This article is funny because this how the idiots on the left feel about Osame. Intelligent people on the Left will vote Nader/Gonzalez.

Intelligent people on the Left won't get fooled again, vote Nader/Gonzalez.

You can't drain the swamp without first getting rid of the alligators.

Vote Obama.

then why elect an alligator?

Vote McKinney ... build a party for the future!

Since we are in an electorial fantasy world, I'll vote for "Dave" (Kevin Kline).

Or I'll flip-flop and vote for "The American President" (Michael Douglas).

"A little while ago, Barack Obama campaigned as a moderate". Could that be because he IS a moderate?

Hamester,

No its because Osame is a conman.

McKinney or Nader are great choices!! (: I'd love it if we could build a coalition party modeled on the Progressive Party of Vermont. We shouldn't bemoan all of the 3rd party candidates running but be happy there are some high quality candidates!

Please, supporters of Obama (& McCain, but I don't think there are many of them on here) - stop voting for millionaire candidates who will provide us with the same old same old. Real change can only happen when enough of us have had enough and are willing to vote ONLY for alternative party candidates.

Wouldn't it be easier to catch alligators AFTER the swamped was drained?

I'm always surprised at the high number of right wing hicks in the oligarchy, some of them Ivy leaguers.

Authors who don't say what they mean aren't worth reading.
"I love John McCain." (?????) Get out your aerosol of B.S. repellant and spray it around to protect yourself.

C'mon, they say. It's satire. It's supposed to be funny (somehow). Perhaps, but it isn't.

Duke Nukem 2008 !

Honestly, scottk, what good will that do?

Jane,

It will tell the dems that they cannot take your vote granted, and then sell your ass down the river when the corporations come calling. Osame is a corporate conman, when will people wake up and realize, when it comes to corporate interest their is not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties.

"This article is funny because this how the idiots on the left feel about Osame. Intelligent people on the Left will vote Nader/Gonzalez."
- scottk

REALLY????????

From Ralph Nader's Book "Crashing the Party" 2002:

"The tired whine of "But the Republicans are worse" will fall flat as more young Americans take charge of their future and move, with their reenergized elders, toward the Green Party and parallel civic and political movements."

Really, Ralph? You mean the Green Party that put you at the top of their ticket in 2000? What exactly did Ralph Nader ever do to help get any Green Party politicians elected? Ya know, considering he was the head of their party and all, and not just an ego-maniacal narcissist?

When you head a political party, and shovel a bunch of nonsense about how "reenergized" people will be by it, it's a good idea to be an active member of that party and not just using it for cynical and selfish purposes!

It's pathetic enough that anyone fell for such a delusional lunatic in 2000, but 8 years later that there are still starry-eyed, brain-dead, twits believing in the "Nader Messiah" despite how he used a political party only to further his egomania and had ZERO interest in that party, shows you can fool some of the people all of the time!

Don't look for leadership in a single person or even a single party.
We are the ones we have been waiting for.
Organize! Organize! Organize!
Lobby! Petition! PROTEST!

A people united can move any politician any way it wishes.

Ted Rall's a clever and funny writer and cartoonist and I enjoy his stuff.

That said, he apparently can't tell the difference between radical-right McCain and 'moderate' Obama. If you expect Obama to be the progressive Second Coming, yes, you'll be sorely disappointed. He's a politician, but he'll be better for the country than the Republican Grandpa Simpson, even if only marginally.

Here are three questions I posted on another thread to you Nader and third party supporters:

1. If Ralph Nader has as much integrity as you claim, then why did he renege on his 2000 promise to build the Green Party into a true national party?

2. Since the popular vote is meaningless and only the electoral vote determines the presidency, how does Ralph become president when he's not on the ballot in enough states to get the required number of electoral votes to win?

3. If Ralph should somehow become president, how does he enact such things as single-payer universal health care or transitioning to renewable energy without the support of majorities in the House and Senate, since he'll have few supporters in either chamber of Congress?

(You Cynthia McKinney supporters can respond to these last two questions, as well.)

I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer. Whenever I try to pin down exactly what will happen if Nader, or another third party candidate, actually gets elected, his/her supporters go blank because they haven't really thought about it, or they just don't know how our system of government works. They seem to think we are electing a monarch rather than the head of one branch of a tripartite government.

Since I don't view a political contest between flawed human beings as a self-righteous religious crusade or the election of a saint, I'm not voting for the lesser of however many evils -- I am voting for the least imperfect of all of the imperfect candidates in an imperfect election in an imperfect country in an imperfect world full of imperfect people.

As I've posted before, if you find the perfect, or even near perfect, candidate who has a chance of getting elected, let me know. He or she will have my vote.

In the meantime, it's either Obama or McCain, and Obama is the least imperfect of the two by far.

BTW, scottk, the only people who refer to Obama as 'Osame' are neocons and idiots, and excuse me for repeating myself there. I hope you are neither.

Why not vote for Obama for president and then Greens for the rest of the ballot? I think splitting the Congress three ways is a more realistic plan to destroy the two party Good Cop/Bad Cop routine. Obama and other Democrats can make alliances with whomever they choose. The Democrats who choose to ally with the Republicans, throw out.

Luther,
Don't you call Nader supporters brain-dead. All the Democratic party has done since they got elected in 2006 is enable the current administration's crimes. I think it is the Dems base who are brain-dead.

Obama the least imperfect, hahahahahahahahahahahaha

RSJ

I am not referring to him as osama i am referring to him Osame as Bush, Clinton, McCon.

Obama saw fit to rubber stamp, over and over again, a program that resulted in the deaths of a million innocent human beings - mostly children. He thought it was the right thing to do because it meant a career advancement. Go ahead and vote for him if you want.

Clinton talked very progressive as a candidate too, and then: NAFTA (he twisted a lot of arms to get it passed), the deaths of half a million Iraqis, pre-emptive strikes on Iraq, salvage rider logging. He trashed and gutted the Democratic Party. It's nothing more than the second head of a fascist monster.

Rall may be right. "He's just saying and voting the way he does because he has to get elected." True enough.

Vote Nader! Send him a little money.

RSJ - Understand, we're not looking for perfection, just someone who won't have a million innocent people killed - mostly children - as a career advancemnet strategy, or someone who would not SELL your civil rights away forever. Fair enough?

If Nader was elected he would bring these issues to the American people like no one has. He would use his position to move the American people like no one has.

That's why there are so many anti-independents on these comments - trolls. They are terrified of an independent movement.

Bring it on! Vote Nader. And send him a little money.

OK, RSJ, I'll bite:

1. Nader actually did work to build the Green Party from 2000 to 2003. He campaigned for our candidates and held numerous fundraising events around the country. I was at one of them in DC in December 2001. The people who have written articles accusing Nader of not building the Green Party weren't.

I believe that more could have been done. Part of that was Nader's responsibility, particularly after his decision to run as an independent in 2004. I think that he has always been somewhat of a lone wolf. The Green Party also was partly responsible because of the infighting in all too many state parties.

2. Nader and McKinney will probably be on enough ballots to have a chance to win the Electoral College. They do face an uphill battle, especially running separate campaigns.

However, third party candidates have gotten the Democrats and Republicans to adopt their agenda, even when they didn't win any electoral votes. Examples include the Populist Party (progressive income tax, direct election of Senators, regulation of railroads and banks, shorter working hours), the Socialist Party (female suffrage, abolition of child labor, Social Security, many of the New Deal programs), and Ross Perot (balanced budget).

3. Many third party activists are aware that there are multiple branches of government. That's why they are supporting Green and progressive independent candidates for the House and Senate.

There are numerous things that Cynthia McKinney could do if she were elected that wouldn't require Congressional approval:

*Bring ALL the troops home from Iraq.

*Start serious negotiations on the Israel/Palestine issue.

*Back away from war with Iran.

*Stop getting up in the face of other countries halfway around the world.

*Close Guantanamo and reaffirm our support for the Geneva Convention.

*Refuse to engage in unconstitutional wiretapping.

*Issue a wide range of environmental and workplace safety regulations.

*Change the emphasis of law enforcement away from the War on Drugs.

*Negotiate fair trade agreements.

I think barely human has the right idea.

To RSJ (4:40)--Why do you think we don't know how Congress would fight a President Nader? Unlike the Obama supporters, we do tend to look at the future and at results. As president, Nader wouldn't be shy about putting real issues before the people. By opposing him in Congress, elected officials would be forced to show their true colors to the folks back home. Right now the Democrats can collaborate with the Republicans to keep everything obfuscated, but when the president uses the bully pulpit to force Congress to take some action (even for the bad), these things will finally see the light of day.

As for telling the difference between the "radical-right McCain and 'moderate' Obama", where is that difference when they both want to keep soldiers in Iraq? Where's the difference when neither supports single-payer not-for-profit healthcare? Where's the difference when they're both willing to attack Iran?

The truth of the matter is that there is way more than a dimes worth of difference between McCain and Obama.
Obama is raising way more in campaign contributions from the masters of capitolism,WALL STREET< TEL-COMS,ADL, INSURENCE COs ect than McCain-wonder why???????
But when it comes to ideas and agenders there is NO NO DIFFERENCE !!!!!

Welcome Republicans! So glad to see your here!

It took me a while to realize that "Osame" was not a misspelling of "Osama". Boy, that threw me.
Well, why not? You already have one old man who is driven by passionate but archaic convictions and has no qualms about bombing people; why not another?

In the meantime, Obama's vote for domestic-espionage immunity demonstrates the truth of the old saying, "Politicians are like monkeys: The higher they climb the tree, the more disgusting the parts they show." Some time ago (in a comment to "Get Out, Hillary" by David Michael Green, April 25 2008, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/25/8526) I pointed out the folly of supporting candidates on the basis of their "electability".

Then again, all you advocates of Kucinich, Gravel, McKinney, Nader etc., beware: You might not like what you see if they ever start brachiating close to the Presidential branch of government ...

There is no difference whatsoever between Obama and McCain. Both of
them are owned and controlled by big Money/Business and will follow
almost the same foreign and domestic policies with minor cosmotic
differences.
So, voting for the lesser of 2 evils or the least imperfect will not
do. It will perpetuate the current situation. The only hope is a strong
third party. Yes, definitely it will lose in the next election but
as time goes on and people get more aware it will eventually win elections.
It will take several election cycles but this is the only way to get
REAL change.

I believe that voting for Obama will make a difference.

I believe that Obama will end the war, corporate corruption, and enact universal health care.

I believe that when Obama professes to be religious, it will mean that he will be against the death penalty.

NOT !!!

Vote third party, make your vote count for real change.

^^haha.

AthenaAwakened said:

"Don't look for leadership in a single person or even a single party.
We are the ones we have been waiting for.
Organize! Organize! Organize!
Lobby! Petition! PROTEST!

A people united can move any politician any way it wishes."

Hi Athena!

-BS Lewis

Interesting how progressive candidates such as Nader haven't budged an inch while O'Bama has been slammed around like a pinball. Where will president O'Bama be after the next smack by the rubber bumper? President Nader will never budge an inch from the greatest political platform thus developed - the progressive platform.

If you're a visiting evangelical, remember that there is no retroactive forgiveness from God for lying if it is causing the destruction of His creation and bringing mayhem and death to your brothers and sisters.

You will not get raptured into heaven no matter what rich tv preachers and other false prophets say. You will burn in hell forever.

Think of that.

All politicians lie so vote for a liar?

Sorry... not buying it. Have been lied to enough. My vote isn't that cheap. I will not vote for Obama for his lies and deceit, but perhaps things have to get much worse before they get better, I may vote for McCain in protest.

Obama's integrity is all tapped out - He had me at hope and change. He lost me with lies and deceit.

It is not we who should be supporting Ralph Nader. it is Ralph who might consider supporting us, by throwing his lot in with the Greens, to help enlarge and strengthen the growing progressive movement.

Without a strong, unified progressive movement we have zero political clout.

Ralph's independent candidacy is splitting the progressive vote, thus insuring that we will continue to have zero political clout.

His politics and the Green's are practically identical, so, since he must know he will not win, why doesn't he support the Greens and help build the movement?

He is having the same effect on the progressive movement as the candidacy of Obama -- preventing it from growing, insuring its impotence.

I've always liked Ralph Nader, but in this instance he disappoints me.

For me, too often it is party politics, whatever party, that often gets in the way, so for better or worse, I have decided to concentrate on candidates positions and policies on particular issues, regardless of party, color or gender because it is the candidates themselves who will be the ones to propose, fight for and vote on the particular laws, rules etc. that flesh out, fund and enforce the policies and procedures we will have. I didn't have to wait for Obama's FISA fiasco to decide. For me single payer is a make or break issue. Obama's (as well as Clinton's) claim to support "universal healthcare" when his (or her) proposal clearly did not pave the way for it and was in fact just another way to subsidize insurance companies was a dead giveaway. When he added his NAFTA nonsense, what else is there to say? At that point, his AIPAC allegiance was frosting on the cake. By the time he got to FISA, I was already pretty disgusted.

I don't know exactly what the issues are with Nader and "Green Central", but I think he does back Green objectives and individual Green candidates. I like McKinney but will probably vote Nader because it seems the Greens are taking a bit too long to get their act together and time's a wasting, as they say. I was also turned off by their "safe state" strategy whereby they would not compete in swing states lest they "endanger" the Dem. As far as I'm, concerned, unless the Dems clean up their act considerably, they deserve no more protection than the Reps. The Dem. party, as a whole, deserves to be an endangered species, in my opinion, although it does have a few stars, e.g. Kucinich. If the Greens do this again, I cannot believe they are truly serious.

I really believe that the only way to get what you need is to vote for the candidate that supports the plan that will take you there. I have been in the health care field long enough to be truly alarmed at what is happening, not only to accessibility for the public, but to the morale of the practitioners at all levels. Nothing short of single payer has a chance of fixing it, so for me this is a no-brainer.

Nader has been consistent, principled and on the correct (as opposed to the "right") side of the issues I feel strongly about, and, as expressed in a post above, my vote is too important to me to throw away on someone who clearly would not advocate for what so many of us in this country truly need. The person must earn my vote. Kucinich did, Nader does, Obama (and, obviously, McCain) do(es) not. We will get the gov't we vote for. If we focus on what we need instead of who we "want", I really think our choices will be clearer and our decisions easier.

As for the comment above that a people united can move any politician any way it wishes, I must respectfully dissent. Once the pol has your vote, your leverage is gone, unless you have a large check book. You can make all the noise in whatever numbers you want, but unless the pol clearly understands that (s)he will lose your vote if (s)he fails to meet your need/demand, you will be whistling in the wind, no more than, as George Bush would say, a focus group. This is why all the pols,, Dems as well as Reps, move Right for elections. The Right wing has a great deal more credibility than the Left when it comes to voting on their principles and knowing and defining what they are in the first place. That is one page the Left needs to take from the Right Wing's book - do not sell your vote cheaply, do not give it away on a hunch or a hope, and if you want change demand more than four quarters for a dollar.

I think barely human [July 9th, 2008 4:57 pm] has the right idea,
"Why not vote for Obama for president and then Greens for the rest of the ballot?" and I have been doing that for many years. Any third party president will need a base of support in Congress, and in the states in order to be successful.

Hank Fur [July 9th, 2008 6:46 pm], do you really think Obama was voting to kill millions of Iraqis? Do you think if he had voted against any Iraq funding, which would have included funding for our troops, it would have made any difference? The bills he voted on are complicated instruments -- vote against war funding and you're are also voting to defund the troops on the ground. Bush has been holding the troops hostage, and Obama knew that many other Dems would not join him in voting against funding for Iraq, so that it would have been a useless expenditure of political capital to achieve nothing. That may not be the way it's supposed to work in civics class, but that's the way it works in reality. BTW, did you know Obama proposed a bill in 2007 to cut funds for the surge and establish a timeline for withdrawal? He couldn't get most of the other Dems in Congress to support it.

Hank Fur [July 9th, 2008 7:02 pm], you can't say that Obama is going to 'sell your civil rights away' forever -- you can't possibly know that. In fact, Sen. Russ Feingold who deplores and voted against the FISA bill that Obama voted for yesterday, said on Countdown last night that he thought a President Obama would prosecute corporate lawbreakers and work to restore our Constitution. He knows and has worked with Obama -- do you think he doesn't know what he's talking about?

VAGreen [July 9th, 2008 9:19 pm], good for you. Thanks for providing thoughtful, serious answers to my questions. Here are my comments in response.

VAGreen: ,em>"1. Nader actually did work to build the Green Party from 2000 to 2003. He campaigned for our candidates and held numerous fundraising events around the country. I was at one of them in DC in December 2001. The people who have written articles accusing Nader of not building the Green Party weren't."

VAGreen, I gave money to and voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, as well as defended him against assaults from Dems. While he may have given some speeches to the Greens following the 2000 election, he certainly didn't work very hard to build the party, and he ran as an independent in 2004, abandoning them completely. I didn't vote for Nader in 2000 thinking he would win, but I did think he would keep his promise to work to build the Greens into a viable third party, bringing celebs like Michael Moore and Bill Murray along with him, which would have garnered free Big Media attention. I've heard that Moore and Murray quit in disgust when they realized that Ralph had no intention of keeping his promise and that the disorganized Greens are more interested in fighting with each other than the two major parties. Next time anyone says Ralph doesn't lie, though, remind them of this less-than-sterling episode. Ironically, if Nader had worked to build up the Greens, he might be a viable candidate this year. Instead, he's out peddling his books again, as he does every four years.

VAGreen: "2. Nader and McKinney will probably be on enough ballots to have a chance to win the Electoral College. They do face an uphill battle, especially running separate campaigns."

And if they aren't then people shouldn't vote for them? Perhaps, as in 2004, Republican groups will donate to help Nader gain ballot access in some states to act as a spoiler to Obama, but that's by no means assured. (I would hope the 'principled' Nader would refuse that money, but he didn't in 2004.) Nader and McKinney -- especially McKinney -- are not getting the free media they need this year so that lessens the odds that they will attain ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win. Aside from that, the electors in each state can legally change their vote from whomever the voters select to their own personal choice. Consequently, let's say Nader gets a majority of the popular vote in Florida, but, running as an independent, he has no electors in the Electoral College, so must depend on some Democrats or Republicans to vote for him. Does it sound feasible to you that Democrats and Republicans in Florida would vote to put Nader in the presidency, even should he win the popular vote there? Talk about an uphill battle -- they are fighting with wet noodles on a greased slide.

As to your other comment, it's true that third party candidates and activists often influence the major party candidates to adopt new programs, as Norman Thomas and Upton Sinclair did with Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, but it still took a skillful major party politician like FDR, with all of the ugliness and compromise that term 'politician' entails, to enact such things as Social Security, the WPA and the CCC. I'm hoping Obama will be even half the president that FDR was and turn the country around to a more progressive course. Even if I'm wrong, though, and Obama turns out to be the same kind of 'moderate' as Bill Clinton, we will still be better off than with Crazy McCain. Clinton was at least centrist-conservative as opposed to neocon radical right.

VAGreen: "3. Many third party activists are aware that there are multiple branches of government. That's why they are supporting Green and progressive independent candidates for the House and Senate."

That is exactly the right thing to do. Forget the presidency for the moment and concentrate on building a solid presence in the US Congress and in statehouses around the country, and changing the ballot access laws and eliminating the Electoral College while you're at it. In four or eight years, you might have a strong enough third party where the BM couldn't avoid covering you, the public is aware of your existence and donating money, and your presidential candidate cannot be kept out of the debates. Then you have a real chance of winning the presidency.

As to your list of what McKinney would do, Obama has also pledged to do the same things with this exception: He has not addressed ending the war on drugs as a presidential candidate, although he has supported medical treatment of drug addicts instead of incarceration when he was an Illinois State Senator.

goner [July 9th, 2008 10:14 pm], I've already answered your first paragraph in my response the VAGreen, and Nader's not going to be president, so I'll go to the second paragraph. You wrote: "As for telling the difference between the 'radical-right McCain' and 'moderate' Obama", where is that difference when they both want to keep soldiers in Iraq? Where's the difference when neither supports single-payer not-for-profit healthcare? Where's the difference when they're both willing to attack Iran?"

(Big Al Gore sigh), Obama just said yesterday he is going to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home, except for a small force. McCain is going to stay there until we achieve 'victory,' whatever that is. Obama favors single-payer health care, but knows it is not going to pass Congress in the near future, so he has a stopgap plan to guarantee health care to those who need it. McCain is going to hand the working middle-class an inadequate tax rebate and do nothing for the poor or jobless. Obama has said he wants to negotiate with Iran, not attack them. McCain has said he will attack Iran, possibly even before they build a nuclear weapon. So, there is a difference on those issues.

Angry Kraut [July 10th, 2008 1:44 am], you show a rare grasp of the true situation: "Then again, all you advocates of Kucinich, Gravel, McKinney, Nader etc., beware: You might not like what you see if they ever start brachiating close to the Presidential branch of government." As Lincoln put it, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." Ralph Nader, according to comments from former Nader's Raiders, can be very dictatorial and high-handed, and doesn't take well to being corrected. He also doesn't 'play well with others' -- he's a 'my way or the highway' kind of guy, and I think we've had enough of that in the past eight years.

rtdrury [July 10th, 2008 4:07 am] wrote: "Interesting how progressive candidates such as Nader haven't budged an inch while O'Bama has been slammed around like a pinball. Where will president O'Bama be after the next smack by the rubber bumper? President Nader will never budge an inch from the greatest political platform thus developed -- the progressive platform."

Nader hasn't budged an inch because there's nothing on the line. He knows he has no power and he's not getting elected but all of the free publicity generated by his presidential campaign is good for selling his books. Where things get complicated is when you have to make a decision -- a decision that may affect some people badly. For example: pulling all of our troops out of Iraq. Great idea, let's just pull out all of the troops right away! Fine, but what happens to the Iraqis who have been helping us for years? They and their families will be imprisoned or killed for cooperating with the hated US occupiers, so your decision to pull out would cause their jailing or death. Okay, you say, so let's just bring them all over here when we leave. First of all, they may not want to come here but, even if they do, where are you going to get the money -- we're deeply in debt, remember, our economy is shaky, and Americans need help -- to pay for this massive importation of people, and for their living expenses, and how are you going to get that pricey gem through Congress? We are talking here about at least a hundred thousand people -- what state would you have them reside in and will the local inhabitants have a say in who their neighbors are? Or will you split them up like the survivors of Hurricane Katrina? And, while we're on the subject, what are you going to do about all of the hundreds of thousands of Kurds who have helped us? They are hated by both the Sunni and the Shia and, once we leave, they will not be able to defend themselves from those two much larger groups, unless we arm them better, which would lead to more violence in Iraq and more death. How would you feel if, after President Nader removed all of our troops from Iraq, the Shia invaded Kurdistan and massacred ten thousand people? Would you wash your hands of their blood and give Ralph a pass because he's a progressive? Things are easy when you're Ralph Nader who has no power or responsibility, or his supporters who think all the answers are simple bumper-sticker slogans enacted by a wave of the presidential wand -- much harder in the real world of complexity and compromise where every action has an equal -- sometimes unequal -- and opposite reaction. These are some of the reasons Obama favors a phased withdrawal from Iraq and leaving a small force behind.

Yes, toast [July 10th, 2008 12:35 pm], all politicians are liars on occasion, just like the rest of the human race. If you protest you aren't, I'll definitely know you're one as well.

doodledoo [July 10th, 2008 3:28 pm], you have a good idea, but it's not going to happen. Nader is much too rigid in his thinking to do what you suggest.

"Don't you call Nader supporters brain-dead. All the Democratic party has done since they got elected in 2006 is enable the current administration's crimes. I think it is the Dems base who are brain-dead."
-- ladybug July 9th, 2008 5:24 pm

Huh? How exactly does the Democrats horrible performance in Congress in any way have to do with Ralph Nader being a worthless, conceited tool? That's like saying since George W Bush is the worst president in history, that means Ralph Nader supporters aren't starry-eyed, childish morons. Those 2 facts, while both are true, are unrelated.

RSJ July 11th, 2008 7:01 am

Nice analysis. Certainly a 3rd party candidate would have a very difficult time if elected without congressional backing.

I really don't expect Ralph Nader to do as I suggested. My comments were intended to help divert votes from him to the Greens.

You wrote "... the electors in each state can legally change their vote from whomever the voters select to their own personal choice."

That's true, and I don't doubt that many would do it. That provision was one of the tactics the founding fathers devised to ensure that our democracy would not become unmanageable for the real rulers. The implication seems to be that we will never be able to install a third party candidate, even if elected, until the Electoral College is revised to prevent personal choice, or better still, abolished.

doodledoo [July 11th, 2008 5:52 pm], this is why it's so important for third party progressives to get elected to statehouses and Congress. In order to have a viable third party candidate for president, the Electoral College needs to be dumped, along with the crazy-quilt ballot access laws that vary from state to state and were written to keep the Dems and GOP in power. Limiting corporate control and consolidation of our media is another thing that must be done. To do any of this requires elected officials in the states and in Congress. In fact, the president has no power to change any of these things.

Another idea is for the Greens and other like-minded progressives to move in and take over the Dems from the ground up, starting with local party offices. Either way would be tough, but it's the only way I can see to insure that a progressive candidate will get a forum in the present national atmosphere.

Meanwhile, this year we're going to have a president and it's either Obama or McCain. Obama, to my way of thinking, is clearly the better candidate.