ensure that society's basic character can never really change.

Liberals don't understand what liberalism really is. Liberals imagine that their preferences make them morally superior to conservatives. What they don't understand is that liberalism is based on ceding the whole playing field to the right, then tacking on a few moral-sounding preferences at the end, only after they've given away the whole game.

For example, "We believe in a strong defense of national interests, (but we don't like war)." What this translates to in practice is 100% support for the military-industrial complex, & all the aggression that inevitably accompanies it -- plus the parenthetical little teaser at the end, which lets the liberal feel like a 'moral person' because he's 'against war.' So the liberal votes for pro-war big business Democrats, then goes to candlelight vigils. Or he insists that the pro-war Democrats he votes for aren't really pro-war; no, they're just "pretending" to be pro-war to get elected.

Another bit of liberal self-delusion is pretending that all America's crimes are due to "Republicans." Liberals refuse to see that the Democrats are complicit with virtually every Republican crime. There's always an excuse for that: "We simply didn't have the votes to stop them!," etc.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:38:44 AM

  (0+)

but I do.

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:58:56 AM

  (0+)

It had to be said and you both say it so well.

Thank you. I wonder if there is ANY way to get past their craven cowardice, denial and actual complicity.

I am at the stage of openly calling them on it everywhere I go.

Dear God in Heaven 

by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:33:34 AM

  (0+)

I keep reading how Obama will not change anything, how he will be right of Bush, that Clinton is a horrible choice----read alternet today----and anyone that believes differently must be "drinking kool aid", an expression I thought left our lexicon along with 'cool man cool". If I remember we had 2 choices and McCain/Palin was just not it but I will admit that all the negative alternet articles did get my attention. But, it would be nice to let Obama at least get sworn in and as far as what Rove thinks, or little Joe leb I could care less. We are even critical of candle light vigals, so I would guess that would cover peace marches and the marches Dr. King led.

As previously stated, Obama will give the marching orders and his administration will carry those orders out or he will replace that job. It is absurd to think that every thing Obama does will please all of us but at least I would hope he has the chance before calling for his head.

As to third parties I am all for them but ask yourself "what I did to promote a 3rd party candidate"? And lets cut to the heart, how much $$$$ did you give? Talk is cheap but how much dough did you give. And as far as not voting for a 3rd party because they had not a snowballs chance in hell to win, that has to be the individuals choice. A bit like a candle light vigal.

by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:17:17 PM

  (0+)

You and me are big enough to know that you can give marching orders to do evil but there is no way to give marching orders to do good. Somehow the good deeds can only be done   WITH THE CONSENSUS OF ALL THE CHAIN OF COMMAND! Goodness is intrinsically democratic, so to speak while evil is intrinsically totalitarian. It is thus a delusion ( sorry) to think that a good man Obama would be able to pursue the bad people ( and they are bad, sorry) to do good.  As such we better understand that the people put on those  key positions of power are the cadres chosen by those who helped Obama to come to power and try to realize that  the actual good features of the ruler do not mean  that the actual power would be good. 

As such as free citizens  of the US we have a right and obligation to express discontent and   do it as loud as possible: so far the people coming to power, ALL of them are the enemies of peace, Clintonians, unqualified and certainly open establishment agents. It is the truth. Eat your checkers.

This is   just a friendly reminder:)

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:41:40 PM

  (0+)

I refuse to change my opinion until I see more reason than I see now. I have been wrong in my life probably more than I have been right, so if i am wrong about Obama, it will be just one more time.

Peace

by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:23:15 PM

  (0+)

I myself discouraged voting for "third" party candidates. It was not so much because they couldn't win, although if we check the electoral results, it seems that they didn't. What's more Mickey, in the extremely unlikely event that your efforts improved their results by a factor of ten, they still would have lost.

But no, that isn't the big thing. The big thing is that if they were elected, they couldn't govern, at least not unless they governed as a dictator, and trust me, if you're any kind of American, you wouldn't like that any better than the brush with right wing dictatorship that we've suffered lately.

Moreover, I grow weary of being accused of being some mindless drone, following the Pied Piper to destruction by every half-assed street corner sign waver that manages to stumble out of bed in the morning.

Face it, your beef with Obama is that he isn't a hard left ideologue who will become the dictator you wish he would. He is, and has always been a centrist and never claimed to be otherwise. The other thing he is, is the best chance to move this country away from the right wing ideological government that has so damaged it over the past thirty years.

This country isn't supposed to be governed by ideologues, and if you'd crack a history book, you'd discover that those nations that are ruled by ideologues eventually come to bad ends.

Why don't you at least let Obama get sworn in and begin to govern before you start blowing hot air at him? I'm quite sure that your crystal ball is no clearer than mine, and with what your seeing in yours, I can only recommend that you move it over and clean the table underneath it.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:45:19 PM

  (0+)

'Face it, your beef with Obama is that he isn't a hard left ideologue who will become the dictator you wish he would. He is, and has always been a centrist and never claimed to be otherwise. The other thing he is, is the best chance to move this country away from the right wing ideological government that has so damaged it over the past thirty years.'

That above, unfortunately is not  true, John.  I can only speak for myself but as a reasonable citizen I voted for Obama because he claimed to represent  my interests. As a smart person I am  I also know ( and I wrote that in my comment above) that the soup is as good as its ingredients- that is people in charge reflect the goals of the governing group. As I see those people chosen by Obama  or for him ( and believe me, I can distinguish when I see a good cadre) are not the ones who will represent my interests. I thus protest, express my discontent and I don't need to wait until inauguration or two years or four. Those are four years of my life and I am not young.  I would advise also to remember that any man, even the best one is not ' the best chance'- the group, the party, the power system is.  Obama so far had  already demonstrated  a prowess to use the system for his own, personal benefits-  he had not so far demonstrated his prowess in using it for mine and I need just that.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM

  (0+)

Barack Obama explained his choice of people who know their way around the machinery as being better than others with a steep learning curve and multiple crises to deal with. Those he chose will have only the multiple crises to deal with.

It comes down to a question of leadership. Oddly, those who believe Obama has cast a spell over those who support him, believe at the same time that he will in turn be beguiled by the people he has hired to work for him.

I can't really fault anyone who doesn't recognize the real thing as far as leadership ability is concerned, because it so rarely presents itself to be recognized. But I see it in Barack Obama.

When he is sitting in a room full of people wrestling with a problem, he will be guiding the discussion to where he wants it to go. Then those people can go out and execute the solution. They may not even realize that they received a directive from him, but that is the kind of leadership he is capable of.

No, it's not a spell cast through a camera or microphone, it is a practical art for which he possesses a great deal of skill born of long experience with it.

That is my view of what we may expect. Anyone who wishes to may differ, but they should at least wait until he is sworn in before they start in about what a lousy job he's doing and how he has betrayed us. It just isn't so.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:19:53 PM

  (0+)

...isn't supposed to be governed by ideologues."

Actually, there's no such thing as non-ideological governance. The idea that such a thing could even exist is as much an illusion as the notion that the US represents "government of the people, by the people, & for the people."

To be sure, in the US the illusion that government should be non-ideological is encouraged & widely promoted. It's a cherished fantasy. But no such thing can exist, any more than news coverage can be truly "neutral & objective." Any news coverage tells the story a certain way. It can't help taking sides, because telling a story requires making choices, and how you make the choices reflects your perspective & your sympathies.

Similarly, any government must necessarily make choices, and these choices must either strengthen the position of society's ruling class, or weaken it, relative to the rest of the population. There is no such thing as a government that doesn't lean one way or the other -- and in fact, there's no such thing as a government that doesn't mainly serve the interests of the ruling class -- because any government that tried to, would be out on its ear in short order, & would never have come to power without the support of the ruling class in the first place.

The cold hard truth is that any given government is always just a front for the dominant social classes in that society. Its main job is to serve the interests of the top 1%, & to bamboozle the rest of the population into going along -- always maintaining the pretense that what is being done, is being done "for the good of all."

This is exactly what can be expected from Obama, and every one of his choices to date are solid proof of this. Like ALL US administrations of either big business party, this one will pursue militarism, imperialism, & the interests of the ruling plutocracy.

PS - Did you ever wonder why it is, in the US, that we are only allowed to have 2 parties, & that both of them are "big business" parties?

PPS - My favorite liberal excuse for appointing Wall St shills to control economic policy is that they have "experience." Oh yes, Robert Rubin and all his clones have "experience," all right. He, Geithner, Summers et al are the very people who paved the way to the current economic meltdown, who profited immensely from it, & engineered the bailout to save the skins of themselves & all their friends!

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:13:10 PM

  (0+)

might take a giant dump on your front lawn. Its past behavior would lead one to expect that. But if I'm on the other end of that leash, it's just not gonna happen. I won't let it.

You may look to Barack Obama to keep as firm a grip on the handful of leashes that he has taken up, as well.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:25:31 PM

  (0+)

If I knew where you lived I would buy you lunch:) I get a lot of "oh Dad" stuff from ny 2 40+ age kids and sometimes I think maybe I have fallen out of the loop. I still have a regular cell phone, do not own a ipod, do not know an actor under 50, and still buy whole chickens with the skin on. Like you, I would at least like to see Obama get in office before it is decided he is on the wrong side of the issues I care about. You are also correct in his being a centrist------he would never have been elected otherwise. Do any of these people realize that George Wallace got more votes than Nader? I do wonder if any of these political insiders have ever been to Washington and not for a football game but on the Hill. It is an entirely different world and to think that you can get anything accomplished by NOT playing the game is simply childish.

by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:36:16 PM

  (0+)

for the concurrance, Gin.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:29:18 PM

  (0+)

 for his appointments and sociopathic compulsion to appear 'right-of-center'.

But don't you think we should atleast wait to gloat with the 'I told you so's' until after he's been sworn into office and we've had a chance to judge him for his presidential actions?

 I agree that the dems are not the party of reform that they play on tv...and they should come with a warning "CAUTION: Political Parties at the Ballot Box May Appear Further to the Left Than They Actually Are"

 "I could go on but I’d rather ask this simple question: Why is anyone still trusting the entrenched Left on anything? Thanks to their archaic tactics and dogma, we now face four years of genuflecting before the Pope of Hope as he blatantly spits on every effort toward peace, justice, and solidarity."

  I honestly have to wonder where the f**k this statement is coming from. Nobody of the longtime Left (in the traditional interpretation of the term) ever assumes that the Dems are anything more than the velvet gloved faction of the Money Party. There are progressives within the party but there are also numerous right of center...and even far right of center dems...i.e., the Blue Dawg Dems...to thwart their every decent move. If this weren't a fact then Hillary would've been laughed out long ago, Bush and Cheney would have been impeached and Dennis Kucinich would've been given a fairer shake by the party and their auxilary mouthpieces in the press.

But I was most definitely of the opinion that the first priority this year was dethroning the GOP. Even though we've so far seen little sign in the appointments and retention of people like Gates that there is recognizable shift in direction... we do have some hopeful signs in areas like FDA policies and finally may have some actual justice in the Justice Dept. 

Of course it remains to be seen... the guy's gotta get sworn in first.

And I very firmly believe that the third party choices were ultimately untenable... by 2012, possibly... yes. But in 2008... no. 

I've loved hearing Nader speak during the campaign... but what did he really have behind him and in terms of organisation and overall policy?

And Cynthia McKinney?...who I agreed with more than anyone. But the same thing... they just aren't ready. I wouldn't mind working for her for 2012... but is that going to been enough to fundamentally reform what is really wrong with this system.

Ron Paul?... who I don't agree with on most things socially but I do agree with on matters of individual freedoms and US interventionism (except that I don't harbour conspiracy theories about an international illuminati and US involvement with the UN)  but again, even if I was one of his admirers, getting him or Bob Barr elected wouldn't be enough to deal with the fundamental faults of the system as is. Doing away with the Federal Bank and taxes isn't going to be done by one political party and requires a massive reorganisation of society. 

All this change has to happen from the bottom up and not the other way around. The media needs massive reorganisation so that the term objective journalism has meaning again and can no longer be different propaganda wings of whatever political parties nepotism has steered them towards.

Most of all, ...we have to dismantle this lingering vixation with the term two party system....depoliticize our electoral process so that political operatives no longer control the voting process whether they be election officials or the companies providing the voting machines.

We need to demand political pluralism and loudly.

But stop using hackneyed definitions of "the Left"...and assigning blame to where it's never been deserved. 

Because that's never going to facilitate a solution.

by chariotdrvr14 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 159 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:48:03 PM

  (0+)

First, I was very very active in working on Nader's and McKinney's campaign. As far as $$, it really in none of your damned buisness but this working class smoe Nurse, with child support to pay and living my own life gave BOTH campaigns over $500. Along with time and sweat equity

Second and  more importantly, I did not support the war machine and I am a dissident of ALL US foreign Policy. 

You can not say the same thing. All the Blue Kool Aid in the world can not change that simple, undeniable fact.

Drink, drink deep from the Blue Kool Aid.

We Suppport Wars

Yes We Can 

We'll Suppoort Wars

Of Obama Man 

Sorry, it is not my fault or Ralph Nader's or Cynthia McKinney's fault that YOUR Party, the Democratic party are complicit, critical parts of the war machine and assault on our rights as citizens.

We are simply pointing that reality out. So don't shoot the messenger, listen to the f**ing message instead.

by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:11:12 PM

  (0+)

The basic liberal delusions rest on a false knowledge of human weakness.

Liberals mistake moralizing for morality, and they constantly serve the God of good manners.  So, they walk out when a discussion turns into an argument.

Liberals think that facts and ideas can be used to change people's political persuasions.  Ridicule and teasing are much more effective (the right wing uses them all the time.)

Liberals think that the common man is ultimately responsible for great events like wars, depressions and so forth.  This shows a childlish faith in a non-existent Democracy.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1762 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:29:58 PM

  (0+)

Did EIGHT YEARS of bush give you the satisfaction you wanted from your 2000 Nader vote?

by TomMikesell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:45:18 PM

  (0+)

get to the bridge?  Seems to me that George W. isn't out of the Whitehouse just yet and he may have other false flags flying around that will put us all in stand down mode.  Some seem to think he is more than glad to get out of the Whitehouse.  I for one will believe it when I see it.  Any president that says "If this was a dictatorship and I was the dictator..."   and even acted like one, disreguarding our Constitution, saying that it was "just a piece of paper" is not a man about to leave quietly in my mind. (Especially knowing his grandfather's, and father's backgrounds).  George is just another pawn doing the work of the "ones" that control everything and loving every minute of it.

The way I see it, the "terrorist act" in India is just that; another false flag perpertrated by the "ones" (the power mongers) to cause fear.  And... it also could be a prelude to what's going to happen here in the USA by the crooks that have controlled us for centuries.  By the crooks I mean the guys that control the Federal Reserve and have created acts of war and terror as a means to gain power, do ethnic cleansing, and to take all our resources from us.  In case some of you don't read a lot, our crops have been altered, our livestock have been given so many drugs that they probably are killing us, and the AMA has so much control over us that even though there are cures for cancer and other diseases they won't allow them to come out to the public.

Don't count your chickens before the eggs have hatched.  And don't argue over things before they take place.  I believe that if we are under Martial Law that Obama can't take office.  Correct me if I am wrong.

And don't think that Bush staying is the only thing to be thinking about.  There isn't enough money in the world to bail us out of going into a depression.  Start stocking up on the things that will get you through it.

That's my opinion of the situation.  I'm just a disabled woman that keeps busy surfing the net and like investigating all angles.

by Snoopy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 42 comments) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:15:51 PM

  (0+)

I have three reactions, Mickey:

1.  Any time you paint a big heterogeneous group in bold strokes, as you've done here with liberals, you're likely to a) inaccurately characterize many members of that group and b) antagonize the people you inaccurately characterized.  You may have intended to do both and you may feel justified in doing so.  Whatever the case might be, while there are certainly a handful of liberal apologists here and elsewhere, I don't think you've accurately described most of the readers of this site who voted for Obama.

2.   Although I enthusiastically voted for Obama (and don't regret doing so!), I nevertheless agree with Mark.  I know Obama hasn't been sworn in yet and that there is a tradition of a 100 day honeymoon period, but we have a right (perhaps even a duty) to express our opinions about anything that he does as part of his professional responsibilities as President-elect, even before he formally takes office.  That's the nature of his job.  

3.  Mickey, I think you misunderstand the purpose of vigils.  They're not intended to solve the problem.  Their purpose is to provide participants with a sense of support and unity.  Being an activist can be lonely and solitary work.  The process of coming together with likeminded people can be invigorating and a meaningful source of sustenance, as well as an opportunity to meet allies and form collaborative partnerships.

by Mikhail Lyubansky (15 articles, 11 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 184 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:30:26 PM

  (0+)

The thing is, liberals don't think like us.  They really believe that the USA is a democracy, and that the military is used to bring democracy to the world.   They think that repressive domestic policies are to protect us.  They think that a nice man with a beautiful family will represent our interests.

I think that's all bullshit.   This is a class society, and as Warren Buffet said "My class is winning".

The military is used to advance capitalist interests, and the repression at home is used to keep us down.  

Everyone should wonder why they are bringing 40,000 US military troops to the US by 2011. They say it's to keep order.  Really?  Why aren't they giving Obama a chance to put the country back into the prosperous land of plenty that so many people misremember? Could it be that a land of plenty for all is not the plan?

What does the ruling class know that the dreamers responding to this post don't?  The Army getting into position, police dressed like storm troopers and armed to the teeth,  Homeland Security watching everything we do?

 For those that counsel to give Obama a chance, I already have.

I went through the Obama mania in 2004.  Wow! Replace a Republican with a progressive?  I voted for him as my Senator.  So I've been disappointed for four years already.  Don't tell me to give him a chance.  I did. 

by wagelaborer (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 307 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:05:28 PM

  (0+)

While i agree with those on both sides of the issue (and have already written a wonderful reply which i have since lost) here are two point i want to add:

1) Liberals, especially ones who voted Dem in this election were a lot like the Republican vote of 1860: an extremely loose coalition of those who opposed the status quo. They weren't all wanting the same things and knew that, but they also knew it was time to try something that appeared different, even if the appearence was the only substansive difference. I had no illusions that the Dems were going to make everything right and rosy. Any one who can remember Clinton knows that Dems are more closely allied with the GOP than the Greens. I doubt that many people were actually deluding themselves to the point of thinking that Obama was a whole new direction (funny how few GOP seemed to have grasped this)

2) Protests are individual acts which take place for individual purposes, even when the protests occur in crowds. Every person has to justify their own self. For many it is a matter for expressing our opinion, having it said. Whether that person is creating giant puppets (which are one should admit a reasonable and creative outlet for the frustrations one can come to feel with this government), sitting silent in a vigil or writting a letter to an elected official weven when one suspects it won't be read. These actions mean FAR more to the protester than the protested and that is OK. We have to justify ourself to ourself first and then maybe hopefully make a difference in the larger world. I wish my protests were guaranteed to make a difference, but as long as they represent me acting on my beliefs then they serve their purpose. Remember the First Amendment protects your right to speak, not your right to be heard.

-yzur

by mikel weisser (49 articles, 3 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 87 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:07:45 PM

  (0+)

Look, stating that "all liberals are this way" is just as unhelpful as stating that "all conservatives are that way." No matter how you categorize the views of others, there is not just one set of attitudes and beliefs in that category. How are you defining "liberal"? Is that the same as "progressive", or are they different? Let's at least establish a working definition for the sake of clarity.

I keep hearing these sweeping proclamations about "how liberals are" and "how liberals think", and since none of you seem to see yourselves as one, where is it that you get all this knowledge of what's inside millions of minds? Your scorn and derision aren't going to change any minds to your way of thinking, because most people will simply avoid discussing the issues with you, or reading anything you have to say.

Speaking for myself - and that's all I can speak for -  I am hardly an Obama groupie. I voted for him, because I thought he'd be better than the alternative. I wasn't expecting much other than that, and I think that no matter who is in office, citizens should always scrutinize every move the government makes. I have some real concerns about what a number of his recent choices and decisions may mean for our future, and I freely voice those concerns, and take action accordingly.

I hardly think Obama is a dictator-in-waiting, however, nor do I believe that he has some hidden, nefarious agenda of fascism. He is likely just like all our politicians - owned by the corporatists, and manipulated by zionists. Our two main political parties sold us out long ago, and nothing will be different until enough people get off their butts, and do what it takes to force a significantly different electoral system onto our legislative hacks. Personally, I don't see that happening in the near future. Maybe when things get bad enough, people will be more willing to act. 

I'm not a democrat or a republican. My beliefs are very diverse. My views in terms of individual freedoms would likely be seen as libertarian (old school), my social views I would describe as very progressive, and so on. So I don't know, or care how others would categorize me. But I do know that alienating people with a rigid sense of moral or intellectual superiority, as if you are part of the select few who possess "the truth", is not remotely useful.

by annavanz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:27:42 PM

  (0+)

Why are they bringing 40,000 US military troops to the US by 2011?  Excellent question. I suppose they are going to help keep order during this so called "CHANGE." Not unless then President Obama calls it off? Has he spoken with anyone about these troops being deployed? Perhaps he'll agree to it?  Either way it's going to get quite interesting.

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:04:02 PM

  (0+)

If a third party candidate was for it, forget it.

That candidate was championing it because of his or her ideology and we cannot have clear, defined vision ruling America. We have to have undefined rhetoric like hope and change reigning supreme instead.

Undefined rhetoric allows for bipartisanship, unity, and governing from the middle. It also allows for a "team of rivals" to "assist" Obama in bringing hope and change.

How could anyone say no to hope and change? Count me in!  

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:12:18 PM

  (0+)

Stereotyping "Liberals" into YOUR defined category is most offensive. At first, I thought maybe O'Reilly wrote the article and you plagiarized and put your name on it.

Oh, I am disappointed in Obama and as I said before, I voted AGAINST Palin not FOR Obama. I wanted to vote for Nader but almighty Thor told me not to allow Palin into the Whitehouse.

This letter sounds like sour grapes on the 3rd party voters,,,nothing more than just sour grapes.

I am not ashamed to stand in line behind the Forefathers with my Liberal stance. Hell, even Jesus was a Liberal and look how many ppl believe "on" him. A liberal cares about the "least among us" and the root latin word for Liberal is "Free", Go figure that stupidity reigns when it comes to definitions and, well,

I thunk you are wrong about Liberals like me, constitutional loving, ACLU member, Human Rights Watch member, and Peace activist.

As far as Nader, he'd be a great leader and Cynthia as well; however, as another poster points out, George Wallace had more votes than those 2 and even Ross Perot had more than them. Maybe when Obama DOES NOT deliver the change, THEN maybe Americans will finally go 3rd party majority in a Prez election. We probably won't have elections by then, however. AND as  liberal, I sincerely do NOT thunk we have Democracy in this country. Democracy has long been stomped out during the last 8 yrs but actually started  disolving With Tricky Dick Nixon.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:44:14 PM

  (0+)

... no?

Maybe that's because it hasn't happened yet. But that sound is when our economy hits rock-bottom. Than all this bullshit nuance will end, and the true colors of Obama will emerge, and all you Obama apologists won't have the time to be making apologies to those of us that have been waring you long before Obama became a household name that this was coming.

But, what the hell, we were just "tin-hat, crazies" back than, like those 9/11 Truthers, huh?

But as the truth makes itself abundantly clear, even for the dimmest of bulbs to finally comprehend it, we won't be around to hear your apologies to us, for we'll be too busy trying to survive, and it will be those that think they are tempering "sound judgement" by "giving the man a chance", and after all, "what other choice did we have", because "what good would it have done?", (my favorite) that are going be on here making excuses before you're gunned-down or starve to death.

What good would it have done, indeed ...

What most of you head-in-the-sand apologists don't seem to want to think about is that there may not be another chance to vote the right person or party in. You gloss over that perhaps we've blown-it. Screwed-the-pooch, as they say. That what with is about to happen that by the time 2012 rolls around we'll be so deep into to an Orwellian nightmare world that the only "computer connection" you will have will be that micro-chip implanted into you by your friend Obama. No need to even go and vote anymore, they'll just program you to vote for him automatically.

Some of you won't be able to tell the difference from what you're doing now.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:01:47 PM

  (0+)

How wonderful for you, possessing such infallible clairvoyance! Perhaps you could gift us all with "the truth", since you and your cohorts are clearly enlightened beyond what we little folk can comprehend.

Instead of your emotional, self-justifying diatribe, which in fact explains nothing, how about some concrete facts and some reasoned foundation for your position? That will likely do a lot more to convince people than does your sanctimonious, irrational tangent. 

by annavanz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:05:06 AM

  (0+)

   We don't have a winning hand to play here until a few things change.  First we need some presence in the mainstream media which control the choices, polls, and votes.  We currently have none. (Obermann and Maddow are on cable, PBS/NPR have only been Establishment Liberals or centrists  for years)  Secondly, we need to get the corporate money out of elections and politics.  Until then the special corporate interests own the elections and elected candidates.   (Of course it would be nice to get a Supreme court that wasn't fascistic so we might not only have justice but eliminate fraudulent "corporate personhood".)  With those minimal but required changes and the addition of a ranked voting system of 1st and 2nd choices we could stop having to vote for the lesser of 2 corporate evils.  Until then voting for 3rd parties is either an expensive lesson (Fla. 2000) or self-defeating.

by Richard Lee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 178 comments [40 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:14:54 PM

  (0+)

and it is not a headline post.

It has been pointed out, repeatedly that Ralph Nader did not get as many votes as  George Wallace.

My response is simple. 

There is no more greater indictment of the self styled progressives in this country than that simple fact.

I just watched former Sec of State Madeline Allbright (of the cost of a million innocent Iraqi children is worth the price infamy) on the "lefty" Rachel Maddows Show on MSNBC, talking about how great it is to have Hillary as Sec of State.

Could not make it any more obvious than that, can we? 

by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:35:18 PM

  (0+)

...nor did I, that democrats are my party. 

Who did some of you expect or want to win? McCain?... was he your answer?

Bob Barr?

"Liberal complicity" in what?... the war....then you connect some imaginary rohrshack dots to include "the Left" as being culpable of the further war effort, gov't spying, the economy/bailout... the furtherance of Bush gov't policies. As if there isn't already an existing widespread dismay at Obama's appointments. 

Besides, why constantly lumping "the left" in with 'liberals' when a sudden political wind shift could kick up and suddenly 'liberals' would be voicing more conservative beliefs. As if we hadn't seen plenty of examples of that neo liberal conservatism in the policies of the Blair and Brown gov't in the UK. 

Aaaaaaand... 'non-left', 'non-liberal' candidates would have done ....what? Certainly not putting an end to the use of torture or domestic spying or reigning in corporate influence on federal oversight depts like the FDA and the EPA. Nor would they work on undoing Bush's last minute dismantling of wildlife protections or work/safety laws. To be sure, some of the third party candidates would have. But what would the blustery forces anti-liberalism have preferred??? ...oh yes, an end to regulations and oversight. Which if neo liberals have their way and free market ideologues still hold sway...could happen after all.

I don't doubt that corporate donors to democratic campaigns will be expecting some kind of kickback. But how is that in opposition to the 'anti-liberal' cause? and how do you figure 'the Left' is any way supportive of this?

You're criticising us for doing what ? Believing or opposing what?

Just seems like any liberal bashing is a fairly pointless, kneejerk and unproductive pasttime; -and only serves as a vehicle for venting. 

Fact is, nobody on the mainstage would fill the void that's faces us.

Not everybody that voted Obama was high on denial.

We didn't all take 'the brown acid' and then go vote.

by chariotdrvr14 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 159 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:40:19 PM

  (0+)

 Greetings,

The following are quotes from 2 United States Presidents; 1 reflects my thoughts on third party voting, and the other is the classic definition of liberal.  Being liberal doesn't mean not being able to think for yourself, nor does it mean running when the pushing starts.

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States

by Kellis R. Solomon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 123 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:25:54 AM

  (0+)

A good ending comment!

by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:23:22 AM

  (0+)

I'm swiping 'em for my website!

by annavanz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:09:46 AM

  (0+)

Greetings,

Thanks Gin and Anna. 

Obama is the president-elect.  I didn't vote for him, and I don't think that we the people have any means of "holding his feet to the fire", as many of you like to say.  However, we do need to start gathering thoughts on how to agree on more than we are agreeing on now.   There is a theme that runs through the authors at OEN that seems to be against those who support third parties.  I also used to think that it was a wasted vote, until I read the quote from John Quincy Adams, and this year I embraced voting for the Green Party, in a red state to boot, and I am not sorry, nor was my vote wasted.  Please quit saying that the vote is wasted.  Please quit saying maybe in 4 years.  If we are to EVER have a chance at a true progressive in the White House, or even a simple majority of progressives in Congress, we will have to change the old ways of thinking concerning third parties.

Anna, what is your website?

by Kellis R. Solomon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 123 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:51:17 AM

  (0+)

   There is process of prioritization here you are conveniently ignoring that I raised earlier.  If you intend to be a winning part of the active process you can only do that by meeting the existent priorities to gain your ends.  That may not be as dramatic or heroic as going down with your ship of state, but it's a lot more productive in the long run.  Who said winning was easy?  (How long did it take the well funded Wm. Simmon to get ideological control of the high ground, the mainstream media, after 1964?)  How many strategic retreats did we make in WWII (Korea?) before prevailing?  It's all about eventually playing that winning hand, not vain-gloriously "going down with your ship".

by Richard Lee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 178 comments [40 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:35:07 PM

  (0+)