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.

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.

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).

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.

Hang-it-up, Ralph!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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

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

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!).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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..

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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

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!

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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).

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!

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.

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.

"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.

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!

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.

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

I mean that metaphorically.

Starofthesea, Quaff, O quaff this kind yackety!