How The Democrats Can Blow It ...In Six Easy Steps
By John Amato Friday Aug 15, 2008 7:00pm
Michael Moore gives Obama a little advice:
In an effort to help the party doofuses and pundits — and the candidate himself — spare all of us another suicide-inducing election night, as the results giving the election to the Republican pour in, here is the blueprint from the Democrats' past losing campaigns. Just follow each of these steps and you, the Democratic Party establishment, can help elect John Sidney McCain III to a four-year extension of the Bush Era.
Login or Register to post comments.
Oh, man...this ought to be a riot.
I just read where Obama is considering John Kerry for V.P.
Brilliant! Choose a white guy from the Northeast.
I like how he doesn't justify his VP pick section at all other than the meme "do the opposite of what people want because that's what worked last time"
site is hosed.
Thank God for Michael Moore, he's saying what needs to be said. Now if you happen to be a close personal friend of Barack Obama and you're NOT a political pundit but just some person who used to work with him in Chicago, please print out Moore's message and fold it up and find a way to slip it to Barack personally -- I mean, put the damn thing in his hand and say "Read it later when you're alone." Because we all know what's happened here, right?
Barack won the primary, and we was immediately dunked into the sticky goo of Beltway punditocracy. The breath-of-fresh-air innovative campaign that swept him past Hilary Clinton's assumed dominance was engulfed in party advisors who immediately smothered its light and heat and stamped it out as another Democratic marketing washout.
So there's no way Barack will read Moore's message unless you, Mr. or Ms. Close Campaign Worker From Chicago, can slip the note in through the bubble that surrounds him. You need to tell Obama that we're still out here, all the people who appreciated his early campaign with its inspiring message and sincere candor. And Barack needs to show some leadership by getting rid of these pundits and party insiders and, frankly, professional losers who have swallowed up his campaign and wrapped him in a bubble.
Obama needs to stand on his own two feet, with Michelle at his back, and resume being who he actually is, rather than who the Beltway insiders want him to be.
If he does that, he can win. If Barack Obama can't do that, then it doesn't matter whether he wins or not, because the same corrupt, blind, out-of-touch, aristocratic bubble-managers who control Bush and McCain will be running the country for the next four years anyway.
Hello! I clicked "read more" and got a blackish page of stuff.
Moore is wrong about one thing, though-the "military guy" as VP, since he picked Clark for Prez in '04. Whether we like it or not, the American public wants people who sound tough, even if it doesn't necessarily want war.
Jo @ 5:
That's more than I got!
bobbie @ 7:
...you mean "moore"
sorry.
Jo @ 5:
Probably hacked by a Dem Committee
Albatross @ 4:
Wow. Absolutely spot on!! Bravo. Well stated.
Can't see it? This is Google's cache of http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=1036. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 13 Aug 2008 22:42:58 GMT.
Albatross @ 4:
Huh. Obama is "being who he is". Its just got lost in the incredibly successful marketing of the "change" meme. He's shown over and over (post-primary) that he's fully prepared to expose the real deal (under the guise of "moving to the center") on a number of very important issues and simply call it "bringing people together." He's a Clintonian triangulator (not a good thing) who has caved on so many issues its kinda hard to keep track:
FISA
NAFTA
Dealing with Iran
Impeachment
Funding the Iraq occupation
Afghanistan "surge"
Faith-based Federal $$
Off shore drilling
etc. ad nauseum.
The last Obama-related advice I recall from Moore was for his supporters to vote for him in the Pennsylvania primary.
Then Hillary won Pennsylvania by almost 10 points.
If I were Obama I'd pass on whatever advice is on the other side of that link anyway.
L.A. Confidential @ 8:
No, I got it! Just scroll down past the black stuff.
I love you Michael!!!! You are SO right. Now I know why I had to pinch my nose to vote for Kerry. He wasn't real. He lied about watching your movie, dude. People can tell when somthin' ain't right.
If you get a weird screen with error code, try this: scroll down and look for the heading to Moore's webpage, then click on "Must Read". This should get you to the text of the linked article. Worked for me, anyway.
Cool!
I really like this Moore dude :)
Johnny2BadObamasLikeEveryOtherLyingPowerHungryPolitician @ 12:
Look, I for one am getting sick of your pissing and moaning. Who the hell are we supposed to vote for, then, O wise one? Tell me that! I'm not electing the pope or Jesus Christ here, I'm voting for a person who will stop the right wing slaughter of the Supreme Court. Goddammit! Go piss on somebody else's parade.
you can find it here, too:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/22249602/how_the_democrats_ca...
The trouble with Michael Moore is that his political advocacy is too much about Michael Moore. Not just this piece, but every film Moore has made. He insinuates himself into the issue he fights for, whether this is warranted or not. In the end, it's all about Michael Moore.
The sixth step to a McCain presidency, "Denounce Me!", is just bizarre. Like Obama takes time out from his day to worry what Michael Moore is thinking.
Get a life, Mike, you're not on the ticket.
Jo @ 17:
I've had my eye on this one for a while Jo, and I've never seen him actually cop to backing anyone. My guess is Ron Paul...But Johnny doesn't want to actually try and rationalize Paul's campaign against the 14th Amendment.
Moore:
"So Barack, by denouncing me, you can help McCain get elected. Because when you denounce me, it's not really me you're distancing yourself from — it's the millions upon millions of people who feel the same way about things as I do. And many of them are the kind of crazy voters who have no problem voting for a Nader just to prove a point.
Elections have been lost by just 537 votes. I don't want that to happen to you."
Tequila @ 6:
Uh, no. Did it work for Kerry? Moore is exactly right. The dossier on Clark is already waiting to hit the right wing blogs. Please tell me it ain't so.
Andy K Jong Il @ 20:
You are right. He is a coward. There is only one horse in this race - Obama - He wasn't my first choice, that was Dennis K and then John E, but I will support the candidate that won. I can't afford to be bitter and neither can this country.
I am going to say this as plainly as possible:
Someone needs to hand this editorial to Barack Obama as soon as humanly possible.
Do I always agree with Michael Moore? Heck no. Is he right on the money this time around? Heck yes. Barack Obama was a house afire until he was made the official nominee, at which point he immediately began apologizing and posturing in typical Democrat style. We need a Democrat who won't try to suck up to the warmongering voters and instead confidently represent the issues that, as it turns out, Americans agree with Democrats on.
If the U.S. blows this one, that's it. I'm out - as is the rest of the world. Remember Obama's speech in Berlin? They were saying, 'This is your last chance, America. We're going to do you a big favour: Elect Obama, and all is forgiven. But if you don't... may God help you.'
Step 7: Moore opens his mouth.
Abbybwood @ 1:
why not Kerry?
He's skull and bones just like most of the Bush Clan.
Kerry is a Globalist of the left-wing flavor.
Obama's advisors are heavily stacked with CFR and Trilaterals of the Brzezinski model and policy persuasion.
all part of the scam you call elections in the Military Complex states of America.
NEVER underestimate the Democratic Party's uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
mccains haircuts uneven ,one sideburns longer then the other!
Andy K Jong Il @ 20:
I think it's much simpler than that. The Dems send plenty of moles over to the right wing blogs to whine about McCain being too liberal, and how we should all stand up for our principles and vote libertarian. So, it would be foolish to assume Republicans don't send fake leftists to blogs like this one to whine about Obama being too conservative, and how we should all stay home on election day, or vote for the Green party as a protest. I don't know about this guy per se, but my guess is that half the people who are here whining about the Dems being just as bad as the Repubs are really Republican sandbaggers. The party that usually wins the election is the one that has the biggest number of gullible fringe supporters who fall for this, and enable the other side by throwing their votes away on election day.
tyree @ 28:
jesus dont realise what this means?
he he the religous freaks are giveing mccain applaues obama got butcuss from the zellots
"The last Obama-related advice I recall from Moore was for his supporters to vote for him in the Pennsylvania primary.
Then Hillary won Pennsylvania by almost 10 points.
If I were Obama I’d pass on whatever advice is on the other side of that link anyway.
"
What? The advice for Obama voters to vote for Obama was bad advice because Obama didn't win?
WTF are you smoking?
The advice to TRY was bad advice because trying failed?
So by your logic, we should all vote for McCain, because we don't want him to win?
If Bill O'blowhard wants to slap a guy then that guy has got to be all right. No question.
Not to be totally douche-y, but we should remember that Moore pulled a Karl Rove...BEFORE Karl Rove.
Before Rove in 2006 bragged that he had "THE math" and that the GOP would do way better in the midterm elections than they actually did (if memory serves, I believe he said they'd break even in the Senate and gain a few seats in the House), Moore went on his website in 2004, shortly before Election Day to assure his readers that Kerry had the election in the bag. Not quite as memorable as Dewey Beats Truman, but after that, I've learned to take his projections with more than a grain of salt.
I can give 6 easy steps for Democrats can lose:
1. Defend
2. Defend
3. Defend
4. Defend
5. Defend
6. Defend
Face it. Hand wringing about what people think of them has not gotten democrats far in the last 10 years.
Michael Moore's steps for winning:
1. Me!
2. Me!
3. Me!
4. Me!
5. Me!
6. Me!
But enough about Michael Moore.
What do YOU think of Michael Moore?
If there is one thing Dubya has proven is that people respect when you stick to your beliefs, even if they are horrible, misguided, self serving, dangerous and illegal. How else can you explain the 2004 election? Everything he had touched in the prior four years had exploded in a huge shit bomb, but he never wavered, apologized or changed course. Nope, he just dug in his heels, doubled down and cruised to another four years of failure.
So imagine sticking to beliefs that are good and noble. Imagine not trying to make a deal with the group that has no interest in making things better for anyone but themselves. Think of the possibilities when instead of giving the right the chance to prove government can't be trusted and can do no good you instead cut their balls off and stand your ground.
When asked that question about Micheal, say hell yes you accept the endorsement from an American who wants his country to be the best it can be. Do you agree with everything he says? I don't know, I haven't heard everything he has ever said, but most of what I have heard, was pretty patriotic and well intentioned. Better health care (not better insurance), better corporate responsibility and better judgment and performance by our representatives. What is un-American about any of that?
Start by pushing the point that the only thing the republican party can show success at is failure.
-Protecting us? Nope.
-Supporting our troops? Don't think so.
-Emergency response? Not a chance.
-Safe food, drugs, toys, water, air, bridges, airplanes, produce, bank deposits, workplaces, etc, etc......Never.
-Energy? Wow!
-Jobs? Electrical engineers installing cable TV don't count. Epic fail.
-Environment? Not so much.
-
Michael Moore is a genius at making movies. He is also always wrong about politics. Nader in 2000, because, you know, Bush and Gore are both the same, then Kerry in 2004. After Farenheit 9-11 he knew that the Bush presidency was over. Good call, Mike.
The Democrats have already lost this election. They let the media hype them into Obama, the Pet Rock of politics. Each week the O-man drops another point in the polls or falls behind in another swing state. By November he'll be a joke. Two years from now he'll be trivia.
Sean-B @ 22:
Kerry and Clark are not the same. Here's the bottom line. To win this election, the Dems have to swing the moderate vote. PERIOD. Saying they have to get back to their roots and please their 'base' in order to win the election is dreaming in technicolor. Obama has to be REAL, that's true. And his handlers should not try to dress him up as a fake Republican by sending him out duck hunting. He is what he is, and I for one like it. But there's nothing wrong with him picking a VP candidate that appeals more to the midwest than he does.
There are plenty of people who come to blogs like this and claim that if the Dems want to win the election they have to please their 'base' the way the Republicans embraced their fringe nutcase wing in 2004. But despite the outcome in 2004, that strategy would NEVER have worked if the country hadn't been at war. The country has never changed presidents in the middle of a war, and if it wasn't for that factor, the moderate voters would have kicked Bush to the floor for doing that. If the country had been at peace, Roves strategy of splitting the country, and then reaching to the far right to scoop up the wingnuts would never have worked, and Kerry would be in his second term by now. Appealing to a party's extremist fring, instead of moderate, non-partisan voters has only worked as an election strategy a couple of times in history. One of which was for the Nazis in 1933 (sorry, I had to bring it up). The other was Bush in 2004.
So now the critical question is, who is going to swing THIS election, the moderates, or the far left? I leave it to you to judge which group is larger, and has a better chance of swinging the election.
Having said that, picking a VP that appeals to mainstream america is a totally different thing than trying to build a 'fake Republican' candidate, which is what they did to Kerry in 2004. Putting pleather cowboy boots on an urban liberal is just phony, and that's what the public picks up on. The low information voter, who doesn't know enough about the issues to vote on them will always fall back on his or her perceived abilities to spot dishonesty. Fake is dishonest, and putting Kerry in a barn jacket and sending him out to shoot geese was the dumbest thing I've ever seen any election campaign do.
In terms of the 'military guy' question, it was also foolish to think that Kerry's hero credentials would trump his hippy peacenik credentials. In politics, the negative always trumps the positive.
You may reject the premise that the Dems have to appeal to the moderates instead of to their base, but just for the sake of argument, let's assume they have to appeal to the moderates. If that were the case, what things could the Republicans throw at Wesley Clark that would make him less attractive in the minds of moderates? Yes, there's plenty to throw at an Army General that would make him less appealing to the far left, but the far left would object to anybody who's not a pacifist. What could the Repubs throw at Clark that would make him less appealing to moderates?
(This is a serious question, by the way. I'm genuinely curious. What could the Republicans throw at Clark to make him less attractive to the non-partisan moderate voters? The only think I can think of is the same old rotten tomato that they've been throwing at him for years. The tired old syllogism that all generals are Republicans, Clark is a general and therefore a Republican, and if he's running as a Democrat he's a phony who'll pretend to be something he's not just to get elected. That's hitting the old 'dishonesty button' that I was talking about above, and it just might work, but what else is there?)
*reads*
Okay, looks like Michael Moore is giving good advice...
*reads number six*
Oh, I get it. "I need to be relevant again."
For a man who twists his facts and arguments as much as he does in his documentaries, it bewilders me that he is on the Left.
Johnny @ 38:
Obama's people need to go on the offensive, tie McCain to every Republican policy and action failure of the last eight years.
McCain is just another money grubbing Republican weasel politician out for every taxpayer penny they can steal from us.
Even McCain's most holy of holies is fair game, his POW status, his documented and visible history in DC is PTSD to a tee, and makes him totally unfit to be POTUS or even a dog catcher.
Hammer him on this 24/7, ignore the screams and wails of Faux and the other BBQing section of the Republican party (ie the MSM), point out that McNasty is dumb and dangerous, a fatal combination, unfit for office.
Obama playing dirty and hitting McCain over his lame fake war hero status can not affect Obama with the MSM,
they are going to use all the smears that Rove supplies, so no point playing nice.
The best defense is offense, fight this election as if America's future or survival depends on a Democratic POTUS and House saving the day...
IT IS
EMPY @ 37:
As a money making endeavor, the Neocons have been quite successful.
I really wish people would look at the Neocons/Bush regime in a different paradigm. You know, one based on reality.
The Bush regime is not there for YOU. They are not there to protect YOUR freedoms.
The Bush regime, assisted by so-called Democrats, is actually very successful.
After all, they pulled of the crime of the Century in front of you...
they lied about it.... repeatedly....
they stole trillions of dollars....
they invaded two nations based on lies....
they killed and displaced millions....
they subverted the Constitution....
and yet you foolishly think they are unsuccessful???
GMAFB
He still believes the Dems and the Repubs are different? Come on Mike.
Albatross @ 4:
Their is nothing more pathetic or inept than a so-called Democratic "advisor/pundit."
I quit watching cable news shows a couple of years ago, because I couldn't stomach watching single-digit I.Q. republican morons take the democrats to the wood shed time after time, when the dems should have been making THEM look like idiots on the issues!
The Democratic "D.C." insiders and pundits have absolutely NO "FRIGGIN" CLUE on how to conduct a national election.
Hell, their moron leadership in congress is still afraid of the most despised president (mr. 22%) in history. If the repukes had a democratic president with a sub 30% approval rating for 2.5 years, they would piss on his head in public! They sure in hell wouldn't pass one damn thing he wanted!
If republicans can win offering nothing but economic misery to 95% of the country, WHY can't the democrats win with the TRUTH?
Ever talk to a republican politician? They are dumber than a bag of hammers. Mean? Yes. Evil? Definitely. Stupid? Absolutely.
RonPaul @ 44:
of course there's a difference. just not enough to satisfy everybody. if the Democrats had kept the White House in 2000, we would never have gone into Iraq and Gore would have done at least something about the environment.
marie @ 46:
that was never in the cards...cause it wasn't the plan.
wake up.
you live, breathe, believe, in a false illusion.
you believe whatever the media - be it left or right - tells you to believe. You don't think the same interests control both?
Lone Rogue @ 40:
I think that's why the Right despises Moore so much. Think of the staged bank-gun scene in Bowling for Columbine: he massages the facts and makes himself the center of attention. Not unlike Limbaugh, O'Lielly or any of them. The Right hates Moore because he takes their approach while rejecting their ideology.
Despite his massive ego, I like Michael Moore. And I'll give him the benefit of a doubt on No. 6. Obama could be asked to denounce Michael Moore, MoveOn or Jeremiah Wright one more time. Just fill in the blank with some left-wing boogeyman/entity. What ever it is, don't back down. I assume that's what Moore means there.
Of course, Obama has been backing down and triangulating pretty regularly. He's a typical Dem politician. Actually skeptics like me have always been way more annoyed by Obama backers than the pol himself. You keep acting like he's above the slime. He ain't.
Still hard to imagine him losing this election though, what with McCain being such a spectacularly bad candidate. But since 40 percent of this country will never vote for a minority (shut up, Hillary supporters: that same 40 percent would never vote for her, either), I guess I can't count out the sickening possibility that Karl Rove suckers another 5 percent over to McCain's side...
Johnny @ 38:
Bingo.
Tonight was a preview of coming attractions. Just like Rick Warren did, MSM will frame the debate, figuratively and literally, around the Karl Rove/GOP/Evangelical Wingnut talking points and manufactured hot button issues; "Is there such a thing as Evil?" "What should we DO about Evil?" "Morals?" "Abortion?" "Chicken or the Egg?" and on and on.
Then, when it comes to nationally televised events like the one tonight, Obama seems incapable of either winning at that political game or redirecting the discussion to the real issues. Either way, he flubs and fumbles. With a winning smile.
Which explains why he is in a statistical tie with McCain despite all his money and all his supposed mojo and, factoring in the Bradley Effect, might actually be well behind McCain as we speak.
I like the last one denoucing Moore himself.
I never hear McCain denoucning Limbaugh, Hannity, or any of the rest of them.
Weltallica @ 27:
Very funny, Sad but true!
That Moore piece was excellent, John. Thanks for that. Obama should have hired people like Michael.
Pericles @ 29:
Actually, I completely agree with Johnny2. Obama has demonstrated time and time again that, despite his rhetoric, he is not a populist. He is a Chicago crony who is beholden to corporate interests just like every other two-faced politician in Washington. Yes, he is much better than McCain, but you can't just turn your back on his glaring flaws, and pretend they don't exist. If you live in a swing state, then I actually encourage you to vote for Obama, but DON"T lie to yourself. He does not have the audacity to create substantial changes in Washington. He is a corporate-sponsored moderate who only talks like a leftist.
Yet look where Obama was today. Sucking up to the religious fanatics! Doing the dance that conservatives tell him to do. Why didn't he refuse to go and instead insist that McCain go with him to an ACLU rally? What's next, are the conservatives going to demand Obama blow up an abortion clinic to prove he's a real Christian? The sad thing is Obama, being the craven loser that most Democrats are would probably consider it.
JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin @ 50:
Sure you do. He denounced Hagee when he smeared Catholics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwL-8VbaXRY), he denounced Gramm when he said Americans are whiners ect. He denounces wingnuts who will harm his cause all the time.
Michael Moore's Op-Ed was interesting, but I wouldn't hold him up as an expert on winning elections. (And no, I sure as hell wouldn't hold up the DNC as experts on winning elections, either. But just because the standard Democratic party pundits don't have a clue how to win an election, it does not necessarily follow that Michael Moore MUST know. :)
In fact, if Moore took the trouble to analyze his advice he'd realize that all of the things he's saying the Democrats shouldn't do are, in fact, just actions that make the candidate look like a hypocrite.
The sad bottom line is that 99% of the voters don't follow or understand many of the issues, and certainly don't understand most of the government policy. They have a few opinions on a few knee jerk issues, and (above all) the average guy on the street thinks he is a good judge of CHARACTER. The average guy thinks (usually wrongly) that he can tell a liar and a poser from an honest man. You buy your car from the 'honest man' and not the shifty guy who's obviously just telling you what you want to hear. You're in no position to know how good the car is, but it doesn't matter. If the honest guy says it's a good car, you'll take his word for it. You get the 'solid' guy to fix your plumbing, and not the guy with the shifty eyes. You don't know about plumbing, but you know a solid guy when you see one. And you may not understand any of the issues, but you'll pick the solid, honest man to be president over the disingenuous hypocrite who'll do or say anything to get elected.
Most people think they are a good judge of character, and the first thing they look for is PANDERING as a sign that somebody is not of good character. Hence the neurotic obsession by the press to find 'gotcha' moments, where a candidate said one thing in the past, and says another thing now. Hence the asinine pigheadedness of politicians to ever admit they made a mistake, or were wrong about something, or (god forbid) changed their mind about something. The press and the politicians didn't just GET to be that way by chance, they were CONDITIONED to be that way by a public who is constantly looking for it.
Moore thinks he's got something on these issues, but if you look at each of those six points, you'll notice that the one feature they all have in common is that, if done IMPROPERLY they make the candidate LOOK DISINGENUOUS. So, I would argue that Obama can do anything he wants, as long as he does it in a way that doesn't make him look disingenuous.
Take the flag pin flap, for example. His handling of that was a MASTER STROKE! He said he didn't wear one because it's an example of fake patriotism, which was TRUE! Now he's wearing one. How did that happen? Not because he eventually came out one day wearing one and hoped nobody would notice. Not because he admitted his original statement about fake patriotism was precipitous, that he didn't think about it before he said it, and overlooked the fact that plenty of the people who wear pins are REAL patriots, not typical Republican hypocrites (which is what happened). No...they carefully orchestrated some old VFW guy to come up to him at an event, give him a pin, and say "wear this as a favor to me/us." Now he's got the thing on every other day, and it's NOT making the news. The issue has no legs anymore. They handled it well.
Well, they could handle any one of those issues that Moore brings up the same way. This is NOT about specific actions, or specific VP picks, or specific positions. It's about appealing to the American lizard brain. The Republicans have known this for 30 years. It's only the Democrats who still refuse to believe that electing a president has less to do with issues and more to do with evolutionary psychology.
He had some good points until it got to point 6.
Hey Mike, I know you still feel guilty over supporting Nader in 2000 when his candidacy got us into this mess in the first place, but have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that maybe it's not all about you?
Or if you're certain that you are a factor in this election, get some real reverse psychology going and throw all your support behind McCain. That will cause the right wing base who hate you away from McCain and an Obama victory will be assured.
Hey, it makes as much sense as some of your pronouncements.
Is it just me or is there anyone else out there that finds it sickening whenever a Democrat gets on television and praises John McCain like he is the salt of the earth before they lightly bash him.
And I do mean LIGHTLY!
Weltallica @ 27:
Lawd, this isn't the first time Ive heard this.
Its so so so true!
Abbybwood @ 1:
Whats his color have to do with it?
If anything, why chose a loser!!
Michael Moore makes some good points, but he is totally ignoring the fact that all of these elections were stolen through voter fraud. It is going to be worse in November, I have read that the vote flipping will occur in the phone lines, not with each black box. With the FISA act the Bush Regime has total control over the phone lines and the ability to manipulate them to their liking. Millions of votes will be flipped at once as the digital information is transferred from county to county.
It's Me @ 49:
Yes, if and ONLY if the Dems LET those be the hot button issues. Contrary to popular belief the press is NOT in the pocket of the conservatives. (Well, aside from Fox, obviously.) The press is the slave of RATINGS, and hot button issues get ratings. So far, only the Republicans have hammered away at the hot button issues, and all the press is doing is repeating the things that get attention.
If the Dems want to stand a chance, they have to start hammering away at their own hot button issues!
-The Minimum Wage.
-The Confederate Flag.
-English as the official language of the U.S.
-Immigration.
-Nuclear power.
-The Estate Tax.
These are all issues that people love to have an opinion about, continue to talk about when the TV is off, and bring in landslides of ratings when it's on. They also happen to be wedge and magnet ideas that unite Democrats and divide Republicans for a change.
If the Democrats don't have the brains to use their own weapons of mass distraction, they don't deserve to win. It's that simple.
Very depressing....
The republicans absolutely hate Michael Moore, or anyone else that offers factual information that they can't spin off. That's why after the election is all over, Barack should find a cabinet position for Michael. In all seriousness, we need drastic changes in this country and Michael would definitely be helpful in doing his part to see that's accomplished in whatever position he would have. I have no doubt that he would do a great job and I would sure take great pleasure in knowing what it would do to the republicans.
Hmmm...let me get this straight. The Democrats consistently give up elections. They don't stand up for their own (alleged) ideals. Anyone who does gets thrown under the bus.
But voting for a party or person who stands for what they believe in is a "crazy voter"?
Dude, Where's Your Logic?
This wanker sold out the Greens years ago and for what? The same old tired routine. Then he's surprised? Jeez, he should go back and read his own books.
I'll vote for Cynthia McKinney before I ever go back to one of the corporate parties. I want my vote to count for what I believe in.
The Pissing Choir sings! From comment one to sixty-three (any thereafter) and Michael Moore!
Why is every a**hole with an opinion a Democrat? And don't think because you call yourself "Progressive" that I'm leaving you out of this. No, you're even worse.
Quit telling Barack Obama what to do! Stop whining about what YOU didn't get, or what YOU don't like about this position or that position. Wahwahwah. All the time and energy you waste crying about how bad the other liberals are because they don't agree 100% with you! Shut the F up!
We - Americans - need a leader. An imperfect leader will do right now 'cause Jesus aint coming back and I don't think even he can hold all the positions the YOU's want, ah expect him to. Right now Obama is that leader who needs our help getting elected. Complaining about whatever YOU think Obama is doing wrong IS NOT HELPING. It makes him sound incapable of getting it right, it makes him appear weak in the decision making process. Bitching only begets bitching. Why do YOU think republican pundits spend so much time giving advice to democrats?
No matter who gets elected, YOU aint getting everything YOU want, live with it! With Obama, WE get some things WE need, we can all live with that.
It is time the YOU's, ME's and WE's hit McCain, lets give him advice, give him a piece of OUR mind.
Democrats have been LOSING elections for decades now, playing the convential wisdom. If they want to start being winners, it's time we start standing up for their own. And what we believe in.
Michael Moore is a 1000x more factual than Rush Limbaugh. Have you ever heard a conservative disown Rush Limbaugh?
If we lose this presidential election because we lack the balls to fight for our own, and our own beliefs, we and the country deserve exactly what we get:
Another four years of corrupt, incompetent, immoral conservative idealogy plotting our nation's course and stacking our SCOTUS.
God help us if the Democratic party begins taking Michael Moore seriously.
EarthAbides @ 60:
Yes, the conservative voter fraud has been institutionalized now. It's become part of the system. Because of complacency on all our own parts.
We weren't willing to fight to preserve our own vote. We weren't willing to take it all the way. Conservatives were. They were willing to burn it all down to protect their fraud. We weren't willing to go all the way to protect the rule of law and the sanctity of our vote.
So now we have to fight that much harder to win+, against the voter fraud of conservatives.
We get the country we deserve.
Stuart Bedasso @ 64:
Moore supported the Greens in 2000, and what did he accomplish? Reform of the Democratic party "sellouts?" No. Eight years of George Bush, and a Democratic party that's chasing him and the Overton Window to the right, largely because winning the White House gives you exclusive use of the Bully Pulpit. Moore had the brains to pull his head out of his ass and stop being a Republican enabler. Assuming you're not a Republican shill, you'd be well advised to do the same.
I'm sorry, but the Democrats lose because the people they need to support them are too busy selfishly whining about not getting their version of perfection. The Democrats lose because "liberals" who are diverse in their feelings on different issues take issue with the Democratic party feeling different than them. That's why the Democratic moves to the centre. Their base is too volatile on supporting them so they have to find someone else who will. Voting for president isn't about shaping the country in the exact way you want it. It's about picking the candidate who will best represent your values.
I just watched this what ever you call it on FOX sister station CNN and Michel is SO right Obama walked into a REPUBLICAN CORPORATE CONTROLED MEDIA trap and was EATON alive by the right wing.
Taonzen @ 65:
totally agree... this election isn't about left vs right... or liberals vs conservatives... or even dems vs repugs... it's about hypocritical, narcissistic sociopaths vs bleeding hearts... it's about greedy disingenuous freaks who will rape the country's future to line their pockets whilst selling its sovereignty bit by bit to plutocracies across the globe... and the "real" reason the rethugs have been so successful is that in contrast to the near impossible task of herding cats that dems have to deal with, the rethugs instantly fall into lockstep unison like good little mindless brownshirted drones following instructions... each time one of their ilk manages to invent a smear, all the rest of the automatons instantly react in unison like doing the wave at a sports arena... perhaps it's just long past the time to argue subtle differences that are obviously too oblique for the neocon mind and to simply start sounding with one united voice... just like they do... you all have plenty of time to bicker about minutiae after you've won the election... until then, do try to learn to wear your "bleeding hearts" proudly in the knowledge that you do care about more than "what's in it for me"... and that it's not dirty to care about other people's children's futures as much as you care for your own... and that you can go on the offensive while still staying on the high road... for them, this IS just another war... and they have proven they will do whatever it takes to win... if the dems are not willing to be tough enough to fight side by side and harder for freedom and democracy than they are, then perhaps you're just not ready for it... which would really break my heart even more than when gore lost to that chimp who thinks he can decide like a man...
Eren @ 36:
I don't think Michael Moore's first five steps were quite so self-absorbed, but I do agree that the last one "denounce me!" was ridiculous. Is he really suggesting Kerry's refusal to admit watching a Moore film was one of the reasons he lost? Give me a break.
Meat @ 24:
Hey meat. I feel what you're saying. I actually left 4 years ago, in great part because I couldn't deal with American society anymore. When I say American society I actually mean the "people" in general. What I couldn't stand about day-to-day life was talking to delusional people. The crazy people were not just the bushies, who were totally nutz, but even the anti-bushies who had live in a delusional state to protect themselves from reality. Basically, I felt and still feel like a conversation with most of my American friends never addresses any real points. Talking to people is partaking to a crazy dance around an imaginary line. I had actually made the decision to leave in 2000, it took me 4 years to finish my degree and leave, but that's when the imaginary line moved way too far from reality.
Actually getting up and leaving was hard. When you're comfortable (I mean you got food, water and shelter) it's hard to pick-up, leave and risk the comfort. Sometimes I managed to convince myself that maybe I was crazy and the people were not so delusional. After-all, Bush was never "elected", he just "got-in". But still, close to 50% of the people voted for a freak not once, but twice. And the second time after the wort presidency in US history.
Fact is even in a small d democracy, the government is in fact a reflection of the people. Maybe a distorted reflection but a reflection none-the-less. Now, I still got family up there and very good friends, and I know quite a few people who were as frustrated as I was, but when it comes down to it: even if these "bad people" are not so bad, but are just weak or stupid or naive, the EVIL that is US government today is still a reflection of the people's weakness, stupidity and naivety. Never forget the old maxima: "People elect the government they deserve".
From the chatter I hear from friends back in the US and in the Internet, I have a feeling that it will be a long time until the American people get to DESERVE something good. Anywho, I am an atheist but I still have some fundamental faiths: I believe eventually the US will deserve something good, but don't hold your breath.
My advice to you is: If you set yourself a deadline to leave, then start planning and leave. Otherwise you will find an excuse to stay and you'll stay. But in order to stay you have to become delusional yourself. If you're just blowing off steam, my advice is to find another way to do that because pretending you'll leave will not help. Channel your anger into something else, me Judo and Thai boxing :)
In any case good luck.
but quite honestly I have not intention of going back at least for a good number of years.
Eren @ 36:
exactly what I thought after reading it.....what an egotistical jerk
loved his last one - like that is what America is waiting for, a presidential candidate to stand up and say, "I love Michael Moore!"
run as far away from this Hollywood jerk as you can
Michael speaks the truth. For those who believe the Dems are a 100% sure thing, ponder this. Those idiotic, spineless Dems somehow managed to lose TWICE to Chimpy. What does it say about your political party when you can't find someone to beat that brain-dead pile of shit???
dj @ 75:
Uh, okay. Not sure what the hell you're trying to say, but tell us, which of those six steps do you disagree with? To me, Moore is right on the money.
Geraldo @ 25:
As well as you did, and nothing was there!
Eren @ 36:
Illiteracy knows no bounds.
Taonzen @ 65:
Thanks for the pointless rambling. Now STFU!
FISA
NAFTA
Dealing with Iran
Impeachment
Funding the Iraq occupation
Afghanistan “surge”
Faith-based Federal $$
Off shore drilling
"Good" list Albatross, and I'm not one to shoot you, the _messenger_, for it.
We still have to hold our noses and get out the vote for the guy as the lesser of two evils if only for the sake of the supreme court. For now, I say let him bask in the light of his celebrity. When he doesn't deliver on policy and all the "change" talk is exposed as talk maybe the shock of the betrayal will finally light a fire under the public for real political action.
Yeah, it's me, me, me, but, Moore's also right. Obama's doing exactly what Moore described. His hard right turn since becoming the presumptive nominee has turned me off completely. FISA. Faith-Based Initiative. Obama had my vote, but has thrown it away. He's running out of time to earn it back.
I disagree with the guy above who says, "We --Americans - need a leader". No, we don't. Leaders are what we have had. Leaders are for regimes. Leaders are for subjects. We need a principled servant. Servants are for free democracies. Servants are for citizens. I've had all the leaders I can stomach.
Pericles @ 39:
You spent a lot of time refuting what I did not say. Obama shouldn't have to appeal to moderates with his VP pick. It's something that's been hammered over and over again on progressive blogs, and it's part of Moore's argument as well. Obama should appeal to moderates on the things that matter to everybody: the cost of health care, jobs, improving our schools, keeping us safe. Don't hem and haw on the "wedge" issues that are part of the platform.
Back to my beef with Clark. You say that the negatives always trump the positives. You may remember Clark questioning McCain's service as a qualification for President all of two months ago. How does middle America see that? If you have to take figuratively take someone's hand and say, "This is what Clark meant," then Clark didn't convey his thoughts good enough. For God's sake, what else will he say?
Then his whole life, which we do not know, will be put under the right wing microscope. His tour in Vietnam. His flirting with Republicanism. Did he have any role in the Waco tragedy? There's three or four things regarding Bosnia that a short trip to Wikipedia including that "Jane Fonda on an anti-aircraft gun" picture of Clark and Mladic that I'm sure would be everywhere again.
There's no time to respond to controversy about a VP before the election. I totally am against Obama's camp waiting this long to announce the choice, convention be damned. Moore's fears could very come true. Here's a left wing attack on Clark from several years ago to get you started.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm
Yes, the Democrats even lose elections when they win. Doesn't make sense, does it. Unless they want to lose. When the Repugs are in charge the Dems get to wail and piss and moan about health care or whatever, but no progress is ever made. Because Repugs and Dems are owned by the same interests, and have the same goals. As long as Repugs are in charge, Dems can continue to pretend to support progressive issues, content to keep the status quo.
Basically, he's right. But he interjected a bit too much about himself in the essay, which weakened it and distracted from it's very reasonable points.
I notice how many of us have taken the languahe of the right wing and more or less adopted it here. Obama has to appeal to "moderates."
In my mind there is nothing moderate about selling off more land and rights to oil companies when they are only now drilling on something like 19% of the land we've sold to them. Nothing moderate about continuing down the same path with regards to private health care insurance. Nothing moderate at all in continuing the same hawkish stance with regard to the middle east and Israel. Nothing moderate whatsoever in supprting FISA.
Those are not "moderate" positions at all. They reflect an increasingly militarized and fascism enabling mind set.
In many ways Michael Moore is absolutely right. The country is desparate for someone who will not apologize for their progressive stance on issues and who will not waver in the face of more Republican attacks but will strike back, with the truth, and strike back hard.
Thats the sort of candidate who will energize voters.
Michael Moore was dead-on with his suggestions. It's also mocking Obama's hard-right turn, and showing up to the repugs ready for a gun battle with a spork.
And as for suggesting Obama being forced to denounce Moore, that's a hypothetical in which he could've used any liberal name, but why drag them into it? That's exactly the kind of tactic the repubics use, especially using quotes out of context in gotcha questions.
If you want to talk about pundits who insert themselves into their arguments there are none better than wee-willy krystol(nacht) and georgie will.
For all the imperfections Moore encases according to some, this man has made some fairly courageous films directly attacking and opposing the criminals in DC. To me Moore is an idealist who still believes Obama and McSame are two different people...well they arent. And in this, Moore continues to damage our country by assuming there is a difference between Dems and Repukes...well there isnt. The sooner, we the people, acknowledge this...the sooner things can begin changing instead of waiting and waiting and waiting for the next election.
I can only hope Moore's next movie takes on the similarities in the dem crooks and repuke crooks and awakens more of the people of this country to take this ENTIRE government DOWN as is our Constitutional RIGHT!
Beautifully stated.
Listen, blaming anyone other than Gore for 2000 is insane. YES, that election was crooked--but he stopped fighting! YES, he was the better candidate, but he ran a campaign that was so by-the-book (the LOSING book) that he appeared wooden and inauthentic. It wasn't an accident that once he got out of DC that he had a much better rapport with a wider audience--the "win the center" Democratic strategy pushes candidates into a losing position. If McCain is our president, it won't be because he won the election (as nobody is really excited about the guy). And it won't be because a comparatively small percentage of people on the left vote for a 3rd, 4th, or 18th party candidate. It'll be because Obama lost it--by playing the game on the other guy's terms, and losing the people who will just stay at home otherwise.
skylab @ 86:
"Moderate" has always been newspeak for "conservative."
Funny how the moderate agenda always seems to coincide with the GOP's.
moore is right and what makes most of these points valid is that the GOP has the biggest soapbox in the country and can say anything it wants to 60MIL people 24/7 with their talk radio monopoly. most of the rest of the GOP MSM can't do that so it relies on talk radio to make their hypocrisy and double standards acceptable.
it wouldn't happen if progressives realized that the GOP's power is centered at your talk radio station. they represent the GOP. they sell the lies and swiftboating and framing without the GOP having to take responsibility.
it really doesn't matter what Obama does or who he chooses as VP because the fact that limbaugh and his wannabes have an average of ten of the biggest soapboxes in every state they have near complete control to create our political reality. common sense and truth have a tough road.
when progressives start picketing and boycotting their local talk radio stations on a regular basis americans and the media will begin to see how we got into this bush disaster.
and obama should recognize limbaugh as the the king of the GOP- the guy who best represents their values and principles.
IndridCold @ 74:
A lot of what you said resonates with me personally. The 2000 election should never have been a 'close call' in the first place, but at least Americans could claim that Bush was appointed - not elected. Still, how do we rationalize the 2004 election? What can we say now about McCain and Obama being neck-and-neck in the polls when McCain should have been laughed out of the primaries for the hollow, desperate, confused and unintelligible old man he truly is?
This is an election more important then the United States. The entire world is gazing at the U.S. with a keen interest, hoping and praying that Americans will have the good sense to elect the leader they need for the first time in almost a decade. Lives inside and outside of the U.S. depend on this, as does the economy of the West (and probably the world). Still, citizens of the world aren't holding their breath; they expect Americans to by suckered in by the paranoia and bravado associated with that damned military-industrial complex that seems to drive American society. And really, how can you blame the rest of the globe for hating and rejecting the anti-intellectual, tough-guy posturing that dominates American culture?
It is sad, though, because there is so much good inside of the United States. The entire Spider-Man saying about power and responsibility applies here: the U.S. could be an unstoppable, positive and morally righteous force in the world, and it should be, because it has the resources to do so. Instead, the U.S. feels as though it has aged prematurely, and it is now an ageing and confused militaristic old man who, in his 'unique' eccentricities, is more of a threat to stability and peace than it is someone worth applauding. In that light, McCain is the candidate who will seal the deal - making sure that the world will come to hold America in even more contempt than they do already. And with the policies McCain would introduce, the decay of the American ideal would only continue, until you are realistically looking at the end of your country altogether. After all, what happens once you enter full-blown recession, without a military to protect you from all of those who have waited for this opportunity for so, so long?
Obama is far from perfect, but he nonetheless represents left-wing ideals, even if those ideals are a little closer to centre than some would appreciate. Well, boo-hoo. Obama never claimed to be a liberal's wet dream - this was a slogan that bloggers went ahead and pinned on him without his say-so. The idea that he's a 'turncoat' speaks to the arrogance and egocentric nature of many Americans. He's always been about bridging gaps and bringing left-wing and right-wing Americans together to work on new, better solutions to problems the U.S. faces. It's what you need. You might not like that you don't agree with the man entirely, but suck it up and fill out the ballet appropriately. It's because Americans are so wishy-washy, though, that Obama feels the need to suck up more and more to right-wing Americans. And so long as this continues, the greater his odds of more or less blowing the election for himself entirely. Obama needs to show more grit, yes, but he also needs for his supporters to be out there, showing their unwavering supper for progressive ideals too.
Ha! By "supper," I meant of course 'support.'
I blame hunger.
Meat @ 92:
Damn I screwed up the quoteblock.
AAARRGGHH!! I love this guy but of course he had to make it about himself at the end..... "Denounce Me" and you lose the election. Doh!
Let's not forget that Republicans are REALLY GOOD at stealing elections.
Republicans have kept winning by running right. Democrats keep losing by running right. Maybe because the republicans aren't ashamed to voice their ideals loud and clear, no matter how misguided? If you're gonna vote for a republican, why not vote for a real republican?
Michael Moore is right on, and the 2000 election was lost by Gore, not sabotaged by Nader. The Gore of 2000 was not the Gore of today. Go back and read what he had to say about Iraq. And we know how his would-be VP, Leiberman feels and felt about Iraq. I really questions the assertions that we would not have gone to war with Iraq if Gore had won as well, whether or not 9/11 had occurred. The neocons were deeply entrenched in both parties back in 2000.
I'm still voting for Obama, despite my disappointment in some of his stances since winning the primary. But he is running the wrong way right now, and it is costing him. No would-be Democratic leader of this secular country should allow themselves to be put on TV and have confess before a Christian audience that he believes that Jesus Christ is his one and only personal savior in order to be elected, even if he really believes that Jesus Christ is his one and only personal savior. No republican leader should do so either, but I guess that is asking too much of them. Obama should have never gone before the evangelicals. He should have just added another debate to the schedule. No one would have watched last night had John McCain been the only one there. Even though Obama had some good, thoughtful answers, the true object of that entire evening was to have both candidate roll over on their backs and kowtow to the fundys. Belly up is a position for a zeta dog, not for the next president.
WOW. Who's side are you on Michael. How about this. How the Republicans will BLOW it this year. Democrats are NOT Perfect. I'm just sayin.
No, I'm sorry. Moore backed Nader in 2000. Nader siphoned off just enough votes to cost Gore Florida and possibly Arkansas and Tennessee. So why would ANYONE in the Democratic party listen to someone who helped lead us to eight years of Bush????
I think Moore's advice is decent enough. All he's saying is that Obama has to stop rolling over on every important issue if he wants to retain the votes of the left. It's not a stretch to say that the idealists of the left have been dismayed by Obama's recent behavior. And for all of you who bash Moore, I wonder how many other filmmakers you know who've brought the debate over socialized medicine into the public limelight? Whatever your distaste for him may stem from, it should at least be apparent to anyone that he's raised the public consciousness on important issues, and that's no small feat.
Anyway, it's clear that Obama is going to be a democrat in the vein of both Hillary and Bill Clinton: soft and gooey liberal on the outside, hardcore right-of-center, pro-business, anti-poor, sell-out schmuck on the inside. Obama isn't a real liberal in any sense of the word, and his behavior of late proves it. He'll step on heads to get what he wants just like the republican candidates. I'll be voting for someone outside of the major parties, thank you.
And for those of you who like to attack people who espouse this point of view, screw off. You vote your conscience, and I'll vote mine.
Okay, I would just like to point out one thing that Mike got wrong: Ohio is no longer a red state. It is blue. The Governor is a Democrat. As a former Ohioan, I am proud to say that my home-state is now a former red state. So, please, even if it doesn't last long, please let me hang on to it being blue for the first time since Kucinich's title of governor was stolen from him. Thanks.
Oops. Kucinich was a Mayor, not Governor. Sorry, I seem to get those terms mixed up sometimes. He was the Mayor, not Governor, of Cleveland.
Login or Register to post comments.