But what the hell good would it do to give people options that don't exist in the real world? I'd vote for Al Gore, and then what? That would be totally meaningless since he is not on the November ballot.

I am starting to think we are going to end up with McCain since so many Democrats all want to quit, and take their ball home. 

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:56:46 AM

  (0+)

If a candidate doesn't represent my views, why should I vote for her?  I don't owe Clinton or Obama anything, and I'd be happy to see them defeated after they have continued to fund the war.  I don't see any of the media blessed candidates really opposing the occupation, the patriot act, immunity for telcos, wiretapping that started before 9/11, etc...

You have a myth in your head, and the myth is that democrats, even if they fail us on all the important issues, are still somehow magically better than republicans.  It's a false choice.

by Shawn in Louisville (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 10:07:25 AM

  (0+)

They left Mike Gravel out of the poll, and he is still in the race.  Whether he wins or loses, he still more closely represents progressive voters than any other Democrat or Republican. 

by Shawn in Louisville (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 10:10:08 AM

  (0+)

when he is the only person still in the race who was against the Iraq war from the very beginning?

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 1:49:32 PM

  (0+)

Obama has at times said he was not sure how he would have voted at the beginning.  He has repeatedly voted to fund the Iraq War.  He has indicated that he might keep U.S. troops in Iraq throughout his term in office if elected.  His official campaign position is to increase the military budget and increase the number of active duty soldiers.  He has repeatedly indicated that he is quite willing to use armed force.  Even in his initial statement against the war, he stated that he was not a peace person, but just thought this particular war was stupid.

Obama is very clearly a pro-war candidate.  Research his record and his statements, and you'll see what I mean. 

by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 2:01:12 PM

  (0+)

MoveOn is an interesting animal, an early prototype in what may become the 'democracy' of the future. Surely it is not accurate or fair now - I have three different emails and therefore three different "memberships" (though I only voted once in the poll). So it is flawed, relying on the honor system, exaggerating it's membership totals and exercising internal bias by framing questions a certain way or limiting choices to their liking.

What is good about about MoveOn is the way it reaches people quickly, can raise money quickly and most importantly, can get feedback quickly on almost any issue. There are many similar activism groups today, but MoveOn purports to be the first and largest and has demonstrated it's aggregated political strength in the past.

This should be the future of democracy, enabled by technology that did not exist when the founding fathers set up the rules. The technology and security is already in place for e-commerce and banking transactions which account for countless billions. So there should be no reason why each citizen can't register a safe, secure online account for referendums or more accurate methods of polling and voting with completely transparent results in real time.

I've contacted MoveOn before in anger and frustration - particularly after passage of the compromise vote to finance the war which they announced as a 'victory'. I hope MoveOn has learned since then that their success depends on how truly democratic their online process is.

Regarding the "6.2% landslide", it's clear MoveOn wanted to try to make some impact before Super Tuesday where the overwhelming majority of Dems will be deciding between Hillary and Obama, the two remaining candidates. Though only some members voted, the result was clearly weighted in favor for Obama.

The long-accepted social science of political polling has always used representative sampling with relative accuracy borne out by final election results within the prescribed margin of error (until the 2000 and 2004 presidential races became glaring exceptions).

We must all realize as a matter of practical politics that the "perfect" anti-war candidate could never win enough red states to be viable, and that either Hillary or Obama will be the Democratic nominee. In this case, MoveOn's endorsement reinforces the fact that their voters feel Obama is the better choice of the two. I voted in the poll for Obama, for the reasons laid out here. Though he is not the ideal candidate, he called the war a "dumb" idea before the first bomb landed. I trust he will start us in the right direction so we can make further strides in the next cycle.

by Gustav Wynn (77 articles, 65 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 421 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 2:07:20 PM

  (0+)

If we keep on just voting for the candidates the establishment says are viable, we will never get change.  It is crazy to think you're going to get peace by voting for a clear supporter of the militarist imperialist system, just because they might not be quite as terrible as an opponent.  We have to Just Say No to the Repubocrat establishment War Party candidates.

by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 2:36:24 PM

  (0+)

Whose name would you have wanted to see on the MoveOn ballot? Is there another viable candidate we don't know about? Gore? Bloomberg? Gingrich?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying we should choose between the candidates the establishment says are viable. Nor the media, nor the parties.

I'm saying we need to choose between the candidates the American people says are viable. As much as I supported Kucinich, the American people did not consider him viable, nor Dodd, Biden, Edwards, Gravel or Richardson. Up till Kucinich was "blacked out" of the debates and major media coverage, he had fair opportunity to build traction. America knew his name from 2004, America knew his message. But they either liked someone else better, or felt he couldn't win in this system.

The American people can contribute money and vote in primaries, even with voting anomalies (hopefully behind us) it is the only system we have. I support election reform, banning the electoral college and ranked choice voting for the future, but this year, we have only this system in place.

Is not Obama better then Hillary, McCain or Romney? If not, you can make any protest vote at all. Write in Donald Duck if you want, it won't be mentioned anywhere unless people protest-vote by the millions.

I think we're both anti-war, but there's a reality in this country Progressives have to deal with. Right across the street from me there are McCain or even Huckabee yard signs. This country is very ideologically divided, it's not all like it is here in OpEdNews.

Whoever is going to win the presidency has to have an extremely broad appeal. I think electing Obama would be a step Progressives can build on, while Hillary would be a step back, McCain two steps back, etc.

I think Dennis Kucinich would agree....

by Gustav Wynn (77 articles, 65 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 421 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 11:37:22 PM

  (0+)

Yes, Mike Gravel. Here is why he is viable:

- he has twice as much time in the Senate as Clinton and Obama

- he served in his state legislature before that, unlike Clinton or Obama

- he is an Army veteran, working in Intelligence. Clinton and Obama never served.

- he has real tangible accomplishments that have benefited the American people, like ending the draft, establishing the Alaskan pipeline (which supplies 25% of our oil), and exposing Vietnam lies by makeing the Pentagon Papers public

- he has repeatedly put his own neck and political career on the line to do the right thing. If only Clinton had done that instead of authorizing the war to "look tough" for her reelection and presidential bid.

- he has vowed to withdraw from Iraq completely and let them run their own country as fast as logistically possible, ~120 days. Followed by aggressive diplomacy and aid in the region.

- he has vowed to end the "war on drugs" that has millions of Americans in jail for what should be medical issues. He would redirect the money to medical treatment programs and education.

- he has vowed to establish a single payer but administratively competitive healthcare system that will cover everyone for free, but maintain competition for "vouchers" to ensure we don't become lax. Clinton and Obama both endorse systems that basically force people to buy insurance whether they can afford it or not. It's not surprising when you see all the insurance companies contributing to their campaigns.

- his primary goal as president will be to pass the National Initiative, which gives us all ballot initiatives on the federal level (and every other) which we could use for things like ending the war, campaign finance reform, resecuring our civil rights, fixing our ridiculously complex and unfair tax system, impeachment...

The only reason progressives aren't rallying behind Mike is that they have still believe that the words "democrat" and "republican" mean something, and because of that they have to rally behind the media's "viable candidates" instead of the ones that truly represent their views.

I CHALLENGE YOU to tell me why Clinton or Obama deserve a vote more than Gravel. What have they done for the American people that compares to Mike Which issues are they more progressive on?

by Shawn in Louisville (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 10:29:58 AM

  (0+)

It is totally obvious that moveon like dailykos and other groups are pure pro-status quo establishment; they do not reject the two-party plutocracy; they do not seek true, major systemic political reforms; all they do is provide opportunities for feel-good therapeutic activism that perpetuates our evil, corrupt and dysfunctional political system.  What a pity that so many millions of young people do not have the critical thinking necessary to see that no matter who wins the Dem nomination or wins the presidency there will be no real, substantive and systemic reforms because the ruling class will subvert any efforts to get them.....

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 3:11:47 PM

  (0+)

but they counted me twice (for Obama) anyway.

I made the mistake of sending their voting link in a post to my email group with comments about the lack of a "none of the above" choice.....and two of the group voted for me!  as MoveOn's acknowledgements showed.

Like any good political hacks, MoveOn insiders have decided how they rest of us should/would vote.  How fast we become part of the problem we thought we wanted to solve.........

by Laudyms (0 articles, 1142 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 708 comments [138 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 3:57:21 PM

  (0+)