I know this will piss off some and possibly cost me some readers, but I've published dozens if not 100 plus articles bashing Obama and I've reached the conclusion that McCain may very well win because of angry progressives. So I'm going to be trying to persuade you, and you know who you are, that your rationale for supporting a third party candidate or staying home is really a vote to maintain another Bush in the Whitehouse.
I'm getting tired of hearing people say there is no difference between Obama and McCain, that they won't vote for the lesser of two evils. I put those people right up there with the toxic Hillaryites who hate Obama.
Then there are the "don't vote at allers" and the lesser of two evils purists who, practically speaking, by voting for candidates with zero chance of winning, are not really voting in a way that will affect the election.
At this stage in the game, they're all, in my opinion, anywhere from a bit nutty to flamingly out of their minds.
This planet has been afflicted with eight years of toxic, pathological, verging on apocaplyptically destructive, extreme right wing Republican leadership in the form of Bush and Cheney. McCain is doing all he can to convince his base that he will do more of the same.
And the afflicted aforementioned people think that Obama is "the same?"
I'm sorry, but this is not sane. Sure, obama is no progressive, not even a liberal, like the GOP claims. He's a centrist, pandering to right-leaning independents and the bluedog democrat types and he will surely get worse before November. But don't even try to tell me he is the same as McCain.
Start with the Supreme Court, move on to Unions, Science, global warming, taking care of the poor and unemployed, cleaning up the gap between rich and poor, taxes, protecting social security, and that's just the beginning.
When you throw your vote away on Nader or McKinney, who are good people, but distractors whose campaigns put the planet at risk of further right wing control, you demonstrate a loss of rationality.
Maybe it's anger. The Democrats deserve an immense amount of anger be directed at them. They suck. But they suck less than the Republicans. They are less destructive, less corrupt. I am not saying they are NOT corrupt. I am saying they are less so.
We need to do all we can to weed out the worst of them. I wrote an article praising PDA-- Progressive Democrats of America and some commenters disparaged them for working within the two party system. Excuse me for functioning in the world of reality. The short term situation is pretty bleak. I'll give you that. Most of the Democrats have repeatedly betrayed the voters. But they control the voting regulations and that means we are stuck with them until civil disobedience or beyond, like we saw in Selma Alabama 40 years ago, forces bigger changes. I don't see any of the victims of the psychoses I've described above doing anything more than calling names or throwing away their votes.
I know this article may infuriate some people and make them former readers. That may be the case. But I'm all about waking people up. I know that it takes a smack to the side of the head to wake some people up and then it takes strong caffeine to keep them up.
There are big problems in America. The Democratic-led congress has earned its dismal, single digit ratings by betraying the American people who elected them. Many incumbents should be voted out of office and I am sure efforts to do that will be redoubled in coming years. But meanwhile, those who have drifted so far left to think that they do the world, democracy or humanity a drop of good by voting, in swing states, for third party candidates, should have their heads examined.
There are huge differences between Obama and McCain. You won't get your pure progressive candidate unless you live in Vermont and can vote for Bernie Sanders-- and even he doesn't support impeachment.
So wake up already and realize that you have two choices-- vote for Obama, who is far from perfect, or do anything else, but realize that by doing so you are helping McCain to win, and that includes just bashing Obama, without offering constructive criticism. Oh, and about the Hillaryites who hate Obama and are still trying to destroy him so the superdelegates will change their mind and vote in Hillary at the convention. You're the most mentally impaired of all. Regardless of the sexism that occurred during the campaign, Hillary lost. Obama won and it is time to move on. The votes weren't stolen. Grown-ups made up their minds. Hillary lost because of her bad choices in following Mark Penn, and weak campaign strategies early on, not because of sexism. Progressives opposed her because she is a DLC conservative Democrat.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com and is a columnist with Northstarwriters.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
Two are favored by the corporations and the war profiteers. Two fit the mold for objective journalism that the corporate media like to lambaste we the people with.
The extra candidates---the minor candidates or those second class parties---well they make life too difficult. They make people have to consider the issues and we wouldn't want that in an election.
Elections are based solely on personality and I would much rather shoot hoops with Obama than McCain. Can McCain even shoot hoops? He is old...
If I am politically asleep, I wish to remain in this slumber for the rest of my life.
by
Kevin Gosztola (235 articles, 127 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 907 comments)
on Monday, August 4, 2008 at 11:47:08 AM
First, Who's Chuck Baldwin? I can't find a reference to him on OEN.
Second, if you go deeper and deeper into the issues, then you must face the reality that voting for candidates who cannot win, in the main election, which is very different from the primary, you take a stand on those issues by allowing the wrong man or woman to win. In Illinois, you can afford to vote for the ideal candidate. But not in VA, FL, OH, CO, AZ, NM, PA, MN, AK, NH.
The similarities are glaring and certainly less what you and I would like in a candidate, but the differences between McCain and Obama are huge and reason to not only vote for, but support Obama. We've been down this road in 2000 and 2004. Idealism is great for setting goals and targets and for longterm planning, but you also have to face short term realities.
We need to change the laws so there are term limits, equal treatent for third parties and something like instant runoff voting. THEN, we can have our cake and eat it.
by
Rob Kall (869 articles, 4016 quicklinks, 345 diaries, 1847 comments)
on Monday, August 4, 2008 at 12:13:09 PM
Vote for Obama is if it matters, even though it won't.
Elections are always about defense against the worst. Of course crooks devised the electoral process in order to preserve their power. Give up the perpetual virginity, vote, and be an activist in countless other ways.
by
John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1409 comments)
on Monday, August 4, 2008 at 11:50:05 AM
A Zbigniew Brzezinski protege versus an old self-styled Bush clone equals what result? A vote for Bob Barr. At least in my book.
How can I bring myself to vote for either of the two major party cretins?
If Obama wanted Bush impeached, I'd vote for him. If Obama called the "war on terror" a sham, I'd vote for him. If Obama wanted a new 9/11 investigation, I'd vote for him. If Obama wanted tougher FISA laws, I'd vote for him. If Obama promised to investigate the Bush administration for war crimes, I'd vote for him. If Obama had the guts to leave a flag pin off his lapel, I'd vote for him.
That said, and since none of the above is true, Obama can kiss my lilly-white derriere. If Obama were a real candidate instead of just another Bilderberger a--hole, I'd vote for him.
Bill and Hillary and I will be casting our votes for someone else this election season, thank you. Othwerise, I'd just be voting for a kinder, gentler machine gun hand.
No thanks. I'll pass. Call me crazy.
by
Sam Adams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments)
on Monday, August 4, 2008 at 12:21:09 PM
sorry, that's who you're kissing and supporting. You can put lipstick on your pig, but when you scrape away the words, the complaints, the comparisons, your vote will help McCain and put another Bush in office. I won't feel particularly good voting for Obama, but it's better than helping McCain, as you will be doing, though you choose to delude yourself otherwise.
by
Rob Kall (869 articles, 4016 quicklinks, 345 diaries, 1847 comments)
on Monday, August 4, 2008 at 12:40:47 PM
Each voter must decide on their objective in casting a vote this year. If the objective is to stop the fascist regime we currently suffer under, then, as a practical matter, casting a third party vote will be at odds with that objective.
If the objective is to protest the status quo, that may be the only way a third party choice makes sense. Another option I have seen advocated, boycotting the polls in protest of tampered elections, is an option in which I can find no shred of reason.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1301 comments)
on Monday, August 4, 2008 at 1:12:21 PM
I'm all about waking people up. I know that it takes a smack to the side of the head to wake some people
Rob, I’ll apply your thinking to the Republicans, the Democrats, Greens, Peace & Freedom, Libertarian and any other political party that seeks a seat in any election, be it city or federal.
I’m not voting for the lesser of two evils any more, so don’t tell me one thing to get my attention, then back out when you think it will lose you votes.If you don’t have the guts to take a position and stand by it, then do me a favor – keep your mouth shut.
I was neither an Obama nor a Clinton supporter.I never felt that Obama said much of anything substantial – he just has a wonderful way of saying it.Yet, when it appeared that he had locked up the nomination, I was ready to support him as someone offering a glimmer of hope.
Then the comment on how he so admired Reagan.I flinched.
Then he flipped on NAFTA.I groaned.
Then he flipped on FISA.Endgame.
I’ll vote third party, and if McCain wins, maybe, just maybe, the next time around, the Dems will put someone up there who isn’t in corporate pockets and who makes a stand for what he believes in.
It’s rather like the fellow who claimed to have the world’s smartest jackass.When asked to prove it, the man picked up a 2x4 and smacked the animal across the head, with the comment, “I just have to get his attention.”
by
Angelo (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 194 comments)
on Monday, August 4, 2008 at 1:16:14 PM
You're not being even half-assed fair here. Come on Rob, we know you can do better than this? So similar to Bush's "my way or the torture way" or "either yer with us or your agin us" crapola. Dude, get serious. You want to be taken serious, so why this? Come on, Rob. Bottom drawer is wide open. Shove it shut, willya?
by
Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments)
on Monday, August 4, 2008 at 1:39:55 PM
I am coming to believe that far lefties are going to hand...
I am coming to believe that far lefties are going to hand this election to McCain.
Ben Franklin said that the great thing about rationalization is you can rationalize anything. I believe that those on the left who advocate against Obama are helping McCain and could help him to win. Obama has a tough fight that is anything but assured. No other candidate can beat McCain.
Obama's stands suck on a lot of issues. But I stand by my Cancer/penumonia analogy. You don't get to choose sore throat. Pick Cancer or pneumonia or you will get cancer.
by
Rob Kall (869 articles, 4016 quicklinks, 345 diaries, 1847 comments)
on Monday, August 4, 2008 at 1:54:21 PM
What we're now witnessing, Rob, is the edge. We're on the raft, rapidly approaching the fall. Which side of the raft do we want to be on as we go over the falls? We're headed for a fall, no doubt. It's no longer left or right, no longer Rep or Dem. It's much much deeper than that. Push forward. Listen & learn. Time to refuse any further participation.
btw, did you read and or listen to Obama's Berlin speech? Can you too see through the rhetoric? Can you?
by
Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments)
on Monday, August 4, 2008 at 2:14:09 PM
When you're asked "who did you vote for?", there's an implication that you voted "for" someone because you support that person's stand on issues that are important to you. I can't vote "for" either of these candidates. Now, you get something on the ballot that says "None Of The Above" and I'm right with you.
by
Angelo (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 194 comments)
on Monday, August 4, 2008 at 5:43:19 PM
Neo-progressives are really just Democrats too ashamed to call themselves that. And you are all champions of lesser-evil, short-term thinking and certainly no believers in Thomas Jefferson's views about the need for periodic revolutions by the people. And of course you are all servants of the two-party plutocracy. You denigrate all of us who refuse to keep voting for the two-party status quo that has given us the fake, delusional democracy we now live in. Does it make a difference whether Obama or McCain wins? Of course, in the short term it does. But in the longer term all an Obama win does is sap and destroy so much of the public discontent making true, major, systemic political reforms impossible. I must admit, having concluded that Obama is a complete sham and just another lying politician, I would get great joy seeing the obnoxious and arrogant Obama lose the freaking election!!! I would have been impressed if from the beginning Obama would have said very publicly that he does not want to be defined and described as an African-American, but simply as an American.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (133 articles, 37 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 533 comments)
on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 7:57:33 AM
I think trying to label people like this is not helpful
Instead of labeling people "neo-progressives", you should drop the label and spend more time making an argument. I've said this to you before. You spend half of your comment defining a label that no one else uses and conveniently ignore the fact that labeling people terms that they do not choose for themselves is generally regarded as rude.
You could have easily avoided this and instead concentrated yourself on making an argument.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 12:41:35 PM
Try to get around it and I promise, I'll nail ya to it in retrospect.
Listen & learn. Let Obama take office. Vote for Obama. But please listen.
Personally speaking, imho, the NWO wants Obama to take office. Further: he is under SUPREME protection; they NEED him in office. Don't understand? Well, you're not paying attention.
This friendly message brought to you by a true RADICAL.
by
Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments)
on Monday, August 4, 2008 at 2:48:10 PM
We need to put a 1) man; 2) a man of color; 3) with a Muslim connection; 4) with a non-American sounding name to head the new empire as the neocons seek to quell the unending rebellion in the Middle East.
Obama is the chosen son... whether we vote for him or not.
And - over 90% of the country will be voting on software that can be hacked without detection... so why all the hoopla over elections? The hackers are in charge. That party with the best hack wins.
Let's stop pretending "this time it really matters"
[spitting on floor]
by
Rady Ananda (128 articles, 290 quicklinks, 37 diaries, 1130 comments)
on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 1:47:16 PM
Those who say there is no difference are fools. Yes, a Gore Presidency would have been exactly like Bush. B--s--t.
The Kevin-Ron Paul-Nader argument is specious. It ignores completely the ethos and historical development of the culture, is sanctimoniously purest, and ignores the relationship between leadership, the populace, and historical currents and events in shaping policy.
Yes I would love to do away with Corporate Capitalist greed tomorrow but as a student of history, I understand the nature of process.
Let me ask any of you personally. Ever have a deeply entrenched bad habit or addiction? Get over it in a day?
We're back in the year I was born, 1947 (last year a black was officially lynched in the US-the Military was just recently desegregated, women's place was in the home, racial intermarriage is banned and a crime in over 35 states. Oh, and the Democrats rule the South where blacks can;t get a sniff of voting-this is all for starters) and a person comes from the future and says, in 2008 a black man will win the Democratic nomination and be the *favorite* to be elected, and he beat a WOMAN to get there. Blacks and whites intermarry easily, women compete on a par with men in sports, and they actually have JOBS and CAREERS in influential places and have flooded the work force, and the MILITARY. Oh, and its now not illegal in most of the country to have sex besides the Missionary position. Etc, etc.
We have a history here. A lot of it is real bad shadow, real bad. But if you look at all the nations on Earth, those who have had positions of power on the world stage have always had problems with greed and corruption.
We are coming out of a horrific right wing period that was a counter reaction to the 60's and early 70's imprinted primarily by Reagan. Its so easy to be a privledged middle class white and complain about the imperfection and lack of purity of the candidates.
A friend of mine, a Buddhist living in Vermont pointed out to that America is a lot more than Ken Kaplan's place. When 44% thought Saddam was involved in 9/11 ,12% still think Obama is a Muslim, I think asking for deep reductions in the Military when most folks are still spooked about Terrorism ain't gonna fly.
Look, I was pissed at the FISA capitulation, Obama's Iran policy stinks and is one of his weakest points, and I am concerned that Afghanistan could become a quagmire. But he is exceptionally bright, has a tremendous personal organizing history, and I think is in tune with the broader issues that are on the table right now.
LIKE SAVING HUMANITY.
McCain will sink us for sure because he is an idiot and is bought and sold so far beyond Obama it isn't funny.
Are you aware of the concept of "political capital" and how it must be cultivated? Right now I read an article that Obama is considering prosecution of the Bush gang but it would have to wait until a second term.
Americans are a hugely brainwashed people. It is going to take some time to deprogram them. Sorry it doesn't fit your timeline for Utopia.
When was the last (or any) truly progessive President? Hmmmm. Don't say Carter, wrong guess. Maybe F. Roosevelt. He campaigned as a conservative, was called a "chameleon" and was hated by right and left. (same arguments against him as from you-sell out) So if he can't fit your bill, maybe Teddy, except for the Bush like doctrine in the Phillipines and elsewhere. Lincoln was a centrist and was hated by the abolitionists for most of the war.
Don't you get it? THEY DON"T EXIST.
Sorry, gang, this is what you've got. I admire your conviction. I feel much the same way issue wise but you're about 25-50 years ahead of the time intellectually. And I think pressure from activists will be important.
Look Obama could be a Democratic Reagan and rearrange the landscape or another Lyndon Johnson. But I know what McCain is and its four more years of Bush. If you believe there is no difference for America, for the world, for humanity between Obama and McCain, then you have far less intelligence and much too much self righteous pride for me.
Don't worry Rob. 2000 taught people a very hard lesson. There will not be the movement among the left this time as there was for Nader. The fire bu
