For example, you state:

"{Obama] will turn decisively away from the disastrous militarism ... of the Bush years."

Really? Here's a bullet point from Obama's website issue page on "Foreign Policy":

"Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

So, Obama will turn decisively away from 'disastrous militarism' by... expanding the military?

Oh yea. Because, you know, any progressive candidate who proudly lists "expand the military" as part of his agenda is definitely not militaristic.

I just can't believe what a free pass Obama gets on the issues. Yes, he has a good speechwriter. Yes, his marketing is as good as Apple's for Mac OS and the iPod. But that doesn't mean we, as voters, shouldn't scrutinize his platform. He may have voted against the war, but he definitely will not curb our out-of-control military. Neither will Clinton or McCain, but that just speaks to how distraught our primary system is, and why we need more 3rd party voices.

Is Obama the progressive I've been waiting for? Hell no he isn't. Will I vote for him over McCain on Election Day? Yea, sure, but that's not exactly a high standard to beat.

I have an idea: how about Obama actually live up to the image of MLK, Jr. that he loves to project and promote peace, massive cuts to the military, and justice for workers and the economically disenfranchised? Oh, that's right -- because Obama isn't actually a progressive. He's just a mainstream "New Democrat" with a good speechwriter. The thing I am saddened by most is that my young, progressive, urban friends (I'm in my early 20s) all support Obama, for the same reason young, conservative people used to support Bush -- because his "image" was palatable to their tastes. Can we stop looking at "Obama as idea" and start looking at "Obama as President"? Please?!

I just did a search for Nader on Salon, and found this article in your old "Brilliant Careers" section:

http://www.salon.com/bc/1999/01/26bc.html

I think we forget that in 2000, Nader's reputation was essentially flushed down the toilet by the Democratic Party. We should all be outraged that the Democratic Party, and all of its members, blamed the loss of 2000 on Nader, rather than blaming it on itself. If the Democrats had blamed 2000 on themselves, they might have had a chance at winning 2004, by realizing they weren't the party they should have been.

To suggest that Nader, after years of taking nothing short of principled stands on every issue, would run a presidential campaign just to "return a favor" to John McCain. C'mon, Joe, give me a break.

I guess all partisan Democrats -- like Eric Alterman in "An Unreasonable Man" -- just can't get over the fact that they lost in 2000 and 2004. Admit it, the Democratic Party has become the spineless, least-worst party of American politics. In many ways, I have more respect for Republicans nowadays, who, despite being wrong on almost every issue, aren't afraid of radical change, and can get people excited about the radical-ness of believing in deregulation. Very little about the Democratic Party excites me. Do they have a better platform than the Republicans? Yes. But not by much.

Could a modern "New Democrat" have implemented a progressive policy that was as sweeping/radical as the Republican "hollowing out of government" described in Naomi Klein's book, "The Shock Doctrine"? At least the Republicans follow through on their ideology. What progressive reform did Bill Clinton get us? NAFTA? DMCA?

Do you think corporations would support Clinton and Obama if they were actually progressive? Take a look at articles like the following:

"Barack Obama, Inc.", Harper's Magazine:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

"Who Business is Betting On", Fortune:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100121742/index.htm

There you'll see how it's "politics as usual", even for the Democrats. Sure, they rile you up with their health care plans. But do you think they'll actually implement them, if they are not even considering any cuts to, say, the military budget?

In 2000, Al Gore ran a bland campaign that didn't even mention global warming, even though it was supposedly the cause of his life. In 2004, Kerry tried to out-commander-in-chief George Bush, instead of pointing out his war crimes and calling the Iraq war a sham. And, mark my words, it'll happen again in 2008 if the Democrats don't get their act together and stop apologizing for being liberal. Obama wants to expand the military by tens of thousands of troops. Clinton thinks she's the fittest on day one to be commander-in-chief. I'm sorry, but my prediction is: McCain is perceived as a better commander-in-chief by average Joe Americans, Conservatives turn out their base against "Barack Hussein Obama," true progressives stay home, and Democrats lose. Eight more years of Republicans. Are they going to blame 2008 on Nader, too? When will they ever take responsibility? You're trying to tell me sixteen years of a paucity of progressive politics will be the fault of one man?

January 20, 2009.

Remember when all the wingnuts were telling us we were crazy to have the slow, bureaucratic, inefficient and un-innovative government managing our social security pensions? Remember when they all wanted to give it to quick-minded, agile, efficient and innovative Wall St. firms? We could make a killer return on the booming market. We could *invest* our way out of the Baby Boomer's curse!

Thank goodness no one took them seriously...