Corn for Cobb
Former presidential candidate David Cobb is saying that a vote of Obama and Clinton is essentially a vote for the same candidate — neither would bring true change to Washington. As I recall, the same argument was made in Bush V. Gore, by Ralph Nader, and where did that get us?
But what do you think? Are Obama and Hillary cut from the same political cloth? Is a vote for a third party the answer? Or are Cobb's blinders on, given that the BIG issue for him and fellow Greens is corporate power?
Comments
David is sort of correct in that corporate power is a big issue, and neither Obama or Clinton are likely to change much of anything in that regard, but that is not the only issue of importance. Both those candidate are far far far (that is far cubed) better than the current evil empire, A third party candidate that would allow a disaster like last time gives me cold chills.
Posted by: Hayduke | January 10, 2008 05:38 PM
The extent of corporate power, and related issues such as corporate personhood, is an issue and a debate that needs to be had in this country, but I agree that its use as a litmus test is questionable.
Posted by: James Faulk | January 10, 2008 08:03 PM
I watched the primaries in France, and you wouldn't believe the interest stirred up around these candidates, and with Islam, my Bangladesh friend too. Believe me, it does make a difference who is running. Everyone here in Europe is certain about Hillary, and very receptive to Obama. Hell, even ultra-conservative George Will concedes Obama is the Fred Astaire of politics. I try to tell everyone that the Dems ticket is sealed no matter who is on top ... Hillary/Obama 08 or Obama/Hillary 08. Either way, it's a win-win. But those folks can't vote, and it's still early. Feb. 5 is the real day, when Cali and New York and some 20 other states vote.
Posted by: James Tressler | January 11, 2008 10:43 AM
Cobb and other Green Party members starting attacking Democrats immediately after the November 2007 election was over. The local target of choice has been Rep. Mike Thompson, who voted against the war and has stated he would vote "yes" for impeachment if it could (it can't) get to the floor of the House. You've got the Greens right, James.
Edwards is the most change-likely choice for both the Democrats and the country, but his support may move to Obama. Many Democrats will only support Hillary after she gets the nomination, but not before.
If she does not get the nomination, I can't see her taking second place. Edwards or Richardson are more likely.
Posted by: Educated Democrat | January 12, 2008 08:09 AM
By the way, I assume Rich has passed on to you my complaints about the lack of blog traffic from the new T-S blogs. They have picked up some. Thanks to all. If you come to a blog for a week or two and nothing changes you tend to drop it from your surfing. Things are looking up.
Posted by: Hayduke | January 12, 2008 06:39 PM
I think the holidays had a lot to do with the lack of entries. But I agree — there's nothing worse than a dead blog.
Posted by: James Faulk | January 12, 2008 07:01 PM
It's too bad the list of blogs on the main TS Blogs page doesn't rotate and put the most recently updated blog on top. Any way to change that?
Posted by: Heraldo | January 13, 2008 10:34 AM
James-You should enlist the other bloggers to push your medium. I thought your traffic would be larger.
Posted by: Richard Marks | January 15, 2008 08:28 PM