quote:

---

What will happen if Obama wins the electorate? Progressive Group Number One seems to believe he'll magically move left once inaugurated and is only running to the right in order to win the election. That position is a non sequitur and not worthy of real discussion as it's based on wishful thinking.

Progressive Group Number Two knows Obama is pretty damn conservative but is planning on voting "strategically," arguing that change comes in baby steps, yet they assure us they'll apply pressure once Obama's elected to get the little toddler strolling. A friend, who happens to be a professor at a large university, recently told me that he plans on coercing Obama by pressuring elected members of congress. He'll be "making a stink" and "scene," he assured me.

What a relief.

"The forces arrayed against far-reaching progressive change are massive and unrelenting. If an Obama victory is declared next week, those forces will be regrouping in front of our eyes -- with right-wing elements looking for backup from corporate and pro-war Democrats," Norman Solomon recently wrote in an article advising progressives to vote against their interests. "How much leverage these forces exercise on an Obama presidency would heavily depend on the extent to which progressives are willing and able to put up a fight."

Does Solomon even understand what it means to "put up a fight"? And what's with the notion that progressives will "apply pressure" once Obama wins? They have no cash and he's already going to receive most of their votes. What are they going to do to pressure him, poke him in his ribs? Cause a stink by farting through the halls of Congress? Obama may actually listen to us if he thought progressives were considering to vote for a guy like Ralph Nader, which is the point Nader seems to be making by campaigning in swing states this week. Nader knows how to put up a real fight, one not mired in hypotheticals and fear-mongering, so he's pressuring Obama where it matters most.

Of course, such a direct confrontation to Obama's backward policies ruffles the slacks of many devout liberals. But that is the point. Progressives are not flush with cash and as we all should know, flashing the almighty buck is usually the best way to grab a politician's attention. But the only thing we have at our immediate disposal now is votes. These crooks need us to get elected. Obama already has the majority of left-wing support shored up despite his resistance to embrace our concerns. Imagine if he had to earn our votes instead of receiving our support without having to do a thing for it?

So let's prepare for what's ahead. Obama may win next Tuesday, but what will happen to the movements that have been sidelined in order to help get the Democrats elected? What will become of the environmental movement after January 20? Will it step up to oppose Obama's quest for nuclear power and clean coal? Will the antiwar movement work to force Obama to take a softer approach toward Iran? Will they stop the troop increase in Afghanistan?

These are but a few of the questions I'd like progressive supporters of Obama to answer. I've yet to hear exactly how they will pressure an Obama administration. In fact, I don't think they will. George W. Bush will be gone and that will be enough for most. Progressives faced a similar confrontation in 1992 when Bill Clinton took office, but without much of a fight we saw neoliberalism take hold in the form of NAFTA and we endured the Telecommunications Act, Welfare Reform, a forest plan written by the logging industry, the dismantling of Glass-Steagall, the Iraq Liberation Act, and much much more. - Joshua Frank

---

quote:

---

Progressives faced a similar confrontation in 1992 when Bill Clinton took office, but without much of a fight we saw neoliberalism take hold in the form of NAFTA

---

Wasn't Clinton largely stymied by a Repub majority in the Senate?

In America's winner-take-all system, once elected, the only pressure is on the congressional elections every 2 years.

If Obama delivers better living standards, the Dems keep the power.

Other than that, you cannot predict.

quote:

---

Despite all that is recounted by Matt Gonzalez, and is known by the left, a good section of the American left is still agonizing over whether or not to vote for this 'lesser' evil! Some qualify this support with: "But, don't have any illusions!" Anybody who supports, even qualified twenty-fold, the notion of voting for a Democratic Party candidate, is already filled with illusions. Such recommendations coming from the 'left' are stunningly amusing if it weren't so infuriating to hear such talk always certified with tons of qualifications, which in turn make the recommendations not just absurd, but highly irresponsible.

Most progressives voting for Obama do so out of their partial blindness regarding the crimes of the American state; they see all the crimes commissioned and executed by the Republicans, but if a Democrat vote-getting team ransacked their very neighborhoods, doing drive-by's at high noon, with 'Vote Democrat' signs on their SUVs, they would most likely not see it. If a Democratic candidate is not too pretty, their answer is simple: it is a vote against Republicans. When pushed for something more positive, more substantial, lacking anything to offer, they argue that Obama-Biden ticket is less scary than McCain-Palin, and so we must make sure they get elected.

The other point they make is that a vote for Obama is a slap in the face of racism. To think that one is fighting racism while voting for a candidate that upholds every racist element of the structures of imperialism is to venture into political oblivion.

Such arguments can only come from people who do nothing whatsoever to change the really existing political life of the U.S. in between presidential elections. But, of course, every four years they must express some political recommendation of sorts, and out of desperate frustration, due to seeing the political field as only what the system presents (i.e., due to the fact that they do not act as subjective agencies), they can only decide which system-provided choice is less harmful. This is the gist of their dilemma.

So long as the left in the U.S. does not create its own independent institutions, so long as there is no institutional alternative that can channel people's grievances, and so long as there is no political party representing the working classes along a socialist outlook, the current balance of forces will continue to work increasingly against the working people and those interested in a more just society, and no matter how learned we might be, we will end up supporting the 'lesser' of the two evil parties dominating the people; in other words, supporting the imperial system.

---

No one is advocating a repeat of the 1992 situation, when too many people said "It's enough that we have a Democratic president. We can't actually ask anything of the guy". At least no one I know.

There will need to be organizing on the issues of the banks, health-care, labor-law reform and electoral reform. These can be tied together as a "democracy agenda".

I don't pretend to be the leader of anything and will be simply one working among a lot of others to use the space that will be created.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch from other thread:
I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000. Nothing progressive happened as a result.

No new party was built. No movement was built. No gains happened at all, anywhere in the U.S., as a result.

This proved that voting third-party in presidential races was useless.

If it didn't build a movement then, that proves it can't build one now.

Nothing progressive can possibly happen under a McCain administration, folks. No gains can occur and there can't even be regional victories.

We need to get these guys out, then build from the ground up. But that can only happen if McCain is beaten. And all of you know it.

It's your call, but you know everything has to get permanently worse if McCain wins.

---

2 years ago, the American public elected a Democratic Congress, and what good has that done? Obama goes on and on about what the last 8 years have been like. What he forgets to mention is that for the past 2 years his Democratic colleagues have had the power to put the brakes on the Bush administration and have failed to do so. Not to mention that the polls I've seen realistically only show one branch of government possibly falling to the Republicans (that being the Presidency) so even then, Congress could use its clout to put the brakes on McCain if the Dems really disagreed with him.

As for the "popular movements," the anti-war movement was hijacked and silenced by the Democratic Party. There's a good reason why Cindy Sheehan is challenging Speaker Pelosi for her seat. And what good with the "movement" do for advancing its cause anyways? The only thing politicians understand is votes, and that sends the message to the Democrats that they're doing the right thing and they don't hear any progressive critiques.

quote:

---

Overall it is astonishing that a campaign season that has lasted nearly two years has managed to avoid any discussion of basic questions such as “What is the role of the government?”, or “Is terrorism really our #1 priority?” or “How bound should America be to Israel's foreign policy?” or “What's wrong with universal health care?” or “Is it OK to attack other countries?” or “Can a government violate the Constitution amidst a war?” or “Should the government spy on its own citizens without a warrant?”, or “What is a just tax policy?”, or "What should be America's immigration policy?".

---

quote:

---

Overall it is astonishing that a campaign season that has lasted nearly two years has managed to avoid any discussion of basic questions such as “What is the role of the government?”, or “Is terrorism really our #1 priority?” or “How bound should America be to Israel's foreign policy?” or “What's wrong with universal health care?” or “Is it OK to attack other countries?” or “Can a government violate the Constitution amidst a war?” or “Should the government spy on its own citizens without a warrant?”, or “What is a just tax policy?”, or "What should be America's immigration policy?".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Since this issue is still alive:

2 years ago, the American public elected a Democratic Congress, and what good has that done? Obama goes on and on about what the last 8 years have been like. What he forgets to mention is that for the past 2 years his Democratic colleagues have had the power to put the brakes on the Bush administration and have failed to do so. Not to mention that the polls I've seen realistically only show one branch of government possibly falling to the Republicans (that being the Presidency) so even then, Congress could use its clout to put the brakes on McCain if the Dems really disagreed with him.

As for the "popular movements," the anti-war movement was hijacked and silenced by the Democratic Party. There's a good reason why Cindy Sheehan is challenging Speaker Pelosi for her seat. And what good with the "movement" do for advancing its cause anyways? The only thing politicians understand is votes, and that sends the message to the Democrats that they're doing the right thing and they don't hear any progressive critiques.

For me, the Democrats showed their true colours this past years, and if I lived in the US, I would likely vote Green without regard to whether or not I lived in a "swing state."

---

The millions of people who are working all across the country for change are going to feel that all they've done over the past two years was for nothing. There'll be no way you can make the case to the young that the fight is still worthy carrying on if McCain wins.

Also, Roe V. Wade would be overturned by the new Supreme Court appointees, and it's difficult if not impossible to imagine women fighting back from that. They'd try, but the good ol' boys in Dixie would basically have Southern women barefoot and pregnant again.

The ability to hold a right-wing government accountable will be another(since the Supreme Court will have more conservative appointees, all of whom will uphold everything the Right ever does without question).

The chance of weakening the Homeland Security apparatus will be weakened, because the strutting macho types will be further emboldened.

It's hard to imagine anyone even feeling like fighting back if McCain wins.

There needs to be a respite from the worst of the worst in order for change to come.

There needs to be a way to get people believing that some sort of a progressive victory is possible.

How can that feeling ever emerge if McCain is sworn in on January 20th?

If voting for third-party presidential candidates did any good under our existing electoral system, you'd have seen at least some progressive change since 2000.

The main priority, at this point, has to be getting the antiwoman, antiworker, antigay and antiRainbow party out of power. Punishing the Democrats is not worth the effort this Tuesday.

And movements are always valuable.

The Civil Rights movement would have ended in horrible failure and probably mass of life if they'd tried to form a third-party in the Sixties.

Yes, the Democrats have fallen short, but you can't seriously argue that things would have been better if Republican control of Congress had been conceded and people were trying to resist Bush and McCain from a point of complete powerlessness, are you?

It's almost impossible for a left anywhere to recover from totally losing everything.
And insisting that those who are on the political outside in the U.S. subject themselves to losing everything and having no checks on the power of their oppressors(which is what third-party presidential advocates, implicitly, are asking of the progressive half of the U.S.)is something only arrogant middle-class white dilettantes could do with a clear conscience.

All I've said is get the worst guys out then press the better guys like hell to do what's right. What's wrong with that?

It's not like anything positive could come of doing anything else this year.

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Now is the time to act. Obama and the Dems win this election in a landslide. We must show the maximum possible political strength by the largest possible Nader\McKinney\Barr vote possible.

To all who oppose the war. To all who really call themselves 'progressives', now is the time to act.

We can see the course of this election. Obama and the Dems win in a landslide. That's the big course of things and its set and its already in motion. Even if it wasn't true, which it probably is, the corporate money would insist on it being so. The big money has clearly been behind Obama for some time now.

We are going to see an Obama administration with the Dems in control of Congress. We know that by default the Dems won't want to listen to us. That they'll still want to continue the wars. That they won't prosecute the Bush criminals. That they'll give our money to their rich friends on wall street. They'll want to call us 'idiot liberals' and bar us from the room. We know this from the Democrats.

So ok, how do we make an Obama administration respect us and do what we want? We keep hearing how we have to be the ones to 'pressure' an Obama administration. How do we do that?

The only language they understand is political power. We need to show it....

The key point for right now is actually the closer we make it, the better for us. If the Democrats are holding their breath on election night saying 'holy shit!' watching the numbers roll in with state after state they thought was solidly in there win column instead becoming razor thin with big voters for Nader and McKinney, that's great for us. We want to give them a heart attack. That's the only way they'll take us seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Raising large sums of money to challenge bad Democrats is going to have an effect on the system.

---

There was an analysis of government under McCain on CNN this morning, and he's going to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade, and he will move to end Affirmative Action programs.

A friend of mine in the US emailed me this morning and he said "Electing McCain means the creation of an ultra-conservative religious state in the US".

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:
I assume those 'bad Democrats' would be those conservative leaning fair-weathers who recognize a good bet when they see it and ride along for their own self interest.

---

The prototype for this action was Maryland's 4th district where the Democratic incumbent was Al Wynn, friend of corporate lobbyists everywhere. The "netroots" decided to fund Donna Edwards in a primary challenge which she won. Wynn saw the writing on the wall and resigned his seat for a private sector job and Edwards won the special election to replace him so she's already in congress.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:
If the only other option besides some minute glimmer of hope were the utter despondency of continued oppression under the shadow of the extreme right, then I’d have to cling to hope as well. For us in Canada, we have at least some semblance of progressive expression, such that it is, among the choices that are available to us.

---

Is there another interpretation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
There was an analysis of government under McCain on CNN this morning, and he's going to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade, and he will move to end Affirmative Action programs.

---

quote:

---

Those who think Sen. Obama will appoint good Supreme Court justices should just take note of his long history of supporting some of the worst Bush appointees to the federal bench, including Thomas Griffith (D.C. Cir.), Susan Blake Neilson (6th Cir.), Milan Smith (9th Cir.), Sandra Segal Ikuta (9th Cir.), and Kent Jordan (3rd Cir.). The Neilson vote was particularly troubling as both senators from her own state "blue slipped” her for being "too extreme.”

And even when he does manage to muster the courage to vote against conservative appointees, he does it in a lukewarm and perfunctory manner, refusing to join Democratic Party filibuster efforts. This is deeply troubling. He voted cloture (to end any voting delay) on Priscilla Owen (5th Cir.) and Brett Kavanaugh (D.C. Cir.) both extremely conservative jurists, thus ensuring they would be confirmed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
What does this mean, exactly? I read it as saying "at least if we Canadians want to get rid of right-wing governments we can always vote Liberal." Is there another interpretation?
If it means "we can always vote NDP" then I would point out that the USians have third party choices, too, with "some semblance of progressive expression", who have about as much chance of forming a government any time soon as the NDP. How exactly are Canadian voters more advantaged in this regard than their US counterparts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

If it means "we can always vote NDP" then I would point out that the USians have third party choices, too, with "some semblance of progressive expression", who have about as much chance of forming a government any time soon as the NDP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:
The NDP has a provincial government right now, opposition status in other provinces, and has a large contingent of MP's in a minority Parliament.

To compare the NDP to any third party in the US is absurd.

---

My comments were in response to another poster who raised the issue of viable alternatives to right-wing governments (at least I think that's what he was talking about; it was all so very vague). The viable alternatives in Canada are Liberal/Conservative and in the US Republican/Democrat.

Additionally the Conservatives formed a government with twice the vote of the NDP, while Obama will be elected with about 30 times the vote of Nader + McKinney.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
In a federal election, anybody voting NDP knows that that party will not form the government...My comments were in response to another poster who raised the issue of viable alternatives to right-wing governments (at least I think that's what he was talking about; it was all so very vague).

---

quote:

---

No, I didn't know that.

I'm sceptical.

---

Remember what happened to the Clinton health plan? He may not abandon his plan, but getting it done still faces long odds.

quote:

---

Remember what happened to the Clinton health plan? He may not abandon his plan, but getting it done still faces long odds.

---

That depends on how the Senate race turns out basically.

quote:

---

Also, there is a large gap between his oratory and the details in his plan.

---

In the debate the idea was to offer group insurance a la what the Senate enjoys to everyone. People could join or not as they see fit. Simply giving the private insurance an honest broker to compete against will improve things drastically. As it is now, you can't even get the benefits you pay for out of most of them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by djelimon:

That depends on how the Senate race turns out basically.

---

Not really, there are enough Democrat blue dogs to put a spike in anything Obama proposes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
The NDP got ten times more of the vote than Nader and McKinney will get combined.

---

quote:

---

The comparison is absurd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by djelimon:
Well, I actually watched the debates, and I am less so. For one thing, O said medial care is a human right, and for another, he watched his mother die in agony arguing with her insurance company. For him to abandon that would be political suicide for him.

---

What you are not addressing is the following series of fundamental questions, "a lot" of which you said in an earlier post were addressed during the debates, to wit:

• What is the role of the government?

• Is terrorism really our #1 priority?

• How bound should America be to Israel's foreign policy?

• What's wrong with universal health care?

• Is it OK to attack other countries?

• Can a government violate the Constitution amidst a war?

• Should the government spy on its own citizens without a warrant?

• What is a just tax policy?

• What should be America's immigration policy?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:
Progressive Usians have no such alternative to choose from, except for a fleeting glimpse of what they see as hope, coming from someone who says he wants to do things differently than anyone else before, even if it is in constrast to any sane analysis of his stump speeches. In that sense, we at least we have something that they don't.

---

As I have pointed out before, you could just as well be talking about the Liberals, and in fact it would be a better analogy with Obama, because many "progressives" who want to vote for the lesser evil will vote Obama in the USA and Dion in Canada.

quote:

---

What you are not addressing is the following series of fundamental questions, "a lot" of which you said in an earlier post were addressed during the debates, to wit

---

Actually if you reread my post, I referred to a very specific portion of the blog entry that was C&P'd. I even did the courtesy of quoting the portion I was referring to.

I'll repost the portion I responded to:

quote:

---

Overall it is astonishing that a campaign season that has lasted nearly two years has managed to avoid any discussion of basic questions such as “What is the role of the government?”, or “Is terrorism really our #1 priority?” or “How bound should America be to Israel's foreign policy?” or “What's wrong with universal health care?” or “Is it OK to attack other countries?” or “Can a government violate the Constitution amidst a war?” or “Should the government spy on its own citizens without a warrant?”, or “What is a just tax policy?”, or "What should be America's immigration policy?".

---

So, by the numbers:

“What is the role of the government?”

In the debates, a contrast between O and M came out, in that O felt government had a duty to regulate business, and McCain thought all that should be taken care of by good faith. In the infomercial, I clearly got the point that O believes in an activist government that helps those that need it and measures success not just by profits, but by standard of living. This was highlighted in the 3rd debate, and in that infomercial.

But really, it's a pretty broad question, so outside of the relationship to business context, it would take a hella lot of bandwidth that others would rather have used talking about money and healthcare etc.

“Is terrorism really our #1 priority?”

I don't remember either candidate saying it was, but in the first debate it was regarded as A priority. quote form O - we have to be strong at home, not just abroad - and his advocacy of diplomacy and other alternatives to military confrontation when possible tells me that he has a better perspective. This from the first debate. He also said the US cannot afford to just stomp around all over the place anymore

Personally I think terrorism is a symptom of a disease, and us such is best addressed by addressing underlying causes, HOWEVER I also think there's an element that will never accept peace, and these people need to be captured. More espionage, less army.

“How bound should America be to Israel's foreign policy?”

Again, Obama's position is that Israel gets protection, but that peace is necessary even if Likud kicks up a fuss. First debate basically.

“What's wrong with universal health care?”
McCain is agin it, Obama is for a universal viable option to privatized care without weasel words like preexisting condition and all the other old dodges. Third debate.

“Is it OK to attack other countries?”

O has advocated military actions including raids based on "actionable intel". I do believe he has quite famously come out against pre-emptive wars such as the war on Iraq well before this. But he still said it was a mistake to go in in the first debate, second and third (McCain kept bringing it up for some reason).

“Should the government spy on its own citizens without a warrant?”

I believe he came out in favour of FISA, which demands post-facto warrants. But this is from following the news, not the debate.

“What is a just tax policy?”

While I think this question is far too general, Obama is obviously in favour of a tax scheme in which the better off pay a higher proportion than the poor, aka progressive taxation. He has said that trickle-down theory doesn't work and has been proven not to. The whole cornerstone of his tax policy is to raise taxes on the top 5% and give everyone else a break. This came out in the 2nd and 3rd debates, although for some reason people have a hard time understanding it.

“Can a government violate the Constitution amidst a war?”

"What should be America's immigration policy?".

These were outside of the "lot" that was covered in the debates

So 7 out of 9 questions that I quoted saying a lot of that stuff was answered, 6 out of 9 from the debates themselves. Is the majority a lot?

Odd that a lowly canuck should be up on this I'm sure, but otoh I watched the Canadian debates too and took part in the election as a volunteer, so I consider myself a bit of a political junkie in general, but not just fixated on the US.

[ 03 November 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

[ 03 November 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

[ 03 November 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

I think the primaries have pretty much established the grass and net roots have now got primacy within the DNC, hence the turning away of federal lobbyist money by the DNC without protest from the old-school boys. The DNC will be going for grassroots funding more now, (assuming Obama wins) iow the grease will be coming from a new source, the game has changed.

[ 03 November 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by djelimon:
I think the primaries have pretty much established the grass and net roots have now got primacy within the DNC...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
The US analog of voting NDP is voting for Nader or McKinney. Both of the latter offer a "fleeting glimpse of hope" to USians (much more so than Obama does) even though, like the NDP, they have no hope of winning. And they have just about as much influence with the Democrats as the NDP has with the Conservatives.

---

Not only do they have no hope of winning, Nader or McKinney, but they have no hope of influencing anything, except perhaps within the minds of their supporters. I think you're missing the point entirely, but I do agree that Obama's policies will represent more of the same rather than any meaningful change.

quote:

---

It's more complicated than that. The Obama campaign has managed its own fundraising and established its own "net roots" apart from the sources that generally come to mind when that phrase is invoked.

---

True, but when I say grass roots I refer to just that. Keeping the punters happy to get your money keeps you honest. With Dean turning off the grease tap, going with popular mandates becomes more attractive.

quote:

---

You really think they are going away without a fight

---

I think they'll do the things they usually do. I think this time the Dems under O have learned from history ad have effective countermeasures in place.

Despondent, no. Prepared, yes.

Remember when he won Georgia and all the pundits said it didn't matter because Georgia would never be competitive. The Dems will get a senate eat out of Georgia being competitive.

quote:

---

Though we live under the rule of the worst, it doesn't have to be that way. Exhaustion, laziness, and cynicism are our most daunting foes. Waking up to the possibilities of real hope and change means challenging leaders, and daily, difficult local work that some, but not yet enough of us do. The most hopeful aspect of Obama's "hope and change" message might be that people see those words for what they are, and demand that whoever assumes office, some real policies justify those fragile, necessary emotions so many of us cling to.

---

quote:

---

...As commander-in-chief, I will never hesitate to protect our country. As president, I'll rebuild our military to meet 21st century challenges. I'll renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and curb Russian aggression, and I'll refocus our efforts on finishing the fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps nothing illustrated your utter lack of political courage or even the mildest version of this trait than your surrendering to demands of the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention. This is a tradition for former presidents and one accorded in prime time to Bill Clinton this year.

Here was a President who negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, but his recent book pressing the dominant Israeli superpower to avoid Apartheid of the Palestinians and make peace was all that it took to sideline him. Instead of an important address to the nation by Jimmy Carter on this critical international problem, he was relegated to a stroll across the stage to "tumultuous applause," following a showing of a film about the Carter Center's post-Katrina work. Shame on you, Barack Obama!

---

Among other things he was the basis of the Josh Lyman character on the West Wing

quote:

---

Originally posted by miles:
Rumour has it that Rahm Emanuel will be Obamas chief of staff at the White HOuse.

---

quote:

---

From NBC's Mike Viqueira
Three House Democratic sources confirmed Rep. Rahm Emanuel has been offered a Chief of Staff job with an Obama White House and is currently "agonizing" over whether to take the job.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by miles:
Pogge even Rahm can't be three people

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
The millions of people who are working all across the country for change are going to feel that all they've done over the past two years was for nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
That now the Democrats will have NO excuses.

---

"And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand."

Same old, same old. What's abundantly clear to many of us in the rest of the world is that a new dawn of THE END OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP, especially the kind of leadership that flows from the barrel of a gun, is at hand. Too bad Barak Obama didn't find a way to express some humility for his country in this regard.

What a singular lack of imagination and humility. America will continue, therefore, to stick its nose where it doesn't belong, and kill, and wonder where the obstinate anti-US hatred comes from. But some of us with a brain know already. America and its Presidents think it OWNS the world, as Noam Chomsky so eloquently put it, and scratches its head in confusion as to why others might disagree with that prejudice.

The false-premise Global War on Terror.

The Destruction of Iraq.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SwimmingLee:
The US has 750+ military bases worldwide.

The false-premise Global War on Terror.

The Destruction of Iraq.

^ 3 places for Obama to show the world - is he just a new face on the same old war machine, or is he the genuine stealth liberal that has Rush Limbaugh sputtering in pretend anger ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

So what do you have to say to the anti-war protesters who elected a Democratic Congress 2 years ago and were disappointed?

---

The the struggle goes on, and that there's now more of a chance. What would you have said to them if a huge Nader vote had elected McCain? There's no way you could have argued that there was still hope.

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Nader: Will Obama be "Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom"

Cute.

---

The actual quote: "Nader said that Obama had a choice between being Uncle Sam for the people, or Uncle Tom for the corporations."

Now I understand what he was saying and agree with the underlying meaning of the question (will Obama chose to be corporate hack or do what's best for the people) but wow, what a horrible and stupid way of saying it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Nader: Will Obama be "Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom"

Cute.

---

quote:

---

"That was the end of [Nader's] career."

---

But not surprising, as it seems to me white men are incredibly threatened by this loss of white male hegemony, if the examples here at babble are anything to go by. It appears to have most certainly rocked their world.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Oh, really? Is white male hegemony dead now that Barack Obomba is president?

---

yep, it is its death throes, though perhaps white men are still in denying it to themselves, in the hopes that it is not, but still smearing Obama anyway.

We need only listen to those racist words of Nader's to understand this, plus of course the irrational smears here.

I guess in the midst of composing your cursorary off-hand smears, you missed the part where I stated that I tacitly supported Obama. You may have noticed that even though I share many of the same concerns that Spector has raised here, I have barely contributed to any of these threads on this issue, prior to the election.

Nothing to that. Wether or not Spector or myself feels threatened by the supposed collapse of "white male hegemony". Its just a smear.

and just to keep the record clear, my last sentence only included you by way of saying that I would not participate in the thread any longer, as you had entered it. As such, I suppose I could have left mspector out of it, but I did not want him to think I was avoiding responses to him, if he responded back to me. And I suppose I should have made that clearer. But I have now anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Oh, really? Is white male hegemony dead now that Barack Obomba is president?

---

I don't know how I feel about how Nader said what he said. But I do know that he would likely have not gotten a chance to say the other things he said on Fox news, had he not said what he said.

He got to call that fucking asshole a bully for one thing, and he was clearly shaken by that.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
But I do know that he would likely have not gotten a chance to say the other things he said on Fox news, had he not said what he said.

---

At this point he mostly strikes me as an irrelevant dinosaur, his movement building not being what it used to be. No wonder he has to go on Fox doing that. I think he could be reaching more people by using other strategies.

Its not just "his" message. Its an important message that reflects many of the realities of US politics, and the present situation in the USA, that has huge reprecussion world wide.

Its the first time I have heard anyone even use the term "poor people" in relation to the US election on any mainstream media.

There are some lies I hope that Obama told us. I hope that he lied about increasing the military defence spending. I hope he lied about "curbing Russian aggression", I hope he lied about sending more troops to Afghanistan.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

So basically I think the cards will land where they land, and that opposition to the process will come from the outside, and the destruction of the fraudulent system is the only real hope for change.

Perhaps Nader has set up some ground work for that, and perhaps he has done some good grass roots organizing in the campaign, because I think those kinds of local organizations may become increasingly relevant as the system rots out.

What i'm saying about Nader isn't that i find his comments tasteless-it's that he will alienate people. Look at the knee jerk reaction that the name Elizabeth May gets around here. Greens post some quote about how EMay wants to do things differently and it infuriates Dippers. Because of comments she's made, like linking Layton to the Taliban, she's got no credibility with Dippers. In fact, some party loyalists are so automatically loyal that they'll start promoting something just because it's the OPPOSITE of what May says. I'm sure you've seen it.

Now i feel that same disdain for EMay too--i don't trust her at all. But if i did, if i honestly felt that she was trying to promote co operation between parties, then i'd say all the slagging of the NDP that she does is extremely counter productive.

And unlike May, with Nader i believe him and trust him. But fuck he doesn't know much about how to influence people. People are pouring out into the street crying because they never thought electing a black president was possible, and also because the nightmare of Bush is over, having this cathartic experience, hepped up on Obamamania, and Nader goes on Fox News to say that Obama might end up being an Uncle Tom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Perhaps Obama will do for the USA what Mikhail Gorbachoev did for the Soviet Union.

---

Boris did his Brutus routine on the steps of the Kremlin, nothing more.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Boris did his Brutus routine on the steps of the Kremlin, nothing more.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Yeltsin effectively dissolved the USSR in December of 1991, and pledged to transform Russia into a capitalist market economy. Stooges Yeltsin, Kravchuk, and Shushkevich signed the agreement creating the CIS.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Zia and Jean Chretian must be in there somwhere,

---

Who were two stooges of the vicious empire, one ruling by military dictatorship and the other by successive phony majorities before and after the end of cold war?