At this moment we could be on the verge of a tidal change to the Left in this country -- one that could last eight or even sixteen years. Here's the deal. Whichever Democrat wins in Iowa will have the inside track to the Democratic nomination -- that's because of the compressed primary schedule this year. John Edwards could well be that Democrat, and Nader's endorsement could help him win Iowa.

Secondly, this is unique election year. Thanks to the debacle of the George W. Bush presidency, the Democratic candidate will be favored to win the general election no matter who the Republicans put up. The Democrat will lead in the polls over the Republican nominee all year long. Therefor, if Edwards is the Dem candidate there will be no need for him to "move to the center," as Democratic presidential candidates have done in the last several elections (except on the issue of illegal-migrant, low-wage replacement workers, where he SHOULD move to the popular center).

In other words, 2008 is our big chance to put a populist, progressive message in front of the American people all year long, to elect a populist/progressive president, and in so doing move the Congress to the left as well.

I believe this is what Ralph Nader sees, and this is why he is endorsing Edwards. Now, is Kucinich better than Edwards on some issues? Sure. But Kucinich does not have a chance to win Iowa two days from now. Edwards does.

I'll say one thing about Obama. In addition to Ralph Nader's assessment that Obama does not have a progressive agenda (and I agree), there's also the issue of the Electoral College. In our presidential election system we count electoral votes and not individual votes. I doubt that Obama, or any African-American, could win a majority of the votes in any state in the Old South in 2008. Therefor, even if Obama could take 49% of the popular vote in some southern states, ALL of the electoral votes from the South would go to the Republican candidate.

And guess what? That means, in order to win the presidency, Obama would have to win all the traditional Democratic states and ALL the swing states -- hard to do. I think Obama is the Republicans' dream opponent. He is their only chance of winning in 2008. That may be why he has attracted so much corporate money, not to mention the MSM's inordinately favorable coverage.

Edwards, on the other hand, IS a southerner. He speaks with a southern accent. With Edwards, we win at least some southern states. Backing up my analysis, many recent polls have shown that in head-to-head match ups with potential Republican candidates, Edwards wins -- and by larger margins than any other potential Democratic candidate.

Go, John Edwards!

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

nayoibi wrote: "as far as i can tell,nader has no real stand on anything, anywhere. he seems content with getting paid to be a 'spoiler'"

Unless you have some documentation for that, it's called libel. You've already demonstrated malice, one of the tests used when deciding libelous statements.

So who paid him, where, when? Do you have photos of the envelope being passed in a dark alley?

If you're (as I suspect) talking about campaign contributions, well until the system changes radically, that pretty much damns the whole lot, no?

jan,libel this,you asshole...many of his campaign ads said"paid for by the republican party"-i call that documentation.john butterfield,you are so correct,not-for-profit healthcare is the only way to go,just think it is a tall order for dennis or anyone to deliver.i used to like hillary when she was first lady,because that was what she used to profess to be in favor of.

We want to make sure everybody's covered, we want to help middle class families with the costs, we want to try to create competition that doesn't exist today. And I think the most effective way to do that is we take the 47 million people who don't have health care coverage, we expand Medicaid, we provide subsidies for people who don't have coverage. We ask employers to play a bigger role, which means they either have to have coverage, or they have to buy into what we're calling health markets. One of the choices available in these health markets is the government plan. So people who like the idea of a single-payer insurer health plan, that is actually one of the alternatives that people can choose. We expand SCHIP; we expand Medicaid. The bottom line is we're asking everybody to share in the responsibility of making health care work in this country.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Feb 4, 2007

John Edwards on his healthcare plan:

"We want to make sure everybody's covered, we want to help middle class families with the costs, we want to try to create competition that doesn't exist today. And I think the most effective way to do that is we take the 47 million people who don't have health care coverage, we expand Medicaid, we provide subsidies for people who don't have coverage. We ask employers to play a bigger role, which means they either have to have coverage, or they have to buy into what we're calling health markets. ONE OF THE CHOICES AVAILABLE IN THESE HEALTH MARKETS IS THE GOVERNMENT PLAN. SO PEOPLE WHO LIKE THE IDEA OF A SINGLE-PAYER INSURER PLAN, THAT IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVES THAT PEOPLE CAN CHOOSE. We expand SCHIP; we expand Medicaid. The bottom line is we're asking everybody to share in the responsibility of making health care work in this country."

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Feb 4, 2007

my,my,touchy bunch,i think i hit a little to close to too many homes,with that remark i made about anti-depressants and sleeping pills.no,i dont recall blaming ralph for any of the ills of the world, evil incarnate,immyself ?dont you think you blew my words extremely out of porportion ?ralph is not that powerful,just another schill.and i also stated someone would come up with the defense that the republicans 'planted' the ads.go ahead,sheep vote for any monster you want.

Sort of interesting that Kucinich just endorsed Obama. So much for an Edwards/Kucinich ticket.

It may be an Obaama/Kucinich ticket by spring. Well, lets hope Edwards does real well in Iowa and wins in New Hampshire and Hillary goes back to Wal-Mart. They need her.

mr. butterfield,new article at cd says dennis recommends baking obama,what are you gonna do now ? one hour ago my cd site featured a story by cindy shehan,it has disappeared.anyone else still see it ?what gives ?

Well it was nice to see the writer acknowledge the damage Nadar did to this country in the effect he had on the 2000 elections. To those who continuously scream he did not hand the election to Republicans, my only response is 'yes he did, and it's simple math.'

Aside from that, I think it is a good thing he endorsed Edwards. I like Kucinich, Gravel, and Dodd the most on the Democratic side, but if we have to see one of the 'top' three win, it would be a toss up for me between Obama and Edwards. Kucinich has just asked his supporters to back Obama in Iowa if he doesn't get enough votes in the first round to continue. And now Nadar is backing Edwards.

Thank God neither of them backed Clinton.... Now if Edwards or Obama wins, I'll be much happier than I would have been if Hillary won, as it seemed she was invincible a few weeks ago...

Kucinich has put more time and money in New Hampshire, and I'm looking forward to how he does there..

I would love to see DK as the VP choice, and as Ohio is a must win state, he would be a good choice strategically.

I hope this means Nader doesn't run, even if Edwards doesn't get the nomination. I hope he realizes an imperfect Democrat in the White House is material he can work with. Nothing will change if the Republicans stay in office. Just more war, off shoring, non-enforcement of regulations, loss of privacy, and greenhouse gases. I think he gets that.

The Republicans need to be sent home until they purge the neocons.

Is baking Obama better than boiling him? Microwave?

Who counts the votes in Ohio?

bbr001,we are all being microwaved,electromagnetic radiation or e.m.r. it is one of the major executioners of climate .why has the sheehan article been removed from my site ?

Miss Steinman-okay, Mr. Nader PAID? His supporters (you?) cry w/ indignation that he was prevented from providing commentary at a presidental candidate's debate in New England a while back. What you don't ever mention though is that he was going to do PAID commentary for FOX NEWS-Whose interests do they promote? Is this rocket surgery?
(He is also PAID dividends for his investments in Raytheon & General Dynamics according to his own FEC filings! If you think I have libeled Mr. Nader see nayoibi's comment above. create loop. etc.)
The Republicans gathered 40,000 signatures to get him on the ballot in Michigan-he snatched them up and used them-you think these things happen in outer space? In vacuums? Again, whose interests were promoted here?
But gee i know he's a cool guy.

And this: Karl Rove wired Ralph 6.3 mill to the Cayman islands because bs aside clinton has the best chance of winning. McCain vs Edwards? that is satanrove's preferred matchup. And pragmatic realpolitik.
War hero with foreign policy experience or Southern Shyster Lawyer-the repuplicans are not even down for the count-that is a real old trick-please don't hurt me i'm weak. rove you all, and he wandered and roved the earth, to and fro..

happy new year to CD and all threaders, well......

"an,libel this,you asshole…many of his campaign ads said"paid for by the republican party"-i call that documentation."

"And this: Karl Rove wired Ralph 6.3 mill to the Cayman islands because bs aside clinton has the best chance of winning. McCain vs Edwards? that is satanrove's preferred matchup. And pragmatic realpolitik."

Hoo-boy, the lunars are out.

beforkids

We also need a president who thinks with his mind and not his gut.

We need a president who does both and more! Mind, gut/feeling, respect for America and its Constitution, intuition, common sense, strength/humility, and experience in legal conflicts, with a heavy dose of intelligence thrown in, are all part of being a successful president. Good Presidential advisors shore up weaknesses and fill in the holes.

Let's hope we get something about a thousand percent better than what we've had the last seven years. The failures aren't just Bush's -- they're just as much failures of his confidants and advisors, to whom he gives a free hand without notice or oversight.

"It's simple math."

Few people know that Ralph Nader drove his car onto the I-35W bridge just before it collapsed. His car weighed 3000 pounds and it put the bridge over it's limit by 26 pounds. Ralph Nader CAUSED the I-35W bridge to collapse. Now, THAT is simple math.

yeah tweck,

I'm not really sure what to make of this either. Because Ralph is an issues guy, he is awarding credit to front runner candidates who get on the proper track for the country. And the proper track for the country is to address the most substantial problem we have: CEO hijacking of the government.

Edwards is slimy, there's no doubt about it.... maybe even untrustworthy... which worries me. On the positive side, being a trial lawyer might mean he will endeavor to straighten out the broken DOJ and barriers to legal redress that have crippled citizens in their struggle against the monster Global Multinationals. He might be beholding to the bar association. But about the time that comes out of my mouth I remember that both Clintons are lawyers... ugh.

But Nader knows the workings of government better than I do, so I agree with you that I'll give Edwards another look. Ralph has never done anything for himself, his track record is the greatest and truest blue of any American I'm aware of. Nader is not about Ego. He is about looking out for the little guy.

QUOTE: "MUSCATINE, Iowa — Ralph Nader ....

In an 11th hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to "recognize" Edwards by "giving him a victory," the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will "pander to corporate interest groups" if elected.

..."

As if Edwards will do otherwise; as if sane people who are informed enough to know that Edwards is no consistent individual, sometimes speaking okay, while other times supporting hell, as if we're supposed to believe that he will not do as the corporate elites dictate? His inconsistency speaks loudly enough for itself, and I will NOT trust such people about anything important.

Meanwhile, we have another article reporting that Kucinich calls on his supporters to support Barack Obama, another hellish suggestion and side to take; IMO.

I don't know what's with either of them, Nader or Kucinich, but I vote against both of their now, new bs. Voting for Satan Sr or Satan Jr, it's still voting for evil, and I would not do that; instead, I'll take the evidently most valid position AGAIN and which is to ABSTAIN from voting.

If the 40% or so of the saner people who normally abstain were joined by another 20%, 30%, or 40%, then this majority group would finally have a real voice, for while they're already majority, there're still too many people voting for the running candidates. The total of each of those candidates' votes are always less than the therefore majority abstainers, but the two of the people voting amounts to more and gets all of the weighting. So the majority abstainers just need to grow in numbers. When and if ever we have a situation like 20% voting, and with those votes split across two or more different party candidates, then the historically majority abstainers will be numerous enough to send "shock waves" for signal. Until then, the abstainers will continue to be treated as if they or we are saying nothing, making no real choice; as if abstaining because there are NO candidates worthy of our votes is not a matter of real choice.

To vote for evil, lesser or greater, it's to vote for evil and therefore never is an honourable choice; it's the choice of weaklings, very unprincipled people.

And that's what Kucinich and Nader are calling for their supporters to do; to take the unprincipled, vote for [apparently] lesser evil (but still evil). And appearances can be awfully deceiving.

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

Wonder which blogger will have a shit fit here first?

iammyself,not lunar.WITNESS.i was a nader supporter,until i witnessed those campaign ads and there were alot of them.now i suppose you will try to defend ralph by saying it was some kind of republican trick-dream on.....i never heard one peep out of nader about it.he accepted the financial aid.to make matters worse,he announced he wanted to sue 'the democratic party' for ruining his campaign.what a turncoat whiner.

Those here dissing Edwards offer no specific facts to support their insults. Check out this leftist writer's analysis:

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/12/20/222052/20

See a comprehensive list of Edward's positions on the issues:

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/12/20/222052/20

As for Obama, his "give stakeholders (corporations) a seat at the table" theme is reminiscent of the rhetoric of Nixon and Reagan. If you liked Nixon and Reagan, Obama is your guy.

If Nader is blasting Clinton, he can't be all wrong.

Correction --

Edwards on the issues:

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm

Anyone who *still* thinks Obama is progressive needs to read this:
The Obama Illusion
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

I'm hoping that Nader's support of Edwards will motivate those on the left still wavering between Kucinich and Edwards. I think Kucinich's support is smaller than Nader's was or is. I guess we'll know in a couple days.

Nader has the right idea.

Unfortunately a Clinton or Obama nomination means that the Republican will win the general election. Nobody is willing to face up or admit the truth that Obama will not be elected president in America out of simple racial prejudice....... This is NOT the time to try to prove how progressive Americans are by trying to get a black man into the Presidency. Obama is already being "Swift Boated" with lies and distortions about his past and variout other garbage....... It is all too easy for someone who wants to believe this garbage to accept it
Clinton is hated by the right for being Hillary Clinton..... and despised by progressives for being a turn coat and not a true progressive. She is being heavily supported in her campaign with funds FROM THE RIGHT indicating that they clearly see that a clinton nomination is desirable as it greatly increases the probability of their candidate winning.
Call me a racist or a sexist for pointing out these obvious facts...... but the promotion of Clinton and Obama is a pure "Rovian" strategy..... America as a whole is not going to elect either of these people.
After 8 years under a fascist administration that undercut virtually all social and environmental programs, and catered shamlessly to big business in every conceivable way, pushed through authoritarian legislation, used the power of his office and his friends to "punish" any who opposed him, launched an illegal, immoral and stupid military conflict, took a budget surplus and turned into the largest deficit in history while at the same time offering "tax relief" to the most wealthy of Americans..... and numerous other things............ Can the democratic party afford to put up a candidate that can easily be destroyed and virtually guarantee another right wind administration? Are we really that stupid??

Howard Wilkinson

the winner will be,whoever the fuck the deciders want it to be.what a waste of time,money and energy.just a dog and pony show.

I knew what Dennis said before I wrote my comment.

We need a president? why do we need a president? Oh yeah....the people need to believe they have an actual leader, rather than just a bunch of fat-cat investors controlling their lives for them.

Did anyone mention that Edwards voted for the war despite no evidence of WMD? I am shocked that anyone in this discussion group would consider voting for him under any circumstances. To vote for Edwards sends the message that our politicians can send young people to their deaths with impunity. I am also shocked that Nader would support him with 3 other antiwar alternatives. Since when is Nader stuck on supporting someone who has a possibility of winning? I thought he was supposed to be a man of principle. I voted for Nader in 96,00 and 04 and have been supportive of his right to run "spoiler" or "no spoiler". Now I am totally disgusted. If he comes crawling back to the Greens this summer it's going to look totally
silly. Maybe we can elect him as national gadfly.

JAN. __ It's 3% all of the time, and 13% during the full moon.

jan,you surely started it,threatening libel like some kind of rightwing neocon.are you one of those people that lives off of suing people ?what a waste of time.the deciders use people like ralph,dennis and cindy,to offer false hope and change.they use them to rope in the stray progressive sheep,so they can try to blast them back into the same old corrals.cindy is the biggest fool of all,cause she thinks she can change them,and you are a fool if you think they often let a serious and high-profile 'threat' to them, live,ask paul wellstone .no,she is serving their evil design in some way or form,unwittingly.ralph backs edwards,dennis backs obama,cindy wants to join the crooked folk on the hill and soon ron paul will throw his supporters to satan's spawn or maybe he is.i so had it right the first time when i unregistered from voting,they just want you to vote like good sheep citizens,so that they can blame you when things go horribly wrong.

nayoibi wrote: "jan,libel this,you asshole"

Thank you for raising the level of this debate.

(Yup, the loonies are out tonight... even a week after the full moon... :-) )

No one has put as much as a link to a reference to any malfeasance on the part of Ralph Nader. Not that I doubt there isn't, somewhere, some information on the Internet that could be construed to make Nader look bad, but the loonies can't even be bothered to find that! It's so much simpler just making declarations you don't have to back up.

I just finished reading "The Seventeen Traditions." If all the politicians had Nader's integrity, choosing a leader would be a joyous task indeed.

JCALABRO. __ What promted Edwards and 76 other Senators to vote__ to allow Bush to attack Iraq, as a last resort only, and AFTER Hans Bliss and the UN team had completed their inspections and determined that Saddam indeed was hoarding WMDs?

so how about it,jan ?isnt a paid endorsement ,many very costly television campaign ads,payment ?or are you still wanting someone to sue me and charge me with libel,for saying that nader was paid to be a spoiler ?are you going to sue me for libel for calling you an asshole ?i won't have any problem finding documentation for my defense,because i am positive you have been called that and worse a number of times.asshole isnt any worse a slur than your pretentious simpering "lunar" and its a lot more honest.where did you get that fancy word from ?off the label of your bottle of anti-depressants or your sleeping pills ??

This article is misleading. Nader also noted that if Clinton or Obama won the nomination that he plans to get back in and run 2008. Taken out of context it can mean anything you want it to mean.

This is off topic, but I didn't watch any TV clips of Oprah and Obama, and I sure hope they didn't pant at each other the way Oprah and Jamie Fox did when she had him on her show, both were breathing hard and fast. It was embarrassing to watch how turned on they were about each other.

i am going to log out,because i am expecting a backlash from the cindy supporters.just so you know,i am an ardent admirer of ms. sheehan and all she has done for casey and all people !!!she is a doer and not a blogger/talker.she is not an 'armchair commander' but a woman of conviction and action !!i just wish she did not want to live with the folk on the hill.i feel her efforts would be better spent,continuing down here,in the trenches with us.goodnight

JCALABRO___ Answer: The Senate refused to vote on that Iraq issue, as Bush had been asking them for several months to do, UNTIL they had read the forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate report. They were given that report by Colin powell, which was televised world wide, a couple of weeks later, they gave Bush his vote.

What is VERY, very important there is: They had refused to vote on the issue, until the NIE report was completed. The NIE report was purposely ALTERED by Geroge Tennnant, by the Presidential order of George Bush. The report was a LIE, fabricated by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Tennant. Powell did not know it was all a lie either.

We personally don't know what any Seantors or Powell may have suspected, we only know for certain, that Powell, the Senate and the entire world heard lies about Saddam's WMDs, then about the unranium Saddam had supposedly purchased from Afrca, and then, that he had been directly involved in 9-11. After the Senate heard the lies, of a comprehensive intelligence report, which legally should have been authenic and believable, they voted.

John Edwards has since stated he made a mistake and he did, a mistake based upon purposly flawed intelligence, which was done to decieve him and all of us.

Had the truth been told in that report, which was: Bush and Cheney were totally wrong about what they had been proclaiming since they took office, and that Saddam had destroyed his WMDs in 1991, he had never purchsed uranium from anyone and had absolutely nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and 9-11. Had the Senators been given the truth, there is no way 77 Senators would have voted yes on that critical vote.

So blame John Edwards for his vote, if that pleases you, and maybe vote for Osama, Hillary, or Huckabee. If Edwards does not win the primary, Huckabee may very well be our next 'religious' idiot in the White House, one who may insure Bush is not the worst President we ever had.

In addition, when the Senate voted to authorize Bush to take military action (if absolutely necessary,) Hans Bliss was still in Iraq and was still inspecting. The Senate was assured that he would be allowed to continue the inspectons when they voted. They were decieved again by Bush, after they voted, Bush forced Bliss out of Iraq, because Bush knew Hans Bliss would tell us the truth and an invasion was not necessary. It wan't Edwards who got us into this illegal and unnecessay war and occupation. It was Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the people who control them.

Tennant could have and should have, gone to the world after Powell gave the false report and publically announced what had occurred, when he gave Bush the true NIE report. Tennant could have saved us from it all, IT ALL being: __ A broke and ready to fall nation, feared and hated by all others, owing our asses to China, a broken Army and National Guard, and no credibility whatsoever.

SAFFIYYAH, are you an American citizen, at leat 35 years old and eligable to run for the office of the President? __ Try it.

This is the stupidest political move since Pat Buchanan gave his endorsement to Dubya. Both of these 2 guys are pathetic.

After these last 7 years of Hell and the damage to our country, anyone who votes for a Republican should be tarred and feathered and run out of the country for treason.

nayoibi, you are throwing pearls to swine. i read your posts, making your points politely, until the naderscum did what they always and instantly do-attack with insults any person who says what they don't want to hear... you are not alone, this is what they do.

Hey stupid, i mean IAMYSELF! (a scary little declaration of ego) when you insulted me you wrote Hoo boy....

Stop fingerpainting. that is the English language moron, there is no such word as hoo, you were looking for 'whew' a tough one in 5th grade spelling bees. save your 'self' iamyself, when you share it you share nothing.

Kem Patrick-every CD article I read, every thread, you got ten bitchy little cracks from the back row with no substance, just negative drivel. and i mean every one. get a life.

was it Ken B? thank you for salvaging this thread w/ some erudite and well written insights.

"John Edwards has since stated he made a mistake and he did, a mistake based upon purposly flawed intelligence, which was done to decieve him and all of us."

Everyone knew the Intelligence was flawed two years after the start of the war. Edwards was still standing behind his vote in the 2004 presidential election: three years after the war started. The fact is, he became a born again anti war activist about the same time he became a born again anti corporatist, and about the same time he became a born again environmental visionary. What a frigging hoot!

Give me some good examples there MIKEPETERS. I just posted what transpired, didn't get snotty with anyone. If you don't like what I write, scroll on by, you do know how to use your mouse don't you?

I never insult anyone who has not been insulting first. I also usually only post on three or four articles a day out of about thirteen. So you must read the same ones I do. About the only ones who complain about what I write are trolls, you one too? __ Just wondered. If you're not one, don't act like one and support those who are.

nayoibi,

I supplied these links in a different thread in response to your inane comments about Nader ads, but you continue with your libelous crap. Don't worry, Ralph won't sue you, he has a life.

It's just unfortunate that anyone should have to waste an ounce of energy beating a dead horse while our bed is burning. Okay, Nader is evil incarnate and responsible for every ill that has befallen you, including your inability to stop whining. Ralph Nader is a very bad man. Feel better?

---
"A new advertising campaign satirizing the Republican financial support of Ralph Nader's independent campaign for the presidency sums up the effort this way: Bush-Nader '04."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CEEDF153EF937A1575BC0A9629C8B63

"Thenaderfactor.com — an anti-Nader group staffed by former Dean, Clark, and Gephardt campaigners — released a new radio ad July 13 saying Nader is getting help from Republicans in three key states in hopes of stripping votes away from Kerry."
http://www.factcheck.org/radio_ad_attacks_nader_over_gop_support.html

" Hoping to siphon votes from Vice President Al Gore, Republicans in three closely contested states prepared to broadcast a television commercial featuring Ralph Nader, as the candidate himself campaigned here tonight and continued to aim his sharpest barbs at the Democratic ticket.

Speaking to a capacity crowd at Iowa Memorial Union hall on the University of Iowa campus, Mr. Nader painted Mr. Gore as "unbelievably subservient" to corporations and described Mr. Gore's running mate, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, as "the quintessential hermaphrodite of American politics — a Republicrat."

And Mr. Nader continued to press his case for a third-party movement, describing the two major parties as equally beholden to big business interests."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E4DB1630F93BA15753C1A9669C8B63

Nader is speaking up for Edwards because the progessive movement is too highminded to recognise the second campaign of its messiah.

What many progressives fail to grok is that politicians don't exemplify values, they represent voting blocs. Like mediums at a seance, they allow their political base to speak and act practically through them. It's the symbiotic relation underwriting an inherently compromised business.

It's bad when politicans channel corruption and delusion, but it's good when they channel the genuine interest of the people. Sadly, the latter occurence can go unnoticed even by some progressives in this political climate dominated by emphasis on candidates' past and personality. Unfortunately, this appears to be the case at present: Edwards channels the right spirit, but not all treat it with due respect.

The cynical should be as unforgiving when considering the practical alternative to Edwards: talented performers like Obama and Clinton, who promise all to lobbyists on the off-beats while smoothly singing tunes we hold most dear.

If still less convinced than Edwards' hefty following, perhaps ask yourself what your criteria is for being convinced. Is it the same criteria you apply when watching a movie? Is it what the media circus parades? Is it high-minded delusion? These questions need wise and immanent answers.

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.

That is not true Huck. Both Edwards and Kerry said they had made a mistake to vote for it before they ran for the office in 2004.

The truth did not come out about that NIE report until after the election in 2004. You stated that same nonsense on another thread the other day, and refused to accept what DID happen. You cannot change history. ___ Not truthfully.

nayoibi wrote: "jan,you surely started it, threatening libel..."

First off, I threatened no one. I expressed an opinion, based on personal research. Those who have had some dealings with the law know that I have no standing to threaten libel.

I sent Ralph money several times. Contrary to unsubstantiated claims here, he did not take corporate, "soft," or PAC money, although it appears he was the object of a smear campaign alleging so.

I also voted for him twice. To some, that makes me a traitor to progressive causes. But I consider myself a patriot for voting for the only candidate who was not beholden to PACs or corporations.

I categorically reject the notion of "strategic voting." What sort of democracy is it when people are criticized for voting for the person they think is best for the job?

I'll probably vote for him again if he runs, especially if the other choices are "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" -- the corporate candidate of the right or the corporate candidate of the left.

To everyone besides nayoibi and mikepeters, I apologize for feeding the trolls. I'll sin no more, except perhaps to remind people not to feed the trolls. :-)

I'm not sure where all this back bitting is going, but it doesn't look good to me. Can we get back on topic here? As in, what are the odds that Nader's endorsement will help or hurt Edwards? And what about Kucinisch comming out for Obama? Any thoughts without the vitriole?