I agree with much of this, but you contradict your generally

progressive outlook when you complain that Obama's supporters "...include a former domestic terrorist, (and) a radical hate-selling pastor." Those are terribly unfair characterizations of Wright & Ayers, who are very admirable figures -- indeed, both are probably far more worth listening to than Obama himself. You are slandering Wright & Ayers in the same fashion that unprincipled swine like the Clintons or their rightwing friends (Limbaugh, Scaife, Murdoch, etc) slander them. It's a little jarring to see you stoop to such tactics, when most of your writing reflects an outlook that should be above that sort of thing.

I certainly agree with you that "lesser-evil voting is the root of all evil," so to speak. The willingness of Americans to vote for some lousy corporate Democrat just to defeat the latest Republican bogeyman goes far towards explaining how we got into this mess in the first place.

It's easy for the individual to fall into the familiar pattern of "Well, I've got no choice but to vote for Obama, because we just can't risk having a President McCain!" But if everyone always adopts this "strategy," we can never get better than a lousy corporate Democrat. We can never get out of the narrow range bound by vicious Republican demagogues on one side, and their corporate Democratic enablers, on the other side.

When I say "lousy," here, I don't mean that Obama doesn't seem like a very nice fellow, at a personal level. I do admire how he conducted himself with dignity, while Hillary was busy throwing mud at him, race-baiting him, & leftist-baiting him. He has an admirable personal bearing. But as you correctly point out, he hasn't said anything that's really progressive, as far as US militarism & corporatism are concerned. He's utterly conventional, apart from charm & personal attributes.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1013 comments) on Friday, May 9, 2008 at 1:43:42 PM
 

My perspective

We disagree about Wright and Ayers; I find both of them despicable, but what has been most enlightening for me is how Obama has used all kinds of nefarious people to advance his career.  Worse yet, he has still not admitted his lack of good judgment in not publicly condemning the terrorist actions of Ayers and the hate-filled positions of Wright years ago.  I have spent considerable time reading detailed accounts of Obama's career; the more you learn the worse he looks.  As someone dead against the two-party plutocracy I look forward to Obama losing to McCain -- maybe then more Americans will wake up!!

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (113 articles, 20 quicklinks, 46 diaries, 428 comments) on Friday, May 9, 2008 at 2:04:32 PM
 

I sure am glad I'm not as negative as you.

Let's hope most Americans don't want to shoot themselves in the foot like you Joel.

I don’t see anything in your article that makes any sense from a progressive point of view.

Let’s see… Let the insane, war-mongering Republican continue the Bush agenda, and then…. MAYBE, we’ll get a third party that Joel likes.

Maybe not. Maybe we’ll just get a worse Supreme Court, endless war, depression and economic disaster.

Your solution stinks. Please try to come up with a better option, otherwise, I and everyone else will just assume you are a closet Republican trying to beat down the Democratic turnout.

By the way, your attempts at denigrating Obama are not very convincing. He hasn’t taken PAC money, he hasn’t taken lobbyist money, and he has run a clean campaign. The Rev. Wright crap is straight from Fox News. You just don’t have any credibility with that argument. In fact, your arguments sound suspiciously like Rush Limbaugh’s. 

by John R Moffett (78 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 586 comments) on Friday, May 9, 2008 at 4:06:34 PM
 

A VOTE FOR NADER IS A VOTE FOR McCAIN

YOU HAVE TO BE INSANE TO VOTE FOR SOMEONE THAT ONLY GOT 2.74% OF THE POPULAR VOTE.Ralph Nader is a demagogue. He criticizes but does not offer solutions. He stands like a rock on "principles" but has done nothing, in spite of some achievements, to make a difference in the way corporate America does business. All of the reforms in car safety, for example, were passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices and fines for non-compliance. The car manufacturers cleaned up. By denying left and progressive Democrats a role in the political process, Nader apparently doesn’t understand the relationship between strategy and tactics. Tactics are not strategy, they only take into account the changing ways and means of the correlation of objective and subjective forces and forms of struggle, of immediate tasks, of defeats and victories, the ebb and flow, the phases of development, the historical and national specifics, selecting the time and place, maintaining flexibility, mobilizing alliances, refusing to jump stages. A strategy, on the other hand, is grounded in constant contact with the leading role of the people(without falling to their level, but raising them), the total movement, the final transformational objective, adapting to new circumstances without becoming lost, maintaining firmness in flexibility, elaborating the correct line, putting it in practice and mobilizing the forces for it. Nader apparently is unable to vary the formula, thus converting a tactic into a strategy, a sure way to fail. He shows not the slightest ability to understand the art of compromise, unable to retreat if the offensive forces are not yet developed, and when he fails, he can blame an unresponsive public. He refuses to work with established groups, but rather expects others to drop everything and join him, even though he has exhibited a scarce ability to form an enduring and growing political party over these many years. He won’t join another party, but he won’t develop his own. Instead of focusing on the defeat of the ultra-right, he focuses on destroying both parties by implanting a so-called third party, which in fact never materializes. Setting up a third party is typically sectarian. Someone who barely gets 2.74 % of the popular vote is scarcely a leader of the masses. All that remains is to put on the mantle of spoiler. Kucinich, by contrast, had a radical program, and ethically worked within the Democratic party. If he had not been sabotaged as he was, he would have had the whole Democratic apparatus on his side, and would have done so democratically. Nader refuses to declare himself during the Democratic contests, and waits until the primaries between Republicans and Democrats to declare himself, so he can throw a monkey wrench into the works. This allows him to attack liberal Democrats and line up with the Republicans in the name of progress. By equating Democrats with Republicans he helps nullify progressive Democrats and elects reactionaries. He parades around as being anti-corporate and helps vent revulsion in the country against big business. However, he has no day-to-day plan on organizing the masses and defeating the corporations for real. He claims to be for the working class, but has control over the middle class firmly in mind. A Princeton and Harvard graduate is hardly a working class hero. The fight over surplus value and profits is not confined to the shop floor but permeates all aspect of life. What you win on the shop floor or contract, your employer can take away in the legislature. This forces to workers to enter the political arena. Nader has nothing to say to working people, the majority of the population, and those who make everything function. What is holding back a more dynamic movement is Nader’s fostering of illusions among many working and middle- class people in the system, and who are not yet convinced that a new system is necessary. This leads to adventurism, where he can stand back and watch others take the rap. By denying tenacious and effective daily struggle, Nader leads people to failure, people who wind up as passive members of a demoralized organization. Instead of joining the movement of the present and fighting shoulder to shoulder for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of momentary interests of the working class, Nader says that the important thing is to "join us" in fighting for a more advanced position. Instead of uniting ALL progressive forces in the battle at hand, Nader plays a divise role by drawing activists into futile efforts on the basis of militant slogans and allegedly advanced positions. He is a middle class radical seeking short cuts and has no patience for the long-term organizing task of pushing the Democratic party beyond itself, forcing it respond to popular pressure. Nader’s answer to such criticisms is "Voting for a candidate of one's choice is a Constitutional right, and the Democrats who are asking me not to run are, without question, seeking to deny the Constitutional rights of voters who are, by law, otherwise free to choose to vote for me." , as a perfect example of petty-bourgeois individualism (defying discipline for a larger cause,) as can be found. In 1958 he owned more than $3 million worth of stocks and mutual fund shares; his single largest holding was more than $1 million worth of stock in Cisco Systems, Inc. He also held more than $2 million in two money market funds. He claims he pours all that money into his non-profit organizations.

by Antonio (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments) on Friday, May 9, 2008 at 4:33:34 PM
 

I have some suggestions for you. First, no one is going to

read through a long oration like this. You should use paragraph breaks, otherwise 99% of readers will just look at it & immediately decide it isn't worth the effort.

Second, you should proof-read before you post it. You typed, "... In 1958 he owned more than $3 million worth of stocks and mutual fund shares; his single largest holding was more than $1 million worth of stock in Cisco Systems, Inc." -- // Well, in 1958 Nader was 24 yrs old, and Cisco Systems hadn't even been founded yet.

Third, what you wrote is mostly hot air, dressed up with pseudo-radical sounding jargon. You're using phrases like "struggle, the working class, correlation of objective and subjective forces, surplus value, & petty-bourgeois individualism."  Yet you're using these fancy phrases to defend such quintessentially bourgeois positions as the extremely boring & thoroughly discredited argument that "A VOTE FOR NADER IS A VOTE FOR McCAIN."  

Your analysis of Nader is way off. You write, A Princeton and Harvard graduate is hardly a working class hero. It's not hard to think of many exceptions to an overly-broad generalization like that. // You say he "parades around as being anti-corporate..." Quite unfair, I think. He certainly is anti-corporate, & has been for his entire career. Who deserves to be called "anti-corporate," if not Nader?

You write, "He criticizes but does not offer solutions." This itself is a weak & boring criticism. It's usually a dead giveaway that what follows is poorly thought out. In fact, Nader is much better at talking specifics than any of the members of the 2 big-business parties. His program is not different from Kucinich's, which you seem to approve of.

You write about Kucinich, "If he had not been sabotaged as he was, he would have had the whole Democratic apparatus on his side." What are you talking about? Before being banned from the debates this year, Kucinich was at about 1% in the polls. He was "sabotaged," all right, but the sabotaging was done by the full force of the media & the Democratic Party. He had no backing whatsoever. I liked him, myself -- but he had zero percent of the "Democratic apparatus" on his side.

You also write, hilariously, "Kucinich....ethically worked within the Democratic party." What the hell is "ethical" about working within the Dem Party? If Kucinich were truly ethical, he'd leave the Democratic Party altogether.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1013 comments) on Friday, May 9, 2008 at 7:38:19 PM
 

full of it

Have you ever cut off your nose to spite your face before?

It's thinking like this that got us our first 4 years of Bush.

While I have admired Nadar for many years I never thought of him as presidential material. If he was, he would have been running as a progressive on the democratic ticket.

The time to change the party systems is not during an election, it's before.  Maybe you could work on that after November.

by Linda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Friday, May 9, 2008 at 9:41:38 PM
 

Look to the past elections.

In both 2000 and 2004 there were areas where third party and independent candidates were astonished to find that they had gotten many votes in districts where they had no supporters, and that there were districts where they had many supporters but got no votes.

That's because of the way that the central tabulators are programmed. If they have already allocated the required number of votes to the major party candidates, they switch some of the excess to third party and independent candidates, and if they don't have enough votes for the major party candidates, they switch the votes from third party and independent candidates over.

Before voting, I suggest everyone read my little warning:

click here

by Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 26 quicklinks, 63 diaries, 761 comments) on Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 12:45:07 AM
 

Vote

Vote for Cynthia McKinney or Brian Moore.

Don't support the carbon tax. Its a regressive tax designed to steal consumers money. Everyone has to use carbon dioxide since all vehicles transmit carbon dioxide. We also breathe out carbon dioxide.

by Ty Shlackman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 530 comments) on Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 10:14:21 AM
 

John R Moffett

Someone needs to inform John Moffett that Obama and Clinton are also warmongers and also intend to continue the Bush agenda which is more accurately described as the globalist agenda.

by Ty Shlackman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 530 comments) on Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 10:17:24 AM
 

I got to this party late, but

I'm interested in how Joel wants to break the statusquo. Perot, Nader and even Teddy Roosevelt all had good ideas. And the elections left them behind.

As far as Nader is concerned, he deserves respect for duelling with corporatism. We can give him some credit for making it an issue. But there are other issues in current global affairs. Militarism comes as a big part of the bottom line. To not think about turning national confrontations around, is to live with more of the same.

To me, process counts. It's the question of bottom/up as opposed to top/down in governing. Much as Obama tries for the way progressives have always forged change, he will be pressured to keep the economy strong with more defense contracts. So we take a risk by voting for him. And, in my view, the only assurance we have is that he will recognize the danger by our insistence.

Just think back on US economics since Viet Nam. We started losing a strong world presence with the first oil embargo. Reagan is credited with helping the Wall to Fall. What we must remember is he only just got a little luckier than the USSR. Since then Bush militarism has really bankrupted our nation.

I'll stick with Obama, because McCain is clueless on economics. And I'll worry from the day he's inaugurated if he continues to equate world strength with weaponry instead of diplomacy.

by Margaret Bassett (19 articles, 1007 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 550 comments) on Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 2:07:08 PM
 

Plain Speak

Ralph Nader is a principled, admirable loser.

Within the language system of the American political matrix, the last noun in that sentence renders moot it's two preceding adjectives.

A recidivist loser at that, and whomsoever votes for him is through association, a loser.  Ironically, since the country finds itself in critical decline in the final stages of Dubya's terminal administration, a case could be made that a loser is quite an appropriate symbol for this stage of our evolution.

Nader's ego's need to be intermittently prominent as presidential elections loom

illustrates regularly that far from putting the public's interest at the forefront, he is, I believe, the (possibly) unwitting shill for the compulsive media Election Influencer (like Rush Limbaugh & co), who share to some extent Mr. Nader's chronic and seasonal malady, a slightly altered version of Narcissistic Attention Deficit Disorder wherein they validate their importance to themselves by using their "power" to send sparsely mindful followers out to disturb the election waters, even ignoring laws and rules that forbid the interference, as was done in the primary in Texas.

This from the party that invented Law and Order. 

Such shennanigans might ordinarily be a good thing for a healthy, functional election process, one unsullied by greedy partisan fingers, though I daresay none but a base fool (like Bill O'Reilly) or a pathological liar (like Ann Coulter) would contend that we have such here, anymore than we have a representative national government.

Mr. Nader should be given his own talk show--Nader's Nadir or something --

so that he will have (in the public's interest) a regular podium to vent his exhausting tirades upon those who are endlessly fascinated by his rant mind-set. Spare us the one-man Historical Activist Circus from Captain Corvette.

Does he have a point?  Sure.

Does he have a shot?

I'd give him roughly the same odds of winning the presidency as I would to Exxon donating its next quarterly profits to orphans in Guatemala, calculated in multiple millions of digits. And that doesn't even take into account the Diebold variable.

We are talking Never-gonna-happen-my-friend.

So that means you could write in Jesus Christ or Salvador Dali to much the same effect of voting for Ralphie-Boy Nader, and with a lot more editorial flair.

by Randje Mitchell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments) on Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 12:13:44 AM