Letters to the Editor
-
Wrong examples...
I enjoyed this article, but, really, aren't the more relevant lessons those from the 2 most recent presidential campaigns and perhaps 1992? The politics of the 2 major parties are so finely tuned these days that they seem almost always to produce near stalemate results. The polls this year seem to suggest the same result brewing again this year. To me the relevant question is not whether Obama is a "McGovern" or a "Mondale" but whether he's (as I fear) a "Gore" or a "Kerry" (rather than, say, a "Clinton") -- i.e., whether he lacks the goods to win in the necessary swing states.
I suggest 1992 because that was a race the Democrats WEREN'T supposed to win, but managed to win nevertheless because of the political skills of, let me think now, oh yeah right, the Clintons!!
-
This is Interesting, Part II
Obama is sitting on a number of keys to a landslide if he would only pull them out of his pocket and use them. Thus far it appears he will not. The 20 percent of Americans who support the occupation of Iraq are not potential Obama voters. There is nothing to be gained by appealing to them. But when I talk to people in the peace movement, they are increasingly telling me they plan to stay home or vote for a third party candidate such as Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney. None of them are potential McCain voters. They are, in fact, what Senator Hillary Clinton disdainfully refers to as "the activist base of the Democratic Party." According to Clinton, these people:
"turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of [my] positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them."
Well, guess what, we don't agree with Obama either. We appreciate the credit Clinton gives us for her defeat. For his own good, Obama needs to understand that he's next, that those of us who actively represent the 80 percent of the nation opposed to the occupation will direct our activism at him until he agrees to a speedy and complete withdrawal from Iraq. And we will mobilize millions to guarantee a landslide if Obama stands up this week and leads a filibuster of the next $170 billion for the occupation. If he continues to claim that he opposes the occupation while funding it with our grandchildren's borrowed treasure, his criticism of McCain will fall flat. If he continues to speak of reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq to "non-combat troops" while soldiers get their heads blown off deep within the Green Zone, he will lose all credibility. A "non-combat troop" in Iraq is another name for John McCain's fantasy that the Iraqis will someday stop resisting. If Obama votes No on the $170 billion without actively lobbying his colleagues to vote No, he will not be seen as sincere.
Obama was asked last week in Philadelphia about impeachment, indictment, and accountability for Bush and Cheney. He suggested that he MIGHT investigate their crimes AFTER we elect him president, and that he MIGHT prosecute them "if" they were found to have committed crimes. "If"? "If"? That word may become as famous as Dick Cheney's "So?" At every stop Obama makes on this endless campaign, people should hand him copies of John Conyers' "The Constitution in Crisis," a book you can buy in most bookstores which documents a long list of criminal offenses committed by Bush and Cheney. Does Obama disagree with the book's conclusions? Does he have a response to Bush's public confession to violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? Does he question the two Government Accountability Office studies that have found that in a significant percentage of cases, when Bush has announced his right to violate laws through signing statements, he has proceeded to violate those laws? Does Obama now believe the invasion of Iraq and everything that came with it was possibly legal? Was the February 7, 2002, order from Bush allowing the torture of detainees a legal act? "If?" "If?"
(You can find Conyers' whole book for free here [1]. Just click on "Summary," print out that short section, and send it to Obama.)
If Obama were to quietly allow impeachment hearings on Cheney or Bush to proceed on such subjects as torture and signing statements, he could put McCain on the defensive and force him to defend each crime while promising not to commit it. Impeachment hearings could squeeze out all coverage of nonsense spats and scandals. And if the American public understood that voting for Obama would put Bush and Cheney behind bars, we would see a landslide that could not be denied.
Sadly, it looks like we're going to see a tight race. During this tight race, good citizens will avoid all other political activism and devote their energies to the race. And not just their energies. We will transfer enough wealth to build a real populist movement for justice or a legitimate source of news into the hands of corporate television networks in the form of campaign ads. And, as a reward for our efforts, the election will be stolen.
Unless we interrupt this script and make some changes.
-
Send the Children to their rooms
Reparations.....Gore/Edwards
-
The Democrats won in 1976
In a presumably unlosable election, and after a particularly bloody primary battle. To extend the analogy further, the Republican base was split between their hard-line idealist (Reagan) and the lackey of the previous, unpopular president.
The Democrats may find a way to lose, but as was mentioned many times in these letters, they very well may find a way to win.
-
at this point
"Send the Children to their rooms
Reparations.....Gore/Edwards
-- Krissie9 "
At this point. with clinton turning into a republcain, and thus pigs flying (didn't they rip her to shreds for years. why did she turn into her own enemy), I hear you. Obama can't fight the gop teh media and his own party. If the gop sabotuers are going to play this game, I' with krissie.
If we can't even elect a nominee without the "opposition" party sabotaging the process. Altough, if they whine cry and complain, sabotage the process, and succeed, what will stop them from destroying the process in every election (not like they don't know). anyone have children here? What happens of you let them cry to get their way? do they improve or worsen?
I fear allowing the gop to dictate the "opposition" parties nomination will only embolden them. If we won't stand up to them now, when they are irrelevant and powerless, when will we? According to clinton and her republcain freinds, the answer is never. And that is just the way the fascist republcains, clinton included, want it.
do we let the crying children win? Or do the grown-ups take over. I'm down to fight the terrorist fascist sabotuers. do it now so our kids don't. If we adopt their tactics and bow to their tactics, they have already won. that is my only issue. though I agree with the above poster. All or nothing is the gop game. I for one do not want to back down. But if obama is not at the top of the ticket mccain is the new president. Unless we go the poster aboves route, which may be looking better by the day.
But don't blame obama for these. Obama is just running his campaign. this is 100% on the gop and their democratic blue dog sabotuers. Who pretend we have a two party government. Obama is not the child here. he is being drug through the mud by repubclains, clinton included.
The choice becomes, Obama and the fight that intails. Or taking the easy route (gore edwards). the safe route. We can change the candidate. we cannot change the gop's fascist tactics. Remember that moderates. Regardless the gop is going to gossip and hate and divide and conquer. The candidate will no change them, unless it's a republcain (only republcains are not accoutnabile for words and actions to republcians). I'm down to fight the gop and the detrsuction they have done to this great nation. Don't bow down now moderates. You have done nothing in the fight the last 8 years. You enabled the gop at every turn./ Now your voting with them? don't turn on us now moderates. If your not going to stand up now, when? Don;t answer that. The answer is never.