Ed, the issue of the 2008 election is democracy vs. empire.

Yes the stakes are high --- higher than ever.

Only Nader (and Gore) will raise and confront the issue of this corporatist Empire hiding behind the facade of 'Vichy' government.

Kernel writes: "That is why some of us maintain that we need to do the possible to better ourselves, rather than take some action that has no chance to succeed in the short term. In time, it might be possible to build a minority group into some kind of significant effort for improvement.
If it makes one feel good to vote and support someone who has no chance, by all means do so, as that is what democracy is all about. Just vote and do not criticize those who feel differently"

The only way to succeed is by voting for Nader unless we are ready for a Revolution. Voting for Nader is the way to build a stronger minority progressive group. By the way, Nader is not a pure socialist. He is not planning to nationalize corporations just make them pay their fair share and stop them from interfering in the political process. Let those who want to be responsible for the worsening of our country and the deaths of innocent people abroad to vote for Obama or Clinton or the Republicans. Mr. Nader has earned my vote. When no one is around to represent the progressive view a Revolution will come. And yes, we can criticize the Dems and Reps for damaging this country (Kucinich, Edwards, and Gravel the only exceptions). The Dems are stealing your vote, why? because: they have gotten you to vote for them out of fear, not because they deserve your vote. In this way, the Dems have made a mockery of your conscience. They have you locked in the two-party system with no way out, because they know they can scare you away from Nader by feeding you the BS that Nader is a spoiler.

jas1984---

First of all, Nader is NOT "the left!" At this point he is only the left wing of the GOP!

Further, I'm sick to hell of the ridulous argument as to whether or not "Nader is totally responsible for Bush's presidentcy?" No, he isn't TOTALLY responsible! However, he IS a SCAB!!! He broke the unity needed to defeat our worst eneemy, Bush and the ultra-right. (Please, do not insult us and try to come back and explain that the Ds/Rs are "the same." Unless you are independently wealthy and have somehow avoided all the attacks from the past 7 yrs on working folks, that is an argument divorced from reality). Nader, is certainly a part of the coalition that did their part to defeat the Democratic ticket, that was supported by labor, minorities, etc, and DID help elect his buddie Bush!

On a personal, antidotal level, I lost my pension/health care, along w/thousands of steelworkers, when Bush replaced the head of the pension bd (PBGC) and allowed the steel companies to break our pension agreements. Only Sherrod Brown (D-Oh) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh), and numerous other Demoractic legislators, helped us fight to get a little partial pension I now have. Dennis, Sherrod and other D's are fighting against the war. While many on here say they "love" Dennis, I've yet to see any eveidence of you folks helping Dennis in any way.

(I won't be able to stay on any longer because I'm leaving for Cleveland to help Dennis this weekend in his fight against an extremely well funded corporate campaign to unseat him)!

For your information, I am one of those who do DESPISE/HATE Nader for his disvisive role. If you'd like to answer me, Please just answer one question for me, (because none of the apologists for Nader have even attempted to do so)----- What did/does Nader's run for the presidency concretely do to help working folks, like myself, in any way actually defend ourselves against the Bush/Corporate attack on us, or, in any way help us pass any positive legislation, such as health care reform for all, ending the war, right to organize into unions (EFCA), creating 'Green' jobs, funding for education or stopping foreclosures?

Also, while we're at it, Union folks (I'm a long-time USW--steelworker Union member) are getting awfully tired of doing all the fighting and getting only "advice" from ths divisive Nader apologists.

Please--- lets see you guys on the line, fighting for Dennis this weekend, or at least SOME goddamned fight, soon!

We need your help, not your advice!!!

I doubt anyone reads down the list long enough of the comments to get this far, but I'll put my two cents in anyway, since daily kos kicked me out. I'm a big Nader fan at least as far as being a consumer advocate, I dont really think the ego thing is the problem in that he just wants a big stage for his issues, and I also believe anyone should be allowed to run if they want to.

What I am fascinated with is the hatred he seems to invoke among dems. Pat Buchanan ran in 2000 as an independent (stealing votes from both gore and bush, remember the famous butterfly ballot) and nobody hates him on the right. The fact is more democrats voted for bush than ever voted for nader in 2000. If democrats cannot get their own people to vote for their own candidate then why is it Naders fault gore lost.

Second and more importantly about 40% of people dont even bother to vote at all. Is it the fault of progressives in support of green candidates that most people have become so apathetic that they dont even vote. The real crime is that our current system is designed to elect certain candidates that already have power. Most people recognize this and dont even bother to vote since it barely matters in their lives.
I will never consider myself a dem again based solely on their blaming the left for their loss to bush and the ferocity of their hatred of the left and not looking at their own problems. Every time they attack the left they alienate another voter.

Lets hope this year they have the sense to wake up and stop blaming the left for their problems, then maybe progressives would feel a little more likely to help out in the election this year.
peace

Jackass Republican Nation speaks again.

With thickheaded, amoral Dubyacrats like Mr. Shit-for-brains Garvey so committed to a binary polity, America's poor and dispossessed are sure to come out the biggest loser in November 2008... Thanks for nothing Democrat loyalists. We forgotten here on the bottom of the American nightmare really need that…

First of all, the theft of the Florida elections WAS too big to cover up. It's all been neatly documented by the United States Commission on Civil Rights. When I downloaded their final report back in June 2001, it spooled out to a ream of 12# paper in thickness. A vastly more condensed, but no less compelling indictment ran on the BBC earlier that spring, idiot! And since you've forgotten, it was Prince Bertie who threw in the towel rather than fight the stolen outcome, remember? And his lily white senate comrades across both sides of the aisle abetted the theft.

Given your apparent advanced state of dementia, I guess I shouldn't count on it. And by the way, what Ralph said in 2000 had little to do directly with Gore and Bush, but since you've apparently scratched through your skull and are now tearing at your dura mater I won't call you a fucking liar. You just can't help screwing the facts.

For the record, what he said then is that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Nader has long referred to our two party system of government in such varied terms as Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee, to cite just one pair.

Lemme also make it clear for your slow as molasses neuronal workings that since Bush seized power with Prince Bertie's cheerful willingness, 4 million Iraqis have been displaced from their homes via BIPARTISAN support, precisely just as thousands of American casualties have been incurred. And don't forget shit-for-brains, another 1.2 million Iraqis have lost their lives under Tweedle-dee-dum rule. I personally hold you and your pro-crypto fascist ilk responsible for this code bloody crimson mess, you understand?

As for John Roberts and Samuel Alito, a spirited filibuster by a REAL opposition party would have prevented their being seated on the Supreme Court bench. Ditto the disgraceful Mukasey nomination. But since what we have in Congress are spineless jellyfish swelling across both aisles, whatever King George II asks for, King George II gets. (The Afrikaner twits in my home state--Dodd and Lieberman--are no different than the rest of the Klansman on the hill: as gutless as they are shameless.) Like the savagely murdered of the Congo, Somalia, Iraq, Palestine and the Lebanon, I hold you and Jackass Republicans across America responsible for the implementation of waterboarding, the repeal of habeas corpus and Gitmo and all the rest.

Had Gore been elected there would have NO jump on global warming. This is the man who scuttled Kyoto, remember? REMEMBER? Well some of us do! And we remember that Gore played a pivotal role in killing the development of the electric car, which we might all be driving today if not for your supreme hypocrisy. We ARE the laughingstock of the world BECAUSE of Gore and Bush, stupid. And no, we should not be leading the world, you fascist Afrikaner pig. We are not, repeat NOT, the Third Reich!

Bugger your advice. The rest of us who don't march to your drum are sick of it hearing it. Sick of being told to hold our nose in the voting booth. Sick of having it said that we "wasted" our vote on alternate party candidates. Sick, in short, of you.

We need more candidates like Ralph and Cynthia to ask "Who will raise the issue of single-payer health care if I don't"? because dubyacrats like you are under the collective delusional belief that " …we will push Barack Obama in that direction." LoL.

Under his or Bilary's or McCain's rule the tens of millions presently without health insurance are all set to soar in number, and nothing you do to " …demand a workable solution." is gonna have any impact at all. You are either fucking naïve beyond belief or the corporatist scum that you represent yourself as. I think the latter is evident from your statement that "I'm all for single-payer because it is the most efficient, cost-effective and sensible way to deal with our broken health care delivery system."

Single payer is a human right, asshole! The health care delivery system is broken down because of the primacy given to the bean counters at the insurance companies. We need more candidates like Cynthia McKinney and Nader to overcome the inertia and indifference of Jackass Republicans like you.

* * *

If Shit-for-brains Garvey is at all representative of the true state of affairs of our Jackass nation--and I believe he is--then we really are doomed. Check out his conclusion that " ...we will not have hawks leading the (Dubyacratic) ticket."

In what parallel universe does he reside?

On the basis of their very public record, Clinton and Obama DO NOT want to end the occupation and Obama is already on record that he will enlist Blackwater's aid in ensuring that it continues ad infinitum. But somehow this fucker feels otherwise.

Somehow too, this dubyacrat scum feels better for having given his unwanted advice to Ralph to quit Campaign 2008. Somehow this Jackass Republican feels all the better for having urged his collectively delusional comrades to keep their eyes on some vacuous prize of four more years of kleptocratic rule.

Fuck you, Garvey.

Run, Cynthia Run!

You know, a lot of the bitter and overly partisan comments I am seeing here are just the kind of thing that has, for too long now, prevented things from getting done in Washington. Now, I'm a progressive and I am all for the kind of government that stands up for people instead of putting them down. But I also recognise that for too long now, nothing has been able to get done in Washington because of the extremely polarized atmosphere there.

"Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there's the United States of America."

"We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?"

I find these words to be inspiring, to speak truth to power. We can engage in the politics of cynicism, or we can transcend it and engage in hope. For too long now, all I've heard are cynical angry and denunciatory words from so many people, and quite frankly, what does that accomplish? In my experience, painfully little.

It's time to bind up the wounds of this country and move forward into the bright light of a new century. We've sliced and diced each other to death for far too long now and it hasn't solved any of our country's most pressing problems. We still lack good schools for every single child, we still lack universal health care, we still lack a solid and modern infrastructure, we still lack for racial and gender equality, we still lack for a whole lot of things that need to be fixed, and pointing fingers and calling each other names will do nothing to fix those problems.

So I say to you now, this kind of bitter and partisan politics must stop, before we tear each other to pieces. It's time for us to come together to find common ground in order to solve big and challenging problems. If we fail to do that, we fail ourselves and our posterity.

Just where do you come off with the idea that the US of A should be leading the world? It is this blatant arrogance that is responsible for much of the mess in the world today.

Exactly.

THIS ARTICLE IS A TOTAL CROCK OF SHIT!

Ralph should run and bring up issues the other pro-corporate, pro-war, pro-status quo candidates Obama, Clinton and McCain won't. No they aren't the same, they are shades of the same.

You claim Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Another crock of shit. How do you know? Clinton had his no fly zones, was bombing the hell out of Iraqis on a regular basis, and was starving children by the millions. What was Gore doing about that?

It's the perennial, never ending, the sky is falling and only the Democrats can save us. Just tell me this Ed Garvey, what have the Democrats in the last 8 yrs that would warrant my vote except give Bush everything he wanted.

WHAT A COMPLETE CROCK OF SHIT THIS IS!

Metamorph wrote: "Those of you who think Nader is close to Godly perfection, have you noticed that the man has ever said one thing about the problems of females? Never."

Never ??? Ahhh if you bothered to watch Nader's talk at the very first Super Rally of 2000 held at the Rose Auditorium in Portland Oregon you would know that Ralph Nader devoted a portion of the talk to the plight of a woman who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. He went on to explain that the principle drug used in the treatment of ovarian cancer, taxol, is derived from the Pacific Ew Tree. The research that found the therapeutic of taxol was conducted and paid for by the National Institute of Health a government agency. The rights to the drug was handed over to Bristol Meyers Squib for a song. And they now confiscate outrageous sums of money from women in most cases bankrupting them just so they can stay alive. When Nader told that anecdote there wasn't a dry eye in the house.

After that the internet crackled for days with vile recriminations of Nader from feminist groups, the type that think women's issues begin and end with abortion rights. It was quite a gratifying sight indeed.

Metamorph you sound like every other critic of Nader......self righteous, arrogant and uninformed.

"...we are the laughing stock of the world we should be leading." Whoa! Just where do you come off with the idea that the US of A should be leading the world? It is this blatant arrogance that is responsible for much of the mess in the world today. Take a step back and think again...

Ralph Nader is not a functional political candidate. There needs to be a place where his influence actually has an intended affect. Vote for him all you want but realize it is a part of the same myth you are trying to avoid by NOT voting for someone else. The people that do not have healthcare, the homeless, those working two or three jobs, the homeless...believe they are tired of this little game. They have no confidence in Ralph, or voters, or whatever else that smuggly sees this as something to get on the NEXT BALLOT, THE NEXT RACE TO NOWHERE...

As I said above, I have no intention of voting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum. The dems lost me somewhere between Ohio and New Hamster, well actually they lost me long before that, but I was hoding out for a miracle of common sense that obviously a fantasy. The reasons not to support the dems have been well articulated by others above and poorly refuted be the dem apologists, who want to rob us of anything approaching real democracy.

I also stated above that I will not be voting for Nader either, not because I think of him as a "spoiler" for the morally bankrupt dems, the concept of looking at third party candidates as "spoilers" seems horribly un-democratic to me, no, what bothers me about Ralph is that he seems to think he is the only one worthy of adopting the mantle of "spoiler". I think Ralph could do much more good for the people and true democratic ideals if he helped to build a real alternative instead of sitting on the side lines sniping at the two sides of our corrupt political system.

vote on law, vote yes for national referendum!
http://vote.org

Skip voting for criminals, they're all out for #1. That's the game of poli (many) Tics (parasites or glitches)...

http://www.vdare.com/pb/nader.htm

"Last year FORBES found evidence that Nader had not in fact miraculously levitated above the "web of interests" in which other human beings are caught, but instead was intimately entwined with a group of rich lawyers: the plaintiff bar."

To you evidence siteless Nader fans: There's a fool born every minute.

Nader gets mad laid by young quiet women as some supposed world traveling progressive... Raking in cash for speaking. Spending how much of it in the stock market, and how much on his house, car, hookers...

I met Nader 2 years ago in Washington DC when we were there for a memorial service for a fallen human rights worker in Iraq.

My husband exchanged calling cards with him

Next thing- Nader sends a begging letter.

The man needs money- he will get funds from - guess who-- rich fat cats who want to live under McCain and not be bothered with Obama.

Ignore Nader, he has sold out- he could work with Obama and show some team spirit- no he has to be an egomaniac.

Shame on Nader and shame on all of you fellow egomaniacs and holier than though fellow egotists who want the "purity" of Nader--- what a lot of BS.

I am angry at the readers here who post over 100 notes most of them in support of this egotist-fool- Nader.

Those of you who think Nader is close to Godly perfection, have you noticed that the man has ever said one thing about the problems of females? Never. he is an egotist who never had a relationship with a woman or a man I am sure. He is far from a perfect human being that some of you think he is.

Get real the man is a smart idiot.

VOX . . . Thanks for your wise post ---

QUOTE: I'm not going to worry about the Democrats winning this election. I agree with Ralph that: "If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form." If moderates don't feel moved to repudiate the past 7 years of idiocy, and by huge margins, it's time to declare the patient dead. But if y'all don't mind, I am not a moderate. I am a progressive and my candidate is Ralph Nader. President Obama will need to know that there remain a lot of issues over here to the left of things that still need to be addressed. And the puppeteer who holds a donkey puppet in one hand and an elephant puppet in the other needs to know that we see him up there.UNQUOTE

Meanwhile, Americans now supposedly understand what SWIFTBOATING is, but they still don't get it in regard to Nader. AMAZING!

The corporate-compromised Democrats are playing their corporate cards in an effort to knock out one of their main opponents . . . Ralph Nader!

There is nothing that we know about today's political realities that Ralph Nader wasn't bringing to our attention over the past 30 + years.

I'm going to tell you people something. If you ever go against your beliefs, your principles, your stance on the issues because of your fear of what other may think of you. You have surrendered your beliefs and principles to others so you no longer have rights to them.

I go against my beliefs every single day. Does that mean I no longer have the right to try and stand up for them more often? Must I toss them completely and adopt an unquestioningly obedient, completely amoral way of life?

Nader was simply wrong about their not being a difference between Al Gore and G.W. Bush. Ralph is mostly about Ralph and has always been so. Ralph Nader is a waste of time, money, and of any votes he gets.

Nader is a man of honor and integrity unmatched by anyone in politics at this moment. Vote your conscience or follow the sheep. With a vote of truth, we may all surprise ourselves with the outcome.

Nader is running to give those that have had it with the Democratic Party a candidate to vote FOR. The Democrats should stop being spoilers and stop "siphoning" votes away from Nader. Like Nader says: "Either all candidates are spoilers or none of them are". Here is what happened. Liberals, those folk who become conservative when the times got tough, shed the descriptor "liberal" as they perceived it to be a 4-letter word. Liberals, those Democrats, that for seven years gave the fascists in power just about EVERYTHING they wanted. They repackaged themselves as "progressive" and promoted the term to be a descriptor of their right of center moderate temperament. Hillary is NO progressive. Obama is NO progressive. Neither is a Democratic with Democratic Party values. When real progressive ideas come along the Democrats then recoil at them. When real progressive candidates dare to run for office they castigate them, shut down up, marginalize them, criticize them, bar them from debates, call them expletives, file law suits against them running, have the main stream media suppress their coverage, let loose their henchmen to character assassinate them, etc. In other words, business as usual. If this is the party of your choice then vote for your corporate candidate, whichever if you prefer. If this is the party that shares your values, then follow your bliss. It is not mine. Ralph Nader represents the Democratic Party values best, and the progressive values best as well. And, no, Nader should not run as a Democrat. You cannot change this corrupt machine as it is too far gone. If the Democrats incessant attacking of Nader are examples of what the Democratic Party has become then the party is doomed to the dustbin of history for it proves that it is incapable of providing the arguments that win over the voter. It's about time.

Nader is the grandest of actors.

This from the now financial dominance owned wsws.org:
In his "Meet the Press" interview, Nader outlined his criticism of both parties as dominated by corporate interests and cited the growing disaffection with the two-party system as a whole, reflected in polls showing that as many as 80 percent of voters would consider a choice outside the existing political structure.

SO, with a better than majority of citizens trying to vote for anyone but a republican or a democrat WHY would Nader tell 60 minutes this:

"He made it clear, in the course of a 15-minute interview on the NBC News program "Meet the Press," that the purpose of his campaign was to pressure the eventual Democratic Party nominee to adopt a more liberal stance." Also from the wsws.org, who conveniently don't connect the dots...

Why don't we get Naders opinion on direct democracy as the constitution was ratified, by direct vote? Seems he keeps trying to be in charge...

Why would he run to lose with 80% of Americans so scared to put an establishment politician in office that they're already decided against voting for any of these big money candidates.

This article btw is totally disingenuous from the word go. Florida was stolen by electronic control of paper trail-less voting machines. How was Naders candidacy going to effect Bush hiring people to alter the vote?!?!?

I see right through your propaganda on this here propaganda chanel commondreams... Like all these commoners out here just dreaming... Sleeping and dreaming and long delaying the waking to horror, long as is necessary to build enough robot attack jets to take down your fly boy sons...

Daniel Vincent Kelley
www.lamegame.name
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com

Oh great communication facility here, nobody gets to contact anybody direct...

You know, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard the reasons that the democratic went along with voting for continued war funding was because they couldn't get enough support to stop or delay the funding and didn't want to be accused of not supporting the troops. Isn't that two faced?

I'm going to tell you people something. If you ever go against your beliefs, your principles, your stance on the issues because of your fear of what other may think of you. You have surrendered your beliefs and principles to others so you no longer have rights to them. Nader, DK and Edwards have rights to the issues. You democrats squandered DK and Edwards stand on the issues and are working hard on destroying Nader's.

I don't really care anymore about the lesser of two evils. If you people can't see through the hype and support somebody who is willing to stand up there and support your beliefs, well all I can say is you get the government you deserve.

DK was our best choice followed by Edwards. Now it's Nader who is the only one standing for the issues supporting the common good. If you just have to have an evil, look at it this way, Nader is the lesser of the four evils.

In my view they either represent the issues I believe in or they don't.

SallyUUKent February 27th, 2008 7:45 am

"Many of those who end up in Iraq are National Guard who joined to receive money to attend college. "

There are many ways to pay for college, beside college isn't the right choice for many people. College is why over-hyped now days. Vo-tech is a better option for more than half the people going to college today.

"puh-LEEZ, you make it sound like every G.I. Joe is volunteering to go to Iraq to go commit war crimes."

That's not what their volunteering for but that's what their ending up doing.

"This war would never have been engaged had Bush not gotten us into it as a matter of self aggrandizement"

The war would never have been engaged if the American people had of gotten their faces out of the glaring lights of the TV screen and seen through the lies for going to war. Obama may have stated he was against the war but I don't remember ever remember hearing of him getting jumping up and down mad and doing something about it. He's supposed to be a grass roots organizer why didn't he really do something about it? Could it be because it might hurt his inspirations for president? That would make him two faced wouldn't you agree?

"Most of those soldiers in Iraq do not want to be there. They want nothing more than to come home and to put their lives and families back together again in some semblance of normality."

I wouldn't hold it against them if they got together, marched into the country side of Iraq and go into a survival/defensive mode till we get them out of there. Would you? Maybe that's what the people need to do encourage them to do something like that.

"They're there because Bush is waging an illegal war that violates international law and the Constitution of the United States."

In the end they have the right to breach the contract because of that. A trooper swears to uphold and protect the constitution and any order that violates the constitution can be disobeyed. Many times the price is high but so is dying to defend the constitution.

"And that would not have happened if Nader hadn't spoiled the 2000 election and thrown it to Bush."

There is no proof, just a feeling to support that. All the proof I've seen shows Nader had a positive effect on the election. Gore walked away from it, Kerry walked away from it, pure and simple. If you want to blame somebody blame the democratic leadership.

It's rather apparent that the average democrat is nothing but a conservative brain dead zombie. Always looking for an excuse for their failings while not realizing that their failing is because they can't bring their selves to support the people who will actually represent their best interest. How much longer are you people going to continue to support the lesser of two evils even if it means you lose. I've been hearing the "lesser of two evils" and "any democratic is better than the republicans" for over thirty years. Where has it got you? I'll tell you where it's got you, where we're at today that's where it's got you.

People like DK or Nader can't win because you people are locked into voting for the lesser of two evils. When are you people in this country going to quit beating you heads against the brick wall called the democratic party and try a different option like climbing over it. As far as I'm concerned you democrats lost when Hillary started the election process and you unquestionably got behind her. Now a lot of you people have jumped over to the Obama camp because he promises, and all he's doing is promising, hope.

Well all I got to say is hope in one hand, crap in the other, and don't be surprised by which one fills up first.

After DK dropped out and Nader jumped into the ring I didn't have anyone that represented the views that I hold true. I am not going lower my beliefs by voting for the lesser of two evils. Before I do that I just won't vote. I firmly believe that voting for either one of the front-runners in the Democratic Party is the same as saying I support every thing you have done in the past few years in Washington well I'm sorry, no I'm not, I don't. A vote for either Hillary or Obama is a vote of support for the way they have bent over backwards to back the republicans.

I don't know why anybody thinks they're going to change the system with a message of support like that.

"Eyes on the Prize"

Indeed. If we are EVER going to bring about the radical change this country needs on militarism, global warming, corporatism, healthcare, you name it we are going to need a lazer-like focus and commitment to those ISSUES. Voting for Democrats just because "the stakes are too high" will NEVER bring about change. It will bring about a slightly softer form of corporatist militarism.

Love him or hate him, Nader has proven his commitment to the issues. He refuses to back down. Call it ego if you like, but who in their right mind would subject himself to the hatred he gets from partisan Dems who blame him for 2000?

Nader's eyes are on the prize and if you actually believe in progressive change to move this country in the right direction you will support his candidacy.

If you live in a red or purple state hold your nose and vote Dem. But if you live in a blue state that is safe for Dems, vote Nader in '08.

SallyUUKent February 26th, 2008 3:30 pm
I do not want another four years of worrying about my friends going to war in Iraq,..
=========================================

Well, they are free citizens, aren't they? They go to Iraq voluntarily to commit war crimes. Got that?

And just like folks blame Nader for (the spineless) Gore's defeat, I am sure others will blame someone else other than the soldiers themselves for being in Iraq. Excuses… excuses..

Many of those who end up in Iraq are National Guard who joined to receive money to attend college. I'm willing to bet that very few joined because they wanted to go to Iraq. With tours now lasting 15 months, it's placing a great deal of hardship on families and soldiers are coming home to find their jobs gone. You'd be surprised at how many of our veterans end up homeless after finishing tours.

And oh, puh-LEEZ, you make it sound like every G.I. Joe is volunteering to go to Iraq to go commit war crimes. Excuse my French, but that's just plain out bullshit. This war would never have been engaged had Bush not gotten us into it as a matter of self aggrandizement, a way to show Poppy Bush that he could march into Baghdad and overthrow Saddam, which at least Poppy had the good sense not to do.

At least Poppy could see what would occur as a result of a power vacuum as a result of a deposed despot, but Dubya evidently didn't have the presence of mind to figure that out, and now look where we are. Most of those soldiers in Iraq do not want to be there. They want nothing more than to come home and to put their lives and families back together again in some semblance of normality. I know - quite a few of my friends have served there and I've talked to them during and after their deployments.

So don't give me this crap about the soldiers voluntarily being in Iraq. That's just an excuse, if you want my opinion. That puts the onus for being there on them, and that's just plain out unfair. They're there because Bush is waging an illegal war that violates international law and the Constitution of the United States. Those soldiers are just innocent victims of an administration that is running wild, violating the law and acting as if it's above the law.

And that would not have happened if Nader hadn't spoiled the 2000 election and thrown it to Bush. I admire Nader a great deal, don't get me wrong, but this is not the time nor the place for him to be throwing his hat in the ring. He needs a serious reality check and needs to stop trying to be the proverbial Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Gore spent far more time and energy agreeing with Bush in that election than disagreeing. It is just speculation to say how different thing might have been. Even so, there appears to be far less difference between McCain and Clinton or for that matter Obama (though I hope he is at least slightly more different). None will pull out of Iraq. None will give us single payer national health care -- only "madates" forcing us to buy private insurance. None adequately focus on the environment or promise to dismantle Nafta or the other business frindly agreements that hurt our working class and force more economically devastated Mexicans north.

Nader is right.

This "in the box" thinking needs to STOP.
Think about the 2 corporate businesses that run our political system.
They choose the candidates. Those cnadidates do not represent me. I am not a member of their party.
Nader will get my vote.
By the way, you say...Had Gore been elected, we would have a jump on global warming.
Don't count on that. When he was Vice-Prez he made promises that he would close a hazardous waste incinerator in Ohio and NEVER did anything about that!!

Run Nader run.

Unimportant, but slight correction note:

"When you understand your enemy, you have greater chances of getting somewhere vis-a-vis that foe."

That was supposed to be appended not to the second-to-last paragraph, where it appears now in the above post, but to the preceding paragraph.

Garvey and ilk tragically pretend that they're not promoting pro-war candidates, and it's astounding that people can be of such view when it's very easy to prove that pro-war indeed is what's being unwittingly promoted. It's what both Obama and Clinton are, and by lying to the voters about this; unlike McCain, who's wrong, but significantly honest about his pro-war position.

Don't worry, I'm not promoting McCain, for I wouldn't vote for him; although I'm not so sure about that. If what I read over the past few days about him is true, then he's definitely no Bush-like in terms of national US policies, has seriously opposed the religious right, and taken other good positions; the article having said that he's Bush-like in terms of foreign policy, which is true. So what I'm wondering is given his greater or much greater honesty than both Obama and Clinton, esp. Clinton, well, I wonder if it would be easier to convert McCain to fully stopping the whole GWoT, as well as other US wars I mentioned in my above post.

See, in being honest the way he is, it's an indication that he's not just a political opportunist; he seems to seriously or sincerely believe his views are right, and this permits him to be honest about what his views really are.

It's like the difference between dealing with con-artist charlatans, who try to fool you through deception, and dealing with mistaken but honest and sincere people.

Politics!

Garvey and ilk have one thing coming, deserving, and that's for anyone who realises that neither Obama nor Clinton is going to end the war on Iraq, among many others the US has ongoing, in Afghanistan, Kosovo, African countries, Haiti, etc., we have no one to vote for; therefore, there is no sanity to the claim that it's too late for Nader to start campaigning. Those of us who SEE reality for what it really is may possibly have choices between McKinney, Nader, and Gravel, depending on whether or not McKinney and Nader are teaming up. And if none of these three candidates are available choices on voters' ballots, then people like myself would have absolutely no candidates to vote for, for absolutely none would ever measure up to being half worthy of getting my vote. Others otherwise like myself might choose to vote for Obama or Clinton, if McKinney, Nader and Gravel weren't running, but I sure would not vote for any of the other candidates presently running.

Sh*t, I feel safer with John McCain, for while I disagree with him on U.S. foreign policy, at least he's honest about his ideas on what the policies should be and remain. It's easier to work with someone who's mistaken and honest, than it is to work with someone who's both mistaken and very dishonest.

Anyone who [respects] what real democracy means has no choice but to respect that they do not f*cking dictate to other voters, for each vote must be an individual choice arrived at individually. When you understand your enemy, you have greater chances of getting somewhere vis-a-vis that foe.

US has no real democracy anyway, though.

I'm still voting Green. After voting I will do everything that I can to minimize the negative consequences in my life from the war Washington is waging on the American People.

Starofthesea, Quaff, O quaff this kind yackety!

I mean that metaphorically.

Hey, since it's a symbolic candidacy... is it Ok with you guys if I just cast a symbolic vote?

Attention all Democrat apologists.

Please step to the right,

a little further,

one more step.

Now form a line behind your Republican compatriots and be quiet.

It is amazing to me that so many who post here are still arguing about who is right and who is wrong when it comes to supporting candidates for anything. We are all buying into a false paradigm---who we elect is no better or worse than who we are and how much we are willing to engage in creating the change we are so hungry for.

We are the ones we have been waiting for, my friends! Whoever gets elected can either help us or hurt us with our complicity. Stop looking for deliverance or focusing blame on up the ladder. We are the ones holding the ladder if we would just embrace the power we already have. Stop buying into the powerless paradigm--that we have to "get lucky" in our leadership. It's a bunch of crap!

How would you have it be? Imagine it and then start creating it, my dears!

"If it makes one feel good to vote and support someone who has no chance, by all means do so…"

Kernel Half loaf, sir, thank you so much for giving us permission to throw away our votes, sir. Thank you, too, for guiding us to true democracy. The godless commies are always waiting in the shadows and eagerly await our faltering faith in capitalism. The reds have destroyed so many cultures, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Venezuela, part of Vermont and now seek to capture the rest of our wealth and prosperity. We thank you, sir, for reminding us that we have the choice between choosing the godless dark Nader or the path of righteous Democrat ideals. These ideals have withstood the test of time and remain intact.

Okay, enough of the sarcasm, I do apologize, I get carried away sometimes. Kernel, this is Common Dreams not Common Standards and hopefully NOT Common Crap, although sometimes I do wonder. We need to set the standard. We don't need to win an election. Obama's going to take more votes from Republicans and Independents than Nader will from your esteemed Dems.

wcdevin wrote: "Nader's time has passed, and his ego is showing."

What does this mean?

The definition for ego is the "I" or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.

Does this mean that Obama, Clinton, McCain and Huckabee are selfless?

Please explain this logic, if any.

Anyone still has the right to vote or not vote for whomwever they choose, but whenever a certain priviledged group has managed to take control of a country, it is next to impossible to take that power away from them by votes.

The French Revolution was not won by voting, it took many lives as did our own Revolutionary war against the power of England. No one gives up power easily, and it is futile to think that a small group, no matter how principled they are, can overturn established control by votes.

That is why some of us maintain that we need to do the possible to better ourselves, rather than take some action that has no chance to succeed in the short term. In time, it might be possible to build a minority group into some kind of significant effort for improvement.

If it makes one feel good to vote and support someone who has no chance, by all means do so, as that is what democracy is all about. Just vote and do not criticize those who feel differently.

I believe there is a great future for progressives as long as they are careful to not push for pure socialism, as it is not workable and would never be accepted. There always needs to be a profit motive for people to feel their work is worth while and will continue doing it.

Yesterday I heard Obama say "it's time to write a new chapter of American history" and it was one step over the very last line of meaningless bullshit for me...

I'll vote for a door-knob or a box of toothpicks before I waste another vote on a Democrat.

I'll vote for a hatbox with a severed head in it before I waste another vote on a Democrat.

I'll vote for a paper-clip under my refrigerator before I waste another vote on a Democrat.

It isn't a choice between Nader and the Democrats!

It's a choice between Nader and a plastic spoon with ants on it!

It's a choice between Nader and four broken pencils!

It's a choice between Nader and a 1988 Oklahoma license plate!

It's a choice between Nader and nothing!

Victory, if starting a race for President with 253 days remaining is unlikely... On December 28 (60 days ago), with Congress away for the holidays, the EPA published a notice to pose a threat to people living. What is the public comment? http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/26/7297/
The public comment period ends March 28 (in 62 days).

I mentioned this some weeks ago and was ridiculed but I'm going to suggest it again. I think that it would be very interesting to hear a debate between Ron Paul and Nader. Let the underdogs have a genuine discussion, minus the empty chatter and blather of the top dogs. We might actually learn something.

We need a real alternative to what Nader correctly terms the corporate duopoly. The Green Party needs to develop on all levels (not only or primarily in the presidential contest). My problem with Nader is that he does not seem to be particularly interested in building an alternative organization. If the Greens nominate him, fine, although I would prefer to allow some other good progressives to get a little national exposure. If they nominate another candidate, Nader (with his celebrity and oratorical skills) should stump for that candidate. Trouble is, he won't, and that is a problem.

he's only superbly qualified, but not a very good show.

A poster above seems to have been ignored. He said exit polls showed that Nader actually helped Gore. In a 2 way race, Bush would have won. He also said more democrats voted for Bush than for Nader. These are valid points that show there is no truth to the claim that Ralph Nader would hurt Obama, he might help him. Refute the poster. Democrats for McCain would seem to be more of a problem than Nader. Unless Ralph can catch fire, but he isn't a show like Obama, he's on

Other countries have 3 month campaigns, but here, with the candidates not even seleceted and 9 months to go it is already too late. Go figure.

The Demoks have moved further to the right in the past year and a half. Kaka on them. Progressives are voting Ralph.

Well I was not likely to vote for Obama any how, to much slogan not enough substance, and I doubt I will vote for Nader, even if he does make the ballot in my state. But I will be damned if I will tolerate the likes of Ed Garvey or SallyUUKent or Daniel David trying to stifle democracy by declaring that we "must" support Obama, and that some how, if Ralph runs, and Obama loses, it is anyone fault other than Obama's. (well if you want to blame Diebold, I might buy in).

To all y'all Democratic apologists, lesser of two evil voting fascist enablers, all I can say is get a clue. Barack Obama will not save you, a kinder gentler fascism is still fascism. But hey if you think he's the best candidate then get out there and work for him, but quit blaming those who do not buy into you pipe dream for the inadequacies of your party and your parties choice of candidates!

Ed Garvey is correct, sadly, that it is too late. It is too late for progressives to have any impact in this election cycle. Ralph Nader should have announced his run a year ago, worked on a grass-roots campaign, threatened the Democrat Pary, forced them to the left.

Entering at this point, is too late, meaningless, will have no impact.

Notice the smugness of Barack Obama, the casualness with which he dismisses Ralph Nader, apparently no bigger a threat than a fly.

Notice how Commondreams, the most progressive website I'm aware of, is so dominated by neo-liberal democrats. Both in articles and posters.

Progressives must admit to failure, must examine the reasons for failure, must work to create a case, framework, organize.

The majority of Americans support progressive values, yet progressives have allowed themselves to be co-opted by neo-liberal Democrats, losing any power or leverage. Recall Cindy Sheehan?

I voted for Ralph Nader twice, I am not impressed by Hillary or Barack, but Ralph's late entry serves no purpose. It almost seems, as though he was so personally miffed that Obama wouldn't return his phone calls, he is choosing to harass him. Why doesn't he say "I'm Green?" And try to develop a legitimate third party?

Those who blame Nader for Bush, are misguided, Gore won the election. Finished. Gore won. The election was stolen. Democracy died. The Supreme Court of the United States, chose to support George Bush, over the Constitution of the United States of America. Nader deserves no blame, however, his entry now does not support progressives - only himself.

Ramsay

P.S. I've changed my screen name. I used my personal name before. I used it to try and encourage others to use their real names when posting. To demonstrate that their is nothing to fear, but when I google my name, all I see are my commondream posts. It seems that the only other person on this website, who shared my position, is Paul Bramscher.

I don't think anyone truly fears, the naked emperor anymore, his nackicity has been transparent for some time now.

Now my screen name, represents the link, and describes what I am trying to accomplish.

Ed Garvey you are wrong, Eyes on the Prize, please how base. The prize is not the presidency of the United States. The prize is a better America, a better world, not which party represents the same interests.

Ramsay Mameesh

There is no way that I would vote for any of the three kosha nostras whores chosen by APIAC,not for the old one, the young one, or the middle aged one used by everyone even if they were made kosher for passover.All three are bought and paid for.
If you really want " CHANGE " vote for Cynthia McKinney,Ralph Nader,or Ron Paul.

I did see Nader in a "debate" in 2002 with Linda Chavez - he was much more rational than she. Yeah, I used some hyperbole in my description, but it was to make my point that Nader's time has passed, and his ego is showing.

My experiences here with Naderites over the years is they are more closed-minded than I. One of the progressive's biggest failings is that we often don't know how to run a "war". The fact that you rejoice in taking on the "liberals" shows you are on the wrong battlefield. The Republicans/neocons must be dealt with first. Has a single Republican bemoaned the Nader candidacy? Can you see why?

Hello All-There's a great article by Michael Colby on CounterPunch called "Hell Hath No Fury Like a Modern Liberal--Ralph Nader vs. the Fundamentalist Liberals"

Go To:http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02262008.html

Oops! someone above has already posted the link. Oh well...

By the way wcdevins, have you ever MET Ralph Nader or stood near him when he speaks? He is NOT at all as you describe him. If you want to know what Nader is REALLY like, read "The Seventeen Traditions" or watch "An Unreasonable Man." I know you won't though, because it seems that your mind is already closed. Too bad ....

I decided not to vote the night that Dennis Kucinich was left out of the Las Vegas debate and non of the others; Clinton, Edwards or Obama said a darn thing about it. I was for Kucinich, but I would have thought about voting for one of the others, if that had happened.

Now that Nader has said he's running, at least I will have someone to vote for. I just wish he would get Kucinich to run with him.

Nader might not have a chance to win, but I won't be wasting my vote.

I have always said I will never vote for a Republican, and I am not about to start now. As far as I am concerned, everyone else running is a Republican.

We need to get the neocons out of the equation before we can change anything. I despise the Democratic party as much as anyone here, but the rational that equates Hillary (who I don't like) and Obama (who I'd like to like) with anyone on the right (and in case you haven't noticed, there is no moderate right, only extremist right) is just plain stupid.

Nader as president does what? Accomplishes what? Once he's on the inside he gets digested by the beast.

And he hasn't a chance in hell anyway.

Get the damn repubs out, then show the demos what a grass roots, popular movement can do.

And the left needs not to mimic their counterparts on the right in rigid, lockstep, think like me or you're an idiot intolerance.

I read far too much of that here.

Liberalism is messy and disagreeable and confusing and filled with a galaxy of different left leaning opinions.

If it ain't like that it's like THEM.

Sorry I have no read the comments above...just one comment though.

The author says we may not get "comprehensive" health care ...

The majority of Americans DONT WANT "comprehensive" bullshit

They want SINGLE PAYER. Spare me this spoiler shit. The only person spoiling anything is the Democratic party's mindless obsession with Ralph Nader.

I mean, hey, I would be pissed off if I couldn't get elected against a party that represents 1% of the population too. But that is the Democrats fault. They have the money and people to win every election if they actually communicated the issues, delivered on their promises, and rallied their base.

Of course instead they play to the 2-10% that resent the bottom 90. Bush only won 30 something percent of the US population, meaning there was 30 percent who didnt do anything. Blame yourselves for not getting them involved, because I guarantee you those who didn't vote were not in the 1%.

And oh yeah. We would only see another Repub Supreme Court nominee because the DEMOCRATS would cave in and vote for them. Oh yeah, I forgot. That is Nader's fault too. And he voted for the Patriot Act, and the WTO, and the Iraq War...you get the idea

What a joke.

"Had Bush not won, 4 million displaced Iraqis might be at home; thousands of American casualties would probably have been avoided; John Roberts and Samuel Alito would not be justices on the U.S. Supreme Court; and we wouldn't be talking about waterboarding or repeal of habeas corpus."

Yeah, right. And if the democrats didn't vote for the war, fund the war, vote for Mr. "waterboard" Mukasey, and spinelessly avoid impeachment, then you *might* have a point. But since they are complicit in this war, and attack working people on every level (the bankruptcy bill!!), then you should crawl back to the drawing board and rewrite this nonsensical article.

How about a new title:

The Dems are too late too play, and the stakes are too high for spinelessness and complicity in war and class war.

Ralph has his problems, but I despise the democrats so much that I am depressed at the thought of 4 more years of complicity in expanding state power, attacking civil liberties, and creating a culture of death by supporting endless war (yes, Obama voted to continuing the funding), and managing the empire better than Bush et al.

It's a sad day in America no matter who wins this year.

Ed Garvey thank you for the voice of reason. Obviously the majority who write in to this CG blog are more interested in throwing their votes away and then whining about the results.

I'm with wcdevins post the whole way. If you vote for Nader please stop complaining about life under the fascists since you threw away any hope we had for change. Get real people!

formernadervoter February 26th, 2008 7:01 pm

"Run, Ralph, Run."

Yeah, right!

If the Democrats in this country are too dumb to vote for a Dennis Kucinch; or the Republicans too dumb to vote for a Ron Paul, what in HELL makes you think they are going to vote for Ralph Nader?

Get real, will you! The majority in this country don't have a f-king clue what's going on politically or economically.

Tough! I'm voting for Ralph Nader. However, if the Democrats dump and denounce Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and if the Democratic nominee promises to prosecute Bush and Cheney for war crimes, then I'll vote for a Democrat. But, I refuse to just hand my vote to the Democrats because they're slightly better than the Republicans.

SallyUUKent February 26th, 2008 3:30 pm
I do not want another four years of worrying about my friends going to war in Iraq,..
=========================================

Well, they are free citizens, aren't they? They go to Iraq voluntarily to commit war crimes. Got that?

And just like folks blame Nader for (the spineless) Gore's defeat, I am sure others will blame someone else other than the soldiers themselves for being in Iraq. Excuses... excuses..

I'm with liberal with an attitude. Siouxrose, unlike a lot of us, is a voice of civility. Nice to see you, kiddo.

I'm with liberal with an attitude. Siouxrose, unlike a lot of us, is a voice of civility. Nice to see you, kiddo.

Nader has given me a reason to vote. Otherwise I will be abstaining in November.

Daniel David -

It is not a moral expectation I was referring to, but an expression of confidence that you can elect Obama easily without our votes. There is a schism here on the left, as you surely know, between party loyalists and we who can no longer define ourselves as democrats in their current state of compromise. Clearly we have most values in common, so we are not really adversaries. Progressives are worried that to lend our support to mainstream dems will send the false message that we are satisfied with these candidates, and content that the issues we wish addressed do not even make it into their public speeches or party platforms. If they perceive that they can count on our votes without moving in our direction they will have no incentive to do it, and the rightward creep of the party will continue. I should add that everyone here in fact helps your candidate simply by our unanimous rejection of Bush and McCain. There needs to be exactly what Ralph offers: dissatisfaction on the left, a demand for transparency in government and industry, a demand for an end to the looting of Iraq, accountability for laws broken, single payer health insurance. Failure to address these issues should have consequences, i.e. a loss of support. A dismissive attitude toward a progressive agenda (Obama's ad hominum dismissal of Nader the other day without a nod of respect for his talking points) amounts to just that, a dismissal of our votes, a goodbye. It's nothing personal, just a sort of mitosis that happens when we no longer fit in one tent. We should no more vote for your candidate than you should vote for ours.

I see from your posts that you are fond of facts and realities. So adjust yourself to this. Nader is running, and he is going to take a lot of votes from Obama, and you are going to have to adjust the landslide to accommodate this. But I will promise this. The minute Bush & Co. is indicted for high crimes and misdemeanors I'm all yours.

Deja Vu? Haven't we been through this before? And like before, the Dems are not willing to make any compromises with progressives. They would rather lose the election than lose their corporate bribes. Here we go again.

Hey DLC Dems! Why not offer Nader a cabinet post in return for his dropping out and supporting Obama? Quit your bitching. Put up or shut up.

Run, Ralph, Run.

I was a formernadervoter in the last campaign.

Now with a fake progressive likely to win it will be tweedledee v. tweedledum.

Ed is wrong about Ralph, wrong about the Florida results, and wrong in general about his analysis.

Wake up all you progressives who have fallen for the Audacity of Hype. The man is an empty suit.

I'll up you one more Rebelnow:

Attention Nader baiters: Go to Truthout.org. scroll down to the article entitled, "They're Republican Red, and True Blue to Obama." The claim that a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain is questionable at best. It seems Mr. Obama is quite popular with Repugs. Anyway, will our fellow progressives give us your blessing now? We can vote our consciences, and not suffer your disapproval. Although you might be sorry in the long run for aiding and abetting a known Repug apologist. We'll see.

Everyone seems to be blaming Nadar for Gore's defeat in 2000.

It was not Nader who put Bush the boob in office, it was the right leaning supreme court that gave him the free pass. (Never forget Bush was "selected" and NOT "elected" into the presidency!).

Moreover, it was also the Republican storm troopers/operatives that stormed into the Florida pricincts in their sucessful effort to stop the recount.

Nader is only making these presidential contests more "democratic" by placing himself in the debate and at the same time reminding the, "Establishment" candidates of what their real job is and who their employers are (We The People!).

This article applies to many here, www.counterpunch.com/colby02262008.html

Smart Democrats will ignore Nader, stop poking sticks in other people's eyes, and work on their own back yard.

liberal with an attitude - "do you idiots," "dumb jackasses pull your head out of your asses..."

Can you feel the love people? Lwaa, don't stop! WE WANT MORE OF YOUR LOVE!

Nader is kinda like that old celebrity that tries to rekindle the old lime light at inappropriate times, while his true friends fail to pull him aside and tell him enough is enough.

Sadly enough people tend to remember the old crazy guy trying to get attention than the astute consumer advocate.

Ralph, could you go over in the corner and behave yourself?

While it is true that the ends don't justify the means, it is equally true that the means don't justify the ends. If the ideologically pure ticket helps cause our country to fall further into fascism, it is not justified by the purity of Nader's intent. While you vote your pure hearts, the rest of us suffer for it.

wcdevins - "I can't understand how you can flit from one fringe narrow-issue candidate to another."

We're not flitting, we're fighting. It's hard keeping somebody with principles in this election. It's like a David and Goliath battle (please excuse biblical analogy) with the MSM monster feeding the minds of would-be voters.

But, thank you for at least acknowledging that Ralph has the right to run. You've proven more generous than most who disapprove of us.

Do not ever do anything to disturb the status quo, cause it's working so damn well for We The People.

Apparently, it's ALWAYS the wrong time for Nader to run, isn't it? HRC and BO are fat and happy and bought and paid for by Big Everything while McCrazy will strap on the kneepads for any lobbyist with a checkbook or fundamentalist loon with a brainwashed flock.

Suddenly those calling for "change" are scared of the possibility of REAL change.

Has anyone read "The Fall of the house of Bush" by Craig Unger? It is about an underground "Government" that has been growing for the last 40 years. Neocons like Chaney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz etc, along with people like Jerry Falwel who honestly believe that they have been chosen
by God to save the world. Their dream came true when they chose GWB, un intellectual lightweight
who they could control. No matter whether the next president is Hillary, Obama, McCain or Nader,
these people now that they have had control of the government, will stop at nothing to have their
way.

Hang-it-up, Ralph!

Nader is a delusional out-of-touch (senile?) narcissist. Nader supporters are delusional Quixotes who would keep the nation and the world hostage to the Republican warmongers while maintaining they told us so. A lot of factors went into Gore's 2000 loss; Nader's candidacy was certainly one of them. Nader apologists who insist his candidacy had no effect on tipping the scales to Bush are the political equivalent of evolution deniers.

I am more progressive than many of you here, but that doesn't mean I've lost my grip on reality. I can't understand how you can flit from one fringe narrow-issue candidate to another - "Vote Kucinich! He'll get the space aliens to help!" "Vote Paul, even though he's a self-centered Libertarian first and a Republican second! "Vote Gravel! He's older than McCain!" "Vote Nader! He's the only one left!" Did you ever listen to these guys? - they're Huckabees without a base. Sure, none of the corporate candidates will ever be progressive enough for us, but there will never be enough of us to elect a third party candidate - never! Selflessness just doesn't hack it in the halls of power.

Sure Nader has the right to run, but right and bright and not the same. Throw your vote at Nader (Kucinich, Gravel, Paul, whomever...) - it's certainly your right. But don't dare tell your neighbors there's no difference between the two corporate parties. Don't dare come bellyaching when McCain drags America further into death, debt and degradation. Don't dare try selling your countrymen (again) the "more progressive-than-thou" delusion that you were part of the solution, not part of the problem.

If Obama or Clinton loses to McCain, they have only themselves to blame. Republicans are running at under 30%, and many of them hate McCain. This election should be a cakewalk for the Democrats, even though only God knows what kind of "change" Obama has in mind.

My feeling is that the two-parties care more about silencing real progressive ideals than they do about winning. I think they would throw the election to McCain rather than move towards their constituents and away from their funders. Just you wait and see.

Ralph Nader is puttin' on the pressure, folks. LET'S HELP HIM TO DO THIS THING! FINALLY, WE ARE AWAKE AND READY TO ROLL! Democrats: If you want to win our votes, you might just have to do our bidding. gasp! We can't be serious? Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Ha!

How about a debate between Nader and Obama? That could be a good start!

Let's all write good, educated letters to our local papers. Remember, trolls will be doing the same.

GO NADER, GO CYNTHIA MCKINNEY! GO AMERICAN PEOPLE! OUR JOB NOW IS TO EDUCATE THE MASSES. Big media has the upper hand but we have what the big media doesn't have - truth, single payer health care, out of Iraq NOW, justice, jobs, .... the Dems have failed us too many times and now they think we'll roll over on to our bellies ..... again.

Remember what one Democratic consultant, Lawrence O'Donnell, essentially said, "If you don't threaten not to vote for them, they will stay zipped up in the pockets of the corporations. (From an Unreasonable Man, not direct quote, just real close).

You don't know that things would be any better if Gore had taken office. Maybe we would be at war in five countries not two. Maybe one would have been Pakistan and nukes would have been involved.
I think people have forgotten how bad of a president Clinton was, just because Dubya is so much worse.
Look at the facts, listen to what the candidates actually say past the rhetoric.

I love how these articles talk in absolutes about what would have happened if Gore/Lieberman had taken office. How do we know we would have a more green policy? Gore certainly didn't do squat about ecology during his eight years as vice president when he had the bully pulpit to get something done. He and Clinton caused as much death in Iraq through sanctions as Bush has through war (which the Democrats are complicit in). Who's to say that Lieberman wouldn't have played the Cheney part and manipulated the country deeper into war?

As others have noted above, both Clinton and Obama have supported this war, and both have claimed that we will be in Iraq after their first terms are up. That puts them on about the same ground as Nixon, only Nixon did more to protect citizens and the environment than anything that either of these two has proposed.

You know what? There is nothing stopping Obama or Clinton from saying, "I was wrong about keeping the insurance companies in my health plan--I've decided to support the single-payer plan that Kucinich is trying to push through Congress. Same for his impeachment plan, which I now firmly stand behind and will encourage everyone else in Congress to support." Yeah--that's gonna happen.

Siouxrose,
I have missed you terribly and havent seen you around lately. Nice to have your wisdom around again. Peace

and another thing, is the war all you people base your decisions on? we need domestic policy. we need economic policy. we need health care. we need more money for education and scientific research. and dont forget you have at least 3 supreme court spots coming up in the next few years you have one with cancer, one in his 80's and another nearing 80, do you idiots want McCain to make those picks. All in all its the Supreme court appointees that fuck us all in the long run, long after Bush leaves office his residual effects will be felt by the likes of the votes made by Alito and Scalia. Wake up you dumb jackasses pull your head out of your asses. Either democrat will be better than McCain.

Interesting postings: USAN, QBALDSMOOVE, & WELSH TERRIER2.

first off nader did not cost gore the election. man how fast people forget. remember Bev Harris people. Remember Black Box Voting and Hacking Democracy, its a bona fide fact people the 2000 and 2004 elections were fraudulent Christ kathryn harris had half of the florida ballots thrown into the everglades quit arguing about the elections they were phony alright you get it now.

second of all, Nader is an asshole, lets get some legitimate alternate party possibilities. Like Cynthia Mckinney. Dilute the elections with multiple parties with some people that can actually get more than 5 votes.

The above article has nudged me a little closer to Nader. Thanks, Mr. Garvey.

If Obama can't compete as a progressive, I see no reason to give my vote to him. And of course I won't be voting for Hillary under any circumstances. If McCain wins, it will be the fault of the Democrats, just as it was in the last two presidential elections.

Too late to play? It's never too late for the truth.
As per Nader being a spoiler? It was all the votes for Gore/Leibershit that were a waste.

Kernel, is half of a half of a loaf better than none? What about half of a half of a half of a half? Are you a concentration camp survivor? Is anything better than death? How low do you have to go before you're so devalued as a human being that death looks better? How low are you?

It is irrelevant to point out that Republican policies will be awful. Everyone knows that. What's dishonest is Ed Garvey's silent hint that complicit Democrats might offer the opposite.

welshTerrier2 at 2:15 p.m. has made a fine critique, especially this:
"To believe in the Democratic Party and its candidates should require clear evidence that they are prepared to engage this great confrontation. What evidence is there that Democrats have struggled against the current system of corporate welfare? Have they called for deep cuts in the absurd $1.1 trillion military budget? Have they called for a closing down of the more than 730 foreign US military bases that clearly is the enforcement arm of American imperialism? The deeply disturbing answers to these questions is a resounding "NO!"

Advertising a laundry list of domestic programs is, by definition, just empty words without deep cuts in military spending. The Treasury is already bankrupt. There will be no "great society" programs because there is no money to pay for them. It really is that simple. Healthcare, education, retirement security, infrastructure, alternative energy, social safety net - forget about it. There will be no money without making deep curs in military spending. It's all too clear the Democrats are not prepared to tackle this issue."

Indeed, evidence matters.