Nader you are coward. If you had a legitimate reason to run, run like everyone else. It is a shame that such a person would be a such a place in his life that he has nothing to do but diminish a legacy and diminish the very causes he claims to champion. Cooking up fables about other candidates does nothing to recommend or support your "candidacy".

Since you appear to be in reduced mental capacity, let me be clear. I am not saying that you, like anyone else, do not have the right to run for presidency - I am saying that only an idiot would conclude that the way you are doing it has any chance whatsoever of winning or even bringing anything other than ridicule on yourself and causes you claim are important.

You are an ignorant, old fool who apparently clamors for TV "face time" and who needs some psychological assistance. One thing more - I happen to think some of the ideas you have are important but being associated with you and this "presidential campaign" marginalizes these issues. You should be ashamed.

The only significant gesture that any third party could make is to endorse the candidate who is positioned to end the war and the erosion of the constitution. A vote for any other candidate is a vote for a fascist dictatorship. If we can't get Ron Paul in there we will be surrendering to the military-industrial complex. If any of you folks believe that any other candidate will stand in the way of the creeping fascism that is increasingly evident you should follow this link:
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20040504_1.htm
Then ask yourself if the support of the things in these images mitigate for a different future on our own soil. Dr. Paul will be our next president. Should he, by some stretch of the imagination, not be elected, these third parties will cease to exist by executive decree. But don't worry, Freedom will ring. Since the combined endorsements of The American Conservative Magazine and CPAC(conservative political action committee) illustrates that Ron Paul will win the GOP nomination. This virtually guarantees that the constitution will return to its formerly hallowed status in America. The combined forces of the conservative wing, the anti-war independents, and the hordes of democrats who are dedicated to stopping the war will, I believe, rise up and push back against the controllers to such an extent that they will have to retrench and delay their corporatist dictatorship until we all go back to sleep. Ask yourself: "Will I be part of the problem, or part of the solution?" I've always respected Ralph Nader as the only visible public servant who was actually working to protect the American citizenry from the corporatists. Now I must call on him once again to prove his advocacy in this, our most dire hour of need. We don't need this Obama fellow with his skull and bones connections and his army of Brzezinskis to carry on business as usual. We need a return to the principles delineated in the constitution (including the original 13th ammendment.) http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/colony.html
Join us ,any, in whom which the spirit of liberty yet breathes. Google Pon Paul.

Grubstaker, you should give yourself a chance to win by voting for Edwards. If Edwards doesn't win, you're going to get Obama or Hillary anyway, and a brokered convention might not be a bad idea. If Edwards stays in the race and nobody gets a clear majority, all the issues will be on the table.

John Edwards is not in the pocket of Wall Street, but Obama and Clinton are, period. Edwards is also the only one accepting PUBLIC FUNDING for his campaign.

Here is the list of top contributors to Obama -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

And here is the list for Hillary -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

Now, you look at that list and tell me who is bought and paid for by Wall Street. They dont fear Obama and Hillary, they own them! But they do fear John Edwards!

US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml

US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml

"Bought'n'paid for" and "Barack Obama" - Kinda rhymes doesn't it Doug?
It should, tis true!
And Hillary Too!
VOTE EDWARDS '08 for a WORLD OF CHANGE!

NancyH - Nader expressed support for Edwards.

And now Nader supports Obama? To see who are advising the leading presidential candidates of both parties, go to democracynow.org (article of 1/3/08). Key words: "linked to atrocities".

Orwell would be proud barely human!

Dougnwagner, Edwards is telling the truth, and he IS the only one SAYING ANYTHING!!
Obama says he'll keep us in Iraq past 2013, how much clearer does it have to be for you?
Edwards will get us out in 10 months!
Obama's campaign is being run by lobbyists. Do you think he'll bite the hand that's feeding him? Edwards isn't taking their money, no matter how much you want to think he is!
Get a clue dougwagner, Edwards is the only one that will take them on and beat them, period.
EDWARDS '08

I'll "grow up" when Newspeak is fully implemented.

grubstaker,

as you may have noticed, Mike is not interested in the facts as much as he is in reading his own bullshit. Why use facts when you can believe Edwards "has been knocking the chip off the shoulder of corporate America since he got out of law school, and they're afraid to get in the ring with him or even talk about it."

www.whitehouseforsale.org

www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

#2 Contributor

Fortress Investment Group

"The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_pf.html

barely human,

when are you going to grow up? Clinton had 39% Obama 37% Edwards 17% Richardson 5% and Kucinich 1%. It is zero sum. If you don't vote for Obama you're really voting for Clinton. Of course, if we had single transferable voting, you'd be right. But we don't.

http://fairvote.org/?page=1755

An interesting website to follow the campaign finances on each of the candidates. If you are interested in knowing where the money comes from it is here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

It's a wide open race after NH. Maybe, now that it's a horserace, we will actually get to hear some dueling rhetoric between the candidates regarding REAL change, the kind of change that John Edwards is talking about.

We don't need a woman, a black man, a white man, a uniter, a smooth talker or a negotiater as president, what WE NEED is a FIGHTER, and Edwards is a fighter. He has been knocking the chip off the shoulder of corporate America since he got out of law school, and they're afraid to get in the ring with him or even talk about it.

The only way to take power from these bastards is to beat it out of them, and that is what John Edwards is all about!
EDWARDS '08

"If you vote for Edwards, Richardson, or Kucinich at this point you're really just voting for Hillary. That's the reality Mike."

Paraphrase: "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO HAVE VARIATIONS OF THAT DAMN LIE SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS!? No, it is not the reality, it is pure spin. If you want to declare someone else your enemy if they don't do exactly what you want, don't pretend they're the one initiating hostilities.

Dougnwagner, Edwards isn't "saying anything to win", he is the only one SAYING ANYTHING!!
Obama says he'll keep us in Iraq past 2013, how much clearer does it have to be for you?
Edwards will get us out in 10 months!
Obama's campaign is being run by lobbyists. Do you think he'll bite the hand that's feeding him? Edwards isn't taking their money, no matter how much you want to think he is!
Get a clue dougwagner, Edwards is the only one that will take them on and beat them, period.
EDWARDS '08

If you vote for Edwards, Richardson, or Kucinich at this point you're really just voting for Hillary. That's the reality Mike. Get over yourself and your eternal wisdom in voting for a person [Edwards] who says anything to win and has obviously fooled you about who he is.

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

YEAs —77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs —23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

I organized against the Iraq war in 2002. I know what the issues are. Millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans continue to die because of that vote. Think about it.

"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…

We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.

That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

By the way, Edwards is certainly not out of this race! Just wait and see what happens, the future is full of surprises.

EDWARDS '08

Dougnwagner, YOU SUCK!! YOU are following a scortched earth campaign strategy that is detrimental and destuctive to your own ends. If Hillary does decide to go negative, and starts a pissing contest with Obama, you will get some of your own misleading garbage thrown right back in your face, and I can't think of anyone more deserving of that than you, after all the misleading garbage that you have posted here on CD. Yes dougnwagner, YOU SUCK!!

EDWARDS '08

Where is the real money coming from for this guy ? A few rich blacks yes, a few rich Muslims yes, how about the step father's ties to Asia ? Always follow the money.
Here in Minnesota we try to keep track of the money coming from outside Minnesota, but some have found a way to snuggle and smuggle it in anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/washington/19ethics.html

"In the first two weeks of the 110th Congress, Senator Obama helped lead the Senate to pass the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act, a comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform bill, by a 96-2 vote. This landmark bill was signed into law by the President in September 2007.

The final bill that the Congress passed closely mirrored and drew key provisions in a bill (S. 230) that Senators Obama and Feingold introduced in January 2007 to establish a "gold standard" for reform. Among the provisions in the Obama-Feingold bill that were adopted by the Senate and the House were: strict bans on receiving gifts and meals from lobbyists; new rules to slow the revolving door between public and private sector service; and an end to the subsidized use of corporate jets.

Most importantly, the final reform bill contained a provision pushed by Senator Obama to require the disclosure of contributions that registered lobbyists "bundle" – that is, collect or arrange – for candidates, leadership PACs, and party committees. The New York Times called this provision "the most sweeping" in the bill, and the Washington Post said: "No single change would add more to public understanding of how money really operates in Washington."

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/

"Mr. Edwards, alone among Democratic candidates in 2004 in refusing to disclose the names of his bundlers, is well aware of both the value and peril of bundlers; his campaign was fined $9,500 by the Federal Election Commission last year for accepting in-kind contributions and illegally reimbursed donations from one of its big 2004 bundlers."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701145.html

Edwards "Bundler" To Go To Prison

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/19/politics/washingtonpost/main3279132.shtml

Mike,

I think you suck. You support the person who voted for the war and who will say anything to win. Having to deal with reality and the cognitive dissonance of supporting such a charlatan you have turned your venom at me. Obama is winning, and is going to win the nomination. You've gone from Obama bashing to Obama-Edwards. Good for you. Slowly sip that coffee as you ease into the reality of Edwards not winning the nomination. I know its hard when I read crap like this from you:

"John Edwards, who is actually speaking the truth about what needs to be done in order to right the ship of state, that is listing so far over from the tidal wave of corporate money, that it is in serious danger of capsizing. You need to understand that if the ship goes down, you, your friends and families are going down too."

Top Contributors to Edwards Campaign

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

#2 Contributor

Fortress Investment Group

"The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_pf.html

How old are you Mike? Old enough to forget who voted for the war? Old enough to turn a blind eye to all the evidence pointing to the fact that Edwards is a professional sell out? Maybe this country doesn't need people old as you, considering where this country is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3969318

Dennis Kucinich: "In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.

He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty."

arpedkedarki (2:58 pm) writes, "...i recall the day that clinton and gore were elected the first time. it's ... the feeling that i recall, the sense that positive things were going to happen and that The People had a voice. the following 8 years were not perfect, but in my lifetime, things in my universe were better than they had ever been..."

- I remember feeling that way myself. But the truth is that electing Clinton & Gore did absolutely nothing to reverse the dangerous path this country had been following for many decades. In many ways, it only encouraged those tendencies. Corporate power was not addressed -- the corps won every battle in the 1990's. Nothing was done to rein in the MIC -- despite the fact that the USSR had ceased to exist in 1991, there was NO CUT in Pentagon spending. // While it was easy to feel good about the election, & Daddy Bush's defeat, Bill Clinton went ahead to allow the rightwing to escape scot-free from any examination of their crimes, including Iran-Contra, Iraq-gate, & the "October Surprise."

Robert Party's commentary today has more discussion of some of those points.

i will admit that nader is a good representation of the democratic party , in one way-economically.the democrats,for many years,now , are the only party that was ever capable of balancing a budget or saving for the future.that is why the republicans need them.the republican machine is a devil,that is incapable of doing anything but spend..spend...spend, they could never balance a budget,reduce a deficit or save any of the cash needed to fund their wars.that is why the democrats are vital to the preservation of the republicans,they are truly two hands , connected to the same body.i suppose that is why the fiscally responsible ralph nader finds himself in the uncomfortable position of being a fiscal democrat and a republican enabler...the 'third' party is where the ambidextrous, often end up.

How old are you dougnwagner? It's my guess that you are one of those twenty-somethings with a little education and no real life experience, attracted to get involved in the Obama campaign by his feel-good rhetoric.

Don't misunderstand me here, I think that's a good thing, because young people need to get involved, as they have been uninvolved for much to long already.

Decisions have been made by presidents and politicians of both parties, bad decisions, over the last four or five decades that will, very surely, negatively affect your life, and the lives of your children and your grandchildren, and you, apparently, have no in-depth understanding of where we have been nor where we are going.

I see it in your child-like, infantile efforts to win for Obama by smearing the only other electable top-tier candidate, John Edwards, who is actually speaking the truth about what needs to be done in order to right the ship of state, that is listing so far over from the tidal wave of corporate money, that it is in serious danger of capsizing. You need to understand that if the ship goes down, you, your friends and families are going down too.

Don't let your zeal for short-term profits blind you to the bigger picture and the long term goals. Yes, it is about change, and it's about getting out the message of what changes are needed. And right now, Edwards is speaking the message of change while Obama is showing the face of change.

As I have said before, the best thing that could emerge from the Democratic primary would be a ticket with both Edwards and Obama on it. Now that is something to work for.

Thanks for the link welsch terrier. Mike Gravel tells it like it is. He is the best candidate with the best platform, but we are not allowed to vote for him.

!!! (VERY LONG POST WARNING)!!!

--- (but you'll love it, I swear) ---

--------------------------

On this commentary thread and several others:

Try to remember: You are not voting for King.

Of course, Obama is fluff hiding Corporatist ambition.

Of course, Edwards COULD be full of shit.

THAT DOES NOT MATTER

SOMEBODY will be elected President this November, SOMEBODY will share that "ticket" and become Vice-President.

Whether it's Right or not, whether it's Unfortunate or not, these Somebodies will almost certainly be from the Democratic, or Republican parties.

These Somebodies will almost certainly be from amongst the T.V.-designated "front-runners" in these two "Major" party's Delegate-Elections.

Fine. Good. Groovy. Whatever.

I think we could gain some semblance of a "reality-based" thinking process if we would remind ourselves that the "Party Primaries", or just "Primaries", are Falsely, Purposefully, Misleadingly named.

These Delegate-Elections are only "Primary" if one is a member of these Parties.

These Parties which are PRIVATE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.

So, yes, ALL the Candidates being offered (or surpressed) by the FLAWED ORGANIZATIONS are Flawed.

Is this really so uncertain or controversial, as to merit this Day-in-Day-out discussion?

------------------------------

On Nader and this Article:

I think Nader's article is a surprisingly (haven't read this kind of thing from Ralph before) funny piece, from the pen of a man who's flat-out intelligence seems to be aided by a viscious, acerbic wit.

Nader, however, seems to me sometimes to be like Chomsky, in taking it for granted that when people have Bullshit pointed out to them they will cease to believe in it.

Unfortunately, neither of these two well meaning, and masterful Thinkers seems to see that many people - perhaps MOST people, now - in the U.S. NEED this kind of bullshit, that without it, they would be forced to face the Truth that their stress, depression, and body fat are trying to tell them:

-Something, Somehow, Somewhere along the way, got F.U.B.A.R. big time, and now were all screwed.-

Unless we start NOW, choose co-operation over competition, choose reality over myth, choose Local over Distant, and choose Smart Effort over Stupid Action.

(see platitudes are so easy, even I can utilize them!)

----------------------------

On the Election and my Withrawal:

So Somebody will be President.

I wish it were not so, but they never ask me, do they?

That's the reason I don't fret overmuch as to the horribly distracting question of "who?".

Sure the Dems, even Clinton seem just plain less creepy than the Reps.

But this isn't that interesting since this has obviously been chosen as a "Blue Year" in the whole "Take ten steps away from the Constitution, then PRETEND to take three steps back" Game that's been going on, well, my whole life.

Personally I don't think that we'll see much in the way of Mr. Obama's change, until a significant minority of people realize that what's needed goes beyond even a new "National System", but rather a new way of thinking about "Nations".

In other words, it's not just that our Team Members are not playing right, and it's not just that our Coach sucks, or that the Owners are greedy, or that the Fans have no interest. It's that the whole Game was a bad Idea to begin with, and everyone would be better off leaving the Stadium entirely, in as orderly a fashion as possible, finding a Few Friends and a patch of grass to play a Whole New Game, where Everyone has fun. We could get together in larger groups to have tournaments every once in a while. That way we'd know what was going on in other folk's Games, and Adapt ours accordingly.

But to get away from Painfully Overwrought Metaphors:

As I've written in this part of the Ether before, what matters in a President most is promises he/she can be pressured to keep by the People or their Congress and State Governments.

So on that note:

Edwards great.

Obama good, but vague.

Clinton bad.

Republicans scary.

I hope those in the Democratic Party voting to assign Delegates to their National Convention are of the same mind. But I won't be knocked off kilter if they are not, or if they cannot overcome the Oligarchical Interests entrenched in their Organization.

The person who sits at the Head of the Executive for the U.S. will have to be dealt with by those seeking Needed Change, when this happens their Personality and Beliefs will matter less than their Office.

We won't really know, more precisely, who we're dealing with till the Spring, or just before, so see you then when there's something to discuss.

But first.

----------------------------

Unsolicited Advice.

Edwards people:

Your Candidate should easily trounce any Republican, but to come out on top of the Dems, he needs the "economy" to start tanking sooner rather that later. So if your looking for Johnny the Lawyer to get the nod, STOP BUYING STUFF RIGHT now. You could restrict it to just stuff from large, Oligarchical Corporations, but definitely cut down as much as you can, even with Mom n Pop, Local Larry, and Farmer Joe.

Remember, your Consumption is the only thing keeping this P.O.S. ship afloat.

Obama People:

Vote Edwards in your "primary"!...Umm, please?

Listen, IT MAKES SENSE: Barack's for really real now, he's on the Dem "ticket" one way or another. But if the DLC and the Corporatists in the Party and in the "MSM" succeed in marginalizing Edwards you're gonna find yourselves Voting for Hillary Clinton. You'll be lucky if its Obama/Clinton, too. Don't forget, in politics, "knowing where the bodies are buried" can sometimes trump charisma, and you'll have to hold your nose and vote Clinto/Obama this fall, good luck with that. Doesn't Obama/Edwards sound better? Or even the other way around?

Remember, 4 to 8 years of !Edwards/Obama! gives Barack all the "experience" he would need to shed that pesky Corporate Money and Accompanying Vaguery, and run as a genuine Populist Pogressive in 2012 or 2016.

Clinton People:

I'm sorry, but you're wrong . Vote for someone else if you value Progressive Concepts.

Republican People:

I'm sorry, you've been duped. Your Party was a sham, concocted by the Oligarchies to fool you into Punching yourself in your Political Gut, Slashing your Social Throat, and Cutting your Economic Heart out. Now that it's been all used up, the Oligarchies are abandoning it, and it will soon be history. If you wish, you can placate yourself by voting for one of the pathetic candidates that the even Corporatist Media can't seem to make legitemate.

Or you can vote for Ron Paul, who should have left the GOP thiry years ago, just like you.

All the other People:

Focus on what matters. Put this "Race for President" on the back burner with Britney Spears News where it belongs.

Unless you're a member of a political party, or thinking of joining one, most of this "Race" is not your concern.

Get ready to vote in the fall, if you choose not to abstain.

Get some knowledge on your Congressional Representative, they're up for ReElection as always, and they matter more in your lif than the Executive.

For one thing you have more say in who they are.

For another they can be more easily pressured.

And lastly, a Genuinely Representative Congress has the power to stop any President dead in their tracks.

So consider voting for Congress, even if the "Pres. Candidates" are all shit.

Remember, the Constitution still trumps all, and the Congress was given most of the Big Guns.

Think outside of the box that the Oligarchies and their Minions would put you in.

Have the self-respect to KNOW that YOU, and the rest of the PEOPLE, are the CONSTITUTIONAL SOVREIGN in this Nation-State, you are more than your Vote.

Have the fortitude to not be afraid of the actions of some would-be-King.

George III was more tyrannical, and wielded more real power than anyone who has ever been President of the U.S.A., and he was defeated by the People (with a "little" help from those Frenchies, sure, but the point remains).

So too, will these greedy businessmen and petty bureaucracts playing "Royal dress-up" games.

Remember, We are stronger.

"See" you in Spring.

-matti.

barak + michelle obama's magnetism invigorates all of us.
However he looks better as Spielberg's substitute. Michelle has a radiant future as a screen star...
The white house would be a cage for them. Their energy is what counts.

i don't know, Ralph...it smacks of sour grapes to me.

listen, i'd take any of 'em, if only to replace the cabal of thieves, liars and murderers we pay now. they won't go quietly into the night, however, so stay tuned to a late entry by Bloomberg (in the roll of The Spoiler), or, even more tragically, some event which will cause CheneyCo to declare martial law. hang on to your butts, people. we're in for a bumpy ride

in response to vmulier up at the top there: what's wrong with "manifesting love and goodness?" has fear and corruption been working for anyone other than the folks that make billions off of fear and corruption? i say, let's give hope a chance....what's our choice, really?

i recall the day that clinton and gore were elected the first time. it's not the memory but the feeling that i recall, the sense that positive things were going to happen and that The People had a voice. the following 8 years were not perfect, but in my lifetime, things in my universe were better than they had ever been. i, for one, hold that vision and believe that it can happen again.

Few things in this world are so hopelessly stupid as a Democrat that's still mad at Nader.

Good comments matti.

Oh, Ralphy boy is just mad cause he ain't BLACK!

There's a new video on the web. It's disturbing. It's cynical. It's accurate. Two big thumbs up. Way up. Gravel talks about the corporate stranglehold in Washington. He talks about corporate personhood. He talks about empire. In short, Gravel totally "gets it."

I'm not a Gravel supporter but check out this video interview he did today: http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=777&thisview=item

Gravel's analysis of the top 3 Dems and our entire political system is dead on the money.

The argument that "of course Obama has to say safe things now to get into office, but with luck he'll do the right thing once he's in" is a loser, in my book. As Rod Serling pointed out time and time again, you sell your soul to the devil, and it's mighty damn hard to get it back. Say it's true that Obama believes he can have big corporate backers but dump them once in office. Once in office, he'll need to please them to get re-elected. So he "plays it safe" for 4 years, and owes them even more, or has totally forgotten the things he once, long ago, believed in. We've seen it over and over again. I think Edwards knows that this game is nothing but self-deception. Anyway, I want to know what a candidate believes in and plans to do NOW, not guess and project onto him/her what I would do if I were president.

Yet another reason why I voted for Nader.

But to the article and the comments that followed: Our needed debate today is STYLE vs. SUBSTANCE.

Legislation and democaracy CANNOT be packaged... which is what is happening with tv dominated politics.

i firmly believe that if every single american read CD or something like it, and were able to lend their voice and know it would be heard (dicard the the trolls and blowhards), then you would hear that most americans are not retarded, they have a brain and an opinion, they can get it, they want to govern themselves.

2 biggest needs to bring us back on the path of the great experiment called democracy: media reform and election reform.

smendler,

Maybe Nader's writing is atrocious and he's just been blessed with good editors up until now. ;-)

Maybe it'll come down to an Edwards/Kucinich ticket. Probably enough centrists, liberals and progressives would go for it. If it comes down to an Edwards/Liebermann ticket, then we know we've been had again.

The likelihood will always be there, until we have a modern parliamentary style democracy with Range or IRV, without winner-take-all, without electoral college, etc.

I've read about half of the postings on this subject.
Sorry, but I came late and time is short.
RICH M......IS EXACTLY CORRECT, IN MY OPINION, about Obama.
Obama is a corporatist, DLC/DNC politician in the mold of Bill Clinton.
In other words he ain't gonna do shit for the working class.
And given that the working class is almost all of us that means he is the enemy.
The fact that he is wowing the public is simply a symptom of the irresponsibility of the American electorate.
Folks......the American people don't deserve democracy and that's why we are losing it, or have lost it already.
Obama's vague platitudes and promises of change are as cheap as GW Bush's $300 tax break for the poor.
I astounds me how little a politician actually has to do to win the support of people.
I may for the first time in my life vote Republican.
I think that would hasten the inevitable collapse of this system and that might well be the best thing that could happen.
I'm disgusted right now.......

I suspect Democrats like to obsess on the blood on Nader's hands because they don't wish to look at the blood on their own hands, blood that is on every law-abiding American taxpayer's hands.

John Edwards is the best candidate right now. Unfortunately, people are still falling for the celebrity version of a political candidate for President and just want to jump on any bandwagon the media talking heads care to name. It would be great if the VP choice of the Democratic Party could be Dennis Kucinich, but no one has the guts for that, I suppose.

I agree with those who are casting doubt about the authenticity of the article. Not just the tone, but also the atrocious punctuation and grammar point to someone other than the usually punctilious Nader as being the author...

Obomber is a Republican tool, just like Senator Coward was in 2004. He's a corporate dream.

Third-party-voting progressives will be the thorn in the side of the capitalist beast yet again in 2008, to cause much more squealing than we ever heard in 2004 or 2000.

When progressives write in Nader or other third-party progressives and cause a Repuk to be elected, the beast's rapid self-destruction will proceed on schedule toward the progressive revolution.

And if the Demoks lurch left to earn our progressive votes, we will have wrestled a puppet string from the beast toward some progressive reforms.

But giving the Demoks free votes is totally out of the question - that's like feeding our fingers to the beast for snacks.

Jim Glover, your copy of Charles Peters' story on Obama's legislative accomplishments in Illinois is informative but mostly serves to illustrate that the system is rotten to the core and requires a complete overhaul, not incremental reform.

The article suggests that we allow the brutal "special" interests to continue stomping all over the public interests, and pin all our hopes on dear leaders with special talents at walking the "special" interest tightrope.

Progressives intend to cut that rope down and put common sense back on the table - so average joe can serve in public office, if he wants to. In the case of the videotaping, everyone knows it's in the public interest. Listen to REASON. Forget the "special" interests and the liberal extremism that lends them false legitimacy.

Obama reminds me of Robert F Kennedy. He reminds me so much of RFK that I hope he doesn't exit any podiums through any hotel kitchens. I have a bad feeling. I don't know if we have progressives that represent real change, but I can't help think of 1968 when we saw the two top agents for change, Martin Luther King and RFK gunned down in short order. I don't think he will be gunned down, but I won't be shocked if he is. Stay Tuned.

ron paul was left out of the debates, i'm gonna vote for him...nader is a republican in a green suit...i'm not gonna vote for him.....hillary should be minding our store,but i probably won't get the chance to vote for her....and obama is already diddling around in africa and oprah...not gonna vote for him...i had a sleazy/lawyer encounter w/edwards....can't vote for him. color doesn't matter to me-but content does.....all week i have only heard obama say one word over,over and over...change...and i am afraid of the change he might bring to our table..........can he keep all our new enemies from sneaking over the walls ? goodnight..........sara

About time we had a TRIAL LAWYER for president, he will drive the Repubs crazy!! Wait, they already are, but it will be fun to listen to them whine. Edwards may be the only one with the ability to combat the swiftboater crowd so forget the big house and the haircut and go with the best bet.

Typical of Nader to show up in the 5th inning and try to make a joke out of things.

Peace Czar:

Thanks for the Chomsky link about Gravel. Gravel has been great on a number of issues I care about. The way he's been treated by the press, the networks, the other candidates and his own party has been an affront to democracy. There's plenty I disagree with Gravel about but I also know he "gets it" regarding empire and the corporate stranglehold on Washington.

I really hate his tax program though. Gravel calls for a modified national sales tax (exempting certain necessities). He would abolish the income tax and the IRS. In my view, taxation should be based on ability to pay. If those who have billions in the bank don't spend, they would pay no tax under the Gravel plan. To me, that's crazy. Spending does not necessarily reflect a taxpayer's ability to pay. Gravel's FAIR Tax is a really, really bad idea.

The key point I was trying to make in my post was that Mr. Nader's point about there being no substance in Obama's message was pretty much true for most of the other campaigns as well. Blame the candidates; blame the parties; blame the media; blame the electorate. Our collective ignorance and our failure to demand real answers to real problems make meaningful change impossible.

You need not be a fan of Nader to recognize that he's not "carrying water for the Republicans."

ron paul is on leno,right now...he is shooting from the hip and talking straight (unlike obama who just says 'change' over and over and over) i do like him , maybe i will vote for him ,after all...he's pretty genuine, warm and extremely open....

auspiciousbunny ..
"All three of the candidates don't seem to stand for very much that is concrete."

About healthcare, Edwards ..
"Widely praised plan covers all Americans. If Congress fails to pass a comprehensive plan in his first six months of office, he will take away their plan."

welshTerrier2:

Your ideals in a candidate, some quick answers.

Mike Gravel will reduce our military budget by 60% and give us a stronger military. He says we can get off of gasoline in 5 years, and off of carbon in 10.

Read about the man, and read what Noam Chomsky has said about Gravel:

http://www.gravel2008.us/content/noam-chomsky-applauds-senator-gravels-past-and-present-accomplishment...

thedeed has offered the best explanation yet of this Obama bashing.

It is hard to imagine that someone has falsely put Nader's name on an article that he didn't write, and it made it all the way to the CD website.

A more likely explanation is that Ralph Nader (like John McCain) is showing signs of dementia.

"Also, if ANY Democrat wins OUR job has only just begun." (kelleysurf)

Choose someone who will fight with you .. for America, for Democracy.

"Obama-mania is another bunch of Charlie Browns knowing, for sure, this time, make no mistake, that Lucy is not going to pull the football away. AARRGGHH"

That was fucking funny.

I am so sick of all this anger directed toward Nader for coming out in 2000 and saying things Gore refused to. Perhaps if Gore had been a better politician he would be president. Perhaps if the supreme court didn't put Bush into office he wouldn't be president.

Who knows? But do we know how many folks have died or how many nations have been fucked over during Democratic presidencies.

Probably pretty comparable with the Bush presidency I'd say.

What about environmental standards. Suddenly all these emissions were released right after Bush was elected right? Bush was elected and species just started dying off just like that.

I am so sick of this anti-bush mentality shrouding out all common sense.

First off, if the Republicans stay in power and continue to fuck things up, versus the Democrats obtaining power and continuing to fuck things up, who will take the heat for the continued destruction of the country? The conservatives! If Obama wins and starts doing the same old same old and the country goes further down the shitter, especially economically, guess who has the losing philosophy in the media? Liberals!

It's all a crock and we all know it, and all you folks who think getting a democratic president will change one lick of shit about the way this country does business need to get a clue. But in four years I'll be laughing and still voting Green.

And what's all this Obama will be as great as JFK... JFK sucks too.

nayoibi January 7th, 2008 8:42 pm

Interesting point...

And you know Africom also begins this September.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_military_bases_in_the_world_2007.PNG

Wake up people. We've been an empire for quite awhile. Just like how we're already in a recession.

At least Ralph is showing his true colors: he attacks the Democrats leading candidate. Just like before, Ralph carries water for the Republicans. Why Ralph? For the money? For the publicity? To sell your book? Do you really want to elect another Republican like Bush?

Ralph: in the name of those that died during the Bush presidency, the thousands whose blood is on your hands, in their names, please stop.

In response to the comment about Kucinich being in an Obama administration:

Just think of the supreme court justices that Obama, a constitutional law professor, would appoint. Think of actually having a REAL head of the EPA.

The power of the presidency has far reaching effect and one we all live with for a long time after the administration is gone (think Samuel Alito).

Also, if ANY Democrat wins OUR job has only just begun. Part of the problem with Clinton was that many of us (me included for the most part) sat back and assumed his administration would " do the right thing." Power corrupts.

Democracy is a constant working out. It's kinda like "getting in shape." You don't get in shape and then say, "OK. Now I'm in shape and I can stop all this exercising."

As the grandpa said in "Cider House Rules" --- "You've got to get obsessed and stay obsessed."

Take the OBAMA QUIZ ... see how you do ...

Pick what you consider to be the 5 most critical challenges facing the country. Got 'em? Good ... now, in as much detail as you can provide, explain exactly how Obama, or any other candidate for that matter, will help us make progress on those problems. How'd you do? How do you think most people would do?

The point is that the whole damned election is a big game. It's no different than watching the football playoffs. Who's ahead. Who will advance to the next round. It's all horseracing all the time. Nader is, of course, dead right about the Obama campaign. The real tragedy is that what he said about Obama is true about most of the other campaigns as well. For the most part, we as voters know almost nothing about what these candidates would do if they're elected. The few candidates who choose substance over style are nowhere in the polls. That's not how America's electoral game is played.

Oh, and my top 5 issues?

1. cut the defense budget by 50%, close all foreign US bases and bring all US troops home
2. end the war and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately and end the pursuit of empire
3. recognize that quality health care is an inalienable right of every human being as in "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - It doesn't say you're entitled to LIFE if you can afford it.
4. restore power to the American people by kicking the corporate boys out of Washington and by decentralizing the mass media
5. reduce CO2 emissions by 50% by the year 2020

All of the candidates are promising change but the details are sorely lacking. I'll promise you we won't see any change at all if all we focus on is horseracing.

A salesman walks onto a crowded bus and proclaims he got the cure for all that ails.

O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: I got a little bottle of O-Balm-A ointment here in my hot little hand that can cure anything that ails you from arthritis to asthma. It was selling on TV for $25 a bottle but if you buy it today I'll let you own it for only$10!

Guy 1: Okay but I have rheumatism can it cure that?

O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: Of course and many more things.

Gal number 1: "My joints hurt when it gets cold can O-Balm-A Ointment help that?"

O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: "Yes of course it can."

Guy 2 (CEO of a major company) "Look, my testicles have been bitten by a spider or something can O-Balm-A Ointment help me with that?"

O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: Yes sir, of course O-Balm-A Ointment will never bust your balls.

Gal number 2: "My mom's hair is starting to fall off can O-Balm-A Ointment cure that?"

O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: "Yes of course madam, O-Balm-A Ointment can cure that and many more things."

Guy3: "Okay, O-Balm-A Ointment is great but will it stain my clothes?"

O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: "Never! I tried some on my wife's blue dress and it didn't stain it at all! It's stainless!"

Kid 1: "Oh Bullshit! O-Balm-A my Ass!"

O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: (Mishears the boy because of a passing plane) Sure kid, you can rub some O-Balm-A Ointment on your behind because it's colorless and odorless too!

O-Balm-A Ointment salesman: "Now who wants some O-Balm-A Ointment? Buy it and I'll let you have for $5.00!"

A chorus rings out: "I'll take two bottles! yells a young lady. "I'll take three bottles! yells the CEO. One guy nervously pushes his way to the front yelling for a bottle. "Hey don't forget us in the back of the bus! We want some too! And so on and so forth until the O-Balm-A Ointment salesman runs out. The kid doesn't buy a bottle and laughs.

Then the O-Balm-A Ointment salesman looks satisfyingly at his wad of bills and hands a few bucks to the driver and gets off at the next stop. The bus drives away with the passengers busily applying their new wonder-cure-all! The O-Balm-A Ointment salesman flips them off as they drive away and calls them suckers under his breath. As he takes a last look at the bus he catches a glimpse of the kid flipping him off too.

Ahh,
I like to be slowly boiled in the pot. It is refreshing. Obama is the perfect stirrer. Everytime you think that it is becoming a little uncomfortable, he stirs the pot by reminding you that he is for change. Soon you will all be cooked.

I'm not sure if Edwards is any better, but how can you act in a certain way if you can't even say it.

Obama has said that he supports unilateral attack of Pakistan (but its okay, its to get terrorists).

peace, not Obama

John Edwards/Nico Toscani 2008

"You guys think you're above the law. Well, you ain't above mine."

my vote for the evilest of the evil is al gore...i voted for him in 2000, but now i see thru him...so see,there we go again..no one can agree.

Clouds: I suggest reading or listening to major speeches and essays by all candidates. Don't just listen to one victory speech and make a judgement. All three candidates spew out a media friendly campaign slogans during a speech. They are designed for that. Gore and Kerry were excellent at discussing the finer points of policy and our A.D.D. country gave them the boot. You should be happy that all 3 dems have learned their lessons.

I would like to see Nader (or whoever kidnapped him and is writing in his stead) actually write some coherent response to Obama's in-depth speeches. What the heck Nader-imposter?
Your side asks a bunch of in-depth questions and then you plug in one of his campaign slogans? A high schooler can do that.

Obama is going all the way. Get used to it.

I wanted to like Obama...really I did. My sister, who I adore and respect is so happy that we may have Obama for Prez. The world will view us in a much better light, she said. So, I listened to his speech and was so disappointed. Every other word was 'hope'. Like he was preaching in church...the opiate for the masses type of preaching. Hope is nothing. It is vacuous sentiment with no substance. He did not speak to any of the issues that concern me: the war, health care, aging and poverty, living wages, workers rights, climate change, oil, the environment, education reform, the middle class, immigration...on and on. Yes, I wanted a Black Prez in my lifetime..but Ralph pegged it per usual. What we need is a Black Ralph Nader...then I'd be happy.

Nader/Gore (Green and Greener)

No Species Left Behind!

nayoibi January 7th, 2008 9:00 pm ..Don't mistake my disdain for Hillary as a vote for Obama...His corporate sponsorship and voting record long ago turned me off. I'll vote DK, on the ballot or not.

I posted a quiz on a CD thread recently that was supposed to decide which candidate you are most in tune with. I was surprised to see that for me it was Obama. Now I'm thinking I've been had by the Republican friend who emailed it to me.

I wanted to like Obama...really I did. My sister, who I adore and respect is so happy that we may have Obama for Prez. The world will view us in a much better light, she said. So, I listened to his speech and was so disappointed. Every other word was 'hope'. Like he was preaching in church...the opiate for the masses type of preaching. Hope is nothing. It is vacuous sentiment with no substance. He did not speak to any of the issues that concern me: the war, health care, aging and poverty, living wages, workers rights, climate change, oil, the environment, education reform, the middle class, immigration...on and on. Yes, I wanted a Black Prez in my lifetime..but Ralph pegged it per ususal. What we need is a Black Ralph Nader...then I'd be happy.

you know this is an odd article for nader ...no numbers , no fiscals , no blah,blah, blah no oldguard economics......where are all his money gods ?? i am surprised all the savers and speculaters aren't here , raising hell....i may not agree with ralph's tactics in politics , but i do admire his economic savvy....and commondreams is an odd and maybe very deceptive place...i'm gonna pack up and leave it soon.too spooky...

I really hate to agree with Nader2000, but I do. Not that Obama will be president (he might be), but that he's a decent man and would be a president the left could negotiate with. No, I don't agree with Obama on everything, but something he once said made a big impression:

So, we're preparing, and one of my staff said, "The thing you gotta understand is, this isn't on the level." And I think that really strikes to what people are frustrated with in politics is that so much of what we talk about in politics, so much of what we say — it's not true, people know it's not true, all the insiders understand that we're just game-playing, and in the mean time you've got these hugely serious problems which are true.

From my perspective that's a deeply radical statement, not as obvious to the politically "aware" as it should be, and to make it on television is important. I'm willing to vote for a candidate who would say that kind of thing publicly, even if they were conservative on some issues. I'd prefer a conservative that honest to a pseudo-progressive neoliberal like Clinton.

This article by Nader is, frankly, stupid.

willybill , maybe seraphic mom was just moved by hillary's tears today or maybe she is naive .whatever, i also see some pretty good reasons for needing bill and hillary.i was just saying on another thread that i suspect that the evil bush/cheney may try to take our arsenal with them or just disable our defenses when they leave office ,they are evil and might want to get revenge on us or maybe they just want to take them to dubai ,like they did halliburton .bill and hillary know where all our arsenal eggs are hidden , obama knows nothing !!!he's probably never even been on air force one or camp david or the pentagon...he's nothing but a pretty front man to deal with the african uranium and he knows zilch about where the goods are-bill and hillary , do............

i've been saying that the republicans want obama to win , cause they want a man to go in and talk the africans out of their uranium.tonight on the world news(what a joke) was a little item on how barak obama was already working with the state department ,and working on establishing relations with kenya , (his fathers birthplace ) i told you this is just a dog and pony show , obama is already hard at work for the bank accounts of the new world order . geo. w. delivered the oil ,meet obama king of uranium..i don't want to live anywhere that gets it's power from nuclear , always wanted to live in the south of france , not anymore . obama will be selling us nuclear energy , so one day we can all end up new world briskets.....

In 2000, Mr. Nader said the vote was between Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee. Well, we got Tweedle -DUMB and I perceive a slight difference. Again, though, we are left to vote for the lesser of evils, as all the candidates, Dem and Repug, have now been shown to be dog-poop in one regard or another. Which is why over half the nation doesn't even vote for President.

I believe Obama is change simply because he is not another white guy, and yet he is a terrific, smart, front-man, which is what a president really is supposed to be, not a CEO/King as Dubya and the Dick seem to think. His election also gives a fantastic curveball to the world... the world will be scratching their collective heads... President Obama?!?

Edwards was my second choice, but he has the very lowest score of all Democrats in the League of Conservation Voters Assessment of Environmental Voting, and even his latest environmental plans do not even come close to Obama's or even Hillary's, according to the LCV. This would usually disqualify him in my book. But on top of that, he also got his head handed to him by Cheney in the 2004 VP debate, which was a shock to me, and I think a bigger factor in helping Kerry lose the race than realized. He also is a partner in a Hedge Fund Operation, and fumbled and dodged as he tried to explain away this hypocrisy in one debate. His 26,000 sq-ft home is not a humble abode. And so on. So while he talks the talk, will he really walk the walk, especially since, as a slick lawyer, he may not always believe what he thinks he has to say to win his case?

And Hillary is taking economic marching orders from Bob Rubin of Citibank, and corporate-issue marching orders from that corporate-mole group the DLC. And she is taking foreign affairs marching orders from AIPAC, and political marching orders from that old triangulator, weaselworder, backslapper, backstabber Bill. Which is why she is not acceptable. As well, I don't think Americans want a 36-year-straight White House run of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. That ain't 'change'!

So what does that leave? Same-Ole-same-ole-Senator Dodd/Biden? Not-a-chance Kucinich/Gravel? Both Kucinich and Richardson threw their voters to Obama. They must know something, don't you think? If they support Obama out of the top three, then Obama is OK with me.

I'm sorry he is not Kucinich, my choice but generating no passion so no sale. Maybe Kucinich can serve an Obama Administration, and get more of his program done behind the scenes than he could even as President.

We will see what kind of Congress we get as well. Remember, the Senate has 2 and only 2 seats for each state, EVEN the small one-horse states, so that means the 'red' states must be in play to capture the Senate, or NO Democratic plan, especially one like Kucinich's, will get through anyway. So Mr. Nader, O-bama is O-K. And he seems to be shrewdly playing his cards close to his vest. The rest is Hope snd Optimism.

So the Democrat position is that once someone endorses a candidate they should not make any more political statements about that race? That's the only way I can take the comment about Nader already endorsing Edwards.

I wish the Democrats would believe that. Then, since all of them have already endorsed someone, they'd all have to sit down and shut up. And a day without hearing a Democrat speak\lie is surely a very sweet and lovely day.

Oh well, I'd love to scroll back up and see what the Evilcrats (they proudly claim to be a party of evil, just a lesser version) are saying to slam Mr. Nader, but I've got a football game to go watch.

Gawd I like this guy. He always hits the nail right on the head.

I can tell what we'll get from Obama. I can watch Obama and listen. I can use my brain to see what he says. Like with all Democrats, I can try to separate actions from words, since words are so often lies. With a politician with remarkably little office holding record, sometimes you have to look at proposals for action versus just words. But either way, stop and listen and ask yourself what is this politician really saying? What is he really proposing?

With Obama, I hear long, long streches of words with remarkably little content. The man can talk for a long time, and sound good doing it, but never say a thing. That's what Mr. Nader nails so exactly in this piece. The difference between fluff talk that sounds good and real actions and real proposals.

The truly bizarre thing is that the nation would ever elect a President because of fluffy talk that sounds good. But instead, that seems about all we do. We got a dangerous idiot doing that the last time. I wonder what we'll get this time?

I'd say look at which corporations are backing his campaign, and which Washington insiders are serving on his campaign, but then the Obama-lovers would flame me.

One could point out that anyone who is running for a powerful office and doing so my trying to mislead the people with fluff talk while avoiding telling anyone what they'll do in office should be thought of in a rational society both as insane and dangerous. Insane, because what rational society would ever give high office to someone who doesn't say what they'll do. Dangerous because there is a great deal of power in the office and giving that to someone who hasn't clearly stated what they'll do with that power seems to be inherently dangerous.

Hey, we could have had as President an experienced lawyer with a 40 year track record of saving lives and working to protect the people from dangerous crap that corporations wanted to sell and make money. But Americans are way too stupid to ever vote for that guy.

PJD: Bush was never to the left of Gore. What nonsense. Anybody with a brain could see before the election that Bush was a oil friendly fool from Texas, who would never have gotten anywhere without a former President father.

Anyone could see that Gore was an environmentalist. Everyone talks about the "new Gore" as if the "old Gore" was really bad. Gore is the same. the difference is that people are finally seeing that he was correct all along, so his message is received better. Also, he appears to have decided to act more jovial and less serious because that is what we Americans like--the Buddy President.

This is a ridiculous and offensive article by Nader. Now that he has endorsed Edwards, Nader is busy inventing a false personality for Obama. Obama has many shortcomings, in my opinion, however Edwards is so clearly insincere, and desperate to be elected, he is hardly trustworthy. How strange that Nader could manage to endorse Edwards, but could not manage to avoid sabotaging Gore.

This article by Nader is a complete fabrication.

indy,
You make a valid point_"I suggest reading or listening to major speeches and essays by all candidates. Don't just listen to one victory speech and make a judgment..." I was quick to react after hearing only one speech. But, I truly hope we aren't a nation of idiots, who can't listen to anything but slogans, as you say. And you are right, this doesn't really sound like Nader...could it be a fake?
FC

Wanting another beer and still suffering the last hangover? That's alcoholism.

I'm drinking alone in future.

Obama has replaced George Bush as the guy most American voters would like to have a beer with.

seraphicmom January 7th, 2008 5:44 pm. " hillary has been playing ball with the devil , to try to help us….".... NO ONE can be this naive.... not even an angel...I hope you are not serious! If Hillary is playing ball with the devil, she is playing with herself. Good lawd almighty!

"I'm afraid Mr. Nader is correct. Obama is mostly fluff… vapid drifting fluff like the kind that falls from cottonwood trees and clogs up your window screens in the summer."

You don't know that he's correct, and neither does he.

Time will tell..

btw, did anybody check and see if Nader actually wrote the above essay? The writing is rather childish/amateur for a person of his intelligence...

indyvoter, it's also not true

Zogby Poll. Dec. 12-14, 2007. N=1,000 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.2.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

Edwards loses to McCain and Giuliani in this poll. Obama is the only candidate to beat all 5 Republicans. Go figure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3969318

Dennis Kucinich: "In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.

He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty."

All three of the candidates don't seem to stand for very much that is concrete. Obama is very charismatic and voted against the war. Edwards says he'll kick corporate butt yet he votes for the war (which is being fought basically for the profit of corporations) and helps pass the Patriot Act.

It's impossible to tell what they're going to do if any of them were elected because in their campaigns they're all trying to appeal to everybody. Not to mention there is such a thing as a congress to contend with, unless of course they are going to go the route of Bush and just override congress.

I'm one people with a bunch of war mongers? sorry Obama I'm not feeling ya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act_of_2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html

Hmm.
What proof do you have that Edwards is not pandering to the gullible far-left? That he took a last minute strong stance towards troop withdraw out of desperation? I mean, I am geniunely looking for some concrete differences between these two guys.

It seems like you are saying we should not vote for Obama because he is less electable? Lot of good that did last election with Kerry.

maybe I am just delusional from so many years of bush, but the 6 or so pieces of legislation that bush vetoed all looked pretty decent. (higher fuel efficieny, tax on oil companies, green jobs, troop withdraw) It seems safe to say that obama, edwards and even clinton would have signed this stuff.
We need a democratic congress and president BIG time!!!

Obama has a CONSISTENT record of taking CONSISTENT PROGRESSIVE positions on the death penalty, racial profiling, lobbying reform, the Iraq War, nuclear proliferation, Pakistan, single transferable voting, transparency in government, and full disclosure of bundlers. That's not soft, that's change.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/060523-lugar-obama_bill_to_keep_weapons_out_of_terrorists_hands_heads_to...

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event&event_id=269510

http://fairvote.org/?page=1755

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/12/obama.death.penalty.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262_pf.html

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php