I find it bizarre and maddening the writer says Nader "siphoned off enough liberal votes from Al Gore in 2000 to hand New Hampshire and Florida, and as a result, the presidency, to George W. Bush."

Don't you remember that Al Gore won Florida? The presidency was "handed" to Bush not by Nader, but by the Supreme Court. Next time base your articles on facts not opinions.

I was just trying to say that "power hungry" seems more noticible in a woman than in a man.

Clinton does strike me as being a bit like Paul Martin - spending all this time being Prime Minister and not really knowing what to do when he got there.

Hearing on Newsworld that Clinton may come in third and that Obama is the easiest to swift boat because he is not battle tested. And Huckabee (sp?) is seen as not ready for Prime time - though he will probably win Iowa.

I am putting my (albeit worthless) Canadian support towards Edwards because, like you say, he seems to be the most concerned of the three for the issues that concern people like us.

vaudree: There are those who are just trying to pay off their debts, put their kids to college, maybe retire early to that hobby farm somewhere scenic.

There there are those who have an unlimited unsatiated desire for power/wealth/hegemony. Probably that tendency, prior to so-called civilization, would have been headed off much earlier as a form of self-negating sociopathy. A local village headman whose ambitions reached a certain point would Waterloo himself out of the gene pool in a hurry. Our social structures allow those sorts of people to rise too far.

Ms Clinton is not any more power hungry than the rest.

"The problem is that candidates who need to be coaxed into issues are likely the sort who all too frequently forget them upon actually getting elected."

Well said Paul Bramscher.

vaudree: as for your comment that Al Gore did not do much while in office, please remember that he was the Vice-President. The role of the VP is very limited under the constitution. Imagine how limited the role is with a controlling and power hungry First Lady like Ms. Clinton.

When the Clinton era was over, Gore was clearly angry and bitter towards the Clintons. President Gore would not drop the ball on the environment. It is the one thing he truly cares about; he is the one man who is capable of leading the world to a solution.

The problem is that candidates who need to be coaxed into issues are likely the sort who all too frequently forget them upon actually getting elected.

There's clearly some repackaging going on here, courtesy of Nader and Moore.

That's one of the key problems with too many lawyers seeking office. I worked a couple years at a Big-10 law school and encountered many idealistic/young lawyers hoping to save the whales, etc. But graduating with an $80K+ debt makes them, by nature, desperate (unless they are independently wealthy).

I'd love to go through law school. But find me a way that I can do it for under $10K or so, so I'm not forced to work for evil when I graduate out of intense financial necessity.

Heard on Newsworld that Hillary might be in third place.

RE: - Remove the bullshit and all that will be left of America is truth, justice and freedom.

Aren't you just a little bit afraid of what would be remaining of America without the Bullshit?

There would be Christopher Columbus the mass murder and George Washington who grew pot in his garden.

One can't be "the Greatest country in the world" without a healthy dose of bullshit.

RE: - The only reason we are seeing an environmental side to Mr. Edwards is because Al Gore raised the bar.

Isn't that the way it always is! And Al Gore did not do much concerning the environment when in office - which is why Sheila Watt-Cloutier probably should have won.

And would Health Care be an issue if the people were not intensely concerned about it at the moment?

Edwards has always been interested in the human rights of the common people (in contrast with the human rights of corporations) - so it probably won't take much persuasion for him to see Kyoto as a human rights issue. What is his opinion on Kyoto BTW?

RE: - She does a few rhetorical flourishes once in a while against the drug and insurance companies, but if you look at her record on the Senate Armed Services Committee, she's never met a giant weapons system she doesn't like,

OMG! Thyssen and Karlheinz Schreiber!

I suspect that Mr. Nader's comments on Mr. Edwards are aimed just as much at helping keep Edwards on track as they are to sway the voting public. Nader has a long history of encouraging candidates to take strong stands on corporate rule, health care, etc. If he can get Edwards to stand a bit taller, the other candidates will have to speak to the issues. Nader's role has long been to get an important conversation going where is isn't one. In his 1996, 2000 and 2004 campaign speeches he constantly urged Democrats to take on the important issues rendering his campaigns unnecessary. Like the hungry mongrels they are, they snapped at him instead.

This is about getting the issues on the table. Always has been.

The following transcript of Nader interview on Jan 2, with Hartmann:

Very different from what this article purports

http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=475&Itemid=1

The real John Edwards had a deplorable environmental voting record which included supporting the most abhorent practice of all--mountaintop removal for coal extraction. The real John Edwards also voted to allow that trucks be exempt from pollution control standards, and the real John Edwards is building an enormous mansion for himself.

The only reason we are seeing an environmental side to Mr. Edwards is because Al Gore raised the bar. The environment is not a passion for Mr. Edwards, but a carefully calculated campaign strategy.

If you listen closely, you will see that Mr. Edwards is leaving coal companies a major loophole by his support of "clean coal" and carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration is an untested theory. We have no reason to believe that we can capture and bury underground the BILLIONS of tons of carbon produced by America's coal plants. In addition, the gassification of coal is a filthy process, since coal is a filthy substance.

Mr. Edwards also supports a billion dollar gift to the auto industry to develop fuel efficienct vehicles. The auto industry has long possessed the ability to raise fuel efficiency. It is ridiculous to expect that this most deplorable of industries can be entrusted with any ecological task.

John Edwards is an attorney who made a fortune from ambulance chasing. There is nothing trustworthy about this man.

Nice call Mr. Nader. I am continually amazed at the amount of worship you receive.

More insanity :)

Check this out:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_7867042

Kucinich files lawsuit after party denies him place on ballot
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 01/02/2008 09:39:43 PM MST

AUSTIN—Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, along with supporter Willie Nelson, have filed a lawsuit to get Kucinich on the ballot in Texas after they say the Texas Democratic Party rejected his application.
The civil lawsuit was delivered late Wednesday afternoon to U.S. District Court for the Western District of the United States, Kucinich spokesman Andy Juniewicz said late Wednesday evening.
The lawsuit says that Kucinich was informed by the Texas Democratic Party on Wednesday that his application was "defective" because he crossed out a loyalty oath in the application that said he would swear to support whoever the Democratic nominee for president might be.
The lawsuit asks that a temporary restraining order be issued to stop the Texas Democratic Party from certifying to the Texas Secretary of State a list of candidates and to restrict the secretary of state from accepting any list that doesn't include the name of a qualified candidate who refuses the loyalty oath.
Kucinich, a congressman from Ohio, also wants the court to declare that the oath requirement violates the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment in the Constitution.
"He's right to challenge a blind loyalty oath to the Democratic Party because it's un-American," Willie Nelson said in a news release from the Kucinich campaign.
Calls for comment made to the Texas Democratic Party and the secretary of state's office after business hours on Wednesday were not immediately returned.

Well, here we are again, having to open the window as Nader and his nitwits pass more gas (and contribute to global warming)! While his basic message after eight years remains, "I-hate-the-Clintons- and-everything-connected-with-them-including-Al-Gore", how ironic it is that Mr Anti-Establishment now supports John Edwards, a former senator who made his fortune as a personal-injury lawyer!

Edwards is a good man who deserves better friends than Ralph Numbskull. John, if Nader calls, check the Caller-ID first, and let him leave a message!

Blasting Hillary Clinton is what will bring ol' Ralphie boy the attention he so desperately craves, like a child who belches at the dinner table. And he'll remain the Republicans' favourite lap dog and an honoured guest on Fox News, especially since he is partly responsible for the Bush II presidency, whether his loyalists like it or not!

Amazing, that anyone still listens to this fool!

Remove the bullshit and all that will be left of America is truth, justice and freedom.

Fantastic posts by Mr. peterrush!

When you put it like that, Peter, my distrust of Edwards seems kind of silly really......

In light of this logic, I shall indeed consider it further.

pac

anne faith, you sound like a kindred spirit. You had me chuckling at the definition of insanity. That certainly applies to politics!

re: Edwards League of Conservation record
If you looked beyond the scores, you'd see that both Hillary and Obama support nuclear and coal plants, Edwards does not. Edwards has been endorsed by Friends of the Earth, so that must say something about his environmental positions.

As for the money trail, Edwards has never take money from *Washington* lobbyists. They all take money from industries, though the difference may be too subtle for some.

I read in another thread (and confirmed by an Edwards campaign worker as a likely reason) that Kucinich threw his support in Iowa to Obama to keep himself viable in NH, where he competes most closely with Edwards for the progressive vote.

If we're thinking tickets, how about Edwards/Richardson? Biden won't leave his cushy committee chairs in the Senate to be anyone's VP. I agree that Kucinich will never be considered on an Edwards' ticket, and even less likely on Obama's.

It's more bizarre for Nader to support Edwards than for Kucinich to advise his supporters to go for Obama as second choice.

Great comment peterrush!

Here is the list of top industries contributions to
The Barack Obama campaign -

1 Lawyers/Law Firms $7,940,424

2 Retired $4,955,387

3 Securities & Investment $4,505,199

4 Misc Business $2,510,077

5 Real Estate $2,292,188

6 TV/Movies/Music $2,203,317

7 Education $2,112,520

8 Business Services $2,073,202

9 Health Professionals $1,330,743

10 Misc Finance $1,291,272

11 Printing & Publishing $956,853

12 Computers/Internet $940,459

13 Commercial Banks $865,856

14 Civil Servants/Public Officials $729,442

15 Non-Profit Institutions $481,761

16 Retail Sales $402,368

17 Insurance $390,513

18 Other $388,964

19 General Contractors $314,022

20 Hospitals/Nursing Homes $307,816

Here is the list of top industries contributions to
The Hillary Clinton campaign -

1 Lawyers/Law Firms $9,596,748

2 Securities & Investment $4,735,730

3 Retired $4,139,270

4 Real Estate $3,939,008

5 Business Services $2,539,364

6 Misc Business $2,301,186

7 TV/Movies/Music $2,142,921

8 Health Professionals $1,695,830

9 Education $1,640,224

10 Misc Finance $1,545,181

11 Commercial Banks $935,658

12 Computers/Internet $883,125

13 Printing & Publishing $800,191

14 Civil Servants/Public Officials $777,775

15 Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $657,450

16 Retail Sales $627,226

17 Non-Profit Institutions $583,178

18 Lobbyists $567,950

19 Insurance $525,938

20 Food & Beverage $516,670

Here is the list of top industries contributions to
The John Edwards campaign -

1 Lawyers/Law Firms $8,161,150

2 Democratic/Liberal $2,001,674

3 Retired $1,168,681

4 Securities & Investment $773,600

5 Real Estate $638,755

6 TV/Movies/Music $458,990

7 Business Services $434,793

8 Health Professionals $419,326

9 Misc Business $358,325

10 Education $351,261

11 Misc Finance $278,000

12 Printing & Publishing $193,734

13 Computers/Internet $182,585

14 Civil Servants/Public Officials $178,995

15 Commercial Banks $153,650

16 Insurance $129,600

17 Retail Sales $102,756

18 Non-Profit Institutions $92,750

19 Other $91,950

20 Accountants $66,950

All info is from -
www.opensecrets.org

Paul Bramscher, I enjoyed your posts, esp. January 2nd, 2:38pm and 2:47pm, a breath of fresh air, as usual.

Here is the list of top contributors to the
Barack Obama campaign -

Goldman Sachs $369,078
Lehman Brothers $229,090
National Amusements Inc $220,950
JP Morgan Chase & Co $216,759
Sidley Austin LLP $203,325
Exelon Corp $194,750
Citigroup Inc $180,650
Citadel Investment Group $166,600
Jones Day $158,400
Skadden, Arps et al $150,900
UBS AG $146,150
Time Warner $142,718
Harvard University $141,700
University of California $126,972
Jenner & Block $122,419
Kirkland & Ellis $111,951
UBS Americas $106,680
Morgan Stanley $104,425
WilmerHale $102,360
Credit Suisse Group $92,300

And here is the list of top contributors to the
Hillary Clinton campaign -

DLA Piper $356,100
Goldman Sachs $350,050
Morgan Stanley $323,550
Citigroup Inc $307,350
EMILY's List $211,642
National Amusements Inc $193,850
JP Morgan Chase & Co $173,350
Kirkland & Ellis $172,000
Skadden, Arps et al $151,460
Greenberg Traurig LLP $150,900
Cablevision Systems $135,113
Merrill Lynch $125,550
Time Warner $124,150
Lehman Brothers $123,450
Bear Stearns $120,580
Patton Boggs $118,400
Ernst & Young $110,650
Blank Rome LLP $105,100
Latham & Watkins $100,950
News Corp $99,350

And here is the list of top contributors to the
John Edwards campaign -

ActBlue $1,965,274
Fortress Investment Group $187,850
Stearns, Weaver et al $131,000
Lerach, Coughlin et al $93,950
Goldman Sachs $77,100
Whitten, Nelson et al $66,250
Girardi & Keese $64,400
Beasley, Allen et al $61,850
Watts Law Firm $61,000
Morgan & Morgan $60,050
Skadden, Arps et al $54,950
Deutsche Bank AG $54,750
Citigroup Inc $49,200
Sidley Austin LLP $43,950
Brent Coon & Assoc $42,700
Kramer, Dillof et al $36,400
Motley Rice LLC $36,200
Baron & Budd $35,590
Brayton Purcell $35,100
Weitz & Luxenberg $34,600

Any questions? Go to -
www.opensecrets.org

Oh, and excuse me, but it's hard for me to believe that anyone on this blog would trash "trial lawyers" as a group. The term "trial lawyer" does not, typically, mean corporate lawyer defending corporations against lawsuits, though I supposed, technically, they, too, are "trial lawyers." The trial lawyers who back the Democrats so strongly in every election are clearly NOT the corporate "trial" lawyers. Don't you know who they are? They are the ones who take on the class action suits that have won so much for so many against corporate wrongdoing. They are the ones who defend the indigent. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE TAKEN ON THE CASES OF THE GUANTAMANO VICTIMS, obviously pro bono, who have waged the battle against the Bush Administration, and have actually won some victories in the Supreme Court against the Bush Administration.

Without them, we would already be living under a much more advanced form of fascism. It is only because of them that we have forestalled the worst of the tyrannous plots of the Bush Administration to completely trash the Constitution. They should not only not be excoriated. They should be hailed. And Edwards made his money by making far more money for the people whose cases he took, and won, against the corporations. His claim on this score is totally accurate. And it does suggest a certain toughness, and ability to take on power and not be intimidated by it, that makes me hopeful that he may be able to do what no other candidate can in REALLY changing how Washington works.

RE: I get lost quite easily in that rabbit hole that is the Bush political geneology.

Money laundering is not supposed to be simple or else it would be very easy to figure it all out.

About Cheney, it is hard to tell from what you said whether Cheney planned it or was making best use out of the existing situation. If both he and Bush were out of the White House, a bit of damage to the building would be no big deal to them, but would cause a public outcry.

My guess is that Cheney may have known that something like this could happen or would likely happened but not that it would have happened on that day. If they knew something was going down that day, then Papa Bush and Bin Laden's brother would not have been attending the same Carlyle Group meeting the morning of September 11, 2001.

The other possibility is that Cheney was too fixated on Iraq to be paying too much attention to what the Saudis were doing - Cheney liked his arrangements with the Saudis just fine.

RE:Neither Moore nor the Senate committee delved into the whats or wherefores of Cheney's conduct on 911. / Conyers admitted to Goodman on her 12/20/2007 show that impeachment hearings aren't going to happen because FOX News will make Bush and Cheney out to be the victims — so Conyers is going to just ride it out…

The CBC has got its budget cut repeatedly throughout the years so how much of a foreign presence can they have? The same with Europe. When the US media is not interested in a story, the reporters feed it to Canada or Europe and only when it get really big does the American media start reporting the stories.

I was asked a little over a month ago by someone in Germany when Bush was going to get impeached. Maybe they've heard something over there.

My guess was that the need to discredit Bill Clinton was greater because of how useful Bill would otherwise be to getting Gore elected. Hey, they weren't just going to rely on those wonky voting machines.

Going after Bush now would not help any of the Dems in the Presidential race because Bush is so unpopular that I doubt any of the Republican candidates want him campaigning with them as it is.

As far as Bush and Cheney - their secrets will come out. Everybody has a bit of information to add to the mix.

How interesting! How really interesting! Since I posted a general challenge to the hard-core Edwards haters in the Kucinich camp who earlier on in this post were trashing Edwards, to justify Kucinich's backing of Obama in Iowa, which news broke while this thread was in process, I don't believe a one of them has said boo in defense of Kucinich's decision. Silence is a message. I feel justified in concluding that this is because they, too, are horrified by it, and are honest enough not to attempt a lame defense that they don't believe in. I haven't checked other blogs to see if this reticence is internet-wide, so I'll be interested in seeing if this inability to defend Kucinich's decision is more general than just this thread. Too bad they are not honest enough to put their true feelings, of betrayal, I presume, if I interpret their silence correctly, out in public on this blog. If I have read their reaction correctly, it's time for some profiles in courage.

I don't mean to turn this post into a bashing of Kucinich. But there are lots of things that suggest he deserves a pedestal that is far lower than his most ardent supporters put him on. I'll just mention his extreme loner approach which has led him, since 2004, to take no active part in the very Congressional caucus that he may have founded, and certainly led very ably from 2003-2004, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and his complete betrayal of a 2003 campaign promise that I took seriously and really believed in, and hoped for (and worked for as co-chairman for Virginia of Kucinich's 2003-04 campaign), namely, his pledge to turn his campaign into a permanent movement after the Convention, which promise he completely walked away from. He seems to be someone much more capable of talking about what he stands for, than organizing others to help him achieve anything.

Contrast this with Edwards' founding of the One Corps, the poverty center at his North Carolina university, his efforts to help Katrina victims, and his call to make a difference now, rather than waiting for an election. Edwards has issued numerous calls over the past 6 months for his supporters and everyone else to make their voices heard in Congress on a number of issues. I don't recall Kucinich issuing similar calls. Which is not to subtract from Kucinich's yeoman service in exposing the Iraqi oil law, or the marvelous coup he pulled off on the impeachment issue. But both were total lone wolf actions.

His refusal to rise above the disgusting Edwards' insult to him and back the most progressive of the frontrunners as people's second choice for Iowa is totally revolting. How can he in good conscience support Obama? Nobody has answered this question. Certainly not with anything that can justify it as a principled act.

Only Anne Faith (not one of the Edwards bashers, all of whom are silent in defense of Kucinich on this, so far) has even made a serious stab at defending/explaining Kucinich's decision, and her totally unconvincing attempt kind of proves the point I was making. If her weak arguments are the best that the Kucinich camp can come up with, clearly, they all know the jig is up, and Kucinich has fatally stabbed himself in the heart. I wonder if it is actually possible that at least some Kucinich supporters in Iowa will gravitate towards Edwards precisely because Kucinich sold them out by advocating otherwise.

Obama, if he becomes the last candidate standing between us and Hillary, will have my support, to save the Democratic party from destruction, and the nation from another Republican victory, or worse, a Republicrat victory. A lot of what I hope will happen tomorrow will be as low a vote total for Hillary as possible, regardless of whether Edwards or Obama wins--the lower her vote, the stronger the prick to her balloon, which can only be good.

But if you don't trust Edwards, how can you possibly trust Obama more, and think he's better than Edwards? Listen to his campaign ads and his stump speech. WHAT IS IS PROPOSING TO DO to "bring change?" A more transparently empty slogan is hard to come up with. Edwards, by evolving toward his anti-corporate stance, has embraced what is probably the core real issue of the country--the hijacking of the country, and of the world, by the corporatocracy. If you don't take that on, nothing else will happen. Not universal health care, not leaving Iraq, not an end to free trade, not a revival of our industrial economy, not a reversal of the accretion of unconstitutional executive power, not a restoration of civil liberties. Kucinich's laundry list of "issues" is meaningless without the ability to take on and fight the corporate interests which control the Republicrat and Demoblican parties.

And you can't possibly take them on if you don't identify that they are the problem, which Obama isn't doing, and you can't begin to even identify them if you don't even believe they are the problem, which Obama doesn't seem to even understand. He is either extremely naive (quite possible), or cynical, knowing full well how things work, and planning to work within the same system we have now if elected. A president is no more powerful than his ability to define for the public what the issues are, and what the battle lines are, and mobilize the people behind the correct battles. That was FDR's secret. And FDR was the last president who explicitly went up against corporate interests per se and passed the most extraordinary series of legislative bills in American history. Only Edwards shows even a glimmer of recognition of all of this, and he shows much more than a glimmer of it.

One final point on Edwards: if he is really cynically lying, he is unbelievably stupid. Unless one imagines that he has literally met secretly with the very people he is daily excoriating and explained to them that his campaign is a total lie and that he is secretly with them and only saying all of this to get elected--which is too preposterous for words--then you have to recognize that by saying what he has been saying, he has burned the bridge behind him. Even if privately he intends to go back on his campaign promises and suck up to corporate interests, they surely would never trust him, after what he's said. THAT's the strongest reason to believe that he is sincere. Obama has clearly refused to say anything that would burn his bridge back to corporate corruption. Not to mention Hillary, who is corporate power writ large. And it seems certain that this is what Nader sees also.

Kucinich fans: have any of you any arguments stronger than Anne Faith's in defense of Kucinich's betrayal of principle by backing Obama? If not, do any of you have the honesty to criticize Kucinich for this, which is the only principled thing you can do?

Thanks for those links, vaudree. I have to confess that I am a naive liberal, and that I get lost quite easily in that rabbit hole that is the Bush political geneology. Amy Goodman herself pointed it out in one of her Democracy Now! broadcasts that the Nuremberg trials purposefully did not prosecute numerous US corporations that were in bed with Hitler. Those folks made what money they could with him, and then cut bait at the very last minute.

Alex Jones has some great footage of Senate testimony of some US official who was in the bunker with Cheney himself and heard Cheney direct a subordinate to continue NORAD's standing down and allow the plane to continue approaching DC. We already know that the Project for a New American Century was begging for a "trigger" event, and the question is really how much foreknowledge did Cheney have, and did he figure it would serve his interests better to have planes crash spectacularly in densely populated cities versus being shot down by NORAD over farm country (or apprehend the hijackers beforehand, as we likely could have). Neither Moore nor the Senate committee delved into the whats or wherefores of Cheney's conduct on 911. Of course there are many other red flags here that point to US complicity...

Getting back to the candidate choices, I am VERY perturbed at this whole fascist/corporatist drift of the past 30 years. We can't rely on the media to help. Conyers admitted to Goodman on her 12/20/2007 show that impeachment hearings aren't going to happen because FOX News will make Bush and Cheney out to be the victims -- so Conyers is going to just ride it out...

Which just leaves me wondering, just how far can we really go in the present system? Maybe the best hope IS that Edwards betrays the DLC and becomes a rabid populist. Short of assassinating him, there wouldn't be much that corporate America could do. Merely staying true to Edwards' professed anti-nuclear energy stance would be a big step forward...

RE: - It's all that interlinking of Prescott Bush, IBM, the Nazis, corporatism, the Bohemian Grove society, and their colluding to create a one world government. You have to really investigate this.

Didn't Prescott Bush do business with Thyssen Industries? Well during the 80's and 90's when Papa Bush was Vice President and President, Karlheinz Schreiber was trying to get various contracts for Thyssen Industries.

Secondly, according to Karlheinz Schreiber, Franz Strauss gave money to Schreiber to travel the world and elect Conservatives.

Here is a primer:

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/politicseconomy/karlheinz_schreiber_a_feature_1.html

You may remember Brian Mulroney as the guy who gave that nice eulogy at Ronald Reagan's funeral. Here is Brian Mulroney trying to explain why he took envelopes of money form Karlheinz Schreiber (video worth watching):

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071212/mulroney_testifies_071213/20071213/

If Ralph and Michael praise Edwards, that means a lot to me. But it is odd how they pass over Kucinich. Did you see Moore's email today? He credits Dennis with a good platform but says he's already resigned to losing, so not worth backing at this point.

Why is it that Edwards is "electable" and Kucinich is not? Who the f--- decided that one? Have Nader and Moore joined to create a faux "left"?

I am feeling a bit paranoid these days, having watched several flicks by Alex Jones at Prison Planet. [Did that trigger a moderator? :-) ]

If you can get past Jones' machismo, homophobia, racism, sexism, paranoia, and Ayn Rand worship, you'll find that a good 90% of what he says is right. :-)

It's startling to hear him critique Moore's 911 documentary as a leftist coverup for the Bushies, how Moore purposefully did not dig deep enough into 911. It's all that interlinking of Prescott Bush, IBM, the Nazis, corporatism, the Bohemian Grove society, and their colluding to create a one world government. You have to really investigate this. There are corporations that get fat off war, that want war and the fascist governance that delivers for them.

All I am saying is that what is at work here in the US is no mere greed. There is a deeper darker (and bloodthirsty) layer to it. The value in knowing this is that victory won't be cheap or easy.

I look forward to reading more of the positives of Edwards. Given that he is a mainstream contender, however, I have serious doubts about him. Maybe Moore and Nader are just responding to the real politik -- ie., that Edwards is the best we can hope for. If that's the case, then our society probably still has to bottom out, because Edwards ain't no populist, imo.

Nevertheless, people like to put FDR on a pedestal; but from what I've read, he had a privileged background too, and came rather late and unwillingly to the defense of the average joe.

So who to vote for in the CA primaries? I already switched from Green to Dem. But now, will it be Kucinich or will it be Edwards? If only we had runoff voting.......

anne faith--Your analysis of Kucinich's move makes sense. It was a tactic not a vendetta.

RE: - or Huckabee

:ROTFL

I think that even Stephen Harper is better than Huckabee. I have never heard Harper ever utter the word "Islamofacist" - though he is trying to stir up islamophobia in Quebec, come to think of it.

Thank you for the cheer.

No one is perfect. It just ain't so. I wonder just how privileged all you anti-Democratic Party voters (or not) are. IMO, all the Democratic candidates have holes in some of their ideas, but the current crop of Republicans is truly frightening. Do you want Bush redux? Please stop trying to get the rest of us to opt out of the process.

Paul Bramscher said:

"The League of Conservation Voters (http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Edwards/tab1.html) gives Edwards the worst score (59) of all Dems running."

Too bad if true. I was thinking of voting for him if he would end the WOD. Since Obama got a 96, I'm taking a second look at him. But unlike Edwards, he is not anti-nuke. There is something amiss.

Maybe we should vote for Huckabee instead of Hitler? Hitler instead of Sauron?

What mechanism is there to prevent a bad apple or two from entering the race as a foil, so we're stuck voting for someone less than stellar?

No MIKE CORBEIL, many of us are not aware of the evil things Edwards has done, please do list them, instead of just saying it's so. There are a lot of Edwards supporters here who may change their minds if we knew the facts you are aware of, and then insure we get a Hillary or Huckabee for our next president.

Micheal Moore knows that EDWARDS is the man.
Check it out here on CD -
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/02/6108/

Brilliant move by both Nader and Kucinich. You guys are the balls!

Thanks Ralph,

Hmmm, let's see that's about 156 more votes for Edwards, give or take a few that are still on the fence.

Good job Mr. Nader, you have recognized the most progressive top-tier candidate running for president, John Edwards. John will drag the dems, maybe kicking and screaming, back to the left.

Wait and see who the running mates are. If restricted to crypto-neocons cast in Liebermann's mold, the election has essentially been canceled (again).

Edwards needs to refine his 'fight' against corporatist control of democracy.

While extreme income levels and elite investor pay-outs are common to the corporatist hierarchical structure, these are symptoms and not the cause of the corporatist threat to democracy. (Also, calling attention primarily to these symptoms leaves one open to the charge of envy and class-warfare).

As Bob Reich clearly describes in "Supercapitalism" the seminal issue is corporate interference (short circuiting) of democracy itself.

This may be a more difficult point for Edwards to make, but it is essential to a truthful run as a populist democrat.

Nader is betting that Edwards can articulate the truth of this key issue for the restoration of our democracy. I would agree, and hope that Gore joins Nader in supporting Edwards.

Corporatism is only an existential threat to democracy when it metastasizes into corporatist Empire, and guilefully takes-over democracy (which it unfortunately has in this facade of 'Vichy America').

Edwards can make cogent and honest charges against the abuses of our corporatist empire without resorting to income envy.

This makes no sense to me. Edwards is a member of the New Democratic Movement which was created by the DLC. http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

Things change -- slowly but steadily for the worse until something eventually snaps. This seems to be the path America has bought into.

rmax, I'm right there with you on being angry. Every four years, I make the same mistake of getting all sucked up in this stuff, only to be heartbroken and disappointed come election day. You know what they say about insanity: doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. My idealism keeps getting the best of me. My new year's resolution was to get off these blogs, stop reading the news, and stop thinking that things are ever gonna change. Guess I'll start that resolution tomorrow, because I really blew it today.

"John Edwards has become the first major presidential candidate to favor withdrawing all American troops, including advisers, from Iraq,"

All these Kucinich lovers should pause before they jump onto Obama's bandwagon. Nader at least supports Edwards, who seems to at least get the Iraq issue in perspective.

RE: But considering Canadian dollars are worth more than US, it would cost more to be married in Canada!

I don't see a problem with that. Gay marriage is good for the economy. I will spare you the Michael Leshner lecture. Michael Leshner was born in New York did you know? Since his husband is Catholic and he is Jewish they opted for a civil marriage rather than a church wedding. Leshner lectured Elton John for "settling" for less than full marriage.

When is the American Military going to allow gay marriage?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/14/militarygaywedding0614.html

Romeo Dallaire commenting on homosexuality in the American Military:

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1710

And you said something about Edward's position?

RE: I can appreciate that he has come as far as he has on

Not just on gay rights but a lot of issues. I get the feeling that Edwards decides how far he can go and still be viable.

Even if Edwards comes in third - if the three are in basically a dead heat he will still be in it.

Huckabee (sp?) scares me. I liked him better when he was Governor and all we knew about him was that he congradulated Canada on preserving our National Igloo. Hope he's goes down big time!

The League of Conservation Voters (http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Edwards/tab1.html) gives Edwards the worst score (59) of all Dems running.

I'm not sure if this says much, since there are some interesting characters among its boards of directorship. But something to be concerned about for those who voted for Nader in the past, due to his Green Party affiliation. Edwards is at best luke-green.

vaudree, vous etes tres genereux, merci. But considering Canadian dollars are worth more than US, it would cost more to be married in Canada! And frankly, I'm not religious, so "holy matrimony" isn't what I'm looking for in a marriage--I want the rights and privileges, which in NH, were given to gays by the civil union laws (state rights, not federal). Full marriage equality will come, especially if it ever gets to the US Supreme Court (even Scalia has warned that if it comes to that, it will be hard to argue against, from a constitutional view).

Back to the topic, if you could read what Edwards says about gay/lesbian rights, you would not wonder why I support him. I can appreciate that he has come as far as he has on gay rights; like many Americans, he's moving in the right direction. It's just one area that makes me trust him on other issues, like Iraq, education, environment, energy, health care, immigration. He's the total package, in my humble opinion (and he's got great hair, ha!)

RE: - He supports civil unions, he's not there yet on gay marriage (though Elizabeth is).

Thanks. I got all my information concerning Edwards position on this issue from his debate with Cheney. If Elizabeth is for Gay Marriage then John Edward's opposition to it is probably mere prudence.

Being Canadian, information on gay marriage is easy to come by. It makes me feel both smug and intelligent sharing it.

RE: - I'm a gay man, and I'd rather vote for a candidate who supports civil unions and has a shot at winning than a candidate like Kucinich who supports gay marriage and has no chance. Call me crazy, but call me realistic too.

A log cabin Republican you are not! I am sure that there are other issue besides civil unions which are important to you. For me, a politicians views on gay issues tends to correspond to their views on other human rights issues.

Remember when the late Tom Fox, Norman Kember, Harmeet Singh Sooden and James Loney were kidnapped in Iraq? Loney talked one of his kidnappers out of being a suicide bomber (the guy was upset because his fiancee and family members died during the bombings). Seems that Loney was once considering the priesthood, but someone he met when he was 16 talked him out of that:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060327/gay_quiet_060327?s_name=&no_ads=

RE: - I'm in NH, and my partner of 30 years and I will be civilly united soon.

Why don't you just come to Canada with your relatives and have a church wedding - after 30 years you deserve it! And we don't mind the greenbacks!

RE: the false dichotomy is the reduction of alternatives to temporary tyrrany and perpetual tyrrany

Define "tyrrany" - ok, I guess we can both agree that the Patriot Act is tyrrany. You always need a plan "B" when plan "A" doesn't work.

Any way, it it seems that the US violated even the Patriot Act when they kidnapped and extradited Maher Arar to Jordan on the way to dropping him off in Syria.

RE: - "dirty,"

You know that they use those words only when they run out of argument.

Great post, skipper48. Of course, the Nader bashers aren't paying attention, they have their own agenda, being corporate shills in disguise, as Kem Patrick so ably demonstrated in his posts above.

kathyodat

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.

~ Philo of Alexandria

My apologies, anne faith, if I missed your point. But you're right about one thing, I *am* angry. And I believe that John Edwards understands and appreciates that anger. Some call it slick, I'd call it crafty. It's all semantics and what spin you want on it.

I can't imagine anyone here could convince you otherwise, but Obama strikes me as slickest of the slick (and make no mistake, I mean it in a negative way). I've seen and heard John Edwards, and I choose to believe in both the message and the messenger. His sincerity and passion are palpable. It's off-putting to some, who may prefer the smoothness of Obama. But frankly, Edwards' passion and commitment are what I'm looking for in a president, not smooth talk of healing and compromise, and giving a place at the table to the wolves who have gouged us for the past 30 years. After Reagan/Bush/Gingrich/Bush, I want "blood" on the walls of the White House, and on the floor of the House and Senate, and I want it colored Republican Red!

This brings us a little closer to EDWARDS/KUCINICH in 2008 - the anti-corporate peace party! Come on people...

Thank you, Nader. We'll move this party back to being "the party of the people" yet.

In case no one has noticed, ALL the progressive words coming out of this campaign are coming from Nader's rants more than a decade ago. Edwards' anti-corporation message is straight out of Nader's mouth, and the main reason I'm supporting Edwards.

I have a question for those who think Nader "spoiled" the 2000 election. Are you really saying you don't think any person has the right to run for president in this country? You aren't saying you disagree with Nader's thoughts; indeed, by supporting Kucinich and Edwards, you are saying you very much agree with Nader's thoughts.

Is it Nader's fault he was not allowed in the debates in 2000? That his message could not penetrate the MSM filter? That the public was prevented from hearing his words? When did we quit demanding freedom of speech?

Is it his fault the Democrats prevented him from getting on the ballots in most states, and actually drove his campaign into bankruptcy with their frivilous lawsuits?

FYI: Gore did win Florida, and the Ohio elections were rigged also. If you have a bone to pick with someone, pick it with corrupt campaign officials and your own Supreme Court. (Or pass a law that Secretaries of State can't be campaign chairs! duh!)

Nader didn't hand you Bush. The corporateocracy did. And who has spoken louder against the corporateocracy than Nader? Shame on all who insinuate Nader does not have the right to tell the truth, or to run for president. Are you sure you're progressives?

IMO, the Progressives are hanging with the Dems by a thread. If we progressives cannot pull this party back on track, there will surely be the rise of a third party; not a bad idea, but a long time to wait to have the numbers to do anything. It's time to weed the garden; get rid of the bad apples and embrace the good ones.

Edwards' move to the left, and now Nader's endorsement, does give me a glimmer of hope also that we might return this party to being the party of the people. Come on home, Ralph, and let's clean house.

You faint-hearted, listen to what you are saying. It is no time to be abandoning our principles.

Edwards, how about a great big southern thank-you to Nader? NC is watching.

Vern, Dennis has not "trashed" Edwards. He simply said he supports someone else. Can you handle that? Nor has Dennis "admitted that he doesn't have a chance." He simply urged people to support Obama if he doesn't get the 15% he needs in Iowa. Believe what you like, but I don't think Dennis is "dirty," "manipulative," "cynical" or "vindictive." He's got more integrity in his little finger than the rest of them have in their whole body. But yes, politics is a matter of strategy, and this was my best guess as to what Dennis' strategy is. Who the f--- knows, anyway?

And rmax, you're right - the rap on trial lawyers IS right out of the Republican playbook. That was my point. I'm glad to hear you don't hate trial lawyers, but I'm telling you from personal experience, the average American idiot hates trial lawyers without recognizing that some of us, like Edwards, actually do good and are for the little guy. Whatever. You all are so angry that it's pointless to try to make a point. So I'll stop. Happy now?

'I think you are referring to the false dichotomy between principle and political suicide (I am guessing)."

vaudree, the false dichotomy is the reduction of alternatives to temporary tyrrany and perpetual tyrrany.

Admire what you will.

Let's settle this in a civil manner - Canada is playing the US on Friday. Anyone want to put up a wager? The loser would have to say 10 nice things about whoever the winner chooses.

Kem Patrick wrote, apparently due to my post:

"Edwards is evil? Wow, I didn't know that.

Wonder which blogger will have a shit fit here first?"

LET'EM "rip", flame, exploded, blast all they want. Only the respectable few of them will back up their words opposing my view.

Edwards has enough serious negatives in his track record to merit being treated as an unworthy candidate for [any] public office; except for maybe industrial cleaning of offices. And Obama, who Kucinich is said to now be calling on his supporters to support, this is another unfit candidate.

The fitting candidates are, and only if Nader has become candidate yet, well, Kucinich, Gravel, Nader, Cynthia McKinney (I read she's now become candidate anyway), and, imo, too old, too weak in terms of health, as if ready to keel over any time now, Ron Paul. Paul has questions to answer for my view on his candidature to be satisfactorily positive, but he certainly seems to have a chance of doing this. So I'd want the unanswered questions answered.

I can detail the negatives, some of the critical among them, in the track records of Edwards and Obama, but assume MOST people are already aware of these anyway.

Seems like everyone is playing hot potato, but passing it only to the right.

Kucinich asks voters to support Obama if he doesn't win in NH:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDC1l7fRNVdFdgW4JsjBd03lUOIAD8TTD8M00

Obama asks voters to support Leibermann in CT:
http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_supp...

Liebermann puts his support behind McCain:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1634401920071217

McCain, of course, will concede to the endorsed Republican in '08 (which won't be him).

Politics is a joke on us -- isn't it.

'Yes, Obama is a compromiser who wants to sit at the big table with the monied interests, and that makes us "purists" very unhappy with Obama'

That is the sorriest statement I have ever seen on this site. I suppose you could use the same argument to defend Bush and attack the purists for not getting any traction.

"People hate trial lawyers"---again, right out of the Republican play book. That goes right up there with "The reason medical costs are so high is because of doctors' high malpractice premiums." (And who benefits from those premiums? The insurance companies.)

I don't hate trial lawyers, though I've been lucky to stay out of court. John Edwards fought big corporations in trials to get settlements for individuals. Hateful, isn't it? If that isn't a good record to run on, I don't know what is.

This thread has been interesting, despite the personal invective. Seems we all mistrust Hillary. Some of us trust John Edwards for what he's saying he'll fight for (and has a track record as a fighter). Some trust Obama for what he's "hoping" for. I'll say it again, one can hope for change, or one can fight for it. I choose to fight for it (by supporting Edwards).

John Edwards has admitted and apologized for some mistakes. After 7 years of a president who can't think of any mistakes he's made, it's a bit refreshing, isn't it?

Edited to add, after reading above post about Edwards' position on gay rights:
He supports civil unions, he's not there yet on gay marriage (though Elizabeth is). It's a matter of semantics, and once people realize that all marriages are civil contracts, it's a small step to support gay marriage. Edwards has an entire section on gay rights in his policy booklet (I couldn't find the word "gay" or "lesbian" on the Obama site). P.S. I'm a gay man, and I'd rather vote for a candidate who supports civil unions and has a shot at winning than a candidate like Kucinich who supports gay marriage and has no chance. Call me crazy, but call me realistic too. I'm in NH, and my partner of 30 years and I will be civilly united soon.

This is interesting:

"Edwards is viewed by people on the left as the next most progressive candidate after Kucinich. People who think Dennis has no chance (and that's just about everyone, unfortunately) and think that Edwards DOES have a chance, will vote for Edwards. Edwards is therefore Dennis' main competition. So why would he tell his supporters to back Edwards, thereby giving Edwards momentum..."

In other words, trash the candidate who most clearly mirrors your positions in order to elbow the competion out of the way..Is that what you are saying? In that case would you say that the issues are secondary to Kucinich? That even though he admitted he doesn't have a chance for a variety of reasons he would risk sabotaging the outcome for his own stake in destroying the most progressive rival?

Like I said: pathetic.

"Also, I don't think it's "petty" for Dennis to be pissed about Edwards and Clinton's attempt to exclude Dennis and other "long shot" candidates from the Democratic debates. That was precisely the kind of blackballing that Dennis has been fighting his entire life. Is Edwards really the "man of the people" that you all seem to think he is? In any event, why should Dennis endorse Edwards after that stunt?"

Because his actions mirror the stunt and reveal him to be just as manipulating just as cynical, just as vindictive.

This is politics-and Clinton started to unravel when she complained that she was being picked on after her free ride got a flat--what does Kucinich expect? He plays dirty like the rest. Own it.

We need a vaunted 'democracy movement' here in America --- let alone Pakistan, Iraq, etc.

Nader was always called a 'consumer advocate', but he's really always been a 'democracy advocate' ---- and a democracy advocate is someone who, at heart, is anti-EMPIRE.

Today's Empire is a global corporatist Empire --- not an American Empire (although the corporatist Empire would love the rubes to think so ---- because it implies that average Americans get some sort of imperialist booty because of the American Empire ---- nothing could be further from the truth).

What the average people within the belly of any empire really get is screwed ---- and Nader knows this and he knows that corporatists are running this guileful empire hiding behind the facade of 'Vichy America'.

Edwards is making noises as if he knows this also --- so Nader is willing to encourage and support Edwards, and Nader can see if Edwards actually performs, or is all ralk.

This is a reasonable bet that Nader has put down. He isn't betting the farm, but if Edwards turns out to be more stalwart in his anti-corporatist populism than Gore was in 2000 then Nader wins --- and we win. I'd take that bet.

But personally, I'm watching to see if Edwards has the cojones to extend his anti-corporatist rhetoric from merely anti-corporate to anti-corporatist empire, and shares with the American people that the corporatist threat has actually already become the veiled empire that has taken over their government --- well then Edwards shoots the moon and we all win the only real fight in this phony ring.

For me, Edwards's rhetoric will only ring true if he starts openly talking about the global corporatist Empire hiding behind this facade of 'Vichy America' — and identifying it as the common cause of all our foreign wars, all our domestic economic oppression, and all manner of proto-fascist, extra-Constitutional tyranny.

As Hannah Arendt presciently warned, "Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home" ---- and we're certainly headed for tyranny, since we've already passed economic oppression and lost the house if not the farm.

RE: I also know what a false dichotomy is.

The big one I know about is between security and human rights. Somehow violating human rights doesn't make me feel more secure.

There are probably a lot of false dichotomies in American politics I don't know about.

I think you are referring to the false dichotomy between principle and political suicide (I am guessing).

Edwards had a choice, he could have opposed the Patriot Act in its existing form and have it pass anyway or he could water it down by adding a sunset clause. I think that he decided that half a loaf was better than none. History will decide whether he was wrong or right.

Many Democrats did not wish to commit what they considered to be political suicide - so there was a big danger of having no loaf at all. But these same Democrats (and enough Republicans) were persuaded to vote for a sunset clause - despite how much doing so pissed of Cheney.

RE: - I'm sticking to Edwards too, for now. I'm not sure if Nader's endorsement will help, due to the dislike so many progressives and Dumbocrats have for him.

I think that Edwards is smart enough to bring up voting irregularities as a campaign issue - that it is not just important for the election to be seen transparent and above board but also for it to be seen as being transparent and above board.

I'm sticking with Edwards until I am forced to choose between Clinton and Obama.

RE: Also, I don't think it's "petty" for Dennis to be pissed about Edwards and Clinton's attempt to exclude Dennis and other "long shot" candidates from the Democratic debates.

Edwards did that? That isn't petty. Still, policy-wise, I think Edwards is a bit closer to Kucinich than Obama is. Though I think that Edwards is against Equal Marriage - which does put him with the Republicans.

Here's one Kucinich purist/worshipper (whatever you want to call me) who was surprised by his support for Obama in Iowa, but I can see why he would do it. Dennis is still in this race and believes he has a chance to make a decent showing in states such as New Hampshire and California. If he's in it to win it, it makes sense for him to support Obama rather than Edwards.

Edwards is viewed by people on the left as the next most progressive candidate after Kucinich. People who think Dennis has no chance (and that's just about everyone, unfortunately) and think that Edwards DOES have a chance, will vote for Edwards. Edwards is therefore Dennis' main competition. So why would he tell his supporters to back Edwards, thereby giving Edwards momentum?

Also, I don't think it's "petty" for Dennis to be pissed about Edwards and Clinton's attempt to exclude Dennis and other "long shot" candidates from the Democratic debates. That was precisely the kind of blackballing that Dennis has been fighting his entire life. Is Edwards really the "man of the people" that you all seem to think he is? In any event, why should Dennis endorse Edwards after that stunt?

I also think Obama is more electable than Edwards. Yes, Obama is a compromiser who wants to sit at the big table with the monied interests, and that makes us "purists" very unhappy with Obama. But Obama's upbeat and inclusive message resonates with a lot of people, whether you like it or not. Edwards, on the other hand, is shouting angrily that he will "fight" the powers that be. That message will resonate with people on the left, but not the general electorate.

I also don't trust what Edwards says. His rhetoric is good, but his voting record speaks for itself. Plus, Edwards is slick and I think is perceived that way by a lot of people. I don't consider Obama "slick." As for Edwards' southern roots supposedly making him appealing to southern voters in the general election, I live in the South and I don't hear any Southerners signing his praises. He's a trial lawyer (as am I), and people hate trial lawyers. People don't hate Obama.

Dennis says that he and Obama represent change. The most important change needed in November 2008 is that the Repugs are voted out of the White House. It's probably the most that we can hope and pray for, despite our desire for so much more.

Despite polls saying that Edwards would beat out any Republican, I don't believe it, and remember, the polls are very often wrong. I think Edwards would be the latest in a string of losses, like Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Obama, on the other hand, is considered a fresh voice, and people are dying for something new and fresh. He's also got a positive message, whereas Edwards' message is angry and negative. This will not appeal to the general electorate.

As for the Repugs' inevitable attempt to Swift-boat Obama (by calling him "Hussein" or "Osama" or claiming he's a radical Muslim), well, the people that would buy that crock of crap would not vote for Obama anyway, because of the color of his skin. Edwards will also be Swift-boated, as a flip flopper, a sleazy trial lawyer, and John Kerry's running mate.

One last thing about Obama. Look at where he came from. Look at his community activism in Illinois, and the fact that, unlike Edwards, he chose to work for the poor after law school instead of making the big bucks as a trial lawyer. That says something about who Obama is at his core, despite his message of inclusiveness now. He may in fact be far more progressive than John Edwards. Remember, it was Obama who said he'd be willing to sit down with our "enemies." That's the kind of thing Dennis Kucinich would do.

This is all a crap shoot, but I feel safer putting my money on Obama than on Edwards to get elected in November and to effectuate some change – not as much change as I'd like, but at least it's something. I want more than anything for Dennis to win and I will vote for him, because he is the real deal. But if we can't have Dennis, then I trust his intelligence and his judgment when he says that Obama is the candidate most likely to bring about change in November.

I'm sticking to Edwards too, for now. I'm not sure if Nader's endorsement will help, due to the dislike so many progressives and Dumbocrats have for him. The media and the Dumbocratic party think they can get away with making Clinton and Obama look like real "progressives" by virtue of one of them being black, and the other a woman. The only serious progressive contender, Edwards, happens to be a, heaven forbid, just another white male, and that is "bad" all by itself, to the corporatists who try to exploit political correctness for their twisted agenda.

There are still a lot of people on the left who throw a fit every time they hear the name "Nader". That's because according to Dumbocrat mythology, Nader supposedly helped put Bushy in office when he "stole" votes from Gore, as if archduke Gore was "entitled" to the votes the usurper Nader "stole". Even if Nader wasn't in the 2000 or 2004 elections, the Republicans probably still would have found a way to steal the election. Plus, how can one "steal" votes? Nader successfully managed to grab a few votes from Gore, who, when you consider that the pro-war Lieberman was his running mate, in so many ways wouldn't have been that different from Bush(on foreign policy), in my opinion, except maybe when it comes to environmental issues. What a joke Kerry was!

Nader wouldn't have been necessary if the Dumbocrats truly embraced progressive values. He's a convenient scapegoat when the real villain is the Dumbocratic party leadership and its pro-corporate policies which make it virtually indistinguishable from the Republicans. The Nader voters didn't leave the Dumbocratic party, it was the Dumbocratic party that left them. The real issue is why the Dumbocrats keep moving so far to the right, not why Nader has to "steal" votes from them.

Speaking of false dichotomies, this entire thread sounds a little like Pascal's Wager.

I remember when Ralph Nader was chosen the most trusted person in America; trust isn't important anymore, bullshit is.

Edwards paraphrasing FDR, "These people (corporations) hate me, I welcome their hate". The best we have to help the progressive cause. Let's give him our full support!

vaudree, yes I do know what a sunset clause is. I also know what a false dichotomy is.

RE: - You asked me if my opinion of two candidates would be different if they were female…….. Gender and race do not play into my personal choices except in so far as ELECTABILITY………

I am glad that you clarified that for me. Personally, I think I would still give a Johanne Edwards a bit more credibility than a Hilliard Clinton. You and John Crosbie should sit down over some tequila sometime - I think you have a bit in common.

(note: I always make sure I spell names right to make it easier to those who need to check Wikipedia)

I wished that Margaret Thatcher was not electable - but that has more to do with her policies.

RE: - Considerations of who is the best candidate go far beyond their personal platform and how well it resonates with your concern.

Yes, having a voice that carries is useful during the English debate and a knowledge of french makes one seem more credible during the French Debate. We have, at least, these two.

You do notice how all of our Prime Ministers speak French?

I know that is not what you mean.

RE: It certainly can't be on the Health Care Issue - Their plan (if that's what you can call it) forces people to buy FOR PROFIT health insurance - essentially a Government handout to the crooked private health insurance companies, who are the problem to begin with.

I think that this is a better reason to vote for or against someone than gender or race. Edwards does have a bit better plan - which, at least, goes in the direction of Kucinich's - though only part way down the path.

RE: - So whats the point !!

(hug) - now go out and vote!

There is always a point to voting. The sad thing is that the right is always prepared to vote and we give up. We make it easier for them.

There seems to be a few right-wingers on this board who are trying to discourage us from voting and a few frustrated moderates on this board who seem to be listening to them. Don't listen to them and don't give up! Canadians are counting on you!

RE: - Castro said that Hillary/Obama would be unbeatable

Hillary has floundered since then. And it is unlikely that they will team up.

Nearly 50% of the potential voters have not voted in recent national elections in the United States. A significant number of voters only vote in local elections where the issues are clearly debated and candidates define themselves on those issues. The non-voters are mostly working class and the poor who have figured out long ago that the parade of polished boot-lickers and millionaires jostling to divey up the public loot have nothing to do with their interests - the game is fixed in the corporate board rooms and the rules are rigged so as never to allow an alternative voices to threaten their hold on power - or substantive issues to even come to debate. The masses of non-voting Americans are not apathetic and certainly not stupid. There is no possibility of democratic popular expression through the current US electoral system.

Nader as a private citizen activist had shown that much can be accomplished outside of the electoral process in his historic work on worker and consumer safety, freedom of information and so much more. But consequential action through the political party system has become impossible.

Hundreds of thousands of working class Hispanic Americans and their friends and familiy members poured into the streets in a massive show of force that de-railed the most racist anti-immigrant legislation. That never would have happened through the electoral system.

Actively boycotting the 'banquet of the titans' as they polish their political sock puppets for mass consumption is a form of voting - The 'NO Vote' vote. Until we are able, through mass direct action, to force substantive changes in the rules that formally give monopoly power to the elite and corporations in the country, voting, especially for the 'lesser of two evils' will only serve to legitimize the continued ruling class' gang rape of our Constitution. If you accept that both parties are tools of the corporate ruling elite which have pillaged the national wealth and have made endless foreign wars for the benefit of a tiny elite, then participating in an election for one compromised crook or the other (no matter what they have said in their speeches) is just dressing up the rotten corpse and calling it 'a democracy'.

Attacking the real 'alternative' of a NO vote - is coming largely from those who depend on the clientalist machinery of the parties to hire their kids or fund their useless front organizations (your know the ones that shill for the Democrats while pretending to be progressive). When less than 25% of the electorate actually choses our bankrupt joke of a President - his or her legitimacy on the world stage is hollow and must be exposed as such.

Eviltwinskippy thank you! Totally agree!

If you don't want to have a voice in the big system and keep your hands clean, then boycott the elections...that is your free choice and your absolute right.

I watch the TV, all these rallies, "debates" etc... see all these sheep following all the canidates, and think to myself, do these people really think they live in a democracy?

We're all Republicans now.

Castro said that Hillary/Obama would be unbeatable.... that was a while ago .... I think Edwards/Obama would be the winning ticket...

Wow ! Another full year of enduring all this meaningless drivel. I wish we were as passionate about ending the endless wars we started. Bloodlust and Apathy seem to be the cornerstones of our society. The only two people who may end the war (Nader and Kucinich) will never get elected. So whats the point !!

Hillary and Obama, either way you cut it, are getting half of the vote in the general election (as of now).

Hill and Obama supporters Can someone explain to me what issues they're voting on? Seriously, I need to know.

It certainly can't be on the Iraq issue - They've already said publically that they won't withdraw the troops before 2013. All they're going to do is withdraw 10-20,000, which will get us back to the same levels we had in 2004-2007 130-140,000.

It certainly can't be on the Health Care Issue - Their plan (if that's what you can call it) forces people to buy FOR PROFIT health insurance - essentially a Government handout to the crooked private health insurance companies, who are the problem to begin with.

It certainly can't be on civil liberty, privacy, and domestic spying issues - both Hill and Obama have remained silent on these issues.

Certainly can't be on torture, which they won't let go.

Certainly won't be excessive and unconstitutional executive power, which is what they're seeking in the first place.

The economy you say? Please, you really think these corperate elitests represent the interests of the public?

But the interesting thing, and nobody has seemed to pick up on this is that even now, during the Primary Season, the Dem frontrunners are all pandering to the right. You don't see the Republicans pandering to the left, or middle do you? They're also pandering to the right - the far right. So it's only primary season, and you see these Dem canidates all pandering to the far right, can you imagine what the "discussion" is going to be during the General Election season?

vaudree:
You asked me if my opinion of two candidates would be different if they were female........ Gender and race do not play into my personal choices except in so far as ELECTABILITY......... Neither Obama nor Clinton are ELECTABLE......... A vote for either of these candidates in the primary is a vote for another republican fascist. The democratic party may be able to nominate either one of these people, but the nation at large WILL NOT elect either of them as president........ You can bank on that.

Considerations of who is the best candidate go far beyond their personal platform and how well it resonates with your concern. Experience shows that we always have to settle for less than what we ideally might like....... That's the price of democracy.

For a candidate to be electable he must be able to draw enough votes from both sides of America. He must have a platform that appeals to enough people, both republican and democrat to be elected........... and probably more important he must have some charisma and appeal....... neither Kerry nor Gore had this last most important quality. We elect people we feel good about ultimately........ people who grab our hearts and minds. Bush not withstanding....... as both elections were rife with fraud and corruption.

Howard

To the point of the story - Nader did not endorse Edwards and title notwithstanding, did not "throw support" to Edwards.

He suggests, in Iowa, which has no 3rd party caucuses, that essentially, Edwards is the only glimmer of a decent candidate. And oh yeah, Clinton REALLY sucks.

And you Nader haters out there, the next time you drink clean water, put on your seatbelt, read the warning on a ladder or a powertool, or read nutritional info on a food package, thank your stars that Ralph Nader was standing up for you, for your safety (true safety, not "War on Terror" safety) even though you don't have a clue about how many lives have been saved, how many injuries, birth defects, and diseases have been prevented, by the sheer will of this one man, to take on any cause, any power structure, anything, in order to do what is right and good for the American Citizenry.

RE: - 3 hours ago

So Kucinich is backing Obama and Nader is backing Edwards. Which one has a better chance of becoming Vice President? I guess that means checking out why Kucinich backed Obama rather than Edwards.

RE: - If both had endorsed either Obama or Edwards, that would have made a lot of difference.

Probably.

RE: - I fear Obama or Clinton cannot beat a Republican, even if it's that Huckabee, unless we had paper ballots nation wide.

Paper ballots would increase the credibility of your vote. You know already that you can't even check the paper count of those machines because that belongs to the company! I heard of them signing up people to vote in Malls and then throwing away the applications if the person marked down "Democrat." What happened with just showing up to the polling booth with your drivers license (or, if you don't have that, your lease and phone bill etc?)

In Canada, even the inmates can vote - and the Marijuana party actually went into the jails to hand out their pamphlets.

I personally can't even see why Huckabee is in the race. Here is my favorite memory of Mike Huckabee:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XfSN4fnXwKM

RE: - The robinea solution: Boycott the elections.

The repugs would consider that a Christmas present if we (meaning you Americans) were to do that. If they are taking names that even sound similar to convicted felons (but who are not) off the list - they don't really want the rest of you to vote either.

RE: - The loonies are out, the trolls are out, and as is usual just before the Iowa caucus, a lot of people feel like wrenches have been thrown into their spokes.

Just because the loonie is doing better than the greenback. Tsk, Tsk

I wonder whose fault that is ...

RE: - Has anybody thought what would happen when Elizabeth Edwards is really on her deathbed as the election looms this fall? Does America want to vote for a dead first lady?

As far as I know, you don't actually elect first ladies or first men. Hope Elizabeth pulls through - I like her. But you don't really need someone to fulfill the role of stepford wife. Don't you think that is a bit old fashioned! This isn't the 1950's!

RE: - universal health care

iammyself, you are right about it taking all of us - and some very smart minds to ultimately get anything resembling universal health care. In Canada, there are some very smart minds doing their best to try to destroy it and give Canadians, instead, what you've got. It is a never ending struggle on both sides.

RE: - To even use the word progressive in connection with one of the biggest corporate whores out there, being out "corporatized" by only one person, the biggest corporate whore of them all, Hillary.

I am sure that Cheney is a bigger corporate whore than Hillary - I am sure that he has every corporate venereal disease out there - greed, total disregard for human life, total disregard for the environment, backstabbing etc. As bad as she is, she would be an improvement. This is about thinking we can do better than Hillary. In that regard, I would lean towards Edwards over Obama because charisma only takes you so far. But Obama with a decent VP would be good.

seriousprofessor, do you know what a sunset clause is? It is like putting an expiry date on milk. Edwards is the reason the Patriot Act had one. He decreased its shelf life.

Would you prefer if the Patriot Act was designed to be in effect forever?

I rather have Edwards then Hillary.

The article recycles a demonstrably false claim, but a popular one nevertheless, that Nader cost the Democrats the presidential election in 2000. The trolls here must have taken that as their green light.

Edwards is less vile to me than some others, but some of his Senate votes so offend my sense of decency that they are deal-breakers. These certainly include the USAPATRIOT Act and the vote to hand Bush a blank check to invade Iraq.

Those who want Edwards are welcome to him.

Well, Well, here we go again. The demopublicans once again are setting Ralph up to be the "spoiler" in an already spoiled race. The demopublicans are so fucking lame, they must pre-emptively blame someone for their failures before they even happen!!!!!!

Nader 2000--"For those who think Nader is selling out to the Democrats, think again. What he's doing is just more of the same vandalism, this time throwing a monkey wrench into the strongest, most viable and astonishingly progressive candidacy in the race, that of the amazing Barack Obama, onetime campaigner for Nader's own NYPIRG".

"Nader is trying to win the nomination for Hillary Clinton, so he can reprise his old soapbox act yet again. Edwards is way behind, but any gains he makes at this point will come mostly at the expense of Obama. Mark my words. Assuming Edwards doesn't win the nomination, and the odds are strongly against him, Nader will be back this year".

"Astonishingly progressive" candidate? The amazing Barack Obama?? This says about all we need to know about you Nader 2000, not that we didn't know already, from your other posts. To even use the word progressive in connection with one of the biggest corporate whores out there, being out "corporatized" by only one person, the biggest corporate whore of them all, Hillary.

See how this works folks, only those deemed by the demopublicans (DLC), to be "worthy" of votes, can get any left leaning votes. Anyone not deemed worthy of the left leaning votes who campaigns, is stealing votes from the DLC candidate, either Hillary or Obama. Both major corporate whores. A vote for Edwards will come at the "expense" of Obama. This is unbelieveable!!!!The "expense" of Obama????
The arrogance of this is off the charts!!!!

Why don't the demopubs merge with the republicrats?? They are one and the same so why not stop trying to confuse people and get honest, then we can have a shot at establishing a true "second" party. but......I guess that's the idea.....to confuse everyone that Democrats are the same party that brought us FDR. The same party my plasterer father worked and voted for all of his life. FDR and my dad must be turning over in their graves at what the Demopublicans have become!!!!!!

Oh and one more thing - Nominating Obummer is handing the election to the Repugs. He can not possibly win the general election.

There is no one in the Republican field that I believe would be able to beat Edwards in the general election.

I will still likely continue to support Kucinich in the primaries,even after his display of poor judgment. Who knows "we the people" may still surprise our corporate media masters.

"RE: - Not-for-profit healthcare system, no compromise, Dennis is the only one for whom I will vote.

Dennis is not going to be able to do it the way Tommy Douglas did. Your system is just too different."

I think this is right. The U.S. system will not allow major structural changes - it has been reconfigured this way and no one person can win against it. It will take all of us, no matter how much we detest rolling our sleeves up.

Way to go Ralph! I wish Kucinich would have thrown his support to Edwards instead of Obummer. I have to question is reasoning. Obummer is nothing more than a well spoke used car salesman as far as I can tell. Try in to sell us on "real change" with little substance.

To all you Nader haters out there, all I can do is laugh, laugh, laugh. You perpetuate the corrupt two party system blaming Ralph and his supporters for the inadequacies of the democratic party and the inability of an incumbent VP in prosperous times to send a virtually illiterate looser back to Texas, or Maine or Hell, where ever Bush came from. You are all dupes for the tails side of a bad penny.

"Would you junk the world from disaste at a late conversion…or a hairstyle? Though no less stranger than fiction, truth should never be so tragic."

witness,

It won't be so tragic. When faced with the stark reality of the lesser of two evils, most of us will so choose.

It's a good thing there's the rest of life to live aside from the circus.

right now Edwards is the only one that defeats every repug candidate in the polls. food for thought

Edwards is the only one who has a chance of winning! All Hilliary and Obama are going to do is put another rabid Republican in the White House. Our national nightmare will continue for another 4 to 8 years. If it doesn't destroy us. I see that as being the most important goal of the Democratic Party this year. Put someone on the ticket who has a chance of winning. I don't have a thing against Hilliary or Obama either one. I will vote for them (because I refuse to vote Republican under any circumstances). But, to many people in this country do! There isn't anyway of getting around the fact that we live in a very backward racist nation filled with red necks and the foaming at the mouth rabid conservative type fruitcakes. That's why the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly make millions and are popular. Because people are ignorant enough to listen to them. These people will destroy the country before they will open their eyes and take a good look at what they are putting in office!

Threads too long, but here's my two bits since I didn't get on yesterday. Nader said at least a year ago that he would do what he could to stop Hillary, including running as a third party candidate if feasible. Since DK has been left out of Iowa, this is simply a vote against the Clinton/corporate dynasty. No biggy. I'm sure he still despises the two party system.

Not if they're honest about your intention to fool them; people who think like that are begging for a lesson.