8/8/08

Remember how a certain "progressive" Democratic group told its members it couldn't back their choice for President because their choice was less electable than John Edwards?  Article after article was posted on that certain "progressive" Democratic group's website saying that it's members had to forget their dreams of a Kucinich presidency because John Edwards was more electable.  True progressives told that group, "Bull."  The group didn't listen. 

The Creative Youth News Team called for Edwards to withdraw from the race in 2006, when it became clear that he had betrayed both the voters and his close friend Dennis Kucinich by trying to rig the debates and primaries.  After Edwards was caught, in his corrupt betrayal, live on camera, he claimed that what viewers eyes and ears told them was a lie and that what they heard was not what he meant.  Leaders at the certain "progressive" Democratic group bought the lie and continued backing John Edwards.

The John-Reille betrayal of Elizabeth was known and obvious in 2007, but while John's close associates didn't believe his faithfulness back then, a certain "progressive" Democratic group told members to ignore the facts as John Edwards was more electable than the members' favorite, Dennis Kucinich.  

How did losing his own state in 2004 make John Edwards electable?  Of course, when John Edwards, who had all the advantages the media could give him (including a news blackout on really bad but true stories concerning him), found himself being defeated soundly in every last state in 2008, he cut his losses by quitting.  The failure of pseudo-progressive leaders to rally around Dennis Kucinich allowed the Edwards debate-exclusion plan to take effect and tricked the public into thinking Kucinich was no longer in the race, which resulted in the public falsely believing that Kucinich was out of the race before the first primary.  Had the pseudo-progressives been real progressives, they would have fought for equal time for Kucinich and would have changed the face of the race.

In 2007, that certain "progressive" Democratic group told its members that Barack Obama was evil and that they had to back Edwards.  Now that same "progressive" group is pushing Barack Obama as if he is God's gift to humanity.  This is in spite of the fact that Barack Obama has an ultra-conservative pro-war, anti-civil-liberty record that comparatively makes Hillary Clinton look like a flaming leftist peacenick and civil libertarian.

Just as Reille Hunter didn't exist for that certain "progressive" Democratic group, the 16 guilty counts against Obama's top bundler, former boss and close friend Tony Rezko aren't supposed to exist, either.  Tell that to the Republicans who have already been working on the commercials designed to make Obama look like an evil swindler.  The Republicans don't even have to get to the close ties between Obama and food-for-oil swindler Nadhmi Auchi, another convicted financier of Obama's. 

That certain "progressive" Democratic group wants Americans to support Obama's plans to drill for oil off California's coast, his plans to endanger the lives of people and children in 38 states via the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository and his work to make it easier for nuclear companies to dump their nuclear waste in the backyards of unsuspecting innocent citizens.  Real progressives are also supposed to be fine with bombing Pakistan and nuking Iran.

Never since the 19th century, have the Democrats ever considered running a candidate as regressive and pro-corporate as Barack Obama.   The Creative Youth News Team has checked the records and backgrounds of prior Democratic candidates and suggests that voters do likewise before committing their votes.  Kerry actually had a relatively liberal voting record in 2004.  He had some bad votes, but he was one of the more liberal Senators.  Gore had become a liberal after his son's accident in the 80s. 

The 2000 and 2004 election results have been used to put fear into liberals and to get them to settle for someone as conservative as John McCain on most positions.  Here's the real question.  Who would govern further to the right?  Obama always governs to the right of his words.   His campaign speeches are always more liberal than his actions once in office.  To govern to the right of war with Pakistan and Iran and to the right of drilling off California's coast is pretty far right.  McCain has been accused of trying to compromise with liberals.  McCain has shown that he will be pressured by a President.  What would he do if there were no President to threaten him?  Based on their past statements and records, it seems likely or even probable that Obama could govern to the right of McCain.  Will the difference between voters who jump to an independent and those who vote for Obama or McCain be a difference in knowledge and education?  Will progressives follow a certain "progressive" Democratic group over a cliff or will they unite behind an actual progressive?

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is not running as a spoiler.  She became a popular hero when she documented election irregularities and crimes, dared to ask questions about 9/11, became a leader of the opposition to the PATRIOT Act  and the war, and filed Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney and Condoleezza Rice.  As Democrats across America watched attempts to keep down Kucinich, they told McKinney they wanted a way out.  She listened.  McKinney's run gives the Democrats a second chance.  She is currently the best chance of independents for an independent President.

Ralph Nader is running as the Peace and Freedom candidate. He does appear to support all the right values.  Nader has lost every general election race he's entered.  He has had a crushing defeat every time.  If he wants a victory, his best chance would be to move over and help unite the independent groups around a single candidate.  Most voters seem willing to see an independent win, but the number of independent candidates will make it significantly less likely that an independent will win in 2008.

The Democratic nomination isn't locked in yet. Will the Democrats say "no" to a nightmarish slew of commercials about freezing tenants and a millionaire's plush home by nominating someone who is not the presumptive nominee?  Have the pseudo-progressives learned anything from the partial confession of John Edwards?  On November 4, 2008, will Howard Dean wish the delegates to the Democratic National Convention had read the CYNT articles?

Copyright ©2008 by the Creative Youth News Team.  All rights reserved.

Home