May 09, 2008
After Hillary, Voting With Conscience and Pride
This general election more than most will test the courage of voters to avoid lesser-evil strategic voting that has propped up our two-party plutocracy. People with intelligence and conscience must resist peer pressure and the temptation to vote against John McCain by voting for Barack Obama.
Of course, a McCain presidency that pursues much of the same policies and values of the totally inept and morally bankrupt Bush administration is something to loathe. But lesser-evil voting sustains our corrupt political system.
Many say they are voting for Barack Obama in a most enthusiastic and positive way. For me, this does not work. I see no compelling evidence in Obama’s history that he has what it takes to be a true, solid reformer. All I see is a young, inexperienced terrific talker that has used slick rhetoric to sell himself. With intellectual and ideological elitism and an aura of superiority and academic smugness, he has successfully fooled millions of people who are so disillusioned with our corrupt political system that they have let themselves be manipulated by poetic promises of change. In reality, he is just another super-ambitious, lying mainstream politician that has taken considerable money and support from all sorts of corporate and other special interests.
Indeed, despite all the hoopla about huge numbers of small contributors to Obama, he has also relied on exactly the same kind of big, wealthy supporters as the other candidates. As the Washington Post noted in the article Big Donors Among Obama’s Grass Roots: “Seventy-nine ‘bundlers,’ five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million. …The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies.”
Sure, Obama says that small contributors will have access, but Obama's bundlers help make up a more loosely defined "national finance committee," whose members are made to feel part of the campaign's inner workings through weekly conference calls and quarterly meetings at which they quiz the candidate or his strategists. Not exactly what $20 contributors get.
I remain troubled that Michelle Obama's salary at University of Chicago Hospitals when her husband won the US Senate seat was $121,000. Within weeks of his swearing in, her salary went to over $320,000. The following year Obama did an earmark request for $1 million for her employer.
Todd Spivak of the Houston Press has documented how Obama accomplished next to nothing in his first six years in the Illinois legislature. But then Democrat Emil Jones Jr. an African American with thirty years in the legislature became head of the senate and explicitly decided to make the young Obama a US senator. He did this by making Obama a sponsor of 26 bills that became law. This gave Obama exactly what he needed to portray himself as a highly successful legislator. Has Obama repaid Jones? Yes. He has provided tens of millions in earmarks for Jones’ district. As to such actions, Jones famously said: "Some call it pork; I call it steak."
Also, Obama’s judgments about people he has used to advance his career have been appalling. These include a former domestic terrorist, a radical hate-selling pastor and a federally indicted Chicago wheeler-dealer. While he talks about bringing diverse interests together, he has never done that to any significant degree as a senator or candidate. Voters have been divided along race lines whether or not it was planned. If he was not black he would not be getting over 90 percent of the African-American vote, without which he would not have beaten Clinton. There is no valid reason for making someone president because of his race.
Make no mistake; I was never for Clinton either. And I never appreciated why anyone should prefer her because of her sex. Call me an idealist, but the only candidate for president worth voting for should have nothing to do with their color, gender or religion.
What are better options for voters?
One choice is to boycott the presidential election altogether and not be a co-conspirator in the criminal conspiracy that our two-party political system has become. This requires facing the ugly reality that voting for Democrats or Republicans will never deliver the root, systemic reforms our failing democracy requires.
Better yet, if you feel compelled to vote, then vote for Ralph Nader. He has a distinguished record over many decades of working solely in the public interest without succumbing to corporate and other special interests seeking political favors. If honesty, integrity, intellectuality, independence, courageous policy positions and true political reforms matter to you, then Nader merits your support. This man of principles deserves your principled vote.
Here are some Nader positions that Obama and McCain do NOT support but that our nation sorely needs: a single payer universal health care system, aggressive crackdown on corporate welfare and crime, impeachment of Bush and Cheney, ending corporate personhood, adopting a carbon pollution tax, opening up ballot access. And Nader is a genuine supporter of the national peace movement to end the US occupation of Iraq. Note that Obama supported the reelection of Iraq war supporter Joe Lieberman. Unlike Obama, Nader is against government subsidies for turning corn into ethanol.
"We need a Jeffersonian revolution," says Nader. "If it doesn't happen, our democracy will continue to weaken and things will get worse. Right now, we have a two-party electoral dictatorship with each party looking for the highest corporate bidder." Amen.
I have been voting for Nader, the most legitimate populist and progressive, whenever he has been on my ballot. This wisdom by I.F. Stone keeps me committed to him: "The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins. In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing - for the sheer fun and joy of it - to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose. You mustn't feel like a martyr. You've got to enjoy it."
The fight is not about electing Nader president, but overthrowing the two-party plutocracy that is killing the middle class and fostering rising economic inequality. Should you have any negative thoughts about Nader because of the 2000 election, the facts refute blaming him for the Bush victory, including more than 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida that voted for Bush (compared to 97,000 votes for Nader, only 25 percent of which would have voted for Gore) and over half of the registered Democrats that did not vote at all because Gore ran a terrible campaign.
Go to the Nader campaign site to learn more and join this patriotic effort to spark a Second American Revolution. Enjoy yourself. Feel proud.
You cannot overthrow the two-party system when your best alternative is Nader.
Do not misunderstand, I agree with most of your opinions about Obama. In fact, I will be quite sad to see him win the Democratic nomination over Hillary. Still, if we get realistic with ourselves, either a Democrat or McCain is going to be winning in November and a vote for a third party candidate amounts to throwing your vote away.
Posted by: Zeek at May 9, 2008 03:32 PMWho ever wins the presidency, don’t forget the corrupt, irresponsible Congress.
What good will the next president be if sabotaged and saddled with the same do-nothing Congress, which enjoys 93%-to-99% re-election rates?
One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm
Otherwise, these 10+ abuses will continue the deterioration of these 17+ economic conditions, which have never been worse ever and/or since the 1930s and 1940s.
At any rate, the voters have the government they elect and deserve.
Posted by: d.a.n at May 9, 2008 04:05 PMHillary supporters will vote for McCain. Only Obama supporters are supporting the typical polician that lacks experience and that did not unite Democrats in Illinois or the U.S. Senate. What part of ‘factual’ is incorrect.
Posted by: Dr Hubert, Lt Col, USAF, Retired (2005) at May 9, 2008 04:35 PMMy dad said a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote also.
I told him a vote for the same people the media crams down our throat is a wasted vote.
Joel is right! A good fight is the fight you don’t expect to win. It’s a fight you wage because it’s the right thing to do.
I am an HRC supporter and I won’t be voting for McCain. I am well aware of the issues with BHO brought up in this article, and there’s more to come later. To leap from that to Nader is ridiculous. If he is the Green party candidate, their campaign slogan might as well be Please Vote for Us, We Keep Nominating the Same Guy No Matter How Tired of Him You Are. Greens, please, anyone but Nader.
Posted by: ohrealy at May 9, 2008 05:30 PMWeary Willie, as noble as that is, it was thinking like that that allowed Bush to become elected in 2000. I would say that people that voted for Nader when they would otherwise have voted for Gore have no right to complain about Bush and any failures he makes as president.
Posted by: Zeek at May 9, 2008 05:47 PMI don’t get the logic. The author’s admits voting for McCain gets you another four years of the most flagrant abuse of executive power and the worst example of corporatism in our country’s history and we’re still led to believe that’s what we should do as opposed to voting for Obama? I’m sorry but if there’s a chance in hell that Obama can accomplish any of his ideas to benefit the economic interests of 98% of Americans, I’ll take that chance. I’d give Nader a look if only I didn’t think running for him has always been about him. If he were serious about forming another party, he would actually do something between presidential elections to accomplish that goal. Seems he only rears his head every presidential election. Coincidence? I think not.
Posted by: Jeffrey at May 9, 2008 05:53 PM
With intellectual and ideological elitism and an aura of superiority and academic smugness
Look who’s talking.
Posted by: womanmarine at May 9, 2008 06:00 PMThe president is only one person.
Do-nothing Congress is 535 people.
Obviously, repeatedly rewarding Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates isn’t working, is it?
Who can name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or at least 268 (half of the 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable?
Unless we can all come up with a list of 268 Congress persons, what is that saying about Congress as a whole.
Perhaps that is why these problems continue to get worse, no matter who the president is, or which party is the IN-PARTY or the OUT-PARTY?
But you know why that won’t work?
It’s a very clever system actually.
Challengers are almost always in the OTHER party.
So challengers never stand much of a chance.
That’s just one of the many mechanisms that ensure Congress persons’ cu$hy, coveted incumbencies.
Unfair Incumbent Politician Advantage:
- (a) Perk$ of Office: Incumbents have more party support and resources to draw upon. Each member of Congress has an office budget allowance (provided by tax-payers). That allowance is large enough to employ a sizable staff both in Washington, D.C. and in their home states or districts. This staff provides a huge advantage, and tax-payers fund it. In addition, members of Congress also have travel allowances for trips between Washington and their constituencies, and also for trips inside their states or districts. Also, House and Senate members can use the United Stated Postal Service for free for informational letters or announcements to their constituents.
- (b) Time: Members of Congress and their staffers not only get paid (by the tax-payers) while campaigning and raising money for their campaign war-chest, but they have the time (as part of what they are supposed to do within their job description). But challenging candidates are not provided the time or money by the tax-payers. In contrast, a candidate challenging an incumbent is not paid to do those things, but must determine how to fund it. Many candidates go into debt.
- (c) Visibility and Access to News Media: Members of Congress have visibility by virtue of being elected, have easy access to the news media, make appearances on television, radio, and are frequently mentioned in newspaper articles and editorials.
- (d) Campaign Organization: Members of Congress have the advantage of the experience of having managed a campaign organization (and winning), and already have a volunteer campaign organization in place.
- (e) Money: The biggest advantage that incumbents have is the ability to raise large contributions. Big-money-donors prefer predictability. Incumbents that refuse to cater to their big-money-donors are not likely to receive more big-money contributions. 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money. Unfortunately, government is FOR-SALE. Hence, incumbents have many unfair advantages (some funded by the tax-payers). A tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible U.S. voters contributed 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more in 2002). What chance does the remaining 99.85% of all eligible U.S. voters have against that. In 2004, total federal campaign donations (of $200 more more) totaled about $2.4 billion. A tiny 0.15% (300,000) of all 200 million eligible U.S. voters contributed 2.0 billion (averaging $6667 per person), while the remaining 99.85% (199,700,000) of all 200 million U.S. voters contributed 400 million (averaging only $2 per person). Government is FOR-SALE. Too many incumbent politicians spend too much of their time campaigning, peddling influence, filling their campaign war-chest$, voting themselves cu$hy perk$ and raises (9 times between 1997 and 2007), and other irresponsible behavior, instead of solving the nation’s most pressing problems that are growing in number and severity, threatening the future and security of the nation.
- (f) Apathy, Complacency, Misplaced Partisan Loyalties, Delusion, Greed, Ignorance, Hatred, Irrational Fear, and Laziness:
Too many voters:- do not feel voting is worthwhile. Many don’t care and many understand the difficulty of unseating an incumbent, and believe it is futile to try by voting.
- do not believe the voters can organize to vote similarly to achieve any particular goal, due to partisan loyalties, and partisan warfare that distracts and divides the people from ever forming a majority.
- do not feel a need to vote. 40% to 50% of voters don’t vote at all.
- do not consider candidates individually (regardless of party); too many voters blindly and lazily pull the party-lever, without even know all the candidates on the ballot, much less the candidates’ voting records.
- do not have the time or motivation to learn more about the candidates and government; too many voters do not even know who their senators or representatives are.
- vote (90% of the time) for the candidate that spends the most money;
- Whatever the reasons, many incumbent politicians know all of the ways to capitalize on those human traits to make the incumbent politicians’ cu$hy, coveted incumbencies more secure.
When things get bad enough, perhaps enough voters will finally realize that repeatedly pulling the party-lever and repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates is truly a stupid thing to do.
Perhaps enough voters will finally figure it out when enough of the voters are jobless, homeless, and hungry?
After all, some of the highest anti-incumbent voting periods occurred during some of the most painful periods in American history (e.g. Civil War and the Great Depression).
At any rate, the voters have the government that they elect, and deserve.
Posted by: d.a.n at May 9, 2008 06:15 PMI would say that people that voted for Nader when they would otherwise have voted for Gore have no right to complain about Bush and any failures he makes as president.Is there any proof as to how people would have voted had one candidate not been on the ballot? Posted by: d.a.n at May 9, 2008 06:17 PM
Another candidate, Kat Swift for Green Party, these are some of her views:
1.Capital Punishment - blatant disregard for life especially in our unjust legal system - also more expensive than life in prison or a college education
2.Global Warming - yes it would likely happen even without us pesky humans, but that doesn’t mean we need not address our blatant disregard for the commons out of immediate greed gratification.
3.Marijuana Legalization - If a doctor can proscribe a synthetic version of Marijuana to patients for a variety of ailments, then why is the herb illegal? It’s a plant people, it is proven to not kill you and is less addictive than caffeine, sugar, coffee, tobacco, alcohol, etc.
Posted by: ohrealy at May 9, 2008 06:35 PMGood questions would be, Did your vote count? or, Was your vote tabulated correctly?
Prove it!
My voting experience in this primary scared the hell out of me. The ballot was on computer with a row of buttons along either side of the screen. The button correlated with the name of the candidate. Pushing the button next to the name votes for that person and it is signified by an (x) appearing in front of the name.
My ballot had two pages of candidates and a third page informing the voter to either register their vote or edit their vote.
I completed the first page and hit the next page button. The second page scrolled onto the screen and upon completion immediately went to the third page. No entries on the second page could be made. I demonstrated this to the attendant successfully but the second try failed to bring the third page. It stayed on the second page. Problem solved.
I then returned to the first page to verify my selections and I find a selection other than mine on the screen. I hit the proper button only to see the x return to the improper choice immediately. This was due to the button being stuck in the pressed position forcing the return to the improper choice. I then checked the other buttons to find yet another button stuck on the other side of the screen.
Verifying my vote and in the position of casting this vote it dawns on me, How do I know if it’s correct? How do I verify and prove I voted for these people? I can’t! It’s blind faith from there on in. A design defect as simple as a stuck button could skew the results.
We recently installed these computer voting machines. This would be my third vote on them. What frightens me again is the fact the manual system wasn’t run along with the computer system to verify the computer system is functioning properly. Verification would be the same number of votes on a paper ballot as on the computer ballot.
A receipt should be provided when the vote is cast on the computer. Two copies. One for the voter and one for the official voting document that verifies the computer vote.
Who really knows if the computer is functioning properly. The only way would be to have a paper ballot as well.
WW: a nightmare in the making. Computers are trustworthy, right?
Lord, help us in this election.
Posted by: womanmarine at May 9, 2008 07:58 PMComputers are trustworthy.
Their programmers aren’t and they know it. That’s why there’s a debugging stage where the computer is used along side the manual system.
They run concurrent until trust in the computer takes over. If the computer goes down the manual system is a backup. The two systems running together verifies the computer system. Eventually the computer takes responsibility and the manual system is dropped.
There is always a test phase to see if things are working and things that are not anticipated are discovered. The adoption of the computer in my voting system lacks the verification that it is working properly, and that scares the hell out of me.
Computers are only trustworthy until something goes wrong. Drive failure, program bugs, power outage, etc. Sorry, they are no more trustworthy than the first problem.
Joel
I stand corrected. I thought that the middle column (with few exceptions like Rhinhold)was actually a Democratic 5th column.
You have told truth to power and the liberal dogs of PC will howl.
I disagree with your view re the American system, but I have to respect your integrity in saying what you did.
Write on brother.
Posted by: Jack at May 10, 2008 08:40 AMWW: whichever of the common computer problems occurs first.
Posted by: womanmarine at May 10, 2008 09:41 AMThe Todd Spivak article from the Houston Press is accurate, but I would take exception to calling BHO “ivy league”. He went to Occidental for 2 years, and Columbia for 2 years. He went to work, then attend Harvard Law School several years later. I really wouldn’t call that “ivy league”. From the article:
“Obama has spent his entire political career trying to win the next step up. Every three years, he has aspired to a more powerful political position.”
The question would be, what job would he be looking for after POTUS? My guess is the Supreme Court. If he was elected, he would most likely be a one-term president, leaving the democrats in 2012 in a position like Carter in 1980.
Posted by: ohrealy at May 10, 2008 12:01 PMJoel,
Obama has all the experience we need in a president, and he just demonstrated it by managing and running the most amazing primary campaign any of us will likely ever see in our lifetimes. And he did so going up against the Blue Dog, DLC, triangulating power player machine of the Democratic Party. He has thoroughly kicked their asses, and they will now have to step aside and act as marginal players as the party builds a new power structure.
Thank goodness for that too — it’s about time we build ourselves a winning strategy rather than one that has proven to be a losing one!
Obama is also poised to kick McSame’s ass as well. Because he’s got all the money and enthusiastic support he could possibly need, while McSame has surrounded himself with lobbyists, gamed the system for money, and doesn’t enjoy too much support (which is why he’s going back on all he previously claimed to stand for, in order to win their support).
Nader can’t win. He’s acted as a spoiler, and everyone knows it. We can’t afford four more years of McSame and the voters know that, too.
Hubert:
“Hillary supporters will vote for McCain.”
Only if they have the most infantile, spiteful, and/or racist reasoning behind why they just can’t bring themselves to vote for Obama. Because why would anyone vote for McCain if they truly believed Hillary was a superior candidate on the issues? Obama and she are very close on so many of them, so why would her supporters choose a Republican who doesn’t represent anything remotely similar to Hillary’s platform?
Posted by: Veritas Vincit at May 10, 2008 04:41 PMmanaging and running the most amazing primary campaign any of us will likely ever see in our lifetimes.
Um, wow. Really? He couldn’t get enough delegates to win outright without Superdelegates, Kerry could at least manage that. He only did so by pulling around 90% of the black vote because… well he’s black.
So basically, we should feel good about the Democrats nominating someone who can’t campaign as well as Kerry and can only win because many of his supporters are racist (voting for someone just because of the color of their skin is as racist as not voting for them because of the color of their skin…)
I’m not feeling all warm and fuzzy… I’m sorry VV but you might feel good now but if you would look at it objectively, and not partisanly, you might see the reality for what it is.
(BTW, I love how you continually call people who may choose not to vote for Obama racist. It shows the levels you are willing to go to get your way. Good work!)
Posted by: Rhinehold at May 10, 2008 04:50 PMUm, wow. Really? He couldn’t get enough delegates to win outright without Superdelegates,
Yeah. Wow. Really. He’s won the most states, the popular vote, the most pledged delegates, the most superdelegates, and has an absolutely amazing amount of money to spend on the general election due to the fundraising apparatus he built with the help of his many enthusiastic supporters. There has never been anything close to the organization that Obama has built during this primary before.
This is a man who knows how to appoint the right people, get things done, and make things run the way he needs them to.
We will all be better off with that kind of president at the helm of this nation after all these years of Bush incompetency and negligence.
I’m sorry VV but you might feel good now but if you would look at it objectively, and not partisanly, you might see the reality for what it is.
I feel fantastic! And the reality is that no one wants or believes we can possibly afford four more years of McBush policies. Thus, Obama seems extremely likely to become our next president.
BTW, I love how you continually call people who may choose not to vote for Obama racist.
I said: infantile, spiteful, and/or racist. And yes, that is exactly what it would have to take for a Hillary supporter to cut off their nose to spite their face by voting for McSame — because his platform has absolutely nothing in common with hers.
Posted by: Veritas Vincit at May 10, 2008 05:12 PMThere has never been anything close to the organization that Obama has built during this primary before.
Ok, continue telling yourself that…
Those of us who see what really is going on, as Joel pointed out in the article, know better. The Cult of Obama continues.
He’s won the most states, the popular vote, the most pledged delegates, the most superdelegates
As did every other Democratic candidate before, for the most part.
But he couldn’t win outright, could he? Couldn’t get as many states, pledged delegates, superdelegates, as Kerry did 4 years ago. And he did such an amazing job in the General election!
This is a man who knows how to appoint the right people, get things done, and make things run the way he needs them to.
Except there is nothing to show that other than your blind faith. As I pointed out, even with an overwhelming number of one large group of people voting for him for racial reasons, he did nothing at all remarkable or extraordinary and probably would not have won the nomination. Change the number of black voters voting for him to match the number of white voters voting for/against him and he loses. It’s simple math…
We will all be better off with that kind of president at the helm of this nation after all these years of Bush incompetency and negligence
Maybe, maybe not. But I seriously doubt we will find out.
You see, this is what the Democratic Party does, and why Obama’s win is not at all surprising. In the nomination phase, they nominate the most liberal candidate. Then in the general, it comes back to bite them, just as it did in 2004.
That is why 1992 was so important for the Democratic party. Because no one felt that Bush was beatable, very few candidates actually ran. And surprise of surprise, Bill Clinton, the most moderate of the bunch, was able to win. Now *THAT* was an amazing campaign, much more impressive than anything Obama has done.
Then when it came time to vote in the general election, enough people were willing to vote for the more moderate Democrat, something they very rarely do if the Democratic nominee is very liberal (think Dukakis).
You can continue to try to spin that McCain is Bush III, but he’s not and people are smart enough to know that they had very serious differences when they ran before. Add that to the number of quotes that will be pulled out from high-ranking Democrats that are on record saying that McCain was a Republican that they could vote for when it was ugly between Bush and McCain and that charge, intended to sway the non-thinking, will be be put down pretty quick.
Obama will have to go dirty, like he did in Pennsylvania. Then his words that he would never run that kind of campaign will come out…
It’s going to be a massacre, IMO. And the black leaders, like Shaprton, will call for riots, because to them there is no real desire to ‘unite the races’ because they still think in that old mindset, that races still exist.
I don’t actually look forward to the next four years, no matter which candidate wins. The only real chance for a possible healing of the divide that the democrats and republicans have created in their desire to play us against each other will be a McCain/Rice or McCain/Powell ticket. I don’t know if it will happen, but that’s my hope.
BTW, I posted in another comments section listing out the MYRIAD of reasons that someone might not vote for Obama and choose McCain instead that weren’t infantile, spiteful and/or racist. But of course, in the mind of the Cult, there are only a few options and/or ways of looking at things.
Pass around the kool-aid.
Posted by: Rhinehold at May 10, 2008 05:26 PMRhinehold, someone else will do the dirty work for BHO, most likely D Axelrod, or the media contacts that D A thanked before, when BHO was running for the US Senate. There is an objective reality involved here.
Axelrod was originally supposed to work for Blair Hull, since Hull was willing to spend 30 million to get elected to the Senate. D A found out a lot about Hull’s private life, and then went to work for BHO instead. Then, just at the right moment in the primary, the sealed court documents of Hull’s divorce from Brenda Sexton became public.
Almost the same thing happend with Jack Ryan, a good guy Rpblcn businessman turned schoolteacher, who actually could have gotten elected in Illinois. At the time, it seemed like Jeri Ryan had something to do with that. What are the odds that a primary and general election opponent of the same candidate in the same year would get sandbagged in the same way? You wouldn’t even believe it if it was fiction.
Posted by: ohrealy at May 10, 2008 06:05 PMblockquote>(BTW, I love how you continually call people who may choose not to vote for Obama racist. It shows the levels you are willing to go to get your way. Good work!)
And yet it’s okay for you to say that the black voters are racist if they vote for Obama????
Okay.
Posted by: womanmarine at May 10, 2008 06:11 PMit’s okay for you to say that the black voters are racist if they vote for Obama????
No, it’s ok if I say that the black voters (and white voters for that matter) are racist if they vote for Obama because he’s black.
Are you going to argue that there isn’t a large percentage of them that aren’t? Do we have to dig into the polling data that I’ve seen for the proof or are you willing to accept that if someone votes, or doesn’t vote, for someont because of what color they are its racist?
I don’t want to hear the bullshit that black people can’t be racist either, I might blow a valve and run up a big hospital bill…
Posted by: Rhinehold at May 10, 2008 07:16 PMOk, continue telling yourself that…
It’s simply the truth.
Those of us who see what really is going on, as Joel pointed out in the article, know better. The Cult of Obama continues.
Yeah, I keep seeing and hearing these kinds of statements. They make me laugh. Because clearly all the anti-Obama cranks haven’t been paying any attention to what’s actually been going on at all. Not only is Obama’s fund raising apparatus been drawing in more money than any primary campaign in the history of the country, but he and his supporters have been building a system of interconnected campaign headquarters all over this country and an online community that is functioning like clockwork. Simultaneously, his enormous “cult-like” “kool-aid drinkin’” army of enthusiastic supporters just continue to keep registering hordes of new voters, and encouraging voters (of all political stripes and persuasions) who haven’t gone to the polls in many years by canvassing and speaking to them directly. As a result, these people have been getting out to vote in their best interest — for a change.
You naysayers just keep telling yourselves whatever it is you want to believe — and while you’re busy taking your naps, we’ll just keep on re-drawing the electoral map right under your noses and laughing at all your insults.
Yes we can.
Except there is nothing to show that other than your blind faith.
Yeah, nothing — other than the obvious fact that he has just beaten the entrenched DLC Democratic Party Machine to a bloody pulp, despite the fact that they’ve been controlling of our party since the year after Reagan got elected. They started out this primary with a mountain of big corporate money, and the “inevitable” label attached to their candidate courtesy of the corporate MSM, and it didn’t matter one whit.
As I pointed out, even with an overwhelming number of one large group of people voting for him for racial reasons, he did nothing at all remarkable or extraordinary and probably would not have won the nomination.
Oh, but he and his supporters have been and are doing remarkable and extraordinary things. In more ways that I could even begin to tell you. That’s what happens when people start truly pulling together to reach a common and much needed goal. You just refuse to see it. That’s fine. You think whatever you like.
As for people voting for Obama only for racial reasons, that’s nonsensical bunk. Barack Obama is too intelligent, articulate, competent and politically skilled for this kind of crap to be taken at all seriously.
On the other hand, the Hillary Campaign has been so busy race baiting and blowing so many shameful dog whistles that when voters (of every color) were driven away from her in sheer loathing and disgust, there stood Obama. Not only is he a terrific candidate these folks could get behind, but there too, stood whole bunch of us friendly supporters who were right there to greet them — more than happy to welcome them into this movement focused on changing business-as-usual in Washington DC.
Change the number of black voters voting for him to match the number of white voters voting for/against him and he loses. It’s simple math…
That is why 1992 was so important for the Democratic party. Because no one felt that Bush was beatable, very few candidates actually ran. And surprise of surprise, Bill Clinton, the most moderate of the bunch, was able to win. Now *THAT* was an amazing campaign, much more impressive than anything Obama has done.
Did you know that Obama played something of an important role in Clinton’s win in 1992? At that time he was working as the director for Project Vote in Chicago, and they launched a very successful effort in Illinois (and many other states) that raised a great deal of voter participation — especially among minorities. Project Vote played a huge role in helping turn Illinois and many other states for Bill Clinton that year.
Like so many aspects of Obama’s biography, his campaign is entwined with a lot of his own personal experiences. Registering voters and getting them to actively participate is huge part of this man’s story. One that has and is affecting his current, highly successful campaign.
Then when it came time to vote in the general election, enough people were willing to vote for the more moderate Democrat, something they very rarely do if the Democratic nominee is very liberal (think Dukakis).
Sure, people will only vote for who the MSM defines as “moderate.” And this time around it’s Hillary and McCain who meets the “Moderate” “Commander-in-Chief Threshold.” Which automatically means that voting for the war without reading the NIE is “moderate.” As is being willing to “obliterate” Iran the “moderate” stance.
Btw, using the word Liberal like it’s supposed to stand for something scary, awful, and lacking in wisdom and ability isn’t a tactic that seems to be working too well for the right any longer. Disasters such as the Iraq War, Katrina, and our tanking Economy really seems to have cured people of believing a BS propaganda campaign of disinformation against Liberals and Liberalism.
You can continue to try to spin that McCain is Bush III, but he’s not and people are smart enough to know that they had very serious differences when they ran before.
It is not spin, it is fact. McCain truly is all for a continuation of Bush’s policies. All one needs to do to verify that is go to his website and take a look at his platform. It’s just more of McSame.
Add that to the number of quotes that will be pulled out from high-ranking Democrats that are on record saying that McCain was a Republican that they could vote for when it was ugly between Bush and McCain and that charge, intended to sway the non-thinking, will be be put down pretty quick.
Non-thinking, indeed. Now that it is no longer ugly between Bush and McCain, and he has gone back on so many of his positions in order to receive GOP machine support, anyone with half a thinking brain finds it embarrassing and shameful. He even has Klassy Karl Rove as an advisor to his campaign. Clearly this Clown no longer deserves any of the respect he formerly garnered from people on the left.
Obama will have to go dirty, like he did in Pennsylvania. Then his words that he would never run that kind of campaign will come out…
Oh, you mean he might have to get as dirty as saying that McCain is “the choice of Hamas” because some disreputable leftwing blog claims they have a direct line on interviewing terrorists and picking their brains on America’s elections? McSame said he wanted to run a “respectful campaign”, yet now he is pulling this bullsh*t. Do all of you approve of this, or is dirty acceptable and lying okay just as long as it comes from a rightward direction?
I don’t actually look forward to the next four years, no matter which candidate wins. The only real chance for a possible healing of the divide that the democrats and republicans have created in their desire to play us against each other
Voting in a truly decent man like Obama could help to begin healing that divide. With Hillary and McCain, we’re sure to get a continuation of the same old partisan viciousness and divisiveness. And I don’t want to hear about how McCain has worked with Democrats on the Hill in the past. He’s gone back on everything he used to say that made folks on the left give him that measure of respect. He’s changed himself into a Neocon to the point where on Super Tuesday he was comfortable with referring to Democrats as “the enemy” just like he uses on Al Qaeda. McSame is clearly a bottom-scraping opportunistic chameleon of no true principles.
a McCain/Rice or McCain/Powell ticket. I don’t know if it will happen, but that’s my hope.
Yeah, that’d be great with me too. I can just picture the television ads we could run. Condi testifying about that “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US” memo. Or Powell lying before the UN about WMD’s trying to sell Bush’s Mistaken Disaster of a War.
BTW, I posted in another comments section listing out the MYRIAD of reasons that someone might not vote for Obama and choose McCain instead that weren’t infantile, spiteful and/or racist.
Well, the only reason I can think that someone would turn from embracing Hillary’s platform to voting for McSame (aside from being infantile, spiteful or racist) is because they have a real deepseated hankering to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” until they “obliterate” the entire country of all men, women and children.
But of course, in the mind of the Cult, there are only a few options and/or ways of looking at things.Sure that must be it. And while you all are having so much snarky fun making these sorts of comments, we’ll just keep on not giving a rats ass about any of them, and keep focusing our energies on signing up new voters, and re-drawing that electoral map for the general.
Pass around the kool-aid.
Yeah, please do pass that kool-aid around! And maybe a few of you might go ahead and take a fortifying sip. I’m guessing that when folks become so dried up, angry and knee-jerk cynical it must really make a body thirsty.
Rhinehold
But of course, in the mind of the Cult, there are only a few options and/or ways of looking at things.
So by this reckoning I presume it is safe to say that the last 7 years have been nothing more than the result of a cultist following. After all there has been and still is not any compromise where Bush and his lockstep legislature is concerned. I see the nature of such blind obstructionism as very limiting and narrow minded. It says the only way is our way. So all who believe in their approach to government must be cultists. And by that same approach you support a party that is hardly in keeping with the norm and advocates some pretty radical ideas. I guess we can assume that you are a member of the Libertarian cult.
I am sorry but your cultist analogy makes little sense and serves to imply that all who support Obama must be simpletons incapable of individual thought and calculation. You will have to do better than that. I live in a very white, very conservative region of this state. I can all but guarantee you that Obama will get the vast majority of that vote. Not because this is a blue state, but because the last regime totally failed us and continues to do so. Case in point, we have already replaced Dennis Hastert, once one of the most powereful republicans in the country, with a democrat.
This race is not about cultism, gullibility, or blind support. It is totally about bad policy and governmental failure. We simply have had enough republican created bullsh-t and seek a new direction. Even if that means taking a chance on a person of less experience who possesses a high degree of intellect and displays a strong passion for changing the way government operates. It will be a very difficult road trying to convince voters that McCain is any different than the party he marches with.
Posted by: RickIL at May 11, 2008 10:37 AMI am sorry but your cultist analogy makes little sense and serves to imply that all who support Obama must be simpletons incapable of individual thought and calculation.
That would be an idiotic implication.
Yet, I’m not surprised.
There is a far cry between saying that you are willing to take a chance on an unknown, or that you want to give Obama your vote because he is saying the things you want to hear and the more cult-like statements that he is akin to some god, unable to do anything wrong, pulling of the ‘most amazing campaign in history’, etc.
Those in the latter are the ones in the cult.
The rest of your comment is invalid based on a bad interpretation.
Posted by: Rhinehold at May 11, 2008 11:11 AMVV
Rhinehold has just got you on a simple truth. You say Obama has run such a great campaign that he is uniting everbody. But he still has not been able even to unite the Dems, as John Kerry did four years ago.
This is the ground truth. If Obama wins this fall, he will represent the majority of American voters, just like George Bush does now. If he gets around 60% of the vote, he will be as popular as Ronald Reagan. But so far he has been unable to get even 50% of the Democrats.
Posted by: Jack at May 11, 2008 11:43 AMvv
i’ve said it before, and i’ll say it again. your party took what should have been a cake walk into the white house, and screwed it up by putting up two of the most liberal candidates you possibly could have. the blue dog dems IMO will vote for mc cain. i also have to echo rhineholds statement that i too will not be looking forward to the next four years no matter who wins in november. i would also say that as weak as these three are, there is a very good possibility that the winner will only serve one term. a strong candidate in 2012 by the opposing party will IMO win easily.
Posted by: dbs at May 11, 2008 01:41 PMRhinehold
RickIL: I am sorry but your cultist analogy makes little sense and serves to imply that all who support Obama must be simpletons incapable of individual thought and calculation.
Rhinehold: That would be an idiotic implication.
Exactly!
I looked up the definition of cult and came up with several interpretations. I picked out the two which I assume would apply to your analogy of Obama worshipers.
1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
2. The followers of such a religion or sect.
The latter would indicate that such people are not particularly capable of making capable sound logical choices on their own and are easily led.
The rest of your comment is invalid based on a bad interpretation.
1. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
2.The object of such devotion.
Are you not devoted to libertarian principles? It seems to me that your support of libertarian principles and everything non liberal seems a bit obsessive.
If your analogy only applies to a particular sect then I can only assume that you are using it as a matter of convenience to serve your purpose. I find nothing particularly open minded or insightful when used in that context. I will have to assume that since you do not consider it valid in the manner I stated then you are simply biased without sound reason.
The BHO supporters who engage in revising his record, as well as claiming that he is somehow capable of solving all problems, with very little experience, and based on abolutely no evidence, are the ones that make his candidacy seem like a cult to those of us who understand how the government actually works. They also claim the the government will somehow work differently with their candidate in charge, which is delusional, since he is only running for one office, not all offices.
The interesting thing this year is that, although the democratic majority in the USHOR may increase, the Senate races don’t look very good at all so far.
Posted by: ohrealy at May 12, 2008 10:05 AMCharacter still counts with the middle group of voters on both sides.(No thats not you guys on the far left!)
This article from CARL ROVE should really put you lefties out.
Getting to Know John McCain
By KARL ROVE
April 30, 2008
It came to me while I was having dinner with Doris Day. No, not that Doris Day. The Doris Day who is married to Col. Bud Day, Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, fighter pilot, Vietnam POW and roommate of John McCain at the Hanoi Hilton.
As we ate near the Days’ home in Florida recently, I heard things about Sen. McCain that were deeply moving and politically troubling. Moving because they told me things about him the American people need to know. And troubling because it is clear that Mr. McCain is one of the most private individuals to run for president in history.
When it comes to choosing a president, the American people want to know more about a candidate than policy positions. They want to know about character, the values ingrained in his heart. For Mr. McCain, that means they will want to know more about him personally than he has been willing to reveal.
Mr. Day relayed to me one of the stories Americans should hear. It involves what happened to him after escaping from a North Vietnamese prison during the war. When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, ‘I told you I would make you a cripple.’
The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day’s will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at ‘a goofy angle,’ as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again.
But it didn’t heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, he put Mr. Day’s splint in place.
Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complemented the treatment he’d gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.
Another story I heard over dinner with the Days involved Mr. McCain serving as one of the three chaplains for his fellow prisoners. At one point, after being shuttled among different prisons, Mr. Day had found himself as the most senior officer at the Hanoi Hilton. So he tapped Mr. McCain to help administer religious services to the other prisoners.
Today, Mr. Day, a very active 83, still vividly recalls Mr. McCain’s sermons. ‘He remembered the Episcopal liturgy,’ Mr. Day says, ‘and sounded like a bona fide preacher.’ One of Mr. McCain’s first sermons took as its text Luke 20:25 and Matthew 22:21, ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.’ Mr. McCain said he and his fellow prisoners shouldn’t ask God to free them, but to help them become the best people they could be while serving as POWs. It was Caesar who put them in prison and Caesar who would get them out. Their task was to act with honor.
Another McCain story, somewhat better known, is about the Vietnamese practice of torturing him by tying his head between his ankles with his arms behind him, and then leaving him for hours. The torture so badly busted up his shoulders that to this day Mr. McCain can’t raise his arms over his head.
One night, a Vietnamese guard loosened his bonds, returning at the end of his watch to tighten them again so no one would notice. Shortly after, on Christmas Day, the same guard stood beside Mr. McCain in the prison yard and drew a cross in the sand before erasing it. Mr. McCain later said that when he returned to Vietnam for the first time after the war, the only person he really wanted to meet was that guard.
Mr. Day recalls with pride Mr. McCain stubbornly refusing to accept special treatment or curry favor to be released early, even when gravely ill. Mr. McCain knew the Vietnamese wanted the propaganda victory of the son and grandson of Navy admirals accepting special treatment. ‘He wasn’t corruptible then,’ Mr. Day says, ‘and he’s not corruptible today.’
The stories told to me by the Days involve more than wartime valor.
For example, in 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.
Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. ‘I hope she can stay with us,’ she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.
I was aware of this story. What I did not know, and what I learned from Doris , is that there was a second infant Mrs. McCain brought back. She ended up being adopted by a young McCain aide and his wife.
‘We were called at midnight by Cindy,’ Wes Gullett remembers, and ‘five days later we met our new daughter Nicki at the L.A. airport wearing the only clothing Cindy could find on the trip back, a 7-Up T-shirt she bought in the Bangkok airport.’ Today, Nicki is a high school sophomore. Mr. Gullett told me, ‘I never saw a hospital bill’ for her care.
A few, but not many, of the stories told to me by the Days have been written about, such as in Robert Timberg’s 1996 book ‘A Nightingale’s Song.’ But Mr. McCain rarely refers to them on the campaign trail. There is something admirable in his reticence, but he needs to overcome it.
Private people like Mr. McCain are rare in politics for a reason. Candidates who are uncomfortable sharing their interior lives limit their appeal. But if Mr. McCain is to win the election this fall, he has to open up.
Americans need to know about his vision for the nation’s future, especially his policy positions and domestic reforms. They also need to learn about the moments in his life that shaped him. Mr. McCain cannot make this a biography-only campaign – but he can’t afford to make it a biography-free campaign either. Unless he opens up more, many voters will never know the experiences of his life that show his character, integrity and essential decency.
These qualities mattered in America ‘s first president and will matter as Americans decide on their 44th president.
Hillarious does not have this kind of character, BHO hasn’t enough experience to have attained this kind of character, sorry guys, lets get to the major election so we can compare character.
Posted by: scottie1321 at May 12, 2008 03:17 PMJoel,
What about Bob Barr? I would have thought you would aver for the Libertarian.
Posted by: googlumpus at May 12, 2008 03:35 PMThese are the kind of people that Obama has to deal with in the major election:
The Reverend Jeremiah Wright may have stepped down as pastor, but the Trinity United Church of Christ may continue to haunt Barack Obama.
Newsmax reports the new Senior Pastor, Otis Moss, has called biblical patriarch Abraham a pimp, said Noah and Moses were thugs and said Jesus had a “soft spot for thugs.” Moss has also praised late rapper Tupac Shakur as a prophet despite his profanity-laced lyrics that glorify violence and a criminal record including assault and sexual
abuse.
And don’t bother bringing up Hagee thats apples and oranges anf to make that connection to McCain shows intelectual dishonesty. McCain and Hagee were not “close” over the years like BHO and these guys have been.
Posted by: scottie1321 at May 13, 2008 12:01 AM“Hagee thats apples and oranges anf …”
Well, you’re definitely right there, a whole bowl of fruitcakes.
Posted by: googlumpus at May 13, 2008 02:18 AMObama = Lost Elections
It seems that Obama & Obamatics are drinking their champagne before the real party has started…
Obamatics have become so blind, they can not see further than their noses…
Ideological rhetoric without any solid plan of how to deal with those three major issues (1. the WAR; 2. weak Economy; 3. the Environment) that are affecting our lives is just a hole in the water…
With the help of media that artificially build him up, where empty promises were not backed up by substance, he might think that he will win…
Just wait!
When his affiliation for 25 years with a racist anti American church, where Farrakhan & Wright were his “uncles”; his elitist out of touch comments regarding blue collar American working class people; his direct & indirect derogatory comment directed towards Bill Clinton’s successful presidency; his naive approach of the war in Iraq based mostly of his pull-out-without-a-plan plan; Tony Rezko & Co deals; his wifes comments about being “proud for the first time” of USA; all of these will come back to haunt him and will suffocate his candidacy and leave DNC in chaos disarray for not making the right choice…
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
