Nader was never really the Green Party's chosen candidate. He isn't even a member of the party.

He also does not really hold values that are that progressive: As a feminist, he is one of the last people for whom I would vote. His stand on women's issues has always been weak.

"The Nader magic had diminished significantly by 2004, and is diminished further today."

Yes - he was buried under 23 lawsuits and hundreds of "pro-bono" corporate lawyers by the DLC Dems. Signature gatherers were threatened, fake names placed in the petitions, etc. He has filed suit for 2004 this year in preparation for the next DNC/DLC felony.

Details here:

http://newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com/2007/10/democratic-party-sued-for-anti.html

In August 2004, Kerry said he'd do what Bush did in Iraq. That's who the DNC/DLC peddled?

And let's not forget "Nukes ain't carbon" Al and his pal Lieberman. Both voted to confirm Scalia. Lieberman cheerled the (current) war, ran against the Democrat in his home state, and is next to McCain on the all the hustings. Al Gore was bashing Bush I in 1992 for not overthrowing Saddam.

So, look at your paycheck, look at Wall Street, look at the military budget, look at your family's health care prospects, look at the FDA, FCC (Telecomm Act of 1996), NAFTA/CAFTA, look at any regulations passed since 1993, look at "impeachment off the table", Israel/Palestine and laying waste to Lebanon, Cuba policy, trade policy, Iraq/Iran, the spineless, corrupt Dem-controlled Senate and House - and tell us the difference.

It's great that an African American and woman are running as (major) party candidates. I don't need a marketing effort - I need a candidate! What about the fricking ISSUES?!?!

Bye-bye, you dumb Dems.

Remember when the founder of the environmental movement called Gore the most evil person ever... Evidently you don't!!!

And here, don't we have to wonder why, so far, no candidate has emulated George W. and called for limits on greenhouse emissions from power stations--the worst polluters...???

Maybe because they're too damn busy advocating the Emmissions Trading Scheme: "A year ago, Citigroup's Peter Atherton confessed in a PowerPoint that the EU-ETS (European Union-Emission Trading Scheme) had 'done nothing to curb emissions' and acted as 'a highly regressive tax falling mostly on poor people.' On whether policy goals were achieved, he admitted: 'Prices up, emissions up, profits up ... so, not really. Who wins and loses? All generation-based utilities--winners. Coal and nuclear-based generators--biggest winners. Hedge finds and energy traders--even bigger winners. Losers ... ahem ... Consumers!" Kevin Smith, The Case Against Carbon Trading, Transnational Institute.

Sometimes I wonder whether people are really as stupid as it seems--or is this some kind of Big Business, Big Mojo conspiracy???!!!

An Open Letter to Ralph Nadar

Mr. Nadar

There is no doubt that your last self serving electoral process substantially contributed to the past 8 years of degradation in this country. No doubt at all. Quite honestly, I can't even accept your protestations to the contrary as genuine any longer. I also feel that your actions have significantly moved back a legitimate third party process in this country.

I believed in your message, once, as did so many others. If you did, in fact, represent a true opposition, you would have been engaged and participatory during these past years. The fact that you only seem to move towards the cameras when the lights are the brightest and the effort the least shames progressive politics and that which you once represented.

While I am not much of a conspiratorial theorist, your connections and motivations have become incredibly suspect. Please don't shame yourself or the progressive movement once again. And please show respect for those Progressives and Democrats who have believed in your work and message and care about the future of our country. Only once the Republican degradation has ended will we be able to move forward.

Inasmuch as you have absolutely no chance for winning and have shown no interest in working at or actually representing your message otherwise, please let us know why you are re-engaging this foolhardy charade.

My mistake...NadER

Nader will make about 1/3 the impression that Kucinich made. He's a non-starter and it is crazy that he would run. At this point you need to wonder about his ego.
We got a shot with Obama. A damn good one. He isn't a neo-con like Billary and he isn't a party puppet like Kerry. Forget about Nader and let’s catapult Obama to the White House and hold his accountable every step of the way.

Say it brother Lou!

I got a feeling that this one will get a lot of comments. If the over/under is 30, I'll take the over.

I for one am always open to the idea of a third party candidate, but it would be a lot better if we had Australian ballets (first, second, and third choices). Given Gore's positions on some issues like free trade I can see why some people turned against him and toward Nader, and given Hillary's history on issues like trade and the war I can see why some people would turn for Nader if she won the nomination. The one thing I can't figure out is why Nader running now that Obama is the obvious front runner. Nader initially endorsed Edwards because he had that impressive progressive master plan and a strong stance on the issues, but now he's (probably) going to be running against Obama and I can't figure out why. Is it because Obama isn't progressive enough for Nader's taste? Obama may act a bit moderate for my tastes too, but let's face it his record on the war (especially in comparison to Hillary's), his rasing the issue of Hillary's consistent position on trade, and his campaign being financed mostly by supporters and not corporations all go together to make him a great and credible progressive candidate. I could see myself voting for Nader on the off chance that Hillary steals the nomination with super delegates, but if Obama gets the nomination Nader's candidacy would be more pointless than Mike Gravel's was.

"last self serving electoral process substantially contributed to the past 8 years of degradation in this country"

Nader is the DLC/DNC excuse for their poor candidates. Gore/Liberman didn't win Arkansas or TN. Even Mondale won Minnesota (and DC) in 1984 and lost everything. Maybe the Republicans should be prevented from running - then any idiot the DLC puts up will win, like they are "entitled" to. The other reason the DLC/DNC dumps on Nader is to keep the peace and justice people pulling the DNC lever again and again.

News flash: Nader was buried under lawsuits in 2004 and Kerry still LOST!

"your connections and motivations have become incredibly suspect"

Ralph's motivations are all above-board. What you see is what you get. Can you say the same for the lobbyist-controlled DNC and RNC and their 527 pals?

Go to opensecrets.org and look how the corporate 2008 money flows - then watch what comes out of their mouths.

"Inasmuch as you have absolutely no chance for winning"

Like "Mr. Insurance" Chris Dodd? Tom Tancredo? Where are the Whigs?

One reason to run is to get party status. And why is it OK for Reps and Dems run against entrenched opposing party incumbents?

Sorry, but this is all called DEMOCRACY. Ralph isn't busy keeping the DNC/RNC off the ballot, so relax and vote for whoever you want. Please let your DNC know they should stop conspiring - illegally - against OUR candidate, OK?

He, he, he--who's talking up a "junior United States Senator ... who has accomplished nothing thus far in the Senate ..."

Barack Obama doesn't look very angelic after you've read the aticle Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate, Mike McIntire, The NY Times, 02/03/08.

According to the so-called CEO of Hip-Hop, Russell Simmons--Obama "... collected more than any other Democratic candidate from Wall Street people. So at the end of the day, he's controlled, too. That's my point. He's a mouse, too, like everyone else."

Yeah--the Mouse that Roared!!! "I was a strong supporter of the war in Afhganistan. But I said I could not support a 'dumb war, a rash war' in Iraq. I worrried about a 'U.S. occupation of untermined length, at undetermined cost, with undertermined consequences' in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we 'finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda.'"

Obama once suggested that the U.S. "one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs."

My point is that Russia was forced to pull out of Afghanistan--so shouldn't we be worrying about an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost??? What--he doesn't have a man-child of draft age...???

We should have "countered" the terrorist training camps with surgical strikes...

On the subject of things surgical...: "Salaries paid to top hospital executives grew an estimated 95 percent from 2002-2006, according to a task force ..." In 2005, Mrs. Obama received $316,962 in total compensation as a hospital executive (both are Harvard lawyers...).

Forget he's a Harvard lawyer...--he's for ethanol (BIG WONDER!!!)--a MIT report says that ethanol actually increases greenhouse gases, smog, plus it significantly increases the price of natural gas!!!

Well, I am sorry--but explain to me how in the world anyone could possibly trust Obama, or Clinton, or McCain???!!!

Yikes--some real, real scary folks (or is it just me???!!!)

The problem is:

We have a "majority" rule so a "winner takes all" - now explain to me how a third party (or 4th or 5th) can make a serious run?

It is a two party system because THAT serves the two parties.

Until and unless we ever get IRV (instant run-off voting) there will be no real consideration of any third party.

"how in the world anyone could possibly trust Obama, or Clinton, or McCain?"

Are you seriously saying someone SHOULD trust ANY politician? That third party candidates are trustworthy because they are a third party?

Are you serious?

Politicians SUCK all of them - but we will have one of the three you list taking up the WH soon - so should it be HRC, BHO or McCain?

These BS protest votes (I just can't vote for the r's or d's) favor the worst candidate and never offers hope to the best.

Sorry you don't like the only actual potential candidates. A protest vote is better than the jerks that never vote, so good on ya.

Energy Independence Now!

No more Oil Wars!

Stop funding the terrorists!

Drill in Anwar.

Build more nuclear power plants

Use More coal.

Use more natural gas

Turn trash into energy

Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.

If France can do nuclear power so can we.

If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.

If Australia can do LNG power so can we.

Domestically produced energy will end recession and spur the economy.

Chief:

You're saying that should the Dem. and Rep. candidates come right out and say:

1./ prepare for the draft because oil is worth more than certain young lives,

2./ prepare for more smog bcause coddling ADM (ethanol) is more important than our lungs (or global warming),

3./ prepare to pay more for virtually everything because the Emissions Trading Scheme represents an awful lot of money to certain VIPs...

In fact, Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all in favor of the H1B visa program--which allows employers to hire skilled immigrants instead of their U.S counterparts...

Obama says, "Those with advanced degrees (MS or PhD) from US colleges are typically the most desirable. This group should not be subjected to any H1B quotas. These are the people that are most valuable to maintain our competitive edge. They come to the US to get world-class graduate education and it is madness to let go of them."

He, he, he--isn't he the fool???!!!

Most people of integrity will vote for Ralph Nader. The two major parties are both controlled by big money capitalists and Wall Street. There are many books on this subject. You know it, vote for what is right.

"He, he, he--isn't he the fool???!!!"

Um, which one isn't a fool?

The issue I spoke to was - one of those three will be president.

Soon it will be a choice between two.

People will make their choices and I am not lobbying for one over the other.

In a choice between BHO and McCain I would vote for BHO - but that is just me.

The idea that some kind of a protest vote means something is another question.

Without IRV no third party candidate has a chance.

Are you seriously saying that voting for a third party candidate will change the H1B program?

If that makes sense to you - go for it!

Answer: Not Much.

Sure, I'd like to see an electable candidate with no ties to corporate [Un-]America. Edwards was the closest candidate to that. Hillary makes a big claim about univeral healthcare but most of her campaign money comes from that section of business. IE Dont buy the canards.

We have to create some other form of politicians rasing campaign contributions.

Why not support ethanol? I could believe that corn ethanol could be worse on emissions given how much other energy goes into refining it, but corn is just a step toward better methods of refinement, namely cellulostic. There is a lot going for cellulostic ethanol if it can be done as cheaply and cleanly as people are predicting, it could be under $1 a gallon, and if it can produce energy at the 8 or 10 to return ratio that is predicted the emissions created it making it would pale in comparison to the emissions it would offset. The fuel its self burns a lot cleaner than any fossil fuel could hope to, its practically zero emissions. It may produce CO2 when burned but of course that is CO2 that the plants it was made from going back into the atmosphere, a net emissions of nearly zero. You ought to find a better reason for not supporting a candidate than ethanol because while it may not work now the future potential is huge.

It seems as though Nader's cause has gone from green, to a self serving, one man narcissistic, hell bent vendetta against the Democratic Party for the perceived unjust attack on his previous presidential Bid. (Lawsuits, contesting of signed petitions and so forth) I agree totally with Lou Sandler.

You say Nader, I say fool.
Nader: Fool
Nader: Fool
Nader: Fool
Nader - Nader - Nader
Fool - fool - fool.

Can't believe that any real leftist, liberal, progressive is negative on Nader. I know you aren't fooled by Hilary, but you really believe in Obama? Here's a guy who voted for the Cheney energy bill which gave billions of profits to the energy folks; who was buddies with Lieberman for the whole time until 2 or 3 weeks before the election when he faintly supported the real democrat. He is not ignorant of earmarks and then getting contributions from the beneficiaries of those earmarks-- yes not as much as others have, but hey he is only a beginner. Give me a break, please, about his so-called health plan. So, you say, he is better than the other guy-we can't afford more years of THAT.But he is only a "pain pill" that America badly wants because it really doesn't want real change yet--just something to make it easier to shop at the mall or on internet. Eventually the pain will get overwhelming and then America will vote for some real change like it did in 1930. In the meanwhile I will vote for the person who is for REAl change.

The argument about ethanol misses the point where gasoline is mixed into the E85 equation.

And that's where the message is in the medium...

I think the future should be in offshore wind farms; some people say hurricanes would be the bane there--but again, the big message is that I seem to be the only one who finds it remarkable that we're polluting more by going green..., or that here's this great opportunity to make cars that operate virtually free (imagine home solar panels...)--but instead we're burning all kinds of crap under the hood (as in who needs the heat of the running engine).

I mean I'm not a leading Presidential candidate here...

Mr. Stein,

Mother Jones hired you? Didn't you used to work for the ultra conservative shill, Chicago News Tribune? Is your article supposed to be an example of "smart, fearless journalism?" It's striking how true Hersh's (You know who Seymour Hersh is, don't you?) comment was a few years ago how since the Bush administration has come to power, words no longer have any meaning. Your words, Mr. Stein, are a perfect example. Not a single word is true. You're not a journalist. You're a shill. If Mother Jones is content in having you, they forfeit their integrity and no longer fulfill a purpose.

Michael L. Wagner – I wouldn’t look to Russ Simons for political advice.
Good point on solar. Subsidies from the 2005 energy plan should be reinstated and states should expand their solar and wind subsidies to make it cost effective. In the end, it is in the states interest to lessen the load on the current infrastructure.
poetryman69 – ANWAR is a bad idea. According to USGS data, it will take 20 to 30 years for ANWAR to provide 5% of our current oil demand. Those are FACTS.
“If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.” – Their ethanol is largely from sugar cane. To get that, they cut down rain forest. See where I’m going…
Ethanol from corn is a total scam.
Nukes sound good, but remember that you have a 10,000 years to deal with the waste. Think about it – 10,000 years!!!
As for ethanol from biomas and alge, yes we should be going in that direction. Sustainable and with an excellent energy balance.
In the end, conservation is the key. Remember when “conservatives” were actually for conservation???

What it comes down to is that we as a country are totally screwed. We have a economy based on consumption that is just about to tank and because Americans spend more than they take in. To keep people from going bankrupt or loosing their homes (which should happen to accelerate the recovery) the government is going to intervene. That is NEVER a good thing because it will put off and exacerbate the inevitable.
As for energy, health care and food – those too are big problems that are not being addressed. I do not see Nader capable of being a leader and only being a protest vote. When it comes down to it, Obama has the fewest connections and least debts to pay.
As for the Wall St. money, they are going that way because they want a CO2 Cap and Trade which is total BS. It only creates an unnecessary market for traders to skim off of.

What I would like to see is a study of the last 7 elections, what candidates “promised” and what was delivered. In the end, a president really doesn’t do much and all this crap about health care reform is hooie. It will NEVER happen. And if it does, lord help us all.

He has my vote, again.
and for those whinney so-called progressives, your man BO has it right when he says that the job of the Democrats is to be so compleeling that a few percentage points should not matter. So far I don't hear anything compelling, except from Nader.

With Nader, Carbon Tax Is Back in the Debate
By Dan Shapely, The Daily Green 2 25, 2008

Nuclear Power, and Corporate Personhood, Would Exit Stage Left
Ralph Nader has joined the race for U.S. president, and with him may come increased debate about nuclear power, corporate personhood and a carbon tax.

A carbon tax, a ban on nuclear power and an end to "corporate personhood" are among the platforms that Ralph Nader is bringing to the table, as he launches his fifth bid to be president of the United States.

The accomplished consumer advocate and far left-wing darling said he's running to bring up issues that have been ignored by the major party candidates left in the race.

On the environmental side, those include the carbon tax, which had been championed by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd before he dropped out of the race following the Iowa caucuses. Some economists have argued that a tax on carbon would be the most efficient way to reduce the greenhouse emissions fueling global warming, but all the major party candidates with a chance at their party's nomination – Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican John McCain – all favor a cap-and-trade regulation to limit greenhouse gas pollution and allow polluters to trade pollution credits in a regulated market.

Nader also has a hard line against nuclear power, which McCain supports, and which both Democrats have described as a possibility. Nuclear power has long been opposed by environmentalists because its waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, but some have embraced it in the era of global warming, given that it can produce huge amounts of energy without greenhouse gas emissions (after the mining and processing of fuel is accounted for).

Finally, Nader would take a revolutionary step in removing corporate personhood, which some argue gives companies undue legal cover for harming the environment and human health.

Hey Kirkbrew,
Don't be fooled that BO has no connections.....it costs a lot of money to run any kind of campaign in the USofA. From what I have read, the banks that are funding sub-prime mortages are funding BO

Ralph Nader has my vote. He has courage to speak out against the big corporations. The other candidates all take money from the big corporations. The choice is simple.

Nader is the pinch-hitter for Kushinic. Having failed miserably, Nader becomes the re-do. If people wanted Nader, they would have voted for Kushinich.

Trollstein, you just hate Nader because he has Arab ancestry and you are a Likud Party shrill.

As an Independent, plan to look closely at his take on Corporate deception and it's Take over of our Government. It could be that I may actually have a choice this time.

Also to date, no one has truly challenged our Militarism, which is our new religion of fear.

Nader must have the Harold Stassen syndrome. Stassen ran for president nine times, only two of them seriously the last time at 85 years old. A sad end for the war hero/ governor of Minnesota from World War II.
Nader had a solid reputation as a crusader before 2000 and again in the last two elections. Also sad.

Ralph Nader did not “cost Al Gore the presidency”. I am so sick of those misinformed journalists who have been perpetuating this myth and used it to blame Nader for the failures of the Democratic Party. Here are a few facts: According to exit polling, those who voted for Nader were first time voters, formerly Perot voters. Sixty-two percent of Nader's voters were Republicans, independents, third-party voters and nonvoters. In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Ralph "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin. In other words, many of his voters did not naturally belong to the Democratic Party. Remember that the Democrats lost the 2002 congressional elections, the California and New York governorships, and many state legislatures throughout the country." Surely Nader is not to blame for those defeats.

Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election for many reasons: First, remember that Al Gore actually won the election in 2000. George W. Bush, the Supreme court stop of the recount , Gore who decided not to contest the election, Katherine Harris-style purging of ninety thousands of non ex-felons from the voter roles, more than 250,000 Democrats in Florida, and the deceptive butterfly ballot, which Democratic officials approved, cost Al Gore the election. And you know what else cost Al Gore the election? The Democratic Party itself that, while defending corporate interests, voted for or failed to stop: The Iraq war resolution turning Bush into a wartime president, The Patriot Act, John Ashcroft, Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, The Medicare fiasco, etc.

The excellent documentary, "Ralph Nader, an unreasonable man", shows that during the campaign, Nader offered to meet with Gore and was about to leave the election in exchange for some compromise. Gore refused and so committed a fatal flaw. It's the responsibility of any candidate to form a coalition but Gore chose not to work with Nader. This was the Gore effect, not the Nader effect.

If one accepts the flawed logic that suggests Ralph 'cost' Gore two states (New Hampshire and Florida), then it would also follow that Buchanan 'cost' Bush four states (Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico) in 2000. CNN’s polling data said that if neither Nader nor Buchanan had run, Bush would have beat Gore 48 to 47 percent, with 4 percent who voted not voting.

No one is entitled to votes, they must be earned. Although, I voted for Gore I regret I didn't vote for Nader. I won't do that mistake again. To say someone has a negative effect is to relegate all third-party and independent candidates to second class citizenship. American does not belong to two parties.

For the last four years Democrats and media pundits have been smearing Ralph Nader and the Greens, oblivious to the facts, looking for a scapegoat for the failures of their own party and its candidates.
It is not the job of third-party or Independent candidates to make sure either of the two major parties wins. That would be like asking Toyota to stop manufacturing cars so GM, Chrysler, and Ford increase their market share.
Moreover, there are 100 million people in this country who do not vote. There are plenty of nonvoters for all candidates to attract.

At what point do you stop relying on a party to be an opposition party and start asking what else needs to be done to put some spine into Washington politics? How much BS can we take?

Voting for a third party is more than making a symbolic statement; it's making sure you have the right candidate in the office, a candidate whose values best reflects yours, who can end this old political monopoly, not to support one wing of that monopoly as a lesser evil against the other wing. To select the lesser of the evils is a matter of opinion, what about voting for no evil at all??

Ralph Nader--um, isn't he the guy who saw no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore?

"Can't believe that any real leftist, liberal, progressive is negative on Nader."

Well, if "progressive" still = feminism (something I'm really doubting these days), then I am very negative on Nader, yes.

While the people "in the know" trash Nader, people in the street will give him a listen. They know from personal experience that the major parties avoid their problems or make promises they never intend to keep. Credit Card Debt Servitude is the new corporate slavery.So Nader confirms what ordinary people already know.That's why Nader is feared and despised by the Smart Guys.People in the street figure this out.

As an Independent I will take a close look at Ralph Nader's position on Corporate Corruption and Corporate take over of our government. Interested to see if he has any criticism of our new religion of fear, Militarism and it's economic consequences.

As an Independent I will take a close look at Ralph Nader's position on Corporate Corruption and Corporate take over of our government. Interested to see if he has any criticism of our new religion of fear, Militarism and it's economic consequences.

Those of you who are urging Nader to run are forgetting a couple of things. First the Green Party already has a candidate (Cynthia McKinney), and I betting money that (especially now that he's facing strong opposition for his congressional seat due to his now very well known stance on the Iraq Occupation) Paul will be handed the Libertarian Party baton. The Greens have the foot soldiers to have a very visible, if inexpensive campaign in most states. Paul has done squat with his funds in the GOP nomination, so will have enough money to do national buys on the airways, and he has a stout cadre of followers who will remind most every voter that there is an alternative to the 2 major parties in just about every state. Both parties are fielding candidates who know enough of "nuts and bolts politics" to give very credible visions of how the country can be led from an alternative base, and both are fielding candidates that will allow both parties to build on their efforts in elections to come. Seems to me that Nader cares very little about allowing 3rd parties to grow and flourish. This time around he'll probably steal more votes from McKinney and Paul that he will from the major party candidates.

Fine: he'll get on the ballot in at least 40 states because this time the DNC will decide it's not worth the effort to keep off the ballot. He'll be a sideshow before Independence day, and the Ben Cohens, Jerry Greenfields and other deep pockets he used in 2000 learned their lessons. And after the election this time, it'll be the alternatives to the Greens and the Libertarians who will take Nader to task for stunting THEIR growth.

This will be uglier than Jordan's 2nd comeback in the NBA.

Rachael:
Nader is no more Arab then myself. Not one DNA. In fact, there is a possibility that Nader stems from Euro background--like Turks and Kurds and Greeks. Whereas Semitic Jews are actual genetic cousins to the Arabs. At most, Nader is also a Semitic.
Nader is a Catholic (Marionite) christian, or at least that is his family background. Theyu have been at war with the Muslims longer then the Jews. Their Saint, a former Lebanese king by the name of Karan, was granted his saintly status by the Vatican for his victories in battles (against Muslims).
I am a Green-Democrat, a party I founded--not a "Likud". (Ehud Barak by the way was in my office a few years ago.)
Its amazing how uninformed the so called "intellectual Left" has become over the past few years. Indistinguishable (intellectually) from Jerry Springer people.

I feel sorry for Mr. Nader. he will go to his grave, rationalization aside, knowing he is responsible for the deaths of more Americans than any individual, living or dead. There is also the matter of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis but that merely clouds the issue.

There were a lot of ways that Gore might have won in 2000 and one of them most certainly would have been if Ralph had not run. Even back then, when his presence was many times more impactful than the joke he has become, his candidacy made no positive contribution to anyone but George Bush.

Obama? you're kidding I hope. You might want to take a look at his advisers, the men and women who likely form the backbone of the candidate’s future cabinet if elected president.Obama’s top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. And he was asked by the interviewer, “Well, don’t you think this might have had some bad consequences?” And Brzezinski replied, “Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets.” Another top Obama person—
Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.
Another Obama adviser, General Merrill McPeak, an Air Force man, who not long after the Dili massacre in East Timor in ’91 that you and I survived, he was—I happened to see on Indonesian TV shortly after that—there was General McPeak overseeing the delivery to Indonesia of US fighter planes.
Another key Obama adviser, Dennis Ross. Ross, for many years under both Clinton and Bush 2, a key—he has advised Clinton and both Bushes. He oversaw US policy toward Israel/Palestine. He pushed the principle that the legal rights of the Palestinians, the rights recognized under international law, must be subordinated to the needs of the Israeli government—in other words, their desires, their desires to expand to do whatever they want in the Occupied Territories. And Ross was one of the people who, interestingly, led the political assault on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Carter, no peacenik—I mean, Carter is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for that Timor terror that Holbrooke was involved in. But Ross led an assault on him, because, regarding Palestine, Carter was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. And so, Ross was one of those who fiercely attacked him.
Another Obama adviser, Sarah Sewall, who heads a human rights center at Harvard and is a former Defense official, she wrote the introduction to General Petraeus’s Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, the handbook that is now being used worldwide by US troops in various killing operations. That’s the Obama team.

Unfortunately, both the Republican and Democratic parties have convinced us that only one of their members deserves to be president. The mainstream media then weighs in, planting suggestions that a third party candidate cannot win. Election laws, passed by Democrats and Republicans, further stack the deck. We need to change the system of national elections in this country to an instant runoff system. That way people could vote for who they really want instead of voting for someone they don't really completely agree with for fear that someone even less in agreement with their positions would be elected. It would be interesting to see how many people would then vote for Nader in that scenario. Don't look for it to happen though, as the two major parties will fight it tooth and nail to preserve their monopoly.

Sure as hell has my vote!! Since Kucinch left, there was no hope against the machine which includes BO and HC. And for those who are afraid of splitting the dems against the repubs.....what split? They have become 2 heads of the same evil coin. I see it as a no brainer.

Bob:
Agree.
Moreover, back in 2000 before the election when Nader was asked "what if" he costs the "D"s the election, his reply was not to deny that this might occur. Rather, he insisted that he would get at least 15% of the vote and such gave him leave to mount his challenge, the idea being that each successive election, he would get more and more votes.
PS: He got 2.7% in 2000 and 0.4% in 2004. He used to be one of my heros. Now he's like George Forman trying to compete for the boxing championship again. He essentially had admitted that a poor showing might cost the election, while providing no positive gain.

Meh.

Better for progressives to concentrate on vulnerable Republicans and corporate Democrats in the House and the Senate.

PPS:
If I ran for president, I would get more votes then Nader. Because I have a plan.

The democratic party as a whole has utterly failed to meet expectations and we should withdraw support from the party as a whole. The only way they'll change is if they're threatened with extinction, so threaten them with extinction. If the dems think that Nader cost them the presidency 8 years ago, so much the better, they will feel pressurized to react and to listen to those who vote for a real change - so let's unite and vote for Nader!!

Pilule said "regarding Palestine, Carter was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was tantamount to apartheid. And so, Ross was one of those who fiercely attacked him. " Ross is a noted Zionist that supports Israel in their oppression of third world people. No more wars for Israel, no more blood for Israel. End the occupation.

While there are some very good things that Ralph Nader had accomplished, his efforts as a politician are not one of them. All I can think of his 'run' this year is some silly child, hopping up on a stool and screaming "Look At Me!! Look At ME!!!"

He is not a stupid man, he knows there is no way in about any reality we may find ourselves he will over 'win', so he is just trying to bring attention to some point or other. Watching how the Media marginalized all the Candidates but Clinton, Obama, McCain and Romney, I don't know if whatever message he has will go anywhere.

Laying the evil of W and the weaknesses of the Dem party at Nader's feet is laughable.

As it is, he is probably responsible for SAVING hundreds of thousands of lives by pushing mandatory seat belts and airbags in cars.

Dems are just rationalizing their own futility.

A Ralph Nader candidacy serves one useful purpose; It will keep the Rontards busy, much like old people with fill-in puzzle books.

Teddy:
If all the Muslims who were born in Lebanon were permitted to vote, there would today be a quite clear Muslim majority. However, there would still be a Christian President of Lebanon. And regardless of the number of Muslims voting, they would never gain a majority in parlement. Because both outcomes are pre-mandated in the Lebanese constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taif_Agreement
That is true apartheid. All Israeli citizens have equal votes and anyone born in Israel is a citizen and has the right to vote. No one fusses about Lebanon because the minority in absolute control are Christians--rather then Jews.
As Jews, the majority in control of Israel can't do anything right. PBT (Pathetic but true).

Yes - he was buried under 23 lawsuits and hundreds of "pro-bono" corporate lawyers by the DLC Dems. Signature gatherers were threatened, fake names placed in the petitions, etc. He has filed suit for 2004 this year in preparation for the next DNC/DLC felony.

Grow up. Having gathered signatures for petitions than you've likely posted phony messages for your Madison Ave. messiah, that's all part of the game.

Ralph Nader's goal, other than to elect another Republican who will destroy every part of the agenda he pretends to care about, is to lose more states than last time. What a worthy goal for a god to have.

I hope that he faces three times more pro-bono lawyers this time, the guy is the biggest fraud allegedly on the left today.

Trollstein, your post is full of half truths and deceit because you are the Zionist Shrill of the web. The Christians are minorities in Lebananon. That is why they have the Constitution that way. We give $10billion of taxpayer money to the Jewish state. The Israeli Constitution should be changed to have a prime minister a Muslim, to protect the Arab minority. Israeli Arab group Adalah has proposed a new 'multi-cultural' constitution.
Arab Knesset members will be able to bring about the disqualification of bills that impinge on the rights of Arabs, and classifies the State of Israel as a "bilingual and multicultural" country rather than a Jewish state. Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by their flag having a Jewish star in it. Would not most American Jews (among others) be troubled if the U.S. flag had a Christian cross on it? Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by their national anthem referring to the land, as the land of the Jews. Consider that he or she may honestly feel discriminated against because, legal equality aside, he or she IS discriminated against. Israeli-Arabs will want full equality in Israel. Any minority citizen of any State wants no less. It sounds fair. Why do so many Israelis, Jews, and supporters of Israel look for a dark hiding place when confronted with the truth of discrimination? I think it is because Jews understand what it is to be discriminated against, and have a deep desire that discrimination against all people throughout the planet be eliminated. Discrimination against Arab-Israelis is not fair. As supporters of Israel, it is necessary to accept and admit, without nuance, that some discrimination against Arab-Israelis is 100% true. Let us not be racists and stop discrimination at home(Israel). Support the multi-cultural constitution.

Phyllis Bennis says in an interview about land use in Israel:

"Over 80 percent of the land within Israel that was once owned by Palestinians has been confiscated. All told, 93 percent of Israel's land can only be leased or owned by Jews or Jewish agencies. Moreover, despite Israel's booming economy, Palestinian unemployment is skyrocketing--Adalah says it is about 40 percent. In 1996 twice as many Arab citizens (28.3 percent) as Jewish citizens (14.4 percent) lived below the poverty line. Less than five percent of government employees are Arab. And eighty percent of all student drop-outs are Arab.
There are also vast disparities between Arab towns and Jewish towns in government spending on schools, medical systems, roads and electricity, clean water, and social services.
Unlike any other country in the world, Israel does not define itself as a state of its residents, or even a state of its citizens, but as a state of all the Jews in the world.
Jews from anywhere in the world, like me, can travel to Israel, declare citizenship, and be granted all the privileges of being Jewish that are denied to Palestinians who have lived in the area for hundreds of years."

It is despicable and inexcusable for Israel not to afford equal rights under the law to all Israeli citizens. Sephardic Jews are not afforded the same rights as the Ashkenazi despite the fact that they are far more likely to be descendants of the Biblical tribe who originated in the area. The most egregious examples of racism in Israel however are directed at non-Jewish citizens.
For Jack Bernstein, an American Jew who believed the Zionist propaganda of Israel being an oasis and a paradise for Jews in the middle east, his dream quickly turned into a nightmare when he discovered the truth of "racist, Israel." When he exposed what he came to believe was the truth about Israel and the Zionist agenda he died under mysterious circumstances.

Dear hysterical Democrats,

Why are you so arrogant as to assume that all Americans left of center are on your side?

Why do you think that just because you have a candidate or two who makes nice speeches about change and is not a War Pig Republican that all of a sudden everyone on the left owes your candidate allegiance?

Why do you continue to live under this collective fantasy that people who voted for Nader would have voted for your little corporate whore puppet candidates even if you held guns to our heads?

You scream and moan about Nader and his supporters as if we actually have something in common with you.

News Flash: We don't. You are collaborationist supporters of an Imperial War Party that is part and parcel of the corporate oligarchy that is ruining this country and indeed, the entire planet. And since you are a bunch of do-nothings during non-elections years you can...

Take your whining and piss off. You have no right to lecture us on how to vote and who gets to run for president.

Most of you were sitting on the couch doing NOTHING while Bill Clinton and the big money Dems implemented a Republican economic and foreign policy agenda in the 1990's.

If you ask me your vitriolic hatred for Mr. Nader and his supporters has more to do over all your guilt at being election year activists (and that in name and internet blather only) and doing nothing while the Dems fiddled during the sack of America and the planet by Corporate War-Mongering Huns.

Sorry, but for those of us who were trying to make change (and not just with nice speeches, either) during the Corporate reign of terror of the 90's, we get to vote for who we want to. We don't need a bunch of spineless liberals (who stood by and let the Dems promote NAFTA, the WTO, the Salvage Rider, the decade long intermittent bombing of Iraq, the savage exploitation of Appalachia and poor people everywhere, and countess other crimes against humanity and the planet) tell us who to vote for or make us feel guilty for not falling in line with the great liberal hallucination of change through Corporate controlled Politics.

Stop acting like we are some wayward leftists who need to shepherded or guilt tripped back into the fold. Your folds sucks and gets nothing done and I won't play along no matter how much you whine, complain, cajole or even make threats.

The radicals owe you nothing. We will pay you nothing (in votes or support or whatever) and we will vote our consciences when and where we please.

All this whining and hand-ringing is pathetic anyway. If you really support the Dems, shut the fuck up and get out from in front of your computer and go register people to vote and take whatever measures you feel are necessary to prevent the massive voter fraud that happened in 2000 and 2004 from happening again. That fraud accounted for more of a vote count difference between Corporate Whore Number One and his "opposition" than all the far left votes put together.

Have a nice day and please stop whining - it is unbecoming of Citizens of free will and it makes all you look like a bunch of complaining whining spineless do nothing conservative talk radio listeners.

In addition, I am predicting the Nader or another third party candidate like Cynthia McKinney, will do BETTER than Nader in 2000!

I do not know who I am voting for yet, but it sure as hell is unlikely to be the Democrapic shill, no matter who he or she is...

Sorry, but for those of us who were trying to make change (and not just with nice speeches, either) during the Corporate reign of terror of the 90's, we get to vote for who we want to. We don't need a bunch of spineless liberals.... Ron Pallack

Name a single piece of legislation that was adopted on the strength of the ultra-pure Naderite wing of the left since 1980. Now name one that was adopted without the support of Democratic office holders.

The delusional left is, by the fact of its failure to produce anything to improve life and the general good, less radical than any part of the left that gets a part of its agenda into law and improving lives.

The delusion of strength by those who have decades long demonstrations of complete political failure is strong enough to waste many lives but it is entirely powerless when it comes to making anything happen. Other than putting the likes of George W. Bush in office. That is the one political success of the delusional wing of the leftist movement.

So, preen on, ye pure of heart Naderites. Watch on the mass of suffering humanity under George W. Bush and John McCain as our world dies safe in your comfortable abodes and smug in your purity. Then go to hell.

New nuclear power plants can't really be part of the solution to global warming. Even if the world were to fully embrace the atom on a scale approaching such a solution, it would take at least 15 years to build enough plants to replace all the coal-fired plants we currently have online and then at least another 15 years to recoup the energy used in the process: to mine, process and enrich the uranium; fabricate the fuel rods; and build the plants themselves, not mention the cost and energy required to deal with the eventual decommissioning of all those facilities and waste disposal. At minimum, that's 30 years. Can we afford to wait that long to see a net benefit? Read Tim Flannery's "We Are The Weather Makers" (www.theweathermakers.org) for an utterly sobering view that will wipe any confidence in our business-as-usual approach. It seems only radical change will make much impact and that will scare the horses. But the question is pretty simple: Do you want a planet to live on or not?

As it is, he is probably responsible for SAVING hundreds of thousands of lives by pushing mandatory seat belts and airbags in cars.

Dems are just rationalizing their own futility. mojogoober

Who do you think mandated seat belts and airbags. If we had to wait for it to happen without the Democratic office holders who actually put those laws into place there would be no seat belts or airbags in cars. The only airbag you'd have to talk about without Democratic politicians would be Ralph.

I agree with a lot of what Anthony is saying here. An instant runoff form of balloting
would be far more democratic. People could vote for their favorite candidates in rank order. This would eliminate the whole notion of "wasting" your vote on a third party candidate as well as the lousy practice of voting for the "lesser of two evils."
I'm not a huge Nader fan, but I think it is ridiculous to blame independent and minor candidates for Democratic losses. Third parties can't be held accountable for the inadequacies of many Democrats. Maybe if they were a little more progressive they'd have gotten more votes. I also don't personally find Obama to be all that progressive. Increasing the standing military and private healthcare are pretty conservative values by my gauge. He IS better than Hillary, but..... lesser of two evils thing again.

2 cents

we the people of the united states of america, do not want any of the candidates running for president. Please change them.

Kirkbrew, why wouldn't you take political advice from Russell Simmons?

This is a shoddy hit-piece all the way through, and apparently what passes for "journalism" in MoJo's David Corn-led Washington bureau.

The headline, "What Are Progressives to Think of Ralph Nader?" and first sentence ("all of progressive America is having horrible flashbacks") implies that Jonathan Stein either is a progressive, or at least has standing to tell them what they should think.

Since he's consistently attacked Edwards, Kucinich, and now Nader, he clearly thinks that only centrist Democrats like Clinton and Obama are OK for the American electorate to vote on. That's progressive , or even particularly liberal, so why is he in any position to tell progressives what they should think or do?

As for "all of the criticisms of his 2004 run", those came from DLC Democrats who couldn't beat Bush or come even close despite the unpopularity of the occupation of Iraq, and without the Florida vote rigging as an excuse. How about "all of the criticisms of the spineless 2004 Democrats still hold"?

By "left-wing blogosphere" Stein clearly means liberal Democrats, who are about as left as Stein can conceive. Anyone beyond them — including progressives and those who reject a perpetual two-party state — believe that the Democrats should be able to win without excluding their competition. (It's sort of like corporate types who talk about a free market, while doing everything they can to create a monopoly.)

What exactly are "the progressive values and ideals Nader holds dear"? Based on his announcement on NBC, multi-party democracy and citizen involvement seem to be two of them, and yet Stein tells us that Nader's candidacy will "harm" those two things — whereas not promoting a third-party candidate and not running will ... what, Jonathan, help promote those things? How's that exactly? By not doing something, we enable people to do it?

Stein is bright enough to notice that "one party is running a woman and an African-American", as if that differentiates it from a party with an African-American woman as secretary of state who's being seriously touted as a vice presidential running mate. Sorry, Jon-o, but the days of touting the Democrats as the party of inclusion are long passed, thanks to minorities such as Rice, Powell, and Gonzalez. You'll have to do better than that to differentiate the Democrats and the Republicans. Hey, I know, how about support for civil liberties? Wait, no, not much difference there. Voting to fund the war? Uh, no, not there either. Sucking up to corporate power and taking their money in exchange for pro-corporate legislation? That's a dead-heat. Let us know when you find something that's not largely cosmetic and symbolic ...

But for sheer audacity (to say nothing of denial), Stein then has the chutzpah to write that "Any call for change that Nader makes this year will be a hollow echo of the calls the Democratic candidates are already making." REALLY?! Did you even watch his announcement, Jon, or at least read the transcript? His whole platform is based on calls that neither of the two MoJo-sanctioned, inside-the-Beltway, Democratic Party centrist candidates are making. Would you like that list of differences in alphabetical order, or by order of importance?

Finally, Stein goes on to say that, "the Nader magic had diminished significantly by 2004, and is diminished further today" and that "no candidate who took 0.38 percent of the vote in 2004, when the Democratic candidate was dramatically worse than the options available today, is going to see a resurgence in November 2008" — and yet he's clearly worried enough to write this hit-piece imploring so-called "progressives" (as if he knows any) not to vote for Nader.

So, which is it, Jon-o? Is Nader a "significantly diminished" non-entity, or someone whose genuine progressive values and ideals — especially in the face of craven Democratic Party sell-outs — could genuinely threaten to take votes away from the official, David Corn-sanctioned centrists candidates that we slaves on the Democratic plantation are required to support?

Both things can't be true ...

You know, Mother Jones, you really stun me sometimes by your mainstream tendencies. This whole thread was started by you saying that Nader should just go away. Ok, the Dems have a black man or a woman to choose from; it's a change sure but you make it sound like everything's ok now and Nader is a mistake we can be forgiven for. America has a long long long way to go....

Teddy:
I am no “Zionist” and you do not get to define me. You don’t know me in the slightest and attempting to hang various identities on me is not only wrong but is also prejudice.
You wrote:
“The Christians are minorities in Lebanon. That is why they have the Constitution that way.” Aside from being inaccurate, its REDICULOUS. Possibly one of--if not THE single most ridiculous thing I have read on the web in months.
The Lebanese constitutional mandate for Christian leadership goes back 100 years and at that time, Muslims were a clear minority. So much for your facts.
But did you hear what you said? Believing that Christians in Lebanon are a minority, they (in your mind) get to reserve political power to compensate?? By that rule, the French get to rule Canada, the Kurds get to rule Turkey, the Muslims get to rule France and the white Africans get their control back in South Africa.. Absurd hardly says it. That’s called REVERSE democracy. By your thinking, the Israelis should dissolve their nation and become part of greater “Arabia” for the sole purpose of becoming the MINORITY LEADERS of the entire region???
Normally I would say: “Pass that joint” but in your case, you are smoking some baaaaaaaaaad stuff.
You are pissed off because I make sense.
" . . . you are the Zionist Shrill of the web."
So you have declared that I am some intrenched institution (like the evil Israel lobby).

PS:
I am a leftist supporter of Israel.
When you can show me a place on a map called "Zion", I will tell you if I support that location. Creating such a mythical location is a form of racism.
People who think they are "Zionists" are idiots.
There are no more "Zionists" in real life then there are "Trolls".

Trollstein, you are a racist if you do not support affirmative action for minorities and the new 'multi-cultural' constitution. Israel needs affirmative action programs much more than we need them in America. Get with the program Trollstein. Come into the 21st century.

trollstein,
What's your plan?

Teddy:
I absolutely support “affirmative action”. Here, there and everywhere. So I guess I am not a racist. The basis for the U.S. Constitution is to protect the minority (whatever the given context may be) from the majority. So, some such action is built into our Constitution. At given times, further steps should be taken to insure minority equality. That does not necessarily mean mandating results in every situation. It CERTAINLY does not mean giving political control to the minority group, as is the constitutionally guaranteed situation in Lebanon. That is not “affirmative action”.
The “Basic Laws” of Israel guarantee equal rights and privileges for all groups. With one exception: Jews (of any nationality) are guaranteed the right of refuge. While this may seem unequal, and in fact it is unequal, Jews today are about 1/80th the size their population would be, if not for the dozens of genocides throughout recorded history.
One of the groups who committed such genocides, the Romans, have their own, exclusive nation called the Vatican. Saudi Arabia is an exclusively Muslim nation, who’s entire constitution is the Qur~an. There is no practical comparison because neither the Catholics or the Muslims were ever hunted like the Jews, except perhaps by each other.
While examples can be identified in Israel which show the lack of practical equality, the same is true in every other country in the world. The question is not if Israel is perfect. The question is why they should be expected to be so--when no one else is.

Pilule:
My plan involves the citizens of the USA voting on individual issues via internet and phone (interactive voice response). While this would not change the power structure, i.e. we would still have representative government, the President (of such a party) would agree to accede to the will of the public in all but extreme conditions of where the majority vote may be fractional, in which case the Chief Exec. still can make his own call.
The people would have a 27/7 information channel on TV and internet, presenting in depth video editorials relating to pending questions. Each party would control a block of programming, (based on their voting results in the previous election cycle). The venue would still be somewhat propagandic but all sides would be represented.
This is just a very simple explanation. The overall plan is much more detailed and sophisticated. Minimally, the end result would be far greater factual background being understood by the people and the phasing-out of “sound-bited” or “bumper-sticker” wisdom.

BTW:
I like Obama. I am not running for anything.

Trollstein, I'm glad to know that you're not running for anything - not that it would have made any difference. So, Obama has a plan? LOL

I actually spoke to Ralph yesterday, and his advice was this: Whatever you do in the voting booth is your business, but at least don't give your vote away; if you tell pollsters you're considering Nader, it sends a message to the DNC and RNC that your support can't be taken for granted. Personally, I do not find Clinton or Obama progressive candidates, so I'm seriously considering this third option.

So what's your plan pilule?
To waste people's time asking for detailed replies--just to ridicule them? Guess so.

Trollstein has no plan other than to support the Likud Party of Israel.

THREE QUESTIONS:

FIRST, who agrees that our country would be a better place---Bushes aside---if he had a multi-party coalition government that brought a greater diversity of views inside the beltline?

SECOND, without running third and fourth party candidates, how will attention ever be brought to our need for diversity as great as our nation is wide?

THIRD, is it possible for instant run-off voting to ever establish itself in our nation's politics, given the precedent of 230 years without it?

THANK YOU

"the Romans, have their own, exclusive nation called the Vatican. " Trollstein you are anti-Catholic. This is just one example of your hate speech. Stop the hate speech.

TO PILULE:

What do you think of Obamas senior foreign policy advisor, Samantha Powers, and her "machivellian idealism", as she put it on Democracy Now a few days ago? Her interest in Darfur, her book on Rwanda.

And what do you think of Brzezinski's criticism of Bush that we should have pushed for an Israeli-Palestine settlement immediately after 9-11?

And isn't Brzezinski going to influence US foreign policy regardless, although of course he's the top Democratic party adviser.

I'm curious.

Since most of the Jews are against Obama because he doesn't support Israel, then they will be blamed if he loses. Let us all support Obama so we don't get the blame if he loses. P.S. Teddy, you are an anti-Semite.

I tuned in to Mother Jones several weeks ago after some years of starving for alternate sources of news and commentary. My first experience here was a piece written about Fidel Castro that I found less than inspiring as progressive journalism. And if this is the best you can do with respect to Ralph Nader's Presidential candidacy, I am only further disappointed and will not be likely to take the step of subscribing to the magazine. I'm not sure how any progressive person can fail to agree that the candidacies of Obama and Clinton have not addressed issues critical to the future of the country, the continent and the planet. The media has failed to press them to do so. This fact was stated by Mr. Nader to be a key reason for his decision to enter the race. If he can force the potential nominees to talk about NAFTA and the problems of globalization, the war in Iraq, climate change, corporate greed and crime, then surely we should applaud him. I'm sure he could find other things to do. I have a friend who ran as an Independent in a local election for years, only for the purpose of raising such issues that would otherwise have been forgotten. He did it only to encourage public debate. He did it long after he wanted to and without any chance whatsoever of winning the position. He was to be commended, as is Mr. Nader. There will never be a real alternative to the Republican and Democratic systems of government, captured as they are by powerful corporate interests, until someone offers an alternative. Perhaps Mr. Nader isn't the right person to do it. But I don't see anyone else willing to try to build a coalition for the future and no, I can't take Ron Paul seriously. If there are any narcissists to be vilified, I'd vote for Obama, McCain and Clinton. Your reflections on Ralph Nader are appallingly short-sighted.

SECOND, without running third and fourth party candidates, how will attention ever be brought to our need for diversity as great as our nation is wide?

Well, Jay Cub, I hate to tell you but during the past thirty years we have had no shortage of third party candidates and our agenda didn't benefit from it.

Just as a sample, go to the Green Party USA website and look at its self-advertised success in electing people to office. The record is abysmal.

Look at the great success they list for 2006
www.gp.org/2006elections/index.shtml

During that race they lost the one state legislative seat they held in Maine where John Eder still holds the record as the Green candidate who held the highest office in the history of the party. One state legislative seat for a quarter of a century of effort? And they touted the FOURTH PLACE FINISH! of Pat LaMarche in the governors race as another great victory. I believe that since then two of the Portland Maine school board seats they held resigned over getting caught for childish stunts.

By the results, they are a failure.

The biosphere will have been entirely destroyed by the time the Greens have sent their first Senator to Washington. The human species will be extinct before it passes its first federal law. The Socialists had a better record of electoral success than the Greens.

Donahue:
Do you deny that:
"the Romans, have their own, exclusive nation called the Vatican?" Its nestled next to Rome in Italy, is a seperate nation, and its official and exclusive religion is "Roman Catholic".
Stop the name calling.
Post facts or debate facts.
Then, maybe some name-calling is OK. But without a serious factual debate, your (and other's) name calling is inane.

Jay-Cub:
I basically respect Ms. Power but must point out that she was FAR less concerned about the Sudan, when the millions of dead and enslaved persons were Christians and Jews. Darfour is the second genocide site and because most Darfourians are Muslims, the celebrities came out, including Ms. Power. In fact, I caught up with her at a "save Darfour" rally in NY. I was trying to convince her to meet my friend, a runaway slave from Sudan. She was all ears until I mentioned he was from the South (Christian turf), at which point she became all feet. She was very polite however and did apologize for running off in the middle of my sentence.

The Vatican is the home of the Universal Church, open to all nationalities. Justin Martyr (circa 100 to 165 CE) and Irenaeus of Lyon (circa 130 to 200 CE) stated that the promises made to the Jews have become invalid and that the Christian church (including any ethnic Jews who have aligned themselves with it) is chosen instead. Pope Pius XII also re-affirmed this doctrine in his encyclical Mystici Corporis (June 29, 1943)
What this all means is that the promise of God, covenantally given to Abraham, that he would be the God of Abraham and of his spiritual descendants after him forever (Gen 17:7-8) extends temporally to the farthest reaches of the future and encompasses the entire community of the redeemed and the renewed cosmos. This is just to say that the Abrahamic covenant, in the specific prospect it holds forth of the salvation of the entire church of God, is identical with the soteric program of the covenant of grace. It also means that the blessings of the covenant of grace that believers in Christ enjoy today under the sanctions of the New Testament economy are founded upon the covenant that God made with Abraham. Said another way, the “new covenant” whose Mediator is Jesus Christ is simply the administrative “extension and unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant” in redemptive history. The church of Jesus Christ, then, not ethnic Israel, is the present day expression of the one people of God whose roots go back to Abraham.

Jorge:
The anti-Jews do more to support the "Likud" party in Israel then anything I could possibly do. The average American is not fooled and when a fair-minded American sees the water-fall of slander and lies of the enemies of Israel, they react by swinging far toward the Israeli right-wing.
This is human nature.

Anthony McCarthy:
Good points. The radical left has been a complete failure. I was friends with an East Indian American politician, who became mayor of a minor city in the North East. All of a suddon, we started to get invitations to meet the various Ministers of the nation of India. I was impressed when I shook hands with the minister of business and industry. So I asked my friend the mayor how come I never knew how connected he was. He answered: "I'm not connected. I'm now the highest ranking East Indian American in U.S. politics. These are only standard perks."
Of course, since then the community has risen in the office count and now, I believe the Governor of LA is East Indian.
But my point is that the Greenies have won nothing and done nothing, except bitch and moan about "the man" holding them down.
I seriously think that Nazi (or at least KKK candidates) have gained more and higher offices.
The Greens show me squat.
If someone started a vegetarian party, they would probably get more membership then the so called "greens".

Greens Demand Transparency from Israel on Nuclear Weapons
WASHINGTON - July 8,2004 - Green Party leaders are calling on the Bush Administration to put pressure on Israel to open up its nuclear weapons program to international scrutiny.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, has demanded that Israel cooperate with the effort to rid the Middle East of nuclear weapons, but the Israeli government has refused to acknowledge that it possesses such arms.
"Israel may already have as many nuclear warheads as Great Britain," said Julia Willebrand, co-chair of the International Committee of the Green Party of the United States. "Israel is not formally listed among the countries which have acquired WMDs. Western governments have allowed Israel to maintain its 'nuclear ambiguity' stance too long, provoking suspicions that the U.S. might have shared nuclear technology with Israel."
Israel's treatment of Palestinians -- those who are Israeli citizens as well as those in the territories -- is comparable in many ways to South African apartheid, and has resulted in a cycle of violence and lack of security for both Israelis and Palestinians," said a member of the Green Party of Wisconsin. "A stable and just resolution of the conflict requires the full realization of the human rights of Palestinians and Israelis.” Real environmentalists and progressives vote Green.

Donahue:
Your position is well known to me. I will not debate because it is your religion and really not subject to debate from strangers.
One point:
"Universal Church"
This is a kind way of saying, unilatteral Church. The Catholic religion does not make any accomications for non-Catholics. It is not "one size fits all" as much as it is (and always has been) 'all must use the same size' or else. In the Middle Ages the 'or else' was the sword. Today, it is merely the ridicule of the Church and its institutions. If you would like to begin a factual historical recount of points, beginning with the identity of Jesus himself, I am both game and equipped.
I also notice you did not debate my earlier statement as a factual matter. Good, we are moving forward.

Ms. Green:
Out of all the nations on earth, Israel is probably the only one that actually needs nukes. But that is somewhat besides the point.
This smoke is being generated to distract attention away from the more dangerous skofflaws,
1. Iran, who remains in violation of the U.N. Security Counsel and therefore is in per-se and ongoing violation of International Law.
2. Hesbullah, who also re arms in violation of U.N.S.C.
Iran is also in breach of the United Nations Charter which prohibits any member nation from threatening the existance of another. the penalty for such a violation may include expulsion.
" . . .said a member of the Green Party of Wisconsin"
Who is this person? Is he "speaker of the hut"?

Trollstein, your comment on Christ is not surprising, St. Paul wrote at 1 Thess. 2:14-16"...(T)he Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men. In their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last."

Donahue:
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS
CHAPTER 9
(20) And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
(21) To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
(22) To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
(23) And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
(24) Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sounds a bit like Nader's reasoning.

Donahue:
Mr. Jesus was a splinter from the Essene sect. His brother James was the leader of the Essenoi. The Essenoi were pias Jews who also believed in total pacifism and did not eat flesh. They also departed from more popular Jewish teachings because they did not approve of disparate economic classes.
While it is quite unclear if Jesus was himself a veggie, John the Baptiser likely was as was James the Just. Both John and James had their heads removed but we hear little of them. (Because Mel Gibson only had a limited run-time for his movie.)
You mantioned Irenaeus but neglected to mention Bishop Valentinus of Alexandria, who preceeded Irenaeus but became one of the Roman Church's first declared heretic. Heresy BTW is defined as "taking the other's side". Of course it is difficult to imagine how that would be possible given that there was no "other side" in Valentinus' day and time.

Anti-Christian groups regularly vandalize billboards rented by the Messianic church Meno Kalisher leads. Opponents recently organized a campaign to spread false rumors about Kalisher’s moral integrity among his neighbors. Kalisher even believes his opponents have tapped believers’ telephones on occasion in order to monitor their conversations.

When help from law enforcement officials is sought, they refuse to get involved, thus giving tacit approval to religious persecution, Kalisher said.

This scenario might be expected in countries like Sudan, Saudi Arabia or China. But Kalisher pastors a congregation in Israel, a nation thought by many Americans to be free from religious persecution.

For Kalisher and the Jerusalem Assembly House of Redemption, the main source of persecution is a