The past eight years have witnessed the rise of increased citizen surveillance by our government, the cooperation of communication companies with the government in turning over records. If fascism can be viewed as the cooperation of the government with Big Business (as it was in the 3rd Reich) then the espionage agreement between corporations and the Bush Administration can also be viewed in that light. This is not to say that the US is a fascist state, but only that certain elements have creeped into the political culture. Waterboarding, anyone?

I appreciate your giving the question the thought, though I’m not sure how long you’d last.

If we are already living in a fascist, totalitarian, plutocratic state and any president caught threatening peace and threatening the profits of the military industrial complex would be killed as JFK and RFK were, how would you attempt to establish freedom if you could become president without getting undermined or knocked off by the organized criminals that now dominate our government?

Nor do I think dying on a cross is a good idea. I believe the best activist is one that challenges the powerful despots as much as possible without being crucified.

No, I meant that once obtaining that kind of privilege, not many would give it up. Obama is certainly no Ali, so even if he DOES want the change you imply he may, so playing this game won’t matter to anything.

Obama politely asking that people vote for Nader is not what I had in mind…Forget about Nader, the point is to say what the game is, like did Ali or MLK. though certainly giving McCain the victory, it would bring change like we’ve never seen it. No one these days wants to die on cross though (even if they do have change in their heart).

In this rigged, plurality rule electoral system using your one vote for your ideal inviable candidate rather than the best viable candidate, even if it is a lesser of evils, is effectively a half a vote for the worst viable candidate. Expressing your political wishes writing a letter to the editor, posting on lists like this, or calling into a talk show will have a greater effect on changing our political system than voting for a candidate that has a snowball’s chance in hell to win. If we had instant runoff voting I would have ranked Kucinich first. McKinney second and maybe Nader 3rd or 4th. (Hillary would be my last choice, with McCain not among any of my choices.)

I don’t think that Obama asking people to vote for Nader would have done anything but give McCain the presidency and to dash the hopes of millions of Americans (and global citizens) who, right or wrong, came to believe that we finally had a winning candidate with the intelligence, confidence and principals that could turn things around in this country that has been going to hell in a hand basket for all but a few of the greediest, most asinine of us.

I don’t know what you meant Hue, about the “fine bit of nobility”. Is that the gang of criminals that Obama has hired?

I’d rather imagine that Obama right before the week of the elections used his bought live TV coverage to say what the game was and beg everyone to vote for Nader….that would have changed some things, no? Hell, I’m still waiting for anyone with access to do it but they-Like Obama- don’t feel the way you suggest he may. Ahhh that’s a fine bit of nobility he bought into, eh?

Imagine a different scenario: Obama runs as a strong progressive, exposing and opposing all of the evils of previous administrations, both Republican and Democratic. He calls the Powers That Be what they are – a ruthless gang of the world’s worst criminals ever. Where would he be today?

O.K. maybe you don’t think he would get past the first primary with that position. Now imagine he didn’t go that far, but ran positioning himself as progressively as possible, yet still be able to get the support of a majority of American voters. Would those who control the media and rig the election system have allowed him to win?

O.K., now imagine Obama is as progressive he can be and still win in spite of the control that the global power cabal has over the media and the electoral system. It looks to that power cabal like he will win in spite of their controls over the levers of power. Imagine that he is at this point positioned to change the status quo and establish a government that serves the interests of the average American. This would come at the expense of the power elite that has made trillions of dollars and had exceptional power and privilege under previous American administrations, both Republican and Democrat. Would he survive past the stage that Robert F. Kennedy survived in his campaign?

Now imagine all went as it really did up to the point of election night, but after that Obama started to announce cabinet choices that betrayed that he intended to depose the powers that be and establish the most progressive administration in history. This would come at the expense of the Military Industrial Complex and any other elements of the ruthless global power cabal. What would that power cabal do?

Now imagine that everything went the same as it did up to election night. This time imagine (I know this is difficult for many of us) that Obama has a strategy to successfully establish a government that actually does the greatest good possible for the greatest number of Americans, global peoples and global ecosystems. How could he do it without being sabotaged by the global power cabal in one way or another?

While I appreciate your honesty, I think you’ve bought into the Dem political narrative hook line and sinker. You may think you’ve come by it outside of that mileu, but I can assure you his “autobiography” was well vetted by the power elite.

Those who know Obama’s political history best are people like Adolph Reed http://www.blackagendareport.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=697

It is not one’s personal history as much as what one does with it. Some of the most wretched and destructive leaders have come from humble beginnings. I’m not suggesting that Obama is Hitler, just that using that autobiography is hardly a rationale for his “progressivism”.

His picks for his cabinate – particularly the critical ones are all center right by all accounts and the neocons and most Republicans have been applauding his choices. Should be a flag, Stewart.

No, Obama is simply a youngish half white, half black man who has had ambitions to be POTUS for some time. The way to begin that path, are varied. He chose to take the community organizer route. His term as an organizer was only 3 short years (he was “picked” because they needed a black face); and his “accomplishments” from all accounts were meager at best. His aim was to move quickly through the political ranks. I don’t know if he expected/planned to be running for POTUS this soon, but, opportunist that he is, the timing was right. He’s first and formost a politician and as such will do whatever it takes to attain and keep power.

He has taken positions right of GW Bush on Israel and Afghanistan/Pakistan. All his picks have been status quo Dem elitists. His ag pick is agbusiness/Monsanto engineered seed, oil based, use of farm land for energy producing ethenol (which buys only massive farm producers anything). The list has been thoroughly reviewed here and elsewhere and it AINT progressive by a long shot.

If you still think he’s about hope, and he’s a “progressive”, well I can’t change you’re mind because I don’t know what you mean by either term. Your hope may be the dispair of millions; your idea of progressive may simply be anyone but a Repub. Dems have routinely presided over more wars of aggression then the Repubs. The financial meltdown we see has more to do with the policies of Clinton (Obama is clearly a continuation of that) than anything GW Bush has done (as horrible a president as he is).

Smarts are not sufficient for real change, the kind that produces social and economic justice. An smart efficient neoliberal is what Obama is shaping up to be. You may think that’s hope, that’s progressive. I don’t.

His mentor in Chicago was Reverend Wright, who had the courage to tell it like it is when he said of our country that has killed millions in neo-colonial wars “God damn America!” He also has exceptional self confidence, not one of your weak egoed politicians that do so much harm to show that they aren’t so low as they feel. Go to Wikipedia and look at his life history and ask if this is the history of someone that is looking to ally himself with the global exploiters so he can be in their power elite too.

Why do I think he can succeed? He exceptionally intelligent, confident and I believe ethical. He understands that the way to victory is to win over members of other camps, rather than throw rocks at them, as so many of us on both the left and right seem to think.

All are representatives of white supremist power structure. And that is the root problem with seeing any of these as providing a real alternative. In fact, they do more to reinforce that power structure by demanding that criticism is off the table.

I do agree, having looked at the link, that anti-feminists must be rooted out. Cynthia McKinney (I too voted for Nader, but if wasn’t running I would have written her in) is an example of a real feminist alternative in my opinion.

I think we must be discerning when we “stick up” for a candidate. It should not be, imo, simply for the superficial reasons of skin pigmentation, or whether they are gay, or female. Their capacity to think, learn, and the context of their world view are for me the primary issues.