Voting is not a religious commitment.

It is the evil of two lessers and the lesser of two evils.  Of course it is.  So what?  I can still pull a lever for Obama expecting to be betrayed.  That is what the one-two party system is all about.  Real politics is on the net and in the streets.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1483 comments) on Saturday, August 2, 2008 at 6:39:35 PM
 

Obama: Neocon in liberal clothing

Obama can change substantially nothing. He has a prettier face and much smoother talk than McCain, but his real support comes from the same sources.  And he is choosing his  advisors from among the the Friedmanite Chicago Boys. Expect more of the same, but with a few more frills.

 I suspect that the Republicons want him to win. They have put up a candidate doomed to fail, and are handing Obama a failing economy and an unparralled foreign policy failure.  He has put forth no definitive plans to fix either of these, and the Democratic congress elected to do it promptly sat on its butt.  So what makes you think that Obama offer more than rhetoric and excuses for continuing down the same path?  And four or eight years down the line, the planned catastrophe will have had time to mature, the Democrats will be handed the blame, and the neocons will march back victoriously to claim the spoils, this time probably for good.

Real progressives would be busy organizing the masses to boycott the major parties by voting for Nader or McKinney, while bringing this government to a halt by recalling every congressperson and senator who refuses to accept money from special interests, imediately end the occupation in Iraq and the war in Iran and Afganistan, and demand  an impartial investigation into the real status of the economy and national fianaces. That's just for starters.

Obama is a pretty face, but he's the face of denial at a time when that is what this country can least afford.

by g.z. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Saturday, August 2, 2008 at 6:55:09 PM
 

Learn from experience

I'm not sure what a liberal is.  Most liberal Members of Congress vote for every penny for the military that Bush requests, and many advocate devoting even greater resources to mass murder, continuing to starve out social programs.  So if that is a liberal, I am most definitely not liberal.

If that's liberal, Obama is liberal.   He has consistently voted to support Bush in devoting over half of the discretionary budget for the military, has consistently supported funding for the Iraq War, supports escalation of the war in Afghanistan (which has a long history of foreign powers trying to exercise influence and always failing), and has a campaign position for larger military spending and a higher number of active duty military forces.  Of course, all of these positions are virtually identical to McCain's.  But if that's liberal, liberals should vote for Obama.

Now if you're not a liberal by this definition, and perhaps believe in peace and progressive causes, it's a different story.  Such folks in election after election have been voting for Democrats who never support our positions on the theory that at least they're better than the Republicans, and the results are painfully obvious to anyone who will look (not many, unfortunately).  If you want to get the same results we've been getting for decades, do the same thing and vote for Obama.  This is literally insane, since insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.

The Democrats will not change as long as they can get our votes while continuing to be militarist and imperialist.  It's time for some accountability.  Unless a Democrat takes a position for real change (and if an incumbent, has proved it's not just rhetoric by his/her actual votes), then refuse to vote for him.  The two-party system is not in the Constitution.  You can vote for third party or independent candidates, and you should if they generally stand for sound policies and the duopoly candidates don't.

by Bill Samuel (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 378 comments) on Saturday, August 2, 2008 at 7:18:28 PM
 

How to get a better deal when buying a house

Progressives who have thrown their support behind Obama are like some one looking at a house and the first thing they say when they walk in the door is, "I want this house, there's nothing that can keep me from buying this house.  Now how much do you want for it?"  What kind of deal do you suppose that person is going to get? 

So what kind of cocessions have progressives gotten from Obama by giving him their unconditional support.  The same as in every other election.  None.  If all these Republican lite positions are supposed to win centrist votes then why do the Democrats continually lose the center to the Republicans?  Because they demonstrate that they have no principles that they are willing to fight for.  In fact the majority of Americans are in favor of single-payer healthcare, withdrawal from Iraq, defending the constitution.  Obama's positions on these issues don't attract voters they attract corporate approval and money.

This is why our democracy is on its last legs.  Because both parties are bought and paid for by corporate interests.  What if all the people who wanted progressive change said, we'll only vote for candidates who are going to fight corporate power?  Then there will be a political shift in this country.  Not before then.

by Doug Rogers (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments) on Saturday, August 2, 2008 at 11:12:08 PM
 

Obama

The fact that Obama has ben losing support since he made his move to "the center" gives the lie to the theory that moving to the center is pragmatic and necessary in order to broaden his support.

His support is narrowing, not broadening, and he will be less effective as President because of it. 

by B York (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 108 comments) on Sunday, August 3, 2008 at 6:16:54 AM
 

The Middle Ground

Obama is not a dedicated liberal and if you think he is, it is time to get over that illusion.  He is a complicated character who will never fit into such a mindless classification.

Still, Obama is a smart and thoughtful guy and obviously a great politician. I have little doubt that he would be a dramatically better president than would John McCain. I have even less doubt that one or the other of these two men will become our next president.

Still, these considerations should not give Obama a free pass. Actions of politicians can be influenced by the voters and they are certainly influenced even more by wishes of their big financial supporters. Obama can and should be influenced by his political base and for that reason, his liberal political base should not just give him a pass by letting him know that this support will be there no matter what positions he takes.

Some of the disappointment at Obama's apparent drift can be viewed in this light. It creates pressure on Obama to pay attention to the wishes of his base and this is both useful and positive. There is a need for a delicate balance, and we will have to walk this tight-rope carefully. Voting for a minor candidate (or equivalently, not voting) needs to be there as a threat, but it would be a disaster for it to become a movement that throws the election to McCain.

by PrMaine (13 articles, 12 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 417 comments) on Sunday, August 3, 2008 at 8:02:25 AM
 

Supporting Obama

is throwing yourself under the bus.

The Democrats like to keep their powder dry, so we little folk think there is still hope that the mighty Democratic Party will rise up as one and do their damn job. Ain't gonna happen. 

 And, BTW, as I have pointed out so many times before, Nader did not cause Gore to lose the 2000 election. Gore did that. He lost his home state. Favorite son or what? He lost the home state of his boss, the outgoing President. He took Joe Lieberman on as his running mate for Heaven's sake. He ran a poor campaign. About 11 million Democrats voted for Bush-why don't you mention that? The Democrats lost that election in so many ways, but are unwilling to take responsibility for their own problems (sound familiar?) that they scapegoat another candidate. So are you saying Nader had no right to run? Are you saying those who voted for him had no right to do so? Well, that is the standard Democratic line these days. If you think your opposition will pull votes from the Dem candidate, then force the other candidate out, take away the ballot line in order to jimmy the election. Typical of the Dems. They just did it last week here in Maine, by removing ballot line access from a former Dem who was running against the annointed Dem for Senator Collins seat. And they wrapped their actions in sanctity and purity, suggesting they were saving democracy in doing so. It is pathetic. They can't, when it counts, stand up to the administration and end an illegal and unjust war, but they can eliminate a candidate who might have received a few votes  from ballot line access.  Why do they think that makes them look  like a good choice? I might have voted for their guy over Collins, but they can go fry eggs now, and I will campaign against our democratic Democrats every chance I get. For more info, google Portland Sunday Herald and look for the article on Herb Hoffman.

Obama does not get the benefit of the doubt and he should not. He is a Democrat. And just what have they done for us in the last few years? I won't recite the litany of charges against them again. We all know them too well, as well as we know the evils of the administration, so it leaves the question "Why give Obama the pass?" No reason on earth.

Question his word, examine his support, review his policies, votes, positions, weigh the nature of the people he has around him. Then ask yourself, would we be better off with Obama, the corporate stealth candidate, instead of a third party candidate?

Just say no to Obama, the Dems, McCain, the Republicans, and all the thieves in Washington. Throw them all out, excepting Kuchinich and a few others.

What does Obama say on the question of impeachment?

The answer to that will tell you all ot about him. 

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 517 comments) on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 11:44:29 AM