Apparently, plenty of people at Huffington Post believe it’s okay to pander to voters by going against what you supposedly stand for.  This is their latest excuse for backing Obama, who as far as I can tell, is not as progressive as HuffPost wants so badly to believe.

Jonathan Leigh Solomon says it’s okay to sell out sometimes.  Especially by signing away Americans’ rights and letting corporations off the hook, as with the FISA bill.  Yeah, really progressive and just what Americans need, more corporate amnesty.

Democrats have had plenty of opportunities to make changes in this country and they have not done anything differently, made no social progress.  The Democrat Congress still has our troops in Iraq after we elected them for the sole purpose of getting out.  Democrat heroes like Bill Clinton had the US in armed conflicts every 1 1/2 years. They do not care about social problems or the common American, only about corporations.

On the topic of amnesty:  Notice how illlegal immigrant workers, who pay taxes and just want to survive, still have no legal standing or recourse in this country for fear of granting “amnesty,” but corporations get it with little or no debate on the matter.  Even from so-called progressive politicians like Obama.

Obama is not progressive, he’s a panderer because his platform is not strong, original, or different enough from John McCain’s.  He won’t give us universal healthcare or education, he won’t pull troops out of Iraq, he has already shown how he feels about corporate crime.

Ralph Nader won’t sell you out for votes.  If you want a real progressive candidate who stands for American people and not for corporate criminals, vote for Ralph Nader this November.

I’m referring to the Yahoo! News headline about the cyclone in Myanmar/Burma:

“Cyclone kills at least 351 in Myanmar, state-run TV reports”

Have you ever noticed that no headlines or articles every identify “corporate-run” or “corporate-owned” media outlets?  While it is important to reference a source of information, this emphasis on “state-run TV” serves another purpose.  The emphasis on “state-run TV” serves to breed mistrust in government-run ventures, thus fostering a sort of anti-communism.  Headlines with death toll figures in American crises give the figures without immediate attribution of who’s reporting the data.  And also, instead of giving the name of the state’s TV station, they simply identify it as “state-run TV.”

The logical leap is to assume that state-run hospitals, schools, and other such institutions are untrustworthy, vulnerable to corruption, and should be run with as little state intervention as possible.

By not identifying “corporate-owned TV” in headlines and articles, it distracts the audience from who actually dictates what we see on TV news. We think it’s good ol’ Dan Rather giving us our news, instead of the faceless corporations that own CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, and all the rest.

Corporations will do whatever it takes to make a buck, or to better position themselves to make a buck.

Whenever they donate money or sponsor a museum or your softball team, remember that they are really making an investment that they hope will bring a profitable return.

Take those handouts, but never be too cozy not to bite that hand when it suppresses your Constitutional rights, which is what  Comcast basically did by stacking a town hall meeting with the FCC.

If Comcast gets its way, the internet as we know it will disappear.