"Although it's not a done deal, the idea of Obama choosing Joe Biden as his running mate is kind of like getting underwear for Christmas. You know that you can use it, but it's not exactly what you were hoping for." -Tbogg 8/19/08

To bad that Obama sold out. If he had picked Richardson, or someone like him there would have been no problem. To pick JOE BIDEN? Where is the change?

You need to check the voting records as well as look at all the money Biden wants for military to continue. You would have thought people would have gotten tired of being put out on the streets to help the corporations keep taxing us to death.

Are people that brainwashed? What has government given us for all the money they have taken from us? Do we have health insurance, can we afford our homes, do we have savings, do we get a pay raise every year? The answer for most Americans is NO.

We seem to forget they reflect us, not reverse. They have set up their little empires and have gotten rich off the sweat and tears of Americans. I work as much as I can to keep the bills paid and food on the table, if there is a medical emergency, where do I get the money to cover that? Government has tried everyway they can to let older people play with their Social Security in the stock market.

I am very angry and see no change other than people continuing to live in a country where politicians, government workers, and corporations reap all the benefits and we get stuck bailing out their misdeeds.

There is no hope for this country and with Biden sitting on the other half of the ticket where is the change? For the first time in my life I will be voting against the Democrats. My vote will not be wasted though, I will check out the smaller groups and check out their position. This is the year, I take myself out as a Democrat :(

Status quo YOU CAN believe in!

Aren't you the same people who rejoiced when the democrats took office last November, saying things like "Now we'll see cange!" Wake up! Aint nuthin gonna change until you do!

No public funding for abortion; it imposes a view. (Apr 2007) Supports partial-birth abortion ban, but not undoing Roe. (Apr 2007) Accepts Catholic church view that life begins at conception. (Apr 2007) Nominees should agree on constitutional right to privacy. (Apr 2007) Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008) Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008) Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007) Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006) Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005) Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004) Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000) Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999) Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998) Rated 36% by NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion. (Dec 2003) Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004) Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006) Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

Joe's okay with me. It would of been interesting if he would of picked Senator Clinton but the news media would of been too obsessed with the Bill Clinton scandal angle. She might of been more of a distraction than a help, unfortunately.

He brings much needed foreign policy experience to the ticket and will be a much more hard nosed effective campaigner than the last two VP picks, John Edwards and that nobody named Lieberman.

Not a great pick.

JoeBama will now have to scale back their rhetoric on McCain being old, which I thought was fairly effective.

The question is will Biden continue being in love with himself and his voice to drone on and on and on with reporters. It's a given that the R's will attack JoeBama as the candidates that will talk everyone to death.

Kaine or Bayh would have been tons better.

Oh V... I'm not sure where to begin. I guess by pointing out that you can't change anything if you don't get elected. I have absolutely no respect for people who say they'll opt not to vote because the options don't include EXACTLY what they're looking for. Way to participate in democracy.

So, rather than get someone closer to your views elected, you choose to increase the likelihood that someone with views further away from your own gets elected. Brilliant.

My advice? Grow up. You didn't get a pony. Vote anyway. Not voting has FAR worse consequences.

Biden has made so many asinine statements (common with people with a propensity for verbosity) there can only be two explanations for his survival. He is an insider and the people of Delaware are not the brightest. A couple of years ago Biden was on "Meet the Press" discussing the frustration people were having with the war in Iraq (for which he voted). Biden's solution was for Bush to go on national television to explain the facts to the American people and tell them what was really going on. This after two years of Bush and his administration lying to the American public. Now go figure. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

by the way... Biden's not my choice, but then neither is Obama. None of my choices would ever have had a snowball's chance in hell of getting more votes than a "centrist", so I'm not going to whine about it. Do I wish things were different? Oh yes. I'll do something about it by voting down the whole ticket.

Didn't Joe Biden vote for NAFTA, Defense of Marriage, and the Iraq War? I know, I know--everyone voted for the war--but NAFTA? Gonna be a tough pill to swallow...

Oregon Independent, I do agree with you. It's my lack of illusion about politicians that allows me to vote at all. I'm holding my nose while I do it, in hopes that someday it will be easier to do. Call me cynical, but I never trusted Obama to begin with. I've not experienced any disillusionment. I'll vote for the candidate who is closest to my ideals. To be surprised by one's candidate "selling out" is to be naive.

Biden. No nonsense, blue collar, fighter. 36 years in the senate starting at age 29. Yeah, his voting record will be all over the map. So what. I would suspect his ideals have evolved. He's bare knuckles to Obama's velvet gloves. Good choice.

"It's a given that the R's will attack JoeBama as the candidates that will talk everyone to death."

The R's would attack ANYBODY Obama picked, so why worry about it? We have to stop letting fear of what the Republicans will do dictate our decisions.

I'm still sorting this out but my first instinct is that Obama made a smart move by going with a safe, well-known guy with a lot of experience to counter McBush's "inexperienced" argument. Biden also is a good attack dog and he can sink his teeth into McBush while Obama stays above the fray and looks presidential. And I think if there were any significant skeletons in his closet they would have been found by now.

"My advice? Grow up. You didn't get a pony."

LOL! "V" is the kind of spoiled child who supported Nader because Gore wasn't liberal enough and put Smirky McChimp in the White House eight years ago. Will these people ever learn? Doesn't look like it.

I was excited by the choice of Biden, but would also have been happy with Richardson or some of the other choices.

Folks, read what Jack Roberts said to understand one reason Biden is a good choice. Another reason--he connects with the blue collar working class folks in places like Scranton, PA and Delaware. He has impressed many people over the years not only with rhetorical skills. Yes, he's made some boners, but I'll take outspoken over "don't ask such detailed questions--just shut up and believe what we say" any day of the week! He has quite a life story. This is a man who has continually gotten re-elected, survived family tragedy, survived serious illness, made no more than his share of dumb political mistakes and questionable votes (you want perfection?--go get yourself elected and establish a "perfect" voting record), and is a real joy to listen to in a committee chair position, on TV, in a presidential debate.

Let me remind you that some of the folks here unhappy with Biden as a status quo candidate were also the folks who took issue with Darlene Hooley's voting record. Our district suffered almost a decade of Denny Smith and one term of Jim Bunn, but then Darlene was elected and is retiring undefeated. Her voting record may not have always pleased Portlanders, may not have always pleased every single constitutent. But she has been a tireless advocate for her constituents, esp. in recent years for veterans.

I think Biden will be a tireless advocate, and a more gung ho "attack dog" VP candidate than we have seen in awhile among Democrats. He is the insider Walter Mondale to Jimmy Carter . Remember, folks, that ticket won against a much more moderate and appealing Republican presidential candidate named Ford than McCain is--when McCain's voting record and public statements get the kind of scrutiny which will be coming up in the fall, he will be less appealing to ordinary folks. And who does he pick now who will be able to challenge Biden in a VP debate?

Biden will be a good governing VP also, and a lot better than Cheney!

Biden's a very smart guy. Beyond that, I'll play by the Thumper Rule.

What is the Thumper Rule? O yeah: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

Or at least excoriate intelligently.

Time to focus on who it is we's taking to the dance, never mind who we were yearning for. Is everyone gonna continue taking the guy apart for the fun of listening to the crash of Legos and the rumble of Tonka trucks, or shall we research who he really is and get busy on the local level politicking for a win? We CANNOT have another round of more of the same. I WILL shoot myself or STAY in Belgium next time.

A curious anomaly the political pundits never seem to focus on: Since Franklin Roosevelt, the Democratic Party presidential nominee always initially picks a sitting US Senator as his vice-presidential running mate. Now Obama follows the pattern.

The only exception was Mondale, who picked Congresswoman Ferraro in 1984. McGovern initially picked Senator Eagleton in 1972; Shriver was a second choice after Eagleton dropped out.

Why do the Democratic presidential candidates always fixate on US Senators as running mates? I don't think there is any cosmic reason for it. But it's a sure bet if you are looking for one.

Kevin:

JoeBama will now have to scale back their rhetoric on McCain being old, which I thought was fairly effective.

Bob T:

That's a good thing, then. I thought one of the "European" things y'all say we lack here is seeing people over 65 as our wise elders just getting started, that we toss 'em out at 65 as being incapable of much of anything. That was one of the good things about Reagan -- while people were saying he wouldn't live to the end of his first term he actually showed that most others his age should be considered for that office.

Now I see the Dems are back to supporting agism in all its ugliness. Gee, what else is new.

Bob Tiernan

Darrel-- Thanks for correcting me on that, I was thinking of the Afghanistan vote. It makes me wonder why Chuck Currie and others describe Biden as a progressive. He's bad on trade (generally only voting against free trade agreements when they come from Bush), he voted wrong on the war, he voted wrong lots of times.

Bob, I'm not sure Reagan is a good example of why we should respect our elders as capable.

Obama has been doing everything he can do reassure American elites that he will not oppose the American empire project, that he will not materially change the systems of power and wealth distribution. Biden is another brick in that wall.

That said, the Biden pick is better than most of the others he could have plausibly chosen, given his constraints. Maybe Richardson would have been a little better - maybe. Other than that, everyone else mentioned that I'm aware of was well to Biden's right.

dartagnan said, "'V' is the kind of spoiled child who supported Nader because Gore wasn't liberal enough and put Smirky McChimp in the White House eight years ago. Will these people ever learn? Doesn't look like it."

Won't you right wing Democrats ever learn? GORE WON and he failed to fight for his victory due to his corporate bosses' opposition to it. And this election is also being stolen right in front of your eyes, if you had them open. Biden, not quite as liberal as Lieberman was in 2000, will aid the theft.

Read these and weep:

(Wh)Oregonian: Nader backers use ploy to get spot on ballot

John Zogby explains: "Just as party leaders pack their bags for Denver, our latest Reuters/Zogby poll finds their nominee in some trouble...Interestingly, Obama's margins among what had been his strongest demographic groups dropped by as much as 12 points. These include Democrats, women, city dwellers and younger voters - those ages 25-34. Also, Obama has lost his lead among the swing Catholic vote, dropping 11 points to McCain over a month."

Just as I predicted, those who had assumed that Obama was a progressive during the primary are feeling betrayed. The Obama "brand" is tainted, and being "less insane" than McCain will not be a winning message.

V: dartagnon and the other mouseketeers have shown you how the DP feels about you and other real progressives. Work for Nader and you'll feel proud to have contributed to a progressive campaign, whether or not he wins.

Work for Nader and you'll feel proud to have contributed to a progressive campaign, whether or not he wins.

You mean the guy who took all the Republican money last time? Who never learns?

Have fun. I hope all that pride makes up for McCain's SCOTUS picks.

Is there better evidence of the need for election reform than Democrats' efforts to keep Nader off the ballot and Republicans' efforts to promote his candidacy?

Here's what your own David Sirota has to say about Biden;

"Obama's willingness to anoint a senator who voted for two landmark travesties - the Bankruptcy Bill and Iraq War - gives us some disturbing clues about the Illinois senator's attitude toward the economic progressive movement and the antiwar movement. It also shows how much work those movements have in front of them - and how, in particular, the antiwar movement's strategy of focusing all attention on Republicans has actually helped create the situation whereby the Democratic Party feels perfectly comfortable rewarding supposed Serious Foreign Policy Voices like Biden even after they voted for the war." (What Biden Means)

ryan: I advise you to read Obama's legal advisor and apparent first choice for the supremes Cass Sunstein's positions on blocking any prosecution of Bush for "non-egregious" crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance, supporting John Roberts for Chief Justice, or supporting the Bush theory of inherent authority to spy on Americans without warrants (Sunstein Rejects Prosecution of “Non-Egregious” Bush Crimes and Sunstein An Advisor To Barack Obama) before you conclude that Obama is significantly better on court appointments.

Furthermore, I think you should consider more carefully Obama's right-of-center positions on trade, increasing military spending, FISA, withdrawal of all U.S. personnel from Iraq to home, single payer health care, nuclear and ethanol, corporate crime and welfare, impeachment of war criminals, unionism, Wall Street securities speculation, even-handedness in dealing with Palestine/Israel, and living wage.

A vote for McBama is a vote for Bush.

Rousing speech, good cadences, content-rich if you like that kind of stuff. Scary. I am trenchant about remembering who the hell is talking to you and why. The speechwriters plus ever-strong Obama delivery got some emotion going here.

As to Nader, for all that I "believe in him" as a myth I grew up with, I recall contacting his offices when in OK related to drug-trafficing Sheriffs (later indicted for sex with minors - another story "everybody knows"), and being put on a dizzying array of politically-correct junkmail lists... that never stopped until I left the state! ... and no contact back viz the local need.

Nader's folks cauterized that receptor site but good.

ryan, t a, etc. etc., I believe you're missing the point when you criticize those who are not jumping on board the Obama express.

Try and see this from another point of view please.

This present administration has stolen two elections. They have entered into an illegal war. They have killed at least hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraquis and Afghans, they have spent trillions on this enterprise, they have enriched their cronies, they have violated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in breathtaking ways, and they laugh at Congress.

From the Democratic party's nominee we hear nothing intelligible about this. Nothing.

What we hear is a vaguely post-partisan, let's-get-beyond-all-this kind of rhetoric. Nothing about taking back our country from the war criminals and greedy little hustlers who now talk in the name of America. Nothing about fundamentally drawing down the military adventurism and the immense-beyond-imagining military budgets that have bled us dry. Nothing about reversing the flow of wealth to the top .1% - you know, the folks that can't recall how many houses they own. Nothing about turning our nation's path from the dark side of history to something we can be proud of - or at least not have to pretend that we're from Canada when we're traveling in Europe.

If Obama is going to win and make the win a real mandate for change, he has to stop with the Clintonian incrementalism. He has to break with the Evan Bayh DLC Republican-lite enthusiasts. He has to run a defiantly populist campaign that will allow him to toss the Blue Dogs under the bus. (ugh - I didn't like that last image, but you know what I mean . . . )

Most of all, he has to stand with the best of the Democratic tradition, with the best parts of Martin Luther King, Lyndon Johnson, Barbara Jordan, Tom Hayden, Shirley Chisholm, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders (well, he caucuses with the Dems), etc.

Does the Biden choice move him toward that? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe he'll be like Bush, and run on nothing and then unveil an ideology after the election.

But in the meantime, please don't blame those of us who are disappointed in the Democratic party for not standing for Democratic values, and who are casting about for alternatives.

... he has a real talent for coming across like he's totally on top of an issue

He has a real talent for being wrong on issues he claims to be totally on top of.

And he is very lucky that most of the American people are taken in by his style, which suggests that the Obama campaign has adopted style as a major part of its strategy. Look up and open your eyes and you'll find a couple of naked emperors or Trojan horses from the corporatocracy.

(Bill B. you have it completely backwards--the citizens of Delaware forgive Biden his malapropisms because they've known for three decades that he is intelligent, indepedent, and a fighter for their interests).

Forgiving Biden for his malapropisms must be habit forming. Presumably, they also forgave him for his shameless plagiarism of a speech by Neil Kinnock of the British Labour Party. And yakking away at senate hearings instead of asking penetrating questions, thus letting people off the hook. Did fighting for the interests of Delaware citizens include voting for the war on Iraq? Could be, I suppose if some of them are working for the war armaments industries and not the families of Delaware military who might have been killed or maimed in Iraq. Biden is independent? You have to be kidding. He is either part of the party oligarchy or one of its consiglieri.

Having said the above, I will concede that Obama and Biden will be less problematic than McCain and whomever he chooses for an accomplice.

Harry,

Obama and Biden are certainly safely within the dominant political consensus. Such is US politics. Presidential candidates who are "electable" are never agents for radically progressive change. Beginning there, I cannot help seeing significant advantage in the Democratic version of dominant consensus.

The chance of a US presidential election ending imperialist foreign policy or corporate hegemony are close to nil. I can understand your inability to vote for such flawed Democrats, but many progressives who see the world not very differently than do you cannot ignore the differences a Democratic administration would bring, imperfect as it would be.

This - from Media Matters - will soften my criticism of Biden's use of words from Neil Kinnock. Biden got a lot of flack at the time for a speech he made in which he failed to attribute credit to Kinnock. Apparently, on other occasions he did give the appropriate attribution.

As I said before, I'm not an Obama fan. But as I also said before, one has first to be elected in order to change anything. Nader talks a great talk, but he isn't going to be elected. Either Obama or McCain will. I don't believe they are equivalent. Bill Clinton didn't represent me very well at all, but he was not equivalent to GWB. I applaud the spirit of supporting Nader, but the end result is a move to the right, not the left, however incremental. Let's concentrate on electing progressives down ticket.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/08/the_case_against_joe_biden.html

I do notice a lack of representation in conversation of more than the big four groups: black, hispanic, asian, white. Where'd the national indigenous go in national conversations about HIV/AIDS, HepC, hunger, drugs etc?

Away all day at a meeting so this is a little late -

Biden is the ONLY person that has been in the top tier of people potentially running for Pres. or VP that has every been to Prineville/Crook Co.

In 1992 a debate was held in the indoor arena of the Crook Co. fairgrounds between representatives of the Pres. Bush, Clinton, and Perot campaigns. Biden was the representative for Clinton.

So, Joe Biden was here, and you can't say that for any of the others.

Tom C said, "The chance of a US presidential election ending imperialist foreign policy or corporate hegemony are close to nil."

But there is a chance that these two supremely important issues will at least be discussed if Nader is admitted to debates. Lacking that, regardless of whom we support, nothing will change.

You act like you think we have all the time in the world to build coalitions within the duopoly. But we are poised at the threshold of environmental and economic collapse. And we could be attacked at any moment by the people who Obama and McCain are threatening and terrorizing.

Perhaps Obama is less of a fascist than McCain, but he is a fascist. Perhaps Obama is less of a hegemonist than McCain, but he is a hegemonist. Perhaps Obama is less of a corporatist than McCain, but he is a corporatist.

As someone else said on another thread, perhaps Obama is "less insane than McCain" (still my favorite Obama slogan). But his policies are insane.

There are "differences" between any two people. Sometimes, though, we need to see that the similarities far outweigh the differences, especially when the similarities are likely to destroy our way of life and perhaps the rest of the world with it.

Nader is at 6% with 14% saying they would vote for him if they thought he could win. If the corporate candidates debated with him, it would be a three-way race.

Instead of complaining about Republican support for Nader, you Democrats could be seeking symmetry by doing the same for Barr. Unless Perot decides to run again, you will lose anyway, just as always, and there will be no progressive coalition to draw from next time, assuming there is a next time.

But there is a chance that these two supremely important issues will at least be discussed if Nader is admitted to debates.

That is why the corporatocracy and the oligarchs in the duopoly will do all they can to keep Nader out of the debates. And for the rest of Harry K's comment - ditto.

I'm not opposed to Nader being on the ballot. I'd like to see him in the debates. Four years ago I complained to the DNC about their efforts to exclude him.

First, that Nader has chosen to throw away the trust and credibility he spent a lifetime building on 3 consecutive, increasingly ill-advised, Presidential campaigns.

As I've said before, the problem with the 2000 election is not that so many people voted for Nader instead of Gore but that so many voted for Gore instead of Nader. A major reason for that is so many Democrats were more concerned with their party winning than they were with getting an honest person in the White House. But, as I've also said before, if Nader (or anyone else outside the duopoly) were elected the Democrats and Republicans would gang up on them as badly as or worse than they did to Carter. For the oligarchs and the people who support or enable them, the party's power trumps the nation's interests.

This is a good VP pick over the likes of Bayh, Kaine or Webb? Are you kidding me? Unless my memory is completely faulty, Joe Biden was right there with John McCain & Joe Lieberman leading up to the Iraq invasion. He was also highly critical of Obama's lack of experience & foreign policy positions during the primary. The Gore campaign selecting Joe Lieberman as a running mate was dumb, but this choice is downright stupid.

Kari, I am trying to identify some of these comments above that are "GOP trolls." I see people that are genuinely concerned about the future of the Democratic Party and would like to make it more democratic and human.

For myself, I think that I've been largely civil and respectful here. My impression is that you, on the other hand, and many of the other "regular Democrats" on Blue Oregon have regularly ignored arguments or have indulged in ad hominem attacks. Is this the way you want things to go?

For example, I thought that Oregon Independent's post above was thoughtful and well-written. Here's what I mean: are you arguing that he was wrong when he wrote that "Clinton did [pushed] through pro-corporate, anti-worker, anti-consumer trade policies that the Democratic Party had successfully opposed for more than 80 years" and that Obama's and Biden's acceptance of this is troubling? Are you arguing that this just doesn't merit discussion at this time? Or are you arguing that this merely mentioning this constitutes being a "GOP troll?"

From Paul G. with presumed sarcasm: Biden=consiglieri.

From Kari re Biden: He's got a populist appeal, especially to urban Catholics in Pennsylvania and Ohio - and he's willing to be incautious enough to rip McCain's face off over the next 70+ days.

Sounds like a consigliero to me.

Fascism: Here is some background and one definition from http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Politics/fascism.htm that is shared by others: "Mussolini said that fascism should more properly be called "corporatism" since it was, under Mussolini, a blending of state and corporate power. Mussolini ought to know; he was the first fascist leader. As an economic system, fascism was widely admired in the west (Churchill considered Mussolini "a great man" and liked the economic aspects of fascism). In America fascism was, unsurprisingly, extremely popular among the upper class. The leading advocates of a fascist economic system to fight the depression – Germany in the late thirties had beaten the depression – were the Bush family and other elite clans. There was even a weird kind of half-assed coup attempt staged against FDR by those same interests in the mid thirties. Fascism isn’t a puppet of the ruling class. It is an extension.

"Definition one: it is an economic system in which corporations (or the wealthy elite) are essentially the government and vice versa."

Given that Obama, Biden and McCain (and most certainly his choice for V.P.) and their parties' oligarchies are aligned with corporations and the wealthy elite, fascism is not that far-fetched.

Bill, Nader was his own worst enemy in 2000. There was a joke locally that it was hard to believe that there were actually Nader people with good manners. Did they really have to yell LET RALPH DEBATE during the entire outdoor Tipper Gore speech in Salem? Tipper would tell her husband to let Nader into the debates if only they drowned out her speech? (I thought the Republicans were smart to appear in that crowd, carry signs, but silently so people could hear the speech.) Did the Nader folk think the whole "if you don't support Nader you are no longer my friend" routine would gain him votes? Or was it all about bullying non-believers?

Someone I knew had been leaning towards Nader until he heard something Nader said about Oregon's Death with Dignity measures.

"I told you Oregonians not to vote for those, and I told you why---but you voted for them anyway. "

Here was a strong supporter of the Death with Dignity measure who felt insulted by Nader and decided, therefore, to vote for Gore.

Nader's language has gotten increasingly harsh. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO AGREE WITH ME! is basically what McCain says about anyone who dares to question McCain on Iraq and say anything beyond "the surge worked". Both of them strike me as grumpy old men.

And yes, I once admired Nader--heard him speak 30 years ago, when he made more sense.

Thanks for your opinions, now please return to the Nader campaign, and good luck.

This is supposed to be a web site for "progressives." If all the Naderites and those who respect him left, there would be very few progressives left. Mostly Kucinich and Feingold supporters. A friend of mine was recently at a gathering of registered Democrats with the intention of setting up a "progressive Democrat" group. One of the supposed leaders walked in sporting a Hillary Clinton button. That's a progressive Democrat?

Bill, Nader was his own worst enemy in 2000. There was a joke locally that it was hard to believe that there were actually Nader people with good manners. Did they really have to yell LET RALPH DEBATE during the entire outdoor Tipper Gore speech in Salem?

LT: Surely you can do better than tar Nader with some crackpots (who may have been agents provocateurs) who attached themselves to him.

Here was a strong supporter of the Death with Dignity measure who felt insulted by Nader and decided, therefore, to vote for Gore.

I disagreed with Nader on Death With Dignity and his running in 2004, but they are relatively insignificant to many other aspects related to him. I'm not one of those people who believe a candidate should completely agree with my position. I believe in compromise but in limits to compromise. That is a judgment call.

The question is this: Does each individual decide what is important to them? OR does a public figure make that decision for them (as it sure sounded like Nader was doing on Death with Dignity--why believe he'd grant us the right to disagree with him on other issues?).

If we have the right to make our own decisions, when Nader trashed those who disagreed with him on Death with Dignity and the friend who had been leaning towards him decided to vote for Gore, there is no one to fault for that lost vote but Nader himself. Words and actions have consequences, and if any voter decides "enough of that guy--never going to listen to him again!", no amount of rhetoric will automatically change anyone's mind.

When I heard Nader on the radio about Death with Dignity in 2000, I thought, "There's a guy who only wants the votes of those who agree with him on issues he specifies".

And I have no idea about whether the Nadershouters were all Naderites or not. However, I lost 2 friends/former political allies over the 2000 Nader campaign. He was their guy and if I wasn't going to vote for him, then we were no longer friends.

One of them joined the 2005 movement against Kulongoski appointing Les AuCoin to the Forestry Board, and the 2 of us began communicating again by email. He even blogged on Counterpunch about the appointment. But the other friend and I have not communicated since.

Someone who can be that divisive a political figure is not someone I want in elective office, no matter how many good things he has done in his life.

And with regard to OI's comment about the nature of the 2 party system, where is Nader on campaign finance reform? On whether the caucuses (DSCC, DCCC and their Repubulican counterparts ) should play the role they do in campaigns?

Was he outspoken on the 1996 DSCC "Kerrey Millionaires"--a totally flawed strategy where none of them won? Or the recent story on Politicker about the head of the Republican Senate campaign committee saying members should be contributing more to the general effort? Sounds like a "pass through" to me. Where is Nader on whether pass throughs should be legal at the federal or state level? Or is that too specific for him?

I say this as someone who is not a lifelong member of any party--campaigned for Tom McCall, campaigned for John B. Anderson for President in 1980, supported (and enjoyed spending time with) Brent Thompson (3rd party candidate who got the most votes of all the 3rd party candidates in Nov. 1996) for US Senate in 1996. Throw labels like "corporatist" around all you want, but who in public office has a perfect voting record?

Folks, hate to break it to you, but Ralph Nader is over 70 years old. If he were on a stage with McCain and Obama, would he shine like his old self? Or would the stage look like 2 old guys and a bright young man?

The question I've always wondered is, what could President Nader accomplish? How in the world could he possibly move things as far to the left as we know he'd like to? He couldn't. He'd be blocked at every move, and probably set things back decades. I respect his role as that nagging voice that pushes the Democrats to listen to progressives, and I'd LOVE to have him included in the debates, (with Barr as well), but at the end of the day, all those conservatives are going to quietly, deliberately, vote for McCain even though they can't stand him.

And Nader? There was a time, but his time is long past. The Presidential race is between variations on the same corporatist? Duh. I assume most of us have read Zinn, and if you haven't, you must. Voting for Nader is a way to feel self-satisfied and superior, but accomplishes little. Save your enthusiasm for the down-ticket races where it REALLY makes a difference.

Ryan--a debate with McCain, Obama, Barr and Nader. Now THAT is a debate it would be fun to watch.

Somehow, I don't see McCain agreeing to it. Barr doesn't agree with him on Iraq, and demanding Barr admit "the surge worked" wouldn't be likely to get McCain any new votes.

Why is it that people are blaming Nader for Gore's loss in 2000? If we discount the allegations of vote fraud for a moment, isn't it clear that the Electoral College is a system designed to disenfranchise voters? How else to explain Gore's nationwide margin of 500,000 votes over Bush? Yet we focus on Florida and Bush's margin of 537 votes there. And why pick on Nader for that--the Socialist Workers Party of Florida garnered 562 votes, 25 more than the margin between Bush and Gore.

The logic of focussing blame on any candidate who dares to run in an election outside of the two major parties is inherently anti-democratic. The Electoral College systematizes voter disenfranchisement by excluding all but that one vote more that the winner gets over the loser in any state. In Oregon in 2000 that was 6,764 Gore votes that just didn't matter, twelve and a half times the spread in Florida, yet all I hear is people bitching that Nader dared to run for office in a democracy on a platform that differed significantly from the Democratic party platform and gained the support of almost 3 percent of the voters nationwide.

Why isn't the Electoral College the focus of the ire of everyone who believes in democracy?

Kari,

I'm not whining, I'm marvelling that so many fans can get passionate about this sport, and recall this game with such anguish, but don't go beyond scapegoating one player to acknowledge the bias in the system.

The game is over and I'm not trying to change the rules in the middle, but the sport continues on unchanged. Go back, look at the game tape, Kari. There were lots of people in that scrum--the rules allow anyone who can limp onto the field to play in the game--but give some players an unfair advantage, points in excess of their achievement. Are you annoyed because 14 other players dared to crawl onto the field despite overwhelming odds? Or just that one particular player chose to join the fray?

I marvel at the fact that so many fans refuse to acknowledge that the game is rigged. Unlike football where fans only recourse is to shout at the tv, in this game it's the responsibility of the fans to change the rules. But you can't change the rules if you don't see them as warping the game, if, instead, you scapegoat a player for daring to participate and think that's the extent of the problem.

It's like singling out the guy who blows the whistle on steroid use instead of noting that the system isn't set up to catch cheaters--misplaced ire and willful acceptance of a rigged system.

But democracy is not sport--it's flaws need to be corrected, by the fans, who first need to acknowledge that there are flaws.

I like Joe Biden and he was my personal favorite for pres., although on the issues I like Edwards and Kucinich somewhat better. He's a great campaigner, a solid Democrat, and as qualified as anyone to serve as pres, if need be. It's a great choice!

SOme responses to other comments.

NAFTA- I'm not happy that he voted yes, but many Senate Dems -led by our corporate Democrat president at the time- including Wyden (who was then in the house) voted yes. Here is a link to the NAFTA voted by all senators http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12760.html. Interesting that some southern conservative Ds and Rs voted no, like all the AL/SC senators, while liberals like Harkin , SImon, and Kennedy voted yes.

Abortion- Considering that Obama has an extremely liberal record on abortion and other issues, anyone with a political brain in their head should be happy that he picked someone more centrist. I worked on a campaign in Michigan and saw statues of the Virgin Mary outside many homes. MI is now one of THE swing states, and one that we have been used to winning. Having a Catholic who is not 100% choice should be helpful.

Upset someone else wasn't picked? I don't think an Obama-CLinton match would have ever worked. Hillary would have been challenging enough, but with Bill, no way. Bayh? Nice guy but boring and I don't think IN would have voted D even with him. Richardson? Are you kidding me? The guy has more baggage than Edwards. Read Bob Shrum's book.

Joe Biden is a great pick for what will be a very tough campaign. Anyone who is still predicting an Obama landslide is in la-la land. Blue states like OR won't decide this, MO, OH, FL, will and these are not liberal states.

Ryan:

Bob, I'm not sure Reagan is a good example of why we should respect our elders as capable.

Bob T:

Of course I can, because the that's a matter of opinion while his age during two terms (69-77) was not, and came first. He's as much the prime (and only) example as would a aged 69-77 Democrat would have been for all Americans whether he was capable or not. Can't you all see this simple point I'm making? It really didn't matter who it was. Any comments about about how capable he really was, or jokes about his memory, are just childish partisanship when it comes to this issue.

Bob Tiernan

Fascism not only merges state power with corporate power, it makes the state a party state controlled by a single fascist party,...

If we have a duopoly running the government that gets us close to this definition of fascism.

Bill, if the distinctions between Nader and Clinton exclude Clinton from being progressive, or even if they don't, the much bigger distinctions between Obama and Mussolini, Franco, Salazar and Hitler exclude Obama from being a fascist, and also McCain, although I think McCain more likely to enable the growth of fascist tendencies in the U.S. than Obama.

Chris: I didn't have a Nader-Clinton comparison in mind when I questioned the latter's progressive credentials. I merely referred to her own history. For example, Wal-Mart and her vote for war on Iraq. Otherwise, I agree with this paragraph.

And under those rules, Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election of 2000.

Al Gore, his campaign staff and the Democratic Party cost Al Gore the election of 2000. (1) He ran a lousy and contemptible campaign that offended many people so much they went from reluctant supporters to a third candidate; that is, Nader and others. (2) Reports out of Florida indicated there were thousands of Democrats (many more than Nader voters) who voted for Bush instead of Gore. (3) Thousands of African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans and Native Americans in Florida and New Mexico, all likely Gore voters, were disfranchised by vote rigging that Gore, Bill Richardson and the Democratic Party let the Republican Party get away with in line with past duopoly practices.

Kudos to Bill Bodden, ContentiousMFR, Oregon Independent, and Joe Hill (whom I dreamed I saw last night). Kari: you'd better watch out or BO might become a progressive blog after all.

The continuing claim by right-wing Democrats that Nader cost Gore the presidency and therebye ruined the Clinton legacy is so absurd that it requires little response, but I'll respond anyway.

GORE WON. Ask him. Ask him why he didn't fight for his own victory.

CNN exit polls in 2000 showed only about 47 percent of the Nader voters would have voted for Gore in a two way race, while 21 percent would have voted for Bush and 30 percent would have abstained. MSNBC exit polls in Florida showed that Nader drew almost equally between Gore, Bush, and "None of the above".

Gore lost in Florida among white women by a 53-44 margin. Gore ignored poor people in favor of pandering to the "middle class", losing 40% of traditionally DP voters in the process. Among Florida voters over 65, Gore lost 51-47, despite the fact that Bush ran on a platform to privatize parts of Social Security.

Why aren't you Nader-bashers condemning Dems who voted for Bush (12%)? Could it be that the DP prefers right-wingers to centrist progressives?

It's sophistry 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, your "spoiler" argument might have some merit, but he ran as a neoliberal hawk, and he deserved to lose, even if he didn't. And you are setting yourself up for another debacle by supporting another neoliberal hawk.

"...such is the pathetic state of the Democratic Party: so desperate to avoid admitting its own mistakes that it would prefer to attack a large segment of its progressive base, chastising them like misbehaving children, as if somehow that will bring them back to the fold. Not likely. And not a very smart move." (Tim Wise, No More Fall Guy)

Kudos also to darrelplant, as usual.

Chris L: We have no time for technical niceties. Don't use the word "fascist" if it makes you feel better, but know that support for either of the corporatist/hegemonist candidates is support for a continuation of the policies that have brought us to the edge of destruction.

Biden is Lieberman Redux. I fully expect him to join Joe and George after the next hard rain.

"I'm a-goin' back out 'fore the rain starts a-fallin' I'll walk to the depths of the deepest black forest Where the people are a many and their hands are all empty Where the pellets of poison are flooding their waters Where the home in the valley meets the damp dirty prison Where the executioner's face is always well hidden Where hunger is ugly, where souls are forgotten Where black is the color, where none is the number"

darrelplant: Thank you for the link to Maureen Dowd's column on Biden's speech.

Kari and fellow Democrats: If it's any consolation those of us who are "Naderites" will hammer Republican trolls as much as we do Democrats when they talk nonsense.

Can't you all see this simple point I'm making? It really didn't matter who it was. Any comments about about how capable he really was, or jokes about his memory, are just childish partisanship when it comes to this issue.

Bob, I'm disappointed in the mocking tone of your response, and the name calling. I do indeed see your point, but it's not the fact of Reagan's electability that I'm pointing to, but the end result of having elected him. I don't think the two can be viewed separately. It is also a fact that Reagan was suffering from a debilitating disease during his presidency. This is a real concern to anyone considering a candidate for president. Yes, Reagan was elected twice despite his age, and the flip side of that is that his age was a factor in the disease which affected his ability to govern effectively. Reagan's fight with Alzheimer's is a perfect example of why age should be considered. Why do we have a minimum age for the office?

What is the mechanism by which voting for Nader changes the system?

For you political deep thinkers - will Biden's selection increase or decrease the excitement of extremely young voters who launched (or at least helped crest) the Obama tidal wave? I am thinking about college kids and those slightly older who have never voted before and who don't give a damn about any part of the election except for Obama and his promise of a new way forward.

I live in fear that without the college and 20 somethings, McCain wins. And as a political know-nothing I have the uneasy feeling that Biden's selection won't add a lot of wow factor to the ticket among that demographic. It will be interesting.

For you political deep thinkers - will Biden's selection increase or decrease the excitement of extremely young voters who launched (or at least helped crest) the Obama tidal wave? I am thinking about college kids and those slightly older who have never voted before and who don't give a damn about any part of the election except for Obama and his promise of a new way forward.

This is an aspect of the Obama campaign that should be of great concern to many people. Most likely all but very few of the youngest Obama supporters still believe he will lead the nation to the changes they want and the nation needs. Recent events - his FISA vote, his AIPAC speech, and his willingness to dig us into a deeper hole in Afghanistan - have shown that Obama has reneged and will very likely continue to renege on the promises he made and implied.

Where is the change when Obama has shown he will ignore the Constitution (as he did on FISA) when it appears to be politically expedient to do so? Where is the change when Obama (like McCain) will continue the disastrous alliance with Israel's racist regime and ignore the pleas of other Israelis and Palestinians for human and civil rights in Palestine? Where is the change when he plans (like McCain) to attempt to resolve the Afghanistan problem by military means after the British and the Russians in Afghanistan, the United States in Vietnam, and other occupation forces around the world have demonstrated a consistent failure to defeat home-based insurgencies?

Obama's "promise of a new way forward" looks more and more like business as usual.

The risk as far as the young are concerned will be the creation of another generation of bitter and cynical people. Hopefully, these young people will recognize they are themselves partly to blame for being so naive and trusting, an error for which they should readily be forgiven. It is more important that they admit and rise above their mistakes, learn from them and join another team that might give the nation the new direction it and they need.

These young people (and apparently Greg D) also need to learn this election isn't an event organized for their excitement but one to determine the path along which this nation will travel in the future - a path that could continue this nation's decline and bring it closer to collapse.

These younger people need not feel overly embarrassed when we consider how many older people who should have known better made the same mistake - including at least two of Blue Oregon's more prolific contributors who behaved in the presence of Obama like teenagers at a Hannah Montana concert but have been relatively mute on the subject since Obama's AIPAC speech.

Greg D: Have you considered the opposite of "deep thinkers" might be shallow ones?

Since you think Biden and Obama are both fascists and DINOs, there is really not much for you to say.

Paul g: I didn't say Biden and Obama are fascists. I said according to one definition the suggestion of fascism is not that far-fetched. And I certainly didn't say Biden and Obama and DINOs; that is, Democrats in name only. They are clearly now part of the Democratic party oligarchy which is one of the reasons I regard them with considerable skepticism. Perhaps, you might like to give your definition of fascism.

Ryan,

How does voting for Nader change the system? There is no 'If A, then B' way to define the mechanics, but I'll speculate that if he had polled 20 percent in 2000 then six years later the first words out of the new Speaker's mouth wouldn't have been "Impeachment is off the table".

With a strong progressive base to answer to, and to be rewarded by with direct votes and gotv efforts, the pressure to convince the two percent in the middle, that is the current strategy of both parties, is greatly reduced.

Personally, I think the Democrats would fare much better giving up this strategy and seeking to expand the electorate. 100 million people vote and 100 million stay home. The Democrats choose to fight for two percent of the current electorate instead of appealling to three percent of those who opt out for a variety of reasons.

Nader polled nearly three million in 2000. Harry Kershner noted above that polling results suggest 47% of Nader voters would have voted for Gore and 30 % would have abstained if he weren't on the ballot. That's two million votes right there. Imagine if the Democratic party actually made an effort to court this end of the political spectrum. Nader would have had no reason to run, as he himself has said.

It's a tradeoff between how many they think they'd lose at the other end of the spectrum, but their efforts to pander to those voters keep the political spectrum moving rightward and we are all the worse for their efforts.

With regard to defining fascism one definition has it that a partnership between the corporate world and the ruling political party constitutes fascism. In the United States we have collusion between the corporate world and the Democratic/Republican duopoly. In line with the preceding definition fascism could be said to apply to this country. However, many people will reasonably consider Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile as true fascist nations. We are not quite there at this point. However, when we consider the disfranchisement of voters in the 2000 and 2004 elections, the contempt shown for the Constitution by most of Congress and the Bush Administration, the prevailing passivity of the American people and other factors the United States is clearly experiencing creeping fascism.

Bill and Harry, I admire your perseverance and patience in dealing with Kristin--her questions have been addressed quite thoroughly by you and others for days and yet she persists in not getting it.

Chris, Where have you been?! We've needed your help!

Kristin, Read your posts AND the replies to them, that way you won't have to keep repeating your questions.

You quoted Obama re PAC money: Speaking in Bristol, Va., he told a cheering crowd: "We will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. We're going to change how Washington works. They will not fund my party. They will not run our White House. And they will not drown out the voice of the American people when I'm president of the United States of America."

And it's been pointed out how he has sidestepped that pledge by taking money from the same individuals wearing different lapel pins at the moment they signed the checks to his campaign.

If I remind you that Obama also said he was going to go to the mat on FISA, but didn't indicate that he meant he was going to roll over on that mat without a whimper as soon as he secured the nomination, would that have any effect on your belief in his veracity?

The thing about Nader is that he is running on the same platform he has always run on--his positions haven't changed, in a good way, not in the GWB way. Nader is principled and he keeps hammering those principles, perhaps getting frustrated along the way, sounding pedantic and annoyed when pushed to his limits.

As to his chosen style of politicking, I suppose he could hitch the horses to the wagon and travel from church to grange hall as did the women of Seneca Falls, but that's not the way it's done in this day and age. You need media coverage to get your message out. So you run for President, and, as I've noted before, at least he gets on Meet the Press every four years when he announces his candidacy.

And one of his messages in that forum is that neither he nor any of the other alternative candidates is getting invited to the debates since the major parties formed their own corporation and boycotted the debates sponsored by the League of Women Voters precisely because the LWV invited third party candidates to participate in democracy.

<h2>Nader's plan is to get you to realize that your support of either of the two major parties is, itself, anti-democratic...and if you tell two friends, and they tell two friends...democracy just may infect this country</h2>