In other news: The sun set in the West last night; Brittney Spears did something idiotic; and President Bush said something stupid.

Hey, even whack job lefties deserve a candidate. All the fruitcakes who think Castro is an economic genius will flock to crazy Ralph. He should do well in many parts of CA, Berkeley seems to be a Nader neighborhood.

Nader announces President McCain?

We have Ralph to thank for the Iraq War and the mortgage of America's future. Now he's going to give us 100 more years in Iraq and bombing Iran as an encore?

He used to be such a hero of mine. His last twenty years are now eclipsing the good stuff that I think he once did . . . but can now only vaguely recall.

Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

I suggest ignoring him and his supporters. He doesn't want to be president; he just wants to be a nuisance. Let him get back to seatbelts.

W00t! Finally, someone I can feel good about voting for in this election.

Overall I thought the YouTube piece was tacky and flawed, but it had one good point when it suggested that the people had a chance to choose a progressive candidate and they turned him down. Unfortunately, that was spoiled by the follow-up about Kucinich looking like someone drawn by Charles Schulz. That's what happens when young techies master technology before they are fully matured and remain enamored with their ability to concoct cute but tasteless phrases.

If Democrats and independents wanted progressive policies they would have selected Kucinich. They didn't so that means the Democratic party may have some progressives in its ranks, but the party cannot claim to be progressive just as the Republican Party cannot claim to be moderate because it has a few moderates among its members. It also suggests that the American people are not progressive or they don't have enough sense to get behind a progressive candidate when they have the chance.

So that leaves us with three lemons from which to choose the one most likely to give us lemonade. The only one with a hope of doing that is Obama. Early on he had some good points that he abandoned, such as recognizing Palestinians as people, but he compromised and has sold them down the Jordan River, at least for the time being. Presumably he found that a necessary tactic to win the election. Hopefully, he may return to a position where he can become the first honest broker in the Israel-Palestine horror show. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had an atrocious record with Carter, is now making sense on the Middle East so perhaps he could tilt Obama back in the right direction on this issue.

Obama offers a chance for the change he is touting, but people supporting him must be realistic and demand that he deliver. If not, the corporate forces that have attached themselves to him and those that will join if he become president will prevail. In other words and to translate a famous French saying, "All that change, but all remains the same."

Will the people rise to the occasion and demand that Obama live up to his rhetoric? I wouldn't bet on it, but we will get a clue when it comes time to elect senators and representatives to Congress who will also offer change and will support or push Obama to do what is right. My faith in Oregonians will be boosted if we send Steve Novick to the U.S. Senate to add to the few progressively-inclined, independent and principled people in Congress.

I think this is great news!

Points:

The Republicans have very little money this time.

They were behind Nader's 2004 campaign, attempting to use a divide and conquer approach to Democrats.

Any Nader campaign will draw 5 or 10 votes away from the Democratic candidate, but more importantly, will draw some of those scarce Republican dollars away from their under-funded campaign as an attempt to do back door damage to Democrats.

Due to Nader's declining influence, and advanced age (he is older than McCain), he will have little effect on this election, and it will be his last.

My only surprise is that Meet the Press gave him time for one last rant.

Kevin: I suggest that the votes for Kucinich and the polls that kept him in the low single digits make my point. My interpretation of progressive means they support the kind of issues the Kucinich promoted and make statements accordingly, not having electability as their first consideration. If, say, 20 percent or so of the people had rallied right off the bat in support of Kucinich that would have made a statement that a significant portion of the people believed in his platform. If it eventually proved that Kucinich was unelectable and dropped out, as did Edwards, then the message would still have remained. A lot of people want single-payer health care and other issues promoted by Kucinich and they could have influenced the remaining candidates.

Ralph Nader has become the Alfred E. Neuman of American Politics. I think he will run every four years until he croaks, and maybe after. They will dust off his carcass and haul him out for another go. We already know the routine and the speeches so it will be a familiar part of Americana. And maybe the Repubs will just keep funding him post mortem.

"We have Ralph to thank for the Iraq War and the mortgage of America's future"

I've never voted for Nader, but that's ridiculous ((most especially because it lets all those enabling Democrats off the hook).

I agree with Sal and with BilL R.

And here is one more thing to think about: Was the Gore campaign impeccably run, or should they have been well organized enough that Florida didn't matter?

I think that is what's wrong with Hillary's response---someone who didn't run a well managed campaign implying it is Nader's fault that even someone who has met members of the Gore family would wince at how poorly the 2000 campaign was managed. In both cases, it appears the candidate believed "I know best and no one else should question how this campaign is being run".

Ultimately, the candidate is responsible for how the campaign is run.

Main thing here is to focus on making the case to the voter and not make excuses, rather than focus on the Naderite annoyance. The guy has issues.. in my view. He is like the Lucifer character in Milton's Paradise Lost. He would rather rule in his private little hell of resentment and victimization than make common cause and common ground with other progressives, to have half an apple rather than none. Having had his ego so slighted, his only power remains in hurting those, including the entire USA, whom he believes have not given him proper deference. Perhaps he qualifies as a "purity troll."

Regarding Kucinich. He is going to have a tough time holding on to his seat in Ohio. Not every one appreciates his tilting at windmills. I like his message but he's not an adequate or competent messenger. It's not enough to be right about the issues. Heck, I think I'm right about the issues but I would be a lousy, disastrous, and incompetent president. If Nader has become the Alfred E. Neuman of American Politics, then Dennis Kucinich has become the Harold Stassen of the Democratic party. I think he shall be held in much greater affection and respect than Nader, however.

The bigger problem is this- the actual numbers. In 2000, this was the vote split that gave us eight years of Bush:

Bush 47.87% 50,456,002 Gore 48.38% 50,999,897 Nader 2.74% 2,882,995

Right now, 2008 is polling like this (2/19-20):

McCain 47% Clinton 44%

McCain 43% Obama 47%

Any way you slice it, Nader's candidacy is a threat to a Democratic presidency. Nader could once again become responsible for at least four more years of the GOP in the White House. He will only draw votes away from the Dems, and while he feels he's raising the bar on the debate, he only serves to distract voters from real choices. At least Kucinich recognized that fact and got out when he should have. Nader has no shame, no sense of decency on this. Nader had lots of OR support in 2000, and the Dems will have to work hard to ensure he doesn't erode Democratic support in 2008.

I don't know about you but I saw many comments on many blogs by Lefties expressing admiration for Kucinich while also indicating that they favored another candidate. Having run in 2004 and done poorly, it seems to me that Kucinich was largely written off as unelectable this time around.

Kevin: Your point is valid, but the people (Lefties) you are talking about made a strategic mistake. They basically might have said in polls that they wanted what was on Kucinich's platform but by not supporting him they said they weren't prepared to fight for those issues, and the other candidates took them for granted and rightly assumed they could offer less on health care, for example, because these "Lefties" left Kucinich's tent and essentially had nowhere else to go.

I also wonder how many people in Congress ignored calls by Kucinich for impeachment and getting out of Iraq because of low voter support and poll numbers? So impeachment is still off the table for all practical purposes and we are still in Iraq blowing $12 billion a month.

That last sentence supports my earlier charge that the Democratic Party is not a progressive party.

@Bill Bodden: It's important to understand that the video is a parody of the first Anonymous vs. Scientology video, therefore it's not really intended to be a formal or serious statement.

And if you've enjoyed watching the Scientology vids, it's HILARIOUS.

Kevin,

"A significant portion" of the Kafoury clan is NOT backing Nadar. Go Obama!

It's sad to say this because I used to really admire him but Ralph Nader has now become Lyndon LaRouche, a perennial presidential candidate who, beyond a small core of super-dedicated supporters, gets less votes each time they go out. Besides the fact that with Obama as the nominee, how exactly is Nader going to claim that there is no difference between the two candidates because there is on so many levels.

In Oregon you can get on the ballot either by holding a convention or by getting signatures. However, under 2006's HB 2614 (I think), if you choose signatures you many not choose anyone registered as an R or D who votes in the upcoming primary, making it more difficult for him to get on the ballot.

It's easy to blame Ralph Nader for the 2000 election, and it's even easier to forget that the 2000 census clocked over 200 million people of voting-age in the United States, yet only 105 million people showed up to the polls. That's over 95 million people who didn't feel like any of the candidates had given them a reason to show up at the polls.

Meet the Press had a discussion today about the way candidates frame their speeches--complete with a quote from Bill Safire who once admitted he stole the "I see an America where..." framing for a Nixon speech from FDR and later called up one of the authors of the FDR speech to apologize---only to have that author say he stole it from a speech shortly after the Civil War.

The point is that it is hard to imagine Nader, Kucinich, or for that matter McCain giving an inspirational "I see an America where...." speech.

Obama was right about Reagan. I recall a conversation in 1980 with one of my Mom's co-workers who was amazed to discover the waitress in his favorite lunch place was not a Reagan fan--he thought everyone was!

I said next time he should ask the waitress if she lived in Calif. when Reagan was Gov. because there were those of us who never forgave him for some of his actions as Gov. and resolved never to vote for him if he ran for federal office. This really startled him.

I suspect there are some in Illinois who oppose Obama for the same reason (something in his earlier political life), but that doesn't take away from his rhetorical skills. And Obama DID give a better response to Nader's announcement than Hillary Clinton did.

Years ago there was a book with a title like "In the Shadow of FDR" saying every president since had been compared to FDR and had a hard time getting out from his shadow. My guess is that Obama would have no problem with that.

Speaking of Nader having issues and wanting to bring injury to those who reject him... Perhaps Hillary would rather rule in her private hell than have a place in the Dem. party. She is flaming out. From today. Have a look: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/?tr=y&auid=872796

Jesse B, and not the "progressives" demonizing Nader, is correct. I will vote for Ralph unless Obamary change their positions, not to the "far left", but to the CENTER from their present right-wing stands on: cutting the huge, bloated and wasteful military budget; adopting a single payer Canadian-style national health insurance system; impeaching Bush/Cheney; opposing nuclear power; ending the occupation of Iraq; withdrawing from corporate trade agreements like NAFTA; among many others.

You right-wingers railing against the La Rouchian, Lucifer-like, Alfred E. Newman-esque Nader seem pathetically unable to mount a serious political dialogue, and the intellectually empty hero-worship of Obamary is the confirmation of this.

Instead of wailing about how Nader now threatens to lose you the next election, maybe you should be working to force your candidate to represent the American center rather than the corporate and statist interests of which they are part and parcel.

Nader will never support anyone else running for President. He would certainly never support anyone who actually could win. He indicated that Obama during this primary campaign should come out strongly in favor of Gazans and Palestinians against Israel. Brilliant strategy..to lose supporters against McCain...with no benefit to anyone.

And that he should suddenly adopt Nader's platform on a number of issues, discarding his own! If he had any shot of influencing the major candidates on the shaping of their campaign platforms and policy advocacy, he must have been sleeping as deeply as Rip Van Winkle ..only waking up now! For him to call Obama and try to get him to suddenly abandon his carefully considered position s on issues and then, when rebuffed, announce his own candidacy is either crazy or just selfjustifying his personal ego-driven inevitable run.

His completely unrealistic view of how to change public opinion or public policy is demonstrated by his ineffectiveness in the last 10 years.

The 2000 election was so close that Gore's loss can be correcly blamed on dozens of things, among them his failure to take his own home state or Clinton's (AR).

Just in Florida there's a dozen possible legitimate explanations, my favorites being the intentional disenfrancisement of minority voters by Katherine Harris, the infamous butterfly ballot that diverted Gore votes to Buchanan, and the incredibly stupid Elian Gonzales episode that energized the single-issue Cubans.

That said, it cannot be denied that in the absense of the Nader campaign, righteous as it may have been, Bush would have a different mailing address today.

The correct fix for this problem, IMHO, is instant-runoff voting, wherein you rank the candidates on your ballot and if no candidate wins a simple majority the 1st place votes for the last candidate are reassigned to their 2nd choice, etc., until someone does win a simple majority. Do that by state or even by electoral college elector and enough of Nader's supporters' second-place votes for Gore would have carried the day.

As for 2008, think back in a month how many times you hear the word 'Nader' on any newscast after tomorrow. His candidacy will be an insignificant blip in the news or on the ballots. He announced a few weeks ago he was considering this, right after Edwards quit, and was never mentioned again till this weekend. He is be a vain fool, but very left-siders will be foolish enough to throw their vote away again after he gave us Bush.

Although Nader could be a factor in a close election, his candidacy was largely ignored last time, and he will probably be weaker this time, maybe not even what he was in '96. However, he did win something like 4% in '96 in OR against Clinton and Dole, which as his strongest showing nationwide.

I think that Obama is popular enough among young people and progressives that Nader's base will virtually disappear with Obama as our nominee. Nader would probably pull more progressive votes if Hillary is the nominee.

The two Kafourys who are very active Nader backers are Portland attorney Greg Kafoury and his son, Jason. They organized the Nader mega rallies in PDX and others cities in 2000, which were impressive. The Kafourys who have been elected as Democratic officeholders, however, Stephen (Greg's brother), Gretchen, and their daughter, Deborah have always supported Democratic nominees, as far as I know.

I got to wondering about Kicinich (never my first choice) after reading the Kucinich/Nader comparisons in this thread, then went to this site for a few words about Kucinich's present Congressional race. Any comments on the following (not regarding $$ but regarding the criticism of Kucinich-as-congressman)?

"The usually underfunded Kucinich has done quite well in his money primary this time. Kucinich’s top opponent is Joe Cimperman, a Cleveland councilman endorsed by Cleveland's Mayor and the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper. Cimperman’s issue? Kucinich as an absentee congressman with no major legislative initiatives in his 12-year House career. But for the first time in his 30 year political life, Kucinich is the top-dog in fundraising."

It looks like most of us will agree Kucinich didn't have a chance of becoming president, but he stood for issues that would appear to be progressive - single-payer health plan, getting out of Iraq, and, maybe, adhering to the Constitution. Either there are only two or three percent of people in the United States who are progressive or the rest threw away their votes without getting anything in exchange. Let's say there are around 20 percent who agreed with Kucinich's platform. That could have translated to maybe 40 or so delegates in Kucinich's pocket that he could have used as bargaining chips to improve on Obama's or Hillary's platform. No such luck. So most likely the corporatocracy will continue to rule without token gestures to the progressive community, no matter who becomes president. Our only hope is that Obama will be able to deliver on some of the promises he made and, maybe, be an honest broker on the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy. Chances for that will improve if the people elected to Congress can think and be independent. Vote for Steve Novick.

Displaced Oregano said: "...it cannot be denied that in the absense of the Nader campaign, righteous as it may have been, Bush would have a different mailing address today."

Only if you're ignorant of the facts or so ideologically challenged that you don't care about the facts. First of all, even Al Gore now admits that the election was stolen, so why are you so certain that the thieves wouldn't have "found" or depressed votes elsewhere? Second, 12% of DEMOCRATS voted for Bush. Third, 25% of those who voted for Nader said that Bush, not Gore, was their second choice. Fourth, 60% of Nader voters said they would not have voted for Gore even if Nader had not been on the ballot.

trent said: Nader told Obama that he "should come out strongly in favor of Gazans and Palestinians against Israel."

Nader is not "against Israel". Like most Americans, he is for justice, and that means an even-handed approach to Israel-Palestine, which is the CENTRIST position in America.

Bill Bodden said: "Our only hope is that Obama will be ...an honest broker on the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy."

For someone who regularly rants about the Israeli/Israel lobby control of America, you fail to explain how you can support someone with Obama's position on Israel over someone with Nader's position. Is it that you really don't care at all about Palestinians or Lebanese, but have some other reason for your rants?

I don't know about you but I saw many comments on many blogs by Lefties expressing admiration for Kucinich while also indicating that they favored another candidate.

It is not only "Lefties" who are in favor of the platforms advanced by Kucinich and Nader. I and some of my friends endorse these positions because we are conservative in some ways. In this case, I use "conservative" in its truest form. Not the bastardized version that prevails today.

A national health plan will be better for the nation ensuring an improvement in the overall health of its citizens leading to elimination of much of the waste that is prevalent today and creation a productive work force.

The excesses of corporations need to be controlled and the extremes of wealth and poverty must be brought to an end. This is not to say we should all be in the same financial bracket. Some people will earn more and deserve more and vice versa. But our current system of rewarding some people for a few weeks of activity with sums of money that would equal what doctors, nurses, teachers, police, etc. would earn over two or three centuries is absurd. We need to heed President Eisenhower's warning about the rise of the military-industrial complex. That is why I am strongly opposed to John McCain and his lunacy about a hundred years in Iraq and bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Excesses of wealth and poverty and militarism are two factors that are common to histories of nations and empires that have declined and collapsed. A true conservative wouldn't want that to happen here.

On the other side of the coin, while we believe that anyone who does an honest day's work deserves a living wage, we would just as soon oppose anyone who thinks he or she deserves a living wage for less than an honest day's work.

Bill Bodden said: "Our only hope is that Obama will be ...an honest broker on the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy."

For someone who regularly rants about the Israeli/Israel lobby control of America, you fail to explain how you can support someone with Obama's position on Israel over someone with Nader's position. Is it that you really don't care at all about Palestinians or Lebanese, but have some other reason for your rants?

Harry K: You seem to have failed to notice that I support Nader's position on Israel/Palestine, but let's face reality. Absent some event of catastrophic proportions one of these three, and only one of these three, candidates will be elected president - Obama, Clinton or McCain. Obama is the only one who might offer a possibility of improving the lot of the Palestinians. I wouldn't bet the ranch on him delivering, but it would be a much better bet to say Hillary and McCain would be irredeemably worse.

I believe you are inaccurate in saying that I regularly rant "about the Israeli/Israel lobby control of America." I've made several statements about so many people in Congress being rubber stamps for the Likud and Kadima parties and AIPAC, but that isn't quite the same as controlling America; although, it does seem that way at times. There is a lot of outspoken opposition in the United States to this pro-Israel triad so saying they control America is hyperbolic and perhaps paranoid.

If God Himself (or Herself) was nominated by one of the political parties, Nader would insult him and run against him. This dude used to be a hero to many of us progressives, but now just seems like a pathetic egomaniac.

If you can't vote for Obama or McCain, who are the best possible candidates from their respective parties (as far as I'm concerned), why vote for Nader? Why not just go into the voting booth and write in Bozo the Clown? It will have the same effect.

Seriously, the only people who will vote for Ralph the Mouth are rebels without a cause.

If God Himself (or Herself) was nominated by one of the political parties,...

If Jesus Christ were running on a platform of health care for all and an end to poverty the Republicans would denounce Him for being a communist or socialist and the Democrats would reject him as unelectable.

And Ralph you have been doing what to make this world a better place since the last Presidential election? I thought so. Like the swallows returning to Capistrano every four years we again have Ralph Nader running for President.

Ralph Nader, the republicans best friend. I think this time however, has campaign will run just a well as the Corvair did.

Bush beat Gore by roughly 7500 votes. Nader got more than 22,000.

If Gore had been able to pick up the four electoral votes in New Hampshire, he wouldn't have needed Florida.

I will never forgive Ralph Nader for his selfishness and egotism.

How about the 200,000-plus Democrats who voted in Florida for Bush. Can they presume to have been forgiven?

Harry K:

"Displaced Oregano said: "...it cannot be denied that in the absense of the Nader campaign, righteous as it may have been, Bush would have a different mailing address today."

"Only if you're ignorant of the facts or so ideologically challenged that you don't care about the facts. First of all, even Al Gore now admits that the election was stolen, so why are you so certain that the thieves wouldn't have "found" or depressed votes elsewhere? Second, 12% of DEMOCRATS voted for Bush. Third, 25% of those who voted for Nader said that Bush, not Gore, was their second choice. Fourth, 60% of Nader voters said they would not have voted for Gore even if Nader had not been on the ballot. "

By my math, Harry, 50% (75%-25%) of 1.6% is a hell of a lot more than the 5-600 vote margin in Florida. The 60% number has no attribution and defies logic, but even if that fraction of Nader voters withheld their vote, the margin would have been overcome. A small fraction of the Democrats (or Cubans, or transexuals, or left-handed Dodge mechanics) who voted for Bush (not that I accept the 12% figure without attribution) could also have made the difference (that was one point of my post) but the math doesn't lie: Without Nader on the ballot in 2000, Gore wins.

Like a cancer you thought was in remission, Nader's back. Yes, THAT Nader, the one who "if you disagree with me, you're a corporate sell-out" or "you're either with me or against me" (Sound familiar?)

The same Nader who hooked up with Dick Armery to get funds for his last losing effort. The same Nader who was awfully quiet about Floridians being disenfranchised in 2000, because "at least that evil Gore didn't get elected."

Ralph Nader. Yesterday's news. A lot like yesterday's garbage. Only smellier.

Nader seems never to have heard of Gresham's Law of Diminishing Returns. And he isn't aware that there is a large new generation of voters come to age who probably don't know much about Nader. It makes me sad because I think Nader has a genuine legacy in all the legislation he helped get passed in the interests of the American public, but he will be remembered for this pathetic third act.

I voted for Nader in 2000. Those blaming Gore's loss on Nader voters are misguided at best. Kathrine Harris/Florida GOP/Antoine Scalia & Pals all bear significantly more responsibility for the shrub being awarded the White House even though he lost the election. To say that the Florida 2000 vote was a clusterfuck would be a monumental understatement. Blaming it all or even mostly on Nader is unmitigated bullshit. No offense intended but that's the truth of the matter.

I'm happy to say I agree with you again, Kevin. I would just add the incompetence of Gore and his campaign to the reasons he lost.

Who says Nader is going to draw votes from only the Democratic nominee? There seem to be an awfully high number of people who say they will vote for John McCain if Obama is not the nominee. Because the like the guy. Not, obviously, because they agree with McCain's positions. So maybe some of these voters will decide they like Nader better.

Mostly, though, Nader will get the votes of people who are so alienated from mainstream politics that they would not vote for either major party candidate. Nader won't siphon off votes from Obama.

Those blaming Gore's loss on Nader voters are misguided at best.

It is indisputable that Nader's candidacy in 2000 caused Gore to lose to Bush. Only someone willfully ignorant of reality can claim otherwise.

The fact that there are two dozen OTHER reasons Gore lost to Bush does nothing to make Nader or his supporters less culpable. That's like saying that the kid playing with matches isn't really responsible for burning the house down, since it wouldn't have burned had it been made of stone, or if the fire department had responded more quickly, or if the matchmaker had developed a safer match. All those things may be true, but the kid is still responsible.

If you voted for Nader in 2000, you are responsible for Bush's presidency.

Go here for information about the one progressive who's still in the presidential race: http://www.votenader.org/index.html

Here for today's Meet the Press netcast and transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

You haters should have the guts to first read and then engage rationally.

It's ridiculous to contend that a truly progressive candidate caused the election of a truly reactionary one by running against him. If Gore had run as a progressive, the "spoiler" argument might have some merit, but he ran as a neoliberal hawk, and he deserved to lose even if he didn't. His failure to fight for his victory, which was by a far greater margin than 500 or so votes (read the Wasserman and Palast material), is the primary reason Bush was installed.

To argue that only the two tiny slivers of the international political spectrum represented by Democrats and Republicans should be able to elect representatives to the most powerful nation state in the history of the world is a sign of contempt for democracy, and it is political bigotry.

Miles, let's put all that blame stuff aside.

If we don't learn from our mistakes, we will repeat them. It's important for Nader voters to understand the misery that they caused; otherwise, this will happen again.

Prior to the 2000 election, Naderites said that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. And they said that even if Bush won as a result of their vote, that was okay because it would cause a revolution in the Democratic party that would move the party permanently leftward. You were wrong on both counts.

Voting in Oregon doesn't exempt you from blame. Your ex post facto justification getting you off the hook because Nader didn't win Oregon is untenable because you didn't know when you voted that Gore would win Oregon. Culpability remains. Plus, your support encouraged others, in Florida and New Hampshire for instance, to join you.

You KNEW that voting for Nader was a protest against the Democratic party, and you KNEW that it might cause Gore to lose. And you did it anyway. You have every right to vote for a third-party candidate, but you do not have the right to do so and then blame someone (everyone) else when your vote has the impact that you hoped it would have.

Bloody hell, I can't believe after eight years of this disaster you people are still justifying what has to be one of the most self-destructive actions of any democracy, ever. Truly frightening.

No, Kevin, I have open contempt for people who refuse to take responsibility for their votes.

The difference between those who blame Ralph Nader for 2000 and Bush's appointment to the presidency and those who see other more significant factors lies in a fundamental way of thinking. The former can only see one actor in this event while the others remember all the actors who were on the stage.

Someone upthread said something about not learning from the mistakes of 2000. That is exactly what the Democratic Party leaders did in 2004 pushing Kerry and running an equally incompetent campaign. It is what they have tried to do with Hillary. She is a divisive figure which guaranteed a large portion of the voters would be against her, and she is running an incompetent campaign; although, not as inept as Gore's and Kerry's. She was pro-war on Iraq and was willing to start another war in Iran when the majority of the people had enough of the Iraq war and didn't want to get involved in another catastrophe. Then she was duplicitous in trying to explain away her vote showing contempt for the intelligence of many voters. Also her two personas on the night of the last debate when she was gracious and the following morning when she went into a harridan mode was in Kerry's flip-flop tradition. That must have turned many people off if they weren't already hostile to her. So it looks like she, her campaign staff and some of the pooh-baas in the party learned nothing from the past.

Kari wrote: I was under the impression that that was the whole damn point of the Independent Party. After all, Dan Meek is a major mover behind both the Nader Oregon operation and the Independent Party...

Major mover behind IPO? I guess I missed his big $$ donation or whatever "major movers" do.

As for the dismissive "whole point" part-- Well, you got me there! I don't have a glib, bumper-sticker rejoinder about the IPO. I'm one of those old lefties so I really get too "nuanced." But consider this: New voters, center left, aging hippies, recovering Republicans, a new kind of coalition; there are many points these folks will make.

Failing to endorse a full and fair recount in Florida immediately?

I'm glad you brought that up, Sal. That choice by Gore undermined whatever ethical or moral highground he might otherwise have inhabited in the immediate aftermath of the Florida Debacle, particularly among the Independents I remember discussing it with. It's damn near impossible to claim to support votes being counted when you don't actually want votes counted outside of Democratic strongholds.

Compare how Gore and the Democratic Party wimped out in Florida even though it was obvious Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and their cohorts in the Republican Party cheated with how the Ukrainians reacted when their incumbent dictator tried to steal the election in Ukraine. It looks like their republic meant more to Viktor Yuschenko and his supporters than what's left of ours meant to Gore and the Democrats.

You right-wing Democrats need to tell the rest of us which of the following issues you believe are "far left" and therefore reject as "politically untenable". This is a test of how far to the right you are, and how far to the right your wonderful candidates are, because they oppose all of them.

(1.) Adopt single payer national health insurance

(2.) Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget

(3.) No to nuclear power, solar energy first

(4.) Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare

(5.) Open up the Presidential debates

(6.) Adopt a carbon pollution tax

(7.) Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East

(8.) Impeach Bush/Cheney

(9.) Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law

(10.) Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax

(11.) Put an end to ballot access obstructionism

(12.) Work to end corporate personhood

Anyone who has the time and inclination to read and comment here should listen to RN's announcement on Youtube. Do those who curse Nader even consider the rationale behind 3d parties and independent candidacies? Where do you think all the truly progressive ideas originate? Learn some history. Did you notice that Clinton passed the GOP platform, from WHO and NAFTA to ending Aid to Families With Dependent Children, from consolidation of financial institutions to media consolidation? His sanctions killed half a million Iraqi kids, or didn't you notice? Obama may become a great President, but when he says the defense budget and Israel/Palestine are off the table for discussion, do you think he might need a bit of pressure from the left? Why does the GOP treat the Libertarians with respect, while the Dems make Nader the scapegoat for all the failings of their party, then disgrace themselves with dirty tricks to sabotage his access to the ballot? Why are so many Dems so easily manipulated into looking to Nader instead of their own corporateized leadership? Why has your new Congress been such an abject and cowardly failure? Why don't you guys ever ask any decent questions? Why don't you sign your own stuff? Greg Kafoury

Obama may become a great President, but when he says the defense budget and Israel/Palestine are off the table for discussion, do you think he might need a bit of pressure from the left?

This is a key point. Obama has promised change so the defense budget and Israel/Palestine can't be off the table. His supporters have an obligation to demand that he deliver on this promise of change. They just can't sit back and tune in to his Saturday morning radio talks, then head for the golf course or the shopping mall and abandon their responsibilities as citizens.

Miles - Do you have any contempt for the kind of campaign Gore chose to run in 2000?

Sure. As I note above, there are dozens of reasons Gore lost the election, and each one is important. But the argument made by Nader supporters boils down to this: "Because of these other reasons, I'm no longer responsible for my vote." It's an absurd position. Nader voters get incensed when they hear people say "Gore's not responsible for all the poor decisions he made because Nader was the reason he lost." Yet that's the exact same argument they make in response.

In the end, elections matter and voting is not a privilege, it's a responsibility. And it's your responsibility to be informed in your vote. Gore could have spent the entire campaign yelling "Nyah, nyah, nyah!" and voters still would have had to weigh the impact of voting for Gore or Bush. Nader voters made a very, very bad decision, and just once I'd like to hear someone fess up to that rather than shift blame to someone else. Gore is not responsible for your vote, you are.

As for Greg Kafoury's post, if you want change, work for it constantly. Don't just sit back and throw the election to the Republicans because you're pissed off that the Democrats have moved to the center. Or at least have the cajones to stand up for the consequences of your vote. If you really believe that we as a country are better off with Bush, which is the argument you made in 2000, then stand behind it.

Of course you won't, because you know that it's a ridiculous thing to say. Most of knew it was ridiculous in 2000 as well.

Link to the Nader Meet the Press Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkDjpXEELZw

Or search YouTube for "Nader Meet the Press."

David Hess Nader Supporter

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 but wrote him in 2004 to stay out of the race. If Nader or anyone wants to run for president (or other office) they should stake a position at least a couple of years before the election and not wait until most people have decided on a candidate with only a few weeks before party primaries. Some radical circumstance may create an exception to that policy, but it hasn't occurred yet.

And Miles and Stephanie V. please accept my apologies for Nader in 2000 and getting Bush elected. I feel personally responsible for that and the war on Iraq and all the other disasters of the Bush administration.

"Where we depart is on anything and everything that Nader has said or done in the last eight years for strategically working to improve that situation."

When Nader did that radio ad implying that all Oregonians should have voted against Death with Dignity because after all, Ralph Nader had done a commercial against it and that was all we should need to know----how dare Oregonians vote in favor of a measure Nader opposed, and for the wrong reason besides!---a friend of mine who was leaning to Nader in 2000 said "That's it! I'm voting for Gore!".

There are people who have voted/ actively participated in other 3rd party campaigns (like 3rd party US Senate in 1996 and John B. Anderson in 1980 for president) who didn't support Nader. The attitude that all good people who believe in 3rd parties owe allegiance to Nader is something that only turns folks off from the 3rd party cause as well as Nader.

I will never fully understand the logic behind blaming Ralph Nader for all these evil things that have happened. It's one of the more ridiculous things that I've encountered, particularly given that the people who seem most upset by it are people that I generally agree with on political matters.

Ralph Nader did not lose the 2000 election for Al Gore. Ralph Nader did not start the Iraq war, pass the Patriot Act, etc.

I chalk all of this hatred and blame up to a lot of people who are bitter, disappointed and distressed with the way this country has gone. Nothing I can say or do will change that. I will not be supporting Ralph Nader this year, but I won't be blaming him for anything either.

MCR, given the vote tallies in Florida and New Hampshire in 2000, are you honestly suggesting that Bush would still have been elected if Nader had withdrawn? Honestly?

Given the facts, I don't understand how we can NOT blame Nader and his supporters for throwing the election to Bush. And for the record, I've been this angry at Nader since before the election, long before we knew just how bad Bush was going to be.

Once again, Kevin, blaming Republicans instead of taking responsibility for your vote. If just 10% of Nader voters had voted for Gore instead, Harris wouldn't have even had the opportunity to monkey with the results.

If voting for Nader was a brave stand against the corporatization of the major political parties, why are none of you brave enough to take responsibility for the consequences?

The problem is not that so many people voted for Nader instead of Gore. The problem is that so many people voted for Gore instead of Nader.

Hey Kafoury!

I signed my post. This one and my earlier one.

Even if I agreed with Nader on every issue (which I don't) I'd still never vote for him because he is a self righteous, incompetent ego-maniac.

I have no interest in a third party that he leads.

He's become a laughing stock, the Harold Stassen of the Hawthorne crowd. He's over, obsolete, through, if he was a horse he would be glue by now.

Good Lord, if Gene McCarthy was still alive you'd be voting for him now.

I, and I suspect many here at Blue Oregon, fondly wish that a true multi-party political system could exist and flourish in America. We should work for it. I voted for Nader in 1996, after I knew the election was decided from the eastern returns, as a protest against the choices offered. I have many sympathies with the Green party, the Libertarians (civil rights), even with true fiscal-conservative small-government Republicans at times.

But we don't have an effective multi-party system. As long as we have a plurality-rules (and assigns all the state's votes in a block to the anachronistic Electoral College) system, running a lefter-wing candidate can only take votes from the Democratic candidate, votes that may give the Republican (actual, not mythical balanced-budget) candidate the election. There really is a difference between Bush and Gore. The time to work to influence the outcome is in the primaries and before, or working to change the system with instant-runoff rules, etc.

Dozens of factors cost Gore the 2000 election; anything that could have changed 300 Florida votes, brought out 600 more Gore votes, or suppressed 600 Bush votes, can reasonably be blamed for the result. Nader's campaign is one obvious, indisputable factor. He doesn't deserve "the blame," as one of many factors, but a Nader-2000 vote (in Florida) can only be defended if the voter 1) believes that the country and world would be no better off with US President Gore, or 2)he/she would have voted for Bush as a second choice.

Nader has a valid message and many valid points. What he doesn't have is a chance to do anything other than help another pro-war Republican become President. Not this way.

The problem is not that so many people voted for Nader instead of Gore. The problem is that so many people voted for Gore instead of Nader.

That's where you and I part ways, Bill. I didn't want either one of them (or Shrub) to be President. Nader was partly a safe protest vote and partly the only one on my ballot who seemed willing to be bluntly honest with me.

Kevin: My statement (first paragraph) was rhetorical prompted by the thought of the American people recognizing Nader's superior character over Gore's which you basically imply with your reference to Nader's honesty. I still distrust Gore because of his willingness to sell Elian Gonzales down the Miami River to get the Cuban vote instead of returning him to his father. Then, as you will most likely agree, Gore ran a contemptible campaign. Compare that with Nader's record as a consumer advocate that has saved thousands of lives and protected the health of millions.

I believe recent history has made it evident that the only role a third party candidate for president can play is that of a protest candidate. In the unlikely event one were elected, the oligarchs of both parties would do to him or her what they did to Jimmy Carter. Place their own interests ahead of the nation's and undermine the people's choice.

If people want to protest and be effective the way to do that is to elect more responsible people at the local level like Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold and a few others. That is the only way at this time that legislation will be effected if we want a good national health care system that works for the people and not the insurance and hospital corporations, respect for the Constitution, and other issues on Nader's and Kucinich's platforms. We can help to do that here in Oregon by electing Steve Novick to the U.S. Senate.

Kevin said: "The Israeli Lobby and the Military/Industrial Complex Lobby are two of the most, if not THE most, powerful lobbys in this nation. Considering that a primary point of running in an election is to win, what sense would it make for Obama to take those two powerful lobbys on now rather than after securing the election?"

First of all, the suggestion that the "Israel Lobby" and the "Military/Industrial Complex Lobby" are in any way equal in power and influence is idiotic. It is an argument that buys into an anti-Semitic rhetoric that blames right-wing Jews for historical U.S. hegemony (See the work on this by Joseph Massad, Norman Finkelstein, Stephen Zunes, and Noam Chomsky, among others). Here's a sample from Massad, a Palestinian intellectual who has been viciously attacked by the Lobby:

"...when and in what context has the United States government ever supported national liberation in the Third World? The record of the United States is one of being the implacable enemy of all Third World national liberation groups, including European ones, from Greece to Latin America to Africa and Asia, except in the celebrated cases of the Afghan fundamentalists' war against the USSR and supporting apartheid South Africa's main terrorist allies in Angola and Mozambique (UNITA and RENAMO) against their respective anti-colonial national governments. Why then would the US support national liberation in the Arab world absent the pro-Israel lobby is something these studies never explain."

Second, your suggestion that Nader's or Kucinich's centrist position on the Palestinian question (i.e., even-handedness with an emphasis on justice) is impossible because it would damage your party's chances of winning is vile. Your contention that we should just elect your candidate because he might move to the center after he is elected is bogus; he is just as likely to move to the right.

The reason why Democrats have the reputation of being weak, timid or lacking in backbone is because of arguments like yours. I am 62 years old, and I have heard these arguments all my adult life. If we do not begin now to address the real causes of the massive suffering for which we Americans are responsible, we are merely fiddling while Rome burns.

Well, one sensible reason is, "Lobbys (sic)" don't vote. They have a lot of money, and they can certainly raise a stink, but neither lobby commands a huge chunk of voters in and of themselves.

True to some extent but not entirely. First of all, there is a perception of the Likud/Kadima/AIPAC lobby having power to influence a large bloc of votes. That perception may be excessive and not agree with reality, but if the candidates buy into it, it will be influential.

The military-industrial complex is another matter. The war industries employ millions of voters and potential voters. If a candidate says he or she will cut back on funding weapons of mass destruction the PR flacks for these war corporations will get the message out to their employees that their jobs will be at risk if this particular candidate is elected. These employees may not understand that increased militarism could bring this nation down, but they know that if they lose their jobs they will have problems paying their mortgages and car payments. And the generals and admirals who are grasping for some new multi-million dollar toys will get the message down the chain of command that this candidate is a liberal wimp who is betraying the troops.

From today's Democracy Now:

Noam Chomsky: Why is Iraq Missing from 2008 Presidential Race? *

In a major address, Noam Chomsky says there has been little change in the conventional debate over a US invasion abroad: from Vietnam to Iraq, the two main political parties and political pundits differ only on the tactics of US goals, which are assumed to be legitimate. On the other hand, public opposition to war has also remained consistent, Chomsky says, but, whether Iraqi or American, ignored.

Listen/Watch/Read http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/26/noam_chomsky_why_is_iraq_missing

Darrell: One reason the politicians are doing nothing is that the people are doing nothing.

The people are doing nothing because they are enthralled by the bogus choice they are being given between a black conservative and a female conservative. The "debate" last night, in which both candidates "challenged" the other on how much they love Israel and the military was disgusting and went far, if you were paying attention, to explaining why real progressives should flock to someone like Nader.

What you who cry your crocodile tears for the Palestinian people need to understand is that you can't have it both ways. Either you really believe that we must now recoil from our unqualified support of Israel, or you really believe that Obamary is the solution to your dreams.

Many of agree (at least partially) with what Greg Kafoury says about Clinton-Gore almost having asked for and maybe needed a progressive/populist challenge. I wish that Nader, or for that matter Paul Wellstone, Jesse Jackson or even Dick Gephardt would have challenged Gore in the 2000 primaries. Instead we had to choose between Gore and Bll Bradley, anotehr free trade technocrat neo liberal. The problem with Nader was, obviously, like many 3rd party cands., he became a spoiler and focussed on swing states like OR, WA, MN, and NM, where he was only drawing from Gore's base.

Why doesn't Nader go to states like ID, WY, SC, TX, etc,,, where more people really need to hear his message and where, in most years, he wouldn't prevent a D victory because we usually lose there anyway? I think states like OR already know the drill and we elect good Democrats like the kind we have in the legislature today.

Grant: When Nader was recently asked why he didn't run as a Democrat, he responded, "Look how they've treated Kucinich." Kucinich was removed from debates, prevented from debating, and truncated when he was allowed to debate. None of the "top tier" (i.e., money-changing) candidates protested his treatment. The party insiders treated the only true progressive running for the Democrat nomination the same way they treated Nader.

The "spoiler" meme is getting old. You can't spoil a system that's already rotten to the core. According to you guys, no one outside of the two corporate/hegemonist parties should run a candidate, since they might drain off votes from the terrible candidates that you two parties keep producing. It was Gore and then Kerry who were the spoilers, because Nader was the better candidate by far.

The Democratic-Republican Party split into two factions during the presidential campaign of 1828. One, the National Republican Party, was absorbed into the Whig Party in 1834; the other became the Democratic Party. The Whig Party was dissolved after 1856, when the Republicans replaced it.

You Democrats and Republicans should formally re-join (you already are joined by your foreign, trade, and corporate policies). Allow a progressive party to emerge from the ashes of your collective irresponsibility.

<hr/>