Robert Scheer: "Maybe Ralph Nader was right..."--Obama Chooses Wall Street Over Main Street

[laststeamtrain]

Obama Chooses Wall Street Over Main Street
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081125_obama_chooses_wall_street_over_main_street/
Posted on Nov 25, 2008

By Robert Scheer

Maybe Ralph Nader was right in predicting that the same Wall Street hustlers would have a lock on our government no matter which major party won the election. I hate to admit it, since it wasn’t that long ago that I heatedly challenged Nader in a debate on this very point.

But how else is one to respond to Barack Obama’s picking the very folks who helped get us into this financial mess to now lead us out of it? Watching the president-elect’s Monday introduction of his economic team, my brother-in-law Pete said, “You can see the feathers coming out of their mouths” as the foxes were once again put in charge of the henhouse. He didn’t have time to expound on his point, having to get ready to go sort mail in his job at the post office, but he showed me a statement from Citigroup showing that the interest rate on Pete the Postal Worker’s credit card was 28.9 percent, an amount that all major religions would justly condemn as usurious.

Moments earlier, Obama had put his seal of approval on the Citigroup bailout, which his new economic team, led by protégés of Citigroup Executive Committee Chairman Robert Rubin, enthusiastically endorsed. A bailout that brings to $45 billion the taxpayer money thrown at Citigroup and the guarantee of $306 billion for the bank’s “toxic securities” that would have been illegal if not for changes in the law that Citigroup secured with the decisive help of Rubin and Lawrence Summers, the man who replaced him as Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration.

As Summers stayed on to ensure passage of deregulatory laws that enabled enormous banking greed, Rubin was rewarded with a $15 million-a-year executive position at Citigroup, a job that only got more lucrative as the bank went from one disaster, beginning with its involvement with Enron in which Rubin played an active role, to its huge role in the mortgage debacle. It is widely acknowledged that Citigroup fell victim to a merger mania, which Rubin and Summers made legal during their tenure at Treasury.

Yet despite that dismal record of dismantling sound regulation, Summers has been picked by Obama to be the top White House economic adviser and another Rubin disciple, Timothy Geithner, is the new Treasury secretary. Geithner, thanks in part to the strong recommendation of Rubin, had been appointed chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank after working for Rubin and Summers during the Clinton years. Once at the New York Fed, he was the main government official charged with regulating Citigroup, a task at which he obviously failed. Yet over the weekend, it was Geithner who hammered out the Citigroup bailout deal with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and a very actively involved Rubin.

As the Washington Post reported, Paulson had indicated last week that no further bailouts were planned before the new administration took office until “Rubin, an old colleague from Goldman Sachs, told Paulson in phone calls that the government had to act.” Rubin conceded in an interview with the Post that he had played a key role in the politics of the bailout.

<more>

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081125_obama_chooses_wall_street_over_main_street/

[Junkdrawer]

1. Ralph has to feel that history has exonerated his famous "Not a dimes worth of difference" comment

However, his 2000 run will haunt his legacy. Sad. Everyone told him what a mistake that was going to be.

[BeFree]

30. Hey

Even a blind squirrel gets a nut occasionally.

But let us not blame Obama for having to make a deal with Wall Street's power. The people are not blameless. We've handed that power to Wall Street. And over time they've grabbed even more.

[John Q. Citizen]

139. I can't recall marking the box for Wall Street. Did he run this year? I'm a person but I'm

unclear as to how it's my fault.

Please tell me what I did wrong and what to do next time so I don't hand Wall Street power.

[StreetKnowledge]

177. And its time to take that power back

But it seems that Obama won't be doing that. For a guy who promised change, he's sure setting himself up for the Republicans to keep on running the government, and us Liberals who supported him to be disappointed.

Barack, I have just one thing to say: "WHY?"

[pnwmom]

Not a dime's worth of difference between Gore and Bush? Anyone who believes

along with Nader that Bush and Gore were "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" is an idiot.

[Better Believe It]

161. Well how much difference was there between Joseph Leiberman and Bush in 2000?

A buck fifty?

:)

[Seldona]

200. President vs Vice President for one, just off the top of my head. nt

[nolabels]

148. That measurement in history still has to wait to be proved wrong

Last time i looked the republicans were still holding the keys to the executive office. Barring unforeseen circumstances we might know the truth to Nader's accusation in a short while or at least in a couple years. Just remember Carter had also campaigned on a change and reform platform which he didn't quite measure up to either. Though Carter might have gave it his best shot there were still many people back then who had vested interest in seeing to it that he failed as much as possible.

It will be our own collective fault if we fail to force Obama into making those needed changes that we all seek collectively.

[defendandprotect]

199. America is burning .. it's not time for waiting, it's time to put capitalism . .

out of business before it puts the Constitution and "people's government"

out of business --

Capitalism is a crock ---

[nolabels]

292. The crook to me is words that sound and spell the same but have..........

many different meanings depending who is using them.

He who doesn't understand what history is always helps in making it repetitious

[Better Believe It]

162. That was George Wallace's comment in the 1968 election, not Nader

Don't let facts get in the way of your attacks.

Wallace said there wasn't a dimes worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.

While that may be more true today, I think there still is at least a buck fifty worth of difference, perhaps even more!

How much monetary value would you place on it?

:)

[RedSock]

169. That is unmitigated BS

To the best of my knowledge, Nader was not a member of the Supreme Court.

[defendandprotect]

198. Many are waking up to the convenient scapegoating of Nader ...

It's a farce --

Gore won no matter how you count the votes ...

Including Florida where a handful of votes decided the race --

Other third parties took thousands of votes --

More than 600 "illegal" ballots were counted for Bush --

More than 3,000 "butterfly" ballots went to Pat Buchanan --

We had a GOP "false flag" riot that STOPPED the vote counting in Miami-Dade

County MANDATED by the Florida Supreme Court. No police interference.


AND, finally US Supreme Court Gang of 5 undermined the Florida State Supreme

Court ruling and gave decision to Bush.


HOW could you ignore all of this and buy the propaganda that it had anything to

do with Nader --???????????????????????????????????

[Romulox]

2. The biggest sin is being right. That's why Ralph is hated so much. nt

[Alter Ego]

19. Ralph Nader is a pitiful, egotistical, waste of flesh.

[Tesha]

29. 'Shame he's so often right about so many things, ehh? (NT)

[2Design]

32. shame he does not do anything but talk and mess up elections and show

up with his mouth every four years - too bad he is not an activist like Gore and Dean and gets something done inbetween his BS runs - at this point anyone who voted for him is brain dead

[Tesha]

40. That you can make the claim that he died nothing between elections...

shows that you know next-to-nothing about the man.

Tesha

[Bryan Sacks]

113. Nader not "an activist like Gore and Dean"???

Words fail me.

Ralph Nader represents the gold standard of public citizenship in the US.

You embarrass yourself.

[leftchick]

242. Just his screaming about Corporate Welfare for years alone

makes me a huge admirer. He is right about 99% of the time on many issues concerning us, the little people. Our centrists democrats? not so much.

[Alter Ego]

35. Shame that he's been frighteningly wrong about a lot of things.

One of the biggest being that Gore = Bush, which was absurd on its face.

[Tesha]

42. Given that it was impossible to elect both Bush *AND* Gore and compare their actions...

we can't really assess whether Ralph was wrong
about the 2000-model Gore. So let's put that
claim aside.

What else has he been (probably) wrong about?
His claims that Democratscare spineless wimps
have been born out timevand time again as the
Democrats increased their ever-growing stock
of "dry powder". And so far, Obama, much as I
love the man personally, is just continuing
this sad trend.

Tesha

[2Design]

48. perhaps you are on the wrong board - this is a democratic party board

maybe there is a ralph nadar board for you to go to instead

[Tesha]

60. Quite possible. And perhaps I've spent almost forty years voting for the wrong party.

In a few months, we'll probably know better.

Tesha

[frylock]

61. perhaps you're on the wrong board..

freerepublic is a great place to exercise your undying loyalty. these are valid criticisms of the candidate of change; the candidate i voted for. so far, i am unimpressed.

[zeos3]

108. I tend to agree

This, to me, is like the flag burning argument. Do we worship the cloth (or whatever material is used to make it) flag itself or the ideas and freedoms it is supposed to represent?

Should we be silent and venerate those who wear the label of Democrat? Or should we be true to the ideals of what the party is supposed to stand for?

To clarify, I am NOT labeling ANYONE a real or fake democrat. I'm just trying to make a point about honest and constructive criticism of our own party.

[pokercat999]

115. Perhaps you should pry open your closed mind. This is

politics not religion, here we deal with facts not faith.

[Alter Ego]

51. And I suppose you're just fine and dandy with him calling Obama

an "Uncle Tom", then?

[Tesha]

59. I know nothing about that incident other than the headlines I read here at DU.

Care to provide a pointer to an outside, reasonably-
unbiased source?

Tesha

[Danger Mouse]

106. He called Obama an Uncle Tom on national TV. Those were his exact fucking words.

On Fox News no less. Don't believe me? Look it up.

[Bryan Sacks]

114. Another lie from a know-nothing n/t

[Danger Mouse]

117. A know-nothing? So I was mistaken. He still used 'Uncle Tom' which is racist and insulting.

And he's still an incredible asshole.
The real know-nothings are Naderites.

[Bette Noir]

122. What lie? I saw the video.

Nader called Barack an "Uncle Tom." The host gave him several chances to soften his words, but Nader insisted that he knew exactly what he was saying, and meant it.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

188. Check the video

before you call someone a "know nothing". He did it and Shepard Smith gave him a few chances to take it back and he didn't. Nader is a pathetic person.

[Fading Captain]

230. Yes, check it.

Does he say Obama needs to CHOOSE WHETHER he wants to be an Uncle Sam for all of America or Uncle Tom for whoever?

And while the language is inflammatory, I think we ALL get his point. A point that's right on the money.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

235. The quote was racist

It's unfortunate that he used the term Uncle Tom at all especially on the day our country elected the first African-American president. And surprising that anyone on DU would defend such a quote.

[Fading Captain]

243. Blah Blah Blah

Get over the phrase and get to the meaning.

Because Blacks, Whites, Yellows, Reds and Blues will be much better off if Obama decides he's former and not the latter.

Sheesh. Grow the fuck up and focus on what's important. And that is Is Obama going to fight corporate interests for Americans. Or is going to fight Americans for corporate interests.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

244. Grow the fuck up?

And you think cursing me out because I disagree with you is mature? Defending the term "Uncle Tom" regardless of what context it is used is inexcusable. Sorry that your hero Ralph Nader saw fit to use it on the night we elected the first African-American president. That term is never okay. Especially in reference to the President-Elect who should at least on election night get some respect from a fellow candidate. Go ahead though and defend Nader's right to use the term "Uncle Tom" on national television, if you can live with yourself.

[Fading Captain]

250. Stop Villifying Nader for the Party's Failures

I am not DEFENDING use of the term.
I am saying focus on the MESSAGE, not the words.

Stop villifying a man who has devoted his life to democratic principle just because he has the temerity to hold the Dems' leaders to their principles.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

251. Okay then stop defending a man that used the term

Uncle Tom in reference to the President-Elect.

[Fading Captain]

254. Ralph Nader is a true Democrat

I'll defend him until the day he abandons his principles.

I am NOT going to hung up over the use of a phrase.

I am not Bill O'Reilly or SHepard Smith or Keith Olberman or one of those reactionary twits you see on TV. I have also not had my mode of thinking shaped by the "gotcha" mentality which constantly seeks to attack EVERYTHING except the actual point being made.

You are a sad representation of a growing wing of the democratic party. Attacking Nader for his use of Uncle Tom is typical of American politics, democrat and republican.

You still haven't made ONE REFERENCE to Nader's general point. Just like Shepard Smith, on Fox News Channel.

You attacked a phrase and ignored the IMPORTANT overall point.

People like you disgust me.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

260. You disgust me

and anyone else who condones a phrase like "Uncle Tom", why don't you call Obama the N-word if he doesn't do exactly what you want him to do. According to you I am a "sad but growing wing of the Democratic party", I guess that means one that isn't racist. I could give a flying fuck what Ralph Nader's point was in calling Obama an "Uncle Tom". When he used that term he completely lost me, and should lose anyone with a shred of decency. Closet racists like yourself who think it's okay for your heroes to call our President-Elect "Uncle Tom" are beneath my contempt. Defending racism because Nader was making a point? Pathetic.



edited for content

[Fading Captain]

263. He NEVER called him that.

Learn to read. Or Learn to listen.
He said he could MAKE A CHOICE

[spiritual_gunfighter]

265. You obviously didn't see the clip

He didn't say "Barack Obama is an Uncle Tom", that is true. But seriously are you that dense that you didn't get what he meant by the statement. You are stupider than I first thought.

[Fading Captain]

278. Why don't you tell me what you think he meant.

And then tell me if you disagree with him, and why.
That would be a discussion.

[zeos3]

107. Here's the quote

It's easy to find on google.

"To put it very simply, he is our first African American president; or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he's going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corpoations."

Nader is simply stating that it remains to be seen if Obama will be a man of the people or a corporate shill. Maybe not the best choice of words, but not exactly calling out Obama as an Uncle Tom.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

234. Doesn't really matter

On the day we elected the first African-American president, Nader uttered a racist term for black people in reference to Obama. He may not have said "Barack Obama is an Uncle Tom" but anyone who heard it knew what he was saying. It was in poor taste and frankly disappointing.

[Name removed]

257. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tesha]

237. So it sounds to me like the Nader-haters lied about the quote. Typical. (NT)

[spiritual_gunfighter]

245. I am no Nader hater

I liked him until he belittled himself on national television. Nader lovers defending what he said is pathetic and racist.

[zeos3]

304. It's not that they lied

they are simply getting hung up on the use of "Uncle Tom".

This, to me, is missing the forest for the trees.

This is a common technique in politics. Let's say your opponent says the only piece of legislation you introduced while in congress was the renaming of a post office. You would, in turn, attack your opponent by saying the post office was named for a slain police officer. How could you be so insensitive!!??!11?/1!?

This triggers an emotional/reactionary response from the voters who are following the debate. I'm not saying the Nader detractors are being dishonest, I'm saying they're ignoring the meat and chewing on the packaging.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

248. If I said

Either Bill Richardson is going to be for Uncle Sam or he is going to be a "wetback". That wouldn't be racist??? Seriously, how can anyone defend what Nader said? I expected more from people on DU. But I guess some people's racism is showing in their defense of Ralph Nader. Truly pathetic.

edited for missed word

[Fading Captain]

264. Uncle Tom is not remotely the same as "wetback" or the N word.

That's a terrible analogy.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

267. Ask an African American

if they would be offended if a white man called them an Uncle Tom. Ask an African American if a racist term coming from a white man isn't racist no matter what they said. Seriously, are you a total idiot.

[Fading Captain]

277. CONTEXT

Look man, you absolutely refuse to even try to understand his point.

The point is, are you going to fight corporations for Americans. Or fight Americans for corporations.

I think that question is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than this ridiculous politically correct bullshit you can't get past.

For instance, does Barrack Obama think its smarter to spend money to send blacks to college? Or to spend money on sending blacks to jail.

It's a societal choice. It's a policy choice.

Barack Obama is going to have to answer the question. Is he a real fighter? Or a corporate Hallmark Card?

THe answer to that question is umpteen times more important than whether or not Ralph Nader said "uncle Tom."

And you'd think any Democratic Party supporter would understand that.

[leftchick]

291. I know, I know!!!!

"a corporate Hallmark Card"

very well said!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

284. Here ya go. Took me 5 seconds to Google it.

Shepard Smith plays him the quote from earlier and gives him a chance to retract it. Your hero Ralph refuses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo

[Stellabella]

90. Oh please. If you think that we can't tell whether a Gore presidency

would have been better than the Bush* debacle, you must think we're blind. And stupid. That claim is NOT going away.

[Tesha]

238. We *CAN'T* tell. For example: Would 9/11 have happened? No one can say.

No one can look back on a past that didn't occur and say how it
would have played out. We can speculate on probabilities, but that's
all.

Congress in '92-'94 completely fucked Bill Clinton when he was
elected President; who's to say they wouldn't have done the same
thing to Gore, especially when you consider that Gore's Congress
would have had a lot more *OVERT* Republicans than did Clintons.

My point stands.

Tesha

[spiritual_gunfighter]

253. Honestly

You are arguing that a Gore presidency may not have been better than a Bush presidency? What are you on?

[Tesha]

261. I'm on "the truth", an admittedly sometimes-rare commodity around here.

My statement was that while we *KNOW* how the Bush Presidency has
turned out, there is no way that we can predict how a Gore Presidency
would have evolved.

For example, had Bush v Gore been decided the other way, it is entirely
possible that the Southern Republicans would reacted to that decision
by, essentially, shutting our government down. At the same time, Rush
and the rest of the gasbag class would have provoked their listeners to
rise in revolt. And, unlike Democrats (who talk a big act and then do
*ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO OPPOSE THE REPUBLICANS*), the Reich Wing
might actually have done something about a Bush v Gore decision that
had favored Gore. (Why do you think the Supremes decided it the way
they did? They knew which side would cause trouble and which side
would roll over and say "Yes sir, kick me again!".

Another possibility? Gore might have taken office but then been
assassinated. In all honesty, you may yet see a similar version of that
scenario run in the next four years.

There's simply no way to say what would have happened; as I said
earlier, all we have are dim probabilities.

Tesha

[spiritual_gunfighter]

262. You are right

We really don't know what would have happened in a Gore presidency. But we do know what happened in a Bush presidency. I would much rather have had a Dem in the White House even if that meant stonewalling in Congress and the House. I believe the outcome would have been much better. And I am willing to bet there would have been no Iraq.

[Tesha]

271. Probabilities certainly lean that way, but there's no way to be certain.

Thanks.

Tesha

[Stellabella]

89. Like there being 'no difference' between Bush and Gore?

Riiiiiigggghhhtt.

[riverdale]

144. Nader almost said Gore=Bush, but not quite

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/550/

[TankLV]

160. Actually - the shame is that he's been PROVEN WRONG on EVERYTHING

for the past couple decades...

[Tesha]

240. Only in your dreams.

USA-PATRIOT Acts I and II.
Habeus Corpus.
Economic policies.
Welfare Reform
Ending of Glass-Steagel
CAFE standards
Safety standards
The rescue of NOLA
Etc. ...
Etc. ...

[newburgh]

129. And Obama, handed the opportunity on a silver platter is now what?

Ranks much lower in my book now. Nader was never in the position to have this opportunity.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

172. And Ralph

called Obama an Uncle Tom on Fox News the night of the election.

[MNBrewer]

176. Not according to the quote posted above.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

190. The quote posted above is incorrect

Go check it out on You Tube. Shepard Smith interviewed him the night of the election and Nader called him an Uncle Tom. Smith gave him a chance to take it back and he didn't. Nader is pathetic.

[NashVegas]

287. It's Entirely Correct

I watched the video. Nader owned his previous words that it was Obama's choice whether to be an "Uncle Sam" or an "Uncle Tom." He also refused to back down from the substance of his argument - the one censors would rather be forgotten. Poor Shep had nowhere to go.

[zeos3]

302. The quote is EXACTLY correct

You can read it at the beginning of that youtube clip. Nader is not pathetic because he did not back down from the point he was trying to make. We are not racists for defending him, we simply understand what he was getting at with those comments.

I will repeat, not the best choice of words but a valid point.

From what I know about Nader, he considers race an issue in America but he considers class a bigger more important one. By this I mean that there are many different races involved in the SAME middle and lower class struggle. In other words, we're in this together.

[Dover]

54. Kevin Phillips (author of Bad Money,etc.) recently made a similar assessment

of the 'change' promised by an Obama administration. (see transcript of Moyers interview).
Two teams, one owner.

With all the money and power of that position and the significance of the control of those reins, why would anyone assume that a candidate from outside that club could ever become president? Does anyone believe they'd leave it to chance? Whether McCain or Obama won, the results would be
essentially the same in foreign policy(energy titans) AND in the bailout of financial firms.
Accountability? It's not in their vocabulary. We have yet to see any.

If you missed Charlie Rose's interview last night with the current CEO of Citigroup, at the end he
asked the CEO if they (the large financial firms) felt any remorse or any sense of responsibility/accountability for the horrific effect their lack of regulation (and greed) has had on such an enormous number of lives. The CEO changed the subject and Charlie asked him again. He could not/would not answer.

Our government has become a revolving door of executives from the private sector directing/writing
policy and laws and infiltrating key positions. And when they are done, they simply rotate back out into their cushy private sector jobs. In other words our government has experienced a corporate takeover, reorganization and sale or redistribution of assets (to their club members). And in keeping with the corporate mantra, there is no room for 'democracy' in such a system. It wouldn't be prudent(ie. 'efficient').

Also much of that policy is written by unelected, unofficial 'advisers' who reside in think-tanks and
whose ties to various special interests is uncontested or not made public.

[Radical Activist]

77. dupe

oops

[Radical Activist]

78. Yeah. Why ever have hope? Why believe in anything?

How could you be so stupid to think Obama would make any positive change? Just sit back, be cynical, and have "I'm more liberal than thou" contests with your friends. I'll be sure to expect that anything Obama does will be bad because nothing truly liberal could possibly come from anyone allowed to become President.
That's a healthy attitude that's sure to improve things. :eyes:

[tama]

180. Wisdom

(and real change) can start only from accepting reality. Not from false hopes.

[Radical Activist]

185. There is no change without hope.

False cynicism does not bring change. It only destroys hope.

[tama]

187. True

But accepting simple plain truths is not cynicism or false cynisism. It's the opposite.

Our problems are vast, complex and interconnected. They can be understood only by going to their roots, seeing and realising the simple plain truths at the bottom. Radically.

Radical means roots, and the roots of our common problem are system based on idea of eternal growth, idea that taking interest is not a sin against nature. The sin of greed. This is the turningpoint in human civilization, only possibility is radical change. Building a way of life that is not based on usury and growth, but on sharing and balance. Change will hurt. Our humanity is measured by how little we manage to hurt others when changing.

[Radical Activist]

189. Then let's bring it back to what I responded to.

Here's part of the post I responded to that brought us to this discussion:

"Whether McCain or Obama won, the results would be essentially the same in foreign policy(energy titans) AND in the bailout of financial firms."

This isn't a plain truth. This is bullshit. Obama's policies won't be everything I want but taking a fatalistic attitude that it doesn't matter who you vote for or who was elected because all policies will be the same is ridiculous. There are vast differences between the proposed foreign policies and energy policies of McCain and Obama or Bush and Obama. To make that argument after the last eight years is out of touch with reality. And its a purely speculative statement based on a cynical prediction of the future. If the above statement turns out to be true in four years, then it should be said, but there's no basis for it today. The fact that Obama's platform was significantly different than Bush or McCain does not support the poster's Chicken Little prediction that everything will be the same under Obama as it would have been under McCain.

So let's criticize Obama where he deserves it. But, as I've written many times on DU lately, can we do it without the cynical fortune telling and distortions? Does anyone who makes that kind of Naderesque statement expect to be taken seriously? Our problems cannot be understood by repeating a canned talking point about how it doesn't matter who we elect. Change nor understanding will happen by making people feel that their efforts for Obama were worthless and will amount to nothing. How on earth does the above statement do anything but make people feel powerless and disenfranchised? And inaccurately so.

I don't see how that kind of fatalistic negativity will lead to people doing anything other than throwing up their hands and not voting. And I know that's why some people make that argument, because they want people to take direct action tactics rather than merely voting, but someone who doesn't feel empowered isn't going to engage in direction action either. Obama's message of hope motivated far more people to action than Nader's cynicism about the system. There's something to learn from that.

[tama]

191. I don't think

Nader or especially Chomsky are cynical about the system. The system just is sick to the core and cannot be saved. There is still hope that the system can be replaced by something humane and decent, to say otherwise is cynicism. Nader and Chomsky and many others are saying that, hoping that, from the fullness of their hearts. They are not cynicists.

Cynicist says that human nature is greed and it cannot change. He's wrong.

[JDPriestly]

229. I do not agree with or understand many of the appointments that

Obama has made so far, but I understand his reasons for being somewhat conservative in his choices with regard to the economy. He is the president of all Americans. True, as has been said, the stock market is throwing a tantrum like a two-year-old child, but if we are to have peace in the family, we have to consider the needs of the two-year-old too. Obama's economic policy picks are intended to assuage the fears of Wall Street.

Obama can start the process of reforming D.C. so that it is less corporatist. But if he moves too quickly in one direction, he will excite a reaction that will pull to the extreme in the other direction..

I do not like his economic policy picks, but his advisory boards and aides represent a lot more balance than did Bush's. Progress is being made, albeit slowly.

[Bette Noir]

121. Ralph Nader is hated because of the thousands of Americans

and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died for his vanity.

[defendandprotect]

201. Absolutely ...he's alerted us to the threat a decade ago -- and more ---

http://www.issues2000.org/Ralph_Nader.htm

and informed us on ever politicasl isdsue and MORE that some here

still haven't figured out--

The only way out is third parties -- and they're aslready co-opting them---!!!

[bobd0]

3. Ralph Nader is the reason we find ourselves at this point to begin with.

Pardon my gutter mouth but FUCK Ralph Nader.

[Le Taz Hot]

8. This issue was argued TO DEATH

on DU and I'm not going to start this nonsense again. Needless to say several elements were responsible for making Bush president, not the least of which was a packed, corrupt Supreme Court making a non-precedent-setting (?????) decision allowing the vote count in Florida to be stopped. And remember, Tennessee voted for Bush. Blaming ONE MAN for the "defeat" of Gore is sophomoric.

[TexasObserver]

36. But you said you wouldn't argue it again!

Everyone knows Nader cost Gore the election. Yeah, there were other causes, but none so injurious as Nader, who was bought and paid for by the GOP.

[Le Taz Hot]

41. One counter post does not an argument make.

And that "everyone knows" phrase is, frankly, something I'd expect to hear on Faux News.

[TexasObserver]

46. Now with proper syntax, Yoda.

[Le Taz Hot]

49. Well, feel free to correct my syntax,

I always welcome the opportunity to improve my writing. And, btw, great job of ignoring the actual point.

[TaranAlvein]

141. Wow. How nitpicky.

There's more than one way to construct a sentence in English. Interestingly enough, both his subject line and the way Yoda spoke are proper syntax. They just sound awkward because they aren't typically used in modern, conversational English (at least, as far as any place I've been to in the US is concerned).

[G_j]

87. really?

everyone?


In case you missed it, you are having a discussion with some people who don't think the way you do.

[TexasObserver]

105. Yes, everyone ... with a brain.

[defendandprotect]

202. Most people are wsaking up ---

It's a farce --

Gore won no matter how you count the votes ...

Including Florida where a handful of votes decided the race --

Other third parties took thousands of votes --

More than 600 "illegal" ballots were counted for Bush --

More than 3,000 "butterfly" ballots went to Pat Buchanan --

We had a GOP "false flag" riot that STOPPED the vote counting in Miami-Dade

County MANDATED by the Florida Supreme Court. No police interference.


AND, finally US Supreme Court Gang of 5 undermined the Florida State Supreme

Court ruling and gave decision to Bush.


HOW could you ignore all of this and buy the propaganda that it had anything to

do with Nader --???????????????????????????????????

[bobd0]

56. FUCK Nader. nt

[creeksneakers2]

100. That's finger pointing

It leaves out the part about Ralph. Were it not for Ralph, Gore would have won.

[onehandle]

178. Three people control three switches that will electrocute a man. All three must be switched to kill.

All three trigger their switch. Who killed the man?

GOP cheating.

A crooked court.

Ralph Nader.

Remove any one element and George W. Bush would have been remembered as a mediocre Texas Governor and nothing else.

[laststeamtrain]

9. No.

If you mean the middle east quagmire and/or the financial crisis as "at this point" then, no, I don't think it was Ralph Nader who got us here.

[superduperfarleft]

11. Really?

I thought it was the Democrats and Republicans who ignored voting irregularities in Florida and let the Supreme Court hand the election to Bush, who voted for war on the Iraqi people, who either through direct support or through silence allowed Guantanamo and the suspension of habeas corpus, the war on the Afghan people, the Patriot Act, FISA amendments, free-speech zones, the "bailout," (and going even further back) the other war on the Iraqi people, welfare reform, NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Steagal, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

But gee, I guess Ralph Nader was in charge this entire time. Silly me for not realizing it.

And pardon my gutter mouth, but you've allowed a fucking idiotic slogan to take over the rational part of your brain. Hope I've helped you out.

[charlie]

13. Think you'll get anywhere with that?

Here's what you need:

All your votes are belong to us.

Write it down, put it in your wallet. It's all you need to know.

[superduperfarleft]

16. Doubtful.

And I would've hoped that the Dems would learn from 2000, that not all of us are completely beholden to a party that disappoints us so consistently.

[zeos3]

111. LOL

[bobd0]

57. FUCK Nader. nt

[superduperfarleft]

58. Brilliant. n/t

[bobd0]

62. FUCK Nader. nt

[defendandprotect]

203. Eloquently ...

stupid ---

[stlsaxman]

149. Indeed.

... and the Corvair he rode in on.

[zeos3]

110. Agreed

The one who warned against reaching "this point" is now blamed as the one who brought us here.

[bread_and_roses]

154. Exactly. (n/t)

[Selatius]

186. You speak the truth, but the blind partisans here will pillory you for it.

To lay the blame all on Nader's feet is pretty disturbing. Everyone has a right to run; that's what democracy is all about.

[defendandprotect]

204. People are waking up that Nadetr scapegoating was CONVENIENT

for Dems who did NOTHING -- NOTHING to resist 2000 steal -

It's a farce --

Gore won no matter how you count the votes ...

Including Florida where a handful of votes decided the race --

Other third parties took thousands of votes --

More than 600 "illegal" ballots were counted for Bush --

More than 3,000 "butterfly" ballots went to Pat Buchanan --

We had a GOP "false flag" riot that STOPPED the vote counting in Miami-Dade

County MANDATED by the Florida Supreme Court. No police interference.


AND, finally US Supreme Court Gang of 5 undermined the Florida State Supreme

Court ruling and gave decision to Bush.


HOW could you ignore all of this and buy the propaganda that it had anything to

do with Nader --???????????????????????????????????

[nichomachus]

24. Right -- and blacks are responsible for Prop 8

Get a grip.

[Le Taz Hot]

37. Nobody on this board claimed that.

You really need to stop that misrepresentation.

[Better Believe It]

68. Right .... Ralph Nader caused the economic crisis because he opposed deregulation & NAFTA

And Ralph Nader is a terrorist, pinko commie infiltrator, Republican, fascist and all around evildoer.

Did I forget to mention that Nader is also a Lebanese Arab?

Hope the above helps add to the character assassination campaign against Nader.

[defendandprotect]

205. About time sanity is overcoming this vicious attack on Nader --

Many are waking up --

Many still prefer ignorance ---

[Zhade]

95. More FL Dems voted for b*s* than anyone voting for Nader.

Plus, it was stolen.

Learn history.

[defendandprotect]

206. Right -- more than 300,000 Florida "Democrats" voted for Bush --!!!

How much did Bush "win" Florida by --???

[rhett o rick]

133. Rationalization is the key to happiness. I hope you're happy. Ralph Nader did nothing.

You are assuming that the people that voted for him would have voted for Gore. Is isn't Nadar's fault that Gore couldn't win more votes. But you need a scapegoat. Face facts, there are a lot of ignorant voters out there voting for Bush. That isn't Nadar's fault.

[Lucian]

145. Oh? And not the Supreme Court?

[defendandprotect]

207. Yeah .. why blame the Supreme Court Gang of 5 --- the Dems didn't ---!!!

THEY blamed NADER whike they did absolutely nothing to protest the steal --

even the GOP "false flag" riot -- nothing!!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

249. Amen

Fuck Ralph Nader and his bullshit racism.

[dkf]

4. I never understood what this meant.

Does that mean we should let all our big banks/brokerages/insurance cos fail?

I don't understand how our system works without Wall Street.

[laststeamtrain]

6. Consider the premise that 'our system' doesn't work.

Social Democracy
Function:
noun
Date:
1850

1 : a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means

2 : a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices

— social democrat noun
— social democratic adjective

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social+democracy

[dkf]

17. So you are saying that people who want Wall Street to fail

basically want capitalism to fail?

[laststeamtrain]

26. For me to say "what people want" would just be a guess.

I do believe there are a lot more social democrats out there than might be expected.

They're not heard from in our two party system. I say two party, but it's really one party. Call it the War Party or the Money Party.

Wall Street is a pretty potent emblem/symbol for Capitalism and things aren't looking good there.

In this climate, progressive social movements will be making their moves. Opportunity(s) knock(s).

See? I'm hopeful. I'm on that hope train.

[Truth2Tell]

67. basically want capitalism to fail?

Is it still "capitalism" if all the capital is being provided by the government? :shrug:

Is socialized risk and privatized return your idea of functioning capitalism?

"Wall Street" has very little to do with actual capitalism - and never has.

[blindpig]

75. It's all of one piece.

Late stage capitalism is characterized by imperialism and monopoly. Imperialism require large scale capital/government fusion.

That where we are right now, every economic crisis gets worse than the last, every so-called solution sets up the next crisis.

Time for the next act.

[Truth2Tell]

80. I happen to believe that "actual" capitalism

is not characterized by the elements you describe - only fascist, or State-enabled oligharcal capitalism leads to monopoly and imperialism. Exchange capitalism in a REAL community-run democracy, minus corporate "personhood," minus State favoratism, plus REAL regulation, plus a REAL social safety net, is a viable system. America is not a useful example of this, any more than the Stalinist USSR is a useful example of socialism.

[tama]

182. What you believe

is that all good things should be coined under the term "capitalism". :)

No matter what the word actually means and how it is normally used. But no point debating terminology. :)

[blindpig]

196. Then how did we get to the present state of affairs?

It's not like this is the first time that capitalism has melted down from the heat of it's drive for profits. All attempts to regulate fail, I mean, where's my New Deal? Blaming human foibles is inadequate, if the same stupid shit happens time and again then you got systemic problems. Why should we tolerate an economic system so destructive of the interests of the vast majority?

[JDPriestly]

231. How we got here? Lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws, that's how.

Businesses that are allowed, even encouraged, to become too big to fail.

We need more smaller businesses and fewer mega-corporations. The conventional wisdom holds that larger organizations are more efficient. I don't think that is true.

The funny thing is that the very people who claim that big business is more efficient will try to tell you that big government is inefficient. Very strange. I'm for smaller businesses and larger government.

[blindpig]

236. Lack of enforcement

But ain't it always like that? So, big business goes wild, crashes the economy, some reforms are instituted, and in a little while those reforms are circumvented or otherwise undone. Rinse and repeat.

The roller-coaster is part and parcel of capitalism, the logic of accumulation. Time to get off the ride.

[defendandprotect]

209. So it didn't lead to "monopoly" here--??????

We have fascist corporatism -- corruption of our FED agencies for profit of

corporations - drug companies -- See FDA --!!

Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill System" --

[Odin2005]

192. Marxist nonsense. n/t.

[blindpig]

193. You deny the reality unfolding before your very eyes. n/t

[Odin2005]

247. No, I don't live in the Marxists' pseudo-historical fanstasy land...

...where the "glorious revolution" is just around the corner. Every time over the past 100 years durig a major geo-political or economic crisis the Marxists think their revolution is about to happen. :eyes:

[blindpig]

259. Well, ya just never know.....

Hard to tell about these things, but ya gotta be ready.

[tama]

181. It doesn't

System is the Wall Street, the top of the pyramid scam.

And we know what happens to pyramid scams, sooner or later.

So while the pyramid scam system works, it hurts, and sooner the system is seen for what it is and replaced with other, the better.

[defendandprotect]

208. Capitalism is corrupt -- let it go -- it's organized crime ---

And the bail out so far is $7.7 TRILLION ...

Think we could create a few new jobs with that money??

It's going to bonuses, celebrations -- bailed out banks are using it to BUY other banks.

GM investing in factories in BRAZIL --

Wake up--!!!

[w4rma]

252. If they have debts on the books that are "worth" more than everything in the world combined, then

yes. Let them fail and let people start new banks that will have zero debt. Too big to fail is too big to privately exist.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. K & R

Excellent article and should answer questions regarding the reason MANY of us are very uncomfortable with his appointments so far. Added to the rumor that Gates will keep his position, our concern is growing exponentially.

Sadly, there are going to be people on this board that are going to read the name "Nader" and completely shut down to the valuable information that contained in the article.

[charlie]

7. ...and add Scheer to the list of undesirables

Sucks out loud, doesn't it?

K&R

[Pale Blue Dot]

10. So far it looks like Obama's going to be much more efficient and professional at

running our economy into the ground.

But a victory is a victory, right?

[SIMPLYB1980]

12. Does anyone care what this man has to say anymore?

[superduperfarleft]

15. I do. n/t

[defendandprotect]

210. I certainly do -- every discussion we have is based on info he's given us about

our political system -- Nader woke most of us up --

Try it --

http://www.issues2000.org/Ralph_Nader.htm

[jefferson_dem]

18. It sucks. Ralph was cool...back in the day.

He should have bailed on his hyperventilations after he fucked things up in 2000.

[SIMPLYB1980]

22. Yep he would have been OK with me then.

Now he just looks likes a crazy person. It's sad really because he did a lot of good things.

[High Plains]

38. It is just pathetic to blame Nader for Gore losing in 2000.

And to ignore the message because you don't like the messenger. How are those corporate bailouts coming? How are those foreign wars coming?

[defendandprotect]

211. 2000 was a Gore win/Bush steal -- Wake up to it ---!!!

It's a farce --

Gore won no matter how you count the votes ...

Including Florida where a handful of votes decided the race --

More than 300,000 Florida "Democrats" voted for Bush ---

Other third parties took thousands of votes --

More than 600 "illegal" ballots were counted for Bush --

More than 3,000 "butterfly" ballots went to Pat Buchanan --

We had a GOP "false flag" riot that STOPPED the vote counting in Miami-Dade

County MANDATED by the Florida Supreme Court. No police interference.


AND, finally US Supreme Court Gang of 5 undermined the Florida State Supreme

Court ruling and gave decision to Bush.


HOW could you ignore all of this and buy the propaganda that it had anything to

do with Nader --???????????????????????????????????

[midnight armadillo]

23. Way to treat a great American

Ralph Nader in his life's work has significantly improved the lives of everyday Americans. He's started something like 40 non-profits to work on issues, including nuclear weapons, car and consumer product safety, effective government regulations, water pollution, the effectiveness of gov agencies, and more. What have you done for the country? Snarky graphics and posts on DU don't count for much.

Since 2000 he's exercised his given right as a US citizen to run for President. And what are you so pissy about? That more Democrats in FL voted for Bush than Nader received in total votes there? That Gore held back to avoid a horrifically divisive battle over the election (while the Dems couldn't get their shit together, as usual)? Nader did not lose the election for Gore. Al Gore lost the 2000 election while Bush stole it in place sight.

Now Obama is putting people whose ideology is responsible for our economic disaster back in charge. Look back at 2006 when Pelosi and the Democrats took over Congress promising to stop the Iraq War and investigate Bush. Well, we're still at war and impeachment was 'off the table'. Nader, it appears, was right: it doesn't matter who's in power, nothing substantial is really going to change the fundamentals of how the corrupt American system works until we have a real crisis.

[SIMPLYB1980]

27. Read post #22.

[jefferson_dem]

28. Still two months before Obama's swearing in and...

some are already convinced "it doesn't matter who's in power."

Hyperbole much?

Nobody i've seen has disparaged Ralph's great work way back when. Since 2000, he's morphed into nothing more than an annoying, crazy-sounding gadfly. I feel sorry for him.

[Dawgs]

84. Fuck Nader. He gave us Bush. We could of had Gore.

The WHOLE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD is destroyed because of Bush - and Nader.

Now go away!!

[defendandprotect]

212. Don't let facts get in your way ....

It's a farce --

Gore won no matter how you count the votes ...

Including Florida where a handful of votes decided the race --


More than 300,000 Florida "Democrats" votrd vfor Bush ---

More than 600 "illegal" ballots were counted for Bush --

More than 3,000 "butterfly" ballots went to Pat Buchanan --

Other third parties took thousands of votes --

We had a GOP "false flag" riot that STOPPED the vote counting in Miami-Dade

County MANDATED by the Florida Supreme Court. No police interference.


AND, finally US Supreme Court Gang of 5 undermined the Florida State Supreme

Court ruling and gave decision to Bush.


HOW could you ignore all of this and buy the propaganda that it had anything to

do with Nader --???????????????????????????????????

[creeksneakers2]

103. Gore did everything he possibly could to contest the election

The only things that weren't done were crackpot ideas from the far left.

Ralph did it. All the rest is just the guilty trying to get away with it by finger pointing.

[defendandprotect]

213. Correct --

[bvar22]

53. I do.

Ralph is usually right.
Everybody should listen to Nader and read all his books.
No one in a swing state should vote for him.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

14. Nader as President, courtesy of those deep in the shadows,...

would quickly have his roll spelled out for him just as Obama has.
Those Barack surrounds himself with are prima facie evidence of that fact.
Only the most naive and gullible expect real change.

[Alter Ego]

20. Hey, I think your tinfoil hat is slipping off.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

25. Hey, I voted for Obama but...

unlike you, evidently, I don't spend all my time in la la land.

[Alter Ego]

34. No, I just believe in giving the guy a chance to govern

before I declare him Bush's third term or something stupid like that.

[defendandprotect]

215. Obama has made his moves ... you like them---?????

[soulcore]

47. You sir, are spot on!

[defendandprotect]

214. Yeah ... I'm positive NADER would keep Gates --

and all the insiders in order to create "change" --




:eyes:

[alarimer]

21. Of course he was right about that.

Ours is a government of, by, and for corporations. Anyone who believed Obama was any different is a fool or naive or both. Politicians tell you what you want to hear to get elected, then they pay off their real constituents (business) once they are in office. Standard formula.

[2Design]

31. until he is actually in office and in power and had his 100 days -

I reserve my judgement - he does not have the power yet

[OneBlueSky]

33. interesting how this thread has evolved into a discussion of Ralph Nader . . .

rather than the central point of the original post, i.e. the quality of Obama's economic team . . .

I understand Robert Scheer's concern, and it seems that it's shared by many on the left . . . way back during the early days of the campaign, I questioned whether Obama would have the wherewithal to take on the mega-corporations, including the banks and other financial institutions . . . early indications are that he doesn't . . . at least not yet . . .

from my perspective, the ONLY way to solve this nation's problems is by taking the power back from the corporations and returning control over those corporations to the people . . . that doesn't seem to be happening, and it makes me less than optimistic about real progress on any front . . . as long as the corporate and financial barons are calling the shots, the people will continue to get screwed . . .

[JackDragna]

44. You got it nailed.

It doesn't matter who's pointing out the exact same people are still going to have their thumbs in the government pie: what matters is they're right. We're being sold up the creek by the Democratic Party, at least at the national level.

[Two Americas]

69. that is a tactic

The conservatives within the party will not come out into the open and argue their positions, because it would then be so obvious to everyone that those positions are contrary to the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party and the Labor movement.

Instead, since they cannot and will not openly promote conservative positions, they tear down the messenger rather than addressing the message.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. Rober Scheer, What A Dumb Ignorant Fuckface.

[Two Americas]

71. that is a refreshing change

Assassinate the character of Scheer rather than Nader.

Why not refute the message, if you can? Attacking the messenger rather than the message betrays weakness.

[High Plains]

256. What a potty mouth! I suppose it beats having to make an argument.

You sound like a 7th-grader who just learned a new cuss word.

[NashVegas]

289. Un Huh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Scheer

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Same faces, same lobbyists, same policies, same shaft we get to pay for.

But, of course, they're going to save us...if we give enough of our money.

[LeFleur1]

45. I Not Only Voted for Obama, I Campaigned For Him

...and as I watch him appoint those same people who could have stood up at any time during the past eight years and said, "NO, THIS IS WRONG", but didn't, I get more and more sick about the whole thing.
I'm hoping this is not a sign that he intends to change direction a little bit from Bush, but not a lot. I'm leery of Rahm. Gates at the Pentagon tears me up. The Chamber of Commerce guy gives me chills. The invasion and occupation were a big big reason I wanted someone in office who would change the direction but it doesn't look promising with these picks.

His AG seems fine. Richardson is a good man, but Sec. of Commerce? Maybe that's okay. I hope so.

I hope Obama won't betray us, but it isn't looking good right now.

[Better Believe It]

50. Right-wing hate mongers continue to swiftboat Ralph Nader

What more needs to be said?

They will continue their massive character assassination against Ralph Nader until the day he dies.

Some of this hatred is actually racist in character, generated by supporters of Joseph Leiberman who feel Nader is responsible for Leiberman not becoming Vice-President in 2000.

Nader is a Lebanese Arab who opposes the right-wing regime in Israel.

The right-wing apologists for the Israeli regime really hate Nader's support of President Carter.

[dansolo]

112. The right wing loves Ralph Nader

If they hated him so much, why have they been supporting his last two presidential campaigns?

[Better Believe It]

125. They Didn't

Far more Republicans supported Gore, Kerry and even Obama with their money and votes.

And Nader didn't get any Wall Street and other corporate contributions.

Guess who did fool!

[disndat]

179. Repugs supported Nader

by giving him money to be a third party spoiler against Gore.

[defendandprotect]

216. Dems did NOTHING to protest - Nader was their cover ...

Nader was their cover ---

Don't let facts get in your way ....
It's a farce --

Gore won no matter how you count the votes ...

Including Florida where a handful of votes decided the race --


More than 300,000 Florida "Democrats" votrd vfor Bush ---

More than 600 "illegal" ballots were counted for Bush --

More than 3,000 "butterfly" ballots went to Pat Buchanan --

Other third parties took thousands of votes --

We had a GOP "false flag" riot that STOPPED the vote counting in Miami-Dade

County MANDATED by the Florida Supreme Court. No police interference.


AND, finally US Supreme Court Gang of 5 undermined the Florida State Supreme

Court ruling and gave decision to Bush.


HOW could you ignore all of this and buy the propaganda that it had anything to

do with Nader --???????????????????????????????????

[Bette Noir]

124. What the hell have you been smoking?

Lefties who resent Nader for costing us the election in 2000 are suddenly racist right-wing apologists who hate Jimmy Carter?

Get help.

[defendandprotect]

217. Think about the facts ---

Nader was their cover ---


Wake up --

Nader was their cover ---

Don't let facts get in your way ....
It's a farce --

Gore won no matter how you count the votes ...

Including Florida where a handful of votes decided the race --


More than 300,000 Florida "Democrats" votrd vfor Bush ---

More than 600 "illegal" ballots were counted for Bush --

More than 3,000 "butterfly" ballots went to Pat Buchanan --

Other third parties took thousands of votes --

We had a GOP "false flag" riot that STOPPED the vote counting in Miami-Dade

County MANDATED by the Florida Supreme Court. No police interference.


AND, finally US Supreme Court Gang of 5 undermined the Florida State Supreme

Court ruling and gave decision to Bush.


HOW could you ignore all of this and buy the propaganda that it had anything to

do with Nader --???????????????????????????????????

[Mari333]

52. I agree. its not looking good. n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

55. Yyyup. n/t

[frylock]

63. you can smell the change already

[Skittles]

70. yes, it certainly does smell

[tjwash]

64. LMAO...

...the DEMS win a majority house, senate and the White House and still all the far left of the party can do is fucking whine and cry. Gotta stick with the only thing you do well I suppose.

Besides, it just wouldn't be DU without it.

And for the five millionth time, from where did this guy think Obama was going to get his staff? Was he going to grow them from spores in a secret lab, or clone a frozen neanderthal carcass?

I swear, sometimes I think that the extremists on both sides of the aisles have stretch the damn envelope on their respective ends so far that they have come all the way around and are holding hands. Between the Ron Paul worshipers, and the Naderites, this place is gonna be non stop entertainment for the next 8 years. :thumbsup:

[Better Believe It]

65. Where do you think Clinton got his staff?

They sure didn't come from President Carter's administration.

The claims that the only intelligent and qualified people fit to serve in Obama's Administration must come from Clinton's White House are nonsense.

It was Clinton's economic "team" along with Republicans that pushed for and won bi-partisan support for deregulation and NAFTA!

Christ .... before ya know someone will suggest that Hillary Clinton will be appointed Secretary of State! As if Obama needs someone to order him around when it comes to foreign policy.

[Radical Activist]

79. Do you really think everyone who worked for Clinton was centrist?

No liberals at all in the Clinton admin?

[Better Believe It]

83. No I don't. Some were farther right and we had .....

a sprinkling of liberals who had no real economic power or influence .... like Robert Reich.

He couldn't stop NAFTA or deregulation.

[Radical Activist]

86. So a few liberals couldn't change Clinton into a liberal?

Likewise, a few moderates won't turn Obama into a Reaganesue anti-regulation conservative. That makes more sense than what you're suggesting. I'm not going to jump to the worst conclusion. I've had enough of that for the last eight years.

[Better Believe It]

92. No ..... a few liberals could not prevent Clinton's deregulation and pro-NAFTA policies

Wall Street called the shots. Not Main Street, not working class people, not organized labor and not Reich.

[Radical Activist]

96. So follow that to its logical conclusion.

Just because Clinton had some liberals around didn't make him liberal. Just because Obama has some moderates doesn't mean he'll always be moderate. Right? Doesn't that make sense? See the logic there? How about logic instead of jumping to conclusions?

Obama is not Clinton.

[Better Believe It]

123. Meaningless Dribble Is Not A Good Substitute For Political Realism

"Just because Clinton had some liberals around didn't make him liberal. Just because Obama has some moderates doesn't mean he'll always be moderate. Right? Doesn't that make sense? See the logic there? How about logic instead of jumping to conclusions?
Obama is not Clinton."

Actually that observation is all but meaningless. It's just as logical to write: "Just because George W. Bush hasd some right-wingers around him didn't make him a right-winger. Just because Obama had some left-wingers around him (he had many) doesn't make him a radical leftist."

So does that mean that just because Obama has loaded his staff with Wall Street deregulators he won't follow their lead and advice?

I think your line of argument is called sophistry.

Now let's get back to facts, real stuff and political logic and back away from wishful thinking.

The same economic royalists and Wall Street financial whiz kids who have caused this economic crisis with their deregulation schemes are once again in charge of the economy.

Are these the most logical people to end this crisis?

And who do you think will call the shots in this economy?

I think you know the answer to those last two questions, but, it easier on your brain to deceive yourself into believing Obama will control,defy and challenge them. I hope he does. Have you seen any indication that he will turn his back on those Wall Street interests who "brung him to the dance"?

[Radical Activist]

128. Since you're the one engaging in mind reading and fortune telling

you're on shaky ground using words like sophistry.

I would expect whoever Obama picks to deal with financial markets to have some background dealing with financial markets. Experience is not a bad thing. The article above has a lot of conjecture, guilt by association arguments and vague accusations that I'd like to see references for.

[Better Believe It]

159. Perhaps you should try the duck analogy "radical" activist

[Radical Activist]

168. being radical doesn't mean you don't think things through critically.

at least not in my case.

[Runcible Spoon]

174. you defend the status quo at every turn.

there is NOTHING radical about you. You sling the purist meme around, bash actual leftist activists, and trust that a bunch of neoliberals are going to change the economy fundamentally rather than keep looting while there's something to steal.

[Radical Activist]

175. Didn't I ask you to leave me alone more than once? Are you cyber-stalking me?

I know you take pleasure inflicting pain and humiliation on men but you'll have to find someone else.

[Runcible Spoon]

173. Yep, the Che avatar and quote is still there

Irony is lost on many.

[NashVegas]

290. Not Everyone

:hi:

[Two Americas]

72. the people

The people have finally turned on and utterly rejected Reaganomics, and that is the reason "the DEMS won a majority house, senate and the White House."

I don't see how else we can read the recent election.

After months and months of "lesser of two evils" and "at least they are better than Republicans" and "we are being practical to get elected" and "don't get me wrong I agree with Kucinich BUT..." we are now being asked to forget about all of that and see the recent election as a repudiation of the Left and an endorsement of Reaganomics.

[frylock]

85. fucking amazing, isn't it?

[FiveGoodMen]

98. Define extremist.

[prostock69]

119. Right on!!!

[slay]

66. Regardless, Nader never could have won - not after 8 years of Republican hell, however

if circumstance had been different, I may well have voted for him. Nader would never draw any republican voters - or very few - and would only have split the democratic party. That said, I now do unfortunatly believe Ralph would have been the better candidate. Feel free to flame away, but I also feel Dennis Kucinich would have been a better candidate so be sure to flame me for that too. Nader not getting my vote this time can be chalked up to bad timing and the events of the 2000 election. Will Nader get my vote in 2012? Only time will tell. I'm not writing off Obama as just more-of-the-same quite yet.

[defendandprotect]

218. Not without IRV voting --

and we had better get working on it because third parties will be the only way out

and the Dems hac=ve long been working to co-opt Greens ---

[LWolf]

275. Of course, the OP

has nothing whatsoever to do with electing Nader to anything, and everything to do with Obama's poor choice of economic advisors.

[Odin2005]

73. See, I knew I was right, the Obama haters ARE bitter Naderites.

:banghead: after 2000 anyone who spews "there is no difference between the 2 parties" BS deserves a stuff slap in the face and a smelling fish courtesy of Rahm.

[Radical Activist]

76. Yep. Its all the same cynical argument.

Of course, for some its not about cynicism. Its about undermining any support for the Democratic Party and cynicism is just a great tool for that goal.

[FlaGranny]

99. Of course. n/t

[smiley]

167. Naderites?

I like to consider myself Independent.

Independent from the party system that has bogged all governments down for way too long.

[defendandprotect]

219. You mean you didn't want us to vote for Obama --?????

Wake up --

Nader was their cover ---

Don't let facts get in your way ....
It's a farce --

Gore won no matter how you count the votes ...

Including Florida where a handful of votes decided the race --


More than 300,000 Florida "Democrats" votrd vfor Bush ---

More than 600 "illegal" ballots were counted for Bush --

More than 3,000 "butterfly" ballots went to Pat Buchanan --

Other third parties took thousands of votes --

We had a GOP "false flag" riot that STOPPED the vote counting in Miami-Dade

County MANDATED by the Florida Supreme Court. No police interference.


AND, finally US Supreme Court Gang of 5 undermined the Florida State Supreme

Court ruling and gave decision to Bush.


HOW could you ignore all of this and buy the propaganda that it had anything to

do with Nader --???????????????????????????????????

[lostnfound]

74. If Ralph wanted to make a difference, why didn't he run for the Senate?

Or something else that was more achievable than President?

[Thickasabrick]

81. These people will know better how to undo the damage. They all

know intimately what transpired. If he went with totally new people, it would take years to cut through the stone-walling and figure out what has gone down.

I personally think it's a smart move.

[leftofthedial]

82. I'm not a fan of Nader, but he's right.

He's wrong though about the two parties. There is *exactly* a dime's worth of difference between them.

[G_j]

88. very good

:thumbsup:

[defendandprotect]

220. Agree --

Funny --:)

[QC]

91. Why do you hate America? Why? n/t

[neuvocat]

93. Nader supported Bush

with the argument that the GOP was much more open about being corrupted politicians. Thanks to his support of Bush there has been an absolute derailing of foreign policy including the devastation that took place with Lebannon. Nader didn't directly contribute to the bombing of what is a democratic country but he did have a hand in it. Sad that Nader didn't wake up after that.

[Zhade]

94. I had an interesting thought - what if he's picked these people to show them a different way?

The cynic in me screams "Ha! Fat chance!" - but what if he's going to make these people operate very differently than they have in the past? Wouldn't it be awesome to see these neoliberals forced to support progressive policies?

Or not. I guess we'll see.

[bahrbearian]

170. He could listen to them, without paying them.

[smiley]

97. listen to what Ralph Nader actually has to say.

All of you on this thread who feel the need to act like ignorant children and say things to the likes of "Fuck Nader". If you actually sat down and listened to what he has to say, you might actually agree with him. You might even feel his statements have more depth than Obama's.

But you're right , Nader probably did lose votes for Gore, but so what. That just means Gore did a lousy job of getting his message out to a certain base of people. I for one did vote for Nader and I'm proud of it. The man sees our government for what it is... a corporate controlled machine, in place to feed the rich. But IMO it was SCOTUS and election fraud that lost the election of 2000. So stop blaming Nader.

[FlaGranny]

101. I don't know anyone who

DISAGREES with what Nader says about most things (except about the 2 parties being the same - which is total nonsense). Everyone disagrees with what he DOES. One must think that Nader is either stupid or just wants to cause trouble. If he were really serious, he'd mount himself a campaign and get elected to something - ANYTHING. State office, US Congress, Senate - anything at all, where he could make a difference. The only difference he is making by going for president every 4 years is to make things worse. I don't know why we still argue about him as he is almost completely irrelevant now. Very few take him seriously any more. It's a shame really as he was once quite respected. If he had any sense he might have made a difference in recent years. Any good ideas he has had, he has buried and he's done it himself. It is difficult to understand anyone who still takes him seriously.

So what that he lost votes for Gore? Bush as president? 7000 or more Americans dead? Maybe a million Iraqis? So what? I'm flabbergasted that you'd be proud of those results.

[smiley]

127. it is not Nader's fault people chose him over Bush

Remember how the Supreme court stopped the recount. You can blame them for Bush and the 7000 american deaths.

Gore obviously didn't do enough to get my vote. Should I have voted for him just to be a good democrat? Well guess what? I'm not a democrat. I a registered independent. Always have been. Always will. I say fuck both parties because they sure as hell haven't proven to me that they give 2 shits about the common American or this war that you conveniently seem to be blaming on Ralph Nader.

By your logic if I were to mount a successful campaign for presidency and took any votes away from the candidate that you wanted to win. Then it would be my fault for any of the winning candidates bad decisions while in office.

BTW. I'm not proud of the results of the last 8 years and I certainly don't blame Ralph Nader. I'm proud of the fact that I voted for a man who doesn't need to play by the party rules. I'm flabbergasted that you seem to be to narrow minded to see past those party lines and keep blaming a man who energized a very large percentage of the population during 2000.

Maybe if the Democratic party would stop turning their back on this man, he could be successful in political office and he wouldn't have to re-emerge every 4 years to tell us about doing away with the 3 party system. (why is this total nonsense anyway?) It's the 2 dominant parties that keep flushing the American dream down the toilet. I'm flabbergasted you can't see this!

At least you didn't say FUCK NADER.

[Lorien]

130. I agree, even though I worked for the Gore campaign and voted for Gore

I've never disagreed with Nader's view of our government. Gore DID run a dismal campaign, and despite that he DID win the election-then had it stolen from him. I don't blame Nader for speaking the truth, and I don't blame Nader voters for trying to change our corrupt system. But with the media under control of giant corporations, giant corporations are completely in control and there's no way to get the mainstream to believe in anything that the MSM doesn't sell to them. America is a Nation of sheep that are raped daily, and will probably always be a nation of sheep that are raped daily. If Nader were silent, it would mean that the corporations have his consent for what they do-so he MUST speak out and act in every way possible. If there were thousands more like him we might have a prayer of getting real change. As it is? I don't even have a sliver of hope for us.

[defendandprotect]

221. Good idea --

And here's the vreality of 2000 ---

Nader was COVER for Dems who did NOTHING to protest ---

Nader was their cover ---


Wake up --

Nader was their cover ---

Don't let facts get in your way ....
It's a farce --

Gore won no matter how you count the votes ...

Including Florida where a handful of votes decided the race --


More than 300,000 Florida "Democrats" votrd vfor Bush ---

More than 600 "illegal" ballots were counted for Bush --

More than 3,000 "butterfly" ballots went to Pat Buchanan --

Other third parties took thousands of votes --

We had a GOP "false flag" riot that STOPPED the vote counting in Miami-Dade

County MANDATED by the Florida Supreme Court. No police interference.


AND, finally US Supreme Court Gang of 5 undermined the Florida State Supreme

Court ruling and gave decision to Bush.


HOW could you ignore all of this and buy the propaganda that it had anything to

do with Nader --???????????????????????????????????

[TexasObserver]

102. Anyone who cites Nader for anything is not credible.

Unless they're giving an example of a loony old man who has long outlived his usefulness, in which case he's a great example.

[defendandprotect]

222. Consider some facts ---

Dems did nothing to protest --


Wake up --

Nader was their cover ---

Don't let facts get in your way ....
It's a farce --

Gore won no matter how you count the votes ...

Including Florida where a handful of votes decided the race --


More than 300,000 Florida "Democrats" votrd vfor Bush ---

More than 600 "illegal" ballots were counted for Bush --

More than 3,000 "butterfly" ballots went to Pat Buchanan --

Other third parties took thousands of votes --

We had a GOP "false flag" riot that STOPPED the vote counting in Miami-Dade

County MANDATED by the Florida Supreme Court. No police interference.


AND, finally US Supreme Court Gang of 5 undermined the Florida State Supreme

Court ruling and gave decision to Bush.


HOW could you ignore all of this and buy the propaganda that it had anything to

do with Nader --???????????????????????????????????

[Danger Mouse]

104. Fuck Ralph Nader, and fuck anybody who thinks that egotistical asshole is anything close to 'right'.

[laststeamtrain]

246. "...and furthermore...

...the Archies are the greatest rock band ever. And fuck anybody who thinks those egotistical assholes The Rolling Stones are better. Why I oughta..."

(Authoritarian maniac's head explodes. Sometimes known as the Bill O'Reilly effect. It happens when an authoritarian can't control the thinking of every other person in the world; when the bubble of their grandiose delusion of complete righteousness is punctured. An awful sight.)

[Danger Mouse]

266. Haha, you think my head would explode over Naderites?

No, I rather enjoy them. They make for good entertainment.

[laststeamtrain]

270. I...

..don't think I'm a 'Naderite', whatever that means. He's been around since '63 or so when I was twelve years old. I've always kind of liked him for his inconvenience. A valuable dissident public intellectual in a world of hideous conformity. In '64 LBJ was the 'peace candidate'. That is so funny: know what I mean?

But,I do know that people who go berserk when other people don't totally agree with them have a problem.

Here, at DU, I notice they begin threads with the phrase, "I'm tired of..." or "I'm sick of..." often.

Fatigue? Get some sleep.

Sickness? Diet, maybe? See a Doctor anyway. Help may be available.

What I hate is vile, name calling. Shaming. Like that was done to the poster when they were growing up and now they're going to do it to me. They're always saying "fuck you". What's that all about?

I don't think we're going to progress until we start taking care of ourselves better.

I really hate your posts. You're either trying to diminish another poster or seeking approval from a 'mob'.

A lot of heat, little light.

People like you leave me cold.

[Danger Mouse]

272. I think Nader has done a lot of good...

...but that was in the past.
I think that he's right about some things, but his 'Gore = Bush' argument was just silly. I wish there were viable third party options in this country, but I'm not sure who could lead them. I don't really trust Nader, to be honest. Who else is there?

...I apologize for the nastiness. I've been angry with Nader ever since he dropped the 'Uncle Tom' reference on Fox News. I found it in extremely poor taste.

[laststeamtrain]

273. Thank you.

I don't hate you so much now.

I probably don't hate you at all.

I'll have to get used to it.

Old dogs, new tricks.

:hi:

PS: I think there should be about five political parties. Lots of ad hoc cooperation. Proportional representation in legislature, instant runoff on ballots. We'll get there.

One of my favorite responses to people telling me what's what in politics is "not yet".

[Danger Mouse]

274. I think having a two-party system for two long has damaged our Democracy.

I hope we do get to the point, eventually, where people can have more choices, and better representation across the board. I'm not just talking about for OUR interests, but even for the evangelicals, since the Repukes give them lip service but no results. Not saying I agree with their positions or want to see laws passed for their cause, but they should be able to have a voice as well. A horrible, obnoxious voice, but a voice.

[Auggie]

109. These pundits can STFU!!! Damn... give the PE a chance!

[lumberjack_jeff]

116. There were massive differences between the candidates.

Shoveling money at wall street was not one of them.

I'm sure that Obama will look like a genius compared to his predecessor. But when Obama picked Goolsbee to be his finance adviser during the campaign, the handwriting was on the wall. More Freidman-esque economics. Between that and healthcare reform, that's why I supported Hillary.

[pjt7]

118. Nader's always worth hearing out

(IMO)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

285. Because she would have been so different when it comes to Wall Street.

:eyes:

But oh yeah, she was going to force working class people to buy expensive health insurance so it would have been all good.

[The Maestro]

120. More of the same

I am a more than a little disappointed in Obama's selection of cabinet members. Wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

[tonycinla]

126. Nader

He is not perfect but in integrity,honesty and unselfishness he stands head and shoulders above whoever is second.Jimmy Carter?

[RoyGBiv]

132. Yeah sure ...

That's why he let his campaign be funded by Republicans.

Give it a rest. He's a political animal too.

[upi402]

136. why did he take Republican money?

do you know the absolute truth of it?

[RoyGBiv]

137. Do you?

[smiley]

166. he must be stopped!!!

OMG Republican money.... how shameful!

That is so much dirtier than Democratic money.

[pam4water]

131. He is probably right. I sincerely hope he is wrong...

Nadar is still and idealist, not suitable for a political office, but probably closer to the mark than we'd like. I don't think he was right about Gore though.

[upi402]

134. of course he was right

he was right all along. from clinton-nafta to corporatists owning both parties. duh.
but Republicans are worse. we need an opposition party now. time to go to work.

[mdmc]

157. yes

[defendandprotect]

223. We need to move in a bloc for small "d" democracy ---

[islandmkl]

135. half of you people think David actually slew Goliath...

and the other half of you think it is a bullshit story at best....

Ralph may be 'right' about a lot of things...except he has no ability to create the changes he espouses...

he correctly attacks the flaws in the game, but he can only bitch about the rules...

"It isn't that difficult to be the critic, when you cannot create the change."

[RoyGBiv]

138. Ah ... Wisdom

Thank you for that.

[Sadie5]

140. While Obama can do no wrong

It is sickening to keep hearing that it is all Clinton's fault. Does anyone remember back to around 2000-2002 when Bush rammed through his banking bill that allowed these enormous interest rates to be charged? If so, then you are sure to remember that Biden always voted with the Repubs and not only signed on to the usury interest rates we now have but also the bankruptcy bill that took even more of our rights away. Obama's presidency has sought out all of the Clinton team to mend this crisis yet you continue to throw mud at Clinton.

[upi402]

164. at least he can identify the problem >and not PRETEND to oppose it

like Pelosi, Clinton, Leibeman, et al

There's spmething to be said for not being part of the problem. And party to the coruption as well.
There is no opposition party to corporatism and he's a voice in the wilderness on that. He makes mistakes and takes a futile line, but look at what happened to Kucinich - or worse, Paul Wellstone and the Kennedy's. They were shut out or shut up. Same result.

[davidthegnome]

142. Of course there's a difference between Gore and Bush

The proof, however, as they say, is in the pudding. I voted for Obama because I truly hope he will live up to the ideals to which he has laid claim. I know we have a better chance with him than we'd have had with McCain. I don't dislike Nader, I think he has some good ideas that are either too early, or too late. Unfortunately he lacks the power to get him anywhere close to the whitehouse. He was definitely something of an ass in 2000 and 2004, in my opinion - while I still feel that he is a good man overall.

I have been dealing with, and talking to republicans, for a very long time. I'm one of those that makes an attempt to argue with them - to convince them they are wrong. It is our understanding that is our greatest asset in such a situation. I would love to see a third party candidate make some real gains. The democrats and the republicans, us, and them... is not exactly the most pleasant of working (or living) environments. Perhaps a sensible independent would be a great thing for all of us.

In any event... so far I am a little disappointed in Obama. I realize that he has to play the game... but he can only play it so far before he begins to sacrifice his principles, and come out seeming as spineless as Pelosi or Reed (or is it Reid?)

I'll hold on to my faith in him, however, until he gives me a really good reason not to. Please don't disappoint us, Mr. President.

[RBInMaine]

143. Ralph Nader can go piss up a rope. He's nutty.

[davidthegnome]

146. Rare that I meet a fellow mainiac on the web

So I'm not the only alien on this planet. That's a relief.

[RBInMaine]

241. Do you ever go to the Maine forum on the state board?

[defendandprotect]

224. Try a look at reality Dems don't want you to think sbout ....

Nader was their cover ---


Wake up --

Nader was their cover ---

Don't let facts get in your way ....
It's a farce --

Gore won no matter how you count the votes ...

Including Florida where a handful of votes decided the race --


More than 300,000 Florida "Democrats" votrd vfor Bush ---

More than 600 "illegal" ballots were counted for Bush --

More than 3,000 "butterfly" ballots went to Pat Buchanan --

Other third parties took thousands of votes --

We had a GOP "false flag" riot that STOPPED the vote counting in Miami-Dade

County MANDATED by the Florida Supreme Court. No police interference.


AND, finally US Supreme Court Gang of 5 undermined the Florida State Supreme

Court ruling and gave decision to Bush.


HOW could you ignore all of this and buy the propaganda that it had anything to

do with Nader --???????????????????????????????????

[RBInMaine]

239. Florida isn't my point. My point is that it is NUTTY to be a perennial presidential candidate, and

also that Nader is a fringe candidate at that. He undermines his credibility as a worthy consumer advocate with these senseless, endless presidential candidacies. He needs to place his talent and energy back where they belong: progressive consumer advocacy, and that's it.

[defendandprotect]

269. Consider that ....

Nader and maybe Kucinich are pretty much the only well-recognized liberals

who might gain the ear of the public -- tho both have been knocked out of

the debates ....

THIS is where we begin to understand what is truly going on in our nation --

Who but Nader described corporate fascism to us 20 years ago --

and he has brought us most of the insight and facts about government and politics

which have since enlightened and awakened us --

Same with Kucinich who is speaking truth to voters -- truths not generally heard

elsewhere --

AND THAT IS THE VALUE OF HAVING POPULOUS CANDIDATES ABLE TO BE HEARD --

IT WIDENS THE DEBATE -- NOT NARROWING IT AS CORPORATE 'DEBATE' DOES ..


You also have to realize -- and Nader has long been telling us this, as well...

that "progressive consumer advocacy" has long been shut out of government

like much else of public's interests/concerns in favor of ONLY corporate input.






Florida isn't my point. My point is that it is NUTTY to be a perennial presidential candidate, and
also that Nader is a fringe candidate at that. He undermines his credibility as a worthy consumer advocate with these senseless, endless presidential candidacies. He needs to place his talent and energy back where they belong: progressive consumer advocacy, and that's it.

[RBInMaine]

280. He can spread his views without SILLY and yes NUTTY presidential runs. GET REAL !

[defendandprotect]

296. I hope he keeps running - and waking people up ---

[RBInMaine]

281. Either support DEMS or kindly get off the site. Nader is NOT a Dem. If you want this nut, start a

NUTS FOR NADER site. Again, he DESTROYS his credibility as a consumer advocate with the endless, senseless, pointless, presidential runs. He is not qualified to be president, has never held a position that makes him qualified, and he is NUTTY to keep doing it. We are here to support DEM presidential candidates and nominees, PERIOD !

[defendandprotect]

297. Obviously ...

you know nothing about Nader --

And if anyone here is "nutty" it's those of us voting for Dems over and again

with same outcome. That's the definition of "insane" voter.

[antimatter98]

147. Sheer's right. Doesn't take an IQ over 50 to see Obama's bought off by WS.

WS gave more $ to Obama than to McCain by almost 2:1. They own him.

At that weekend meeting where Rubin and Paulson et. al. closed the
Citigroup deal, which Obama approved, ask yourself: why not at the
same time arrange a 'deal' to help Main Street---10,000 foreclosures
a month, skyrocketing unemployment, people without food, 28% credit
card interest rates etc.

But, all they cared about was WS and the banks. The people: go to ....

Obama is going to be a huge disappointment to those who voted for him,
myself being one who gave time and money for months. Had HRC won, we'd
have the same lineup of course, only we'd expect that part.

We've been punked by a very skillful campaign.

[ima_sinnic]

150. my sentiments exactly.. until We The People really do asserts ourselves

we will continue to be nothing more than serfs and lackeys for the kingdom of corporations.

I thought the guy was gonna be innovative, even mildly progressive, fercrissake. The sight of Rahm Emmanuel told me everything I need to know.

Nader is right again, as he has been for years of fighting for the public interest, way before the widdle Nader-haters, who think nobody else has the right to run for public office besides candidates with an R or D after their name, ever had their spoiled widdle asses tucked into a child safety seat in a vehicle made safer because of Ralph Nader--just to begin with. They know nothing about him and have never listened to a single one of his speeches or read anything he's written. To those morons I say: the fact that "it's Nader's fault" that bushit won says more about the Democrats than it does about Ralph Nader. get a clue. The corporations have the D's and R's working for them--who's working for We The People?

[defendandprotect]

225. HOW ...?? You have no leverage w/o third parties ---

and I can tell you Dems have been working long to co-opt Greens ---

You need to work for IRV ...

[RBInMaine]

282. You A-Hole ! Would you rather have Bush or McSame ! Get the F outa here !

[defendandprotect]

299. Language like that doesn't show much ....

thought or intelligence and the comments are proof of that --

If you really are concerned about where we are now re fascism-corporatism then

support strengthening third parties -- and fight for IRV voting --

And try to actually do some reading before reacting like a hot-head "A-Hole."

[lostnotforgotten]

151. The Real Question - Can Obama Take Their Advice Without Being Co-Opted By That Advice

eom

[disndat]

152. Mr. Sheer, Mr.Nader, and

Prof. Naum Chomsky have their heads stuck in a groove. Obama explained it so well last night, in answer to such critics,( paraphrased) "am I going to select people with little or no experience or choose people who worked in the Clinton administration? Don't forget, I am the leader. I make the decisions after getting input from all these experts."

[defendandprotect]

300. BS -- we're loaded with people with experience, intelligence ...it's DLC/GOP politics that's wrong -

[4dsc]

153. Scheer is spot on with this report

It make me fucking ill everytime I see the FAT CAT of Wall street getting BAILED OUT with TAXPAYERS MONIES!!!

LET THEM FUCKING FAIL!!! ALL OF THEM!!

[Zambero]

155. He's not President just yet. And when he is he'll need to address both

Main street and Wall Street are more mutually dependent that many seem to realize. And in a bad economy, those individuals and communities hardest hit will need direct assistance. Hence, the the real need to initiate a meaningful stimulus package that will include investing in our sadly neglected infrastructure. Addressing the larger financial aspects also primes the pump which affects employment and the overall economic picture. The Bush/Paulsen bait & switch policy of doling out billions of cash with no strings attached is in effect criminal, and clearly violates the intent of bailout legislation passed by Congress. What's needed is full accountability, and a specific PLAN to demonstrate how Main Street (and not the CEO / Board of Directors) stands to gain from any direct gov't assistance to financial markets OR manufacturers such as the Big Three.

[Waiting For Everyman]

156. More "guilt by association", eh?

Obama isn't in office yet. An objective person might consider holding off until he FAILS at something. So that tells me to expect the same objectivity from this writer in the future. Cross that one off the list to read.

Oh and, Nader's the reason we're in this. That's exactly right. He's an egocentric jerk, who obviously CARES SO MUCH about the PUBLIC. :sarcasm: He's about as useful to the public good as Palin - another grandstanding idiot.

[TankLV]

158. Not this shit again! Nader has ceased to being "right" for a long time now...

and the RESULTS of his failure for the past couple DEDADES are simply ASTOUNDING...

[defendandprotect]

226. And then there are facts ---

Dems did NOTHING to protest 2000 steal ---

Nader was their cover ---


Wake up --

It's a farce --

Gore won no matter how you count the votes ...

Including Florida where a handful of votes decided the race --


More than 300,000 Florida "Democrats" votrd vfor Bush ---

More than 600 "illegal" ballots were counted for Bush --

More than 3,000 "butterfly" ballots went to Pat Buchanan --

Other third parties took thousands of votes --

We had a GOP "false flag" riot that STOPPED the vote counting in Miami-Dade

County MANDATED by the Florida Supreme Court. No police interference.


AND, finally US Supreme Court Gang of 5 undermined the Florida State Supreme

Court ruling and gave decision to Bush.


HOW could you ignore all of this and buy the propaganda that it had anything to

do with Nader --???????????????????????????????????

[BzaDem]

232. Anyone who doesn't believe that Nader cost Gore the presidency is a complete tool.

I don't care that there were other reasons why Gore lost. I don't care that the Supremes stole the election, or there were confusing ballots, Dems voting for Bush, and everything else in your list. If Nader dropped out, Gore would have won. That statement is absolute fact (it is not a statement that any reasonable people disagree about). Now, if the Supremes voted the other way, maybe Gore would have won as well. But that doesn't change the fact that if Nader dropped out, Gore would have won. I would probably be banned from this board if I said what I truly thought about Nader.

[defendandprotect]

268. And, following your reasoning ...

if BUCHANAN had dropped out Gore would have won --

Btw -- Gore did win!

Also if 600 "illegal" military ballots had not been counted for Bush,

Gore would have won --

Btw -- Gore did win!

If the SOCIALISTS or LIBERTARIANS had dropped out, Gore would have won --

Btw -- Gore did win!



When your anger subsides, ask yourself what Democrats did to protest any of 2000

election -- even the GOP "false flag" riot to stop the counting of votes in

Miami-Dade County which was MANDATED by Florida State Supreme Court ????

[BzaDem]

294. Exactly.

But I don't really expect people who have radically different views than Democrats (such as Buchanan, socialists, and libertarians) to help Democrats in any way. Nader could have done something that involved only himself (not 600 illegals or others who hated Nader's views more than they hated Democrats' views). If you keep saying Gore won, please show me photographic evidence of him in the oval office for 8 years. People chanting that Gore did win and Nader wasn't at fault don't actually reverse the 8 years (something Nader all by himself could have done at the time).

[defendandprotect]

305. You're ignoring 300,00 Florida Democrats who voted for Bush ---!!!

I wasn't talking about "illegals" --

I noted "ILLEGAL" military ballots counted for Bush --

The decision of the press who recounted the votes is that GORE WON ...

tell me you know that, right-????

You've also ignored RIOTS and US Supreme Gang of 5 --

What you do pay a lot of attention to is the scapegoating propaganda you've been fed --

[defendandprotect]

301. Ralph Nader is always right --

And, if you fail to understand that it is you who have failed --

http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm

[TankLV]

163. Well - at least from this "discussion" we know who all the ignorant assholes are...

and they are all claiming that Nader is/was right for the past couple decades...

talk about stupifying, insultingly DUMB...!

[upi402]

165. you point the finger

but i think 3 point back at you

[TankLV]

279. Ha ha ha - good one...

not...

[defendandprotect]

227. Or ...

You might wake up to reality that Dems did NOTHING to protest steal --

Nader was their cover ---

Don't let facts get in your way ....
It's a farce --

Gore won no matter how you count the votes ...

Including Florida where a handful of votes decided the race --


More than 300,000 Florida "Democrats" votrd vfor Bush ---

More than 600 "illegal" ballots were counted for Bush --

More than 3,000 "butterfly" ballots went to Pat Buchanan --

Other third parties took thousands of votes --

We had a GOP "false flag" riot that STOPPED the vote counting in Miami-Dade

County MANDATED by the Florida Supreme Court. No police interference.


AND, finally US Supreme Court Gang of 5 undermined the Florida State Supreme

Court ruling and gave decision to Bush.


HOW could you ignore all of this and buy the propaganda that it had anything to

do with Nader --???????????????????????????????????

[antimatter98]

171. Meanwhile the UK orders lower CC rates or else. Link inside

Why don't I think Obama's team and Congress lack the spine to do what the UK has done:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3620382

This is exactly what we need here----people with spine, not Citigroup employees running
the show.

[tama]

183. Chomsky on Obama:

n: Democracy Now 23.11.2008
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, let’s begin with the elections. The world that the rolls off of everyone’s tongue is historic. Historic election. And I agree with it. It was a historic election. To have a black family in the white house is a momentous achievement. In fact, it’s historic in a broader sense. The two Democratic candidates were an African-American and a woman. Both remarkable achievements. We go back say 40 years, it would have been unthinkable. So something’s happened to the country in 40 years. And what’s happened to the country- which is we’re not supposed to mention- is that there was extensive and very constructive activism in the 1960s, which had an aftermath. So the feminist movement, mostly developed in the 70s-–the solidarity movements of the 80’s and on till today. And the activism did civilize the country. The country’s a lot more civilized than it was 40 years ago and the historic achievements illustrate it. That’s also a lesson for what’s next.

What’s next will depend on whether the same thing happens. Changes and progress very rarely are gifts from above. They come out of struggles from below. And the answer to what’s next depends on people like you. Nobody else can answer it. It’s not predictable. In some ways, the election—the election was surprising in some respects.

Going back to my bad prediction, If the financial crisis hadn’t taken place at the moment that it did, if it had been delayed a couple of months, I suspect that prediction would have been correct. But not speculating, one thing surprising about the election was that it wasn’t a landslide.
bq. By the usual criteria, you would expect the opposition party to win in a landslide under conditions like the ones that exist today. The incumbent president for eight years was so unpopular that his own party couldn’t mention his name and had to pretend to be opposing his policies. He presided over the worst record for ordinary people in post-war history, in terms of job growth, real wealth and so on. Just about everything the administration was touched just turned into a disaster. country has reached the lowest level of standing in the world that it’s ever had. The economy was tanking. Several recessions are going on. Not just the ones on the front pages, the financial recession. There’s also a recession in the real economy. The productive economy, under circumstances and people know it. So 80% of the population say that the country’s going in the wrong direction. About 80% say the government doesn’t work to the benefit of the people, it works for the few and the special interests. A startling 94% complain that the government doesn’t pay any attention to the public will, and on like that. Under conditions like that, you would expect a landslide to a opposition almost whoever they are. And there wasn’t one.

So one might ask why wasn’t there a landslide? That goes off in an interesting direction. And other respects the outcome was pretty familiar. So once again, the election was essentially bought. 9 out of 10 of the victors outspent their opponents. Obama of course outspent McCain. If you look at the—and we don’t have final records yet from the final results, but they’re probably going to be pretty much like the preliminaries a couple of months ago. Which showed that both Obama and McCain were getting the bulk of their financing from the financial institutions and for Obama, law firms which means essentially lobbyists. That was about over a third a few months ago. But the final results will probably be the same. And there is a—the distribution of funding has over time been a pretty good predictor of what policies will be like for those of you who are interested, there’s very good scholarly work on this by Tom Ferguson in Umass Boston, what he calls the investment theory of politics. Which argues essentially that elections are moments when groups of investors coalesce and invest to control the state and has quite the substantial predictive success. Gives some suggestion as to what’s likely to happen. So that part’s familiar. The—what the future is as I say, depends on people like you.

The response for the election was interesting and instructive. It kept pretty much to the soaring rhetoric, to borrow the cliché, that was the major theme of the election. The election was described as an extraordinary display of democracy, a miracle that could only happen in America and on and on. Much more extreme than Europe even than here. There’s some accuracy in that if we keep to the West. So if we keep to the West, yes, it’s probably true. That couldn’t have happened anywhere else. Europe was much more racist than the United States and you wouldn’t expect anything like that to happen.

On the other hand, if you look at the world, it’s not that remarkable. So let’s take the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. Haiti and Bolivia. In Haiti, there was an election in 1990 which really was an extraordinary display of democracy much more so than this.

In Haiti, there were grassroots movements, popular movements that developed in the slums and the hills, which nobody was paying any attention to. And they managed, even without any resources, to sweep into power their own candidate. A populist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. That’s a victory for democracy when popular movements can organize and set programs and pick their candidate and put them into office, which is not what happened here, of course.

I mean, Obama did organize a large number of people and many enthusiastic people in what’s called in the press, Obama’s Army. But the army is supposed to take instructions, not to implement, introduce, develop programs and call on its own candidate to implement them. That’s critical. If the army keeps to that condition, nothing much will change. If it on the other hand goes away activists did in the sixties, a lot can change. That’s one of the choices that has to be made. That’s Haiti. Of course that didn’t last very long. A couple of months later, there was military coup, a period of terror, we won’t go through the whole record. Up the present, the traditional torturers of Haiti, France, and the United States have made sure that there won’t be a victory for democracy there. It’s a miserable story. Contrary to many illusions.

Take the second poorest country, Bolivia. They had an election in 2005 that’s almost unimaginable in the West. Certainly here, anywhere. The person elected into office was indigenous. That’s the most oppressed population in the hemisphere, those who survived. He’s is a poor peasant. How did he get in? Well, he got in because there were again, a mass popular movement, which elected their own representative. And they are the source of the programs, which are serious ones. There’s real issues, And people know them. Control over resources, cultural rights, social justice and so on.

Furthermore, the election was just an event that was particular stage in a long continuing struggle, a lot before and a lot after. There was day when people pushed the levers but that’s just an event in ongoing popular struggles, very serious ones. A couple of years ago, there was a major struggle over privatization of water. An effort which it would in effect deprive a good part of the population of water to drink. And it was a bitter struggle. A lot of people were killed, but they won it. Through international solidarity, in fact, which helped. And it continues. Now that’s a real election. Again, the plans, the programs are being developed, acted on constantly by mass popular movements, which then select their own representatives from their own ranks to carry out their programs. And that’s quite different from what happened here.

Actually what happened here is understood by elite elements. The public relations industry which runs elections here-quadrennial extravaganzas essentially- makes sure to keep issues in the margins and focus on personalities and character and so on–and-so forth. They do that for good reasons. They know- they look at public opinion studies and they know perfectly well that on a host of major issues both parties are well to the right of the population. That’s one good reason to keep issues off the table. And they recognize the success.

So, every year, the advertising industry gives a prize to, you know, to the best marketing campaign of the year. This year, Obama won the prize. Beat out Apple company. The best marketing campaign of 2008. Which is correct, it is essentially what happened. Now that’s quite different from what happens in a functioning democracy like say Bolivia or Haiti, except for the fact that it was crushed. And in the South, it’s not all that uncommon. Notice that each of these cases, there’s a much more extraordinary display of democracy in action than what we’ve seen–important as it was-here. And so the rhetoric, especially in Europe is correct if we maintain our own narrow racist perspective and say yeah, what happened was in the South didn’t happen or doesn’t matter. The only matters is what we do and by our standards, it was extraordinary miracle, but not by the standards of functioning democracy. In fact, there’s a distinction in democratic theory, which does separate say the United States from Bolivia or Haiti.

Question is what is a democracy supposed to be? That’s exactly a debate that goes back to the constitutional convention. But in recent years in the 20th century, it’s been pretty well articulated by important figures. So at the liberal end the progressive end, the leading public intellectual of the 20th century was Walter Lippman. A Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy progressive. And a lot of his work was on a democratic theory and he was pretty frank about it. If you took a position not all that different from James Madison’s. He said that in a democracy, the population has a function. Its function is to be spectators, not participants. He didn’t call it the population. He called it the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. The ignorant and meddlesome outsiders have a function and namely to watch what’s going on. And to push a lever every once in a while and then go home. But, the participants are us, us privileged, smart guys. Well that’s one conception of democracy. And you know essentially we’ve seen an episode of it. The population very often doesn’t accept this. As I mentioned, just very recent polls, people overwhelmingly oppose it. But they’re atomized, separated. Many of them feel hopeless, unorganized, and don’t feel they can do anything about it. So they dislike it. But that’s where it ends.

In a functioning democracy like say Bolivia or the United States in earlier stages, they did something about it. That’s why we have the New Deal measures, the Great Society measures. In fact just about any step, you know, women’s rights, end of slavery, go back as far as you like, it doesn’t happen as a gift. And it’s not going to happen in the future. The commentators are pretty well aware of this. They don’t put it the way I’m going to, but if you read the press, it does come out. So take our local newspaper at the liberal end of the spectrum, “Boston Globe,” you probably saw right after the election, a front page story, the lead front page story was on how Obama developed this wonderful grassroots army but he doesn’t have any debts. Which supposed to be a good thing. So he’s free to do what he likes. Because he has no debts, the normal democratic constituency, labor, women, minorities and so on, they didn’t bring him into office. So he owes them nothing

AMY GOODMAN: M.I.T. professor, author, political dissident, Noam Chomsky. We’ll come back to this interview in a minute. You can get a copy of our show at democracynow.org. Stay with us.


AMY GOODMAN: I’m Amy Goodman. As we return now to professor Noam Chomsky’s address in Boston. The election, the economy, and the world.

NOAM CHOMSKY: What he had was an army that he organized of people who got out the vote for Obama. For what the press calls, Brand Obama. They essentially agree with the advertisers, it’s brand Obama. That his army was mobilized to bring him to office. They regard that as a good thing, accepting the Lippman conception of democracy, the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders are supposed to do what they’re told and then go home. The Wall Street Journal, at the opposite end of the spectrum, also had an article about the same thing at roughly the same time. Talked about the tremendous grassroots army that has been developed, which is now waiting for instructions. What should they do next to press forward Obama’s agenda? Whatever that is. But whatever it is, the army’s supposed to be out there taking instructions, and press work. Los Angeles Times had similar articles, and there are others. What they don’t seem to realize is what they’re describing, the ideal of what they’re describing, is dictatorship, not democracy. Democracy, at least not in the Lippman sense, it proved- I pick him out because he’s so famous, but it’s a standard position. But in the sense of say, much of the south, where mass popular movements developed programs; organize to take part in elections but that’s one part of an ongoing process. And brings somebody from their own ranks to implement the programs that they develop, and if the person doesn’t they’re out. Ok, that’s another kind of democracy. So it’s up to us to choose which kind of democracy we want. And again, that will determine what comes next.

Well, what can we anticipate if the popular army, the grassroots army, decides to accept the function of spectators of action rather than participants? There’s two kinds of evidence. There’s rhetoric and there’s action. The rhetoric, you know, is very uplifting: change, hope, and so on. Change was kind of reflective any party manager this year who read the polls, including the ones I cited, would instantly conclude that our theme in the election has to be change. Because people hate what’s going on for good reasons. So the theme is change. In fact, both parties put both of them, the theme was change. So the theme is change. In fact both parties, both of them the theme was change. You know, break from the past, none of old politics, new things are going to happen. The Obama campaign did better so they won the marketing award, not the McCain campaign.

And notice incidentally on the side that the institutions that run the elections, public relations industry, advertisers, they have a role—their major role is commercial advertising. I mean, selling a candidate is kind of a side rule. In commercial advertising as everybody knows, everybody who has ever looked at a television program, the advertising is not intended to provide information about the product, all right? I don’t have to go on about that. It’s obvious. The point of the advertising is to delude people with the imagery and, you know, tales of a football player, sexy actress, who you know, drives to the moon in a car or something like that. But, that’s certainly not to inform people. In fact, it’s to keep people uninformed.

The goal of advertising is to create uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices. Those of you who suffered through an economics course know that markets are supposed to be based on informed consumers making rational choices. But industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to undermine markets and to ensure, you know, to get uninformed consumers making irrational choices.

And when they turn to selling a candidate they do the same thing. They want uninformed consumers, you know, uninformed voters to make irrational choices based on the success of illusion, slander, and effective body language or whatever else is supposed to be significant. So you undermine democracy pretty much the same way you undermine markets. Well, that’s the nature of an election when it’s run by the business world, and you’d expect it to be like that. There should be no surprise there. And it should also turn out the elected candidate didn’t have any debts. So you can follow Brand Obama can be whatever they decide it to be, not what the population decides that it should be, as in the south, let’s say. I’m going to say on the side, this may be an actual instance of a familiar and unusually vacuous slogan about the clash of civilization. Maybe there really is one, but not the kind that’s usually touted.

So let’s go back to the evidence that we have, rhetoric and actions. Rhetoric we know, but what are the actions? So far the major actions are selections, in fact the only action, of personnel to implement Brand Obama. The first choice was the Vice President, Joe Biden, one of the strongest supporters of the war in Iraq in the Senate, a long time Washington insider rarely deviates from the party vote. In cases where he does deviate they’re not very uplifting. He did break from the party and voting for a Senate resolution that prevented people from getting rid of their debts by, individuals, that is, from getting rid of their debts by going into bankruptcy. It’s a blow against poor people who’ve caught in this immense debt that’s a large part of the basis for the economy these days. But usually, he’s a, kind of, straight party-liner with the democrats on the sort of ultra naturalist side. The choice of Biden was a, must have been a conscious attempt to show contempt for the base of people who were voting for Obama, or organizing for him as an anti-war candidate.

Well, the first post-election appointment was for Chief of Staff, which is a crucial appointment; determines a large part of the president’s agenda. That was Rahm Emanuel, one of the strongest supporters of the war in Iraq in the House. In fact, he was the only member of the Illinois delegation who voted for Bush’s effective declaration of war. And, again, a longtime Washington insider. Also, one of the leading recipients in congress of funding from the financial institutions hedge funds and so on. He himself was an investment banker. That’s his background. So, that’s the Chief of Staff.

The next group of appointments were the main problem, the primary issue that the governments’ going to have to face is what to do about the financial crisis. Obama’s choices to more or less run this were Robert Rubin and Larry Summers from the Clinton--Secretaries of Treasury under Clinton. They are among the people who are substantially responsible for the crisis. One leading economist, one of the few economists who has been right all along in predicting what’s happening, Dean Baker, pointed out that selecting them is like selecting Osama Bin Laden to run the war on terror.



Yeah, I’ll finish. This saves me the problem of what’s coming next, so I’ll finish with the elections. Let me make one final comment on this. There was meeting on November 7, I think of a group of couple, of a dozen advisers to deal with the financial crisis. Their careers were, records were reviewed in the business press, and Bloomberg News had an article reviewing their records and concluded that these people, most of these people shouldn’t be giving advice about the economy. They should be given subpoenas.



Because most of them were involved in one or other form of financial fraud, that includes Rahm Emanuel, for example. What reason is there to think that the people who brought this crisis about are some how going to fix it? Well, that’s a good indication of what’s likely to come next, at least if we look at actions. We couldn’t, but it won’t. You can bring this up. Ask what we expect to see in particular cases. And there’s evidence about that from statements from Obama’s website. I’ll mention just one thing about Obama’s website, which gives an indication of what’s happening. One of the major problems coming is Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s pretty serious. Take a look at Obama’s website under issues, foreign policy issues. The names don’t even appear. I mean, we’re supposed to be ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. We’re not supposed to know what Brand Obama is. So you can’t find out that way. The statements that you hear are pretty hawkish. And it doesn’t change much as you go through the list. I’ll wrap up here. So it’s up to you to continue.

UNKNOWN: There you go.

[defendandprotect]

228. Still telling the truth so many prefer not to know ---

[LWolf]

276. Chomsky's right. nt

[Rockholm]

184. Yawn.

[hangman86]

194. I'm going to wait till he's actually in office and see where his decisions take us

before I start bashing him and his cabinet.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

195. Obma didn't pick the same people who got us in the mess - things were ok when Volcker was around.

n/t

[JDPriestly]

197. These bail-outs seem to be aimed to help India, not the U.S.

At first, I was confused, but after watching Charlies Rose's interview with Vikram Pandit and looking at the number of Indians involved in organizing this and then at the outsourcing of key jobs in the accounting and other work related to the bail-out, that seems pretty clear.

[yurbud]

233. kick

[Hidden Stillness]

255. Ralph Nader is Generally Right--There is Near-Total Corporate Control of our Country

Ralph Nader always ends up being proved right on all these issues, and I disturbs me, increasingly, how people, even intelligent left-wingers, do not think and realize how deeply-rooted this whole corporate-takeover problem is. They ignored the fact that one of Obama's main advisors, and someone who was one the original panel to help choose the Vice-President, was a hedge-fund operator and lobbyist, removed only after it became public and there was an angry reaction. People have always lied about Obama's funding, and no one responds when you correct it. The routine about how "most" of Obama's contributions came from "small donors on the internet," "less than $200," etc., is a complete fraud, and is fake. Over 70% of Obama'a contributions during the whole campaign--easily researched, and told by, for example, Kathleen Hall Jamison on Bill Moyers--came from "bundling," a very secretive process, of corporate lobbyist contributions, and only 30% TOTAL came from small donations of individuals, yet no one would ever correct this impression. This is as corporate-connected as the rightly feared Clintons.

Obama voted for immunity for the telecom spies--why?? no one asked--and gave us a Vice-President with huge ties to the credit card industry, who sponsored the horrific "Bankruptcy Bill," that is so punitive to individuals, and lets corporations off the hook. All Cabinet appointments by Obama have been distressing, deregulating, tax-cut, corporate types. Obama, many times, has praised "the free market," "free trade," and other oppressive corporate deregulating measures, with sickening language, which very few have criticized or even analyzed the way it should have been. This is not Dennis Kucinich or Marcy Kaptur here; this is scary.

Corporations have so corrupted our society, school system, media, political-campaign system, Government, everything else--people are not admitting, as Ralph Nader, yet again, correctly understands on a deep level, what a huge, all-pervasive threat this actually is. This is really bad. Did you think something was "solved," when Obama got elected? How naive are you?

[L0oniX]

288. George Carlin was right.

http://www.jibjab.com/view/120996
http://www.jibjab.com/view/257603

[ForeignSpectator]

258. Here is a site that provided at least quite some entertainment re: Nader

http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Ralph_Nader

and if the last remark about Wal-mart and Halliburton is true, fuck the guy, period. All credibility lost.


PS : That site is quite fun in general, fun entries are about john boehner, sarah palin, jeremiah wright, george lucas, david blaine... these are the ones I read...

[RBInMaine]

283. Nice. Real nice. We FINALLY elect another Dem, and already some WHACKOS are crapping on him!

Will you LUNATICS out here criticizing Obama please get the F off this site ! The man hasn't even taken office, and look what you are doing. YOU ARE NUTS ! Look, the whole world doesn't change over night or with one election. It takes time. Let's give the man a chance. No matter what, we have someone MUCH better than McSAME or Bush. And yes, there are HUGE differences. So cut this shit out, get out of ultra-left-whacko field, and come somewhere near reality. Give our new and MUCH BETTER president a frigging chance will you ! Be glad that Bush is gone and we'll have some improvement. Christ, it's never enough for some people !

[Common Sense Party]

286. Sheer is a one-note broken record. He blathers on and on

about the same two topics, and this is one of them, as if Geitner created this entire mess. Much of this was Wall Street greed, stupidity and permissiveness. Much was also caused by government incompetence, stupidity, and permissiveness. Obama has a good team in place and the market acknowledged as much this week.

[RBInMaine]

295. Thank You ! Folks also must remember that Obama MUST govern near the center.

[Mari333]

298. ......

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

[Sex Pistol]

293. I believe he has that backwards.

It was Wall St. that picked Obama.

Or to be more precise, it is Wall St. that covered both sides of the bet.

[amborin]

303. i posted this last week on general disc prez...got largely shot down

[defendandprotect]

306. kick

[yurbud]

307. on matters cultural, the two parties differ. When it comes to Wall Street & foreign policy

they are like different fingers of the same glove.