onegoodmove

Yawn,

I am sure glad we will have president Nader to solve our problems.

No matter who you choose, there will be the hands of various corperations in the pockets of who you choose. It's good to know who's hands are where though. I take it this strengthens your support of Nader?

But if you think an any presidency will usher in a golden age think again.

Corrected.

What I wanted to say was...

But if you think any presidency will usher in a golden age think again.

Corrected.

...Damn you Norm and the lack of an edit button! :P

Just to add full disclosure on Gonzalez. That same website is reporting:

At 9:00 a.m. Pacific Standard Time today, presidential candidate Ralph Nader announced at a Washington DC press conference that his running mate will be former San Francisco Supervisor and Board President Matt Gonzalez.

So this is written by someone running against Obama. Given that, I think he still makes some valid points.

"the notorious Mining Law of 1872."

Now you are hitting very close to home,

where the heart be, IF it be. The Obomabot zombiehood has been...a mass mesmerization? When the World is turned upside down, the Nadir is the Zenith, if I could just overcome my innate zenithobia.

so based on my research, the bill passed the house but hasn't reached the senate yes. did they vote on it in the last two weeks? it appears that it will barely pass in the senate with a guaranteed veto from bush.

from nov 2007 (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama opposes a federal mining reform bill because he says it would be too burdensome on the industry and could end up costing miners jobs in Nevada and other states.

as cliché as this sounds, we need to stop fighting within the party. it is entirely possible that the republicans win again in 2008. there are 14 states left.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/index.html

we can find "how could you vote that way?!" points against both candidates. we could debate the effect of Nader's entrance in 2000 and predict the effect in 2008 for months.

we've got serious problems that require victory. even this site, usually laden with intelligent and provocative commentary, has become an emotional chat board interspersed with partisan bullets and supporting links.

i am a proponent of the slippery slope theory. if we don't arrest and reverse the current momentum of anti-constitutional ideology, truly anti-citizen legal propositions - we will be in a much worse state then we are in. this isn't conspiratorial - it's the eventual goal of the current administration and their supporters. I'm not say republicans are bad - i am saying the bad people are republicans and if we give them power, they will continue to wreak havoc on the many in the interest of the few.

Norm, i have tried to stay out of the recent back and forths - mostly because i find it disheartening. but also because i hope that this site would rise above its quasi-IM like status.

there are so many scenarios which include assassinations, terrorist attacks, voting fraud, economic implosions (ie Ford closes two plants in michigan) which could alter the world as we know it.

you don't save money just to save. you save in case you need it. we (all of us) are acting like we have the leisure of considering the theoretical merits of Nader running for president. we don't. how many white men will say, "nah, i'm just not ready for a woman or a negro. but i can't vote for mccain in good coscience. nader is progressive - i'll vote for him." screw polls - they've been wrong every single time. i am appalled at how much the US has changed in the last 8 years - and i fear where we could be in another 4.

progressives are so damned unfocused on the victory because they bicker over the issues - that's why we lose. for once, fuck the issues - we need a victory.

vetting candidates is fine - necessary. it has nothing to do with being a curmudgeon, there is a responsiblity to vet candidates. as long as it's just vetting and not trying to knock the candidate down.

"The Military and the Monetary, use the media as intermediaries, they are determined to keep the citizens secondary" - gil scott-heron

there is a responsiblity to vet candidates. as long as it's just vetting and not trying to knock the candidate down.

Give me an example of vetting that doesn't knock a candidate down.

I take it this strengthens your support of Nader?

It strengthens my conviction that corporatism is the problem and those that fail to acknowledge that fact and take up the fight will accomplish little.

Here's the accompanying random quote I just got:

"Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder.... the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish their corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace....They are continually talking about their patriotic duty. It is not their but your patriotic duty that they are concerned about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches.—Eugene V. Debs"

So, Norm, why not SPUSA?

I don't want to hear it from Charles... unless he speaks for you now, when he didn't before.

(Incidentally, anybody want to tell me how to quote with the gray boxes?)

I say we make the Mining Act of 1872 (or, "The Act", as Nevadans refer to it) the litmus test of 2008. To those who oppose us, we can respond with the following witticisms:

-Stop throwing "sludge"! -I haven't heard such a dumb argument since 1872! -Anything with "Silly Season" in it.

In short, we can give them the shaft!

So, Norm, why not SPUSA?

That would be fine with me, and no one speaks for me.

Put a greater than sign in front of the quoted material.

(Incidentally, anybody want to tell me how to quote with the gray boxes?)

use an > in front of the sentence.

also use * on both sides of words for this effect

Use ** for this effect

That would be fine with me, and no one speaks for me.

I had an alternate inteprretation from "Norm and I think"s over here.

My question really was, if I may clarify, "Why do you support Ralph Nader (I, Reform) over Brian Moore (SPUSA)?"

I think there are good reasons one might hold that opinion, but why do you believe Nader is the -best- third party candidate? Or do you not think that?

correction: excise "think" from the above quote.

I've been reading this blog for about a year and a half now, but since the turn of tone in discussion and professed biases I can't do it any more.

Norm, you have lost me as a reader.

What about land mines? Hillary Clinton voted against the ban on landmines and cluster bombs and Barack Obama voted for the ban.

In this land of the U.S.A., a presidential candidate has to deal with a conservative mind set of the American public in order to win an election. That's why Gravel, Kucinich (and to a lesser degree, Edwards) are no longer candidates.

We can compare the records of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and find one right-wingish vote after the other from both of these candidates.

However, I guarantee you that a President John McCain will be a whole hell of a lot worse that a President Hillary Rodham Clinton or a President Barack Obama.

Change does not happen radically here in the U.S.A.

Change does not happen radically here in the U.S.A.

Sure it does, just not for the better.

Alas, I hereby officially renounce my support for Barack Obama! The steely logic and responsible reporting of solid facts in this article is just too overwhelming, and I've never ever heard arguments like these before! Oh, if only it weren't so! Boo hoo!

Luckily, when you actually fact check this tendentious , slightly loopy fringe attack, none of it withstands much scrutiny. I'll limit myself to three points: the Iraq War, and the mining bill Obama supposedly supports, and health care.

First, on the mining bill, the author's argument relies on the same indirect suggestiveness without any actual facts to back it up which are simply typical of these kinds of attacks. Here is the original CBS article on which the author is supposedly drawing and here is a link to Obama's voting record, including November 2007.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/14/politics/main3503279.shtml http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/

First, Obama's position on the issue is unclear; he has not voted on it yet; and he seems willing to seek compromise to balance interests. Here are the two diverge perspectives reported:

Obama says he believes mining reform is necessary and has called for increased dialogue to forge a compromise. Dan Randolph of Great Basin Mine Watch said the senator's position "implies that Senator Obama is really only listening to one side of the issue." (emphasis added).

The dissenting perspective is perhaps suggestive but not really demonstrative of anything. It is also not clear what role the supposed "lobbyist"--who is not registered as a federal lobbyist but is registered for state lobbying--played in this. Perhaps if Obama were a local NV legislator we should be worried, but simply bandying the term "lobbyist" about with some vague suggestiveness really doesn't show anything. And of course, the author takes some slightly suggestive but disconnected circumstances and simply states as a fact that Obama has been swayed by a federal lobbyist.

On the Iraq issue, we get the same tiresome argument, without even a nod at the standard objection: That Obama opposed the war at the outset, but then voted to support funding it. For a 3rd party candidates who has never held a national public office, and can advise injudicious strategies such as immediate withdrawal without considering the consequences, this must sound like a very convincing argument. The problem is it fails to acknowledge the crucial distinction on the issue, which is that there is a difference between decisions to go to war in the first place, and the far more complex considerations involved in whether or not to fund a war that has been underfunded from the outset and that has created a tremendously complicated situation on the ground.

Finally, the author lampoons Obama for not pushing for a single payer system. I have already argued at length that the conditions standing in the way of health care reform are multi-faceted and complex, and that all the democratic candidates--Obama, Clinton, Edwards--are proposing transitional strategies. The argument he gives against administrative costs, not surprisingly, applies to Clinton as well. But of course, being a 3rd party candidate with no experience in national office, he can just propose we leap headlong to a single payer system, make a token gesture of support, and not have to deal with the messy reality of the real world.

This is what I reject about Kucinich, about Nader, and many of these candidates. They can claim to not work in the current system, to want profound change. That's the kind of change I want too. But you have to have practical strategies for getting there, and getting a broad basis of support, not just policy fantasies and token stands--and attacking mainstream candidates from the sidelines for not being at liberty to be impractical and injudicious, and not living in a fantasy world.

I said: .Change does not happen radically here in the U.S.A.

Dar responds:

Sure it does, just not for the better.

If you will elaborate on this, I can respond.

Adam said:"

They can claim to not work in the current system, to want profound change. That's the kind of change I want too. But you have to have practical strategies for getting there, and getting a broad basis of support, not just policy fantasies and token stands--and attacking mainstream candidates from the sidelines for not being at liberty to be impractical and injudicious, and not living in a fantasy world.

Yes. Thank you. I'm still waiting for a response to this...

@adam:

clap clap clap

what a reasonable position.

clap clap clap

You left out point point and nod, nod

wrt to Adam and 3rd party candidate's/ marginal Democrats interactions with practicalities.

There are -some- steps that even marginal candidates can take. Kucinich has called for impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and the Democratic Party -could- pursue this.

They could -also- call for immediate and/or timely withdrawal (as Kucinich has), and -let- Bush veto those proposals.

Continual compromise is not always the best course, and these would all be valid grounds for criticism by third parties.

The -reason- the Democrats can't pursue these strategies is that they are a loose coalition with many conservative members. If this dilutes their brand image, it is the least bad thing that it could bring about.

(In this specific situation, however, I am in general agreement.)

What about land mines? Hillary Clinton voted against the ban on landmines and cluster bombs and Barack Obama voted for the ban.

Good for Barack. Shame on Hillary. Fuck John McCain

JoAnn,

I think what Dar means is that the last eight years have, in fact, brought radical change. Bush has undone much of the gains of the Great Society and the New Deal, the Square Deal even. I think that is her point. We are fighting battles that we fought in the 1870s.

I am interested since I do read your comments with interest and greater attention than most about Obama and CAFA.

I also asked these question of Obama supporters that I encounter live: Name one of his accomplishment and tell me one of your concerns, does he have any flaws. Generally, people are at a lost. Most tell me go look at his website, which I think is the cultist line (I'm kidding, just having some fun with you) but seriously why do they tell people to send the unconverted to the website? Why do they always stress their own conversion experience? I came to Obama because . . .

Isn't that just a little creepy?

And no one admits even one flaw or concern. It's a adoration society, mutual at times. "We are the people we have been waiting for." That's what the Hopi call themselves, btw. As a historian, I have to say I ain't laughing.

I can point to several flaws on Edwards, Clinton, and now Nader. Even Uribe, who I adore, has flaws. I have flaws. Who doesn't? Apparently Obama. Surely you can tell me that he has flaws, at least one thing that gives you pause or concern. To give you an example, on Edwards I didn't think his Iraq proposals were unrealistic and clearly his rhetoric did not match his voting record in the Senate.

I do admire your passion and your heartfelt resolve.

yours,

Charles

If you will elaborate on this, I can respond.

Lots of things changed in this country after 9/11 which I consider radical but they weren't for the better.

Liberties, rights and benefits can be quickly taken away but progress in those areas is usually a slow process.

b dewhirst. You raise an excellent point on the impeachment issue.

There are times when it is worth losing the center, and I do not think Obama is perfect. I am frankly outraged that no one has seriously pursued impeachment--and that Conyers appears to have backed down on the issue.

We disagree on the withdrawal issue to some extent. My own view is and has been that the war was a mistake from the outset. We should withdrawal as fast as is practically possible. There I think we agree. But perhaps we disagree on the 'practically possible' part. But I think both Obama and HRC have been judicious on this issue, at least in their campaigns: we have no idea what conditions on the ground will be like in late Jan. 2009, and as HRC keeps rightly pointing out, no preparations have been made whatsoever for a withdrawal.

My biggest gripe with the left on this issue is that when all the experts, including much of the state dept., predicted before the invasion precisely the kind of problems we've had and are having over there, we cite them. When the same experts warn of the serious possibility of a civil war following too rapid withdrawal, we ignore them and keep demanding immediate withdrawal. I do not like that we're over there, and I don't like that we're staying there. But there are a lot of hard problems. See here, which is one of the very best articles I've read on these issues (other than those of Galbraith over at the NY Review of Books, who has been advocating a very detailed 3 state solution for years now).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/weekinreview/20gordon.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Withdrawal%2C+Iraq%2C+Politicians&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Galbraith's most recent is here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20470

Charles: Maybe you get people telling you to go to his website because every time we've brought up his positions on separation of church and state, reversing the bush tax cuts, Iraq war policy, etc etc, you don't seem to be listening and frankly, i'm tired of looking up this information for you just to ignore it, so i give you the "look it up yourself line".

We have multiple times aired our concerns about Obama, I haven't seen a poster on here claim that Obama is perfect. Look at the debate we had about the Credit Card interest rate vote, or teriffs, or whatever. I think the only reason you think people don't see obama's flaws is because you are attacking him all the time. If you were neutral, people wouldn't get so defensive, and even air their own concerns about the candidates. Keep throttling the dead horse, and you'll keep getting people asking you to stop.

I read interested comments with interest.

I actually want to lose this election if Obama is the nominee.

John Edwards in 2012. That's my new mantra.

You can attack me if you want but that is my thinking. As I told Norm recently, we are honest to the point of being self-crucifying. I don't like being called a moron, much less a bigot, but I don't mind being attacked.

Since I am also a Colombian citizen and I do vote there, I'll briefly try to show why protest votes can work.

Colombia has the world's second oldest two-party system in the world. Simon Bolivar's followers founded the Conservative Party in 1832. And one of our other heroes, Francisco Paula de Santander, from Independence founded the Liberal Party in 1838. Apart from two brief military governments and the last six years under Uribe (who is a Liberal but ran as an independent), Colombia has been ruled by either the Conservative or the Liberal Party for its entire history. No other country matches such devotion to a two party system. Colombian elections, while deadly lately, have always been very colorful affairs. Conservatives wear blue garb. Liberals wear red garb. Red ponchos, red shirts, red bandanas, red sombreros, even red shoes. We have rallies in our public squares and they are amazing. Marching bands, signage, food, drink. A carnival atmosphere. And we get a higher turnout than does the US.

I hail from the Liberal Party. My great great grandfather founded the first Liberal newspaper in Latin America. His grandfather was a French Utopianist, Jean Matheron, who emigrated to Colombia (then New Granada) in 1770 to found an utopian society which failed and a leper colony which lasted until the 1950s when it closed for lack of lepers. Over the years, my family has founded 60 odd hospitals throughout Latin America, under the San Juan de Dios name. So I come from a rather unusual family. Liberalism runs in our blood. Until one of my cousins erred, no one in my family even considered marrying a Conservative. He has been excommunicated sort of. My grandfather's brother was killed in 1953 while riding on horseback on his farm by Conservatives.

So you can imagine the ruckus I caused in June 1978 when I openly supported (I was still too young to vote) Belisario Betancur, the Conservative candidate for President. In 1982, I actually voted for him and he won the Presidency. I am still teased by some they call me el godito, the Little Goth, the Spanish word for Tory. But Betancur was simply more liberal than the Liberal. Betancur was a populist. Labels didn't make sense anymore.

In 1986, I voted for Bernardo Jaramillo Hoyos, the Communist Party candidate, who won like 5% of the vote. That was my protest vote. I was telling the Liberal Party to be true to its roots and move for radical political and social reform.

Guess what. It worked. In 1990, the Liberals nominated Cesar Gaviria Trujillo a reformer. I voted for him. He was young at time , 41, his cabinet was called the kinder. I went back to Colombia for a year and worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the North American and African desks. Gaviria changed the Constitution which at that time had been Latin America's longest intact document. We got the right to elect mayors, governors. To obtain legal redress of government failures in the courts. We can sue the govt. You can't. The political process was opened up. And the country has benefited greatly.

So I am willing to send a message and if Nader costs the Democrats another win then perhaps they will learn the lesson of being true to their principles and having a back bone. Obama, in my view, is a betrayal of Democratic and progressive principles and frankly spineless to take up the fight on UHC which is finally at the point where we are finally having a national debate on it and his tact is to surrender before the first argument. Makes no sense to me.

I will vote Nader and Gonzalez and I am proud to say that I have met Matt and worked with him on a number of issues. I am going now to sign up as a volunteer and throw some cash at them. I will also donate cash to 527s that attack Obama (I won't donate to Freedom Watch, I do have limits). If that offends you, Obama offends me. Principles are worth fighting for. Poverty is a moral imperative. Yes I know that I am an idealist. It is in my genes.

Charles

I also concede the point that Obama may win regardless of my actions. After all, he is running against John McCain and the economy is about to implode. I am simply furious at Bernardke this morning but I will save that ire for a future post on why the Federal Reserve is out of magic bullets and it is time to worry inflation and not the performance of the DJIA. Where are his priorities? The dollar at a new low, wheat prices have doubled, oil is headed for $120BOE, livestock prices are going through the roof. I feel like it is 1974 again. We are in serious trouble. Serious.

To give you an example, on Edwards I didn't think his Iraq proposals were unrealistic and clearly his rhetoric did not match his voting record in the Senate.<

Oops. That should read

. . . I think his Iraq proposals were unrealistic . . .

Sorry, I don't type well.

Charles

Charles: Maybe you get people telling you to go to his website because every time we've brought up his positions on separation of church and state, reversing the bush tax cuts, Iraq war policy, etc etc, you don't seem to be listening and frankly, i'm tired of looking up this information for you just to ignore it, so i give you the "look it up yourself line".

I was more referring to the people on the street than on this blog. Though I am having this discussion on TalkLeft as well. It is fair to say that I disagree with Obama on UHC, energy, Iraq, NAFTA, gun control, gay rights, free trade generally, his views on foreign policy. Those are the more serious issues. I think he is wrong. You don't. That is fair.

I have looked at the website. I disagree with him. I am trying to write a piece on NAFTA. The problem is not NAFTA, NAFTA hasn't caused this bleeding of jobs. The business cycle has and the lack of enforcement of regulations on the books since Bush 43 took office. People blame NAFTA, they should be blaming the WTO and Bush for allowing companies to violate the law and for extending tax incentives and loopholes that encourage companies to actually off-shore their functions. So Obama should be attacking the WTO and Bush and not NAFTA. He attacks NAFTA because it is an easy target.

It is a failure of leadership. It is the same problem I had with his guns in Idaho speech. He tells people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.

In effect, he is wasting himself. He is drawing crowds of near 20,000 anxious to hear him and eager to follow him to the ends of the Earth (or the Kingdom on Earth whichever) and yet he lies to them. He fails to tell them the truth and he knows the truth. He knows that guns are a problem in Chicago. Instead he tells the good people of Boise about the hunters in southern Illinois and how he is not going to take their guns away. Fine. Fair enough. That's cool but also tell them about the problem in Urban America where guns kill people not deer. Tell them that we have to find a solution that keeps guns in rural America from overwhelming lives in urban America. It is in my mind reprehensible that he does this. He is a messiah. He can say anything to them. They'll listen. He can make that argument. But he doesn't because he panders for the most votes possible rather than sacrificing a few on the margin and instructing the majority on a more sensible gun policy. Do you see what I am saying? The good people up in Boise can be reasoned with. He chooses not to do it.

He is wasting his chance to really make a difference by telling people only what they want to hear. It is Reagan in Reno, ethanol in Iowa, drivers licenses in LA (but not in Iowa because that would have cost him votes), no border fence in Texas (even though he voted for one in the Senate), nuclear power in Illinois (but not in California), anti-free trade in Ohio, religion in South Carolina, and guns in Boise. There is a pattern going on.

Charles

The author begins by attacking Obama's flip flopping in voting against going to war, then later voting to fund it and clean up before withdrawing.

Obama's position is clear and consistent:
He opposes dumb wars. He opposes dumb withdrawals.

After reading the first few paragraphs, the author had so destroyed his own credibility, there was no need to continus reading. If the article contains a remaining shred of truth, trust that McCain will make the point more, but more honestly.

BTW, I think you all deserve a round of applause for keeping this discussion both lively and civil. Let's live up to the ideals of OGM and our fearless leader, Norm.

Charles

Let me share with the readership the day I found out about the 1872 Mining Law. I was 19, an impressionable and handsome young lad at Stanford. The class was Carl Degler's Post Civil War America.

He was covering several changes that occurred in the conception of corporations and the view of the public interest. He talked about Union Pacific v Santa Clara in 1873 and how that gave corporations the same rights as people under the 14th Amendment. Ironically women were denied those rights until 1920. And then he brought up the 1872 Mining Law. I literally jumped out of my chair, interrupted him and simply. "Excuse me, I am sorry but did I just hear you correctly? You're telling me the Federal Govt just gives away its public wealth, Isn't that a betrayal of the public interest?" The entire class APPLAUDED and Degler just laughed. "Yes you are right. I am glad you are outraged. And that you are paying attention. Now sit down."

My admonishment to Americans is fucking pay attention. You are being robbed. And Obama is the highwayman. If this were a street robbery, he would be held as an accessory to a crime. Fucking pay attention.

Yours most sincerely,

Charles

Norm once told me "set em back up, let me see if i can get you to resign again."

i resign - again. i hope you don't mind if i stay for the hors d'oeuvres (sp?) and Colbert clips, however i can't play the politics here anymore.

Charles, you say Obama offends you. This after conceding that the differences between Obama and Clinton are trivial at best - with Clinton having a better UHC policy being the only clear winning difference.

does Clinton not also pander to the audience with speeches tailored to the concerns of the day? do not all politicians suffer that flaw? does Clinton not offend you? will you vote Democrat if Clinton is on the ballot?

Do you want a republican to decide gay rights? do you want a republican to decide the future in iraq? do you want a republican to decide how the US plays the cuban endgame (considering the expatriate voting block in FLA who delivered at least 3 Bushes into office)? do you want a republican do decide who gets the next 3 or 4 supreme court appointments? When RFID tags for criminals comes up before the supreme court - how will you feel with a 6-3 conservative court? lesser of two evils - really?

your post, although well reasoned stabs me in the heart because i am not as courageous as you and because it feels like scorn from a lover. "aren't we (the democratic party) good enough for you?"

in new england, florida and new york, there is a fairly large contingent of jewish voters who vote based on the candidates support/policies of Israel. That inherently means they vote republican (or Lieberman) even if they are green part hippies. Like yours, their reasoning is well thought out and understandable. They are entitled to that vote. Still, I always want to say "Then move to Israel!"

You are being robbed. And Obama is the highwayman.

and if the republicans win, we would give it all away? indeed, pay them to take our rights from us?

i envy your dual citizenship, you will be able to leave when the tanks come rolling in to town. and no, that's not hyperbole at all.

I also asked these question of Obama supporters that I encounter live: Name one of his accomplishment and tell me one of your concerns, does he have any flaws. Generally, people are at a lost. Most tell me go look at his website, which I think is the cultist line (I'm kidding, just having some fun with you) but seriously why do they tell people to send the unconverted to the website? Why do they always stress their own conversion experience? I came to Obama because . . .

And what, then I wonder, do you make of the DailyKos comparison which clearly shows that Obama accomplished far more than Hillary Clinton:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

I actually want to lose this election if Obama is the nominee.

John Edwards in 2012. That's my new mantra.

That's fine for you. If John McCain wins and we get bogged down in warfare and death for more and more years, you can pat yourself on the back for standing up for your principles.

This is so ridiculous. Obama is a corporate fiend. Obama hates workers. Obama doesn't want health care. Blah blah blah.

i hope you don't mind if i stay for the hors d'oeuvres (sp?) and Colbert clips, however i can't play the politics here anymore.

It's a buffet take what you like.

interested: I sympathize with some of your frustration about rising levels of acrimony occasionally on display here, although I can think of at least two instances where I contributed to it myself rather than responding with your tact. That said, whether I always agree or not, I find your comments consistently thoughtful and perceptive, and am sorry to hear about your 'resignation'. Hopefully you'll reconsider...

One injudicious remark I made, in response to extreme frustration with HRC's dirty campaign tactics, was that I wouldn't vote for her, come what may. But on further consideration, I think you're right. Issues about the Supreme Court have been weighing heavily on my mind, and much else, and it would unwise by my own lights, whatever my frustrations with whomever turns out to be the Democratic nominee may be, not to vote for him or her. "Revenge" votes may occasionally send a message, as Charles suggests. I do not think it will help at this time.

Charles: I'm not entirely clear on your argument above about 3rd party votes. Here's what would help me understand your claims: (1.) You do not specify the conditions and causes responsible for the 5% 3rd party vote having an influence on the major parties, you just mentioned that you voted with that 5%. Surely success in obtaining 5% of the vote does not always influence the major parties: otherwise the U.S. would be a vastly different place right now. Could you briefly specify these, succinctly? (2.) Relatedly, you do not explain how similar conditions might now obtain in the U.S., such that we can have a valid comparison between what happened in Columbia in 1990 due to 3rd party votes in 1986, and what is happening now in the U.S. The suggestion seems to be this will help somehow in 2012. But it does not respond what seem to me to be many of interested's and others more immediate concerns--about the Supreme Court, the war, or much else.

Finally: I do not think the occasionally acrimony is so bad here. In my view, the democratic party is struggling with how to define it's identity after the Bush years, and whatever their similarities on policy, Obama and Clinton seem to me very different answers to that purely political question. More: Unlike most blogs, commenters here typically try to develop detailed arguments, and cite evidence. More: these are usually actually read by other people. So the conversation is generally helpful for me, whether or not I ultimately agree.

Here's a dose of reality...

Supporting Nader and Attacking Obama will only help accomplish one thing: A McCain victory!

You talk of needing a reality check for Obama, but you plan to support Nader? Talk about over-idealistic thinking. Nader is an even bigger more ridiculous stretch than Kucinich!

Adam,

The Colombian Communist Party dates from the 1920s and never polled more than 20,000 votes so when they got 300,000. Clearly something was being said that hadn't been said before. Perhaps another key thing about other countries is that newspapers are often tied to political parties so they receive and give political commentary. Le Figaro is tied to French Socialist Party and Le Monde to the Gaullist traditions. That is largely missing in the US.

I will think more on your comments and respond later. I need to make dinner, walk the dog etc.

Charles

He is wasting his chance to really make a difference by telling people only what they want to hear. It is Reagan in Reno, ethanol in Iowa, drivers licenses in LA (but not in Iowa because that would have cost him votes), no border fence in Texas (even though he voted for one in the Senate), nuclear power in Illinois (but not in California), anti-free trade in Ohio, religion in South Carolina, and guns in Boise. There is a pattern going on.

He made these arguments when there was a debate in those states, and so the issue came up. Clinton took many highly similar stands. If you're going to respond it's not a "zero-sum" game for you, at least add that the same argument applies to Clinton.

And ehem. Obama spoke out against the war during a national Senate race when it could not have been more unpopular, indeed "unpatriotic," to do so. That seems easy now because all the disasters he predicted in that speech came exactly true. He had an enormous majority against him as an IL senator when he wanted police interrogations video taped: he won everyone over, for a unanimous vote of 35-0. He stood up and led on what has been described even by his detractors as some of the boldest Congressional ethics rules reforms yet proposed. He did in the recent TX debate what Susan Jacoby and Bill Moyers joked a U.S. politician would probably never do--tell the American people that they need to be educated on an issue that they do not now understand, healthcare.

The problem is not that he's spineless. He's trying to work within a system that, the more I read your posts, I'm coming to believe you yourself seem to find irredeemably flawed. Obama is not a political radical, and neither is Clinton. This is, I think, a good thing, whatever their individual failings.

but you plan to support Nader?

I support Nader's right to run and think it a good thing. He has no chance to win and will have no impact on the result in my opinion other than raising issues the other candidates refuse to raise. My vote in Utah means nothing and so I may also vote for him or perhaps the socialist if they are on the ballot. Onegoodmove will be supporting the Democratic nominee by attacking John McCain.

I actually want to lose this election if Obama is the nominee.

John Edwards in 2012. That's my new mantra.

Just speechless. What possible explanation explains this desire to see an outcome that could cost the lives of so many just so you can have the candidate that fits your intellectual standards.

A mining law?

Have you even researched John Edwards?

Here is a good and short article about the 1872 Mining Law from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer from 2001.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/specials/mining/26875_mine11.shtml

To RedSeven: You reference Iraq. I would argue that you are under the mistaken impression that the next President will somehow be able to extricate our forces from Iraq. I doubt any of the four remaining mainstream candidates would be able to accomplish that feat no matter their intentions. I do not doubt that Obama and Clinton would like to withdraw from Iraq. However, I do not think it possible unless the they wish to leave Iraq in a vacuum and I do not believe that US foreign policy establishment would allow nor would our allies in the region permit it as well. A dose of realism when it comes to Iraq is required. I do think that even a McCain Administration would draw down the number of troops to under 100,000 and certainly Obama and Clinton would draw down more but a complete and total exit is extremely unlikely. It is simply not possible without a comprehensive regional solution and a likely redrawing of borders. The number of players in Iraq is well over a dozen and getting that group to sit down and talk is going to take time. I don't see it getting done in four years.

Adam writes that I focus too much on Obama's pandering and not enough on Clinton. She has taken unpopular stands threatening to garnish people's wages over UHC. Point out a pattern and help me out then because I don't see it. I do see things that I don't like about Mrs. Clinton. Her energy plan also has too much investment for ethanol which has a terrible ROI. The only ones who stand to benefit are corn farmers. She likes charter schools, I think they hurt the public schools. Her UHC plan doesn't treat it as a right of citizenship. And her plan would benefit the insurance companies. I think she is flat out wrong on Kosovo. She is not aggressive enough on banking reforms. I would like to see the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act repealed. Obama may be better on that score because he isn't beholden to Wall Street banks. Those are the ones that come to mind right now.

Charles

I would argue that you are under the mistaken impression that the next President will somehow be able to extricate our forces from Iraq.

If obama doesn't end the war Edwards will be in even better position to run in 2012.

But their is also Iran food safety, Fully funding FEMA before the next Katrina, global warming, and host of other issues that could cost lives and any democrat would no doubt show improvement on.