Why I Can’t Support Barack Obama

Four years ago, as the sentiment against George W. Bush’s administration mounted, the entire left-wing spectrum hung on tight to the coattails of John Kerry, grasping for dear life. Critics called it the “Anybody but Bush” syndrome, but it should have been more aptly coined “Nobody but Kerry.”

Virtually every progressive cause, from labor to the environment, had been co-opted by a mindset that would have ensured more of the same. There was no pressure put on Kerry to change, and he didn’t. As a result, the antiwar movement collapsed, with no demonstrations and a strict allegiance to the Democrat’s pro-war campaign. Fortunately, the movement to end the war was resurrected by Cindy Sheehan as she erected her tent outside the Bush compound in Texas months later.

Today we find our political climate in a similar state of shock. Call it the “Nobody but Obama” epidemic. Senator Barack Obama has now sealed up the Democratic nomination, and the usual suspects, from MoveOn.org to Progressive Democrats for America, are falling in line. Sadly, what seems to be reigning in this year’s election is even worse than the storm that flooded our issues in 2004.

After eight dreadfully long years of Bush, it is to be expected that a lot of voters would support any Democrat if it meant kicking the wretched Republicans out of the White House. Obama’s message of “change” has certainly resonated well. But underlying his rhetoric is a brilliant public relations campaign, orchestrated by DC insiders, that is void of any real substance.

In 2006, the Democrats were ushered in to Congress with the expectation that they would end the war in Iraq. Democratic campaigns across the nation exploited the popular anti-Bush sentiment, promising that real “change” was on the horizon.

It’s a familiar refrain indeed.

Two years later, we have nothing to show for it. The Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, yet have rubber stamped virtually every Iraq war spending bill that has come down the pipeline — ensuring the bloodbath will continue for years to come. All major Democrats have echoed the Bush line on Iran, promising a military confrontation if the country does not cease its nuclear experimentation. By and large, Bush’s backward Middle East foreign policy has not been met any real opposition from the Hill.

Like the majority of his colleagues, Obama has done very little to change the face of American politics. He has voted for war spending, appeased the pro-Israel lobby, and helped build the erroneous case against Iran, saying nothing about Israel’s plentiful arsenal of nuclear warheads. In short, Barack Obama is not an ally to those of us who oppose the ambiguous War on Terror.

“I want you to know that today I’ll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel,” Obama announced a day after he locked up his party’s nomination to a crowd of pro-Israel zealots. “[W]hen I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends, Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever.”

Yet here we are again, like 2004, with “progressives” and other lefties ogling a hope-filled candidacy. But it’s not just Obama’s war support that should raise our hackles.

Obama supports the death penalty, opposes single-payer health care, supports nuclear energy, opposes a carbon pollution tax, supports the Cuba embargo, and will not end the vast array of federal subsidies to corporations, including those to the oil and gas cartel.

And as the United States economy slides into a deep recession, Barack Obama is promising more of the same, despite his criticism of John McCain’s economic plan. But behind the curtains of Obama’s strategy team is the same set of economic troglodyte intellectuals that led us in to our current financial disaster.

Obama’s advisory team includes Harvard economist Jeffrey Liebman, a former Clinton adviser, who believes we ought to privatize social security. Then we have the renowned David Cutler, another Harvardite, who believes our economy can be boosted through an increase in privatized health care costs. Writing for New England Journal of Medicine in 2006, Cutler explained, “The rising cost … of health care has been the source of a lot of saber rattling in the media and the public square, without anyone seriously analyzing the benefits gained.”

And that’s just the tip of a very large iceberg.

Perhaps all of these issues are aiding the independent candidacy of Ralph Nader, who is consistently polling above 5% nationwide. This, despite a virtual media blackout and very little support among progressives.

Nader still faces many hurdles, from ballot access to fundraising, yet his support is higher at this point than it was at a similar stage during his 2000 Green Party bid. I still believe that if Nader wanted to put real pressure on Obama and the Democrats this year he would focus his finite resources and energy on the states that matter most: Ohio and Florida.

All in all, progressives and others working to bring about real change in this country, ought to escape from under the dark “Nobody but Obama” cloud that hovers above. For his campaign, when it comes to the most pressing issues of the day, does not represent “change” and “hope” anymore than Senator McCain’s.

Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland, published by AK Press in June 2008. Check out the Red State Rebels site. Read other articles by Joshua.

38 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Michael Donnelly said on June 11th, 2008 at 9:42am #

    The most disconcerting thing about Obama to me is that he rose so far so fast. No one does that in Imperial politics without owning someone(s) a great deal.

    And, there is that nagging question: isn’t he really just another privileged Ivy League white guy, who just happens to have a dark tint to his skin?

    The reality is that he will beat the angry, out-of-touch Bob Dole (without the sense of humor) clone the GOP has put up. Our job is to push the issues, not suspend them as folks did for Bubba, Gore and Kerry — just wishing (hoping?) for the best. As an old rancher friend of mine says, “You can wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.”

  2. joed said on June 11th, 2008 at 10:00am #

    your vote hasn’t counted in 8+ years why would anyone think the their vote will make any difference this year. citizens arrest of the murderous bush/cheney gang, and most of the congress and most of the scotus is the only way real change is going to happen. sacrifice and hardship are necessary and some will go to jail or worse before bush/cheney go to jail. but none of that will happen. the american people just flat don’t care.
    this wonderful, necessary, excellent article will not really matter at all. a few will read it and a few will complain and whine about the situation, but thats it. the bad guys won and welcome to a shitty 3rd world country. the amerikan people did get the govt they deserve.
    it is really sad about the children, isn’t it! i mean, the adults wont even protect their own kids. sick society.

  3. asdf said on June 11th, 2008 at 10:16am #

    The scariest thing about Obama is how his rockstar campaign will affect the future of political campaigning. He is demonstrating that our celebrity worship works just as well in politics as it does in the entertainment industry. His entire campaign is run around his image and charismatic speaking. He’s a centrist who is loved by many on the far-left who apparently choose to believe him that the world is not so simple and their idealistic agendas are just not practical. Its a bad precedent because it shows how easily we can be manipulated without using anything but vague, uplifting phrases, and politicians won’t let THAT message slip by unnoticed.

  4. Dogwood said on June 11th, 2008 at 10:21am #

    go to votenader.org
    find out where you can collect signatures to get Ralph on all ballots
    spread the word

    We can do this…..

    We have to……

  5. joe in oklahoma said on June 11th, 2008 at 12:04pm #

    all the points you make are salient. Obama is no “savior” for sure (but then democracies eschew saviors) however, to say that a vote for Obama is the same as a vote for McCain? you say, “when it comes to the most pressing issues of the day, does not represent “change” and “hope” anymore than Senator McCain’s.”

    what have you been drinking?
    if you are concerned about who sits on the SCOTUS (and somewhere between 2 & 4 seats will open in the next 8 years), if you are at all concerned about abortion rights, privacy issues, environment, and race relations, i do not see how you can cast a vote that could allow McCain to win the election. Nader’s candidacy has one purpose: to take votes away from democrats.
    that simply enables McCain and the people behind him.

  6. rosemarie jackowski said on June 11th, 2008 at 12:39pm #

    There is one good thing about Obama – he used to have a good pastor. I was tempted to vote for him until he did the political dance and abandoned Jeremiah Wright.
    I have written in NADER for the past 20 years and he will get my vote again.

  7. Erroll said on June 11th, 2008 at 12:51pm #

    Joe in Oklahoma states that “Nader’s candidacy has one purpose: to take votes away from democrats.” It would seem that the last thing that Joe would have happen is for Americans to actually consider voting for a candidate who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican and who is not bought and paid for by Wall Street, as Obama is. His thinking could be taken straight from Orwell’s Animal farm-two legs good, four legs bad. In this case, one can vote for anyone he or she wishes as long as that candidate is either a Democrat, whom he prefers, or a Republican.

    Perhaps Joe wishes to see a repeat of what happened in 2000, when through the collusion of the television executives and the Democrats and the Republicans, the fix was in to make sure that Nader’s point of view was never going to be seen and heard throughout America on the small screen in the summer of that year. So much for living in a country which claims to be a democracy in the land of the free.

  8. Brian Moore said on June 11th, 2008 at 1:03pm #

    Dear Joe in Oklahoma (and to writer Joshua Frank): Joe, you are the one who is living in an ivory tower. 4 of your 4 points how the Democrats are better than Republicans are wrong. The Democrats voted for the Patriot Act, the Military Tribunal Bill, turned a blind eye to Bush’s Executive Orders on privacy issues, will not impeach, allowed rendition and torture, started the Iraq blockade under Bill Clinton, and refused to speak out against a prohibition of federal funding for abortions for low-income women. Plus, the Democrats have pandered to the black race thereby polarizing a country and hurting the cause against racism.

    Obama’s blackness will not help those in the black ghettoes where unemployment rates exceed 50%. Much of it due to globalization. Obama and Clinton appeal to the wealthy and well-to-do, court corporate money, both moved to the center and defend the existing system, and the Democratic party is now the primary vehicle for coproate intersts in the electoral arena.

    Mr. Nader is a reformer, but still proclaims his fervent confidence in the capitalist market economy and the virtures of small business. He thinks the economic system can be reformed and that capitalism can be regulated, thus, guarenteeing corporate accountability. However, he cannot break from the Democratic Party, hoping the anti-corporate wing will reform the party as well as corporations. He has no interest in building a political party, nor does he address the problems of class in our current system, and does not articulate any vision for an alternative society.

    I, and my VP colleague, Stewart Alexander, offer voters a radical alternative to Nader and Gonzalez’s “liberal reformism.” We advocate “real change” as opposed to Obama’s rhetoric of “change” and Nader’s “hope for reform” within the same major parties, corporations and same unfair economic system. Our anti-authoritarian message is through a politcal party, the Socialist Party USA, and we promise an entirely new economic system, where class barriers are broken down, corporate power eliminated, re-distribution of wealth and power is achieved and the root cause of racism can finally be overcome.

    Help us gain ballot access by going to http://www.votebrianmoore.com.

    Brian Moore for President, Socialist Party USA
    Moore/Alexander ‘O8

  9. bob c said on June 11th, 2008 at 1:10pm #

    amen rosemarie jackowski

    the cynicism that mccain = obama is exactly what manipulators & marketers want us to think, to lull us asleep

    vote for nader ? you get exactly what you’ve deserved these last 8 years !

  10. joe in oklahoma said on June 11th, 2008 at 1:17pm #

    Erroll, if i honestly believed that Nader or a real green candidate could win the election, i would have remained silent. i am no fan of the democratic party as it is presently existing, enthralled to Clintonian corporatism; but, in fact i DO remember 2000, when a democrat should have beaten the republican we have suffered with for 8 years. i don’t want that to happen again. i don’t want the SCOTUS to drift any further right than it already is. lives are at stake. if he is so green and good for America, why hasn’t Nader spent the last 4 years traveling, speaking, and doing something concrete to build a viable green party. Nader will not take votes away from the GOP.
    don’t complain to me when women’s rights are erased by a narrow GOP victory.

  11. bozhidar balkas said on June 11th, 2008 at 1:33pm #

    when it comes to US two-centuries long expansion it makes no diff if a prez is dem or rep.
    surely, ab 160 US invasions/incursions/skirmishes, horrornaga, iraq, palestine, redland’s indigenes disappearing, etc., not only shows but proves amers have one goose w. two wings. one may flip another flop when it comes to cosmetic changes or tactics but both beat strongly and as one when it comes to major domestic and foreign policies.
    nader would represent a housewife; obama, an actress, a journalist, generals, editors, plutocrats. thank u

  12. Max Shields said on June 11th, 2008 at 1:53pm #

    Erroll and rosemarie,

    Simple fix, but doubtful we’ll see given the circumstances of two parties, would be instant run-off voting (IRV).

    If voters could rank their choices we’d see a slew of alternative parties, voices, and outcomes. Add proportional rep to the house and you’ve got the beginning of something approximating democracy. Not as much as you can get at the local level, but a whole helluva lot better than this rigged system.

    Otherwise it’s empire business as usual; winner take all, issues and ideas be damned….

  13. Max Shields said on June 11th, 2008 at 1:57pm #

    joe in oklahoma about the outcome in Florida, more Dems voted for Bush than voted for Nader in 2000. You could say the Dems gave it to Bush.

    You’re beef isn’t with Nader it’s with the right wing of your Party (which is pretty much the same as the Republican hacks).

  14. Giorgio said on June 11th, 2008 at 1:58pm #

    The fact that Obama beat Hillary to the democratic party’s nomination just proves to me one glaring fact: most Americans are by nature more misogynist than racist. Given the choice between two perceived evils they would rather have a black male president than a white female president.

  15. joe in oklahoma said on June 11th, 2008 at 1:58pm #

    i agree Max, i strongly favor IRV, and also a parliamentary style legislative body.

  16. joe in oklahoma said on June 11th, 2008 at 2:10pm #

    Giorgio, no doubt some people voted against Hillary bec ause of her gender. however, some people voted for others (Edwards, Obama, etc) because of certain policy differences. considering that so many corporations have Hillary in their back pockets, how could opposition to a corporate pusher be mislabeled misogynist?

  17. Ellison said on June 11th, 2008 at 3:25pm #

    If the Democrats in Congress continue to push aside impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, I’m strongly considering giving my support to a Third Party–likely Nader.

    As an African American I have made considerable effort in supporting Obama. However, if impeachment continues to be “off the table”, so will be my support for Obama.

    Many Black brothers and sisters nationwide are in the prison system for committing far less harm to our society than President Bush and his Neo-Con-men in the White House.

    And Speaker Nancy Pelosi should be investigated for aiding them, stating in a recent letter to me, “I believe impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney will distract us from our mission…”. Well, to Ms. Pelosi and all those who are relentlessly enabling this epic tragedy of senseless death, shattered lives, broken families, mind-numbing abuses of our hard-earned tax dollars, savage corporate exploitation; I say, JUSTICE IS NO DISTRACTION! There is no justice without impeachment!

    Many in Congress and the Senate had the same intelligence as the White House administration, yet their conclusions were vastly different and, as it turns out, shockingly correct.

    The press, which as we now know from Bill Moyers’ insightful PBS documentary, “Buying the War”, rather than giving us the benefit of being watch-dog, instead served as lap-dog to the Bush White House—providing no real means for adequate public scrutiny.

    The Congressional Black Caucus stood in the House on the eve of the invasion on Iraq and made fact-based, rational, and passionate presentations pleading with the President not to invade Iraq.

    Sadly, most Americans to this day still do not know about those presentations because the mainstream press never reported that historic event.

    Nevertheless, I shall forever remember that night in 2003, while watching C-SPAN—those powerful words, with truth and humanity from Rep. Maxine Waters:

    “Mr. President, you cannot substitute a preemptive strike on Saddam Hussein for finding the terrorists. We want the terrorists to be found….

    We want to secure the homeland. We are worried that you have been diverted, that you are about to do this preemptive strike without the documentation….

    Yes, every country should be able to defend itself, but we are in no danger from Iraq. As a matter of fact, that is probably one of the weakest points on the globe for us to attack. We are not threatened by Saddam Hussein….

    What we see and we are witnessing is the mismanagement of America. Someone today criticized Senator Daschle because he talked about the diplomatic disaster. Mr. President, it is a diplomatic disaster. We are watching before our very eyes the mismanagement of our beloved country. Our schools are falling apart. You said you wished to leave no child behind, but, Mr. President, you have not funded assistance to education that will have our children in the best possible situations where they can learn. Our health care system has fallen apart. In my city, in my county we are closing healthcare clinics. We are closing hospitals….

    Mr. President, you are not able to tell us what this war is going to cost and what the cleanup, what the revitalization, the reconstruction of Iraq is going to cost. The American people need to know where our dollars are going. The American people need to understand the cost of this war and why….

    Mr. President, we must raise these questions. We must raise these questions because we are patriots. We are folks who love this country. We are folks who have stood by this country no matter what, and we will continue to stand by this country. We will continue to stand by our soldiers. But, Mr. President, you are going to have to account for the leadership that you are giving, and I say to you and all those who are advising you, be it Wolfowitz, be it Secretary of State Colin Powell, be it Condoleezza Rice, be it Karl Rove, or any of those in the inner circle, you are going to be held responsible for what takes place in this world, what takes place with this preemptive strike, what takes place with our soldiers and our families….”

    It is now time for us, all of us, to speak up in the name of justice. Our laws say we are entitled to impeachment proceedings, and our morality demands it.

    Because we were fooled into war with Iraq, there are so many in this country who weep at the mere sight of the empty chair at the dinner table, knowing their loved one will never return to break bread in the sacred fellowship of family.

    To me, this issue runs much deeper than race. This is about the essence of justice, coming from the heart of democracy, a democracy which we still strive to achieve.

    By overriding what polls reveal as a huge majority favoring impeachment, the Democrats are robbing the American public of a tremendous opportunity to grow in its civic stewardship by learning what really happened to us, and how never to allow it again. They are robbing us of our ability to bring justice to bear against those who perpetrated this monstrous misadventure. And more importantly, the Democrats are robbing our nation of the opportunity to heal from the devastating effects of this massive tyranny and death.

    Indeed, justice is no distraction. There will be no justice without impeachment!

  18. Giorgio said on June 11th, 2008 at 4:21pm #

    “I have written in NADER for the past 20 years and he will get my vote again.”

    Rosemarie, you get 10/10 persistence marks for betting on a dead horse for so many years…
    Have you ever considered Ron PAUL ?

  19. Joe Mowrey said on June 11th, 2008 at 4:52pm #

    So what’s all the fuss about voting for Obama? Clearly we can see just how well the “lesser of two evils” approach to progressive political goals has worked for us over the last 60 years. Why change now?
    It’s high time we made U.S. imperialist war crimes an equal opportunity endeavor. What we need is an Oreo cookie in the white house.
    Go Uncle Tom Obama!

  20. Shabnam said on June 11th, 2008 at 5:44pm #

    Hillary’s defeat does not mean most Americans by nature are misogynist than racist. It means Americans are fed up with Clinton family and do not want to continue with someone who is so committed to serve AIPAC instead of American people. She sided with Bush and Lieberman for the war and has continued to put Israel’s interest head of American’s interest. Many women, educated, voted against Hillary. At the heart of “the hard working women and men” is RACISM at play not sexism.
    Obama was neither in the senate nor a US candidate for the presidency in 2003, thus, he had more rooms to manipulate without harming his chance for a seat in the senate. Obama has exposed himself fully by his speech at the AIPAC conference and I have no doubt, at this time, that if Obama was in the senate in 2003 he would have VOTED FOR THE WAR. Obama can not cash in on his vague statement on the war to sell himself as ANTI WAR candidate because his policy is almost identical with those who were and are for the war. His voting practices dealing with war policy and treatment of Palestinians against the apartheid state is as bad as other candidates voting record. He has no confidence to stand against those warmongers and, therefore, he can not be trusted. There is no difference between McCain and Obama and he has been given a lot of free rides by many who wanted him to be different from other political establishment but he ignored them all and did not take these people seriously and instead he did everything to please Israel Lobby more than anyone else. Obama has clearly shown that he can not be trusted since he wants to please only power not the people. The political establishment thinks SELECTING a black president at this critical time is necessary to save a broken system to buy “credibility” for a militaristic state to fool others in order to buy hearts and minds of people of the colonies especially Muslims in the middle east, Central Asia and continent of Africa to expand their empire through phony “war on terror” and conclude the map of the “new Middle east” to protect Israel’s hegemony in the region and beyond. They are fooling no one except themselves. The US has NO credibility around the world.
    If Obama thinks he is different from McCain he must speak against “the war on terror”, put the interest of the people ahead of the corporation, save social security from thieves, bring Cheney’s health care for EVERYONE, better distribution of wealth is necessary for people to survive, bring troops home as soon as possible, force Israel out of occupied Palestine and stop funding an apartheid state, close down all the centre of tortures and rapes in many countries around the world and stop threaten Iran for its nuclear energy program and instead concentrate on Israel nuclear bombs, more than 400 of them, and brings US nuclear bombs to zero, as UN demands, to show that you are for CHANGE and HOPE otherwise we don’t accept EMPTY SLOGANS as change and hope. To use the military power to protect an apartheid state with hundreds of nuclear bombs where kills daily in the occupied land is NOT A CHANGE. It is a BAD policy. To promise AIPAC
    ‘undivided Jerusalem as capital of Israel’ is NOT HOPE, it is act of treason. Let’s talk about the real issues before it is too late.
    Someone who is willing to win the office at any cost to be supported by the establishment to serve their interests can not be satisfied with one term, therefore, he/she is going to remain a puppet to the end

  21. Eddie said on June 11th, 2008 at 6:51pm #

    The refusal in the comments to acknowledge the very real sexism in this campaign goes exactly to the point Gorgio was making. As Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon repeatedly documented this cycle, there was no real difference between Hillary and Barack. The only exception was that, as Paul Krugman noted, Hillary’s non-universal health care plan would cover more Americans than Barack’s. (Barack’s also included a mandate though a lot of ‘reporters’ want to pretend otherwise.) Sexism was on display day after day in this election cycle and very few called it out. Some left outlets, like FAIR, contributed to it along with being silent. (Or are we not supposed to notice that the media watchdog never called out Keith Olbermann or David Schuster for their remarks on MSNBC?)
    I’m voting for Ralph Nader. I watched as an observer with no interest in either Barack or Hillary. Sexism paraded past non-stop and it wasn’t called out. It also took place in the Green Party which rushed to embrace Ralph at various blogs when they though they could get him. The same blogs that had started their “Draft Cynthia” campaigns when McKinney originally decided not to run last fall.
    Cynthia McKinney was shoved aside when they thought they had a shot at Ralph.
    In that instance, I did have a vested interest because I did and do support Ralph. But I did leave comments (that usually got deleted) during the rush to Ralph to ask why all the sudden Cynthia wasn’t good enough for these same sites that had been pushing her to run only months ago?
    Sexism is very real and until it’s taken seriously it will continue.
    I have not lumped it in with any other “ism” because that’s suggesting it’s not worth exploring on its own. We had plenty of time to explore other “isms” in this race. But we never explored sexism.
    I’ll make one more point, when a Democratic candidate puts vile, gay haters on stage at a campaign event, it needs to be called out. The refusal to call Barack out for using homophobia says a lot about the state of the left today.

  22. joed said on June 11th, 2008 at 7:28pm #

    if you have to vote for someone that could win, you have already lost.
    thats what happened to the ross perot people. they got 20 fucking percent of the vote then they didnt win so they called it quits! imagine nader or mckinney or whoever getting 20% of the vote. ol’ pelosi and reid would shit their pants. imagine in 2010 it’s 30% for nader or mckinney or whoever. imagine in 2012… well it could happen if you would vote only for a person you want to see elected. the lesser of 2 evils is evil itself and it is perhaps the single biggest reason you are where you are today! you just didn’t realize that the system is all the way broken.
    if you have to vote for someone that could win, you have already lost.

  23. Bolivarian Socialist said on June 11th, 2008 at 8:50pm #


  24. Myles Hoenig said on June 12th, 2008 at 8:49am #

    Those who still rely on the old canard that Nader took votes away from Gore should look inward for where the real problems eminate. As Max said, “more Dems voted for Bush than Nader” (esp. in Florida) the real issue is that anti-Naderites are in reality anti-voter. If a candidate cannot earn a vote, s/he should not get it. Unless people believe that one political party or another owns a person’s vote, then just vote who you believe best fits your values.
    Voting for the lesser of the 2 evils (Obama vs McCain) is still voting for evil. All who vote for Obama better just shut up for the next 4-8 years because all the problems we will have will be your fault- for continuing electing people who do not share YOUR real vision and hopes.

  25. Myles Hoenig said on June 12th, 2008 at 9:05am #

    Those who still rely on the old canard that Nader took votes away from Gore should look inward for where the real problems eminate. As Max said, “more Dems voted for Bush than Nader” (esp. in Florida), the real issue is that anti-Naderites are in reality anti-voter. If a candidate cannot earn a vote, s/he should not get it. Unless people believe that one political party or another owns a person’s vote, one should vote for who you believe best fits your values.
    Voting for the lesser of the 2 evils (Obama vs McCain) is still voting for evil. All who vote for Obama better just shut up for the next 4-8 years because all the problems we will have will be your fault- for continuing electing people who do not share YOUR real vision and hopes.

    Furthermore, SCOTUS? It was the Democratic leadership that gave us Alito and Roberts. Sorry, but Ralphie didn’t have a vote. Better re-read that section in your Civics book as to who appoints and who votes for such nominations.

  26. J McBeal said on June 12th, 2008 at 9:27am #

    Eight years ago the voting machines were hacked and Bush was appointed Prez. Four years ago the voting machines were hacked and Bush won. It doesn’t matter who you vote for as long as these voting machines continue to be used and programed by the powers behind the white house. We will go to war in Iran within the next two months, we will have serious food shortages, severe economic crisis, and problems from man-made (HAARP) earth changes. We will cry to the government (Nanny State) to ease the pain the powers-that-be created in the first place. We will give up more freedoms and accept the “help” they offer – world bank, spy chips, national ID, etc and become slaves to keep living in the style we’ve become accustomed. The only way out is to march on Washington, refuse the lies and deceit. Stock up food and water, guns and ammo, and prepare for the world to end as we know it.

  27. hp said on June 12th, 2008 at 9:39am #

    Something you don’t see mentioned much, if at all, is Obama’s father and the psychological and genetic influence he may have on our possible POTUS.
    In this case, let’s hope the old adage “like father, like son,” doesn’t apply.

  28. gliscameria said on June 12th, 2008 at 5:37pm #

    Obama also supports joining an EU treaty in which member countries have to ban small arms. So kiss your guns goodbye.

  29. A Rare Non-Moron said on June 12th, 2008 at 6:32pm #

    God bless Ralph Nader: If he wasn’t on the ballot, who would represent white lefty know-nothings who’ve never worked a day in their lives?

  30. Edwin Pell said on June 13th, 2008 at 5:37pm #

    I am writing in Ron Paul and I am happy. It does not matter which branch of the war party wins (dem or repub).

  31. Edwin Pell said on June 13th, 2008 at 5:38pm #

    Your enemy and oppressor (the federal government) will not free you / save you.

  32. Ricardo said on June 13th, 2008 at 11:56pm #

    Really? America is more sexist than racist? Is no one picking up on the “pandered to the black race” and “oreo cookie” comments sprinkled throughout this thread? Seriously, no one is taking issue with these comments?

    And when did oppression become a pissing contest? Last time I checked it pretty much sucked for all parties involved.

    Are you guys just pretending to be progressive? You’re having me on, right? “Pandered to the black race.” Good god….

    Vote for Nader, by all means, or vote socialist, by all means, but try not to sound like an ass while doing it.

  33. Keesha said on June 14th, 2008 at 11:30am #

    Ricardo, I don’t recall you calling out a sexist comment. Now you’re offended?

    “Plus, the Democrats have pandered to the black race thereby polarizing a country and hurting the cause against racism. ” — was posted by some man running for the presidency. If you’re offended by it, then you know you don’t need to vote for him. However, the reality is Barack Obama was a so-so candidate outside the pages of The Nation magazine and needed to win South Carolina to keep his race (political) alive. So Barack used homophobia (which you don’t say one word about) as a campaign tool and also used false charges of racism. Is that what the man was referring to? I don’t know. But I do know I saw the usual “Racist!” cries repeated by friends and family and I would have to go through it patiently. “Fairy tale!” not racist. Bill Clinton was pointing out Barack had been all over the map publicly on Iraq and was now pretending he’d had one position and stuck to it. I had to go through each of those false charges over and over. That wasn’t about the White community, it was knowing that when you cry “racism” — falsely or correctly — it stirs up immediate anger because we do live in a racist society. The Huffington Post published the campaign’s talking points on that sent out to the press. The ones that didn’t exist, to hear the Obama campaign. Barack even got confronted on it in a debate and had to try to weasel out of it. There was no racism used by the Clinton campaign. Barack has used pot and cocaine. He had no problem mentioning it in books or making jokes about it on The Tonight Show. Suddenly, anyone else mentions it and it’s racism? Was it racism in 1992 to note Bill Clinton’s admission of pot? When the BET president mentioned it, the Barack campaign couldn’t scream racism the way they did when the White guy mentioned it so instead it was attack BET. Surrogates like Jesse Jackson Jr. and Melissa Harris Lacewell went on Black radio and stated things that even in their worst lying on Charlie Rose and Democracy Now they didn’t dare say. But to a Black audience they lied like crazy. To a mixed audience, Melissa’s biggest lie was probably on Charlie Rose where she didn’t tell people she was working on the campaign, didn’t belong a journalism roundtable (she’s not a journalist) and felt the need to tell the White world that some Black people had turned against Tavis Smiley. She played ‘objective’ on that by not telling the White world she launched the attack on Tavis with her own online column “Who died and made Tavis king?” The candidate speaking of “pandering” was speaking of the DNC. This Black woman will state it outright, the Barack campaign pandered. They were hoping to create a response and they got it.

    “Oreo cookie”? That shows up here, “It’s high time we made U.S. imperialist war crimes an equal opportunity endeavor. What we need is an Oreo cookie in the white house. Go Uncle Tom Obama!” I don’t know why Oreo cookie was used. But Barack’s not Black, he’s bi-racial. Years ago, 1/8 Black meant you were called “octoroon” and we supposedly and thankfully moved past that. Barack had a White mother and a Black father. He’s not Black. That may be what “oreo cookie” is getting at. But Barack’s not Black and I didn’t take offense at the comment. Those are two comments out of 31. You’re whining about how it’s not “a pissing contest.” But you refuse to address the sexism and you don’t even acknowledge Barack’s use of homophobia.
    What I have seen over and over in the last months is false charges of racism by Barack’s campaign. And when anyone points out his homophobia, everyone looks the other way and acts mute. When someone tries to start a conversation on the very real issue of sexism, efforts are made to shout down that discussion and then claim it’s not a contest. Then why do discussions on sexism keep getting shouted down? Sharon Smith’s insulting post here didn’t impress this Black woman and I’ve yet to see a single post that addressed the sexism in the campaign while every Cracker in the world has shown up with a “It’s racism!” post. I’ma Black woman and don’t need to prove how ‘real’ I am. If I see racism, I’ll call it out, if I see sexism I’ll call it out and if I see homophobia I’ll call it out. I think it’s past time we start asking that others do the same.
    If you missed it, Barack cried “racism” falsely again and just demonstrated all over again that he’s not Black. Betty pointed it out wonderfully:
    “Babys mama” hasn’t referred just to unmarried mothers in some time. But no need to know about that for the out of touch Crackers so quick to advance the ‘poor suffering Barack’ meme. Betty highlights a 2006 article on the term changing but makes the point strongest by citing Prince who is heavy in his no-sex-outside-of-marriage period these days and just used the term in a song. Cracker may be offensive and I wouldn’t call someone that to their face but these White media ‘leaders’ are getting on my last nerve these days with their false cries of racism. It’s not helping the Black community and neither is Barack who has offered us nothing but wants us to all rally behind him because, though a corporatist Democrat, he had a Black father. At this point, Barack’s become the little boy who’s cried wolf (racism) over and over and when he really faces it, a lot of us won’t believe him because he’s screamed it at everything. (He is his campaign and he’s responsible for what they do.)

  34. Paul said on June 14th, 2008 at 11:54am #

    I’m voting for the Socialist Party candidate, Brian Moore, for real change.

  35. igorsway said on June 14th, 2008 at 5:16pm #

    Look at the recent split on the Supreme Court over the Habeas Corpus decision. Our civil rights protections are hanging by a very narrow thread. A McCain presidency will probably overturn many basic rights.

    Whether or not you are thrilled by your choices in this election, the fact is that Barack Obama must be elected to at least retain the rights and protections we now enjoy.

  36. James said on June 14th, 2008 at 6:11pm #

    voted for Nader in 2000 and I’ve regretted it ever since. I felt the same way the author of this post felt, that Gore was too much of the same and I needed to vote on principles. So I voted for Nader, campaigned for him and even convinced friends in Ohio (and yes I admit 1 friend in Florida) to vote for Nader…Then Bush got elected by a narrow margin, screwed our country, destroyed our economy and led us into a war which has resulted in the death of many americans…. Practically every time I hear the news I regret my Nader vote, and I wish people like me had voted for Gore instead, because our country would be in a much better place.

  37. Mark Huddle said on June 17th, 2008 at 7:46am #

    Given the range of responses to this piece, its clear that electoralism is the opiate of the masses. Every four years we get to deaden the pain. One question, though Josh: does it really matter if Nader is right on the issues if he’s doing nothing to build a party apparatus that might one day bring about change? I admire the man but for Christ’s sakes, these presidential runs are just about the most expensive vanity projects ever undertaken.

  38. meshuga mikey said on June 24th, 2008 at 9:54am #

    I’m voting for CHE…