Chris Hedges: "The Left Has Nowhere to Go"

[Xicano]

“The left has nowhere to go,” Nader said. “Obama knows it. The corporate Democrats know it. There will be criticism by the left of Obama this year and then next year they will all close ranks and say ‘Do you want Mitt Romney? Do you want Sarah Palin? Do you want Newt Gingrich?’ It’s very predictable. There will be a year of criticism and then it will all be muted. They don’t understand that even if they do not have any place to go, they ought to fake it. They should fake going somewhere else or staying home to increase the receptivity to their demands. But because they do not make any demands, they are complicit with corporate power.

“Corporate power makes demands all the time,” Nader went on. “It pulls on the Democrats and the Republicans in one direction. By having this nowhere-to-go mentality and without insisting on demands as the price of your vote, or energy to get out the vote, they have reduced themselves to a cipher. They vote. The vote totals up. But it means nothing.”

There is no major difference between a McCain administration, a Bush and an Obama administration. Obama, in fact, is in many ways worse. McCain, like Bush, exposes the naked face of corporate power. Obama, who professes to support core liberal values while carrying out policies that mock these values, mutes and disempowers liberals, progressives and leftists. Environmental and anti-war groups, who plead with Obama to address their issues, are little more than ineffectual supplicants.

Obama, like Bush and McCain, funds and backs our unending and unwinnable wars. He does nothing to halt the accumulation of the largest deficits in human history. The drones murder thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as they did under Bush and would have done under McCain. The private military contractors, along with the predatory banks and investment houses, suck trillions out of the U.S. Treasury as efficiently under Obama. Civil liberties, including habeas corpus, have not been restored. The public option is dead. The continuation of the Bush tax cuts, adding some $900 billion to the deficit, along with the reduction of individual contributions to Social Security, furthers a debt peonage that will be the excuse to privatize Social Security, slash social services and break the back of public service unions. Obama does not intercede as tens of millions of impoverished Americans face foreclosures and bankruptcies. The Democrats provide better cover. But the corporate assault is the same.


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_left_has_nowhere_to_go_20110102/

[grahamhgreen]

1. "Obama, who professes to support core liberal values while carrying out policies that mock these

values, mutes and disempowers liberals, progressives and leftists."

This may well be true.

[democrat2thecore]

57. I don't think there's any "may" about it.

The angriest Obama becomes is when he's talking about the left.

[crim son]

125. Now that's an interesting and accurate observation. n/t

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grahamhgreen]

272. I think a primary challenge is critical

I don't see any other way to get out the message that there are other ideas out there that are being pushed by our party. Popular ideas. Like taxing the rich, ending the wars and Medicare for All.

Without the challenge from the left, the people have no real choice.

[Maraya1969]

277. So you are on the side of the true republican? What is the true

motivation for your post?

[truedelphi]

168. And his governing by appointee shows us who he really is.

He appointed Geithner, and that guy colludes with Bernanke to offer up the next several decades worth of wealth to the Upper Elite. Over eleven trillion can counting, and who knows if that figure should actually be thirty trillion? We are not supposed to have an audit of the Federal reserve, except in the most superficial of methods of doing so.

Obama appoints Monsanto clones Mike Taylor, to head the FDA, and good ol Velsick to head the Ag Department. It is now impossible to find truly organic corn in this country. One of the best seed banmks, Beaver Creek in Missouri, now offers only two types of organic corn, and neither is anything like regular corn - it's more of the "popcorn" or ornamental corn variety than real human food.

I had CNN on for just a minute some twenty minutes ago, and the Talking Head was absolutely delighted with the "Food Safety" Act. This tells me immediately that nothing good will come of this bill. It will provide a further clamp down on the smaller, and better managed farms.
Those farms will not be able to produce the mountains of paper work necessary to comply with this bill. But not to worry - if the small farms cannot make itm, they can be bought out by the Big Agro firms with their GM crops!

Meanwhile, the "hidden" illnesses brought to the American public via their food, that is, the increasing numbers of depression, fibromyalgia, etc., will still sky rocket, as the mold found inside the GM foods will be more pervasive than ever.

And funny thing, ain't it - the "Food Safety" Act does not monitor or prohibit the aspartame or the MSG in our foods. Good thing to know that there will still be increasing numbers of people with MS! And more depression than ever. :sarcasm:

[JamesJ]

256. You're not looking at it right

You see, food poisoning, cancer causing chemicals, these are all good things because then the drug companies can sell us the drugs we need to counteract the poisons. Stop poisoning Americans and only the consumers win and who wants that?

[L0oniX]

265. USA number one! ...in cancer.

[truedelphi]

342. A hearty welcome to DU, JamesJ. n/t

[defendandprotect]

293. Terrific post .... keep tellin' it -- Monsanto's FDA ... all of government is corrupted ....

[patrice]

249. Perhaps he thinks it would be best for all, including "the Left" whatever that is, for the Left to

actually be independent of him.

If our critique of him is that he is propping a false hood called "the Right" up, does it make it less of a falsehood if he were propping up what calls itself "the Left" instead?

I don't know. I'm a mother. Perhaps I have a preference to think the only truly functional things for my children are not about ME; they are about who those persons who happen to be "my" children are themselves. Their functionality is proportionate to their independence.

If there is no "Left" it's because they have never become functional and someone else, the president, doing it for them is only the same sort of lie that got us all into this mess; there will still be no Left, so maybe his anger has to do with frustrations with those who CONTINUE to dysfunction by making this more about him than about being something themselves.

People talk about freedom from TPB and yet appear completely and entirely incapable of framing actions that are not of or related to Obama in one way or another. That fact is proven every time someone says something like "there is no 'may' about it" when, in fact, there's PLENTY of indeterminent stuff going on that people are choosing to define as absolutes for some very confused, and, at least in some significant cases, dishonest, reasons. Thus, repeating ALL of the mistakes and crimes of the very thing (especially the media) that they say they hate.

[earth mom]

286. "The angriest Obama becomes is when he's talking about the left." Yep, that about sums it up

look no further than Obama's liberal attack dog Rahm.

[ladjf]

155. It gives me the feeling that ideologically, Obama isn't a Democrat. nt

[lark]

213. Not just ideologically right wing but a practicing right wing pol

Don't care what comes out of his mouth, look at his actions, Repug all the way, corporatist to the core. If he cuts SS, I will not vote for him - period the end. He's already lost my dollars and my working for him by taking single payer off the table, aiding and abetting BP, and continuing the Bush tax policy which was the cornerstone of his campaign - that was the final straw. Now, if he cuts SS, he will lose the country for decades to the right wingers because no one will ever vote Dem again. Amazing, a Dem accomplishing the Repugs top goal since the 1930's - stealing the working class people's money and giving it to the rich - Cheney and the Heritage Foundation will be so proud!

[ladjf]

240. I have no argument with your observations. It's a very sad and

unusual situation. I can't recall any President every appearing to cooperate more with the opposing Party than his own.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

225. If you define "Democrat" as "Communist", this is true

Most people don't define things that way, however.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[grahamhgreen]

275. We define Democrat as FDR did. Taxing the rich. Medicare for all. Ending the wars.

I agree we need to keep our policies reality based, these are the solutions to our problems, and they are popular and held by the majority.

[democrat2thecore]

284. Absolutely. Traditional Democratic ideas...

The pocketbook issues that once drew working-class of all colors to vote Democratic. Good post.

[cascadiance]

315. Damn right! Even Eisenhower was MORE of a Democrat than Obama has been!

Actively worked to support the 90+% top marginal tax rates and unions, etc. Obama's been MIA on issues like this and instead looks to give the top more the gifts they want rather than keeping them from being plutocrats.

[ladjf]

324. Exactly. nt

[Still a Democrat]

224. The undeniable fact is Gore would have been inaugurated had Nader not ran n/t

[ladjf]

244. That's a fact. It is also true the the S.C. rigged it later and the

chad counting was also rigged. Too bad. What a tragedy!

[midnight]

252. Some believe Gore won the election,,,, but because the supreme

court gave the presidency to Bush we had to move on......

[defendandprotect]

295. Not true ... this was a right wing steal from start to finish ... and Gore actually won ...

Nader had ZIP to do with the alleged Bush "win" --

only the fascist GOP-rally to stop the vote counting in Miami-Dade County Election

H/Qs had anything to do with it --

and the final blow -- the fascist Supreme Court Gang of 5 decision to put W in the

White House --

If you want scapegoats for W's "win" --

look to the 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida who voted for Bush --

look to the 3,000+ "butterfly ballots" which moved votes to Buchanan --

and many other examples such as those --

[Still a Democrat]

314. None of that would have mattered if Nader hadn't ran.

The undeniable fact is Gore would have been inaugurated had Nader not ran.

[defendandprotect]

325. You have no evidence of that ... nor any proof that the 537 votes that W "won" with in Florida ....

were votes that would have gone to Gore --

No Nader voted would have voted for Gore --

But you're ignorning a great deal to try to reach that conclusion!

It was a stolen election -- finalized by the SC Gang of 5 --

[RKP5637]

2. We'll see where we are about 6 years from now, but my hunch is a lot of

people are going to be unhappy for whatever reason, left, right and center ... because the real winners will be corporate America, not the unemployed and not the employed, unless you are in the top few percent of the wealth. Just my hunch.

The paradigm is being shifted toward a plutocracy more and more ...

I still think a lot of Americans are asleep at the wheel for many reasons.

[stillwaiting]

98. If the real winners in six years time will be corporate America and the paradigm continues shifting

to a plutocracy (as has happened since Reagan) then I'd say the left will have VALID reasons to be unhappy. The right - not so much.

If the conservative base doesn't realize by now that conservative economic policies allow the upward transfer of their wealth to their "betters" then they just might never will.

[RandomThoughts]

3. Might as well eat popcorn and crash through multiple movie sets then.

:shrug:

They could have corrected the beer and travel money issue that is due, their choice.




good article also

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Go Issa! I suddenly became a fan of Darrell Issa.

[Enthusiast]

88. Darrell Issa's job is to distract

the left. By creating a huge smoke screen around Obama they can distract us from looking at what is really happening. It is the great Clinton persecution redo. While many of us vigorously defended Clinton, from what we considered unreasonable persecution, he betrayed us by signing NAFTA and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I expect a virtual replay under Obama. Well, it is already going on, full steam.

[molly77]

118. Let's face it, we have a clinton administration

Given the fact that the clintons have treated Obama like their house servant, isn't it apparent that the system is the problem?

Candidate Obama and President Obama are like two different people. If you or I had conducted a long hard campaign against bitter rivals....would we totally fill our administration with the rival's people?

The scenario only works for me if , Obama had no choice.His new chief of staff is coming from the banking community? ding ding ding

I read an article in Vanity Fair that stated Emmanuel had a little device on his desk when he was in the WH where he could see Obama's every move. Isn't this a "tell"? Notice the nasty comments toward progressives from high placed WH sources have stopped since Emmanuel and Summers have been fired?

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

253. "President Clinton is going to answer your questions while I go to a party..."

Here is the video. 'Nuff said.

[lark]

214. Clinton did some good for working folks

Obama has done absolutely nothing for us at all except stab us in the back over and over and over again. Clinton fought for us at times, when will Obama ever fight anyone except Democrats and bend over for Repugs??

[dflprincess]

290. Yeah, NAFTA was really a boon for working people

:sarcasm:

[Plucketeer]

148. Issa's the drunken heckler in the balcony. n/t

The Boehner-McDuncell JOBS PLAN

[Autumn]

5. Stunning article,

and frighteningly true. K/R

[Somawas]

102. Not really true.

I have a place to go. I can vote Green. And I would consider doing so.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberation]

153. Huh?

The Green party does have an organization. But why would they have a candidate before their primaries? For example, what's the Dem or the GOP candidate for 2012?

[Maraya1969]

278. You can't vote green and be on this forum.

[Somawas]

323. I think I can.

I'm a Democrat at heart. Always have been. Mostly I have voted a straight ticket. That I have or might have voted for some candidate of a third party, or even a Republican, once in a long while does not prevent me from considering myself to be a Democrat. I will vote for almost all Democrats. But never tell me I have no place to go. If voting third party is the best way I have to get a progressive message to my party, then I'll do it.

[whattheidonot]

161. not left or right.

this article is true. I do not get this left or right thing. This is a right wing economy that does not help the mainstream right or left. It is tearing the middle class apart . It is by design gutting the fabric of a stable society for the benefit of few. Is that a right or left issue. maybe when this really starts to hit home people will forget this left -right thing. This way beyond that. This is the squeezing of nation for what?

[lark]

217. Sorry, it is "right" all the way

Ultra right wing is corporate control of government, no rules against their worst excesses, no middle class, only the poor and the the few at the top. Destroying the middle class is what it takes to accomplish their goals and they are well on their way to success. Does it help our country, does it do anything for the vast majority of it's populace, NO. Fascism is the name for what they are and what they are trying to do for our entire government and succeeding well at it, to our sorrow.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. This has been the DNC paradigm for 14 of the last 18 years

Except when Dr. Dean ran the show, of course.

[kgnu_fan]

18. yup.

[Sherman A1]

65. Yup!

And a shame. It has, however resulted in a loss of both confidence and interest on the part of the this portion (that being me) of the left. There will be no money from me, there will be no work by me and most likely no vote by me except on very local issues.

So I hope that worked out for them real well, because their election really has not worked out very well from my point of view.

They want to be critical of me and be angry at me fine, that is their choice. My support and votes are MY choice.

[Joe Bacon]

96. Same here.

In 2008, I went without test strips so I could contribute to someone who said they would fix our broken health care system.

Instead, I found out that I gave money to a corporate appeaser who turned around and gave PhRMA and the racketeers who run the health scams everything they wanted and more.

As Harry Truman said "Given a choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the Real Republican all the time".

I am one of those who refused to give a single cent to those who sold out to the Republicans. And I am one of those who went to the ballot box and did not vote for the Blue Dog Republicrat congressional candidate.

I've had it with Democrats who rule like Republicans. As Eugene Debs said, "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than to vote for what I don't want and be stuck with it".

If Obama continues with his massive move to the right, he will lose in a 1980 type landslide and he'll take a bunch of Democratic Senators down with him.

[Recursion]

180. Really?

Please, do tell me how Dr. Dean modified the party's attitudes and policies about corporations.

[SteveM]

7. Well, these guys make money saying what I've been saying for some time...

but they can buy me a beer if they ever drop into Austin.

The process of extirpating what is really post-FDR/LBJ liberalism from the Democratic Party started in earnest in the mid 1970s, and continues unchallenged. Hard truths:

The country's politics are NOT polarized; polarization requiring 2 or more "poles" to be called such;
There is but one "pole:" the Right, ranging from corporate right to the mud-splattering hippo fart right;
There is no opposition to corporate power OR the Right;
NO ONE wants the "left;" not the Democratic Party, not MSM, not Obama;
MSM needs to promote the fiction of a "Left," however, no matter how tedious and strained such a notion may be;
The Democratic Party from here forward WILL NOT challenge the Right; they are afraid of them;
What remains of the "left" will either take over the Democratic Party, or fade from existence (except in the banal minds of MSM);
Any significant change in our political system (if it occurs) will spring from some form of right-wing populism.

That about clears it up.

[hulka38]

62. Interesting post.

I'd like to see a fleshed out OP about this from you sometime.

[MedicalAdmin]

95. Me too. You have the bones of a great op

[myrna minx]

114. I agree with the others above, please write an essay based upon these thoughts.

I found this to be very thought provoking.

[molly77]

122. Steve M

Brilliant . Only you forgot one aspect of it. How much is contrived by a corporate owned main stream media? And a CIA , FBI and military that no longer answers to the people? Could throw in TSA too.Everybody shys away from this aspect of the problem. Don't want to look too radical. That is the problem. Nobody wants to say fascism. Or that the aftermath of Katrina was genocide and a land grad for corporations. Public housing was torn down to make room for private development. The schools are charter now in New Orleans. Privatization favors corporations over good for the people.

[AikidoSoul]

197. Me too. This is indeed something that should be expanded upon N/T

[leftstreet]

309. +1

[DeSwiss]

8. Exactly.

K&R

[mmonk]

9. Quit reminding us Chris.

The stress is heavy and the mainstream press framing mind numbing. Reminding me there is no where to go does not promote peace of mind.

[bluestate10]

10. Nader is an a******.

I would prefer having a sumo wrestler fart in my face over following Nader. Nader still has not answered for electing Bush in 2000.

[mrdmk]

11. That was debunked long ago, next...

:eyes:

[Lord Magus]

294. No. It was not.

You can't debunk the truth.

[Better Believe It]

22. If a sumo wrestler farting in your face turns you on, go for it!

Different strokes for different folks.

[intheflow]

25. Nader did not elect Bush in 2000.

Gore was elected by the People. Bush stole Gore's rightful election and Gore went belly-up in response.

[xxqqqzme]

177. Gore went belly up?

Was he supposed to raise an army and storm the supreme court? I'm always curious when someone says Gore gave up. Just what was he supposed to do after SCOTUS stopped the recount and annointed *?

[Senator]

210. Yes, he did.

Gore's very recent false rationalization of his failure (violent revolution) is where you should direct your curiosity.

What he was supposed to do is exactly what Justice Breyer instructed in his dissent to the treasonous bushvgore edict. He was supposed to demand that the unlawful Florida electors be disallowed by Congress.

It was never Gore's election to concede. Even if his current self-serving delusion about violence were true, is that a valid reason to abandon the will of the electorate?

------

[intheflow]

241. He could have refused to concede.

He could have put pressure on Congress to reverse the SCOTUS decision and insist on the completion of the count in Florida. There is no Constitutional clause that says a president must be sworn in on the first January 20th after the election. He could have taken the time to see justice served. Instead he conceded before all the votes were counted. I do indeed call that "going belly up."

Of course, he was probably getting advice from that DINO troll Lieberman who was just as happy - if not happier - to see the Repukes in power.

[bluestate10]

326. The claim that Gore gave up is part of the allusion that

extreme liberals push forward to explain away the conduct of enough of them to have prevented this nation from facing the difficult straits faced since 2001. Call Gore a quitter infinitum, the fact is a group of recalcitrant, self absorbed voters potentially irreparably damaged the USA.

[Senator]

343. No, it's a simple fact.

As I posted above, he failed to do what he should have.

It may also be true that "self absorbed voters" share the blame for the horrific results. But they did not control Gore's behavior.

And facing the fact about Gore is not a defense of anyone else.

-----

[krispos42]

339. Nader was one of several major factors that let it be stolen

If any of them (Nader being one) had not occurred, Gore would have gone into the legal fight with Florida in his column, not Bush's.

The problem with Nader is that everybody, including Nader, knew that his campaign was a protest campaign with zero chance of getting a single electoral vote. His protest campaign opened wide the doors to the corporatist nightmare he's been fighting against his whole life.

Things like the "butterfly ballot" can be thought of as a bureaucratic mistake by local governments; presumably they happen all over the country and over several elections favor both sides equally.


The lesson here is don't do a protest campaign when it's going to be really close. Nader should have run in the solid red states and solid blue state and avoided swing states entirely.

[girl gone mad]

29. You've been inhaling too many sumo farts.

Nader is not responsible for Gore's moronic legal strategy, Florida's butterfly ballots or the Democratic party of 2000's general incompetence.

[JDPriestly]

149. No, Nader is not responsible for Gore's moronic legal strategy.

Someone in the Gore campaign should have read Florida law and demanded a recount in the entire state.

[rhett o rick]

34. So instead of discussing the points you lower yourself to name calling. I am not surprised.

You have no integrity.

[Swamp Rat]

35. For the BRAZILLIONTH TIME: Bush was appointed President by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[mmonk]

317. Nader will always provide an excuse for those seeking one.

You are correct. The Supreme Court did something unprecedented. They did not allow for a real final accounting of a general election before the outcome was decided.

[avaistheone1]

70. What an ignorant post.

Get your facts straight. Nader was not responsible for electing Bush. The Supreme Court appointed Bush.

[DainBramaged]

79. No those 3,000,000 + who voted for him would have voted for Booshe....

keep up your denial it's healthy.....

[Javaman]

116. 3 million people voted for nader because

they felt at the time, that Gore would be a continuation of the clinton corporate glad handing that brought us NAFTA.

No one could predict that Gore would turn out to be a true lefty.

People exercise their right to vote and 3 million of them chose nader.

however, we don't get a chance to vote for our supremes, they installed george. w. moron* in a clear effort to support the right wing mission. Gore won the popular vote and with proper full counting would have won the general election as well.

So spout off all you want regarding nader, the reality, which you choose to ignore, is that the supremes usurped the Constitution and selected a president.

That is what lost the dems the election. Nothing else. If you win by one vote it's still a win. Gore was on his way to winning when the asshole supremes grossly overstepped their authority and made a colossally unconstitutional decision. period.

[PassingFair]

276. "No one could predict that Gore would turn out to be a true lefty. "

Too true!
Especially given his inspired choice of RUNNING MATE.

[Javaman]

322. Exactly.

but then again joe wasn't quite so far down the repuke money hole back then as he is now.

He was still in stealth, "I want to be elected" mode.

[tomp]

81. obviously you prefer obama farts. nt

[Enthusiast]

90. How fucking stupid.

[travelingtypist]

101. Agree with you on Nader being an a**hat.

And that he has never copped to what he did to help 2000 be close enough for the Bushies to steal.

Not at all interested in sumo farts, tho.

[cascadiance]

103. The only mistake Nader made was not pushing harder on instant runoff voting...

... and public campaign financing, to even the playing field out to allow for more parties to be real voices in the process.

If he had held out that he'd stop running and support the Democrats if they put in place instant runoff voting last election, then he'd have done something to make candidacies like his and others that won't create problems like Bush in the future and would have helped the political process in the course of his running, and might enable him to be a real challenge without splitting the vote in the future.

Other than that though, I think voices like his need to be heard to make a dent in our corporatocracy.

[molly77]

121. Funny how our progressive leaders have such a narrow path to walk

in order to be credible..but the right wingers can go to the fringes of lunacy and still have a microphone in their faces and deemed credible.Ralph Nadar has a history of speaking up for the people. Our govt. does not allow this type of mentality in South America or the US.Don't drink the kool aid.

[cascadiance]

126. Never said he wasn't credible. Just that he didn't use the right strategy...

I've always liked Nader's voice, and feel it should be heard in a real democracy.

I was just saying that pragmatically, the first problem for third party voices to fight the duopoly of power we have now would be to break down that power structure directly. He has an ability to affect elections and therefore throw a dent in to the power wishes of the Democrats. But with our current system, he can't really realistically win an office like president the way it is set up. That is why I think that had he really pushed more of a single issue like instant runoff voting as his pivotal issue, perhaps it might have been dealt with so that we can get something like that put in place and help break the corrupt system we have down a notch or two. Then, even if he didn't win an election, he will help us win another battle in the war against corporatist plutocracy.

Without pushing for instant runoff voting as his big issue, he opens himself up to criticism that he's running for vanity that his critics have made of him, instead of having some achievable goals, which perhaps if done correctly instant runoff voting might be.

[defendandprotect]

306. We still need IRV voting -- and obvious why both parties fight it --

[molly77]

119. The Supreme Court put bush in office, not Nadar

Ralph Nadar woke up before WE did.

[WatchWhatISay]

144. I agree with you completely, but that does not mean he is wrong here

He is just not the solution.

[Lorien]

145. People who blame Nader for Bush are assh*les

The repugs STOLE that election. I witnessed it personally. Then the SCOTUS aided them in the theft. By blaming Nader you let the real criminals off the hook.

Nader has done more to help the average citizen in this Nation than anyone who posts here on DU. Anyone who doesn't believe this only has to Google search Nader's history since the 1960's.

[liberation]

154. Wow, what a well thought of and logical argument. You totally conviced me.

Heck, I almost forgot that you are still to answer for having Lieberman, a person who then went to support Bush and campaign for the GOP, as part of the Dem ticket in 2000.

[bluestate10]

327. In case you have not figured it out yet.

I really don't give a rat's ass about totally convincing the unconvincible. Nader's arrogance saddled the nation with four years of Bush, minimum, was highly likely the reason why 9/11 happened, as well as the moronic strategy that was advanced for "winning" the Afghan war that ensued after 9/11. Bush came in and ignored intelligence that pointed to 9/11 being planned. You can claim that 9/11 would have happened because the terrorists that conducted it were embedded in the USA, but I can claim with as much validity that if intelligence had been followed and acted on, those terrorists would have been rounded up and 9/11 prevented. So who is right? Of course you are going to say you're right and post all types of asinine, way left links to prove your point, according to you. But the fact is, you have no idea what the f*** would have happened. Neither do I, so let's just stay in our corners. My opinion of Nader is that he is an irrelevant has been who is of no significance and has not been for more than three decades.

[sabrina 1]

163. Gore won the 2000 election.

Making the 'it's Nader's fault' charge ridiculous.

Since then Nader has been proven to be correct about the system we are living under. Hard though it was to accept, I think it is fairly obvious now that he knew long before we did, how it all works.

And he is correct once again. Unless the American people take a stand, the game will go on.

[bluestate10]

328. Once again.

Nader has been for three decades and still is irrelevant and appeals to no one but those on the left fringe. Nader can only cost democrats elections and plunge the nation into a sure fire four years of darkness. If you want to go on thinking that Nader makes a difference, knock yourself out ma'am.

[Exultant Democracy]

226. I would rather have Nader then Obama, and I'm not a Nader fanboy.

[defendandprotect]

307. +1000% --

[bluestate10]

329. I would rather have Obama.

BTW. In case some have not figured it out, the center decides elections and only when the center is evenly split do fringe elements matter. With the current cast of republicans set to run the President and with an improving economy, the center will likely vote for Obama in numbers that will keep fringe elements irrelevant. So, tell me why a re-elected Obama should care about the fringe?

[Horse with no Name]

12. The problem is

IF the Democratic Party DID split--it would have to have a HIGH PROFILE defacto head of the party (in my dreams, it would be Howard Dean or someone like that!) to become successful.
However, there is too much loyalty that is still bestowed upon the party and people like Howard and others aren't going to throw away a lifetime of loyalty. Perhaps the next generation will not feel that much loyalty--and certainly after being repeatedly raped by the party and the PTB insisting we just lay back and enjoy it...real HOPE and real CHANGE might happen.
That's where we stand...it is an impasse that certainly has to be crossed before the walls will come down.

[PhillySane]

28. I'm ready, how bout you?

I have no loyalty whatsoever to the Democratic Party and I've been a member for 25 years. After this year, its done. If Howard Dean formed a progressive party, I'd be right there with him. And, I think many other Americans would as well. Look at all the recent polls showing 60% or better against the wars, 60% or better against the tax cut extension. The time is now! Let's Roll!

[Enthusiast]

91. I've been a member

for 40 years and I'm right there with you.

[molly77]

123. Philly Sane

I'm with you.

[ladjf]

156. Count me in. nt

[marions ghost]

164. I'd vote for a Dean party

but not for the Green Party. They had their chance and gave us Nader (yuk). :shrug:

[MedicalAdmin]

97. The psychology of rape victims.

Those who suffer from serial rape over long periods of time will usually do one of very few things. First they will leave and we are already seeing that happening. The USA is losing a frightening percentage of intelligent professionals and tradespeople to overseas. They aren't taking it anymore and they are takin their eduction and skills with them. Second group will just take it and then they will self destruct often in the form of suicide. And the third group will stile back somthat they can NEVER be raped again. And te third option is swiftly coming.

[RandomKoolzip]

169. Although I agree in principle with the essential focus of this argument, I resent and abhor

metaphorically comparing the relationship between Dem leadership and the left to honest-to-goodness, real-world rape. I think that kind of rhetoric mocks women, rape survivors, and victims of abuse, and unintentionally turns people away from your argument. "Rape" is a word and a concept should not be blithely bandied about like this.

[eilen]

190. Just ask some foreclosure victims how they feel.

Particularly the ones who tried to hold on with HAMP. Particularly after it was reported that HAMP was designed to help the banks and not the homeowners.

Rape is power/domination motivated. I bet that is exactly how they feel. That they were raped. I doubt there is little trust in government from that cohort, nevermind Obama or Democrats.

[patrice]

200. Or ask those who have lost jobs that they CARED about and did GOOD work in for

no reason that had anything to do with themselves or their co-workers.

"At will" employment sucks, because the balance of power between the employer and the employee is not the same. Employers have many employees, but employees have fewer and fewer employers, so their ability to adapt to changes in what constitutes the work is not the same as that of the employer.

[MedicalAdmin]

250. I've never been raped by a boss,

but I had a boss that literally destroyed a career I had about 10 years ago, firing me without any cause and then using his contacts to blackball me. The result was that I couldn't get a job that I had tons of experience and education in and that I loved and it was ripped away from me without mercy and without recourse.

I felt raped. But I wasn't.

[patrice]

251. I was raised to live the nobility of work, not just to get a paycheck. It's an obsolete notion,

I know.

Personally caring and working really hard, BELIEVING for REAL in the mission, feeling affection and connection for your co-workers. Letting the whole enterprise into your heart. As you can see, I know a thing or two about the kind of experience you had.

America has changed, or I was lied to. In either case, that personal disjunct is not as violent as actual rape, but I guarantee you, I will NEVER be the same. It has happened 3 times in the last 10 years and I am certain that I am not the only person who has had stuff like this in their lives.

[MedicalAdmin]

311. It used to be an avocation. Now it's a J. O. B.

I am now a boss and I will never do to others what was done to me.

[MedicalAdmin]

248. That was my point (or it would have been if I had explained it better)

Anyone who has suffered systematic abuse in a way that strikes at their core feeling of security and safety could display a psychological reaction that is markedly similar to rape survivors. I still own my house (fingers crossed) and I have never been raped (fingers crossed) but I have worked with rape survivors and other abused populations (of both sexes).

You have hit upon a core issue, the loss of trust, in others and in ones own judgement.

[galloglas]

202. I disagree

Comparing the situation of the politically and economically down-trodden in the US is totally appropriate. Just as it would be to compare it to the Holocaust, noting that the Right-Wing Corporati and their minions are, slowly and by degrees, returning all of us who are NOT complicit with the Corporate Fascisti, to a position of economic desolation.

The "Holocaust" or "Rape" (or any other appropriate metaphor) of the US Proletariat at the hands of the Fascisti is bringing about the ever-quickening impoverishment of millions who, because of that poverty, will die earlier, sicker, poorer, and in hunger and in need, leading lives of desolation and desperation.

In the familiar words of Hobbes we will lead lives of "continual fear and danger of violent death,; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

The word "rape" should not be a property of the female gender (ask the inmates, those accosted by pedophiles, Afghani teen boys, etc) any more than the word "Holocaust" should belong to the Jewish people (ask the Armenians, the Tutsi, any just about anyone from Bosnia-Herzegovina or Croatia).

My thought is that neither "rape" nor "holocaust" should be bandied about blithely. However, when speaking of a prospective future in the US, which would have all but the Corporati and their shills ("public servants" or "hired guns", either way) reduced to a state of vassalage that makes us no better than tenant farmers of Thomas Hobbes era, those terms should not be precluded from use. Indeed, sometimes it is only those terms which can evoke a clear picture of a troubling future.

[MedicalAdmin]

245. To be clear.

First of all it certainly wasn't my intention to denigrate the experience of anyone who has been raped, so thank you for pointing that out.

However ... and you knew I was going to say however, didn't you? ... I believe that I was not trying to compare the experience of rape but rather the resultant pschological state of victims of serial abuse and rape to that of people who are serially financially (etc) abused. The resultant state of denial, rage or resignation are very real and very similar.

The incidents that lead to those psychological states are very different and but the reactions to abuse tend to be similar and the severity of said reactions vary person to person in a way that is not dependent on the precipitating incidents. I have a small background with working with populations that have suffered horrible abuse and I have always admired and supported anyone who has been through something like that or who has come out the far end even partially intact.

I hope this further explanation will help explain my previous post which was, admittedly written in haste and did not represent my best work. Thanks for your understanding.

[eilen]

188. My son is in the national socialist party

he told me that he has decided that instead of getting ready for the revolution, he is just going to wait for the PTB to destroy everything first, since they are so close already. I think his decision is very economical. Why risk getting your head bashed in? He figures he won't have to work so hard to get people to shrug off their shrouds of apathy by then.

[jeff47]

215. There is another solution

The main reason the Democrats have been able to move so far to the right is that the Republicans have moved so far to the right. It appears to me that the Republicans are ripe for a split into two parties, as Republican moderates have been fairly unhappy for quite a while now.

That split would form two right-of-center parties, and the moderate one would force the Democratic party to the left.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

15. "There is no major difference between a McCain administration, a Bush and an Obama administration. "

Why worry? The world is going to end anyway.

[tavalon]

68. Two realms

In the bigger scheme, yes, it will end. In the short term, we should continue to fight because anything else is suicide.

[tavalon]

69. Two realms

In the bigger scheme, yes, it will end. In the short term, we should continue to fight because anything else is suicide.

[BobbyBoring]

204. That's Right!

On May 14 2011 (not 2012) J C comes and in October, it's all over!

http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/may21/index.html



"There is no major difference between a McCain administration, a Bush and an Obama administration. "

In regard to this statement, there is a SMALL difference. If McCain was elected, we would already be at war with Iran. AND, we would have millions praying that the old geezer would kick the bucket so Mama Jizz could be POTUS and really show those brown skinned bastages what a woman can do. You Betcha~

[bluestate10]

330. People have to feel wanted I guess.

If McCain's senate race in Arizona and his recent rants don't burn the difference into concrete, explaining the differences until one is blue in the face will go nowhere.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Nowhere else to go? As long as we buy that crap we'll be stuck with 2 parties.

The (alleged) 2 party system will prevail as long as the left keeps thinking that there is "no place to go".

[BzaDem]

32. Why do you think that we won't be stuck with two parties, even if you don't "buy that crap?"

That's like saying "as long as we buy that crap, gravity will still exist."

Well, yes. But it will also remain an attractive force if you don't "buy that crap." It doesn't really care WHAT you buy -- it isn't going anywhere.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Despite the seeming stranglehold the (sort of) 2 party system has, things change.

As evidenced by the public disgust with politics-as-usual things will change when enough people get fed up with a corrupt system of political insiders bought and sold by the real bosses.

Already 40% of the people don't even bother to vote in the face of a fixed system that thinks itself invulnerable to change.

[BzaDem]

39. Why do you think that the people "fed up enough" to start a third party represent a non-negligable

portion of the population?

You are correct that many people are so uninterested in politics that they don't vote. I'm not sure why you seem to act as if these people are "fed up," let alone fed up enough to want a third party, when they are so uninterested in politics that they can't even bother to vote. Especially when polls of ALL liberal Democrats (voters and non-voters alike) approve of Obama by a margin of 91%.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Gosh I thought it was 523%

They aren't interested in politics because it is irrelevant to them. They're too busy taking care of real life to spend much time fretting about the antics of politicians who are in the pocket of the real powers of the oligarchy.

[BzaDem]

47. Exactly. That is precisely the reason they aren't going to start a new party.

Not that they would want to anyway, given the overwhelming approval of Obama by the left in this country.

[tomp]

82. the left supports obama. right. nt

[patrice]

193. Let's guess what those who are actually in the trenches for Social & Economic Justice would say abou

t him, the ones doing the real world work of defending budgets and protecting staff and doing face time with those who are on the edge of a the abyss anyway. Let's guess what they and those they serve would say about throwing everything, the entire country actually, under the buss, for at least a decade, in order to prove an ideological point about TPB=Obama.

Care to venture any guesses?

[tomp]

239. frankly, i'm not sure what your perspective is.

i can't read your tone well enough.

why don't you just state your position simply and i'll respond.

[patrice]

260. I think all of this revenge on Obama stuff is not coming from the people who do the actual work that

the "Left" says it values, i.e. Social/Economic Justice work.

The people who are doing that work do not want revenge on Obama at all costs, because they know it WILL install Republicans in the WH and Congress for 4-8+ years and ALL of their programs will be cut even more than they are going to be cut under current conditions. Cuts in those programs WILL hurt people. What is calling itself the Left and yelling for Obama's head, claims to care about people, but isn't acting as though it REALLY does. Why is that?

LOTS of this anti-Obama stuff that is going on is coming from people who will NOT be affected as much, or at all, by such Republican cuts, or if they are affected, they have already decided that **OTHER** people's pain is acceptable for "the Left's" goals. To me, deciding to hurt other people is wrong ESPECIALLY when it is the Left doing it, because that's the opposite of what they say they are.

With the cracks in BOTH parties, revenge on Obama serves base building in all of the splinter groups, such as Libertarians, Green Party, and several others, all of whom stand to benefit from further political dysfunction. These beneficiaries of political dysfunction, in most cases, are NOT the ones DOING the actual work of Social and Economic Justice in this country. Those who are will probably side in support of the President in order to protect the living breathing human beings that they are helping.

[tomp]

313. that's what i thought. lame ass projection of who you think...

...activists are and what they are thinking. and more excuse-making for a terrible president. also more two-party system defense: vote for obama because he's better than the republicans.

your position, besides being philosophically and morally bankrupt, is sheer speculation on the minds of "activists" and some pretend knowledge of the people who you classify as "revenge" people.

what is perhaps most annoying is your sense of your own expertise on the american political system.

the main "cracks" to be concerned about are in the system which, if you had been paying attention you would know is corrupted beyond repair. under current political conditions, "cracks" in the parties are a good thing, because both parties serve the rich. any independence that can be gained from them is a good thing and has been a long time coming.

[bluestate10]

337. Hogwash.

You do not have any idea of what progress is. Progress is setting up and sustaining real economic development efforts so that people that would have to rely and charity have jobs, income and benefits. Progress is donating money to charity instead of paying bail to get one's ass out of jail after a lame street protest. Go ahead my friend, chains yourself to what ever fence you want to chain yourself to. You know what? People would give a shit only if you backed up traffic with your display of arrogance. I know exactly what the poster is saying, those that are not self appointed purveyors of liberal wisdom and are actually on the front-line of real change, get his points completely.

[tomp]

344. hogwash yourself.

where do i come out against "real economic development efforts? by opposing obama? laughable.

donating money to charity instead of bail after a street protest? chaining myself to a fence? ok, now you're certifiable. certifiable because you're apparently convinced that your post is relevant in some way. but also, historically uneducated, as civil disobedience is ALWAYS a forerunner of progress.

and like the other poster, you have no idea who on this board is doing what, and have no right to speak for "activists".

you're nothing but another lame ass hysterical obamaphiliac.

[bluestate10]

334. I have found the left.

Full of itself. I have no desire to become a conservative, never will if hell burned me a dozen times and becoming a conservative would stop the burning. But honestly, sometimes when I listen to s*** coming out of the mouths and fingers of the far left, I seriously wonder who is worse, the Palinesque right, or the Naderish left. A pox on both their houses, IMO.

[bluestate10]

333. The poster is saying.

That those that bring about REAL, TANGIBLE, POSITIVE CHANGE ARE TOO BUSY TO SPEND PRECIOUS TIME CRYING ABOUT PRESIDENT OBAMA. Clear enough?

[bluestate10]

332. I have always distanced myself from the extreme left and the extreme right.

Exactly because neither group plays in the pool of reality, IMO. One term that I abhor on DU is coporalist, or what ever the equivalence. Good, honest people that start and run business and care about their workers and communities exists and exist in large numbers. And they do more for the betterment of humanity in one day than those mouthing the corporalist insult are likely to do in ten years. I prefer those that quietly and permanently bring about positive difference over those that go to the street raising hell and tearing up property any day. And I prefer a leader that brings about meaningful change, how ever incremental to a person that has not done one measurable act of national good in three decades and lurks as a sad Shadow of what might have been.

[eilen]

192. What is the point if all they get is the same result?

Meet the new boss...

Outside of a few who are entertained by the high drama of the day to day hyperbole, I can't think of anyone who believes in actually making changes by the political process in my immediate sphere of influence. There are no sufficiently powerful politicians nor government employees/appointees with the intestinal fortitude and the integrity to resist the easy money.

Private citizens-- mostly 20-somethings are seeing the writing on the wall and are going elsewhere. Those without optimistic/out of the box vision are joining the military.

[sabrina 1]

166. Why does it have to be a third party?

The only reason the Dem Party doesn't listen to its base is because, as Nader so correctly states, they believe they have nowhere to go so they don't have to cater to them.

When they fear losing them, THEN they will begin to listen. But that will take organization, and someone to speak for the 'left' within the party. Enough with blind loyalty. I don't give loyalty to people who support torture and illegal wars, yet that's what we are doing.

Also, it will take being fearless, forgetting about the 'right' which is always the threat 'oh, so you want Palin'. That should be ignored, as it deserves it to be and the focus on what we DO want, not what we DON'T.

We've voting AGAINST the right for so long it's become a habit. When the people make it about voting for what we do want and the party learns that unless they provide it, they will not get our votes, then things will change. But there's always that contingency standing in the way of that kind of progress with their fear-mongering, weak arguments. We now see where that got us. Two wars, torture as a policy, the rich getting richer and now, even the possibility of a 'democratic' administration attacking Social Security. What next if we don't start doing something to stop this 'race to the bottom'?

[patrice]

263. The threats to Social Security & Medicare are REAL & highly probable, if Obama is replaced by a

Republican. We get an even stronger reich-wing on SCOTUS and Re-districting kills Dems in Congress.

The end of Medicare and privatization of Social Security may be okay with you, but there are people who have concrete, non-ideologically based, reasons to try to prevent that.

[sabrina 1]

274. Your attempt to twist what I said is not unfamiliar to me

But to get back to what I actually was talking about. If the Democrats under this administration do anything to cut SS, by raising the retirement age eg, something even George Bush couldn't do, the obvious conclusion people will have to come to is that the goal to destroy the New Deal will be accomplished no matter which of these two parties are in power. A little step taken by each party along the way means that neither party is going to fight for the rights of the American people.

SS has nothing to do with the deficit therefore there is simply no excuse that can be offered that will persuade people who are informed that the are not being lied to.

We have actually waited far too long to come to the conclusion that something else is needed and that the people cannot depend on the Democratic Party as they once thought they could, to protect their interests.

Protecting SS should be a major priority for the Democratic Party. So far, I see no signs of a real fight to stop the inclusing of SS in any discussion about the deficit. What I do hear are disturbing statemenst like 'we will not privatize SS'. Well, no, that will probably be the job of Republicans AFTER Democrats pave the way by promoting the lie that there is some kind of crisis with SS.

And since I am a supporter of the Democratic Platform I do not accept any excuse from democrats to cut SS in any way.

In fact I am in favor of raising benefits. That would provide a stimulus for the economy while not costing the Federal Government anything.

And anyone who says we must raise the retirement is no Democrat.

[bluestate10]

340. It is an almost hopeless argument you're making.

Perfectly sane, mind you. But among DUERS, it is not going to sell. But you are right. The zany Obama hatred does not look past their wall of self assumption to see the stark reality that will stare the nation in the face if republicans seize control of all parts of federal and state government as they are angling to do.

[bluestate10]

338. Really?

What is the democratic base? Is it African Americans, who as a group, support Obama big. Is it non-cuban hispanics, who as a multi-ethnic group, support Obama by 20% over his potential rivals. Oohhh, is it moderate democrats, who support Obama by a large margin.

Oh. The "base" are people like you. The two percenters.

[bluestate10]

331. When one is in an echo chamber and hears nothing but soothing

voices, perspective is lost. Put the left onto Yahoo blogs, they become pussycats in the face of insane right-wingers. But being out of an echo chamber has that effect. The reality, fringe voices are a smear in the democratic party, hardly worth noticing. The fringe can't do any thing unless moderates sit on their asses and allow the fringe to prevail.

[Enthusiast]

92. Good observation. nt

[PhillySane]

44. You seem to be stuck on the fact

that we must have two parties, always, forever. Just curious, do you think its impossible to change this?

[BzaDem]

48. It can change if the Constitution changes

and winner-take-all elections are removed, and the electoral college is removed. Third parties exist in other countries because they have proportional representation, or instant run-off voting, or some other such system where voting for a third party doesn't enable the opposite party.

Unless and until that happens, people should stop pretending a viable third party will ever form.

[PhillySane]

50. Okay

then work for that change. Anything is possible. Do you think gays really believed they would serve openly in the military one day? The answer is YES! You have to want it first before you can make it happen. And then you do!

[BzaDem]

52. I would love it if the Constitution allowed people to vote for third parties without their votes

being thrown away.

I'm just saying that until then, all of this talk about a third party is completely counterproductive. That can come after the Constitutional amendment is enacted.

[PhillySane]

54. Then lets start a party

with that amendment as number 1 in our platform!

[Enthusiast]

94. Yeah! Don't try it because it won't work!

You damn dummies! :sarcasm:

[eilen]

195. It is very possible to have 4 parties

The Tea Party, the Repub party, the Democratic Party and the Green Party

all it takes is for 2 outside parties to gain more and more popularity and get themselves on the ballot.

They can triangulate it to work for them.

[Le Taz Hot]

72. Excellent.

And there are plenty of places to go. We just can't talk about them on DU.

[eridani]

76. That will only change when the left starts taking the processes of running for office

--and governance seriously. That does not mean bullshit candidacies for president or senator. It means starting out with sewer board, school boards and city councils. Bernie Sanders started running for local office in Vermnont in 1969--that's 34 years to make it to the Senate from there.

[Lorien]

147. I don't buy that crap any longer, and I sure as hell won't vote for Obama

or one of his republican friends in 2012. I think a lot of people have had it with them and are more than willing to vote for someone outside of the two party system.

[patrice]

186. So, you are in favor of Privatization of Social Security & the destruction of Medicare. nt

[patrice]

184. I think there's penty of places to go, the fight is about HOW to get there & who we hurt along the

way.

[Still a Democrat]

221. Bye n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

238. You're leaving?

Bon voyage.

[Still a Democrat]

242. Sounded like you were leaving the party n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

271. Nope. I'm Still a Democrat.

Though having a (D) after a name isn't enough to oblige me vote for it.

[defendandprotect]

296. Exactly ... and this is a quesiton which should be getting addressed here every day ....

Plan B and what to do about co-option of the Democratic Party by

corporate/elite --

Anyone still denying that?


DLC-corporate wing of the Democratic Party!!

[kgnu_fan]

17. Do you want to be asleep and happy or do you want to be awake and suffer....and rebel...

[cali]

64. those are not the only options.

[Raine]

19. True enough, I have nowhere to go

but there is such a thing as going nowhere. I might just stay home unless I'm given a very good reason to do otherwise. :shrug:

[Hannah Bell]

33. and nowhere is where the dems appear to be going with a democratic agenda.

[dflprincess]

291. I won't stay home - there will be some local elections to vote in

but it doesn't mean parts of my ballot may not be left blank. It's the only way to indicate "none of the above" and showing up & filing a blank ballot will mean more than not showing up at all.

[derby378]

20. You have nowhere to go. You have nowhere to go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfevfJQtg_g

[craigmatic]

21. There's always somewhere else to go and the left showed us that in 2000.

If he wants progressive change so much he needs to organize the liberal base of the democratic party in the same way the right organized the tea party.

[awoke_in_2003]

55. the left did NOT vote for Nader. nt

[former9thward]

85. That is ridiculous.

Nader's votes certainly were from the left. Not all people on the left voted for him but the votes he got were from the left.

[cali]

93. yes, the tiny percentage of votes he got were almost certainly largely from the left.

But overwhelmingly the left did NOT vote for him.

[molly77]

124. The far right and the far left have more in common than their

respective parties. WE will have corrupt govt. as long as WE are a divided country. Look at the time and money that the totalitarian regime that runs America has invested to keep US divided. That is a "tell".

[BobbyBoring]

207. You're so right

The big difference is the left which is pretty much rooted in reality believes our woes stem from the corporate take over of government. The right believes all our problems stem from the poor sucking on the public titty. Clear that up and there is a shot for a 3rd party. The Tea Parties showed that organization (and a boat load of $) can make a difference. It's just a shame they were so misguided~~

[patrice]

233. Nobody sees that stuff, because they're too busy acting out against TPB, rather than figuring out

how to EFFECTIVELY subvert them. They're going to get "put in the corner" and the status quo will continue without them.

.................

NOT so boring, Bobby! :applause:

[defendandprotect]

299. T baggers are astroturf...financed by Koch Bros/oil industry ... why wouldn't they be misguided?

Everything the right does is faked --

the only way they can rise is via political violence -- stolen elections -- lies --

GOP gave start up funding in 1980's for Christian Coalition --

Richard Scaife financed Dobson's group -- and other rw wealthy financed Bauer's group!


GOP/"pro-life"

GOP/NRA

GOP/T-baggers

On and on -- it's all the same thing!

And now . . . GOP/Chamber of Commerce?

The GOP "astroturf" groups continue to target liberals and moderates until only

fascists are left --

[bluestate10]

341. I am a moderate.

Don't include me in your count. I know how to fight the right and win. That is more than I can say for many.

[marions ghost]

165. good point!

thanks for attempting to un-marginalize...

[defendandprotect]

298. But the Nader voters would have ONLY voted for Nader. . . .

They would NOT have voted for Obama --

However, 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida voted for Bush!!

[defendandprotect]

297. True ... in fact, 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida voted for W ... !!!

[Better Believe It]

23. As long as we think we have nowhere to go we shall go nowhere.

[zbdent]

24. You know, there have been two elections where George W. Bush garnered

over 50 million votes in each ... (whether or not he actually won in 2000 is beside the point right now...)

and yet, people are hard pressed to find someone who would admit voting for him ... because they claim he was "too liberal" ...

[jwirr]

26. Okay so they are right - which means we need to work on the grass

roots level to get more progressives elected and in local offices. That is where our power can still have some effect.

[Le Taz Hot]

73. In many cases, you'll have to fight the local/state/national

Party apparatchik to do it. Not only no help, starved for funds and support, but actively working AGAINST a progressive candidate. I've watched it happen on the local, state and national levels.

[newspeak]

159. Yes, they've worked against progressive candidates

within the democratic party. It's business as usual for both parties working for the same bosses and it ain't us.

I will say after the theft of 2000, the meme on TV, that some here love to buy into, was if it wasn't for the Greens. Both parties will do anything and everything to keep a strong third party from forming. As I watched people denied their right to vote for a bogus felon list, people intimidated at the polls, and a gangsta intimidation to keep from counting the votes, I'm supposed to put the blame on the Greens. Even though democrats voted for Little Boots (we're not to blame them, after all they're within the boundaries of the two party system) or the butter fly ballots "jews for Buchanan" or two justices who should have recused themselves for conflict of interest. No, it's all the Greens fault. And, the media was more than happy to push the meme, too bad some bought into it "hook, line and sinker."

So, we either take back the party or it might be time to move on.

[defendandprotect]

300. Rahm Emmanuel has been soliciting Blue Dogs ...

[jwirr]

160. I suppose you are right. I happen to live in a very progressive area

of MN and it will work here. In fact I am probably late to the action. Still my point was that we make what progress we can where we are at. And let DC know how angry we are. Oh also get ready to tell them "We told you so!"

[defendandprotect]

301. DC doesn't care how "angry" you are ... they care about making sure you don't have power to do

anything about it!!

[whatchamacallit]

27. Sadly, this seems to be the case (nt)

[unblock]

30. this is the problem with one-dimensional politics

if politics is nothing more than a single left/right dimension, then game theory says the optimal strategy is for both sides to be as close as possible to the center so each side can claim their half of the voters.

but if the "right" party strays too far off to the right, the other party can claim more than their fair share by moving right up to the other party, joining them in the move to the right. the "left" is still theirs but now they can pick up some of the left-most right-of-center voters as well.

this works well until the minority party does some sort of jujitsu move and factures the majority party and forms a new coalition, quite possibly in the space vacated by the majority party. that seems unlikely in the short term, but after a few more presidential election cycles, one never knows.

[dreamnightwind]

99. Time to open up the 2nd axis of politics

Your points about the left - right dynamic in 2 dimensional political space is right on.

The 2nd axis is people - corporate. Main Street - Wall Street. That's where it's at right now, and that's where a new movement can emerge from. Even the very flawed Tea Party is an example of this. They were to some extent astro-turf, but the corporo-schemers cleverly misdirected real populist outrage at straw men. A genuine populist movement is needed, and the old left-right alignments are mostly irrelevant to it.

This was a great article by Hedges/Nader. I never want to see Nader run for POTUS again, he's be a terrible one, wrong skill set, but he's one hell of an agitator, and an advocate for the people. I hope when the time comes for this new movement (how about NOW!) that Ralph is fully on-board. I see him as more of the Terry McAuliffe of the movement than as the head of the ticket.

[defendandprotect]

302. Remember, Nader was for Obama ... so was Michael Moore ...

[BzaDem]

31. Given that he said there would be little to no difference between Bush and Gore, I'm not going to

pay very much attention to his analysis of the differences between McCain and Obama. YMMV.

[rhett o rick]

36. Why dont you address the issues he spoke of? Why has Obama continued to support the Bush policies

that have violated the Constitution?

[PhillySane]

37. There's no hope for the Democratic Party right now.

Most IN the party don't want it to be progressive. They cringe whenever they hear the far left speak of such things. They're only an inch removed from moderate Republicans. And that is just the way the oligarchs like it. Very much controllable from either side. We won't have true change until those who want true change work to bring it about, and stop paying homage to the almighty Party.

[BzaDem]

42. Perhaps the problem for you is that 91% of liberal Democrats approve of Obama?

In other words, perhaps the problem is you (as opposed to the other 91%).

[PhillySane]

49. Well, I approve of Obama too

when my only other option is "the other side". Darth Vader vs Luke Skywalker, I'll take Luke. But that's the whole problem with a two party system. You are always forced to pick one side or the other, and often its not that cut and dried. I'm simply saying this. If there are progressives in the Party (liberals, leftists or however you want to name them) who feel Obama and the Democrats have not achieved enough change for their liking, they DO need to go somewhere else and stop playing this game of party worship. I'm not happy with the direction we're going. Sorry. It's not what I want. And I happen to know that a lot of people feel the same way I do. We have to face ourselves and ask, "Where do we go from here?" in order to bring about true change.

[BzaDem]

51. Until the Constitution changes, that is your option. n/t

[rhett o rick]

130. So plez explain how you differ on the issues of the day with the left that you

continue to attack. What issues do you disagree with the left?

[rhett o rick]

129. First we have to fight those in the Democratic party that support Republlican principles. Like Rahm

and Tim Kaine. The Corp-Cabal has a firm hold on the power of the Democratic party. There are posters in DU that are collaborators. They attack the left yet never give their stand on issues. There are basically two sides to issues, the right and the left. Those here in DU that attack the left obviously are collaborators. Their goal is to fragment the Democratic party.

I continually ask these collaborators to explain how they specifically differ with the left on issues. They refuse to respond.

[Recursion]

182. Really?

What policies Rahm has pushed make him a corporate shill? I'm curious.

[rhett o rick]

220. What policies has Rahm pushed to indicate he isnt a corporate shill? I could give a list of

corporate shills Obama has surrounded himself with, but I am afraid it would be lost on you. We need a grassroots Democratic party instead of one that kowtows to CorpAmerica. The DLC is killing the Democratic party and must be brought down along with the current DNC and bigot Time Kaine.

[Recursion]

234. No, I'm serious. I know DUers hate Rahm but I've never seen a substantive policy reason

What specific policy has Rahm supported that makes everybody here so sure he signed his soul over to The Corporations?

[rhett o rick]

281. He has spit in our faces over and over. You give me an example where he has

shown any favor for the grassroots over the big corporate boys that will help him in his political career.

[Recursion]

288. Yes, I know activists feel insulted

We always do, left and right. "Spitting in our faces" isn't a policy, and doesn't help the corporations at all.

What has he done that has helped corporations?

[rhett o rick]

292. what has he done to help the middle class? nm

[rhett o rick]

127. Interesting that instead of addressing issues as the poster did you attack. Very interesting. nm

[PhillySane]

133. This goes on all the time here these days

and it stinks of Tea Party tactic. Whenever someone proposes a new idea, shout them down before they get a chance to speak. Just like the healthcare tour in 09. Progressive Democrats weren't even allowed to open their mouths before they were hammered by paid thugs, and had to walk away from the podium, so no one even got to hear their side of things.

[rhett o rick]

141. I ask them over and over to explain where they stand on issues and they refuse to answer. Many are

only sowing dissent.

[defendandprotect]

304. Looks more like the problem is with whatever source you're using for that myth --

[pnwmom]

171. Did Bush push for health care reform? Did Bush want to repeal

the tax cuts on the wealthy? (It's not Obama's fault that there weren't enough votes in Congress.) Did Bush give a rats-ass about the people in New Orleans?

Bush started a war in Iraq that Obama was against even before he was a Senator. Nader is spouting the same old lies that he always has -- that there's no difference between the two parties. And those lies helped convince 95,000 dumb voters in Florida to vote for Nader instead of the progressive who could actually win -- Al Gore.

Anyone who listens to Nader now ought to have his head examined.

[rhett o rick]

227. Has Obama undone any of the Bush policies? Tax breaks for the wealthy and Patriot Act. How about

illegal wiretaps? Torture? War? Obama is continuing many of the Bush policies. Nadar makes a good scapegoat for the Centrists Dem's that blew the 2000 and 2004 elections. Notice both Gore and Kerry couldnt wait to concede and grovel at the feet of the Bush family, in the illegal elections. That shows how much they were willing to fight for us. Corp-America is killing us aided by the Republicans and the Centrist Democrats.

[patrice]

208. I think we're pretty much in agreement that it was a condition of his employment. Some of us are

speculating that he is betting this particular condition (and perhaps some others) against enough people coming together to act EFFECTIVELY right now, NOT at some distant very amorphous time/condition in the future reached through great suffering and death for the truly vulnerable, effectively enough right now to force some kind of change that they demand/define.

Why do people assume that we have to give up who/what we are to be effective?

I don't know that we are being creative or working hard enough at what needs to be done.

[Zoeisright]

41. Exactly. [phone]

[Lorien]

146. Funny, I have the same reaction to all of your posts. nt

[treestar]

185. I agree, that position is unreasonable per se

[defendandprotect]

303. As though the differences aren't so faded as to be almost indisguishable...

[Zoeisright]

40. Nope, sorry, don't buy it. Ask the gay soldier who will be able to serve openly, the

person whose disease may be cured by stem cells, people who now have health insurance who were denied it before.

There IS a difference between the two parties, and if you say there isn't, you have another agenda. Like Nader. Whose only agenda is gaining power.

[democracy1st]

63. those are social issues,try the economic/foreign policy direction of both parties

[leveymg]

140. Major economic and taxation issues don't seem to count much to you.

I guess you're satisfied with a couple bones thrown out.

Many, many of us aren't. And, I'll tell you - this Democrat is NOT gonna knock 4,000 doors for Obama in 2012, like I did last time. No way.

[JDPriestly]

151. What percentage of soldiers do you think are gay?

[robcon]

45. I agree that the left has nowhere to go in 2012.

The election of 2012 will be decided by the independents, and I like the president's chances. Very much.

[tomp]

83. are you equating "left" with "independents"? nt

[robcon]

285. Not at all. They have little to do with each other.

The left half of Democrats have no place to go.

Independents, neither Dems nor Repugs, are the 'swing' voters who decide most elections, and the president is doing well with them.

[tomp]

310. so independents as you define it are unaffiliated and in the center...

...ready to "swing" one way or the other.

to me that's a narrow definition but i understand who you mean.

I, myself, am not affiliated with either party, but am to the left of the dems. I think there are quite a few others like me, who don't have an allegiance to the dems, but who some people form the left wing of the democratic party. i just think it's good to be very specific about who is who.

independents, as I take your definition, are two-party players. that's not me.

[robcon]

320. This is not a new idea.

Dems can be counted on to vote for Dems (within a narrow band of variation.)

Repugs can be counted on to vote for Repugs (within a narrow band of variation.)

Independents are considered to be swing voters. They voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008, but voted overwhelmingly for Repugs two months ago. They are the decisive part of the electorate (within a narrow band of variation for party members.)

Fortunately, polls show the support for the president by independents has increased significantly lately.

[tomp]

335. yes, i've actually heard this, as has anyone paying attention.

i'm trying to convey a different concept.

what i'm suggesting is that by your definition, independent actually means CENTER and should be called such (and by center i mean midway between the parties, NOT midway between extreme right and extreme left which would be actual center. the point midway between the parties is actually very far right of actual political center). these people in the the center are not wedded to either party but to BOTH. you can call them independent all you want but they are really part of the one big party.

progressive or leftist democrats are a different phenomenon and are closer to being actually "independent". unlike centrists, progressives and leftists are much clearer about what they expect from politicians and much angrier when they don't get it, and i would suggest, more likely to vote third party, or not vote. i also think the group of disaffected on the left of the democratic party is growing exponentially under obama, and rightly so, and the group may have greater influence in years to come, and rightly so, having been undeservedly rejected out of proportion to their numbers, not to mention their general correctness.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[struggle4progress]

53. The most accurate part of the article is near the conclusion:

Every major movement starts with field organizers, the farmers, unions, and the civil rights movement ... We need to start learning from what was done in the past

Unfortunately, Nader then starts bashing labor

There's a piece or two of the puzzle completely missing from the article. There's hardly any positive agenda -- and so the discussion devolves into constant negative bashing, which can't win anything. The absence of an effective analytical framework is noteworthy: presumably it is missing because a careful and useful fact-based analysis of the power structure (and of its interests and players and techniques and propaganda) would require hard and boring work, and the results would probably sound Marxian, something that traditionally terrifies Americans -- but the lack of analysis also means that the only option is constant negative bashing (which can't win anything)

[PhillySane]

56. Which was always Nader's problem

he comes off negative and turns people off in the end. All gloom and doom.

[liberation]

157. Huh?

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to blame others for coming off negative, by coming off negative on them?

[PhillySane]

194. I actually admire Ralph

I was commenting on his demeanor which I believe comes off as somewhat of a downer to many, although the content of what he says is quite accurate.
This effect has always made him a bad political candidate, but he is an effective activist for the positions he takes.

[cali]

67. excellent analysis. thanks.

[tomp]

84. i see, anti-war is not good enough, we have to be pro-peace, .....

.... shift the wealth to the poor, working, and middle classes, not away from the rich.

THAT is the difference you see in the public debate.

the "negative bashing" you see is the result of the problem, not the cause. the left positively put forward withdrawal from wars, single payer, fair taxation. obama rejected that.

that makes you wrong. now change.

[struggle4progress]

167. Winning requires agenda, accurate analysis, and organization

Bashing folk is a lazy substitute for any of those, and it doesn't work

[Name removed]

237. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

305. One of the things that continues to annoy me is that the liberal organizations all

pretty much act independently -- no set overall liberal agenda from

liberal left -- no leadership --

and I think somewhere in that article, it is acknowledged that we do

need leadership -- think that argument is over?

[democracy1st]

58. 100% spot on!

[MattSh]

59. The Left DOES have somewhere to go.

It's a place called "the streets."

But that's a place most of the left seems too afraid to go.

[democrank]

60. "The Left" has power.

No change= no contributions, no vote.

[hulka38]

61. The truth.

I am no longer complicit.

[cali]

66. oh fucking please.

"There is no major difference between a McCain administration, a Bush and an Obama administration. Obama, in fact, is in many ways worse."

bullshit. There are many major differences- from the Lily Ledbetter Act to immigration to federal judges.

As for this:

"We don’t say Terry Gross is a censor. We don’t say that Charlie Rose is a censor. We have got to blast publicly. We have got to hammer them, because they are the tribune of right-wing fascist forces."

Say what? Terry Gross is a censor, part of a tribune of right-wing fascist forces? And we should be blasting her.

What garbage.


but of course people lap up this crapola.

fuck.

unfucking rec.

[avaistheone1]

71. k&r

[CrawlingChaos]

74. K&R

[eridani]

75. No difference? That's crap

Granted, the stuff we are allowed to have like DADT is only what the banksters and corporate whores will let us have, but Repukes won't even give us that. And anyone who thinks that imperialism can be derailed just by changing presidents is delusional.

[BobbyBoring]

212. You were proved right

in the 2008 election~

[Enthusiast]

77. K&R

"There is no major difference between a McCain administration, a Bush and an Obama administration. Obama, in fact, is in many ways worse. McCain, like Bush, exposes the naked face of corporate power. Obama, who professes to support core liberal values while carrying out policies that mock these values, mutes and disempowers liberals, progressives and leftists. Environmental and anti-war groups, who plead with Obama to address their issues, are little more than ineffectual supplicants."

Not only that, but this ineffectual government only reinforces the right wing talking point that "government is the problem", further undermining our side.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. Whiny "I'm so important - look at me!" bollocks from a pair of egomaniacs

Hedges and Nader deserve each other. They can sit, talking to each other about how they understand everything, and everyone else is a sellout, and the world would be so much better if only everyone shut up and did what Nader and Hedges say.

Shame to see it given the time of day on DU. It's bollocks.

[cali]

80. oh c'mon. does this mean you don't believe that

terry gross is a fascist tool spreading her overlords' messages on "Fresh Air"?

Seriously, you are so right, and to see people lapping this dog shit up with the greatest alacrity, is indeed a shame.

[creon]

108. commentariat

Those two are part of the commentariat. The commentariat is just as cut off from the country as their colleagues in the political class, the elected officials.

Sad, but not new in history by any means.

[cali]

109. oh for fuck's sake. Gross does interview and a large percentage

of those interviews are people in the arts.

[Enthusiast]

86. Excellent article. I like this observation:

"You have new class warfare. It is non-unionized lower income and middle class taking it out on the unionized middle-income public employees. It is a classic example of oligarchic manipulation."


It is a classic example of oligarchic manipulation. And it is.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

89. well, you won't be vocally supporting a third party candidate here at DU

[groovedaddy]

100. Don't just complain, ORGANIZE! n.t

[maryf]

255. yep, nt

[VeryConfused]

104. The GOP or third party are not viable options

The problem with being the minority

[rhett o rick]

131. Of course not, "...That suicide is painless It brings on many changes

"That suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please."

I am sure you have other options. Plez share.

[VeryConfused]

319. what sort of options are there?

[Axrendale]

105. I meant to unrec' this, but accidently recommended it.

Might as well register that.

[creon]

106. I have nowhere to go

My political opinions put me in a minority.

The political class - elected officials and the commentariat - are cut off from the country. Very few in Washington seem to have any idea about what the problems are.

There are a lot of different 'lefts' in the USA.

[martymar64]

107. It is true the Left is all but ignored in the US.

Because the political and media establishment gives the left the back of the hand in the US, US Leftists should begin seeking support from leftist organizations overseas. We can reach out to Social Democratic and Socialist and Bolivarian organizations to gain support on the international stage and gain a voice to the media outside of the US. We can operate like the dissidents during the Soviet Era, reaching out beyond our borders for a voice.

If the American media and political establishment won't give us a voice, then we'll take our voice to the rest of the world.

[cali]

110. ridiculous. why don't you fucking work on good local governance?

[progressoid]

112. Maybe in Vermont.

I've helped a couple people run for local offices. They kept their liberal mouths shut to get elected. Those that dare to stray to the left don't make it.

[martymar64]

318. Exactly. The Left has been hounded and persecuted since forever in this country

It was women and children on "the left" who were machine gunned to death in the Ludlow Massacre. It was the Left persecuted in the Palmer raids, massacres of Wobblies, by HUAC, Joe McCarthy and blacklisting, COINTELPRO, Nixon, the War on Drugs, the real war to murder Black Panthers, etc.

But everybody just think we don't have power because our ideas are somehow unattainable.

No, we on the left have no power because the US Government and Big Business and mushy "liberals" literally murdered us or turned their heads while we were murdered.

[martymar64]

316. keeping it classy as always I see

[patrice]

270. uh . . . no. This is about America. You're replicating the error, and in some cases crime, of TPB

Transnational Economic Royalty, only at the grassroots level. Wrong!

[Jamel]

111. OBAMA KNOWS

He knows that he can't change the system alone,(what backup does he have?), so he has to appoint and deal with the corporate status quo. Why anybody ever thought that the first African American president was going to come in and "clean up Washington" really puzzles me.I don't think many people could, because it's so corrupted. There is an answer though.

"The only countervailing force against organized money at the top, is organized people at the bottom" ~Cornel West

[RKP5637]

142. +1000 +++ n/t

[patrice]

174. Thank you. I would like, just once, for some of these folks to walk through the steps Obama SHOULD

have taken, all of them in relationship to one another relative to ALL of the issues. I would like just once to see some of these people SHOW us EXACTLY HOW, especially in light of Bush's Crash, it ALL could have been much different than it is.

I suspect that it could have been somewhat different, but the fundamental issues, real traits of the system itself . . . ? I just don't think so.

I like Chris Hedges. I agree with what he writes, in theory, but it's all so separate from the real world in which all of this goes down.

I sure as HELL am needing someone to get down here in the real world and show us step-by-step precisely HOW all of it could have been much different, given the pressures on absolutely everything about this country. Someone needs to show us IN DETAIL what the President could have done THAT WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY WORKED TO CHANGE THINGS (plus all of the consequences of doing so) and he "chose" not to.

All I'm getting off of this stuff is an amorphous poison cloud without anyone actually proving HOW exactly in concrete terms outcomes could have been much different.

[Doctor_J]

287. Here

1. Open an investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame. Treason was committed, and no one was held to account. Would this create jobs? No. Would it remove one tumor of the cancer that is the GOP? Yes.

2. Pardon Don Siegelmann. His prosecution and incarceration were political, staged, contrived, and illegal. Find out who was responsible, and charge those people with RICO crimes. Would this create jobs? No. Would it remove one more tumor of the cancer that is the GOP? Yes.

3. Open an investigation into the authorization of torture by Bush and Cheney. These are crimes. When it is found that they did in fact approve and encourage war crimes, take them into custody. Hand them to the world court or to the Iraq government for prosecution. Two more tumors removed.

4. Hire David Iglesias and have him set up, quickly, an investigation into the purging of US Attorneys due to their (non-) allegiance to Karl Rove. Those prosecutions would have had viewers riveted to their TV screens for months. More tumors gone.

5. Appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate Slappy Thomas's confirmation hearing - a real one investigation this time. The women he tormented number enough to fill a small dining hall. After a couple days of testimony, "Long Dong Silver" would resign in shame and slither back to his pitiful, psycho, teabagger wife. One more tumor.

6. Declare, out loud, every time a microphone is within sight, that the Great Recession was caused, nursed, and ministered by the people who are now complaining about it. Their Wall Street pals, their evil policies, and their partisanism caused it, and they were NOT going to be asked for their ideas on how to get out of it. The 2008 election was a total "refudiation" of malevolent right-wing policies and people, so their contribution should be given absolutely zero consideration.

These steps, with some leadership, would have us now looking at a Super Majority in the Senate, and a lot of silence from the DINOS.

[BobbyBoring]

216. Why Did I think he was going to change things??

He said he was and I believed him. There are many things he could have done like throw Gates out the door, not appoint Geithner and other Wall St. hacks, etc.

The only thing that keeps pooping up in my head is when he took office, he was given the ultimatum of "Forget that change stuff or else as in JFK)" by the PTB. Then again, he was in politics in Chicago~

[Historic NY]

113. For all the lip service against Democrats....who would really want to lead the party...

in this age. Liberal is a dirty word, haven't you heard. The left rolled over long ago when they let that one pass and its become firmly planted in the publics brain. Those tax & spend Democrats another campaign from the right. Now its corporatists...........you get what you sow. It time to get out from behind the clouded mirror. We have rolled over time & time again from the word association attacks from the right. It pretty hard to change the branding now. At one time there was a Liberal Party in NY State it died and became much of what the Green Party became in election cycles, used & abused. This didn't start overnight it taken decades and face it w/o big money coming in your never going to be heard....the SCOTUS has now insured that with the Citizens United decision. You can dream all you want on the idea but its not going to happen, if you let more divide us than united us. That's exactly what the other side wants, because they win as we battle ourselves. You can roll off names all day for leaders but in the end they will be left to contend with reality not fantasy's.

[patrice]

189. +1 & You know what? For all the damning of "compromise", there sure as heck is one big compromise in

the ideological/fantasy perspective.

"Reality isn't what I want it to be, so, rather than engage it where it actually is, I'm going to move into my perfect principled world and everyone who doesn't move in with me be damned" is as much or more of a compromise upon the work of coming up with solutions as anything else is.

[LWolf]

115. He certainly nails the election season bullying.

As long as the left allows itself to be bullied by the "DO YOU WANT _________???" bullshit, the Democratic Party doesn't have to earn the support of the left.

There are other places to go, for those who don't allow their votes to be bullied and manipulated in that way.

[KoKo]

128. The message sent to discourage the left will have consequences

somewhere in the future. It's hard to know why that was done. How can you have a positive view about your Party when you were asked to work to get more and better Democrats elected and are now told that your Democratic Party thinks you are "fucking retards" and such. Cutting off your activist supporters can't be good for the health of a party going forward. Excluding heroes of building a base of the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" such as Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich tried to do along with others...is not the sign of inclusion.

[FormerDittoHead]

117. The title of the article is misleading. Chris Hedges didn't say that, Nader did.

In fact, there isn't much of anything of Chris Hedges in this article - it's pretty much a straight interview of Nader.

To be accurate, it should have read 'Ralph Nader: "The left..."'.

[leeroysphitz]

120. I'M NOT FAKING. n/t

[SidDithers]

132. Fuck Ralph Nader...nt

Sid

[placton]

134. so true - we have no place to go, which includes

the voting booth in '12

[MilesColtrane]

175. Don't worry, Nader will unselfishly offer himself as the "solution" to the problems he denounces.

If anyone reads this and doesn't think he's setting up a 2012 third party run they're incredibly naive.

[johnaries]

135. Nader? Automatic unrecc. Obama=Bush=McCain? B.S.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

I think it is long past time --

to break the backs of the current two (really one) Party system.

Until that is done we will never really have a choice or a chance as a country.

[obxhead]

136. A known enemy is safer than an enemy in disguise. nt

[Marnie]

137. There is the other side of this slice of bread.

If as seems obvious Obama is actually a moderate Republican and continues to insult and ignore the Democrats and Liberals who labored for and elected him, in the hope that they are replaceable from the center.
Replacing true believers with independents and doubters is not a one for one trade.

True believers are loyal supporters, moderates are not loyal supporters, and independents are not
loyal supporters.

Obama shaves voters, shaves donors, shaves free labor (campaign volunteers)every day he walks and talks like a Republican.
Obama could loose in 2012 and it would totally be a result of his disloyalty to the heart of the party under whose name he chose to run.

I am not sure that moderate rights or discerning moderates would vote for him if they saw that he was not running as a Democrat against a Republican but was a Republican running against a Republican. To the discerning moderate it is dishonest, to the undiscerning moderate right is too ambiguous to be attractive.

There is also the fact that his 2008 campaign gained tens of thousands of hours free labor from the liberal left that he lied to in order to gain their support. Will the moderate democrats and independents do the slave labor that national campaigns need in 2012? Especially relative to the avid right?

The Democratic left tends to be well informed on social and political issues, they are not likely to accept being lied to and insulted for two more years, and are not likely to be swayed again by Obama's BS now that we know it is only BS.

Why amputate a healthy limb? It is not really replaceable, and it might not regenerate.

[dreamnightwind]

262. Good post

The new limb replacing the left is daddy war bucks, enabled by Citizens United.

I think you're right about Obama lying to the left to get their support in '08.

The game right now is watching Dem and Repug pols compete for corporate money. Repugs are a more natural fit for the corporate donations, and as long as they have comparable public approval ratings to Dems, they will get most of the corporate money. Obama and his people are hoping their approval ratings improve enough so the corporate dollars won't go to the not-viables Repugs. So sad, that's what it has come to.

[FlyByNight]

138. Bleak

Which is better? To crawl over the precipice or leap off of it? The end result is the same.

The empire must be (hopefully voluntarily) dismantled; it's unsustainable. Empire drains the country of much needed resources, both human and capital, and we end up with fewer rights here - the drug "war", habeas corpus, Patroit Act, etc.

End the occupations.

:mad:

[leveymg]

139. We're just "f-cking retards" who can be ignored when we're not getting kicked in the face.

Same old, same old story.

[Fiendish Thingy]

150. I've got someplace to go- Canada

With any luck, by this summer I won't be paying any more taxes to support war-mongering, civil rights trampling, corporate shills.

I've said it before- Obama is a Trojan Horse for the corporations.

[and-justice-for-all]

152. We have somewhere to go.....FORWARD!!! nt

[JJW]

158. To Paraphase Obama

We have been hoodwinked and bamboozled by politicians of both parties. We are bitter, and all we have left, is to cling to our guns and the Bible.

[blackspade]

170. Ouch.

Sad but true.

[patrice]

172. Okay, yes, true, no disputing facts, yada, yada, yada,BUT tell me one god damned thing will you all?

Are you telling everyone that your opposition to Obama is more important than rescuing Medicare & Social Security from the tender mercies of the Republican president/congress you will help install for 4-8 years, because you have *NO* *ONE* who can beat guys like Jon Huntsman or Charlie Crist?

I actually want to agree with you, more or less, but Social Security & Medicare are my line.

[eilen]

201. I am not convinced that isn't Obama's plan

-- decrease in SS benefits, increase in age requirements, etc. The Republicans might want to do away with it but where are the Democrats? We had so many Democratic Congress people change parties after they were elected -- how can we trust any of these people? It seems to me the line keeps moving as evidenced by the Bush tax cuts and that line included starving SS funding.

[patrice]

228. That's why ALL of it must be more about US than them at this point. Even if that is Obama's plan,

that does not mean that WE cannot get strong enough, especially with the various splits in both parties, to TAKE "his" plan away from him and substitute our own. That requires numbers that 3rd parties CANNOT generate and will NOT be capable of generating for at least a decade, meanwhile LOTS of people suffer and die and go under-educated.

All of this focus on Obama is freaking me out, when it is obvious that he's going to do whatever he CAN do. SO the focus should be on Us, OUR numbers ON THE ISSUES (not parties).

With Obama, secondary to Us and our numbers, we at least have the actual grassroots that put him in office in the first place to build on and in front of whom he has said things that we CAN make a big deal out of. If you declare up front your absolute intent to not vote for the guy, none of that stuff matters, you're starting from scratch and, personally, I don't think we have that kind of time, environmentally at minimum, to get where we're going.

Be free, but "Stay in there" and co-opt the movement from the inside by being effective on the issues.

[MilesColtrane]

173. "But because they (the left) do not make any demands, they are complicit with corporate power."

That crunching sound is Nader throwing the left under the bus.

You hear that? It's YOUR fault.

(What a stinky load.)

[defendandprotect]

308. Nader's talking about Democratic Party and the leaders of Dem Party ...

in fact, believe he expands further on need for leadership somewhere in that article --

That's also why I find it so ironic that individual liberal organizations also remain

un-united, evidentally because they're each worried about losing fund-raising money!

There they all sit giving leadership ONLY to their own causes!!

Makes no sense --

[galloglas]

176. The Left should sprint to the Barricades !!

n/t

[Uzybone]

178. LOL. Madness

[patrice]

179. Revenge on Obama, another fucking shiny object, while the REAL deal goes down in the back room. nt

[patrice]

181. Q. Wouldn't REAL revenge against the system consist of taking Soc Sec OUT of Obama's hands NOW?

A. "Don't bother us with the REAL deal, we got base-building/careers to build. It doesn't particularly matter, to us, who we hurt along the way."

[treestar]

183. The public option or even single payer could come back

So long as Republicans are kept out of power. It is not a case or all or nothing or now or never. Life continues on. History continues on.

[patrice]

187. Perhaps people don't understand that IS a real possibility AND so is a REAL foundation for a 3rd Par

ty that Public Option SUCCESS would definitely CREATE.

Destroy Obama and 3rd Party success is MUCH MUCH MUCH further off than it would be by defending Social Security & Medicare RIGHT NOW and building 3rd Party relationships out of that work.

People are vindictive and showing the anger and power against Obama is more important than what actually happens to MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Americans.

[pnwmom]

191. You're correct -- destroying Obama would only empower the right.

And damage the left. It's amazing how dunderheaded some people can be. Either that, or they really do want to destroy Obama.

[patrice]

196. That's one of the biggest things that gets me about this: THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE LEFT HERE,

but NOOOOOO they're too busy throwing their weight around to seize this chance to do some REAL 3rd party building, the first such chance we have had that I can ever recall!!! AND it isn't even REALLY the Left; for the most part it is NOT the people who have actually given their lives in concrete service to Liberal work. Those folks are too busy helping people to engage in this kind of stuff and if they did happen to show up, the ones I know would say "Don't you DARE hurt our folks any more than you already have!!!" which is EXACTLY what will happen with a WEAK so-called 3rd party, 'cause the whole enchilada will go to Republicans who will CUT budgets and build permanent jobs programs, with more fat salaries, for their cronys on the backs of those who have benefited the least from what America has become.

[Xicano]

205. The only person responsible for Obama is Obama.

Also I have to disagree with your premise that if Obama politically destroys himself because his acts of Republicanism is driving away his base, that it "would ONLY empower the right". Rubbish!

If Obama or any other elected Democrat leader suffered the consequences of not getting reelected after failing to represent their base's side of issues. It won't empower the right. It'll more serve to remove a Democrat right-wing collaborator, and, that's not the "ONLY" thing it would do. What it would also do is send a loud and clear message to current and would-be elected Democrat leaders that they better start tending to the needs of their base and get the hell out of bed with Wall Street if they ever want to have a chance winning an election.

The way you need to look at this is like dealing with little children. If you don't send your child to their room without TV or a computer then they're going to continue misbehaving. By sending them to their room for misbehaving you're not going to "empower" the bad kids around your kid. You're going to remove your kid from those bad kids and reestablish the standard that there's consequences that can be counted on for misbehavior.

n/t

[pnwmom]

211. If Obama isn't reelected,

it will be because a more conservative candidate won. We won't get Al Grayson or Barney Franks or Dean or Kucinich -- we'll get Palin or Gingritch or Boehner, etc.

In a real-world context, your analogy makes no sense.

[Xicano]

230. And if that happens, who's fault is it? Like I said Obama is responsible for Obama

Enough is enough already... People just cannot anymore afford to have two parties representing Wall Street with no representation for Labor and social programs.

You can't fault someone for not electing candidates who represent Wall Street over their own base. That's what is at issue here, taking back our party so it represents us - currently it doesn't. And the ONLY way that is ever going to happen is if they are made to understand the base of our party will not tolerate betrayal or compromise of Democrat core principles. Like we say in my union during contract negotiation, certain issues we refer to as strike issues. In other words we will not betray or compromise on these certain issues - period.

If we continue to provide no consequences come election time for going against us and our party principles, its only going to continue to get worse and more difficult for us to make change. What's it going to take for some folks to wake up and read that writing on the wall? You're being used and taken advantage of by big money. They're squeezing your livelihood away from you and you're just standing there voting for the very folks they're using to do the actual squeezing. That makes no sense at all. I mean to continue to vote these people back into office is worse than some deer just standing and staring at headlights. At least the deer didn't vote for the car to be there.

n/t

[patrice]

218. So, you also are for warehousing the elderly until they are out of your way. You need to respond to

the point that destroying Obama WILL cause an exponential increase in suffering and death amongst those who have benefited the least from what America has become. Your course will install Republicans for 4-8 more years and this will be the result. Is that okay with you? Yes? or No?

I am telling you that there are people who agree with you, but disagree with HOW you want to go about changing things and incidentally hurting and crippling millions and millions and millions of Americans - won't look real good for 3rd parties will that?

Third party politics IS TOO WEAK to take elections yet, especially with re-districting coming up. The only way 3rd party politics can achieve anything right now is ON THE ISSUES and your ability to succeed on those issues WILL be fundamentally undercut by seeking electoral revenge too soon.

[Xicano]

246. No, but if you continue to cast a vote for Wall Street representatives you are voting for...

...warehousing the elderly until they are out of the way.

To continue to vote for those who do big money's bidding is to continue to install Republicanism. Is that okay with you? Yes? or No? You wish for us to continue down the road we're going? Yes? or No?

People can disagree with the HOW, but they cannot disagree with history, and, history shows if we continue to reelect those who have used their office to represent big money interests instead of labor and social interests, then, we can only expect business as usual.

Third party politics is only too weak because too many people are exhibiting the same fear you are. The fear of Republican gains. But if we are getting Democrats representing big money interests, what's the difference? Not much if any. So for a little lube to make your bending over go a little bit less painful, you're throwing away change where we don't have to bend over. Sorry but there comes a time when enough is enough. So, sorry, but I refuse to vote for someone who continues policy which bends me, labor, the elderly, the poor and the sick over.

[patrice]

269. I think you are oversimplifying the transition. It's not going to happen all at once.

You don't have enough numbers to make that happen. The result will be that you are going to warehouse more elderly than I am. That's the difference; that and stuff like at least a couple of generations of even poorer education than we currently have, further environmental losses because you don't have the power to protect Earth. ALL consequences will be worse in the decades of chaos you are saying will be worth it.

You are selling pie-in-the-sky about how precisely this change you want is to come about. There will be no switch thrown and Congress/the President/the Courts will be for Economic Justice. Throwing away Social Security & Medicare, not to mention Education, will result in decades of further depleting struggle.

Perhaps you'll pardon my skepticism about people who are so cavalier about the suffering of OTHERS. Not to factor that in is either a lie or it's just pure naivete, or outright evil.

Don't get me wrong. I want to be free of our slavery to Wall Street/Transnational Corporations/MIC too. I just think there is a more effective way to go about it, that will hurt fewer people, waste less of America, and take less time. This approach will USE Obama and anyone else in the current system for all that they are worth for our own goals, not theirs. I think your thinking is too top down, which is the problem to begin with. This can be done from the inside and from the grassroots up, which is where the only real change comes from.

Since you don't believe in voting "for Wall Street", why don't you do something truly more effective and start a co-operative community that functions according to the principles of Economic Justice?

[Xicano]

283. And I think you're just sweeping dirt under the rug and hoping it'll go away by itself.

As far as a third party victory goes. First of all I myself never mentioned anything about a third party. It could be changing people on the ballot during the primary, or, it could be a third party. Either way, I never said otherwise. We don't have enough numbers to make whichever happen because you refuse to fire those who are working for the opposition. And no the result isn't that I'll end up warehousing more elderly than you. On the contrary you'll put more elderly in warehouses because you're putting into office those who are passing policy which does exactly just that while I'll be voting for someone who doesn't have that track record.

Your logic is no different than the logic of "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength". In other words you're taking the stand point where voting for someone who passes right-wing agendas is somehow supporting left-wing agendas. Again, that makes no sense at all.

But I'll tell you what's going to happen. Obama is going to end up getting reelected and I'll keep this thread book marked, and after Obama further represents Wall Street at the expense of Labor and the Poor I'm going to keep reminding everybody how we should think you for putting a known Wall Street representative back into the White House and continuing to provide these Wall Street crooks and liars in office the knowledge that their misbehavior is perfectly fine and they can just keep pissing on us without consequence.

Go ahead and be the deer standing in the middle of the road staring at a pair of headlights coming at you. Me, I'm gonna be the intelligent deer who jumps out of the way.

n/t

[eilen]

279. Electing Obama

will continue the killing and suffering of many. Sorry, but those are His policies. So the choice is voting for one war monger or another.

We have currently no Jobs program--Nothing! Does he even have a plan or are our executive office going to continue cheering on the stock market? There is a big trade deal going on with Korea. The foreclosures are continuing with no federal help in sight. The wealthy (and the middle class who are diminishing in numbers every day) have their tax cuts. The poor are getting their state benefits decreased or eliminated. The federal workers and state workers have pay freezes and millions of talented hard working Americans over 45 may never find another job again while millions of young college grads are finding no jobs outside of unskilled customer service work. We are consistently lied to by our own government. How can anyone possibly cast a vote with erroneous information? What is the point of electing a Democrat when they change parties not even a month after elected? All that hard work! For a wolf in sheep's clothing. A political careerist with their thumb in the air testing where wind blows. All is not well in Swaziland http://www.times.co.sz/index.php?news=22877

About the only thing missing is a military draft. I don't even think I really need to bring any of this up as it is common knowledge.

If you are waiting for a movement to begin and fear it will take too long, well, stop waiting. We the people have to start somewhere. Knowing it will take time, energy and effort-- more effort than otherwise d/t media complicity in the clampdown. But the human spirit and will is stronger than any entrenched corrupt government. It is my assumption that it will take about 12-15 years to produce acceptable alternatives- if we are lucky to see in our own lifetimes. The pendulum has been to the right long enough, it is time to swing back. The people need a voice. They need to communicate.

This forum is entirely inadequate for our purpose in that regard. (Sorry admin--no offense) but it's purpose is to support the Democratic Party. I am not interested in changing minds here or pressing a personal agenda. What is the point? It is owned by a private individual to help further his political agenda that is stated as progressive Democratic Party goals. He has every right to pursue and to steer discussion towards those goals. I just state my opinion or observation. I am only one voter in a sea of millions; one internet board member in a sea of thousands. These kinds of discussion seem to disturb some board members and they reply in defensive fashion. It is not a good experience for people to come to a board in which the polemic is antithetical to it's purpose. I feel I must apologize for causing discomfort. At any rate, being so focused on the negative is disheartening. We have to give ourselves hope and change and not be continually disappointed in a leader who fails to deliver on his promises. A politician lies! Stop the presses! Chewing on despair is not a good strategy. Those who are of the disaffected stripe need to create our own space to discuss and plan or meet up at other sites of similar passion. That is sad as I think they will be missed here but arguing incessantly over the same bone of contention does no one any pleasure or edification.

If anything, the opinions that have been strongly stated here should signal to the Party that all is not well among swaths of the constituency and perhaps there is something to be learned. If the preference is to rely on polls, well. Good luck with that. And may good things be in all your futures.

[treestar]

229. That's a silly analogy

Politicians are not disciplin-able. Like the employee analogy, total fail. Obama has 307 million "parents" in that scenario, who would reward and punish different things.

Thinking of politics this way will only get you living in a Republican world.

[lunatica]

198. After a year of teabaggers screaming disruptions at all meetings and investigations up

the wazzoo The Left might start looking good to Obama and the Democrats. You never know. Nothing is worse than people throwing tantrums like 1 year olds.

[Doctor_J]

199. Hedges best yet

This article is outstanding. Every fucking line is truth that no one will speak. Nader's really pissed too.

“Three thousand people rallied to protest the invasion and massacre in Gaza two years ago,” Nader said. “It was held four blocks from The Washington Post. It did not get a single paragraph. People should march over to the Post and say ‘Fuck you! What are you doing here? You cover every little blip by the right-wing and you don’t cover us?’

“They are afraid of the right-wing because the right-wing bellows, and they have become right-wing,” Nader said of the commercial press. “They have become fascinated by the bias of Fox. And they publicize what Fox is biased on. The coverage of O’Reilly and Beck and their fights is insane. In the heyday of coverage in the 1960s of what we were doing, it was always less than it should have been, but now it is almost zero. Why do we take this? Why do we accept this? Why isn’t Chris Hedges three times a year in the Op-Ed? Why is it always Paul Wolfowitz and Elliott Abrams and all these homicidal maniacs? Why are they there? Why is John Bolton constantly published in The Washington Post and The New York Times? Where is Andrew Bacevich? Bacevich told me he has had five straight Op-Eds rejected by the Post and the Times in the last two years. And he said he is not inclined to send anymore. How many times do you hear Hoover Institution? American Enterprise Institute? Manhattan Institute. These goddamned newspapers should be picketed.”

It will now take more than pickets to get the media back, but he's spot on about Big Media

[patrice]

203. They are afraid of the RW because they can get you FIRED. Tried to get some friends to go

to first the One Nation rally and then the Rally to Restore Sanity, 2 people who actually gave me reasons for saying no said they were afraid for their jobs. I also know other concrete facts about how being Liberal in certain environments CAN cost you your job.

[ihaveaquestion]

235. I worry about going to liberal type protests

but somehow I get the feeling that a teabagger type event wouldn't cause me any grief.

I think this is pretty common.

[patrice]

264. I have done years worth of public anti-War stuff here. You do get yelled at. : -(((

[quaker bill]

206. This stuff would grow good tomatos

The left has no where to go because they are a fractious bunch that refuse to bandwagon. If you aren't on the team, you get ignored. Being on the team means growing a thick enough skin to suffer a little disappointment now and then without going to a primary challenge (getting off the wagon).

Respect is a two way street. If you don't have someone else's back, they will not have yours.

[bobburgster]

209. I feel sorry for Obama.

The only thing he gets is sh*t on! By the right, and the left. When he passes something they want, muted applause for an hour or so....then everyone is back to flinging sh*t at him.

[Doctor_J]

223. If you try to live in the middle of the road,

odds are you will up as road kill. He made the decision not to prosecute Bush, Rove, and Cheney. He made the decision to give up on the Public Option before negotiations began, and signed off on a huge windfall for Big Insurance and Pharma. He made the decision to give another trillion dollars to the upper upper upper class. He could have fought for the unions who supported by politicking the Card Check provision through.

And he made these decisions after the electorate said loudly in 2008 that they didn't want Bush's disaster to continue. He could have fought Boner and Bitch, but he gave in to them, against the will of the people who voted the Repukes out of office.

[Scruffy1]

259. words to live by

[Still a Democrat]

219. Maybe Ralph will run in 2012 and get Palin elected?

Sort of an encore to his gift of Bush to us.

[ihaveaquestion]

231. Nader is not responsible for Shrubby

The bunch of dumbasses known as the "American People" are.

If you knew the facts, you wouldn't be saying this.

Chris Hedges nails it - hard!

[humbled_opinion]

222. Nader Pegs it...

He has accurately described exactly how I feel about the current state of things and the future of our party. Note: The Rightwing started from day one creating this illusion that Obama was a Progressive Liberal, they tied Marxism and Socialism to Obama's agenda and the country ran away afraid, now they leverage this to drive the country further right, redefine the left and move ever closer to the facist state that they desire.

[KoKo]

257. For those of us involved with Dean's Activism in our State Parties..and then saw us Crash & Burn..

this is an interesting post.

Democratic Party didn't want folks to get involved. I saw this on the ground. We couldn't move up in the local organization...because they viewed us as rabble or as Rahm Emmanuel so aptly put it: "Fucking Retards."

Those who were old Union Supporters in Dem Party Welcomed us...they gave us tools to go to our Legislatures to get reform...working for Voting Rights in our State to get rid of the DRE Machines to have a "Verified Paper Trail." but, once the DLC Control saw us making progress they worked to get rid of us.

Tim Kaine is no Democratic Party BUILDER....he's a LOSER and he is staying on as DNC CHAIR. Tell me how this can be true? And, what does it say to Party Building after the Guy LOST US ALL THE GAINS we had when Howard Dean was Chair of the DNC ..and brought New Blood into the Party!

What are Tim Kaine's Successes? Anyone who has a list of them ...please post.

[humbled_opinion]

266. That is true....

How does the head of the DNC keep his job after losing 60+ seats and yet LOL the head of the RNC loses his after gaining those seats..... Its all fixed, up is down is up....

[KoKo]

273. I Googled "Tim Kaine's Accomplishments as DNC Chair" and got nothing...Do it yourself...

there's nothing there. It's very sad and awful. Our Dems Trashed our Party and those who gave what they could even $5.00 and more. Many sacrificed to give support ....because they were so horrified with "2000 SELECTION" that they got active and did whatever they could...wherever they could...marching against Iraq Invasion...Years spent in Candlelight Vigils supporting whatever person they could find who would SPEAK OUT against what they Saw was a Take Over of our country and something the "good Germans missed" when Hilter raised his arm and started his rise to power.

Perhaps some here can find some good that Tim Kaine has done as head of the DLC. Perhaps their "search skills" are better than mine. But, I think I would worry about what they would find...thinking might be something from DNC/DLC that is put out...but not accurate being partisan in origin.

[humbled_opinion]

336. That is so true

Bush power grabs and wars caused a grassroots movement on the left, that movement got stronger after the election fraud in 2004 and went into a fever pitch after Katrina and as soon as Democrats regained power in Congress in 2006 we demanded investigations and people being held accountable and we got nothing. Now we are headed right back to where we came from. I believe many good people that were proud of their movement against the power in DC were co-opted and used by the DNC and now we get told to sit down and shut up as the Conservatives mount and unprecedented takeover of the Republic pushing us further right and destroying all social programs in the name of their persistant greed we still get told to sit down and shut up... I am so over the Democratic party, its time for rebirth.

[bertman]

232. This just NAILS IT!! Thank you for posting it, Xicano. nt

[Xicano]

247. Thanks bertman.

And thanks Chris Hedges and Ralph Nader for telling it like it is.

[pmorlan1]

236. I agree

I'm not playing the nowhere else to go game this time around. I've said it before, if we are going to get shafted I'd rather it not be a Democrat doing it.

[krabigirl]

243. Is he joking? Of course we can go elsewhere. There aren't just two parties.

I vote my conscience.

[bhikkhu]

254. I suppose everyone is entitled to a good rant now and then

You take all the worst aspects of stuff that has pissed you off most, line it all up in a row, find someone to blame it all on and let fly...

[Babel_17]

258. Hedges overstates his case though ...

he has some points and I agree with the main thrust of it.

Presidents don't get elected in a vacuum, there's a massive inertia to many of our policies.

Anyway, Obama was our primary winner and so it can be said that The Left made its choice.

They chose to bet on winning the day by way of sweet reason and eloquence.

They did not demand tough talk in the primaries. Our two main candidates were not facing demands that they speak painfully and clearly about the issues which we confronted then and are confronting now.

So in a nutshell, that is our only real choice, we have to always demand forthright talk. We have to demand the abidance of our principles. Some things are not on the table.

When the chips are down we'll vote for our nominee but we will always have to inspire her/him to stand up and represent who we are.

Edit: I said "Nader" originally, I've made that "Hedges".

[dreamnightwind]

268. It was a very special moment in time

The Repubs were down for the count. We could have completely destroyed that party by aggressively seeking accountability for what had happened in the last 8 years. This is not a pipe-dream, it could and should have happened. Never have I seen such a corrupt administration as W's. Healing the wounds and getting the country on the right track demanded that we prosecute the lying warmongers.

The Republican party and all it stood for would have been destroyed, as it should be.

Instead, the fix was in. Look forward, not back. Tepid corporate-centrist legislation that attempted to win over Repubs. A disillusioned public that no longer saw much difference between us and them. An aggressive, take-no-prisoners agenda from the right.

The first 2 years should have been stopping the economic collapse, managing the unwinding housing crisis in a way that punished finance instead of homeowners, and grinding our boots on the necks of the Republican party that put us in the mess. We then could have picked up the necessary Senate seats to override a filibuster at the midterms, or reformed the Senate rules, and enacted real progressive policies that this country desperately needs, such as medicare-for-all, reigning in the Pentagon, increasing taxation on the wealthy to claw back some of our top-heavy wealth distribution.

It really could have happened, it was a very special time, and it was all blown by playing it safe in the corporate center. Which was probably the plan all along.

spelling edit

[Doctor_J]

282. Amen

my thoughts to a "T". I was taken in as well. I guess I will quibble with this phrase:

it was all blown by playing it safe in the corporate center

This implies that the president and the (real) party wanted to hold the Repukes accountable, and enact populist agenda. I no longer believe this. They are nearly as oligarchic as the Repukes.

[panzerfaust]

261. Sadly this seems true

From the article:

"A vote for Obama and the Democrats was an act of submission. We cannot afford to be submissive anymore.

'The more outrageous the Republicans become, the weaker the left becomes, Nader said when I reached him at his home in Connecticut on Sunday. 'The more outrageous they become, the more the left has to accept the slightly less outrageous corporate Democrats.'"

[ejbr]

267. k & r n/t

[Martin Eden]

280. I disagree with the first paragraph of the article

Ralph Nader in a CNN poll a few days before the 2008 presidential election had an estimated 3 percent of the electorate, or about 4 million people, behind his candidacy. But once the votes were counted, his support dwindled to a little over 700,000. Nader believes that many of his supporters entered the polling booth and could not bring themselves to challenge the Democrats and Barack Obama. I suspect Nader is right. And this retreat is another example of the lack of nerve we must overcome if we are going to battle back against the corporate state. A vote for Nader or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney in 2008 was an act of defiance. A vote for Obama and the Democrats was an act of submission. We cannot afford to be submissive anymore.

I put in bold the parts I disagree with.

I can't speak for anybody else, but personally I would "challenge" Obama and any other Democrat in a heartbeat if we had Instant Runoff Voting. The only reason I vote for my second choice instead of my first choice is to keep the worst choice out of office ... being "submissive" is a gross mischaracterization of this decision.

The article is pretty much accurate when it says we have nowhere else to go ... there are indeed third parties, but the 2000 presidential election showed the consequences of voting one's "conscience" in a close election. My conscience tells me that siphoning votes from the Dem candidate (and swinging the election to the rethug) in the hope this will have the desired effect on the Democratic Party is substituting wishful thinking for political reality.

If we want to change the political reality of the Democratic Party we have to do it in the Democratic primaries, or somehow make Instant Runoff Voting a reality.

[unkachuck]

289. kick....n/t

[upi402]

312. Clinton got more corporatist agenda accomplished that George 1st could have

Yep, who ya gonna call?

I am a "fucking retard" as Rahm Emmanuel said. Maybe he's right. I voted for his boss- nearly the same as the old boss.

[meow mix]

321. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

dang missed out add 1 plz