Toward what end? Toward what end? To give millions of fed up and disgruntled former Democrats a real "democrat" to vote for, a candidate who's platform and issues are what the Democratic Party used to believe in. To what end? To bring democracy back into the political process. To continue and try to break the stranglehold by the corporations on the political process. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are one corporate Conglomerate Party with two heads. They are the flip side of the same counterfeit and corrupt political coin. Democrats need simply look at what its party did to Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich to see that the Democratic Party is anything but democratic. It is democratic in name only. Every election cycle, every four years, the Democratic Party lines the voters up as suckers by saying there is no place else to go, no one else to vote FOR. Well, THERE IS. Run. Ralph Run! And let there be Libertarians, Peace and Freedom, and other parties, all with the same media access and opportunity to be heard by the people. Otherwise, elections are a farce of democracy.

Wow! People just don't get why Nader is running. He's trying to get/force presidential candidates to talk about the issues instead of ignoring them AND move positions of these candidates to more democratic (note small "d") and progressive stances. And if that doesn't work, he's got my vote!

So Mr.Hartung, Citizen Nader agrees with what you say you are meaning...Don't you feel better that at least one of the candidates is listening to you? I do!

It ain't so, Ralph.

So We should instead support a candidate written onto page one by Wall Street Consultants whose answer to the most radical right gov in US history is to plead for more bipartisanship.

WE ARE BEING KILLED BY BIPARTISANSHIP. THE BIPARTISANSHIP OF WALL STREET, WALL MART, HALLIBURTON AND BLACKWATER.

And this is Obomb'ems hope.

The reason we are in this mess is no Bendovercrat has said any part of THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY FOR EIGHT OR MORE YEARS.

A candidate does speak out and he is blasted on this left-gate-keeping site. This is how they do it.... but we won't drink the FLAVORAID (it was off-brand ,citizens.)

Yah, It IS so.

ALot of people like to blame Ralph or the Green Party for why truly-democratic people don't want to vote for the corporate Democratic candidates anymore.

All the people I've spoken to who cast a vote for Nader in the past, would NOT have voted for the corporate Democrat anyway. They just would not have cast any vote for president at all if Nader wasn't on the ballot. Their would NOT have gone to the corporate democrat anyway. So it's not Nader who is at fault. It's the 'Democratic' Party who let itself become the Republican-lite Party and aliented the people from it's own party.

Good god, when are these impurity trolls ever going to learn?

When are they ever going to get it through their thick heads that people like me would NEVER support a Democrat in the first place.

For god's sake, don't waste your energy trying to talk me out of voting for what I believe in.

Shouldn't you be more focused on the American Political Idol pissfight between Heavy Art-hillary and O-bomb-ya?

I am NEVER going to vote for another corporate warmonger again. Never going to vote for the lesser of two evils because of DLC-Centrist Fearmongering designed to make the narrow differences between McCain-Clinton-Obama seem like a stark existential choice.

Take heart, Dems: you haven't lost my vote to Nader. You never had it to begin with.

Sorry you folks also miss the point....save the village by letting it burn....sacrifice our weak progressive democratic party by helping a right wing, only self serving, administration get elected twice....? Yeah thats really the way to get a grass roots organization started, help a tyrant and his stooges get elected so they can wipe out as many laws that helped our democracy to exist...what was left of it....what other brilliant stratagems will you advocate next...? I agree with Mr. Hartung... Nader can run but he is only helping the right to become stronger....the lesser of two evils is a reality in this nation, its not going to change at the top....it has to change from the bottom up.... Third party forget it.....

How did that work out last time? Do you feel that the votes for Nader were heard? Kind of hard to hear with all the republicans laughing themselves wet. Sure those votes in 2000 for Nader made a difference, they gave Bush the White House. Happy with that symbolic vote of defiance? Although the differences between the parties may not be enough to please us at times, is there anyone who thinks Gore would have created such a disaster as we are in now?

Notwithstanding all the virtues that Nader may have, I still believe that he should not run.

We know that Nader, who is like an angel in comparison with the two Democratic frontrunner corporate lackeys, has no chance in hell under the circumstances to land in the White House. He has proven that more than once. He, therefore, offers the voters an alternative that amounts to nothing. It is almost as if you or I run for president, although Nader will surely get a heck of a lot more votes.

Now, if you also agree that he won't make it, why then should liberals, progressives, or whoever is against the current state of affairs waste their votes? And since the real players also know that Nader will not make it, they therefore, will completely ignore him, no matter what he says, meaning his running will not soften or alter the frontrunners' positions.

His running, however, may have one likely effect. Maybe, just maybe, a few of those who would have otherwise voted for a democrat, now vote for Nader, resulting perhaps in the election of the worse evil called McCain. Therefore, a vote for Nader may not be entirely wasted—it may help elect McCain

Personally, I think the US election system sucks, from making it hard for third parties to organize, to the Electoral College and super delegates, up to and including the fraudulent Diebold voting machines, just to mention a few.

Ralph Nader runs to show the Democrats how undemocratic they are.

Ralph Nader wrote "Crashing the Party", and Ron Paul did exactly that. Both are unreasonable men, and both deserve support.

The more antiwar/propeace candidates the better!

Oh, cripes!
Here we go again with the influx of Democratic partisan umbrage that has been debunked so many times that it all amounts to wilful lying by now.

Have a bipartisan day.

First we allow ourselves to be held hostage by a two party, winner-take-all system which allows appalling abuses of power to run unchecked and social problems like our medieval prison and health care systems to fester unreformed and environmental degradation to worsen and wars of acquisition to prey on other cultures, and then we bitch when opponents of that system refuse to jump onboard any longer to help row the ship of state in that horribly wrong direction. Great harm is already being done, Mr. Hartung. You can question Nader's strategy and timing and consistency all you like. Any time anybody provides me the opportunity to assert my tiny piece of power to pull on the steering wheel I'll take it. Any time some rare bird in Congress wakes up and starts telling the truth, I'll support them. Any time some acquiescent stooge (read Hubert Humphrey, read Hillary et al) spends eight years rubberstamping his boss's murderous lunacy and then turns around and wants me to vote him into the captain's chair has got to be kidding. Tally up these posts. You don't think there is already a movement? This is us, moving out of your funhouse.

Gore would have been sneakier about it, just like Slick Willy.

Gore won't run again because he didn't like the person he became when he did. And very likely because he didn't like being made to throw the election.

Now my real point:

Why on Earth are we worried about this? Why is it even conceivable that McCain could win this year, 3rd party or no?

Is it because you're worried about the Democrats throwing the election again, like the last couple? Don't worry, be happy: it's their turn to sell themselves to the Corps, this time.

Consider: the Dems could get rid of Nader, McKinney, and the Greens very easily, by adopting positions that attract solid majorities in every single issue poll. Single payer health insurance would do it for me, along with ending the war (which they could have done at any time all along - but Obama voted for the funding.)

Seriously: adopt those positions, and Poof! magically, no Green Party. WE'RE THE REAL MAJORITY, and the Dems could have us along with a guaranteed, permanent majority.

Anyone else wonder why they don't do that?

Once again another "progressive" complaining about Nader. Guess what, it didn't matter who the Democrats ran (except Dennis, but I'm silly like that), I wasn't and still am not voting for them.

Maybe if one of these Nader rants can explain to me why the war is still being funded and why impeachment is off the table, I'll come around.

Also, about wasting a vote on third parties, as I recall at one point the republican party was a third party. All those votes to them (though in hindsight dangerous) never worked out, huh.

Ralph Nader will not be spoiling any elections this year. As he said it best, if the democrats can't win this year, they mine as well pack it up and start over.

Ralph's just trying to raise issues that are ignored by the major parties. Problem is that his followers are too shortsighted to see that he will not win and therefore their vote is counterproductive in helping the lesser of two evils triumph. This was the case even back in 2000 where the difference has proved tragic. Ralph's got a good point but it really ain't helping in the short run.

Do you feel that the votes for Nader were heard? Kind of hard to hear with all the republicans laughing themselves wet. Sure those votes in 2000 for Nader made a difference, they gave Bush the White House. Happy with that symbolic vote of defiance?

Vote of defiance?

Come again?

Since when is voting for what you believe in, voting for actual change an "act of defiance"?

Is this a democracy?

Do we actually have a political choice in this country?

What a ridiculous comment.

Fix your party then they'll be no need for Ralph to get involved. Until then, he'll give the rest of us someone to vote for.

Sorry, but these articles are getting to be a waste of time for everyone.

Now, if you also agree that he won't make it, why then should liberals, progressives, or whoever is against the current state of affairs waste their votes?

You want to know what a wasted vote is?

Voting for something you don't believe in because it's the "lesser of two evils."

That is a wasted vote.

I think many of the Go Nader posters here missed one of the important points in this article: you don't change the system by trotting out Nader every 4 years. That fact that he DOES trot himself out durings elections makes me wonder about his true motives. Where is he in between elections? Why don't we hear how he's constantly working with Dems or the Green party at all levels of government ALL THE TIME? Or is the Corp Media blocking him out even then?

Nader specifically said that he would run if the Dims ran Clinton or Obama but not if they ran Edwards. The corporate media all but wrote off anyone but Clinton and Obama and so, of course that's what we are left with. Nader, being a man of his word is running. In the absence of voices not owned by the corporate oligarchy, an alternative is good. How can real change happen if we don't give it a chance?

This analysis all hinges on the mythologizing that the Democrats were ever a particularly progressive party. When? When they had Ronald Reagan in their ranks? The racist Dixiecrats? LBJ/Tonkin/Vietnam? Chicago in 1968?, Clinton/NAFTA? Liebermann? The pitiful caving in with barely a whimper in '00 and '04? The enablers, Vichy, Pelosi, and others who won't deliver a punch when their ostensible opposition's poll ratings are in a sewer? The impeachment-off-the-table crowd who have no problem funding the war?

Hillary's plan for health insurance is a forced subsidy of the industry that is the problem, not the solution. It's much worse than the Republican non-plan. Can't critique Obama as cleanly, because he's always short on details and heavy on hope fixing all things.

No, the Dems are not a genuine progressive party -- never have been. If it weren't for the PDA's, Wellstones and Kucinich's (which they largely ignore, but leverage for image), they'd be seen more clearly for what they are. The leadership is rotten.

What do you mean jumping in late? The major primaries aren't even over yet! No party has made a final determination in who their candidate is going to be. The conventions won't take place till the fall. This statement that Nader "serves no useful purpose other than to make him look like a joke" may be true to YOU, but obviously it is NOT true to more and more people here on this portal that more and more sounds like a front for the Democratic Party, just like BuzzFlash, Huffington Post, KOS, The Nation, et al. Nader a joke? Huh? You ever listen to what Nader is saying every time he opens his mouth? Compare that to what Obama and Hillary are saying which is not much of anything. C'mon, who and what the real joke is, is very obvious. The joke is what passes farce off as being substance. I don't care how many votes Nader gets, whether 1 or 10,000,000. What I care about is that he consistently lays out and presents the issues and answers to the corporate taking over of every aspect of our lives. This corporate takeover, by the way, includes taking over both the Republican and Democratic Parties. Far from being a bad joke, this is what ails us. How is voting for a corporationist beholden to the corporations going to change this? Talking about throwing away your vote.

Oh, Hartung, you have it SO backwards!!

Sorry to be so blunt, but the times call for it: only a fool would believe "There are other ways to get progressive views across."

Look, Dennis Kucinich (fast approaching perennial) who best exemplifies your naive belief that presenting opposing views inside the party achieves any change, got knocked out of the so-called Primary Elections BEFORE over 90% of eligible voters got to make their vote! Now Dems are trying to "McKinney" him -- run conservatives against him to silence him and his ideas once and for all.

And THIS was done by the MEDIA with Dem collusion. Where were Hillary and Obama stating they would NOT go on the air if Kucinich were so arbitrarily excluded?? NOWHERE!

Those two and democracy have nothing to do with one another. They accept the Corporate Ground Rules they force us all to swallow. Your honoring this process as a Real Election is what takes the cake.

Two (at least) stolen election in recent years. The Democrats did not dispute the results, NOR did they (1) investigate what happened, or (2) lift a finger to change or improve the process.

They DID however, spend millions attacking Nader and Greens, who for THEM are the real enemy. Yet they wouldn't attack (even verbally) the Bush cabal for lying us into an illegal war, spying and torture). With "friends" like these...

What exactly are you defending, hmmm...?

You say of course any Dem would be better if elected. Not if they are afraid to say one word about all of the immoral and Constitution-shredding actions going on daily. What they do with their behavior is JUSTIFY the Bush Regime's actions.

We do not need another brand of apologists for fascism, thank you very much. What we need is tremendous amounts of COURAGE to face the very, very ugly scenario created by both the Democrats and the Republicans across the world with their suck-up support for unbridled capitalist expansion and its dependence on military and repressive uber-growth on our nickel while people in New Orleans just drown or get shot by our mercenaries.

So YOU, William, are the naive one. And you use your position to help carry others into this cul-de-sac of naivete.

It makes me cringe to think how many "educated" people have neither vision nor courage to look at the very, VERY sad realities of the day. Nor lift a finger to do anything about it.

You know nothing of the heritage of the American Revolution; for folks like you it is a catch-phrase or design on a set of checks.

This "Oh, Mr. Nader, what are you doing -- again?" shows you just don't seem to understand that our times and horrible situation of debt-for-death (and that is EXACTLY what it is, mister) calls for a clean slate and new courageous thinking and ACTING to get us away from this planet-suffocating, inhumane corporate greed-and blood-machine gone berserk, as quickly as possible.

For this we need LEADERSHIP and vision, not the prepackaged proxies shoved down our throats and marketed like soap.

So, in the face of maniacal neocon socio-paths hijacking our nation, its laws, its morals and its Constitution with nary a whimper by the "Democratic opposition," YOUR ANSWER is...more of the same, plus SILENCING any voices that point the way out.

No one says the way out will be easy, but you must FIRST admit you have a problem, name it then SEEK solutions, using the collective wisdom of those affected.

The current BushCo paradigm is to simply MAKE executive decisions (without necessarily telling anyone about them) of where our resources go, then hunt down and punish anyone who disagrees. That is where we are, and where we are going, until real opposition voices stand up and lead us away.

So, be careful when you wish Mr. Nader to go away. Be careful when you want the Green Party to dry up.

I, for one, am backing the Green Party all the way, against all odds, and, for all the respect I give him, unless Ralph makes a compelling case for wanting to run as a Green and build the Party alternative America desperately needs, will likely back Cynthia McKinney who has defended the American public's true interests better than anyone else in Congress. She alone asked the Pentagon (to Rumsfeld's face) the "hard questions" about missing trillions, the 911 War Games (which they do not deny), and why billions of dollars later, the Pentagon computers still don't talk to one another. McKinney has displayed more courage than any other Congressperson in generations.

YOUR answer, Mr. Hartung, leads only to more of the same. The BEST you can achieve YOUR way is a slowing down of the asphyxiation of humanity, not one moving one iota towards reversing it.

So vote who you think you have to vote for, but stop suggesting that people who offer real, needed solutions shut up or go away.

We cannot continue mutely and blindly down this road any longer and expect as a people, as a species, to survive. Until you change your perceptions -- and actions -- you, sir, ARE part of the problem.

I don't believe in Ralph Nader's motives. I won't waste my vote on him. He's not building a Progessive party. He's not building any party. He's trying to undermine Barack Obama. His presidential candidacy will ultimately detract from Progressive changes he seeks. He should start where most people do- at the bottom- or continue to organize Americans as a model citizen, (or help Progressives get elected at state and local levels). Change begins at the bottom. All I can read from this is that the change Ralph Nader wants to be in the world in 2008 is a headline on somebody's newspaper.

I'm going to laugh and laugh, under an OBama or Clinton administration when in 2013 - we still have hundreds of thousands of troops occupying Iraq. And still the Obama and Clinton appologists are going to hail this as "progress."

I'm going to laugh and laugh when in 2013 we're paying 15-16% per capita for Health Insurance/Care costs for junk insurance.

They keep saying "anyone but Bush", so they'll settle on any democratic canidate no matter how transparent they are.

doughwanger: If as you say, "Change begins at the bottom" why are you backing corporationist democratic candidates who are at the top and backed by corporations and those at the top of them, their CEOs? You're the pot calling the kettle black. You know Naders motives, do you? And what are the motives of a Johnny Come Lately less-than-one-term Senator Obama with platitudes and no plans? Do you question his motives? Of course we all know Hillary's motives, don't we? Might they be POWER!!!! I'll take Nader's motive over Obama and Hillary any day.

William D. Hartung, whom is known for what, does not get it. Many, many people who have progressive ideals, are very tired of the status quo in the Democratic party.

The poor showing of the progressive candidates and this article is proof enough that the demo's are out of touch.

Get ready for eight more years of Republican malfeasance in the Whitehouse.

milo2671 wrote:

Sure those votes in 2000 for Nader made a difference, they gave Bush the White House.

Wrong...it was the people who voted for Bush that gave Bush the White House. Even without the Supreme Court, Bush had to be as close as he was to have that opportunity.

As Nader himself pointed out, for all the Democrat hand-wringing about the 97,000 Floridians who voted for Nader, where's the outrage towards the 250,000 registered Florida Democrats who voted for Bush?

The only candidate to blame for Gore's loss is Gore.

So, Mr. Hartung, you don't think Nader should run because he might draw a few votes from the Democrats? Let him. They deserve to have more than a few votes taken away from them, going by their record since they took over the House and the Senate.

It's simple, really, if what the dems want is to get elected: they have to start addressing the issues We, the People want addressed. And if they actually did this very few people would bother voting for Nader because he wouldn't be necessary then.

So, dems, get off your butts and do something for us if you really want to get the White House back. If you don't, Nader just might pull enough votes away from you so the repubs can win. And you'll deserve to lose if you let that happen. And it won't be Nader's fault, it'll be yours.

lonelooney February 27th, 2008 11:49 am
Wow! People just don't get why Nader is running. He's trying to get/force presidential candidates to talk about the issues instead of ignoring them AND move positions of these candidates to more democratic (note small "d") and progressive stances. And if that doesn't work, he's got my vote!

How is this any different than what Dennis Kucinich brought to the table?! And Dennis did it alot better than Ralph Nader can.

It amazes that the Democrats and some Common Dream posters are having a cow about Nader's run. Are the Democrats that really insecure that they want to bully Nader out of running? Wouldn't be easier for Democrats to come up with ideas that would make people want to vote for them rather than drive them away?

Uncle Ralph always gets Airtime on Corporate Media... all he wants. They do great one on one interviews and allow him to talk about progressive issues, so we can contrast what the Dems SHOULD be talking about with what they ARE talking about. I don't know why he gets such cordial treatment when they "moonbeam" and "deanscream" progressive Democrats, do you? I like Uncle Ralph... he's a cool dude.

My problem is I hear people I agree with completely issuing a lot of the same litany all the time. "Wah, why can't we get Mainstream Airtime?.... Wah, they have all the money for campaign contributions... Wah, we have a protest and it doesn't make the news... Wah, the DNC takes War-profiteer money and always supports a LOSER for office... Wah,they're going to take the internet away and give it to the likes of COMCAST..." wah wah wah

What we're doing ain't working. THEY have a LOCK on it.

What also puzzles me is we're constitutionally incapable of forming issues based alliances with people elsewhere on the political spectrum, that differ with us otherwise, to get SOME specific things accomplished. There are millions of disaffected conservatives that are opposed to the War. There are millions of outdoor sportsmen (gun advocates) that CARE about the environment. There are millions of business people that BELIEVE in renewable energy and radical action to stop global warming. There are millions of previously prosperous, upper middle class conservatives, that would sign on to FAR more radical revisions of the Medical Industry.. the Insurance Industry.. than our darling Democrats propose.

Obviously, no matter what our issue, it all stems from the evil and enduring symbiosis between campaign financing and it's influence on legislation and administration. If a single peep regarding this makes the Airwaves, they immediately surround it with SCREECHING establishment types, shouting "the public will never tolerate it.... it's a FIRST AMMENDMENT issue... we have the right to redress...blah blah blah."

I'm in Kansas right now but even in Seattle I had Conservative friends. They think that transnational corporations and fat money lobbyists need to get the hell out. THEY agree with US on THIS issue. It just doesn't make the news. They're not out in a pasture carrying signs for nobody to see. WE, might as WELL be out in a pasture for all the airtime we get.

But they're "pro-life..." they're "pro-gun..." they're this and they're that. They're not US.

Well I'm here to tell you that THEY aren't your enemy. WE ARE OUR ENEMY. Because we are stiff-necked and arrogant. Because we buy into all this media hype that divides us.

Now I'm going to go pray to the god I don't believe in, that Obama is a closet progressive, that he doesn't get SHOT, if he makes it past the pro-war, DLC block... REPLETE WITH ABLUTIONS, INCENSE BURNING.... I'll burn some damn sage... stand on my head reciting the Lord's Prayer backwards...

Oh, and contribute to CLEAN ELECTIONS

Ralph is always right

Last night I was reading through ALL the comments in response to a story by Ed Garvey -Garvey, like Hartung here, being someone who also doesn't want Ralph Nader to run.

And I was pleasantly surprised in reading the comments on Garvey's article -- and those here -- at how many people who responded to the stories -- in fact, the vast majority -- *support* Ralph's run.

Consider this: I doubt if the powers-that-be at commondreams.org will support Nader. If fact, I'm sure of it. And yet I have the feeling that not just on Ralph's run but on a wide variety of issues, the commondreams.org readership is much further to the left than the movers & shakers at commondreams.org

In fact, I wonder if they don't regret opening up their articles to comments by their readership.

As for Nader's run, as Ralph put it on "Meet the Press," if the Democrats can't "landslide" the Republicans this year, they don't deserve to survive.

The Democrats had a weakling running against them in 2000 -- namely, Bush, the incompetent governor -- the incompetent Texas governor, who lowered Texas in HE&W from the mid-range of US states to 48th, 49th and 50th).

They then had an incumbent president -- Bush again -- the most ineffective, mendacious, criminal, impeachable, stupidest president in recroded history -- and they still couldn't defeat him!

Add to this the fact -- the FACT -- that both elections were rigged, AND that in 2000 during the Electoral College certification in the Senate, Gore stood by and as president of the Senate refused to let one senator challenge the disenfrnachisement of over a million black voters ...

Baby, it goes on and on.

All I can say to Mssrs. Gravey and Hartung is -- read what the response is from the people who read commondreams.org -- hardly a radical site -- and then figure it out yourself.

Meanwhile, check out www.wsws.org

Like sodhawg and trollwiththepunches, Ralph will not siphon my vote from the Demicans, because I was not planning to vote before Ralph declared. (Although if Kucinich and Gravel declared as well, I'd have the happy task of having to do some more research...)

I am ashamed to come from a country where people are vilified for running for public office, especially when they present the only ideas that are new and refreshing and not drenched in corporate money.

Guess that's why I left. Canadian politics is much more entertaining, if only marginally better than US politics.

As Jim Hightower put it, "Some people think the US needs a third political party. I think it could use a second one."

dougnwagner February 27th, 2008 1:01 pm
I don't believe in Ralph Nader's motives. I won't waste my vote on him. He's not building a Progessive party. He's not building any party. He's trying to undermine Barack Obama. His presidential candidacy will ultimately detract from Progressive changes he seeks. He should start where most people do- at the bottom- or continue to organize Americans as a model citizen, (or help Progressives get elected at state and local levels). Change begins at the bottom. All I can read from this is that the change Ralph Nader wants to be in the world in 2008 is a headline on somebody's newspaper.

This is what I have been saying for years. If Nader really gave two craps about changing the current oligarchy we live in he would have spent the last decade building various progressive parties from the ground up. (just like Perot and Ventura did with the reform party, only no one has carried the torch for them and it has since died. If anyone is ever to take multiple parties seriously you have to start with local municipal governments, and state governments, then when you have a constituency built, and a solid foundation of principles, you enter congressional races and senatorial races, perhaps a governors race. then once you have seats occupied with established party members then you can run a member with esteemed accomplishments for president. Thats how it works. And that is the only way it will ever get done.

Standing up for what you know is sound and beneficial can NEVER be wrong; however, weak compromise with what you know is counterproductive in order to get a few crumbs in the short run will generally make things worse and delay the inevitable in the long run (we've tried this before).

We must do more than slow the downhill roll of the wrecking ball. Right now, the Dems want to compromise along the course to ruin and not rock the boat too much. Nader is adressing core issues at their root, while Obama only wants to chisel away on the sidelines, while spouting fluffy platitudes. Not sure we have the luxury of electing a feel-good-but-do-nothing president, though it seems that's what most want.

Good luck with that.

Notice that the r-w talking points are being reproduced here . . . because it is to the benefit of both GOP and Dems that Nader be SMEARED.

Nader gets air time whenever he wants it?
Nader is loaded with money?
Nader is an egotist?

And where might these talking points originate . . .

From the Dems corporate-DLC wing of which Sen. Clinton is part of the leadership?

From the Democratic leadership we elected in 2006 to end the war -- Reid and Pelosi -- ???

Does anyone see that they've brought an end to Iraq?
NO!
But they've acknowledged that that's what they were elected to do!!!

Hartung writes:

"A Democratic president would be so superior to John McCain in so many ways (most notably on Iraq, Iran, health care, and economic stimulus)..."

Words in parenthesis Hartung's.

Citizen Hartung, has it escaped your notice that the Democrats are the majority party in both houses of Congress? And as such tell us, please, what they have done the issues you've mentioned???

Iraq -- they continue to support the War.

Iran -- they gave Bush the go-ahead to attack that country. And it took an NIE report -- not the Democratic Party -- to come out and say: STOP! DON'T DO IT! (to yet *another* country)":

Health care -- nada. Their proposals are offered while ***on bended knees*** to the insurance and pharmaceutical giants.

And "economic stimulus" -- pleeeze! -- tell me how THIS money could otherwise be spent and how it could otherwise stimulate the economy -- www.costofwar.com

Btw . . . who is Ed Garvey ---
and why is Common Dreams pushing SMEARS of Nader?

There are only two ways to waste your vote:

1. Stay at home and don't vote at all.

2. Vote for the party that does not need your vote: the imperialists who would be in power anyway if there was no democracy at all and that is trying, by cheating, stealing and terrorizing, to take it away from you. In this case, it means don't vote for the Republicans.

For the rest, you live in a democracy, so you can vote for whoever you want. Simple as that.

oh I feel the dividing going on in this piece and every other dung heep on here.

Journalists are in bed with the murderous government nummies.

Sieze Unity http://vote.org

Vote for national referendum! Direct democracy is how the constitution was ratified.

The democrats in congress can stop the war IF they wanted to.

The dems in the senate are now saying they need 60 votes to do anything.

It's a party full of excuses and blame. It's always somebody elses fault.

Even, watch, in 2013 when we have hundreds of thousands of troops still in Iraq, the Dems line is going to be "Well, this is because of the failed policies of the previous administration."

It's always something, and it's always something completely illogical and nonsensical. They keey dangling the carrot, and you keep chasing - meanwhile, I sit back and laugh.

Whether you vote for McCain, Obama, Hillary or Nader it doesn't make a difference. It won't change the corrupt system. We all know the next president will be picked by the oligarchy. They will figure out a way to select the one that better suits their interests, while we keep fighting each other and blaming Nader for the corruption of the "two" parties.
No hope for this country.

"and why is Common Dreams pushing SMEARS of Nader?"

For the drama, a psywar op, Nader is part of the ploy. 80% of voters are prepared to vote for any nonestablishment candidate. That's a formidable group of doubtless many gun toting Americans, who are expressing they're pretty fed up with the feds murderous games. While 80% of Americans are ready to vote 3rd party, Nader makes clear in his announcement that he's not trying to win, just to force progressive politics on Democrats... right... Nader is in bed with financial interests taking big money for speaking, globe trotting getting laid like a parrot in South America. They're group sexual btw.

One more thing I'd like to add: the present so-called liberals are arguably more dangerous than the neocons. Why? Because the neocons do not hide what they're really for: tax breaks for the rich, more war and war toys, deregulation, etc. They do not want to compromise with the 'liberals,' but aggressively push their corporate-rich agenda through with a battering ram, if necessary.

Modern liberals pretend not to want the same thing, while compromising with it. In some ways, this is worse than what the neocons are doing because real motives and agendas are hidden.

What we need to do now is face the truth, even if/when it hurts, and take the bitter medicine that heals. Sure this will be tough in the short run, but it's the only real way out of the dark tunnel we presently find ourselves in. Sorry Obama, inspiring speeches are not enough.

This article doesn't deserve the attention it's been given.

It is the self-victimization of those faithful believers in the left/right paradigm that has killed this country, and the cowards that attack those who've truly devoted their entire lives to arming and defending the citizenry with the necessary mechanisms are the weaponry of those whom seek to profit from its demise.

Democrats and Republicans alike will goose-step their way into the fascist dicatorship from which people like Ralph Nader tried so hard to protect them.

What a bunch of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual knuckleheads the "informed" segment of our population became, squabbling over which side of a two-headed coin they think is shinier, behaving as if they were in some way nobler for their willingness to settle.

Dude, read this article.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070226_an_unreasonably_principled_man/

dougnwagner,

Since '04 or thereabouts, the factionalism between Nader and the Greens cost the GP major party status in my state, if not elsewhere. I used to think that it all hinged on grassroots and partisan efforts, but I'm not so sold on this any more. Progressives, populists and progressive populists are notoriously factionalized. Some of them are fiercely independent thinkers, others may have no good political "ism" to describe their thinking, still others may be provocateurs doing stupid things, deliberately creating memetic moats around the movement to keep it from resonating more widely outside of preaching-to-the-choir, etc.

If anyone thinks that Nader is in bed with the Rethugs, they've not looked at his tremendous efforts over the decades -- he's obviously on the side of ordinary people.

So his marching ahead, movement or no movement underneath, is a sign of leadership, IMHO. Sometimes the best and brightest are only brought down, diluted, misdirected or impeded by others, rather than facilitated by them.

I do wonder about a couple things with Nader, though. One issue is that his running seems to acknowledge that the electoral process is sound in the first place, even a legitimate game to play. There's plenty of reason to doubt this. The other issue with his running is that it provides the Republicrats with a metric to tease apart the percentage of non-voters who are apathetic vs. those who can't stand the corporate parties.

This metric could be used for "good" or for "evil". More of the latter, I assume. If used for good, the Republicrats would begin re-thinking their pro-corporate policies and genuinely help out the poor/middle-class. Not happening. So they use this metric for evil. The number of Nader voters, to them, represents that percentage of politically engaged people who aren't buying the salespitch. So they'll fine-tune their rhetoric, etc. to capture more of these people (of course, changing any genuine policy substance is utterly out of the question).