With the recent failure of the Democratic party to use it's power to stop the war, It's obvious that both parties are being played. What's not obvious is who we should vote for. I was not surprised that the Democrats caved because I know the nature of Democrats. They were trying to please everyone. But more importantly, we should see them for what they are, tools.

The real divide is not political, it's economic. Political parties are only used when economic agendas fail. The economic divide is (and always has been) between rich and poor. The middle class attempts to bridge the gap, but can swing either way. Since our political system favors only two parties, the "Status Quo" party and the claim to be "Opposition" party, the middle class is forced to pick a side.

The Upper class, will use any an every party to push their agenda. When they want to push an unpopular agenda, they will use the party in power if they think they can force it through, or use the opposition party if they feel that populism is getting an upper hand. They will use the Democratic brand if they want to appeal to the sensitive side of America. They will used the Republican brand if they want to appeal to the disciplined side of America. It's my belief that they wanted to appeal to our disciplined side to get us willing to invade. Once we were stuck in Iraq, they wanted the Democrats in power long enough to get the Amnesty bill passed for cheap labor. They knew they could use that same appeal to sensitivity to keep the war funded in the guise of "funding the troops".

The major parties have no vision and will always let you down. However the power brokers will use whatever party they want to push their agendas. The only way you can speak to the upper class is through their source of power, money.

The solution is simple:

Vote one of the two major parties and fund the 3rd parties.

We have 2 election systems, white and green. The white elections are who we vote for in the government-administered general elections. The green elections are how we choose to spend our money, who we fund.

In the white elections, you can only vote for one of two things, status quo or change. If you are happy with the status quo, vote for the party in power. If you are not happy with the status quo, vote for the strongest opposition. In modern times, this means Democrats or Republicans. This is because our country has matured to the level of those bottom-up Democracy vs top-down Republic being the most important political difference. Our country has yet to mature when it comes to our more important economic differences.

In the green elections you can vote for any and everything you want including non-political organizations. You vote against what you don't want by boycott. You vote for what you want with purchases and contributions. The real opposition parties are the 3rd parties who tell the truth. They never win elections, but their issues get adopted by the major opposition party, especially when they take votes away from that party. The real status quo party are the multinational corporations. If you really want to get their attention, boycott their products.

So fund the 3rd party you agree with the most and boycott the corporations who fund the parties you hate the most. Continue to vote for your favorite major opposition party when you want to send a message, but don't expect much. Like it or not, it's one dollar, one vote.

Bill if I wanted to be argumentative, I might make a comment like Bill is to money as Freud is to sex. Basically, I agree with the basic theme of your post.

We got to the bottom of this pit one shovelful at a time. Look at all of them - - -

1. Failure to have non-political election supervision with an audit trail for easy recounts.

2. Failure to control money which is largely spent on attack ads, rather than honest debates over issues.

3. Elimination of the Fairness Doctrins (Reagan) which permitted the rise of right-wing talk radio.

4. Elimination of the cap on station ownership (Clinton) which gave ClearChannel 1500 stations.

5. Gerrymandering of congressional districts to create "safe seats" (both parties are guilty). In reality, only 20 percent of congressional seats are "in play" no matter how bad the other party has screwed up.

6. The willing abandonment of the Government's obligation to the WORKERS in America in favor of the support of corporate profits. I still can't believe that Clinton signed NAFTA after taking all that money from the unions.

7. The continued unfairness of the tax structure, letting those who have done the best to leave the burden on those who can barely get by.

Oh yes, and the two parties are too similar to have a real choice. But there is little chance of changing that. In 1980, I wasted my vote on John Anderson. He did not win one electoral vote. Neither did Ross Perot, even though he got 20 percent of the voters to vote for him.

I did, too, Jeff. Later regretted that I hadn't voted for Carter.