Kem,

I'll take that bet.

Big Money---I appreciate the way you're thinking-----it will help me feel better when the rethugs steal another presidential election, which will be very easy if Sen Clinton is the Democratic candidate. I keep asking myself, " Why would anyone want to preside over the coming disaster?" But then if most of these folks are about personal gain, maybe a short time so close to the engine of the gravy train will be lucrative indeed.

I fear this isn't even about which party may benefit or be blamed in the coming years.....that presupposes there is a fundamental difference, and I fear that except for some tinkering around the edges, there really isn't much. I know many here still need to believe that the crumbs they are thrown by Dems' largesse is preferable, but if I am facing starvation, I would rather it be quick, thanks anyway.

IN my wreckless youth, I voted for Reagan twice, GHW Bush once,
Bill Clinton twice, Ralph Nader and John Kerry.
My heart's desire for political affiliation is anarchy, but that's not likely to happen, so I typically vote for whomever I think won't screw me over too badly.

Here's how i see it, being in Repugnican circles my whole life.
Hillary might beat a Huckabee or Romney but not a McCain. And I'm not just saying that because I'm from AZ. Obama is the only remaining best chance to beat McCain for the democrats, and I'm not even sure I can vote for him tomorrow! I don't like many of the votes he has cast in the Senate. He votes like any other elitist when it comes to taxes. But he's the only chance we've got right now. The only way I'd vote for him is if he chose someone like John Edwards or AZ's governor, Janet Napolitano, as his VP. And I still might vote for McCain for the benefits he'd bring to AZ and renewable energy investment here if the mighty O chooses some bonehead for VP.

Too bad John left the race.
Where is a true leader? Gore?

Wish we could take bets here, I'll say it again. Hillary will be our next president if there is an election. She will inherit the depression and will be blamed for it. Of course after the rioting and anarchy which will result, it won't matter anyway. America as a first world nation will no longer exist.

The Clinton bashing turned me from ever, and I mean ever, voting for St. Obama. The Democratic party is so polarized now that all the Republican party will have to do is show up. . .

A Clinton-McCain contest almost certainly will activate Ralph Nader. Mrs. Clinton is a hawk no matter what her current position of convenience indicates. She expressed the case for war in Iraq more eloquently than Bush in the last democratic debate but she is still wrong. She represents the past and we must move on.

As much as the symbolism of a woman being President would be an important bellweather in American politics, I would prefer a woman who has made it on her own vs. on her husband's coattails. I also agree this country is truly desirous of a total change in approach, a new atmosphere of consensus building. Obama is really a phenomenom that comes around once a generation, a genuine breath of fresh air. Let's just hope he doesn't meet the fate of the last "breath of fresh air", JFK. The military-industrial complex will not go easy as we've seen before; it will take someone with real guts to go up against them. But it's necessary to avoid plunging this country into a depression due to outrageous spending on a war we should have never waged (i.e. Iraq). Trust me; if we had invaded Afghanistan full-force, Iraq would have seen the light and overthrown Saddam on their own and Pakistan would be a much more "cooperative" country today.

Bull shit. The Democrats have out-voted the Republicans almost two to one in the primaries held so far. That trend will continue right on through the general election. (If indeed there is an election)

Either Hillary or Obama will defeat whomever the Republican candidate is. In fact McCain will do worse than Romney if Romney does manage to prevail. Those two will not team up either, nor will Hillary and Obama. In my opinion, Hillary will be our next president whether we like it or not. We'll see how Super Tuesday goes, the results of that will tell us what will transpire in November. You can bet your dirty sox and all the money you have, that we will have a Democrat in the White House next year if there is an election.

There will also be a depression, it's too late to prevent that mess from occurring.

Ms. Clinton has a problem with what the meaning of "fought" is. She consistently claims to have "fought" Republicans for decades, but most would not accept her definition of "fought," which to her apparently means initially having a more progressive position but folding and adopting the Republican position when encountering the slightest opposition.

Ralph Nader didn't tell Hillary to vote for war and not apologizing for it. So shove that stupid argument up you ass John Pearce and Kathy Cramer.
Your Dem Party is as bad as the Rep, stop having that "holier that thou" attitude. Morons.

If Ralph Nader want's a Republican to win, he may enter the contest.

And so on into perpetuity.

What a racket--always slam Nader when he is the one that represents our interests the most.
How about insisting the Clintons not run again instead?

Why must we continue to accept the manner in which they skew it every time?
Is this not a Democracy? Do we not have the right to vote for those who represent our interests the most?

I am one of those antiwar progressives who will vote for Nader if Hillary is the Dem nominee.

Her or John McCain, six of one, a half dozen of the other as far as being catastrophically wrong on the most important issue of the past eight years.

That said, though he wasn't my first choice I'll support Obama for however long he reains in the race.

"Hillary Clinton is a fine U.S. senator..." They lost me right there. Why do the Republicans hate the Clintons so much? Is it because they're so much alike? Self-indulgent? Obsessed with power at all costs? Mouthpieces for the executive suite?

KEM PATRICK Showing your true COLORs lack of PROGRESSIVE thought processes....

item 1 the 2000 election recount shows GORE WON.
instead the UNCONSTITUTIONAL MOVE BY THE SUMPREME COURT
APPOINTED G.W. 'SHRUB'

item 2 the 2004 election STOLEN IN OHIO, NEW MEXICO
BY G.W. Operatives

so you have a twice non-elected President in White House.

item 3 Al G admitted in a open room filled with many witnesses that in fact, Ralph Nader was not the reason
Al G. lost Al G. was reason for not RECOGNIZING Any Senator who would stand up for C.B.C ie Maxine Waters...

item 4 your logic formulae is sick

evil or less evil ==> less evil.

uhh Kem Buddy you still get evil....

slum lord fan, corporate stooge Barcak Hussein Obama
OR anti- union corporate stooge Hillary Rodham Clinton
OR simple stooge be in Iraq 100s of years John McCain
FINALLY corporate PAGAN stooge Mitt Romney
----------------------------------------------
= evil

or you can actually vote for what a TRUE READER OF DEMOCRACY NOW vote with your progessive heart , mind & soul

KEM P YOU GIVE PATRICKs a very bad name

Not forgiving Clinton for her vote on the war is not nearly as important to me as her obfuscating progressive ideals for the sake of the monied interests, read lobyists, for whom she is beholding. Her health care plan is nothing more than a funnel of hard working increasingly strapped wage earners dollars into the pockets of pharma and insurance companies. Obama's health plan is not, in any substantive way, different. They both roll out the universal rhetoric, but it is nothing but a stranglehold for the healthcare statis quo.
I would vote for Nader in a heartbeat should he decide to enter. As it is, if the polls show it to be close in Nov. I will hold my nose and not look in the mirror after the election for quite some time.

It's not just the progressive vote. Thanks to their heavy handed mishandling of SC, Bill and Hillary revealed their true characters to the African American community. Their careers were built on African American support ("first black president") but they threw it right over the side with all of Bill's snide and dismissive remarks. Progressives have a history, as this article, and these comments note, of voting third party. African Americans have a history of just not voting. Yet the Clintons take that vote for granted just as they do the progressive vote with the old "but the Republicans are worse" tactic. As Rep. Jim Cliburn (SC, head of black congressional caucus) has noted, if blacks come out in numbers like whites do in SC, a democrat would win. Obama would do that; Clinton pissed off more people than they realized. They (and I mean they) won't win. Personally I would still vote Democratic because it's true the Republicans are worse; they're off the wall nuts; one might well start a nuclear war to show that they could. So if the dems nominate Hillary (I've done my Obama vote here, and can do no more) and then lose in November, the whole world will suffer for it.

This purely, speculative, frantic plea is based on futures prospecting.
Polls are easily manipulated by the wording and the poll taking,
as well as the guy ruminating over their potential outcome. or the
"moment" in the air -the buzz. and who is willing to submit to the
poll in the first place.

It is as accurate as waiting for a man with a pointy hat to tell me
what the stones he cast on the table will mean for my
belly ache and back pain

KEM PATRICK hits the nail hard when he reminds the reader to look
at the pathetic return from GOP, but let's not forget the 2006 election cycle
and who got elected, and, more importantly -who got tossed. The electorate
will vote for a Democratic President. Stop pushing paranoid delusions
John McCain will some how win against a Democratic contestant.
The Democratic lead right now is across the board and in the plus.
Artificial hype intended to drive up the betting circuit and drive the fear
of god in to the hearts of the weak-minded doesn't help, people.

Clinton's problem is being a woman in a country which is still deeply misogynistic. In every other way, there is barely any difference between her and (let's bomb Pakistan and Iran) Obama. Though Paul Krugman thinks the US is more likely to get universal health care with Hillary's policies. However, when did US voters ever care about their own poor?

Hey ~PATRICKBALLOTINTEGRITY~ I offered my personal opinions. I know how Gore and Kerry both lost their election bids. What in hell does that have to do with what's happening now? You want to vote for anyone, including Nader if he runs, knock yourself out, that's your perogitive. I won't waste a vote and say it's for my conscience, or to send a useless message. All I'm saying is, we will have a choice of Hillary, or Obama, or a Republican and I believe Hillary will win, unless someone like a Ralph Nader screws it up again. It does not mean I admire Hillary or supported her. __ I don't and I didn't.

Now as to your personal attacks on me for whatever sick reasons you may have. You can go fu#k yourself you lowbrow asshole.

About the best that can be said for this article is that at least it makes clear that Hillary, and not Ralph Nader, is The Devil We Know.

If people honestly think that the movement conservatives of the 21st century are not going to turn Obama's race into the mother of all wedge issues then they have no business discussing politics.

The single most fundamental factor behind the rise of Reagan and the neoconservative movement is racial prejudice spawned by the disenfranchisement of southern white democrats in the 60s. Last election cycle it was immigration, the one before gay marriage. Do you remember gang members, welfare moms? The right will spin the Muslim lies about Obama's past, draw sharp ties between uppity negroes like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson--anything it takes to strike fear into middle America's heart of a black president.

I agree Clinton is going to be just as polarizing. After all, she has a vagina. What's not to hate about that? Regardless, what we should not be doing is condemning people based on lack of electability (or for giving true progressives an real choice for that matter), rather than the substance of their record.

I will neither vote for Obama or Clinton. Neither one condemns the corporate control of policy making in Washington, both have declared their unambiguous support for Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza strip, both of them plan to continue expanding the military, noth, in short, plan on running the country like their Democratic forerunners, Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy, and Carter; through deregulation, expansion of the American empire, military control of the middle east, while continuing to do nothing about the eradication of the middle class and the New Deal programs that were the hallmark of the last truly progressive administration this country has known.

KEM PATRICK - "Want's" is not even a real word. Some people use "it's" as a possessive or "Clinton's" as a plural, but at least they are actually words, even if they are used incorrectly. This is yet another example of why we need to begin diverting money from the military to education. In the past few years, I don't believe I've read even one article for which all the posts had correct plurals, possessives, and contractions. The most amazing thing is that anyone thinks we need to make English the official American language. Before that notion is even considered, our schools should begin to teach people how to actually use the language correctly.

Thanks to all who have posted here in defense of Nader. And to everyone who keeps harping about Nader's stealing the election, George W. Bush never won either election. He most certainly did not win the one in 2000. Anyone who believes that the Republican machine would not have found a way to ensure Bush's "victory" hasn't been paying attention for quite some time.

I voted for Nader in 1996 and again in 2000. I live in West Virginia where it made absolutely no difference whatsoever. I really get tired of the same old, same old gripe about Nader. He had a right to run, and we had a right to vote for him. Get a grip!

Kem I think you struck out on this one. Hillary is not electable. I won't vote for her, and I am by far not alone. In their analysis of her electability, the authors are right. And in this race she has revealed just how amoral she really is. She and Bill have turned even more people off than ever.

Hillary will take down the Democratic party and her coattails will drown many Democrats down the ticket. Of course she doesn't give a shit, it's all about her.
The results would be very different with Obama. He on the other hand makes people want to come out and vote. But unfortunately the 800 superdelegates, the party leaders, will decide the nomination, and the Democratic penchant for seizing defeat from the jaws of victory doesn't bode well. Maybe they will wake up and smell the coffee. We will see. It's too bad that tomorrow is so definitive because Obama is clearly on an upward trajectory while Hillary is sinking. But it may be too late for that to be reflected in the votes. My only hope is that the superdelegates aren't bound to their endorsements and can switch all the way up to the convention. That's IF Hillary doesn't get the grand total. The good news is that unlike the Republicans, the Democrats allot by vote distribution in each district, not winner-take-all. We live in interesting times.

DaSparky, I've never held my nose and I'm not about to start now. I won't give in to blackmail, a Clinton specialty.

patrickballotintegrity, I think you're being too harsh with Kem. Kem friend, can you keep your cool here? I think patrick just got a little excited.

kathyodat

You all are talking soap opera trash. There is no difference between any of the political whores that are pimping themselves all over the country. But corporate America only wants one voice so its media whores fill up time and space with articles like this.
Hoa binh

ABC--Anyone But Clinton!

I agree with Little Brother's sentiment.

Oops, looks like my post arrived too late - may not have made any difference anyway. Kem, do you have an Irish temper?

OldBadgerToo, have you checked out Hillary's plan? It's an insurance industry plan, mandated to be paid for by the enrollees - us. With penalties for noncompliance and no way to prevent costs from continuing to soar. Many won't be able to afford it but she's planning on ramming it down our throats anyway. Guess who loves it? Yes! Her benefactors! The insurance industry bankrolling her campaign. She's conniving and sleazy. Vote for her? You would have to torture me with hot irons first. Waterboarding would probably work as well.

kathyodat

LeeAnnG, I loved your post, all of it. I'm a Nader voter, although right now I'm finding myself to my surprise willing to support Obama without holding my nose. It's my opinion he's a dark horse, progressively speaking. His background is progressive, and while Hillary was schmoozing with Wal-Mart, he was being a community organizer. His record in the Illinois state Senate looks quite different from the US Senate, so I think he's gone under cover to run for President. Thats OK with me. I think he's just playing it smart and not pissing off the corporatocracy. Avoiding the fate of Edwards, Kucinich and Gravel. I think our country needs him. I was dissing him until I did some research on him. Yes he has lots of corporate money. The reality is you have zero chance of winning without it. But the big question is what would he do as President. Well, I'm willing to take a chance on him. At least, he doesn't fight dirty as does Clinton. But he does fight back, which is a good thing. He's no wimp.

kathyodat

Yes, LeeAnnG, Nader certainly has a right to run again for the umpteenth unsuccessful time. It would be good, though, if he could see how much more he could help this country by just giving his opinions to all of the political parties, rather than insisting on taking votes yet again from the Democratic candidates, who are the only chance we have to turn things around.

Lately, it seems that CD could be labeled the anti-democratic society considering the uncalled for criticsm of their candidates. Those crude, unfounded comments are not helping the impression one has of the progressive movement.

Progressives should not follow the example of the conservative fundamentalists, who finally made many people sick of their unfair, inappropriate rhetoric, and are now paying for that.

Also, remember that the other candidates all had a right to run as well as Nader snd there were many people that supported them in spite of their failings.

Well ~LEE ANN G~ It just so happens I'm legally blind and often have trouble with my correct spelling here on the computer. I type fast, sometimes the damn keys stick, ect. Not an excuse, reasons. I have a fairly good education and once won the primary for a city council seat in a large city. I have seen lots of over educated idiots during my lifetime, GWB always comes to mind, a man in power, who has less common sense than our Irish terrier, who never attended any school.

You wish to vote for Nader, that's your choice and I have no problem with who you vote for. I won't vote for him. I happen to like Ralph Nader and the good and productive things he has done for our society. I love my wife and I won't vote for her either, because sadly she can't win.

I do believe Nader is wasting his time runnng for the presidency and find it rather amusing, yet maddening, that his presidential campaigns are primarily financed, by high rollers, who strongly support our now Fascist form of government. The Republicans know with absolute certanty, that Nader will not win and by Ralph being on the ballot, it will only tend to help the Republican candidate, ___ so they donate tons of money to him.

Anyone who can't percieve that is a fact, is in serious need of a brain transplant, no matter how well they can spell, or know and follow the rules of perfect punctuation or grammer. You don't think votes count LEE ANN? Let me put you in on a little secret. When Gerald Ford ran for the presidential office, he lost the state of Ohio. Had he won that state, Ford would have been the president. If ONLY ONE MORE person had voted for him in each of Ohio's precincts, Gerald Ford would have won in Ohio and the presidency. __ Our votes often do count.

Finally Lee Ann, I do not believe I have ever chided ANYONE for how they spell or vote. I offer my opinion on subjects and issues, which is my right and my prerogitive. I state what I think about how I feel about wasting a vote for any reason, such as principal or conscience, and I don't agree with wasting MY vote. That too is my perogitive. I don't need to get a grip, __ you do, if you or someone like that ignorant asshole before you, wishes to personally attack me for stating my opinions. Disagree, fine. Don't start a shit fight, we don't need it.

Let's stop blaming Ralph Nader for the weaknesses of the Democratic Party. As Nader explained after 2004, Kerry wouldn't return his calls or respondent to the letter outlining point by point a sure-fire strategy for defeating Bush in that election. The Kerry campaign refused to use it and instead Kerry made that horrendous speech at the Grand Canyon (think of the symbolism of that!)stating that HE TOO would have attacked Iraq on the basis that Iraq presented an (imminent?)threat to the U.S.!!! Hillary and her husband advance this type of "me too" stuff without much deliberation as dedicated DLC corporate Democrats. We're really stuck now between a rock and a hard place in this election.

Hi there Kathy. Indeed I am half Irish and have an Irish wife and an Irish Terrier. I do not take it kindly when someone like that other Patrick, attacks me peronally for no good reason, and tells me I'm a disgrace to the name Patrick. __ Screw him ___ twice.

As for Hillary, I don't WANT her to be our president, but if she's the nominee, I sure will vote for her and won't hold my nose or my weanie when doing so. We just cannot afford to have another Republican. I don't believe Obama will win, ___ we'll see. You also might check Obama out a little more thoroughly and focus on his stands about our military and his PAST statements concerning the issues in the mid-east. Not what he's saying today. He's far more Lieberman, Reagan and Bush, than Hillary is. __ Not good.

As I've said before, the general election turnout of eligible voters in '00 was something like 50-60%. Nader supporters were around 5%. The number of eligible Americans who didn't vote at all outnumbered Nader supporters like 8-10:1!

If there's a Democrat out there who wants to cry foul, why don't you folks produce a candidate who comes across a little less slick and ethereal, and a little more genuine & believable?

In fact, the Nader people should probably cry foul too -- voter apathy cost Nader a realistic shot at '00.

REF: variable February 4th, 2008 3:13 pm
I will neither vote for Obama or Clinton. Neither one condemns the corporate control of policy making in Washington... both of them plan to continue expanding the military, plan on running the country like their Democratic forerunners, Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy, and Carter; through deregulation, expansion of the American empire, military control of the middle east, while continuing to do nothing about the eradication of the middle class and the New Deal programs that were the hallmark of the last truly progressive administration this country has known.

We really, really, really NEED John Edwards! He stood for ALL of the objectives listed above. The corporate media destroyed him! They purposely marginalized his candidacy because his platform included putting the brakes on lobbyists, corporate power, and greed in Washington. He was the ONE person who promised to stand up for "we the people" AND he has a proven record of his ability to prevail in these endeavors. We truly lost our most valuable asset last week when he suspended his campaign. Perhaps as a group, we could encourage him and either Hillary or Obama to join forces and have John Edwards be the V.P. or the AG. That way we could get the best of both worlds.

REF: ...… both of them plan to continue expanding the military, plan on running the country like their Democratic forerunners, Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy, and Carter; through deregulation, expansion of the American empire, military control of the middle east...

I forgot to add, John Edwards has also promised to have us OUT OF IRAQ within ten months of the time he takes office.

This country needs to hit bottom before it admits it has a serious disease that a simple change in figurehead won't cure.

I'll vote for Nader before I'll vote for a Demolican.

Enough already... Nader was not the Democrat Spoiler!

What you get with Hillary is another Maggie Thatcher and rest assured she'll give us another war. Unlike Maggie we will not get national healthcare.

since1492, you are so right. I can see that this arguing over which corporate candidate is pointless and fruitless, but I am sucked into it everytime, like my co-workers are sucked into Brittney Spears arguments.

It always infuriates me when Democrats blame Nader for the stolen election of 2000. How stupid is that, and yet, when told by their masters to sic Nader, instead of Bush or Harris or the Supreme Court, they do it. I guess I feel progressives should be smarter than that.

Anyway, it seems clear to me that Hillary is the annointed next President. She's getting the most war machine money. They need a Democrat in so that when the whole economy collapses, people will blame the Democrats. And when they have the next attack, or bird flu, or whatever they have planned, people will accept martial law from a Democrat much easier. Like Nixon going to China.

The Pearce and Cramer article is riddled with falsehoods and sloppy reasoning.

"Electability" literally means the ability to be elected. This does not, cannot, exist by itself. It is attached to other qualities such as political positions and personal attributes. Commentators who discuss "electability" too often uncouple it from the things that give it meaning.

"(Nader's) vote total fell from an election-tilting 3 percent in 2000 to 0.38 percent in 2004..."
While the statistics are accurate enough, the embedded claim is a lie.

"As GOP pundits are now openly admitting, they want Clinton this November. They fear Barack Obama."
The inherent trust that Democratic commentators have in Republican assertions is part of the very "structural" problems that the authors pretend to decry in an earlier paragraph. Please note again that tactics, like electability, are raised here entirely decontextualized from the politics that give it meaning.

"(Obama) unites independents, the young, minorities and progressives alike."
There is no evidence of such unity, particularly where progressives are concerned. Further, the right-wing hate machine is equally ready to appeal to latent racism and bigotry against Obama as they would be against H. Clinton. There is already evidence of this in stupid e-mail smears. It is wishful thinking to imply that he would be treated in a materially different way by the far right.

"In 2004, we had our regrets about having to fight the often-admirable Ralph Nader to oppose the reelection of George W. Bush."
No such regret is in evidence on the part of people willing to recycle lies.

This article is a fine example of how crappy the mainstream political discourse has become. Ideas matter, and this article has none and refers to none.

patrickballotintegrity -

Why do you insult Pagans, by associating Mitt the Mormon with Paganism. Modern paganism is a wonderful celebration of respect and reverence for the earth. Mormonism is just another corrupt Pseudo Christian control mechanism.

~TEXAS~ if all progessives have your opinion, which you are entitled to have, McCain or Romney will likely be the next president.

~GINGER~, John Edwards was my choice also. By far!! BTW, Hillary promises to have our troops out of Iraq in 60 days. I also believe she will appoint John Edwards to a post on her cabinet, such as Attorney General. He would be an excellent choice and have a lot to say about many issues.

KEM personal attack......
IS YOU WHO SEZ ONLY CERTAIN PEOPLE CAN RUN OFFICE
THATs about as facist as you can get
THAT IS WAY BEYOND LOW BROW........................
YOU say it is okay to LOW BROW NADER.

NADER DID WHAT YOU CANNOT DO [PERIOD]

do you vote with v.v.p.t.?
or did you vote early on DRE?

vote tabulation is the MAIN COURSE OF DEMOCRACY
taxation is the DESERT
THE AFTEREFFECT OF JUST ELECTION...

Vern,

"How about insisting the Clintons not run again instead?"

This is a question I've asked others -- why doesn't Hillary step aside? For her & her husband, politics is always a matter of personal vindication, and often a matter of personal vindictiveness; this made them ripe targets for the rightwing destruction machine. In 1992 and in 1996, people were alarmed by the "Family Values" and "Culture War" rhetoric of Pat Buchanan, but the habits of concealment and collusion of both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton gave Republicans a respectability that they otherwise lack.

Two very uninspiring Democratic candidates from the DLC won two elections that they then ceded to Bush; whatever the reason, they prefer collaboration & always will. Nader, like Kucinich, chooses confrontation, and the machine then simply isolates & demonizes them for doing so.

SeriousProfessor,

" Further, the right-wing hate machine is equally ready to appeal to latent racism and bigotry against Obama as they would be against H. Clinton. There is already evidence of this in stupid e-mail smears"

Of course they'll use whatever weapon they have, but Obama doesn't respond as Hillary does to them. She views political office the way that the older Baby Boomers do: it's a personal reward for personal achievement, and then one does for the less gifted what they can't do for themselves. Obama speaks to the post-Boomer sense that society is structured unfairly for everyone except those at the top, and that one survives & thrives not by wonky manipulation of policy, but by everyone pitching it, no matter who they are & where they come from. That comes from his father's long-shot story, from his own experience of nearly falling through the social net in his teens, and his subsequent experiences in community and legislature. And this orientation is reflected in the Clinton machine, which is aimed at leaders & suburbanites, and Obama's campaign, which goes out into the highways & byways for support.

Kem Patrick's twisted Orwellian doublespeak above is really quite telling when he says, "If Ralph Nader want's a Republican to win, he may enter the contest."

Let's see. If we vote for someone whose entire life's work has been in opposition to the things that comprise the neo-con Republican agenda, we're voting FOR the Republicans. If we vote for a Democratic someone whose opposition to the neo-con Republican agenda has been mere lip service, coupled with overt support or subtle enabling of that agenda, we're voting AGAINST the Republicans.

There's a died-in-the-wool corporate duopolist for you, telling us that the only way to get what you want is to vote for what you don't want. Kind of like E.V. Debs's "It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it," in a Bizzaro Universe sort of way.

Sorry, Kem, but I think you are living in Mouseland.
http://www.tommydouglas.ca/mouseland

bdrube, I fear you have blinded yourself

you all think Obama is this progressive beacon?
he surely is NOT

He is maybe a tad more liberal than Clinton, he voted yes on 300 billion for the war, yes on the patriot act, and of course, no vote on Mukasey. Clinton shares these positions but the difference between her and Obama is that she is honest and open about them and doesn't CLAIM how liberal she is.

I don't like a lot of things she says. I was a huge Richardson fan so the war is one of my biggest issues, but I am tired of all you good progressive liberals blinding yourself with Obama's empty rhetoric

If Nader runs I hope he runs as an independent. I am a registered Green, and now that there is no chance of the Democrats putting up a progressive candidate, I can go back to the business of supporting my party. But I have no desire to vote for Nader, I did that in 2000, because he ran as a Green, but he did not do that so much to further the Green party as to further his own agenda.

While I do not blame Al Gore's loss on Ralph, I really do think he has out lived his relevance in the presidential arena. He needs to step out of the limelight and into a supporting role, let someone else take the mantle of Spoiler, the losers in the Democratic party will be more than happy to spread the blame around.
Unlike others here, I do not believe a Dem win in the General Election is a given. I think that if you really want a Democratic President you should support Hillary Clinton.

I believe Barack Husein Obama is unelectable. But that is only my opinion, based on only my direct experience of what motivates the just-plain-folk in the good ol' USA. But that's ok y'all go ahead and nominate him, maybe I will be presently surprised twice. First if he gets elected, and second if he lives up to even 1/4 of the high expectations his starry eyed supporters have.

I certainly have no illusions about the Green candidate taking the General Election this year, I'll be happy if we can pull in enough progressives, libertarians, geo-libertarians, and others seeking a real alternative to get 5% of the vote.

This editor is really annoying. I gotta get better at proof reading before I hit submit.

If the ticked had been Gore/Nader instead of Gore/Leiberman they would have won by a landslide.

Orwell wrote about newspeak and doublethink, but not doublespeak.

I voted for Obama already. I live in California.

If Clinton gets the nomination I will probably vote Nader like I did in 1996 and 2000.

1) Don't hate the players, hate the game. We see what happens to politicians who attempt to represent we the people--they end up like Kennedy, Kucinich, Wellstone, Nader, MLK, Malcom X etc--assassinated or marginalized.

2) Elections are determined by whoever rigs the votes--last I checked, national elections are still rigged to favor economic elites. So discussions of relative candidate electability are irrelevant.