An old friend and mentor used to say: "There is always a way". There are ways to settle all the differences of opinion here and make everybody happy so we can fight the beast and win as we must. We have choices:

1. Unite with the Democrats

2. Unite in a third party

3. Unite as independents

"Unite" is the operative word. There is lots of common ground we can highlight, in spite of partisan shills that will frequent this site to try to divide us.

One common interest is the environmental issues that affects everyone regardless of class, race, or party affiliation. Global warming is at the forefront of these issues. Most other problems like oil wars, plagues like the bird flu with over 60% mortality, illegal immigration, crime, pollution, overpopulation, extreme wealth and power concentration, resource depletion, species extinctions and so on stem from global warming or are the result of it. To stop global warming, we have to address all the others. That makes global warming the best issue to gather around.

We don't have much time left to develop a strategy and to get behind a candidate. I like Earthian's plan and would support it.

It's cathartic to vent our anger here and helps us to recognize the problems. However, we need to act.

Oh, come on, Obomber is a Dummycrat. There is absolutely no difference between a Dummycrat and Rudy Guliani. Everybody knows that. All you guys know that. Don't you? Come on, don't be shy.

There is a very big difference between the Republicans and Democrates - give me a break - read.

There is a difference between the parties. Just a matter of a few degrees, you understand. But in those few degrees lie the fates of millions.

Nice to see Obams trying to undo what the Senate hath wrought. Too little, too late, but at least it's something. My heart and my vote are still with Kucinich, UFO be damned.

Ask 6 million uninsured kids whether or not the difference is significant.

All Obama is saying is that the president needs the congress's support to go to war. He'll get it. Obama has called for missile strikes on Iran several times. You all who claim those of us who know who the "democrats" are need to read need to do your damn homework. This all didn't start yesterday.

"Clinton and 29 other senators wrote to Bush Thursday to tell him he has no congressional authority for war with Iran."

A letter was sent. . .
yawn
However, the money for supplying weapons for murdering Iraqi people has been approved over and over.
Priorities: peace is the numero uno cause, then issues of domestic social justice; the environment, then health care, then . . . . .
compromise? when does compromise cross over to compliance with the evil of fascism?

Republican "We're going to screw you."

Democrat "We're going to pretend to be on your side, but we're going to screw you."

Nader 2000,

Thanks for the invitation to not be shy about punping the Dummycrats! Since I'm not noted for being shy here anyway, what an opportunity! (Thanks again and again!)

Dummycrats like Social Security, Medicare, SCHIP, funding the real "education" part of NCLB, liberals on the Supreme Court, EPA that enforces some things, U.S. attorneys that will prosecute business abuses, taxes sufficient to blunt the effect of Pareto's law, and a big military budget for armed forces that seldom shoot because diplomacy efforts are real.

Rudy Giuliani likes privatization and tax cuts for the upper crust so as to starve your government and your social programs.

I hope Obama knows what he's doing. As of now, he is still one of the electable Democrats being paraded on these debate stages. Hillary is far from a done deal.

there is a difference! a difference w/o a distinction...

wherever bush stumbles, democrats are there to help him backup.

they all salivate at the mouth for the opportunity to support war. thats their job. and they do it damn well. they are just being civic-minded and patriotic.

the dems wrote a letter to bush telling him to behave. they wrote him a check when he wanted war funding.

RichM-

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. Obomber is just a wolf in sheep's clothing, only posturing as antiwar so that he can get in there and order the Marines to the oilfields of Sudan. Of course. As a knowledgeable observer, you knew it all along, didn't you?

"His [Obama's] resolution says any offensive military action against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress."

Gotta love when there is a need to pass legislation which simply repeats the constitution. Furthermore, gotta love when the tabling of that resolution is NEWSWORTHY!

Also, is anyone else concerned with the level of doublethink at work when one (Hilary) plays off condemning another nation's state security force to the terrorist label as a means of "stepped-up diplomacy"? Some strategy. Like trying to get an extension on a paper by openly calling your teacher a pirate.

The American people DO NOT recognize either the Kyl-Lieberman measure or the Obama measure. The American people reject both measures as illegitimate because they are both unnecessary, and motivated by politics. Both measures are unnecessary because other laws have long been in place forbidding the US Congress from: A.) giving up the power to declare war , B.) defying the public will, generally, C.) destroying the public interests, generally, and D.) violating the US Constitution and the laws of the land.

Everyone knows, or should know, the many specific violations by the US Congress that fall under the above general categories. The specific violations are no longer under serious dispute. Rather, the right wing terrorists occupying Washington now openly perpetrate them and the so-called opposition party now serves as the terrorists' great enablers.

This is because both factions serve only their master - the beast capital. In light of this most relevant assessment, there is only a limited set of actions the senators may take for positive change - 1.) halting the violations and 2.) repairing the damage. Obama's action does neither, but instead perpetuates the violations.

Obama and his Demok party have largely avoided the most blatant attacks on the public interests that their Repuk partners in crime have perpetrated, yet the Demoks have joined the Repuks in grave violations of the US Constitution enough to earn themselves impeachment - most of them voted to fund the Iraq war, most of them voted to destroy various rights of the American people, and most of them voted to defy the will of the people to end the war and impeach the criminals.

None of the skulduggery is even necessary because the hostility we face from abroad is BLOWBACK from our imperial adventurism. We do not even need the oil. Our current gluttonous consumption SHOULD be drastically scaled back but even if it weren't we STILL may achieve zero-carbon energy self-sufficiency, incredibly WITHOUT ANY fossil/nuclear fuels, WITHOUT ANY new technology, WITHOUT ANY concentrated capital, simply by scaling back our meat consumption a mere TEN PERCENT, and giving Americans meaningful jobs in small local energy production enterprises. We could do a lot better than that even, by first reigning in our capitalist-driven gluttony.

This is the relevant reality - ignore it and remain in slavery to the beast capital. Face it and achieve emancipation from the beast capital. It's your choice.

Likeable, but I'd never vote for him.

As the Decider says, "You can't get fooled again."

No matter how much difference there is, you guys are not going to be satisfied.Granted that the differences in the overall context of things are not that great. But, to you, that means that the parties are identical--that it makes no difference who wins. Do you truly think that if Gore had been elected we would be at war with Iraq, threatening war against Iran, and universally despised? Do you truly think that all our social programs would have been gutted? Do you truly think that Gore would be at war with science? Do you truly think that our Department of Justice would have been turned into an agency of outlaws? Do you truly think that if a Democrat is president we will go to war with Iran? Or that Social Security will be privatized? Or that those six million children will not be covered with insurance? If you do, you're just fuckin' loony. These are big deals, guys.

Newsflash: The Democratic Party is not going to become the Socialist Party. It is not going to adopt "The Internationale" as our National Anthem. The Democratic Party is not a vehicle for fundamental, systemic change. It has never pretended to be. It is what it is. It has assumed, with some justification, that people are basically happy with our system, even if they are not always happy with the outcomes the system produces. Positive change--at best--will be incremental and glacial.It is not what I want it to be, but I don't write it off because of that. The Democratic Party, even as it is currently constituted--even with (Gasp!)Hilary Clinton as the presidential candidtate--is a force for relative good in this country. I said relative. So you guys who say there's no difference between the parties, you just go ahead and vote Republican. What the heck! See if you like it.

Unfortunately, the true Socialist Party is not doing much to make itself attractive to the electorate. The Greens are nothing but a bunch of snobbish college kids who have no idea of what it is like to have to work for a living. Face it: if people want the system fundamentally changed, they will change it. We did it once, in 1776, and we can do it again.

I agree with 'Yawn'.

Just more of the same-o same-o.

What a shame that once again the initial comment seeks to limit the discourse, this time with a ridiculous straw man. Of course it comes from a Democratic partisan.

Ideas, as always, are the essential thing. Let us examine the merits of the issue, rather than get lost in the partisan foaming that ignores the issue.

First of all, the resolution as described is consistent with the Constitution, insofar as only Congress has the power to declare war. By definition, then, other resolutions are not supposed to be blank checks for the executive to wage war.

The likelihood of the Bush administration paying attention to the resolution is scant. They have ignored Congress with impunity from the outset. Congress can't even learn who is crafting the country's energy policy. They can't even get their letters answered. Therefore, the resolution is likely to remain a resolution unenforced.

The resolution seems to contain a loophole, which would be to "authorize" the use of force. This is not the same thing as a formal declaration of war.

Considering immediate past practice, the likelihood of Congress (including Sen. Obama, the sponsor) funding more war is roughly 100%. Therefore, the resolution would seem to act more as a procedural fig leaf than an actual check upon executive power.

I could find no reference to Rudy Giuliani in the article. Assuming that Nader2000, the initial respondent, had something of substance to offer by bringing him up, I look forward to his clarifying Giuliani's relevance here.

The same is true with his comment about Sudan (12:57). If such comment has some relevance and was NOT merely self-indulgent obnoxiousness, then clarifying its relevance would also be welcome.

Personally, I find Sen. Obama's resolution unobjectionable except for its apparent meaninglessness.

seriousprofessor:

You're right. It's impossible to imagine how Rudy Giuliani might be of any relevance whatsoever in this context. Rudy who?

Also, yeah, I don't really think Obomber is just itching to send troops to Sudan. Ya got me, prof.

And, oh, yeah, Obomber's resolution is completely meaningless, unlike the one Killary voted for, which proves what a corporatist warmongering she-wolf in sheep's clothing she is.

The letter that Hillary & 29 Senators sent Bush has even less legal authority than the Smirk's "signing statements". If they were earnest, they would push for legislation.

But exactly what force a "Senate resolution" would have on an administration which regards itself as both the alpha and omega of the US government, the root and the crown of power? Everything but impeachment is chimerical.

With the first bomb dropped on Iran, the vast majority of the Dimmersluts will rush to the cameras, hand over their hearts, pledging undying allegiance & singing "God Bless America".

There is only one political party in D.C. today and that's the Uncle Buck Party. It has two wings. The political wing and the corporate wing. Together these guys, and gals, run the country. They take care of business and they take care of their friends. They use the Constitution to legalize what they do and they use middle class to finance their ventures. The Uncle Buck party uses the media as their PR Department. What Obama is suggesting is already in the Constitution so to fall for this non substance proposal and spin it as something "new" proves that the media is negligent in doing its job. Unless you look at it from the corporate point of view, then the media is fulfilling its purpose.
Hoa binh

Christ. You idiots. You deserve a Republican administration. I hope you're happy.

Christ. You idiots. You deserve a Republican administration. I hope you're happy.

Nader2000,
You had an excellent chance to be clear and relevant in your comments, yet you chose posture above substance ... again.
Think about that carefully.

Here's a different thought

Dennis Kucinich for President
"Strength Through Peace"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSGiVjiz5Kg

I think it interesting that the debate between Obomber and Killery is spilling into proposed senate legislation because it brings up a very important point: Why the need for such legislation in the first place? Because the current president and vice-president and its assorted allies LIED us into the Iraq debacle. The constant theme of Obomber is that Killery swallowed the LIE, continues to swallow it, yet denies that her actions are NOT what she meant them to be. Thus the unstated point of the bill is WE DONT WANT TO BE LIED INTO ANOTHER WAR, and is the real headline NO corporate media outlet will publish/voice--unless they can be tricked into doing just that. This is where I see an opportunity. To be electable, Killery MUST dupe voters into thinking she's antiwar, which is just the image she's been trying very hard to project. Obomber won't let her; even though he's no dove himself, he can still point to his votes as proof of a fundamental difference between him and Killery.

Then of course in the background is the question of impeachment--why are Bush/Cheney even in office to have the chance at starting another war based on lies--that ought to be raised as the spat expands.

Thought?

The point was made above that there is no need for this letter or this legislation, and I agree. I agree because pre-emptive war is illegal. The United States government is, as we all know, currently a criminal regime, and both Dems and Repubs are complicit in the crime. Kucinich pointed this out in the last debate: why are we even talking about war with Iran if it's ILLEGAL?

This country is currently living in the guilty state that follows a crime. The only way to deny the criminality of the original act (invading Iraq illegitimately) is to perpetrate the same crime again on another country with a nearly identical name (Iran, of course), as a way of desperately trying to convince itself that the initial crime was justified and legal. We are caught in a sick spiral.

The differnce between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Dems ask the CEO of Ford to be their secretary of defense (e.g. McNamara), but the Republicans will ask the CEO of Ford to be their Secretary of State.

Nader2000 November 2nd, 2007 12:06 pm

"Oh, come on, Obomber is a Dummycrat. There is absolutely no difference between a Dummycrat and Rudy Guliani. Everybody knows that. All you guys know that. Don't you? Come on, don't be shy."

Stop being so emotionally immature, "Nader"2000.

You're constantly lecturing us on how the two-party system is as immutable as the laws of physics and how we need to try to take over the Democratic Party. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and give us an idea of who we should work for in the primaries? I've seen you spit all sorts of self-righteous venom at Ralph Nader over the war in Iraq, which he opposed from the beginning. I've yet to see you say an unkind word against Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war and will not promise to have all troops out of Iraq by 2013. Neither, BTW, will Obama.

"The Democratic Party is not a vehicle for fundamental, systemic change. It has never pretended to be. It is what it is. It has assumed, with some justification, that people are basically happy with our system, even if they are not always happy with the outcomes the system produces. Positive change–at best–will be incremental and glacial."

This is precisely the problem with supporting the Democratic Party. When the Republicans are in power, they don't play small ball. They do their damndest to move the country far to the right, and they get plenty of Democrats to help them out. Look at what the Democrats have been doing for the past seven years to support many of Bush's worst initiatives.

When the Democrats are in power, they will at best move the country slightly to the left, and worst, move the country not quite as far to the right as the Republicans. It's not realistic to expect the Democrats to always win elections. Sometimes the Republicans will get into power. Over the long run, the country will inevitably move further and further to the right as long as the left supports a party that plays small ball and the right supports a party that swings for the fences.

Impeach and try for war crimes!

VAGreen,

Cogent analysis, but there is an underlying troubling assumption implicit in your viewpoint and that of many others who comment here. You assume that if Republicans continue to accumulate power by winning elections and packing the judiciary with fascists, as the Dems are abandoned by the left and sink into irrelevance, that a new progressive party may emerge on the left and take back the country. I find that about as likely as Bush winning the Nobel Prize in physics.

Once the Republicans have taken total control and have a majority of fascists on the Supreme Court, then what they will create would shock even Orwell. Anyone who has been paying any attention knows the Republican Party has lost all interest in democracy, the constitution, or the rule of law, and has embraced torture, mercenaries (including their use on US streets), electronic surveillance, rendition, confinement without any rights, and secret prisons.

With scientific advances, including the use of brain electrodes, torture will become much more effective and useful. Also, using Artificial Intelligence and increased computing power, electronic surveillance will become much more powerful. And with new technologies of crowd control developed by DARPA, e.g. acoustic weapons, you can forget about demonstrations or even riots.

As doughyden commented above, there is not that much difference between the parties, but in that small difference may lie the slim hope for a livable future for the majority of people in the USA.

Any candidate who accepts money form the foreign agents of aipac are treasonous as israel bombed the USS Liberty. Obama pledged his support when he spoke at an aipac convention, the only one who refused to accept money from aipac is MIKE GRAVEL AND RON PAUL..Obama will follow his corporate masters..

I don't "support" the Democratic party. I just prefer it to the Republicans, and I don't see a viable alternative out there. The Greens? Don't make me laugh.

All this Obama-Hillary talk. Jeez, you'd think they were the only two Democrooks running for prez. Actually, they are two that I WON'T vote for.

I might vote for Edwards and I might vote for Kucinich. It's up to the Convention to present a REAL change.

VAGreen -

> "the two-party system is as immutable as the laws of physics"
> "we need to try to take over the Democratic Party"

Excellent! You're definitely improving.

> "give us an idea of who we should work for in the primaries"

Not my job. Too many states and Congressional districts out there for me to keep track of them all. Look to PDA, DU, DKos for recommendations.

Oh, you meant the presidential race? I would pick Kucinich if you're into pressing the issues and the progressive agenda, Obama or Edwards if you want a challenger to the dragon lady. For Greens and Reds who care more about talking issues and not compromising, go with Kucinich. He almost certainly can't win, but as John Nichols argues he can have a real impact on the scope of debate.

But lets say the dragon lady wins. And on the other side, you probably have Giuliani, or someone just as bad. At that point, we have to support Clinton. If we come in as an organized progressive movement, the more unified the better (I think PDA could be the right vehicle, although I am not so happy with what that organization has been so far), then we will have some leverage with the Clinton admin if we were on board. That would translate into progressive appointees, progressive initiatives, access, influence on the agenda. That would be better than more standing on streetcorners with signs. And then there's 2010, 2012...

Edwards is another hawk, maybe even the worst of them. he backstabed us bigtime in 02 when he was on the senate intelligence committe and knew that bush was lieing about the WMDs. yet said nothing and voted for war anyways.

as far as getting "some leverage" with the Clinton admin., that is a total dream. why should she represent her contingency, she never has in the past.

and Obama is obviously just posturing trying to hide his lust for war and power. or maybe i should say, trying to apprear like the smart guy who will use the power well. im not counting on that.

all i can hope is for a kucinich or ron paul miracle victory. beyond that happening i forsee a compramised democrat losing a chunk of the vote to nader and leaving us with another republican (unless we can manifest a nader miracle.)

Let's assume that there is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. We'll grant that to the folks at the beginning of the thread who insist that there is one.

The question then is: does that difference, whatever it may be, make a difference?

If we look at the political effects at this point, especially on such massive issues as the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the differences seem to be nanoscopic.

I'd agree with people like Doughyden if the party he lends support to would stop rubber stamping everything the republicans want. The "democrats" "don't have the votes" to get us out of the war, or anything else we want, because they refuse to come out, dialogue with the electorate, and rally their base. The neo-nazis who run the republican party, on the other hand, do not fear to mobilize their supporters, and continue to win thereby. That's the difference. The "democrats" don't trust mass based politics because they actually detest the working class majority of the population. IF they didn't, they'd stop working so hard at breaking the industrial and public sector unions just as the republicans do. We have this argument in the labor council all the time, Doughyden. I can agree with you about the greens and the socialists, but the mere fact that they don't know how to work with working people doesn't mean that working people don't have to figure out how we're going to build organizations that represent us. The biggest problem is that we don't trust ourselves. But considering that we pay for everything and that the economy even now is being "balanced" on our backs, we'd better learn to, and that's all.

Vote for Party A, and have your head chopped off.
Vote for Party B, and die a death by a thousand cuts.
Vote, and you'll die.

All this voting talk is smoke out yer asses. Citizenship requires constant work - every day - all year long.

By the time it gets to voting, the game's up, chumps.

We have had 4 years of papa Bush 8 years of baby Bush and 8 years of wild Bill giving us a total of 20 consecutive years of Bush and Clinton running this country.

I think we can use a change a fresh start and right now the only one who has a good chance of defeating Hillary is Obama. I really like what he has to say especially the part about talking with our friends and our enemies.

Of course it's Kucinich in the primaries but I think I like Barak over Hillary.

Hey anti dems you guys are getting much closer to the Rabbit Hole, you're almost starting to make sense.

But I think your facts are a little convoluted.

Once upon a time when Bush was selected president by his daddy's friends the Supremes.

The democrats saw a golden opportunity and got some not too bright volunteers from the Nader campaign and convinced them to crash 2 planes into the world trade center and 1 plane into the pentagon.

You see we dems knew it would lead to a war with Iraq and we would lose badly, thereby giving us loyal dems a better chance of taking back the white house in 2008 that was stolen from President Gore in 2000.

I know that your remarks about the dems and repubs being two peas in a pod is the delusional fairy tale language you republican operatives like to use, but your ridiculous Alice in Wonderland hallucinations make no sense whatsoever.

One party supports tax cuts for a minority of the electorate and a bloodthirsty catastrophic war that keeps the munitions factories humming.

While the other party supports non-violent diplomacy, peace and social programs that benefit the majority of Americans.

For $64,000.00 can you anti dems set aside your blind rage for a moment and try to distinguish which party supports universal healthcare and which party supports borrowing from China to finance an unjust illegal war?

"The democrats saw a golden opportunity and got some not too bright volunteers from the Nader campaign and convinced them to crash 2 planes into the world trade center and 1 plane into the pentagon."

And you accuse people of not being sane...

"For $64,000.00 can you anti dems set aside your blind rage for a moment and try to distinguish which party supports universal healthcare and which party supports borrowing from China to finance an unjust illegal war?"

Erm, what blind rage? But to answer your question, I think the latter party is called the corporate party, and the former is the Greens. While I'm glad that Hillary wants health care for all, I'm not sure I buy her plan; but something is better than nothing, I suppose. That being said, what we need is a single payer health care plan - did you see Sicko? Providing people with a broken, predatory HMO system is not the answer.

All of which is moot if you live in Iraq, though. If she was committed to getting US troops out of Iraq, she should commit to it.

PS: I don't respond well to being hated on.

SEQUOIABISON November 2nd, 2007 11:00 pm

"For $64,000.00 can you anti dems set aside your blind rage for a moment"

OK, pay me the $64,000.00 and I promise to support the Dems. And I further promise that my promise is as good as the Dems promise to do something about the Iraq war if only we would vote them into power in 2006

Lobo Gris

We need to vote these dangerous "Republican" radicals out of the White House. The only way to ensure that is for everyone to vote Democratic and not waste votes on Nader, the Green party or anyone else.

Just as with Vietnam, both parties seem to support the war and there will not be an easy way to get out. But there is a difference.

George HW Bush added some pragmatism to Reaganomics and knew where to stop in Desert Storm. Clinton and Gingrich managed to make some hard decisions on both guns and butter and managed to balance the budget. What we had was two pretty good centrist administrations (even if Bill was a liar, sex addict and former shady wheeler-dealer). The major negative long term effect is globalization is destroying the blue (and now white) collar middle class.

This administration is run by a radical fringe of the Republicans with a loser (with his daddy's name) as the front man and "minders" shaping public relations throughout the bureaucracy and pentagon. They are grooming Giuliani to be his replacement.

It has to be stopped. The challenges are getting out Iraq with the people of Iraq in control of their destiny, reigning in uncontrolled globalization before we all lose our jobs, and global warming and peak oil are here and now. The neocon PNAC radicals don't have a clue about any of this!

And no more manipulation of public opinion (lying) for illegal wars of choice! These guys gotta go. Hillary (or Obama) has my vote, if just to end the slaughter. I would be a more confident voter if they actually do prevent the bombing of Iran.

bbr-001 November 3rd, 2007 7:57 am

"It has to be stopped. The challenges are getting out Iraq with the people of Iraq in control of their destiny"

The people of Iraq are in control of their destiny. We are nothing more than interloping occupiers after trying to impose democracy at the end of a gun barrel and ending up doing nothing but fomenting a civil war. None of the top three, Hillary, Obama, or Edwards would promise in a debate question about it to even get out of Iraq by the end of their first term in 2013.

"reigning in uncontrolled globalization before we all lose our jobs"

Bill Clinton and a Democratically controlled Congress were the ones that accelerated globalization with the passage of NAFTA. Followed by Bill and a Republican controlled Congress passing the Carribean Basin initiative, the African economic opportunity act, etc., etc., etc., culminating with the flawed trade agreement with China and our assistance in getting them into the WTO. None of the three Hillary, Obama , or Edwards has pledged to change of amend any of that so I fail to see how electing any one of them would address the problem.

"global warming and peak oil are here"

Yup and none of the three Hillary, Obama, or Edwards have addressed that either. They are all up at the podium laughing about Kucinich being asked whether he saw a UFO or not.

"Hillary (or Obama) has my vote"

Why?

Lobo Gris

Oh, and BTW, Hillary claims that 8 years when her husband was President and globalization was first running amok as her experience for the job as President

Lobo Gris

Hey Lobo Gris stop taking yourself and me so seriously, just joking about the dumb Nader supporters, you guys are not that bad, just a touch naive.

Sorry if my post upset you but now you know how I felt when Nader got 90,000 votes in FL in 2000 and Gore lost the presidency by 560 votes in FL.

Hope you guys are glad you ignored the polls in FL where it was too close to call and voted your conscience, smart call, logic is apparently not one of your strong suits.

Keep up the good work Green Party advocates, at the rate you are helping the republican party destroy our country, there will be no Green left in America only highly polluted Brownfields.

Thanks again for helping Georgie boy and send Ralph my very best regards. Maybe this time he can help get Rudy elected?

kucinich

So, saying that the constitution is in effect is now called "playing politics". The constitution says that only Congress has authority to make war. So the constitution is playing politics.

Go (to) Hellary!

"Hope you guys are glad you ignored the polls in FL where it was too close to call and voted your conscience, smart call, logic is apparently not one of your strong suits."

It's so much easier to crap in your own bed, then to look at where the real problem was, which is Kathleen Harris and all the other neo-con functionaries that are doing their bidding.

There's something really ironic about questioning the logic of Nader supporters when Democrats keep ignoring both the rigging of both elections (if you believe Greg Palast), not to mention the voting record of the Democratic "leadership". Wiretapping and waterboarding are not compromise issues. Period.