Comments on: No, Mr. Ellsberg, The Answer is Not Obama

By: Sanath

Sanath — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:49:36 +0000

Not sure you get this… Romney is a liar. A thief. He should reasele his tax returns, and he should stop trying to change the subject. He’s a disgrace. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

By: Lisa Massasciuccoli

Lisa Massasciuccoli — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 02:30:04 +0000

Please contact Marcelle Cendrars at aptosnews@gmail.com at your earliest convenience, Abby. We have a new model for action for your kind consideration. Sincerely, L.M.

By: cyril penn

cyril penn — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 02:02:30 +0000

I hear you and I’m a fan of this blog – however, I will admit I’m still stuck on the lesser of two evils problem – IN many ways there’s no difference between the two, but in many ways there still IS – I remember all too well what happened under Bush – you are right, though – under Romney it will get way worse before it gets better. Either way, people need to wake up!

By: FrustratedHypocrite

FrustratedHypocrite — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:34:59 +0000

I wonder how Ellsberg is able to see a distinction in voting for Obama over Romney. They’re the same choice… frustratedhypocrite.com/?p=709

By: Vivek Jain

Vivek Jain — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 05:39:03 +0000

“So when Mr. Ellsberg could have used his influence to publicly support the third-party candidate that he’s voting for, he instead published an item that merely continues to feed into the establishment’s two-party system for continued war, continued unlawful detentions, and continued criminal conduct.”

Well said, Oskar.

Ellsberg’s an interesting guy. In his documentary, The Most Dangerous Man in America, he recalls how as a passenger in a car accident caused by his father (who fell asleep at the wheel), in which he lost his mother and sister, he realized that even the people you love and respect can make mistakes.

I consider his lapse in judgment here an aberration. It doesn’t diminish the good he’s done. Though his proposal is puzzling, isn’t it? One of the most passionate and courageous and principled defenders of Bradley Manning, actually asking people not to vote third party in swing states but instead for the guy who’s responsible for imprisoning and torturing Manning. It doesn’t make sense.

He’s also one of the plaintiffs in the NDAA suit, along with Chris Hedges (who very much disagrees with Ellsberg–look up the Hedges interview on the Real News Network titled “Pick your poison”)

How meaningful is the ritual of casting ballots for the presidential election? When have votes for a candidate had any influence on policy?

Glenn Greenwald, in a piece called “The Impotence of the Loyal Partisan Voter”, provides another reason for withholding support from Obama:
“if you were a Democratic Party official, wouldn’t you also ignore — and, when desirable, step on — the people who you know will support you no matter what you do to them? That’s what a rational, calculating, self-interested, unprincipled Democratic politician should do: accommodate those factions which need accommodating (because their support is in question), while ignoring or scorning the ones whose support is not in question, either because they will never vote for them (the hard-core right) or will dutifully canvass, raise money, and vote for them no matter what (the Democratic base). Anyone who pledges unconditional, absolute fealty to a politician — especially 18 months before an election — is guaranteeing their own irrelevance.
“It was often said that Bush/Cheney used fear as their principal political weapon — and they did — but that’s true of the Democratic Party as well. When it comes to their base, Democratic leaders know they will command undying, unbreakable support no matter how many times they kick their base, because of the fear that has been instilled in the base — not fear of Terrorists or Immigrants (that’s the GOP’s tactic), but fear of Sarah Palin, the Kochs and the Tea Party.”