quote:

---

Is he lost to us? Was he ever ours to lose?

Progressives were all too eager to overlook the warning signs in Obama's brief career, his support for the Patriot Act, for nuclear power, his vote against limiting credit card interest to 30%, his calls for increased defense spending, and his equivocation on full withdrawal from Iraq. These decisions were mere matters of political expediency, we were assured, not to be taken seriously.

Yet how can political expediency explain Obama's retreat on NAFTA? Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are all in play - how many of those voters have been broken on the wheel of NAFTA? Those who contend that the real Obama will suddenly emerge after the election to overturn an imperial foreign policy and to bring justice to the home front, might be advised not to hold their breath.

Obama desperately needs pressure from the left, and he is amenable to pressure. Once we on the left agree that this analysis is correct, then we must choose the correct strategy.

So far, blind support of Obama has yielded the same kind of benefits that we got from John Kerry. With the united left in his pocket, Kerry went from a declared "anti-war" candidate to a thoroughly hawkish one, berating Bush for wimping out in the face of massive civilian casualties in Falluja, and promising to win the Iraq war. Unconditional support for the Democratic nominee is unconditional surrender, with all the utter powerlessness that the terms imply.

As one alternative, we can complain, write and blog, for all these have their place. But we are all too good at talking to ourselves, and disparate efforts without a focus are all too easily dismissed.

We must consider support for Ralph Nader's campaign. Nader has been as high as six percent in recent national polls, something he has achieved with only modest support from left intellectuals, and virtually no recognition by corporate media.

---

The mind and the Obama magic

quote:

---

There are two major modes of thought in American politics — conservative and progressive, what I’ve called “strict” and “nurturant.” We all grow up with brains exposed to both and capable of using both, but usually in different areas of life. Some people are conservative on foreign policy and progressive on domestic policy, or conservative on economic issues and progressive on social issues–or the reverse. There is no left-to-right linear spectrum; all kinds of combinations occur. I’ve called such folks “biconceptuals.” Brainwise, they show a common situation called “mutual inhibition,” where two modes of thought are possible but the activation of one inhibits the other. The more you activate a conservative mode of thought, the more you inhibit the progressive mode of thought — and the more likely it is that the conservative mode of thought will spread to other issues.

Interestingly, many people who call themselves “conservatives” actually think like progressives on a range of issue areas. For example, many “conservatives” love the land as much as any environmentalist; want to live in communities where people care about each other, that is, have social not just individual responsibility; live progressive business principles of honesty, care for their employees, and care for the public; and have progressive religious values: helping the poor, caring for the sick, being good stewards of the God’s creation, turning the other cheek. One view of “bipartisanship” for progressives is finding self-described conservatives and independents who have such progressive values and working with them on that basis. That’s what Obama did when he went to Rick Warren’s megachurch and it is his strategy in Project Joshua. Note that this is the opposite of the form of bipartisanship that involves really adopting right-wing values, or even appearing to. What this bipartisan strategy does, from the brain’s viewpoint, is to activate the progressive mode of thought in the brains of conservatives, and thus tends to inhibit conservative thought.

But the form of bipartisanship that involves adopting, or appearing to adopt, right-wing views has the opposite effect. It strengthens conservative thought in the brains on those biconceptuals and weakens progressive thought. In short, it actually helps conservatives. Rather than “taking arguments away from them” it strengthens their basic values and hence all their arguments. It give conservatives more reason, not less, for voting for conservatives.

If Obama adopts, or appears to adopt, right-wing positions, he may still win, since McCain is such a weak candidate. But it will hurt Democrats running for office all up and down the ticket, since it will strengthen general conservative positions on all issues and hence work in the favor of conservative candidates.

As has often been said, if you are a conservative, why vote for the progressive spouting conservative views when you can vote for a real conservative?

In short, if Obama adopts, or appears to adopt, right-wing views, he will not only hurt himself, but also hurt other Democrats.

---

Kafoury's article makes no case as to how backing Nader could possibly have a positive effect on the race.

If you had to back someone else, back Cynthia McKinney, the ACTUAL Green Party candidate. If you're not running for a party, you can't be doing anything positive by running.

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Lakoff (via Michelle):
If Obama adopts, or appears to adopt, right-wing positions, he may still win, since McCain is such a weak candidate. But it will hurt Democrats running for office all up and down the ticket, since it will strengthen general conservative positions on all issues and hence work in the favor of conservative candidates.

---

[excerpt]

quote:

---

For a candidate who talks the talk on human rights, Barack Obama has little to say about the infamous School of the Americas (SOA). Originally established in the Panama Canal Zone in 1946, the school later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia in 1984. Since its inception, the institution has instructed more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers in military and law-enforcement tactics.

The Pentagon itself has acknowledged that in the past the School of the Americas utilized training manuals advocating coercive interrogation techniques and extrajudicial executions. After receiving their training at the institution, officers went on to commit countless human rights atrocities in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Colombia.
…

…Congress renamed the school Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC)…

Now fast forward to the 2006 mid-term Congressional election: hoping to make use of their newfound majority on Capitol Hill, some Democrats sought to eliminate WHINSEC’s funding once and for all. Shortly after their victory in November they nearly succeeded with 203 legislators voting against ongoing public support of the school and 214 in favor. The closeness of the vote suggested that if the Democrats were able to increase their legislative majority in 2008, then the WHINSEC might indeed be history.

Outside the halls of Congress a number of prominent organizations joined calls to shut WHINSEC including the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the United Auto Workers, the United Steelworkers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the NAACP, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Church of Christ, and over 100 U.S. Catholic Bishops.
….

But the question is: where does Obama stand?
….

Obama likes to employ soaring rhetoric when discussing human rights. But late last year, he failed to take a strong position opposing WHINSEC. When pressed, the candidate praised Congress’ revision of the school’s curriculum but said that he wanted to continue to evaluate the institution.

What more information could Obama possibly need to reach a final decision on the matter? An Obama spokesman said the senator "has not committed to closing down the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, but he will take a hard look at the program and the progress it has made once he is elected." The spokesman reiterated Obama was pleased with the institution's inclusion of human rights courses.

To put this in all in perspective then, on this issue Obama has staked out a position to the right of Ron Paul, many members of Congress, and mainstream labor and Church organizations.
….

Obama also supports closing Guantánamo, which makes his statements on WHINSEC all the more befuddling. In the present political climate, what does the Senator have to lose by coming out against the former School of the Americas? Perhaps he fears the GOP might accuse him of being weak on defense. But Republican nominee John McCain is not likely to use torture as ammunition during the campaign—it hardly seems a winning electoral issue for the Arizona Senator. What’s more, many voters are oblivious to WHINSEC and have little knowledge of, or interest in, U.S. policy towards Latin America.

No, it’s not fear of GOP retaliation on the campaign trail that keeps Obama quiet on WHINSEC. What the Senator is really concerned about is offending the movers and shakers within the military-industrial complex.

---

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

What does THAT have to do with anything?

Would you rather he just blogged his acceptance speech?

quote:

---

Friend

I wanted you to be the first to hear the news.

At the Democratic National Convention next month, we're going to kick off the general election with an event that opens up the political process the same way we've opened it up throughout this campaign.

Barack has made it clear that this is your convention, not his.

On Thursday, August 28th, he's scheduled to formally accept the Democratic nomination in a speech at the convention hall in front of the assembled delegates.

Instead, Barack will leave the convention hall and join more than 75,000 people for a huge, free, open-air event where he will deliver his acceptance speech to the American people.

It's going to be an amazing event, and Barack would like you to join him. Free tickets will become available as the date approaches, but we've reserved a special place for a few of the people who brought us this far and who continue to drive this campaign.

If you make a donation of $5 or more between now and midnight on July 31st, you could be one of 10 supporters chosen to fly to Denver and spend two days and nights at the convention, meet Barack backstage, and watch his acceptance speech in person. Each of the ten supporters who are selected will be able to bring one guest to join them.

Make a donation now and you could have a front row seat to history:

https://donate.barackobama.com/yourconvention

We'll follow up with more details on this and other convention activities as we get closer, but please take a moment and pass this note to someone you know who might like to be there.

It will be an event you'll never forget.

Thank you,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I don't think there's anything wrong with giving a speech in a larger venue. If anything, I think that's quite populist and positive of him. The tickets will be free.

I don't think the tickets to the Democratic Convention are free.

---

I don't think there's anything wrong with that, either, and I'll watch the speech. I am of course interested in what he'll say but I also think - and I have said this before - that he's an excellent speaker.

ETA: I don't see a problem with comparing him to JFK, though maybe it's insulting (to Obama).

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
It was CNN not Obama making the comparsion, but I still found the comparsion to MLK and JFK a bit much.

---

Really? I don't think so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I am torn between thinking Obama never had convictions similar to MLK or that he has abandoned them in his pursuit of power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
JFK had to overcome the fact he was a catholic and while in 2008 that sounds like a joke in fact it was a serious issue in the '60's.

---

Conventional wisdom had said that a Catholic could never become President, just as it said a black man could never become President.

"Never" refers to a lengthy period.

But you know, the people who said, in the year 1918, that a Communist would "never" be President had a pretty good point, since after 90 years, it's less likely than ever.

The actual POLITICAL question, though, has to do with the next four years...and of course we know that only Obama or McCain will be President in this period.

quote:

---

Obama calls it a compromise.

The backers whom he so assiduously courted earlier this year call it a sellout. On the eve of the American Independence Day weekend, more than 16,000 bloggers had posted demands on his website that he move back to his original promise to block the legislation, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)....

"I'm 75 years old. I've earned the right to say it like it is," Joseph E. Lucas of Deptford, N.J., says in one post on the Democrat's website.

"Senator Obama, if you continue to backpedal on FISA, I personally will not vote in November, I will also apply my considerable talents of persuasion to convince others to do the same."

A blogger identified as Robert from Denver says: "There can be no 'compromise' of our civil rights. Changing our nation, however slightly, towards a police state is not 'Change We Can Believe In.'"
...

As a candidate for the Illinois legislature in the 1990s, Obama supported legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns," and as recently as February, he said he supported the handgun ban in Washington. When the Supreme Court struck it down, Obama said he had always supported the constitution's Second Amendment protecting the right of individuals to bear arms.

---

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
It would be wrong to say that a "serious progressive" could never be President.

"Never" refers to a lengthy period.

But you know, the people who said, in the year 1918, that a Communist would "never" be President had a pretty good point, since after 90 years, it's less likely than ever.

The actual POLITICAL question, though, has to do with the next four years...and of course we know that only Obama or McCain will be President in this period.

If you guys want your pie-in-the-sky "serious progressive President" whose party affiliation cannot be named, just let us know how many centuries you are planning on before the Big Day, okay?

---

quote:

---

So what, then, is the basis for the almost-unanimously held Beltway conventional view that Democrats generally, and Barack Obama particularly, will be politically endangered unless they adopt the Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism and National Security, which — for some reason — is called “moving to the Center”? There doesn’t appear to be any basis for that view. It’s just an unexamined relic from past times, the immovable, uncritical assumption of Beltway strategists and pundits who can’t accept that it isn’t 1972 anymore — or even 2002.

Beyond its obsolescence, this “move-to-the-center” cliché ignores the extraordinary political climate prevailing in this country, in which more than 8 out of 10 Americans believe the Government is fundamentally on the wrong track and the current President is one of the most unpopular in American history, if not the most unpopular. The very idea that Bush/Cheney policies are the “center,” or that one must move towards their approach in order to succeed, ignores the extreme shifts in public opinion generally regarding how our country has been governed over the last seven years.

One could argue that national security plays a larger role in presidential elections than in Congressional races, and that very well may be. But was John Kerry’s narrow 2004 loss to George Bush due to the perception that Kerry — who ran as fast as he could towards the mythical Center — was Soft on Terrorism? Or was it due to the understandable belief that his rush to the Center meant that he stood for nothing, that he was afraid of his own views — the real hallmark, the very definition, of weakness?

---

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

When the Supreme Court struck it down, Obama said he had always supported the constitution's Second Amendment protecting the right of individuals to bear arms.

---

Oh no! Obama supports the US Constitution! Not only that, he recognises that he can't change a Supreme Court decision! How can ghe run for President without despising the Constitution and promising to send the Supreme Court to Siberia!

By the way, can you tell me what the law is concerning government eavesdropping in your favorite state, Cuba? I mean, you're all harsh on Obama for supposedly selling out some principle, but of course, you sold out that principle the first day you supported one of those Communist regimes you love.

Oh, heck, I'll tell you what the law is in Cuba.
There are no restrictions whatsoever on government eavesdropping on telephone or other telecommunications.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Oh no! Obama supports the US Constitution! Not only that, he recognises that he can't change a Supreme Court decision! How can ghe run for President without despising the Constitution and promising to send the Supreme Court to Siberia!

The funny part is that the guys-like-Spectre, who won't tell us how THEY will bring about progressive change, are all down on Obama, who might actually manage it.

---

quote:

---

Obama supports the US Constitution!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
As I've said, Obama represents the most progressive real option in the US.

---

Probably, they got tired of decades of failures doing what you do, justify tyranny while never responding to a direct question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I mean, you're all harsh on Obama for supposedly selling out some principle, but of course, you sold out that principle the first day you supported one of those Communist regimes you love.

Oh, heck, I'll tell you what the law is in Cuba.
There are no restrictions whatsoever on government eavesdropping on telephone or other telecommunications.

---

Obama supported a bill that gave immunity to telecommunications corporations for past illegal electronic eavesdropping in the service of fascistic social control in the USA.

And you dismissively describe this as "supposedly selling out on some principle"? Sickening.

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

Conventional wisdom is still trotted out today to say that a serious progressive could never become President.

---

It's not that a "serious progressive" can't become president. It's that a minor-party or non-party candidate can't win a U.S. presidential election due to the Electoral College. There IS a difference between those two concepts.

In all liklihood, THAT is why the pathetic remnant of the CPUSA is backing Obama rather than Ralph.
It's Popular Front thinking, not surrender.

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
It's not that a "serious progressive" can't become president. It's that a minor-party or non-party candidate can't win a U.S. presidential election due to the Electoral College.

---

quote:

---

You will never tell us how YOU propose to achieve a more progressive result than Obama, because once you began to come clean, we'd all throw up, remembering that it has led to one hundred years of disasters, with about two minutes "progressive change" in the middle.

---

But the global environmental catastrophe and the 1 billion facing famine is a HUGE success.

And the only hope according to Jeff House is the very definition of insanity: Keep doing the same thing and hope for a different outcome.

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
My god--if the Communist Party of the United States is supporting Obama, where the hell is Spector et al. getting their copy from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
You will never tell us how YOU propose to achieve a more progressive result than Obama.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:

Jeff keeps repeating this and no one answers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
Jeff keeps repeating this and no one answers.

---

But it's not about me, or you, or anyone else. It's about Obama.

And my political views are no secret. Anyone is free to peruse my posting history on babble, which is replete with them.

The answers provided are that Obama move back to the activist and progressive positions he adopted when in the primaries, or progressives stop allowing their vote to be taken for granted and move their franchise to the Green Party.

Ken Burch says:

quote:

---

But what we've proven, over and over again, is, in this day and age, without electoral reform, minor party presidential campaigns can't possibly cause a different outcome. Or at least not a different POSITIVE outcome, since a third-party presidential campaign that didn't win wouldn't achieve anything.

---

But I disagree. The Democrats dismiss concerns from progressives and move right because they know they can take the progressive vote for granted. And they can, because the wailers and gnashers of teeth begin presenting the bogey-man of another Republican president to keep progressives in the Democratic camp.

But, for the most part, the strategy has deeply failed progressives. Not only do Repugnicans keep winning, but even a Democratic win, like Clinton, is still a presidency that rolls back the clock on progressive gains.

Only when the Democrats realize that they can't take the progressive vote for granted will they move left to win back that vote and embrace at least some progressive causes. As it is, why should they embrace any? They have your vote and they know and you know it.

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Only when the Democrats realize that they can't take the progressive vote for granted will they move left to win back that vote and embrace at least some progressive causes. As it is, why should they embrace any? They have your vote and they know and you know it.

---

quote:

---

And the only way they are going to realize that is by the left mounting a principled electoral challenge in as many states as possible.

---

In order to mount a "principled" challenge, you will have to tell us, not why Obama is bad, but why you are better.

Just sniping won't do that. Only fools think that "Obama is unprincipled" is an argument in FAVOUR of anything, much less "the left".

You use "principled" because you are afraid of compromise, and you think that some fine day, you will be able to impose your party programme (principles) without compromising.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:

Jeff keeps repeating this and no one answers.

---

I'm very happy that this board allows Obama's sellout to be exposed.

But if it's a game in which we "expose" the Democratic nomineee (by far the most progressive since George McGovern), then let's also decide whethere there is anyone out there with a better, more realistic programme.

But let's avoid those programmes which are basically pie-in-the-sky, "the workers will choose socialism in 2050" sorts of things.

It is not political, it is religious, to demand adherence to a programme without any intelligible plan for how to get there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
It would be wrong to say that a "serious progressive" could never be President.

"Never" refers to a lengthy period.

---

I'd say rather that a serious progressive can't be President in the current political environment. That can change, but it's something that's beyond the ability of a single campaign to do. Examining the success of neoconservatism in the US shows this.

Barry Goldwater couldn't be President in the political environment of 1964 - his conservative propositions were seen as far too radical and his stark anticommunism too dangerous. Ronald Reagan with a similar platform could in the political environment of 1980. Things changed - some as a result of various kinds of political organizing and others a result of events and trends. Even then Reagan had to do things hardcore conservatives can't have been enthusiastic about, such as promising not to touch Social Security.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
In order to mount a "principled" challenge, you will have to tell us, not why Obama is bad, but why you are better.

---

But there are others on the left who are. Feel free to read the programs of Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, for example. Only the brain-dead and the incorrigibly right-wing (but I repeat myself) would be unable to see how they are "better" than Obama.

quote:

---

You use "principled" because you are afraid of compromise, and you think that some fine day, you will be able to impose your party programme (principles) without compromising.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
I'd say rather that a serious progressive can't be President in the current political environment. That can change, but it's something that's beyond the ability of a single campaign to do.

---

But how many campaigns will be sufficient? Five? Twenty? Thirty?

Please tell me that.

Some issues are important to me. I was hoping that Obama meant that he would like to reopen NAFTA but I also figured no body had quite explained the oil clauses to him. As a progressive Canadian I would love to see it scrapped all together and the only likely way that will happen is that like at the turn of the last century the american people will demand their government get out of all the free trade agreements or reciprocity as they called our deal with the eagle.

As well I would like to see our neighbour reduce its military and quickly move towards nuclear disarmament put I am not going to hold my breath.

I would also like to see the US stop interfering in the internal affairs of other countries by both over and covert methods.

Those kinds of foreign policy issues are the ones that affect me and I see no difference between the candidates on them.

quote:

---

I judge Obama harshly like I judge America harshly because of the standard they claim for themselves.

---

Actually, with all respect, I think this is a convenient dodge.

It is hypocritical to judge one country with a different standard than others.

Not only that, but you must have noticed that all these "progressives" aren't criticizing McCain, who, I repeat is the only other POSSIBLE President.

Furthermore, it makes zero sense to pretend that, for example, countries like Cuba are NOT claiming that their system will liberate us all.

quote:

---

I have no problem with anyone "exposing" Obama, as long as we can also "expose" the political programme of those who hate him so much.

---

You claim, or imply, that we all have some sort of conspiratorial agenda here. Well I counter accuse. I suspect you have some sort of agenda.

What M.Spector puts forward, a movement of progressives to the Green Party, is in its very essence democratic and the way democracy is supposed to work.

But you have an irrational, angry, over-the-top response to the idea.

What is your agenda Jeff? Why do you attack the very basics of democracy - debate and voting - to hector us into supporting a man who represents the status quo?

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

It's true that many people have criticized Obama for this stance, and they may in fact be right. Good progressive people like Glen Greenwald think so.

But the case against FISA isn't a slam dunk either.

Morton Halperin, buddy of Daniel Ellsberg, wiretapped by Kissinger, supports the "compromise".

quote:

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08halperin.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

---

And John Dean, Watergate crook, but now a pretty reliable civil libertarian, does also:

ETA: Sorry, it was Glenn Greenwald. His statement is here and it is quite enlightening:

http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-new-statement-on-fisa.html

quote:

---

Whether it's better than the Protect America Act (PAA) is irrelevant. The PAA already expired last February. If the new FISA bill is rejected, we don't revert back to the Protect America Act. We just continue to live under the same FISA law that we've lived under for 30 years (with numerous post-9/11 modernizing amendments). So whether this bill is a mild improvement over the atrocious, expired PAA is not even a coherent reason to support it, let alone a persuasive one.

---

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I have no problem with anyone "exposing" Obama, as long as we can also "expose" the political programme of those who hate him so much.

But if it's a game in which we "expose" the Democratic nomineee (by far the most progressive since George McGovern), then let's also decide whethere there is anyone out there with a better, more realistic programme.

But let's avoid those programmes which are basically pie-in-the-sky, "the workers will choose socialism in 2050" sorts of things.

It is not political, it is religious, to demand adherence to a programme without any intelligible plan for how to get there.

And it is even LESS political to just criticize one person, while hiding one's own programme so as to avoid "exposing" its stupidity, datedness, and mendacity.

---

There are any number of people here who have taken a critical stance towards the Obama bandwagon. I don't know that any of us hate him, though. (I rather like him, as a person, myself.)

I doubt that we have a shared programme, either. In fact, I'd be quite surprised if we did. But I suspect we might be able to agree on a practical strategy involving support for a "third party" - an attempt to break the stranglehold, in other words. That's concrete and I don't think it's unrealistic, though it's not something that can be achieved in 2008, either. If we were Americans, we'd undoubtedly make the effort to do something about it. But since we're not, I don't think any of us have any reason to come up with a detailed plan of action.

Finally, if anyone thinks that supporting the Democrats is going to get us anywhere, that's the ultimate in pie-in-the sky reasoning. But I suspect that implicit in such support is something even worse: acceptance of a system meant to preclude any alternative.

[I changed a couple words. Nothing significant.]

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

I don't think it's unrealistic, though it's not something that can be achieved in 2008, either.

---

But what has never been made clear is why a third-party or non-party PRESIDENTIAL campaign is the best or the only way to do this.

It's a huge investment of time. It takes money non-party people can never raise. And a third-party or non-party presidential campaign is guaranteed to get no positive national attention at all. Why does it have to be a hopeless effort to take the White House or nothing? I've asked this repeatedly, and never received a coherent answer.

Why could the same challenge not be mounted through legislative or Congressional races? Or through initiative campaigns in the U.S. for progressive ideas(a tactic which has actually been quite successful, as the success of "living wage" initiatives in many states in recent years or the repeated passage of nuclear freeze initiatives in the U.S. in the Eighties demonstrates).

Or using the energy that achieves nothing organizing third-party presidential campaigns and putting it, instead, into a serious national effort for electoral reform? Electoral reform initiatives, properly worded(call them Real Elections Initiatives) would have an excellent chance of passage, especially with so many people feeling alienated from the process.

Some people have argued that not supporting third-party presidential politics is a surrender. It's not. It's simply a different choice of tactics. The approaches I've mentioned above have a far greater chance of actually achieving something positive, without creating resentment among the natural base of potential U.S. progressive politics, the Democratic coalition.

The system needs to be challenged. Third-party or non-party presidential campaigns(the kind Spector insists we have to waste our time on just to prove we're on the left and not wimps)are simply not the way to do it. Nothing that helps the far right hold unaccountable power in the short-term can possibly have long-term progressive results in the U.S.

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

It appears there is no white Democrat so far to the Right that Obama will not lend him support - even in a race against a progressive Black challenger.

Obama recently cut a campaign radio commercial for U.S. Rep. John Barrow (D-GA), a "Bush Democrat" if there ever was one. Barrow, a Blue Dog Democrat whose fulsome praise for Bush should be an embarrassment to his party, faces challenger Regina Thomas, a state lawmaker from Savannah, in a district where Blacks make up 70 percent of Democratic primary voters. Thomas has no money, but she is backed by progressive bloggers like Matt Stoller of Open Left, who says: "I don't know what kind of game Obama is playing, but using his remarkable brand to protect conservative Democrats is a move reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi endorsing Al Wynn" - the corporate-backed incumbent defeated by progressive challenger Donna Edwards, in Maryland, this year.

The lesson seems clear: Obama is not only moving steadily to the Right; he is showing he prefers white, rightwing company at every step along the way.

---

ETA:
Here's what a "good progressive person like Glenn Greenwald" has to say about this.

quote:

---

What makes this even more amazing is that, as the article notes, Barrow cynically waited until after Obama's sweeping primary victory in Georgia to endorse him. He did so only once he saw that Obama would likely be the nominee and obviously with the hope of having Obama encourage Barrow's sizable African-American constituency to support him. And now Obama turns around and intervenes in a Democratic primary on behalf of one of the worst Bush enablers in Congress -- not in order to help Barrow defeat an even-worse Republican, but to defeat a far better and plainly credible Democratic challenger.

For all of Obama's talk about the wicked ways of Washington, these incumbent protection schemes -- whereby Beltway power factions all help each other stay in power no matter their ideology or positions -- are among the most vital instruments for perpetuating how Washington works. Democratic leaders pretend that they are forced continuously to capitulate to the Bush administration due to their "conservative" members, yet continuously work to keep those same members in power, even when it comes to supporting them against far better Democratic primary challengers.

Obama has made himself a central part of that rancid scheme. Recall that in 2006, Obama -- who now touts his commitment to ending the war -- endorsed Joe Lieberman in his Connecticut primary race over war opponent Ned Lamont, appearing with Lieberman to say: "Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America . . . . I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate."

---

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

Jeff, please don't call people who disagree with you on the question of voting for capitalist parties "fools".

New political parties and movements HAVE emerged, and sometimes come to power, in several countries in the Americas and elsewhere. How about Evo Morales, a breakthrough both in terms of being Indigenous himself and giving so much importance to the historic claims of Indigenous peoples (which was not the Communist line; the latter emphasised the urban working class and played down the Indigenous question). Or, despite his faults (stemming from his military background), Chavez? He has done a great deal to improve the lives of the poor in Venezuela, and personally I find the partnership between Venezuela and Cuba far more positive than the old model of Cuba being an American satellite of geriatric-stalinist USSR. Exchanging petroleum and medical care has helped both countries, and is also opening up Cuba far more than before as many Cubans do co-operative work in Venezuela and elsewhere.

[ 09 July 2008: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Oh, I see. So who do you support in 2008, while waiting for this other party to be formed and be come victorious down in the future?

---

I think the answer is clear. For those who want there to be a strong alternative (such as the Green Party), you can't just wait for it to suddenly have half the country's support overnight. You have to work for them and support them and build the support over multiple elections.

So, those progressives who believe that the Democrats will always take their votes for granted and will never respect their base (and all the evidence has shown that this is true) and who want to withhold their support until the Democrats actually become progressive, will support a progressive alternative until that happens. Like the Green Party.

quote:

---

But what has never been made clear is why a third-party or non-party PRESIDENTIAL campaign is the best or the only way to do this.

It's a huge investment of time. It takes money non-party people can never raise. And a third-party or non-party presidential campaign is guaranteed to get no positive national attention at all. Why does it have to be a hopeless effort to take the White House or nothing? I've asked this repeatedly, and never received a coherent answer.

---

You're the one who says it has to be an effort to take the White House or nothing. I say concede the White House. Nor does it take massive amounts of money and time. It merely takes progressives, activists, to make a conscious decision to take their whatever money they do contribute, and their votes, to the Green Party. The message will be loud and clear to the Democrats: Do not take our vote for granted.

quote:

---

Why could the same challenge not be mounted through legislative or Congressional races? Or through initiative campaigns in the U.S. for progressive ideas(a tactic which has actually been quite successful, as the success of "living wage" initiatives in many states in recent years or the repeated passage of nuclear freeze initiatives in the U.S. in the Eighties demonstrates).

---

Last I heard, the Democratic congress has an approval rating to match Dubya's.

quote:

---

Or using the energy that achieves nothing organizing third-party presidential campaigns and putting it, instead, into a serious national effort for electoral reform? Electoral reform initiatives, properly worded(call them Real Elections Initiatives) would have an excellent chance of passage, especially with so many people feeling alienated from the process.

---

quote:

---

Some people have argued that not supporting third-party presidential politics is a surrender. It's not. It's simply a different choice of tactics.

---

quote:

---

now Obama turns around and intervenes in a Democratic primary on behalf of one of the worst Bush enablers in Congress -- not in order to help Barrow defeat an even-worse Republican, but to defeat a far better and plainly credible Democratic challenger.

---

At what point does it become clear that progressives and their issues in the US election, so long as their vote belongs to the Democrats, are irrelevant?

quote:

---

The approaches I've mentioned above have a far greater chance of actually achieving something positive, without creating resentment among the natural base of potential U.S. progressive politics, the Democratic coalition.

---

quote:

---

The system needs to be challenged.

---

quote:

---

Nothing that helps the far right hold unaccountable power in the short-term can possibly have long-term progressive results in the U.S.

---

Further to what I posted before, here's a nice breakdown of where Americans understand themselves to be politically:

quote:

---

The largest group, representing 24% of the nation’s voters, are both fiscally and socially conservative. Demographically, these voters generally reflect the population at large except that 85% are White and just 5% African-American. Sixty-seven percent (67%) are Republicans and McCain leads Obama 82% to 13% among these voters.

The next biggest block of voters, representing 20% of all voters, are both fiscally and socially moderate. Forty-nine percent (49%) of these voters are Democrats and 33% are not affiliated with either major party. They are a bit less likely than the population at large to have completed college but demographically reflect the nation in most ways. Obama leads among these voters 59% to 30%.

Fifteen percent (15%) of all voters are fiscally moderate and socially liberal. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of these voters are women and they are more likely than most voters to have completed college and to have attended graduate school. They favor Obama by an 80% to 13% margin.

Two groups of voters each include 10% of the voting population—those who are fiscally conservative and socially moderate along with those who are fiscally moderate and socially conservative. Among the first group, McCain leads 67% to 25%. Among the latter, McCain’s advantage is smaller, 51% to 40%.

Nine percent (9%) of voters are both socially and fiscally liberal. Not surprisingly, Obama dominates among this segment of the electorate and leads McCain by a 91% to 6% margin. These voters tend to have somewhat higher incomes (25% earn at least $100,000 a year) and are a bit younger than the population at large. Fifty-seven percent (57%) are women.

---

From Rasmussen.

quote:

---

45% of McCain supporters are both fiscally and socially conservative, 15% are fiscally conservative and socially moderate, 14% are both fiscally and socially moderate, and 12% are fiscally moderate and socially conservative.

---

- Obama's strategy is to keep his base and attract some of the 29% that are socially moderate.

- Apart from FISA, I think people are more realising what Obama's positions are, rather than Obama changing his position. The problem is that this is the stage of the campaign where the RNC and McCain are trying to "define" Obama, and any media reports that he's drastically changing his positions is damaging.

- You can't run as a progressive/social liberal and win the US Presidency. Clinton received 44 million votes in 1992, and Dubya received 60 million votes in 2004. The US has become a more right-wing country from 1994 until now. It's a country where only Carter and Clinton have won for the Democrats since 1964. This just in - Obama is not a white southern Governor. He may have the same advantage in certain states (out west, Georgia) that Clinton enjoyed with Perot (Barr, the Libertarian candidate), but he can't count only on that, especially since he needs to build in a 2-3% pencil wavering in the ballot box, can I vote for an African-American, factor.

- This idea of the Green Party. In the 2000 Presidential election, Ralph Nader was on 44 state ballots and received 2,883,105 votes, or 2.7% of all votes cast. In 2004, Nader, as an Independent, received 465,650 votes, with the Green Party's 2004 nominee, David Cobb, receiving 119,859 votes. So, you have to question what in the world was going on for four years from 2000 to 2004. Their two strongest states, in terms of elected officials, are California and Wisconsin. In 2004 in California, Cobb received 0.40% of the vote. Both California and Wisconsin are in the bag for Obama. If their two strongest states were swing states (say, Missouri and Iowa), I'd understand the interest in the Greens. In 2008, you have a Democratic nominee is leading, is commited to universal health care and withdrawal from Iraq, and who will have a movement outside of Washington of 1.5 million to pressure his agenda to be put in place.

quote:

---

- Obama's strategy is to keep his base and attract some of the 29% that are socially moderate.

---

quote:

---

- Apart from FISA, I think people are more realising what Obama's positions are, rather than Obama changing his position.

---

quote:

---

The problem is that this is the stage of the campaign where the RNC and McCain are trying to "define" Obama, and any media reports that he's drastically changing his positions is damaging.

---

quote:

---

- You can't run as a progressive/social liberal and win the US Presidency.

---

quote:

---

Clinton received 44 million votes in 1992, and Dubya received 60 million votes in 2004. The US has become a more right-wing country from 1994 until now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Actually, with all respect, I think this is a convenient dodge.

It is hypocritical to judge one country with a different standard than others.

Not only that, but you must have noticed that all these "progressives" aren't criticizing McCain, who, I repeat is the only other POSSIBLE President.

Furthermore, it makes zero sense to pretend that, for example, countries like Cuba are NOT claiming that their system will liberate us all.

So, in order to avoid a swamp of differing standards based on some unarticulated argument, I think it's best to apply equal standards to the behaviour of each country.

---

But even if we apply the same standard to all countries it seems to me that two countries in the last fifty years are in a league of their own when it comes to interfering in the politics of other peoples countries,. Take the plank out of your eyes America is a problem in the world just as the Soviets were. If I am to accept that America is not a problem I would have to accept that Putin is a democrat because they too have now set up a democratic facade. You see I believe neither Putin or Bush are democrats and I yearn for democracy where citizens have a say in important economic decisions and where my government doesn't attack other countries without a debate among the people.

quote:

---

"The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is proud to endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. He is a passionate advocate for women's rights, and has a long and consistent record of standing up for women's health care. As president, he will improve access to quality health care for women, support and protect a woman's right to choose, support comprehensive sex education to keep our young people healthy and safe, and invest in prevention programs, including family planning services and breast cancer screenings."

The organization said this is only the second time in its history it has endorsed a presidential candidate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
But what has never been made clear is why a third-party or non-party PRESIDENTIAL campaign is the best or the only way to do this.

It's a huge investment of time. It takes money non-party people can never raise. And a third-party or non-party presidential campaign is guaranteed to get no positive national attention at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:
You're obviously right, he's alienating his base ... a press release on Monday from Planned Parenthood:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by torontoprofessor:

I was no particular fan of Ross Perot, but I might note that at one point he did get a lot of positive national attention: indeed, at one point he was even leading in the polls at 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton). (This is according to wikipedia, but easily double-checked.) So a non-party presidential is not "guaranteed to get no positive national attention at all."

---

The alternative is to once more vote for a right wing party, the Democrats, that don't care about progressive issues. Essentially throw away your vote. Might as well just stay home. And I don't buy the mantra McCain will be worse than Obama. That is a terrible reason to elect someone, first off, and second off, whether your issues are ignored by Republicans or Democrats is immaterial. They are being ignored.

[ 09 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Is his base institutional or popular?

---

He's the first Democratic candidate in my lifetime to have both.

I'm a bit late coming to this parallel world where McCain and Obama are the same (Gore/Bush would have been the same, I guess - tax cuts from Gore, a war on terror from Gore, same Supreme Court appointees from Gore, etc).

So, some obvious things to point out:

- Obama hasn't run as a left-wing progressive candidate. He's not Nader. He's not Kucinich. He wants to mobilise voter registration and community organising amongst Democrats, and amongst independents/Republicans who will vote for him. He's not going out and organising left-wing voters who view the Democrats as the same as the Republicans.

- Folks have misunderstood his opposition to the Iraq war. He feels it was the wrong war to have fought. He's not anti-war. Most Americans aren't anti-war. Most US voters this year aren't anti-war. This is how a country that was forged in a war of independence, and a civil war, thinks differently to Canada. Heck, he's made it obvious, his comments on Pakistan were months and months go, or read his 2004 convention speech:

quote:

---

I thought of families I had met who were struggling to get by without a loved one's full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or nerves shattered, but who still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists.

When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

Now let me be clear. Let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated.

---

- He hasn't hid his faith, so why the surprise about supporting/renovating Bush's office for faith based activities?

- The abortion issue: it comes down to one word, "mental health" or "mental illness" ... we'll see how his position develops over the next month or so.

- The idea of "tacking to the centre for evangelicals" -- there are, you know, evangelicals who aren't right-wing neo-liberals, who just might vote in droves for Obama:

quote:

---

Far from alienating people with such language, Bell’s Mars Hill Bible Church draws thousands of new worshipers each year from the mostly conservative and white suburbs of west Michigan. In one recent sermon, available as a podcast from MarsHill.org, Bell tells his congregation that the only time Jesus speaks of God directly taking someone’s life is the Parable of the Rich Fool (Luke 12:13-22), a story about a man who builds bigger barns to store a surplus harvest instead of sharing it with those in need. He closed the sermon by listing a dozen places around Grand Rapids where congregants could unload their own surplus wealth.

In his book Irresistible Revolution, 30-year-old author Shane Claiborne, who is currently living in Iraq to “stand in the way of war,” asks evangelicals why their literal reading of the Bible doesn’t lead them to do what Jesus so clearly told wealthy and middle-class people to do in his day: give up everything to help others.

The popular evangelical Christian magazine Relevant, launched in 2003 by Cameron Strang, the son of a Christian publishing magnate, contains a “Revolution” section complete with a raised red fist for a logo. They’ve also released The Revolution: A Field Manual for Changing Your World, a compilation by radical, Christian social-justice campaigners from around the world.

Bell and Claiborne are two of the better-known young voices of a broad, explicitly nonviolent, anti-imperialist and anticapitalist theology that is surging at the heart of white, suburban Evangelical Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:
...I'm a bit late coming to this parallel world where McCain and Obama are the same (Gore/Bush would have been the same, I guess - tax cuts from Gore, a war on terror from Gore, same Supreme Court appointees from Gore, etc)...

---

Do you assume that promised tax cuts at home from candidate Al Gore would have prevented Osama bin Laden from attacking the United States? Would Supreme Court appointees from Al Gore have changed the location of oil Middle East oil reserves to the U.S.? Would the election of Al Gore instead of George Bush have made eight years of Bill Clinton shaping world history an irrelevant factor in what the rest of the world did after he left office?

I don't.

Obama and McCain are the same in the sense that both are supporters of capitalism, terrorism and war as a solution to international problems directly affecting the U.S. economy, and both are willing to mislead voters about who and what they really are in order to win the election.

Either cadidiate, the Democrat or the Republican, will be a disater for working class people at home and abroad because neither represents the interests of the working class. Obama and McCain are two proxies of the American ruling class' will over the vast majority of Americans. How can anyone think that one or the other would be better for "progressive" ideas? Didn't eight years of Bill Clinton the progressive prepare the way for eight years of Bush the conservative?

If you think that capitalism simply needs to be tinkered with so that it is more fair to every class then you can stop reading here because I have nothing else to say to you. But, if you think that since after WWII (at least) the two-party system in the U.S. has acted as partners in keeping the working class as far away from controlling their own destiny as possible, then we have some room to discuss.

tl;dr Promoting the Democrats as the lesser of two evils is fantasy, and history has proven this theory wrong. The absence of a viable labor-based political party in the U.S. does not change this reality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
People may dislike Dick Morris for a variety of reasons, but he’s a modern-day Machiavelli who has a brutally keen sense of American politics. Morris say, “Even if Obama means what he is saying as he moves to the center trying to win the general election, the fact is that he will be forced to move very far to the left should he become president, forced by the liberals in his own party.”

Full story here.

---

I read the linked article and thought, hey, this is Dick Morris playing the moderate-right political pundit. To Morris, the word "left" is defined as anything that isn't immediately and obviously conservative. I was not impressed as you were, for any reason.

It will take "reasonable" bullshit artists like Morris, and the bombastic Rush Limbaugh types to fool undecided American voters into backing McCain. Obamas has the magic, the style and the showmanship that McCain never had, so Dick Morris is going to get paid a lot more often through the election.

quote:

---

- Obama hasn't run as a left-wing progressive candidate.[snip]

- Folks have misunderstood his opposition to the Iraq war. He feels it was the wrong war to have fought. He's not anti-war.[snip]

- [snip] why the surprise about supporting/renovating Bush's office for faith based activities?[snip]

---

And then there is the about face on FISA, and NAFTA, his support for the Iran war resolution, and his support of pro-Bush, right wing Democrats over progressive Democrats.

Guess what WW? I agree with you whole-heartedly. Obama is not a progressive. But that merely returns us to where we began which is the argument that progressives ought not be supporting Obama as they would be working against their own interests, values, and principles.

quote:

---

Patrick in Chicago wrote “Can I get my money back this candidate appears to be defective” and Christopher from San Francisco put it simply “Senator Obama, you fail.”
Ouch.

. . . .

Armando Llorens, who blogs under the name Big Tent Democrat, at TalkLeft.com took issue with the comments Mr. Obama made yesterday saying that his support for the bill was not politically motivated, but rather represents a genuine policy disagreement with more liberal elements of the Democratic Party:

“I do not believe Barack Obama. I will go further. I do not want to believe him. Because the alternative is worse. Because if Obama believes the BS he said about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is not fit to be President. If Barack Obama really believes this about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is as dangerous as George W. Bush.”

. . . .

The F.I.S.A. bill passed 69 to 28 in the Senate today, and a number of prominent Democratic senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Chuck Schumer of New York, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Mr. Obama’s former rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, voted against it.

. . . .

Blogging on Open Left, Matt Stoller wrote: “It’s interesting to consider how Clinton would have voted were she the nominee, and there’s no way to know now.” But, he added, “kudos to Clinton. It’s ironic so far I suppose that Clinton is of late a more reliable ally than Obama, at least on this issue.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robespierre:
[QB]
Obama and McCain are the same in the sense that both are supporters of capitalism, terrorism and war as a solution to international problems directly affecting the U.S. economy

---

So are most Americans - though they wouldn't put it like that. They are in favour of the US using its armed forces elsewhere to advance the national interest where it's seen as compelling (the standard of that is what a lot of American foreign policy debate is about) and the other tools of foreign policy haven't worked. They expect that a President will use the armed forces in such a situation and woe betide a Presidential candidate who looks like he or she wouldn't.

quote:

---

Promoting the Democrats as the lesser of two evils is fantasy, and history has proven this theory wrong. The absence of a viable labor-based political party in the U.S. does not change this reality.

---

I think it's a fair description to call the Democrats the lesser evil. It makes a rather large difference to women's rights, for example, which party gets to nominate Supreme Court justices. Environmental and labour policy was marginally better in the Clinton administration. It's thin, but it's there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Whether it's through electing better Democrats or organizing a new party, changing this situation is work for the long term and from the bottom up. Presidential politics isn't a very effective place to start.

---

Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney are reaching far more people with their ideas during 2008 than they ever would be able to if they were running for Congress or senate in, say 2006 or 2010.

Also the very process of getting a presidential candidate onto the ballot in as many states as possible - arduous though it is - affords an opportunity for third party activists across the US to get out and talk to people and mobilize their support. Nader, for example, has organized "Road Trippers" - young people who spend their summer going state to state to get Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot by signing up as many people as they can on nomination papers to meet the byzantine requirements of each state's election laws.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
But it'll take a few more betrayals before he loses my vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:
Here, in case anyone cares, is what Senator Obama himself has to say about "sellout" or "centrist" moves. There are also comments from 386 people.

Obama Addresses Critics on ‘Centrist’ Moves

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

I wonder if there's anywhere else in the world where a person opposed to socialized medicine would call himself "progressive".

---

I am not sure I understand what you're driving at. There is no one in the US who has favoured a European or Canadian style system that would entirely replace employer provided plans as the mainstay of the system, certainly not Hillary Clinton.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:

I am not sure I understand what you're driving at. There is no one in the US who has favoured a European or Canadian style system that would entirely replace employer provided plans as the mainstay of the system, certainly not Hillary Clinton.

---

I am not sure I understand what you're driving at. I certainly wasn't suggesting that Clinton was "progressive"!

And whether Canada, with the kind of health insurance scheme the U.S. has, would have brought in "a universal, single-payer plan" is likewise irrelevant to my point

[ 09 July 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

There is no one in the US who has favoured a European or Canadian style system

---

quote:

---

[QB]Progressives ought to be moving en masse to the US Green Party.{/QB]

---

It would be fine if this were only done on the Congressional level. It could have NO positive effect if it led to McCain winning.

[ 09 July 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

certainly not Hillary Clinton.

---

It was just one more let down and failure by US democrats.

quote:

---

In August 1994, Democratic Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell introduced a compromise proposal that would have delayed requirements of employers until 2002, and exempted small businesses. However, "Even with Mitchell’s bill, there were not enough Democratic Senators behind a single proposal to pass a bill, let alone stop a filibuster."[23]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
the very process of getting a presidential candidate onto the ballot in as many states as possible - arduous though it is - affords an opportunity for third party activists across the US to get out and talk to people and mobilize their support. Nader, for example, has organized "Road Trippers" - young people who spend their summer going state to state to get Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot by signing up as many people as they can on nomination papers to meet the byzantine requirements of each state's election laws.

---

And at the end of that all, they will finish with, at best, 3% of the vote. Yay.

It's much more reasonable to expect someone like that to be able to come up the middle in a House or Senate race with 30+% of the vote somewhere especially receptive to them than nationally. You think either of them can raise the billion dollars that's now needed for a competitive Presidential campaign?

quote:

---

Millions more USians will know who Cynthia McKinney is if she runs again in 2012 than ever heard of her when she was a "mere" Democratic Party congresswoman from Georgia for 12 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
And at the end of that all, they will finish with, at best, 3% of the vote. Yay.

---

Nor is it necessary to have a billion dollars to get a movement going. And once the nucleus of a viable leftist party/movement is in place, funding will follow. The labour movement will back it financially, for one. (You didn't seriously think a leftist party could ever take over in the US without the support of a newly revitalized and militant labour movement, did you?) Those millions of Obama-dupes who are sending their lunch money to the Democratic Party will instead send their money where it will do some good.

quote:

---

Unsuccessful Presidential candidates only rarely end up running again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

Wrong. Dennis Kucinich did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Hillary Clinton championed a universal health care plan. She was pilloried by the right wing media and so-called progressive democrats failed to rally to her defence. In the end, not being able to beat them, and enticed by the PAC dollars, I'm sure, of Big Pharma, she joined them.

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:

Whose he?

---

quote:

---

On the contrary, a presidential election campaign is the very time when voters and the MSM are actually paying the greatest attention to politics. It is a time when it is possible to address the widest possible audience and have them show at least a modicum of interest in what is being said.

---

Well. That simply isn't true.

As I said above, Nader in 2000 received 2,883,105 votes. Even then, there was only one state (Alaska) where Nader was above 9%. The Greens in 2004 received 119,859 votes.

If the Greens in the US were serious, they would have taken the results in 2000 and worked to improve them in 2001, 2002, 2003, and then concentrated on key states where they had been working for 3 years in the 2004 elections to be a 10-15% swing vote.

In areas where Greens are currently elected locally, or where they are finishing 2nd or 3rd in Congressional races, they may do well. Or where Greens are active all the year round (events, door to door campaigning, petitions, anti-war activities), they may do well. But, people have voted Democrat or Republican all of their life, and the idea that, here in July, with all of the MSM attention on Obama/McCain, that you can start a process of ripping them away from "their" party, won't work.

I think josh is right. Obama will have to drastically compromise even more for people to jump ship from the Democrats.

Folks are saying that 8 years of Clinton prepared the country for 8 years of Bush. I think that's very true. I think Clinton began rendition, and Clinton expanded the prison system and the death penalty.

Are the Democrats progressive? No.

Would a Democratic presidency, plus a Democrat-dominated Senate (54-55 seats), plus a Democrat-Congress inherently lead to change? No.

Would an Obama presidency, plus a Democratic Senate and House inherently lead to change? No.

But the kind of campaign that Obama is running -- engaging people at the community level, voter registration, running in more than a few swing states -- has the potential to create a different kind of politics, and different kinds of spaces for organising at the grassroots level after November 2008.

quote:

---

I think if you read the article you linked to you'll see I'm right. Her plan was nothing like the single-payer, Canadian or European plans. People would be required to buy coverage, perhaps with assistance. That is the type of plan that both Obama and Clinton had in their primary platforms this year.

---

In Ontario, up until not that long ago, there was an OHIP fee we all paid (i think it was like $35). That disappeared, I think under the Rae NDP government, but has been resurrected by the current Liberal regime as a "health tax".

Where the Clinton plan was a compromise, and not enough of one for the rabid right and limp Democrats, was that insurance coverage would be provided by private insurers rather than a public insurer.

quote:

---

Well. That simply isn't true.

---

American progressives seem intent on making the same mistake or rendering their own votes and influence irrelevant by tying their interests to a party, the Democratic Party, that has no interest in hearing them but takes their support for granted.