirty work
of trying to build a third party. The only viable left party in this country
is the Green party. If you don’t want to throw in with Obama and the
possibilities there, then get out and build the Green Party.”
I agree with skepticism and doodledoo’s comment above RE the need
to support a third party MOVEMENT. Nader is a distraction now. Get behind
the Greens. McKinney is awesome. She is for an independent investigation
into 9/11, and against the war machine gone mad in the US. Go to the Green
Party USA website and read their platform. It’s amazingly comprehensive.
Nader has NOTHING to offer the presidential race at this point, but to
further split and divide the left in the furtherance of another victory for
fascism. Obama is a corporate sellout. I read that Nader’s campaign manager
is a member of Skull and Bones, just like W and Kerry. Same old CFR new
world order agenda. There is an insidiousness there that is absent from the
Green Party. Can’t you see it in the drained demeanor of Nader’s? Neither
his speaking nor his presence are half as convincing as they were 10 years
ago. He’s slipped over into the dark side, being controlled by the same
puppet masters that are behind Cheney.
140.
Nannie July 5th, 2008 6:12 am
To- dcb- July 5th, 2008 1:26 am
I hope people don’t believe the smear you just wrote. Please take
those tactics back to your Democrat blogs and tell people it won’t work on
Common Dreams. Spewing lies about Ralph Nader will get you no place here.
You may not like Nader’s message but then vote for who you do like in Nov.
Everything you wrote was a LIE. SHAME ON YOU.
.
141.
Nannie July 5th, 2008 6:40 am
.
“The only vote that’s wasted is a vote for someone you don’t
believe in,” Nader said, at the University of Hawaii-Manoa campus
July 3,2008
.
142.
dcb July 5th, 2008 10:36 am
Nannie,
Why can’t Ralph join McKiinney’s team as an advisor or manager?
Ralph has been an outsider all his life. McKinney’s actually been there in
Congress. I think Ralph is an egotist. He’s a fantastic philosopher and
political scientist; but as movement builder he is much weaker, IMO. What is
wrong with the Greens? Progressives need to close ranks and support a real
third party MOVEMENT. Grandstanding and seeking the limelight are not what
we want right now. Have you heard Ralph’s comments RE the excessive
whiteness of Obama’s campaign? That’s intended to turn off swing voters,
who will then go to McCain. Ralph has NOTHING to offer the presidential race
that the Greens aren’t already delivering. I understand that we all owe
much to Ralph’s advocacy over the years. But his chosen role at this time
is a mistaken one, IMO. He needs to get his big fat ego the hell out of the
way. McKinney is the real deal, and the Greens, as a whole, even more so. I
hate the Nation Magazine - but they are right about Ralph - he’s a spoiler.
If the Greens weren’t as worthy of support as they are, my tune about Ralph
would change. He is incapable of playing a subordinate role, hence his
candidacy. This is a flaw.
143.
rhizome July 5th, 2008 10:42 am
144.
Nannie July 5th, 2008 11:00 am
dcb July 5th, 2008 10:36 am
rhizome July 5th, 2008 10:42 am
hah! I saw the flub. Erased the message cause it was already posted
by the other . got your assignments mixed up???
Your attacks on Nader won’t work. Go back and tell that to your head of
operations. what a bunch. The Greens and Nader have no problems. When Ralph
Nader is President they will cheer like the rest of us.
.
145.
dcb July 5th, 2008 11:21 am
Nannie:
No. I created another username some months back when the bonehead
“left” gatekeepers at this site banned me for having arguments to the
effect that Ron Paul was the way to go, with links to articles from Alex
Jones’ PrisonPlanet site. I stopped participating because there was an
editorial effort here to get everyone behind John Edwards, and now it’s
Obama, although the bankruptcy of their position is more obvious now, so
they are letting in more dissent. My post was rejected today 3x for some
software glitch at this site that I was suspicious of. So I logged in as
“rhizome.” But now I see comments are going through for “dcb,” so I
guess there is no problem.
Go ahead, support Ralph. I’ve voted for him in every election he’s
been on the ballot. I just don’t think I will do it this time. I give $20
automatically every month to the Greens, and write and call people when I
can. It’s still a free country. But that won’t be the case when the
neocon/fascists carry out their next false flag attack. Dirty nuke in
Chicago, anyone, blamed on more cocaine snorting CIA assets posing as
radical muslims?
Join the discussion:
You must be
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-login.php?redirect_to=http://www.com
mondreams.org/archive/2008/07/03/10086/> logged in to post a comment. If you
haven't registered yet, click
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-register.php> here to register.
(It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Common Dreams NewsCenter <http://www.commondreams.org/>
A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the
progressive community.
Home <http://www.commondreams.org/> | Newswire
<http://www.commondreams.org/newswire.htm> | Contacting Us
<http://www.commondreams.org/contactingus.htm> | About Us
<http://www.commondreams.org/about.htm> | Donate
<https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1493/t/105/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_K
EY=1869> | Sign-Up <http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1493/t/24/signUp.jsp?
key=1439> | Archives <http://www.commondreams.org/archives.htm>
(c) Copyrighted 1997-2008 <http://www.commondreams.org/>
www.commondreams.org
Podcast Powered by <http://www.mightyseek.com/podpress/> podPress (v8.2)
<http://www.quantcast.com/p-9bNnJVyoTrfhk> Quantcast
_____
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080705/167efd17/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 7711 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080705/167efd17/attachment-0007.gif
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 6848 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080705/167efd17/attachment-0008.gif
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 173 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080705/167efd17/attachment-0009.gif
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1039 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080705/167efd17/attachment-0010.gif
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 352 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080705/167efd17/attachment-0011.gif
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 276 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080705/167efd17/attachment-0006.png
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 160 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080705/167efd17/attachment-0007.png
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 219 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080705/167efd17/attachment-0008.png
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 998 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080705/167efd17/attachment-0009.png
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 671 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080705/167efd17/attachment-0010.png
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 478 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080705/167efd17/attachment-0011.png
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 174 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080705/167efd17/attachment-0012.gif
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 35 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080705/167efd17/attachment-0013.gif
More information about the Dialogue
mailing list