Choice in November - Nader v. Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dum - by Stephen Lendman
Each election cycle, hope springs eternal. Candidates promise change and voters buy it. Intelligent ones. People who know better or should. The current campaign highlights it. A surge is building for Obama, not for what he is. For what people think or hope he is - a populist, progressive, man of the people, a new course for America.
After the final June 3 primaries and "rush of superdelegates," according to The New York Times, they're stuck with him. The Times reports that he crossed "over the threshold (to) the 2118 delegates needed to be nominated...." Obama marked the occasion as his chance to "bring a new and better day to America (as) the 'Democratic' nominee for president of the United States of America."
It's not how John Pilger sees him. In a recent article, he calls him America's "great liberal hope." He compares his campaign to Bobby Kennedy's in 1968 and says: "Both offer a false hope that they can bring peace and racial harmony to all Americans." Kennedy spoke of "return(ing) government to the people" and giving "dignity and justice" to the oppressed. "Obama is his echo" with familiar promises of change, charting a new course, sweeping government reforms, addressing people needs, and "ensur(ing) that the hopes and concerns of average Americans speak louder in Washington than the hallway whispers of high-priced lobbyists."
He claims to be an up from the grassroots activist. In fact, he cashed in on opportunism all the way - to the Illinois Senate in 1996. Then after failing to win a US House seat, it was up a notch to the Senate in 2005 after his November 2004 election. He promised hope but delivered betrayal. He's beholden to power and doesn't relate well to ordinary constituents who backed him, including his black community base.
If he's nominated and wins in November, Marc Crispin Miller's "Fooled Again" will apply but in this case to promises made, then broken. Miller's book refers to the stolen 2004 presidential election. Kerry won big, Bush remained president, Kerry admitted to the author he knew he'd been had, then disavowed he ever said it in reverse "profile of courage" fashion.
An Obama victory will go Lincoln one better. It'll prove that the electorate can be fooled "all of the time" - at least enough of them to matter. And that leaves out election fraud in an age when:
I am a 72 year old, retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.
No question, Nader would be a more principled President than Obama. But a futile vote for Nader risks a national disaster - election of McCain, more neocons on the Supreme Court, more wars, etc.
To run a third-party candidate for President before the third party can elect a significant number of members of Congress - and thereby gain general recognition as being CREDIBLE - is either infantile or subversive.
by
Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 80 comments)
on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 10:07:23 PM
As wonderful as someone might think Nader is, a vote for him will not elect him to anything. A vote for Nader is a vote for continuation of war and quite possibly much worse.
by
PrMaine (10 articles, 8 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 341 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 8:34:34 AM
Right. like we worked to see Democrats elected in 2006 who said they would end the war, impeach, etc etc.
Like that happened. The Dems take some power in Congress and then stall, delay, subvert, ignore... Don't blame Nader for the war. Put the blame squarely where it belongs-on the Republicans and Democrats who form our national government.
Easy to pick in a straw man to blame for your troubles, when you yourself are responsible.
by
Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 316 comments)
on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 12:19:39 PM
you folks should stop all the ridiculous rubbish you pull keeping us off ballot lines and dragging us into court for the most frivolous issues.
We could have people in Congress, but that is not the Democrats game. They will brook no competition and will stop at nothing to keep competition from occurring, just as the Republicans.
We have every right to run candidates. You all have not, as yet, written laws precluding us from doing that.
If you want us to support you, well, not likely to happen, but it might make you think of running better candidates yourselves.
Democracy does not equal Democrat monopoly.
by
Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 316 comments)
on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 12:15:13 PM
Nader and his followers only seem to think in terms of parties. The Democratic leaders are cowards and sell-outs, so let's help trash our country to give them what they deserve? I'm a Democrat because this is a two party system. As long as it remains a de facto two party system, I'm a Democrat. Granted, the Party deserves ridicule, contempt, criticism. But what about all of us little people? Our lives, our children's futures, are being destroyed by the margin of difference between corporate liberalism and corporate conservatism. Granted, we only managed to push the party a bit to the left in 2006, but what's more realistic? Pushing further in 2008 or electing Nader for President?
I could write in Thomas Jefferson for President in November, and maybe get a charge of self-satisfaction for doing so. But Thomas Jefferson is dead, and if McCain wins by one vote, I'm screwed, my kids are screwed, far worse than if Obama wins. Let's build on what we have, not hope that things will only get better when we've hit rock-bottom. Get realistic, get grown.
by
Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 80 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 2:06:38 AM
5 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
