Obama is "risky" in much the same vein as Carter. Should he win in November he inherits: a war wear public, spiraling fuel prices, a housing fiasco, economic downturn, crumbling higways, a fratured congress, an international community that doesn't know what they want from the US and an awakening Iran.

Like Jimmy Carter (the best former President we've ever had), Obama is "risky in that he is untested on the international stage, has little experience outside his home state, and has campaigned on hope for a better tomorrow and "change" without much to back it up.

Those are the problems the next president faces. I'm certain I've left many others out. To quell the rising concern over "risk" Obama and followers need to address these issues with fact and substance rather than hope.

Kurt--it's always "risky" to have to clean up after a Republican Administration. If that was a criteria for rejecting Democrats, we would NEVER elect a Democrat, and the mess would pile up until America collapsed completely.

If McCain gets in, he will spend four years rattling steel balls and threatening to nuke whoever took the strawberries. Better to have a President who will at least roll up his sleeves and do his best to make a dent in the Bush disaster.

Admiral

I have heard many folks talk about Obama's inexperience and liken it to Bush's inexperience. The question now becomes are we ready to turn the country over to a rookie again? We just went through 8 years of this. Bush was maybe one of the most unqualified presidents we have elected in decades, with regards to his previous experience coming in. I don't care if he was a Governor or not, if people understand Texas politics, the Lt Governor, and the Speaker of the House have more power than the Governor. The Texas Governor is basically a part time job that has veto power.

The risk in Obama comes from the people behind him such as the morally-challenged Albright, Brzezinski and others we don't know about behind the curtain of Obama's rhetoric. Obama, however, is clearly the lesser risk when compared with McCain whose mental stability is questionable. Admiral N. has it right: "If McCain gets in, he will spend four years rattling steel balls and threatening to nuke whoever took the strawberries." (For the younger generation this refers to "The Caine Mutiny" a very popular book by Herman Wouk and the movie, starring Humprhey Bogart, from 1954.)

To quell the rising concern over "risk" Obama and followers need to address these issues with fact and substance rather than hope.

Obama's campaign web site is filled with fact and substance on just about every issue that's out there. He's put his substantive positions out there for the entire world to see, and he discusses his policies in Q&A and at just about every campaign stop.

If Obama's political opponents throw out baseless charges that he's running on nothing more than vague promises of "hope" and "change," there's not much he can do about that. Nor is there anything he can do about people who aren't paying attention and can't be bothered to spend two minutes checking out his web site.

Obama is a risky candidate for POTUS due to his lack of experience just like GW Bush was/is. His policies are still undefined and vague. Even at this point in the campaign, it's almost impossible to find an Obama supporter who actually knows the specifics of his future policies. Usually, when asked about the specifics, Obama supporters redirect you to his website (i.e. they have no idea what the specifics are either). Of course, it doesn't help that Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth and flip-flops regularly. So, protect your country, find out what a candidate stands for rather than simply giving blind loyalty to a media-driven icon. Perhaps, Obama is less riskier than McCain...that is up to you the voter to discern.

A lot of these things are just to keep media interest alive and stir up the pot. Why is it that the polls of record always show what seems in the air, and these agenda polls, with weighted or slanted questions, come out with this 70+ degrees off center stuff?

I think the concerns lie not only in BHO’s lack of governmental and legislative experience but in a perceived lack of life experience. To say his resume is thin for someone seeking the most powerful office in the world would be putting it mildly.

His poor performance in debates against Hillary speaks to his limitations in pressure situations. These are genuine areas he will have to address if he is going to win over independent voters.

I have heard many folks talk about Obama's inexperience and liken it to Bush's inexperience.

Well, then, the argument answers itself. Bush's reign does prove that inexperience is no bar to a President doing exactly what he wants to do, and getting the intended results.

The difference is that Obama intends to make America a better place, not shrink it to the point where it can be drowned in the bathtub. And he has an inspired nation behind him.

If you live on the planet called Afghanistan, an Obama presidency is very risky.

Kristin,

I've done my homework on Barack Obama. Have you? Unfortunately, much of America has not. Still waiting for an Obama supporter to be able to articulate his plans for America.

McCain's experience hasn't been much help in keeping him from making one blunder after the other. Experience is overrated when it includes habitual malpractice.

I was originally a Clinton supporter, but since she conceded I am putting my support behind Obama. Obama's experience includes being a state senator and U.S. senator. Let's take a quick glance at some of our past presidents and their "experience" before obtaining the highest office, and then re-look at Obama and decide if he has enough experience. It's worth noting that most Representative, Senate, or Governor terms seem to have only been one term. Only Gerald Ford had many years (1949-73) as a Rep. My favorite is Eisenhower, who had one year as the 1st Supreme Allied Commander in Europe before becoming president. And now, what would we do without our Interstate system?

Franklin D. Roosevelt NY Senator and Governor

Harry Truman Missouri Senator, VP

Dwight D. Eisenhower 1st Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, 1951-52

John F. Kennedy Massachusetts Rep and Senator

Lyndon B. Johnson Too much to list - lots of political positions

Richard Nixon California Rep and Senator, VP

Gerald Ford Michigan Rep (1949-73), VP

Jimmy Carter Georgia Senator and Governor

Ronald Reagan California Governor

George H.W. Bush Too much to list - lots of political positions

Bill Clinton Arkansas Attorney General and Governor

George H. Bush Texas Governor

In conclusion, I think Obama's right up there with the past 80 years of Presidents in terms of political experience.

Believe me, anyone who can rise up thru the politics of south side Chicago is ready for Iran, the middle east, etc. See the current New Yorker for plenty of details. Obama is ready.

Risk? I don't think so, but consider this. Our country was built upon risk. Our capitalistic system requires risk, with the greater risk earning the greater reward.

Obama as POTUS will face a myriad of problems, mostly created by the borrow and spend Republicans. It will be a daunting task, but Obama is smart and energetic. He also knows how to surround himself with brilliant minds (regardless of their party affiliation). The last president who was smart, energetic, and surround himself with brilliant minds was Bill Clinton. We had it pretty good during those 8 years.

As usual, I agree with Chris #12: "If you live on the planet called Afghanistan, an Obama presidency is very risky."

"...[Obama's] obvious shift on the 'surge' operations in Iraq (underlined by deleting criticisms of it from his website last week) is strengthening his call for 'redeployment' from Iraq to Afghanistan. His current strategy could be summed up as: de-escalate the war in Iraq, escalate it in Afghanistan, and talk to Iran. On Iran, his offer of talks was coupled with an alarming, Bush-style threat. 'I’ll do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'...It is worth noting that the term withdrawal, let alone a full unconditional withdrawal that will satisfy most of the Iraqi people, has never been part of Obama’s vocabulary." --Sami Ramadani, No U-Turn. Obama’s Stance on Iraq Is Chillingly Consistent

Obama's website states: “He would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq.” Consider the word, "potential". Don't you get it yet?

The difference between McCain and Obama on "experience" is a red herring. What we should be focusing on, as usual with the two anti-democratic parties, is the similarity between them. That's if we care about "purity" issues like justice and unending war.

That a presidential candidate hasn't had years and years of experience isn't as much of a concern to as whether a candidate is a quick study, or in other words, how quick they are to catch on to a situation that needs attention. That's what I'm looking for signs of from McCain and Obama.

With that in mind, observations expressed in Buckman Res's comment(9:27 am) about Obama debating Hillary, are a concern to me, as are other examples of his skills, such as how Obama handled the Rev Wright dilemma. I hope Obama works out, cause there's no way I'm voting for McCain.

I'll readily admit I'm not one of those people that have avidly studied Obama's website and acquired an in depth knowledge of his position on issues or who he's assembled for an advisory staff. I'm gradually gradually picking up details about those things as we go along.

"In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghanistan and, in effect, an invasion of Pakistan. He wants more combat troops, more helicopters, more bombs. Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power - because their collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly, 'bait-and-switch' Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince." (John Pilger, Obama, The Prince Of Bait-And-Switch)

A couple days ago, I watched as Barrack showed his experience in fielding detailed questions about his Iraq war policies. The media asked some toughies and Barrack (off the cuff) answered them all in detail. He did not try to avoid any questions with non-sensical answers. When the going got tough, he did not signal his handler to conclude the press conference. He stood in there and explained simply his positions. The only criticisms I heard from pundits Included; 1. he said "Israel" when he meant the "US" (a case of mis-speak which did not confuse because the substitution was so apparent); and, 2. criticism about refusal to admit the surge worked, to which he explained his broader perspective than the General on the ground.
It is arguable whether the surge worked in light of the shift in violence from Iraq to Afghanistan and the growth of terrorist safe havens in Pakistan. Like a mostly empty water bottle, when you pressure one section, the water flows to the less pressured sections. As the violence dropped off in Iraq, it increased in Afghanistan with larger pockets of terrorists locating in Pakistan.
Why shouldn't the whole of the Middle East be considered when deciding strategy in one region? There are after all, strong interconnections between regions. The surge is and was short sighted and only worked to quell violence in one region of the Mid-East. I agree with Barrack's wider view of the whole of the Middle East when considering strategy in the region. In other words if success in Iraq is at the expense of failure in Afghanistan does that mean the surge worked? Am I the only one here who finds Obama's refusal to honor the surge justified? Obama just cruised right by huge risk in giving a wide-open press conference on international affairs. Through my "hope colored" glasses I thought I witnessed a home run. Silly me.

Our country was built upon risk. Our capitalistic system requires risk, with the greater risk earning the greater reward.

Nice theory but full of holes. Theoretically, the military-industrial complex takes risks and earns correspondingly great rewards, but the reality is that it is our men and women below flag rank that run the greatest risks and all too often pay the ultimate price.

Other major corporations run risks, but if they are big enough the government will bail them out.

The last president who was smart, energetic, and surround himself with brilliant minds was Bill Clinton. We had it pretty good during those 8 years.

Another nice myth. Clinton went along with some "brilliant minds" (Alan Greenspan, for one) and now we are paying for some of their policies. Worse still are the estimated half million Iraqi children who died while the Clintons, Albright, et al, presided over the U.N.-imposed sanctions on Iraq.

This is a non-Z-Sustainer link to John Pilger's article referenced by Harry K. above. Read, weep, and withdraw from your Obama-induced euphoria.

So Bill, what is your set of solutions and why aren't they prominent on the national scene as an alternative to Obama. Do you have your own light or do you just curse the darkness.

I surmise you are on the far left. I apologize if my assumption is wrong.

I used to be on the far left myself - SDS & Chicago convention protester. However the more I associated with the far left, the more I saw people without positive vision, and worse, people with great misanthropy and personal demons in their lives - wife abuse, drugs, criminality, infidelity. In other words they were no more enlightened or perfect than the rest of humanity. In my old age, i am more pragmatic. Sh*t happens! Sometimes there is nothing we can do about it. Sometime we need to rally the troops if we have any chance of doing something positive about it. The polarizing extremes have never provided good solutions in my estimation. Why, because ego-centricities get in the way of clear solutions.

Obama may be steeped in euphoria, but comapred to all the alternative presidential nominees, including Nader, he is the only one that inspires me. (And I am not dumb!)

Maybe a build up of the military in Afghanistan is for the purpose of attacking Iran from the Afghan side. Invading Iran from Iraq as well as from Afghanistan would destroy Iran.

Re "...without positive vision, and worse, ...with great misanthropy and personal demons in their lives - wife abuse, drugs, criminality, infidelity":

According to RichW, he "used to be 'far left'", and therefore he used drugs, committed crimes, and cheated on his wife, whom he beat. Glad to hear you stopped all that misanthropy, RichW, when you became a supporter of candidates and parties who are war-mongering anti-Arab/anti-Persian racists and Bush-lite fascist-apologists. Take pity on those of us who lack the courage to make the transition.

Thank you for the personal attack, Harry.

But you didn't answer the question, perhaps due to your imperfect reading of my post. Tell me who is the alternative candidate to Obama that can inspire the country to elect him/her in November?

RichW: You're welcome, but don't you think your own attack on those of us who were leftists in the sixties deserves a response? You sure can dish it out, but you can't take it, can you?

Your question(s) were not asked of me (You apparently don't even read your own posts); they were directed at Bill, who is quite capable of speaking for himself. (And I want to say to Bill that I respect your principled position on Nader, even if I disagree about the "safe-state" strategy.)

I've been posting answers to similar questions here for years. Here's a short recapitulation:

(1.) If the DP were "progressive", as most DP regressives claim, it would first of all stop showing contempt for democracy. You would select candidates who represent the progressive base of your party rather than those who support corporate and military hegemony, like Obama. And you would act on what the overwhelming percentage of your membership wants, e.g., impeachment of the war criminals Bush and Cheney; an end to occupation and terrorizing, etc.

(2.) My positions, like Nader's, are centrist/progressive positions, not "far left": Political Issues that Matter for 2008. If you haven't actually read this already, you're no better than the Republicans who haven't read Obama's positions.

(3.) If you really ever had been "far left", you would already know that those of us to your left want justice, peace and democracy, and we want candidates who exemplify those standards.

(4.) Even if there were no people in America who were representative of those standards (and my experience is that there are several on every street corner), you should not accept candidates who, every four years, run on militaristic, corporatist platforms, e.g., Obama, Kerry and Gore.

Re: your "Sh*t happens!" - Isn't this Rumsfeld's position? Now I understand why Obama inspires you.

I surmise you are on the far left. I apologize if my assumption is wrong.

Your assumption is entirely wrong. I often find myself in disagreement with people on the far left. I am an independent which means that I follow certain principles and not party programs or ideologues. I cling to the apparently now quaint concept of all people having a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and justice. I also happen to believe in the law and the Constitution. That may mean that there are times when I appear to be on the "left," but it also puts me in line on some occasions with some people on the "right."

Your apology is accepted.

I may have to go off line for a few days so don't jump to other conclusions if I don't respond to other comments.

Harry,

Did I attack all the lefties of the sixties? No, I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of many who were for "justice" but didn't practice what they preached. And as I further explained, they were no different than the rest of humanity. They did not meet my expectations. Tell me how the vandalism of those who broke store windows and even looted those stores during the '68 Chicago protest advanced the cause of justice.

You responded with a snarky personal attack. I never attacked you personally. I can take whatever you throw at me because it is meaningless to me. I was sincere when I thanked you for the personal attack because it proved my point.

Even Rummie can be right on something sometime.

My point remains. Show me a VIABLE alternative to Obama and I'll vote for him or her. Nader is NOT viable,and yes I have read his positions. He just has not captured the hearts and minds of voteres enough for us to take his candidacy as nothing more than a protest. Sometimes protests do change the world, but in his case his is dismissed as ineffective by a vast majority.

I have said before "Obama - warts and all" because no one else even comes close to inspiring me. In 1992 I strode down to my polling place (before vote-by-mail) with energy to vote for Clinton. With all of his warts, I am not sorry I did. Obama may never be able to live up to the hype of his campaign. I am sure, as President he will falter on one or another issues. But it comes down to him being our great hope. No one else comes close.

paul g said, "I don't think there is any evidence out there...showing that the base of the Democratic party...adopt many of the positions you describe."

How about impeachment of the war criminals Bush and Cheney (75-80%)? How about an end to the occupation of Iraq? How about a crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare? How about single payer, universal health care? How about cutting the bloated Pentagon budget? How about even-handed treatment of the Palestinians and Israelis?

There is plenty of data out there that shows that not only the membership of the DP is far to the left of the DP elites, but a majority/plurality of the country. And that is the true center of political thought in the U.S.

Here's what David Sirota says:

"As the Associated Press claimed in a typical description, Obama's shifts are designed 'to appeal to the center of the electorate.'

However, empirical data prove 'the center of the electorate' is exactly the opposite:

-- Polls by Quinnipiac University and the Mellman Group found majorities support warrant requirements for wiretaps and oppose immunity for companies that released private consumer information without such warrants.

-- Surveys by Fortune magazine, CNN and the Wall Street Journal report that most Americans oppose NAFTA-style trade policies.

-- For years, major polls have consistently shown Americans want a firm timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. As just one of many examples, five separate USA Today surveys since 2007 have shown majorities want the president to 'set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq.'

So, the undebatable evidence tells us precisely where the center of public opinion is. Yet when a presidential candidate moves away from the center, we are told he is moving toward it. What gives?" (In search of the American 'center')

Most BO posters wouldn't know "the left" if it bit them on the ass. Nader and I seem to be "far left" to you only because you're so far to the right that any real centrist would seem left.

Nader believes in restrained capitalism, peace and justice. If you think that is "far left", you need to go back to school.

RichW: Especially since I know that your definition of "far left" is far to the right of my definition, I see your comment as casting aspersions on many fine people who I knew in the sixties.

Let's take your words and substitute "gays" for "far left", as in, "...the more I associated with the gays, the more I saw people without positive vision, and worse, people with great misanthropy and personal demons in their lives - spouse abuse, drugs, criminality, infidelity." Understand now?

Fourteen percent of the population believe Nader is the best candidate, even though only six percent say they'll vote for him. This is with a virtually complete MSM blackout of his campaign. (Someone on BO keeps asserting that Nader is not campaigning!)

What would happen if we had a real series of debates with candidates that ran the gamut from Ron Paul to Nader? Here's what I think would happen: people would be informed about real alternatives. The more McBama would tread the right-wing "center", the more people would understand that only the "alternative" candidates offer "change". Would that mean that a progressive government would be elected? The future is unwritten.

"RichW: Especially since I know that your definition of "far left" is far to the right of my definition, I see your comment as casting aspersions on many fine people who I knew in the sixties."

Pardon me but you know nothing of the sort. Yes, I do cast aspersions on the criminals and misanthrops who claimed to be for justice. I also recognize there were many fine people (who also scorned the miscreants, if only privately).

We probably have more in common than you think. All I am saying is that Nader is not an alternative to Obama because Nader has zero chance of winning. When Nader was blamed for Gore's loss in Florida, Naderites countered, correctly so, that Gore failed to win Fla on his own. Thesame can be said for Nader's campaign. He doesn't have the critical mass to be an effective candidate. Lets see if he even gets anything close to that 6% in November.

Blame the MSM? Now you sound like the Freepers. But even so, a viable candidate knows how to manage the media. Nader was somewhat effective in 2000 but has now lost that touch. He is now the Harold Stassen of the 21st Century. Compare this with Obama who virtually came out of nowhere when the MSM was stating that Hillary had a lock on the nomination. There is not a choice from center to far left. It is Obama over McCain for all of us. Anyone else is chaff.

What never ceases to amaze me is the extent to which a few folks will go to justify a fear of Obama. He has shown a strong capacity to play politics at the level required; he is affiliated with the Chicago school of Milton Friedman's disaster capitalism..Bush's continuation of what Reagan started and Clinton continued is not in any danger. The military budget is growing vastly out of proportion to any need and there is no ability to stop it. Who is fearing the loss of the Republic? Guess if you have enough guns it doesn't matter. There will never be a country that achieves what we could have become. How tragic.

You guys are all funny. You have no idea what you stand for. Mr Bush is the most unpopular President EVER and Obama is ahead of the Republican candidate by what an average of 3 percent? If Obama wins it will because of switching one MAYBE 2 states. I honestly feel sorry for you guys.

You are STAYING TEH COURSE just as you accuse Bush of doing. I mean i just read all your comments. We have one guy saying Carter was great on foreign policy. Ok idiot did you live during that era? you have some one else saying Obama is doing a great job explaining his positions. I know that might be what you hope for but come on, he obviously isnt or he would be doing better. And then you say that he cant do any more. HAHAHA yes we can yes we can yes we can. He can hope anything into existance why cant he just CHANGE all our minds?

Then we have one guy talking about hgow great Clinton was. It was not him, he was a bit busy if I remember, it was the peace we lived in, and the base of the economy set up by Reagan and Bush plus the internet boom that did that for him. And as far as experiance goes, I think it counts for a bit, but maybe not as much as some people out there, but I can still find it funny that a lady up there was saying Obama had just as much experiance as presidents for the last 80 years lol

Oh and i cant even really comment on the guy who said working on the south side of chicago "couldnt" be harder then takin on Iran. Really? Really? I hope Obama is at least not as nieve as you!

Chris L:

(1.) Nader is "to the left end" only if the usual suspects on BO and in DP/RP leadership are compared. Tell me which of Nader's issues are too "far left" for you. I've been asking this question on BO since Nader announced, and none of you will answer (because it will reveal how far to the right you are).

(2.) I never said that my evidence is "undebatable." It was David Sirota (who I believe is a Democrat) who said that; that's why I put quotation marks around what he said (" ").

(3.) When you say, "Your interpretive rule is that if a poll question produces results that correspond to your own view, that is the question that reflects 'true' public opinion," that is a strawman argument, and not worthy of you.

You have no idea what my "interpretive rule" is because you've never bothered to debate different poll outcomes; instead, you've attacked any reasonable analysis of poll data because it would place you in a position of having to acknowledge that most DP elites are far to the right of "center", and because it would also place you in a position of having to challenge people like Chomsky, Zinn, Klein, Bennis, Herman and Sirota, among many other true progressives.

When you say, "There's no reason to say that the different questions that produce different results are any less 'true'", that is nihilism. Social scientists say otherwise, and you either lack the knowledge necessary to evaluate different poll results, or you are just propagandizing when it suits your argument.

(4.) Your failure to find Nader's position on Iraq is dumbfounding to me. You need to read better. (You can omit the part about poll results if you want):

Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East:

"Nader/Gonzalez would reverse the current policy in the Middle East.

The current political strategy of pre-emptive war in the Middle East is a disaster for both the American people and the people of the Middle East. It has bloated the already wasteful military budget and has cost at present over 4,000 American lives, nearly 100,000 American injuries, and over a million Iraqi civilian lives, plus the destruction of their country.

Nader/Gonzalez propose a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A target of withdrawing troops in six months will be set.

Fifty-eight percent of Americans want troops withdrawn from Iraq and a January 2006 poll shows that 72 percent of American soldiers in the field in Iraq wanted the U.S. out of Iraq within six to twelve months."

(5.) Your "name calling" argument is unjustified. No one has been personally attacked on BO more than me. I don't complain about that; I just give as good as I receive.

Chris L said, "You have instead presented the issues essentially as ones of personal and ideological integrity, in which effectiveness is an irrelevant concern, mostly by way of inferring, imputing and accusing lack of such integrity in others, including me directly once in a while and indirectly within sweeping generalizations more frequently. This is such a poor approach to persuasion that it leads me to think and feel you don't really wish to persuade."

Every time you guys deride values or integrity, you lose; politically, ethically, morally and spiritually. The right-wingers are right about one thing: Democrats lack a moral compass (so do Republicans, but that's another story).

We can walk and spit vitriol at the same time. There's plenty to be angry about, and my anger is no different than that of many past activists who were criticized similarly. I take what you and your DP compatriots say to me a lot less personally than you take what I have to say, and I see that fact as a window into our relative senses of guilt.

I DENY that "effectiveness is an irrelevant concern". Nothing I have said can reasonably be interpreted in that way. The question is what will be effective, and, since we agree that neither of us knows the answer, I don't understand your contention about my supposed indifference. Is effectiveness an irrelevant concern for you? If it isn't, then why do you think that supporting right-of-center hacks is a serious option?

I have posted copiously detailed arguments that are mostly ignored by the "progressives" who post to BO. Whether or not I "vent my frustrations" does not seem to matter to those who respond. DP loyalists and RP loyalists tend not to read anything that challenges their prejudices, and, even when they do read it, they find some "reason" to deride the truth.

My experience is that different people are persuaded by different things. You shouldn't be so sure that my style cannot be effective. As much as I prefer what you have to say over what most here have to say, your style, after all, has not changed the intellectual culture of the DP.

Most of my associates on the left mock me for even trying to reach Democrats, especially Democrats who post to BO. They say that you cannot be reasoned with. I sometimes agree.

None of us has prevented either the massive suffering we are causing throughout the world, nor the conditions for catastrophe that we now confront, so let's agree to disagree.

Chris and Harry: I've enjoyed your interchange above. Unfortunately, I only have time for a couple of quick comments.

My position until I read John Pilger's article (above) has been more or less in line with Chris's. Cast your vote where it might have some effect and not for others, such as Nader, who have no chance of winning. As far as the current presidential election goes, I was prepared to give my vote to Obama because I was so opposed to McCain. However, every time I made that statement that quiet little voice we get sometimes caused me to suspect that wouldn't be such a good idea despite whatever logic attached to it.

But I gave that position some thought after reading John Pilger's article, and it occurred to me that the vote I and everyone else has is a chance to state our position. Either we use it for that purpose or we surrender it to an option we have but don't really care for instead of the one we are more opposed to. Or, to use that overworked phrase, vote for the lesser evil.

The Democratic Party has made a habit of giving us someone who just manages to qualify as the lesser evil, which means we vote for evil. The Democratic party oligarchs have consistently taken unions, black civil rights movements, and "progressives" for granted and stiffed them after getting elected.

It is now time to say, "Enough" and time to let the people know where we stand. Whether we vote for Nader, McKinney, Ron Paul, Bob Barr or others we will probably be in a very small minority, but perhaps some day more people will wake up and also say "Enough" and make a difference and we will get the kind of political representatives this country can respect. It probably won't happen in my life time or maybe yours, but at least our conscience can be clear.

The choice seems to be between a quick disaster under a President McCain or continued decline and inevitable collapse under President Lesser Evil and successors. Or the Democratic Party can change and give the people a better choice. Or a third viable party can come to the rescue.

"Enough" and enough of this nonsense about being among the hard left. We may be on the left when it comes to some issues, but we are in league with Ron Paul, Bob Barr, LewRockwell.com and others on the "right" when it comes to the Constitution and respect for the law.

This is one reason why the people of this nation should say "No" to Barack Obama as much as to McCain. Both are agents of corporate America and its military-industrial complex.

Good for you, Bill. Eugene Debs, imprisoned twice for his politics, said that it's better to support someone you believe in and lose than it is to support someone you don't believe in and win. I do think, though, that the absolute certainty of the future is unwarranted. Anyone who had said a year ago that she was absolutely certain that Obama would defeat Clinton would have been dismissed as a fool. The future is unwritten.

Nader said at a fundraiser last night that he and Matt are pulling more votes from McCain than from Obama. Ralph is not attached to any party or ideology. He has "family values", and many of his positions should appeal to libertarians of good conscience. He could win if the Democrats don't sabotage his campaign.

Chris:

When you said, "Why you think I'd challenge Phyllis Bennis I have no idea," it was because those people I listed (including Bennis) all use poll results frequently in their political work, and they would all (especially the ones whose prose is tedious) disagree strongly with your position on the meaningfulness of poll data. Incidentally, if BO were the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, I would write long histories and theoretical discussions of competing schools of thought, but this is a blog, and I report results here that I find to be genuine. If you have reason to believe that questions in a particular poll were biased, then you should say it.

Your reference to Nader's comment on "gonadal politics" from 12 years ago is similar to criticisms I've heard of Chomsky, that he wants to avoid taking positions on "social issues". Do you really think Ralph Nader is anti-woman? If so, you'll have to do better than your last "evidence" of Ralph's "playing footsie with conservatives", which proved just the opposite of your claims.

I do think, though, that the absolute certainty of the future is unwarranted.

Correct. I should have said, "The choice seems to be risking a quick disaster under a President McCain or gambling on a continuing decline and possible eventual collapse under President Lesser Evil and successors."

Obama is risky on THIS planet: A letter I wrote to him recently: Dear Senator Obama, I believe in my ability to work towards and recognize change. Unfortunately I feel that having you in the white house will not instigate real change. It will not bring about: Single payer health care for all. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq, without re-deployment of troops to Afghanistan. Cutting the bloated military budget. No to nuclear power, solar energy first. No to NAFTA! No to corporate crimes and welfare. Repeal anti-union laws. Support accountability by bringing this current administration to justice, or at least not standing in the way. No to Israeli occupation of Palestine, no more of our tax money to support that atrocity!!

So you see why I can't support you. My vote will go to a 3rd party candidate who is steadfast, with a true progressive agenda as above, focused on Peace and Justice. It's unfortunate for the American People that you don't possess those qualities.

I will probably vote for Barry Obama, but he is no JFK!! I rate him a C+.

But I am also interested in defensive effectiveness.

Chris: People have been playing "defensive effectiveness" for decades with the same choice every election: The Democratic or the Republican wing on the corporate bird of prey. Admittedly, the threats from a McCain presidency - more war and the supreme (?) court - are ominous, but we've had similar causes for alarm before. The threat of a nuclear holocaust from Barry Goldwater which the election of LBJ "averted." Instead we "only" got an escalation of the war in Vietnam.

I said some time ago that Obama might prove to be the curtain behind which corporate wizards are hiding. Now that that curtain has some peepholes we can see who is behind him - among others, morally bankrupt functionaries from the Clinton presidency and war armaments manufacturers.

If people who want this nation to be the decent society it might be capable of don't make a stand now, then when? In 2012? 2016? 2020? 2024?

Hi, this is a just a test because I'm having trouble posting to another blog.

Chris said: "You're the one who says that people who disagree with you lack them [values], not me."

Oh, please. This is so over the top. Not all disagreements with me are immoral, just those that have to do with support for fascists and militarists.

Regarding the courts: Cass Sunstein, Obama's rumored first choice for the supremes, has advised Obama to block any prosecution of either Bush or his aides for "non-egregious" crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance. (Obama Adviser Cass Sunstein Rejects Prosecution of “Non-Egregious” Bush Crimes)

Sunstein, in case you haven't heard, supported John Roberts for Chief Justice. He also supports the Bush theory of inherent authority to spy on Americans without warrants (Sunstein An Advisor To Barack Obama?).

So let's see you talk your way out of that, Chris.

I'm glad to hear that you now think poll data are meaningful. I guess you didn't understand my argument above. It is not my job to present alternative explanations for poll data that I present; nor would Phyllis Bennis think it was her job to do that. If YOU believe that the data that Phyllis presents is flawed, then it is YOUR job to make your case.

Nader is the best candidate now running for president. I think that even you would admit that if you weren't desperate to find a reason to support a Democrat. Bill and Iris get it, and I hope you will, too.

Harry K: Thanks for the links re Sunstein. Here is another that is related.

The more we learn about Obama, the less the differences between him and McCain appear.

Which also is my main response to you Bill. I just don't see "alternative" presidential voting as an effective or meaningful way to "make a stand," without a powerfully organized social movement behind it. At best it would be making a very small statement, not substantially different from just not voting.

True, Chris, in the short-term, but we need people to continue as some did when they became disgusted with Gore's campaign in 2000. Since then, if my understanding is correct, more people have abandoned the duopoly and become independents. We need to keep the snowball rolling. Or, to borrow an old Chinese saying, "A journey of a thousand leagues begins with the first step." Perhaps we are only somewhere along the first league, but I'm in it for the long haul. No longer making excuses for the corruption and hypocrisy in Washington. Like MLK, Jr. I too have a dream, but it won't be realized by going along with settling for riding in the back of the bus while the corporate drivers determine the route.

Chris:

I have copies of all our interactions, such as your, "There's no reason to say that the different questions that produce different results are any less 'true'". I can try to find other examples of your nihilistic attitude toward poll results, but why bother? You now are taking a more reasonable position, and I'm satisfied with that. If, in the future, you challenge the poll results that Phyllis Bennis or David Sirota or I mention, then I will try to explore the reasons that I consider them relevant.

I have not been "unresponsive to the question of why people vote differently from what [I] say they believe". I have said repeatedly on BO that I subscribe to the thesis of Herman and Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent (originally the idea of Walter Lippmann). I have also said repeatedly that 50% (more in state and local elections) of eligible voters don't vote. So no one can reasonably say that "people vote differently" from their true beliefs.

The most important matter to me is the belief of individuals that they are isolated in their opinions, without a group of like-minded others who can join with them in effective action. This is why the issue of "the center" is so important to me; people don't know that their opinions are often shared by the majority, and so they go along with what they believe is the "center" (actually the right). I'm sure it was the same in Germany.

You have repeatedly said that you don't see support for "personality-based" campaigns like Nader's as a good strategy, and I have repeatedly said that I don't see support for fascistic militarists like Obama or Clinton as a good strategy. Where do we go from there?

Well, Obama's all we've got with even a chance of winning, so what's the discussion about? You either vote for him or not, depending on whether you're voting out of fear and desperate hope...or whether you're voting for deeply held principles and defined policy alternatives...but if that were the case, you'd vote for Nader.

The nasty reality is that both the Obama and McCain campaigns are "personality based", while Nader's is policy based.

Well, Obama's all we've got with even a chance of winning, so what's the discussion about? You either vote for him or not, depending on whether you're voting out of fear and desperate hope...or whether you're voting for deeply held principles and defined policy alternatives...

Except for Obama's name this is the same mass-induced point that has been made almost every four years for generations. It also helps to explain why we essentially get the same choice every four years from the Democratic/Republican duopoly - to choose the lesser evil.

So I'd have to say "no," there is not much evidence of widespread rejection of the party duopoly.

And that is why we get such flawed and dishonest choices.

Paul g:

First of all, I did not cite Lippmann (who, along with Edward Bernays, was the leading voice of the burgeoning public relations industry in the 1920's) "approvingly", but rather, ironically. Lippmann is the "liberal" who first suggested that it was the job of elites to "manufacture the consent" of the rabble (you and me). Lippmann said, "We can manufacture consent by the means of propaganda." Bernays said, "The more intelligent members of the community can drive the population into whatever they want". It’s the "essence of democracy," he said.

Lippmann represented (and still represents) one side of the split between those who believed that the public could and should participate in democracy (the John Dewey branch) and those who scoffed at the idea, maintaining that the public was too ignorant to do any more than cast ballots once in a while (the Lippmann branch). Obviously, I'm with Dewey, and I suspect that most of the elitists who post to BO are with Lippmann.

The reason why statements like "There's no reason to say that the different questions that produce different results are any less 'true'" are nihilistic is because they imply that direct measurement of public opinion is meaningless. There is a science of opinion measurement, which, flawed as it may be, is the most direct way that I know to understand what the public believes. I agree that, "Polls are a snapshot in time, and the picture can be altered by the mode of the interview, the content of the questions, the framing of the issues, etc.", but that is the context of the science. Mode, content, and framing are the variables, and must be taken into account in interpretation. The argument that, because these are variables, therefore poll results are meaningless, is nihilism.

Re: "...you claim above that 75-80% of the public support impeachment of Bush and Cheney."

No, no, no. You are in such a hurry to criticize that you fail to read accurately either what I said or what YOU said. My response was to YOUR claim that, "I don't think there is any evidence out there...showing that THE BASE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY...adopt many of the positions you describe." 75-80% of the DP have favored impeachment for a long time (One of many examples: Much of US Favors Bush/Cheney Impeachment: Poll). A 2006 Zogby poll showed: "By ideology, impeachment was supported by Progressives (90%), Libertarians (71%), Liberals (65%), and Moderates (58%)" (Americans Support Bush Impeachment for Wiretapping)), so, assuming that the base of the DP is progressive, my 75% estimate is too low.

You further said, "However you define the "center" of the Democratic party, it seems to me the center of our elected Senatorial delegation is at least one reasonable place, and Sunstein sits right in the middle."

But this is the heart of our disagreement. The "center" is not the midpoint between elected elites, but rather the midpoint between the membership. Of course, that presumes that you lack contempt for democracy.

And if you can read Obama's legal advisor Sunstein's positions on blocking any prosecution of Bush for "non-egregious" crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance, supporting John Roberts for Chief Justice, or supporting the Bush theory of inherent authority to spy on Americans without warrants as "the center", then your logic is Lippmann-esque.

Chris:

I also am interested in "organizing and social movements." I don't think that electoral politics and movement organizing are mutually exclusive, though. Neither does Nader, who consistently talks about creating congressional-district-based grass roots citizens organizations.

If you prefer McKinney, Nader says this (Ralph Nader Issues Statement on Cynthia McKinney's Nomination):

"Although the Nader/Gonzalez and Green Party platforms have many similarities, we are not competing for votes, but instead we are allies joined in a common struggle to tap the huge and growing numbers of millions of unsatisfied voters who want to vote for something better than the lesser of two-evils. The more progressive voices and choices, the more widespread will be the definition of freedom as participation in power."

paul g:

My direct quote was Chris L's, not an incorrect reading of what you wrote.

Re: "My own experience working with public opinion for two decades has led me to be skeptical of the ability of the public to exert much beyond a very gross, blunt level of control over specific policies. The public has been and remains too uninformed and uninterested in the details... mass democracies have forever and will forever rely on elites.

I congratulate you on your honesty. Very Kissingerian realist. But just for the hell of it:

(1.) Our policy elites have slaughtered and tortured at levels that are estimated at 20-30 million dead, or approaching 10,000 911's, since WWII. They have created a monstrosity of a military that currently maintains "...a half million soldiers in 1,000 bases in 150 countries at great expense and to the serious endangerment of ourselves, generating resentment and hatred around the globe." (David Swanson, Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations). They have brought us to the edge of economic and environmental ruin. They are undermining the democratic freedoms that generations of grass roots activists have won.

That's the elites, the ones you say we need in order to have a "stable" democracy (and, although I've received an elite education, I am not a policy elite).

(2.) You can't "rely on elites" and want democracy. That's not democracy any more than establishing a farce of an "elected government" in Iraq or Afghanistan is democracy. Democracy means, at the very least, that all those whose interests are at stake are able to participate in policy making.

(3.) The public is purposely misinformed and distracted, and those with elite educations are carefully indoctrinated. Our educational system lacks a commitment to critical thought on all levels. These things and others can and must be changed; in fact, democracy cannot exist until those changes occur.

(4.) Ask African and native Americans if "that system has worked pretty well for a few centurie."

Chris:

I'm aware of Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony, that a culture can be ruled or dominated by one group. That's corporatism, and that's why I oppose McBama. I especially support your last paragraph to Paul.

Kari:

Thanks for the list. Here's a small number of comments that I culled from it regarding crimes against the Nader campaign in 2004:

Posted by: Greg Kafoury | Nov 5, 2007 8:57:11 AM

Bradbury's people locked the door, which was unlawful. A convention has 12 hours to get to 1,000. Some of the Nader people were locked out, and our ability to get more there was ended. My office was RN headquarters, and it was flooded with calls provoked by an email from Dem County Hdq. The phones were unusable. The Nader campaign was falsely accused of being in cahoots with the GOP, which I know for a fact to be false. Just before the 1st convention, Howard Dean was all over the air smearing us. He was interviewed by 4 or 5 of our most distinguished reporters, and said that Nader was using $ from the same corporations he used to fight to block the Ds. Not one reporter so much as asked him for evidence. There was, of course, none, since it was false. The Ds campaign against RN included the claim of fraud in signatures. Here is what happened: A tiny handful of petitioners made some dummy signatures, the campaign caufgt them and fired them all. Then, the anti-RN forces took those few petitions and paraded them before the press, claiming they were a representative sample. In fact, our disqualification rate was average. A Dem-linked law firm sent letters to our petitioners claiming that they faced prison if a signer turned out not to be registered. Some letters were handelivered ,at night. We lost some 33 petitioners over a weekend. The Dems were little better than gangsters, and if any of htem wish to debate the issue in public, simply let me know. Greg Kafoury

Posted by: Greg Kafoury | Nov 5, 2007 9:28:20 AM

Couple more things: Historically, about 1 in 4 Nader voters is a Republican. They are not all troglodytes, some are true conservatives, distrustful of concentrated power whether corporate or governmental. Also, despite everything, we got far more signatures than needed to get on the ballot, but Bradbury created new rules out of thin air to throw out countless signatures. It was the moral equivalent of burning ballots. The Salem judge who reviewed his conduct trashed him. The Ore Supreme Court simply said the Sec can do anything he wants if he claims it has something to do with ballot integrity. Finally, the Ds nationwide used such tactics as corrupting petition sheets, so as to cause whole sheets to be invalidated. Lawsuits were filed that had no basis in fact, and were intended simply to overwhelm Ralph's volunteer resources. We won nearly all the lawsuits, but ultimately only half the voters saw Ralph on their ballots. If the major parties can crush minor , independent candidacies and parties, what will be the source of political regeneration? By the way, now that the Ds have Congress, how are they doing on blocking the emerging police state, how are the doing on ending the War? Greg Kafoury

"When the Marion county signatures were not released (some never were released) until literally minutes before they had to be turned over to the Secretary of State, the result was that the pages could not be numbered...That's the story. Bradbury and the flunkies he's hired need incarceration, but that's my dream. Throwing them all out of work will have to do."

"HB 2614 clearly demonstrated that state Democrats (and Republicans) don't want anyone else at the table except for them."

"The Nader campaign collected well over 22,000 signatures to put Ralph on the ballot. But 3,000+ were thrown out because of unwritten rules on the numbering of the petitions. Not that the signatures of Oregonians were invalid, but that the clerical numbering of them did not meet some unwritten rule. In the first ruling in favor of the Nader campaign, Judge Lipscombe did not rule on the numbering issue because his ruling on other unwritten rules put enough signatures back in the mix to qualify the candidate. Later appeals then removed those signatures. All the legal actions to prevent access were undertaken by union lawyers with interceders from the DPO."

"...allegations of intimidation of volunteers, sabotage of subsequent petition gathering by Dems, Dem leadership's openness about their legal challenges not really being about concern for the ballot laws at all, but only about obstructing Nader's right to run and people's right to vote for him."

"Both Dems and Repos have separately conspired to remove/inhibit people from the ballot - for decades. The fact that Mr. Nader is suing on behalf of all candidates who might not want to tow the party line of either the Dems or Repos is a just cause. You may not like that Nader appears to get in the way, however, he's actually defending the Constitution, which both the federal D&Rs are rather flippant about lately."