SPACE FOR YOUR IMAGE DESCRIPTION OR TITLE

SPACE FOR YOUR IMAGE DESCRIPTION OR TITLE

If Obama Wins

10.28.2008

In the words of Nader himself, this is what will happen if Obama wins:

You take the 20 leading groups supporting him in the liberal-progressive pantheon: labor, anti-poverty, civil rights, women's rights, gay-lesbian rights, environment, consumer - you name it - not one of them is putting any demands on him. Unconditional voting for the least worst of the two parties means that your vote has no political leverage whatsoever. It allows Obama to take it for granted, and not give the anti-war people anything because he knows he has the anti-war vote. Then they go to the right wing and slice off a few votes there by going more corporate and flip-flopping on offshore drilling. This is the same merry-go-round every four years. The liberal intelligentsia is doomed unless they solve this problem of unconditional voting for the least worst candidate.

Read the rest of this interesting article here. You should also read this great article by Amy Goodman, Change Big Donors Can Believe In.

5 comments:

Dee said...

I will read, thanks!

I have this burning question. What about the other half of America? What about conservatives and independents who refuse to go any more liberal than Obama?
What happens when there is no compromise? I don't understand how this is possible. I really would love some thoughts about this.

Ann Marie said...

Obama isn't as "liberal" as people make him out to be.
People would happily support solar energy if they had the option. People would support health care for everyone-especially since most people have family members who have suffered because they can't be insured. Everyone wants to help people out, but doesn't want to support those who "work" the system--so fix the system. Nader is more middle road than either of the candidates. Especially since he is not tied to corporate dollars. Obama talks about helping the middle class, but what about everyone else, especially the poor and destitute? Obama bailed out wall street, not me. I'm paying for it, and so are you. I don't think that is "moderate" at all.
My advice is to write down what the candidates are supporting, cross out their names at the top, and see what makes sense to you. Really. Most people would support Nader if they really knew what he was about.

Dee said...

I think I've finally pin pointed my hang up! I'm not convinced that people would support Nader. That's what I'm not agreeing with, not seeing, and why I'm lenient with Obama on things. I guess I believe that change must happen slowly and that it can.

If you have sources that could prove otherwise, go ahead and send it my way.

If I did become convinced that Nader is really what most Americans want, then I am totally with you.

Ann Marie said...

All I can say is that I hear over and over from people that they love what Nader has to say, and wish they COULD vote for him. But they don't because they think it's not worth it. So sad! This is the real tragedy. People feel they have to vote for someone they don't totally believe in. I get so tired of the "lesser than two evils" argument. It means nothing to me. It is this argument that makes me cynical and pessimistic...when will people vote for what they really want? How bad do things have to get?

Ann Marie said...

P.S. Nader is totally about giving government and politics back to the people...and away from corporations and politicians. Who deosn't want that? That is insanity to me if people don't want it. Maybe people don't want the responsibility. I hope this is not the case.