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.

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.

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!

Run Nader run.

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!!

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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 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 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.

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?

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 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.

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...

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)...

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.

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...

"...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...

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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

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!!!

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.

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.