If McCain and Palin were running the White House today ...

What do you think organized labour in the USA would say?

Ah, good question. They would say:

1. Iran might have been bombed already

2. We would be sick of "you betcha"

3. Abortions would be illegal, or well on their way to be

4. Sontomayer(sp) would not be  a SC Justice

5. No sex education  allowed

6. No environmental action at all occuring

7. Palin might be President already

8. Race riots might be a daily occurance

9. The religious right leaders would not be being investigated for fraud etc, the way they are now

10. The police would be more out of control than they are now

Other than Sotomayor (which is hard to care about, given her own backtracking), isn't it amazing that very few of these occurred during 8 years of GW Bush. I guess you're thanking your lucky stars for Obama!

Oh by the way, did you notice that more Afghan civilians and more invading troops are dying in Afghanistan than ever before? But I guess with McCain, they would have been dying in China and North Korea, right?

Did you start this thread as bait so you could attack people unionist? If so I asked that it be closed.

Other than Obama, who has Unionist attacked?

Republicans will never, ever make abortion illegal. Why would they kill their golden goose?

I thought I was attacking Obama. Every point I posted was true. Maybe remind is upset because all her points were "might have beens". You know, like "if Harper is elected, the world will come to an end, so vote Liberal?"

You see, if the left doesn't push and shove and criticize Obama every single time he licks the boots of Power and Wealth, why would anyone want him there? His charming good looks?

Good point.

You must have read "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

Top Ten Ways To Tell Your President & His Party Aren't Fighting For Health Care For Everybody

From Black Agenda Report. The least we can do is support those in the U.S. who are pushing Obama to live up to the dreams of those who voted for him. To date, he is scoring zero.

Well had I had a vote I would have supported Ralph Nadar, but you know that the same BS was spewed out from the Democrats about splitting the vote, that the Liberals vomit out in Canada.  So we continually exchange one right-wing party for another. Mouseland is not only applicable in Canada.

Having said that, there is something about taking away people's hopes and dreams, even if they are probably not entirely accurate

I think there is at least one fundamental difference, but I'm not even positive about it. At least I hope there is. 

When someone like a George Bush or a Brian Mulroney gets elected, there is a tendency for  the real right-wing wackos to come out of the woodwork. It's as if they have been legitimized, and feel they can make all the divisive comments they like without much fear of any retribution from the authorities. You know, the free speechers. Unfortunately as Mulroney well knew, you throw enough mud on the wall, and at least some of it will stick.

What about Supreme Court appointments? My gut tells me I would rather the recommendations came from Obama rather than McCain, but hey, what do I know even about that.

I believe if McCain was president today, the left in the USA would be a lot more vibrant. Their opposition to the policies of the McCain-Palin (current Obama) administration would give them something around which to rally around. Right now they have put all their eggs in one basket, those eggs were full of hormones and are now already spoiled.

Instead, the right in the USA is finding unity, around issues like racism being over except when it's against whites, the birther movement, and the feminism of Sarah Palin.

Good one, Apples.

Antiwar Movement Defeated by Obama

And note this is the exact opposite of what all the Obombaphiles were telling us before the election - that an Obomba administration would usher in a golden age of leftist activism and leave the Republicans in demoralized disarray.

I remember when some were arguing that an Obama White House would "allow the space" for anti-war and progressive movements to flourish. We said that was horseshit.

We were right.

But don't ever, ever, criticize those who oppose him in Congress, or their robotized electorate, conditioned by a media owned by wealth, and with no intellectual means of breaking free and evaluating their own condition.

What a wonderfully uncomplicated world of personalities some dwell in. Perhaps  the effect of early exposure to Hollywood.

I'd be the first to do so, if I thought that some babblers were supporting those congresspersons. As it stands, however, the debate on babble seems to be centred somewhat to the left of that.

Do try to keep up, George.

Yeah sure. The "robots" produced an African-American Democrat president and a Democratic Congress, all based on promises of change, end to foreign war, end to violation of Geneva Conventions, racial harmony, health care for all, freedom for workers to organize... and the robots achieved this notwithstanding the media owned by wealth. They were inspired by a clamour for hope and change.

And now, today, we should allegedly criticize the McCains and Palins; the rightwingers; those who lost the election; those who could no longer fool the Great Unwashed; but we must not raise the smallest voice of reminder and criticism against those who broke those promises, who are trampling cynically on the hope for change upon which they themselves traded.

The robotic voters are far wiser and far more courageous than that. They will not fear to remind Obama sharply of what he promised, for fear of falling into McCainian hellfire. They understand blackmail and will defy it. But they do need a few principled and active leaders to show them the way.

The robots, of course, are on the Religious Right, u.

The Reformers - like babblers - are not robotic...but given, sometimes, to criticizing their elected politicians for not working a Harry Potter magic. Why ever would Obama have to eat his words about a "dumb" cop if he lived in the political world you portray?

So, the more he grovels before the robots of the religious (and secular) right, the more it proves he is obliged to do so?

Bootstrap logic.

The media, MS, can't wait to find fault with him as they "grovel" before their conservative advertisers (there are people grovelling all over, trying to make a buck).

That's another element that the down-with-the-appeaser crowd somehow ignores. Or can you not imagine the Appalachian folk that Bageant describes, listening, enthralled, to the nightly rants of their radio talk show hosts? 

You people want him to stop playing politics and go down gloriously in flames, satisfying the Republicans that the dingbat from Alaska has a chance three years down the road and bolstering their chances in the midterms less than two years away.

Lunar logic on your part. Certainly, nothing to do with politics on Earth.

It's still early yet.  I never had any illusions about Obama, but before we start making facile comparisons, how about waiting until he's a year into his term?

In any event, here are some other items that wouldn't, or would have, taken place had Obama lost:

More tax cuts for the wealthy.

No stimulus bill, or a paltry one (even though the one that was passed didn't go far enough).

No challenge of Israeli settlement policy.

A military action against Iran.

Sarah Palin being taken seriously.

Good lord, I am agreeing with George.

How many slaves did Abraham Lincoln emancipate with the Emancipation Proclamation?    Not a whole lot, really.  A few in the new state of West Virginia, maybe a few in Kentucky and Missourah.  The vast, vast, vast majority of slaves at that time remained slaves.

Yet, "Lincoln freed the Slaves."

When St. Tommy of Douglass brought in socialized health care, was it "Bill 1" of the first Saskachewan NDP government?   And, when it was brought in, how many abortions did it cover?

And if Obama really didn't want a health care program, he's had the perfect excuse to "back burner" it, what with the economy and all.  I'm sure Bob Rae's already written to his people with tips on how to slide that knife into peoples backs so they hardly even notice it going in.

And, really, how fast do you think YOU could actually withdraw troops from Iraq, or close down Gitmo?   Faster than  Obama?  Maybe.  by what, weeks?  Days? 

We're at month 7.

He's Barrak Obama, not Morgan Freeman.

Wait, Joe Bidden has been gaffe free for consequtive weeks.  Maybe he is Morgan Freeman.

Apparently, he's similar to a magician, or a spell caster, and an astonishing one at that, whose beguiling incantations reach far and wide.

11. Women forced to pay for their own rape examination kit

Well he beats Bush's bumbling by a country mile, eh jack?  Maybe that's part of the problem, too great a contrast.  There must still be something rotten in Denmark?

And of course there is. But the man and his estimable lady ring true as good people trying to do the best they can, set an example . They are now confronting "the beast" - the sobriquet applied to the voting populace by some European politicians (where political consciousness is far, far more highly developed than in the land of the free).

To me, the "beast" is less the voting populace, than the corporate/financial/media empire that owns much of congress, and that is able to brainwash a good part of the voting populace with myths, lies and outright propaganda.  A strong progressive president can get the best of them, a la FDR.  Obama has shown no such inclination.

What in the devil do you mean by "get the best of them?"

Just what power does a Democratic president have over the MSM?

He's not confronting beasts George.  They're his advisors, and czars...handlers actually.

He/she can go over their heads and communicate directly to the people.  Obama has yet to make an oval office address, which is the typical method of doing so.  All the interviews and press conferences in the world won't accomplish that.  The bigger problem in terms of communication is substantive, however.  For instance, on health care, Obama could have taken on the health insurance industry directly, and made them the bogeyman.  But he hasn't.  Which has allowed the Republicans, as usual, to make "the government" the bogeyman.

Wouldn't you think old Rush Limbaugh and following fit a bit better, jack?  And the Europeans are talking about the great,heaving mass of people and viewpoints involved in who knows what weird, delusional  mind exercises mixed with good old self gratification, not the scientific, poll based, rational process in the West Wing.

When most see the U.S. public's vulnerability to snake oil, josh, they wonder why anyone of intelligence would try to influence such ignorance. It is a learned condition, the product of omission of facts as well as commission of outright lies. That was the finding of the Davey Commission on the media in Canada, four decades back. It's only gotten worse, here and there.

I don't subscribe to such pessimism.  Particularly when a president can dominate the news, and can use the "bully pulpit" to change perceptions and views.  That it hasn't been tried does not mean it cannot work.

If he's got a spine, he has the power to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

[35]

Yep, looks like that would be an excellent start, LTJ.  He certainly would not veto it as did Reagan and Bush. Perhaps he can put one more thing on his plate of proposed legislation, but I would think presenting it before the health battle is over would be counterproductive. 

Again, to be fair, his "spine" tests might be conducted over a couple of years in his first term? 

When November 2012 rolls around, we'll be hearing about how Obomber needs another term to force his agenda of hope and change because one term just isn't enough time. Besides, he can't get anything done with an obstructionist Congress (of fellow Democrats), and that besides, can you just imagine how much worse it will be with a (Jeb)Bush/Palin administration!!".

For all those lamenting that Obama has no real power to challenge the entrenched special interests (like his team of advisors. Go figure), he can order the deployment of the Marines to Afghanistan, but by god he can't get mustard for his hamburger. He can make preparations for and openly threaten to attack Iran (one of the evil thing McCain/Palin would do if they, god forbid, ever get elected), but for chrissakes just cannot even speak the words "single payer, universal".

All this McCain/Palin crap is nonsense. And if Gore had assumed the presidency, there would be community gardens where interstates used to be, and flying electric cars to get everyone around, and we would piss Tanqueray. Maybes and couldas, are meaningless conjecture. What is disturbing is that we are hearing the "but McCain/Palin would have been worse!" as a defense of the utter betrayal by Obama and the corporate Democrats by people who still abide in the fantasy world of "hope and change". When your only response to the utterly craven corporate rapaciousness of the Obama regime is that it is the best alternative you can possibly have, you are in deep, deep trouble.

"A strong progressive president can get the best of them, a la FDR. " 

And did FDR do all he wanted to do?  Did he do all his supporters wanted him to do?  

But, Obama has had seven months to match Roosevelt's record in office-- which he held  for 12 years.

Fair enough, I suppose?

Yep, lots of depth to it, J.

Trouble is, them that has, don't want to let go of the good life, and them that hasn't , wants it. Beyond that, there is not much thinking going on.

Old Jimmy Carter said back in '79 that preparing to beat the energy shortage perhaps required a mobilization as for war.  That will come to pass, ending the little squabbles.  We'll see if Jefferson's jottings about freedoms, hold up in that climate.

I think the 7 months excuse would be a valid excuse if Obama had had a solid start. For example, if our of the 20 or 30 good things that Obama could conceivably, he had managed to implement 1 or 2 of them. That is not the case. One thing I notice when I talk to progressive friends is it seems like they want to like Obama, they really wish there was a reason for them to support Obama, and whenever the smallest opportunity comes up for Obama to do something progressive, they get excited, and then they feel let down.

Leaving aside the strawman question of what he could do in the next 8 years, let's look at what we know for sure from the first 7 months. This man is in love with compromise. That's simply not the optimal method to bring in real change. Compare to Bush for example, a real hero to neoconservatives, he implemented their full philosophy. He didn't start from a position of compromise the way Obama does, he believed in his own philosophy and he pushed for it 100%. Bush got 2.3 trillion dollars in tax cuts in his first year or so; 8 years of high inflation later and during a necessitating crisis, Obama gets a 700 billion dollar spending package which goes disproportionately to banks. There's an explicit quantitative contrast.

It is not "impossible" that Obama could turn things around, implement universal health care, have an effective environmental policy, qualtiatively reduce America's imperial network overseas, et cetera. However, what is a lot more possible from the objective method of simply extrapolating current trends, is that virtually nothing will change other than a few labels. Things could diverge from these trends - but they could diverge in either direction.

When everything seems hopeless, and there's little to feel excited or enthusiastic about in the political realm, the prospect of deliverance is perhaps not completely lost after all, when considering that in time, there will always be better drugs on the market.  Until then, no amount of placebo optimism can suffice to ameliorate the reality.  One has to wonder though where the greater need for reality medication exists, among the sunny idealists, or with the disbelievers.

Out there in Unread Land, tax cuts always win , with  whacko economics onside. Them's the berries,

Apples.

What compromise? He has yet to propose anything remotely progressive, and the few things that would help working people, like the card check or universal single payer health care are either gutted entirely or banished from existence.

Sure, he "compromised" on Guantanamo bay: the Republicans want to keep raping and torturing, and the Democrats want to rape and torture somewhere less accessable to prying eyes. So, while "closing" Guantanamo (sometime, maybe, in the future, unless something comes up), they will continue thier gross violations of international law and human rights. His compromises consist of taking the more grotesque and vile policies of the Bush administration and compromising to entrench and worsen them. GOBAMA!

FDR got a lot done in his first hundred days.  However, he did have bigger majorities and an even more desparate economic situation.  My point was that FDR was able to disarm his opponents by taking them head on, and making them the "bad guys."  Obama has shown more of a taste for consensous, not confrontation.  Your accomplishments will be limited if you take that route because the other side plays to win and takes no prisoners.

I think if you were an American WWI veteran, part of the so called "Bonus Army"  your view of FDR wouldn't be much different from your view of Obama today.

There's a story I heard, probably appocraphyl, of FDR listening to some social welfare lobbyists, and concluding the meeting by telling them "I agree with you, now go out there and force me to do it."  True story or not, it's instructive.

While I have not followed the health care initiative in detail, from what I have seen it seems that it's only Obama out there trying to sell it.  

Who is abandoning who, here?

FDR had support from those who knew that he was saving capitalism itself. M'lord Black's bio on FDR (a very detailed if one-sided work of appreciation) was written for exactly that reason.

 Any guesses on how many "citizens" (self-identified as taxpayers and consumers) in the land of the free, know FDRs objective role, let alone the restraints on Obama?

About as many as know Abraham Lincoln's real opinion on African Americans.

We have to allow for historical context, TP.  And after all, he was Republican

That his objective role was to "save capitalism from itself" is one possible arbitrary oversimplification one could make.

What does "objective role" mean?

"While I have not followed the health care initiative in detail, from what I have seen it seems that it's only Obama out there trying to sell it.  

Who is abandoning who, here?"

There is no "Obama plan." He's set forth a number of goals he would like a health care bill to contain, including a public option, but has left the details to congress. That's the problem. When he should be setting benchmarks, or "lines in the sand" if you will, he instead has been satisfied with nudging congress and meeting with congresspersons in the hopes of keeping the ball moving forward.

My interpretation is that he starts with a compromise.

That's the problem. When he should be setting benchmarks, or "lines in the sand" if you will,...

No Josh, that isn't the problem.

The American people who want health care, universal or whatever shades of grey,  have to be setting benchmarks, and drawing lines in the sand.

And, if they don't get their act together and start making life absolutely miserable for the Senators and Representatives who are not fully on board, and making life miserable for those in the media and lobbyists arrayed against any kind of plan, then even Obama's plan that you don't  like is going to go down in flames.

And then health care-- like public auto insurance in Ontario-- is off the playing field forever.  If you think the current private system in the States sucks now, wait until the insurance companies know they have pat hand.

--------

Does anyone think that the bankers, or pharmacuetical lobby, or other interests who support Republicans in the States, or the Liberal/Conservative Tory Family Compact in Canada just get thier boys or girls elected, then sit back and expect them to just do thier bidding?  No, they are at them day and night, making sure.

That's the problem with us on the left.  We elect our guy or gal, then do a quick fade expecting that the work has been done, when it has in fact just been started.  Then, when things inevitably don't go our way, we cry into our beer about how we were betrayed.     What  betrays us is our total refusal to understand the nature of political power.

"What  betrays us is our total refusal to understand the nature of political power."

Exactly Tommy!

That, TP, was the best summary of the failure of progressive politics and description of the political battlefield that I have seen in some time.

And yet, when progressives DO push supposedly progressive politicians like Obama (or, say, provincial NDP governments) to live up to the reasons we voted for them, we're dismissed as far-left fringe types who can never be satisfied.

Well ya.   Or "idealogues" in the case of Bob Rae.  

Thing is, you need a lever on them.

No Michelle, it isn't that.  It's about facing up to the reality, and the futility of pushing.

I bet if only the U.S. had elected Ralph Nader, he'd have ALL the problems fixed by now.  Six months would be, like, twice the time he'd need.  He'd be like the ONDP, who wasted no time at all fulfilling ALL of their promises back in 1990.  The left is just more honest that way.

No, he would have been awakened at 03:00 by the 82nd Airborne, forced at gunpoint to a waiting aircraft to be flown to exile in Diego Garcia. And Barack Obama would be installed as the "moderate" president.

Don't lose the faith, brother!  If Nader were President, the 82nd Airborne would be helping dig irrigation trenches in developing nations, as part of the reparations for Capitalism!

Bah!  If *I* were President, things would be even MORE perfect, and I'd do everything in HOURS, not days!  Paradise on earth, I tell ya, thanks to me and my no-nonsense, take-charge, git-'er-done policy!!

I can also say that, since I'll also never have to put my money where my mouth is. 

So Scott. Your bit of graphic strip has unleashed a torrent of affirmation - the guy is a sellout.

 Or , he is not....really.

But you ARE going to Halifax, are you not? I'll bet you have some sincere words for Obama's handlers, about how  a New democrat would handle his Congress and the progressive masses there. And given that he does not have a "left" chiding him from the sidelines...

"long as we know how to get elected ourselves, eh?

You're right. Maybe Obama has done nothing in 6 months. But do the math. Over 8 years, he can do 16 times as much!!!

Your strength in school was more on the lit./language side, eh u.

Those who thought that they would not be disappointed by Obama were seriously fooling themselves. His election did nothing to change the political realities in the US and those tend to make it hard to achieve any genuine progress. The ideal is to have a President who actually tries.

1. True but it doenst really make a difference if the same laws are still in affect only a PR ploy

2. They Still are

3. They Still Are

4. It still aint here is it and it's gonna be very different from what you would expect it to be

5. LOL really? It ended? I never got the letter still

6. It Still is

7. It did and continues to do

8. It still is a thing of the future

9. That aint a federal issue

10. That Aint a federal issue

11, Idk about that one lol

Obama aint no different Wolf In sheep's clothing lol

He shouldnt have taken his words bacc for the gates thing

The educational point about Nader is that he wasn't elected, and there are reasons for this, as there are for why the establishment rallied behind Obama.

Scott:

"Those who thought that they would not be disappointed by Obama were seriously fooling themselves. His election did nothing to change the political realities in the US and those tend to make it hard to achieve any genuine progress. The ideal is to have a President who actually tries.

The election of an African-American (father born in Kenya) "did nothing to change the political realities in the US..."?

Seems to me that his failures, at this point, have EXPOSED the political realities in the U.S....and the level of political consciousness of many hereabouts.

Wow, that was an impressive display of world diplomacy by the Obama administration yesterday bringing those journalists home from North Korea, one of the so-called axis of evil (actually it is David Frum who is evil, and it's disgusting a sicko Canadian like him was ever in the entourage of power), and possibly opening up a dialogue with the North Korean leadership.

Warmongers McCain and Palin probably still want to bomb North Korea.

So that is a fundamental difference between the Obama administration and what we would have got had McCain & Palin been elected.

Probably something he ate.

Apparently those 2 rescued journalists work in some way for Al Gore. Clinton never misses an opportunity to hang out with beautiful women. Do you think he would have gone to N Korea to rescue a couple of guys. Nah!

This is a thread evaluating Obama's Presidency(and after only a few months). So the questioned to be asked is: Compared to what other President.   As George pointed out above, Obama's troubles have shown the difficulties of getting any good legislation passed in the doomed US empire.  Probably there were those who saw the troubles with the Roman Empire before its collapse, but it had become so calcified and hidebound that no one could do anything about it.

It remains to be seen if the US, with its unfair Senate, checks and balances, can get out of this or not, but after only a few months in office, we certainly can't say Obama has failed yet. He has had to speak in vague generalities, and make very moderate proposals for change, so that he would have a chance to accomplish anything. He's a politician; he's primarily concerned with holding on to power. The only President who may not have been that was Carter, and all he did was lose to Reagan.

Another thing that this thread has made clear is that there are people here who see Babble as some sort of force to be reckoned with, that if people here don't let Obama "off the hook," it will have some influence on US politics.  Since the 40 or 50 people who post here, can't influence the NDP, I doubt if they're going to have any traction at all in the US.

They were innocent journalists like those hikers were just innocent backpackers in the mountains of Iran.

The Cult of the Presidency

If McCain & Palin etc......this would definitely not have happened, so we can put this thread to bed.

Analysis: Obama lets NKorea's Kim save face

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqVsvaS4WO_7LXrY6kWGS5...

From the last two paragraphs of the link story:

"Still, the diplomatic minuet was a success, more so if Obama indeed cracked open the door to resume dialogue with North Korea, whose nuclear program stands to destabilize Asia and compromise Obama's promise to work toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

Just don't hold your breath."

For many, NR, this will clearly be another failure on Obama's part. Hell, I'll bet Sara could have brought old Kim around in a heartbeat - North Korea being only a tiddly bit farther over the horizon than Siberia.

But I'll bet Gore's two journalists have a better understanding of the kind of world the American majority vote created and would have maintained in perpetuity, if their greed and ignorance had not scuttled the ship of state.

Not even if we close our eyes, cross our fingers, and wish real hard?

The operative word for this thread is the first one in the heading, "If"

And no posters were up to completely describing the sorry-ass situation that would exist if the senator and the former governor had made it.  The sensitive mind boggles at the prospect.  Just as it must at the gee whiz expectations of supposedly mature political minds on the subject of do-nothin' Obama. Something to do with the higher expectations of a command-economy, authoritarian crowd , I expect.

Well maybe somewhere there is a CIA agent reading this, who will support Nader next election.

Perplexing aren't they, the impatient ones with their relentless expectations and doubtful imaginations running amok, scratching their heads in unfathomable bewilderment as they gaze upon the astonishing emptiness.

George, many babblers - myself included - expressed our concern throughout 2007-8 that nothing would change with an Obama victory. Those concerns were based on (a) the reality of U.S. economics and politics; and (b) Obama's own words and deeds. You are suffering from some serious inversion of reality if you think that we had "expectations" which are now disappointed. It was the Obama cheerleaders here who had great expectations, and it is those same cheerleaders who are now saying "hey, it's only been six months".

Speaking personally, Obama has fully lived up to my expectations in his short term in office. If he proceeds to change water to wine and resurrect the dead in the coming months, well, I'll just have to say he exceeded those expectations. But having taken a little biology back in high school days, I've decided against holding my breath.

Obama inherited a war, economic turmoil, and a full court press by the right-wing wackos like David Frum, etc.

So far, Sotomayor in the Supreme Court, a door opened with North Korea, an attempt to take on the HMOs of health care, speaking out against racism. Not too shabby for a guy born in Kenya.

With all those accomplishments (or at least, with the ones that are factual), one wonders what is left to do in the next 3.5 years.

Obamas No 1 priority is to get a USA birth certificate.

Maybe Obama does not have the Congressional allies needed to make significant change.  It was different for Bush, he had people like Hillary to vote for the war in Irag to hunt down those WMD.

Sorry I didn't make that clear, u.   I meant that a great many who rely on ideas of a president who can surmount Congress in a single bound, has powers of action independent of the other arms of government (not just the power to veto the actions of Congress) AND who is able to overcome the finance capital debacle of the Bush years of de-regulation by the imposition of a command economy independent of the markets holding everyone's pension hopes....those folks could never have expected Obama to do a damned thing.

The "command economy, authoritarian  crowd"  , in other words...they could not have been expecting anything from Obama. No siree. They would have known long ago, too, that he can't make a "silk purse out of the sow's ear" of "U.S. economics and politics."(Some Jeffersonian era imagery there).

At the present understanding of what is required to bring about social change, and the barriers to that change, that is probably true.

But I can't find comfort in stoning those who attempt to bring about change  while trying to chart a route through a veritable sea of ignorance and greed (another customary situation back in those days of unchallengeable mystery). So I have to say, again, why would you not point out those deficiencies in "U.S. economics and politics", the structures. Point to the degree to which everyone has become dependent on the market for somethiing to live on when they can no longer work. Suggest working alternatives, given the degree to which we've made it really, really hard to turn around. And we're staring at an environmental armageddon, to boot.

Back to where I began this exchange:

"But don't ever, ever, criticize those who oppose him in Congress, or their robotized electorate, conditioned by a media owned by wealth, and with no intellectual means of breaking free and evaluating their own condition."

Some would suggest there is no difference who is in the White House. I beg to differ.
Obama-Allied Unions Threatened With Gun Violence For Town Hall Participation

August 7, 2009

One of the country's largest unions has been hit by a wave of hostile calls and even death threats from people upset with its involvement [90] in town-hall health care debates.

The Service Employers International Union was, as one aide put it, "deluged" with calls on Friday after several conservative media outlets accused the organization of trying to assault demonstrators who had showed up to protest Obama's health care agenda. Making it even scarier for union employees, the address of the union's St. Louis headquarters was mentioned on air by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh [91].

Look, there are a lot of things that are disappointing in the early part of the Obama era.  But there is a big difference in this respect:

Now, there is space for activism and growth.  All activism would've been impossible if McCain and Palin had won(which is the only thing a big Nader vote would have led us to).

There could have been no regional victories, there could have been no protests, there certainly could never again have been gains.  We'd have been stuck in conservatism forever.

That's reality folks. 

A McCain win would have been the end of history, and you all know it.  No one would think change was possible.

The answer is to mobilize and to build a movement in the space that exists.  The answer is to be active.  Saying "It wouldn't have mattered if McCain had won" serves no purpose at all.

And for those who find the current conditions too limiting, the answer is to work for electoral reform and to create proportional representation in as many U.S. electoral areas as possible.  That's what Ralph should be doing, instead of what he and his followers are doing which is...nothing whatsoever.

"No one would think change was possible."

You are assuming some of the naysayers of Obama here really want change.

This  thread is an absurdity

aren't they all?

Most of them do.  And there's good reason to be frustrated.  I'm just pointing out that nothing would've been gained by having the election result be(as a lot of them would have preferred) McCain 46%, Obama 40%, Nader 14%.   Why would anyone think that that result would put us in any better situation for creating change?

It would mean that abortion would be totally and permanently banned in the U.S., for one thing, which would be something the feminist movement could never recover from.  And it would mean that unions would have no chance of gaining members.  And it would mean that there would be no chance at all of ending the Iraq War(instead of us having at least the knowledge that it was going to stop next year, which isn't soon enough, but is at least something).

There would be no possibility of change or of building a left movement.  We now know the right can never be stopped from doing anything when it is in power.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

If GW had been allowed a third term, he'd have been elected in a landslide. 

If that had happened, at least there would have been a possibility of an end to the most egregious abuses of the..well..Bush administration. With Obomber, forget it.

But, Ken, the right is in power. You know that, right?

Didn't we already address this nonsense? I'm sure we heard the same thing when Bush was elected. Two wars, torture, Katrina, signing statements, etc, yet curiously, women can still abort. Maybe GW was just so darn busy he just plum forgot.

I don't think Dubya would have managed a third term.  After Katrina and the stalemate in the war, and with the banking collapse as well, the country was not giving the Christian Fratboy the benefit of the doubt anymore.

In a way, Bush did win a third term. Every single abuse and crime he committed are being happily continued by Obomber. Oh, I forgot. Obama did eliminate racism, didn't he? That's something GW couldn't do.

How totally juvenile.

How totally juvenile.

Voting for Nader or McKinney wouldn't have frigtened the power structure.  The power structure is never frightened by ANYTHING that results in a Republican president being elected.  The power structure would just have said "we won, that's all that matters".

And NOBODY on the left would have woke up happy after an election where the result was McCain 46%, Obama 40%, Nader 14%.  No one would have seen any hope for the future for that at all.  No short-term right wing victories ever lead to long-term progressive gains.

Saying "everybody on the U.S. left should've voted for Nader or McKinney" is now a useless observation.  What is important is to work  in the current conditions, which are much more favorable to activism than a McCain presidency(which would have marked the end of politics in the U.S.)would have provided.

President Obama has SAID he wants people to be active, to mobilize, to try and shape the debate from below.  Why not take that as a window of opportunity, rather than wasting time on pointless griping about how the election actually came out.

And if Ralph had really just wanted to boost the third-party vote, he could have easily done that by working within a "safe states" strategy.  He didn't actually have to try to make it harder to keep Sarah Palin a feeble heartbeat away from the presidency by campaigning in battleground states.

by Ralph Nader [106]

Wouldn't it be great to have the opportunity to vote for someone like this?

At this point, a Republican victory in the near term is inevitable. For most Americans, the only people giving voice to the frustration and confusion in these difficult times is the Tea Party movement. So you have the swing voters, who were repulsed by Bush and critical in Obama's victory, swinging back the other way as their own situation doesn't improve. More ominously, the American public has increasingly lost faith in its government institutions, and those who are hurting most are dropping out. They don't care who gets in, things won't change for them either way, and they certainly aren't receptive to anything you or I have to say about the lesser of two evils.

And yet when the Democrats won Congress in 2006, they stifled the very anti-war activism Obama said is important. There's a good reason why Cindy Sheehan gave up on the Democrats and why she challenged Speaker Pelosi.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I think Obama is far more dangerous than Bush. Bush was so hated and reviled that people would have run for cover if he said the sky was blue. Obama has a wide appeal to people, and he can (and in fact actually is) use this appeal to advance the same policies that Bush favoured.

Face it, the Dems and Republicans are in the back pockets of the same wealthy special interests, and neither party will advance any public policy that's in the interest of a majority of Americans.

Nice link al-Q and nice comment A24, but I have to close this thread for length. Feel free to open a new one!