Oh Yes we can!!! Sure, he WILL make a verbal error, but he's easily forgiven. He's the real deal!

Kari--I thought I was a "purity troll", not a "Naderite". But either way, is there any way to raise concerns about Biden without being slammed with one of your many obnoxious terms?

What say you about his vote on the bankruptcy bill? Oh wait, never mind. You don't have to respond to my concerns, as anyone raising them must be a GOP troll.

As for your question--who I would have preferred--I'm shocked to admit that we actually agree: Edwards. They guy would never pass my purity troll litmus test, but at least he ran a populist, progressive campaign. Too bad we can't say the same about Biden, or Obama, for that matter.

Chris . . . what were you thinking? That a blog about the Democratic party would espouse democratic principles? No, now is the time that we all fall in line, quietly, until prompted. That vote on the bankruptcy bill? FISA? funding the war? all that other stuff? These are questions for malcontents and Naderites and purity trolls and PUMAs and, well, whatever next week's appellation will be.

But seriously . . . you want my vote, my money, my energy? Great. Earn it.

Unfortunately, I don't think the tone of kari's "last thought" on this post is going to do much to dispel his reputation as a smug half-wit. What an ass!

Biden: "I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist."

Biden: "If tomorrow, peace broke out between Israelis and Palestinians, does anybody think there wouldn't be a full blown war in Iraq?" Huh? "Conversely, if Iraq was transported to Mars, does anybody not think there would be the terrorism visited upon the Israelis every day?" What?!

This video interview from Shalom TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAZmO80dLfE

Disclaimer: I'm supporting Obama, because he's better than McCain, but I'd rather see Cynthia McKinney as president. I'm somewhat satisfied with Biden's open criticism of the Bush Admin, even before it was extremely fashionable. However, I think those who will vote Obama in November deserve more insight into Biden's views on Zionism, since the nation of Iraq and its Shiite/Sunni/Kurd coexistence was tied to the Balfour Declaration and the betrayal of Allied promises for Arab independence for the former Ottoman territories. I'd much rather have a Democrat who shares Jimmy Carter's views that Israeli right-winger policies toward Palestine are the cause of much of the tension in the region, but there don't seem to be any Democrats like that anymore. Zionism is openly debated throughout Israel, Europe, etc, but no American politician will talk about it here. Zionism in a nutshell is not Israel's right to exist (which I support), but the right of Israeli and Anglo-American military hegemony in the Middle East. How does that square with "democracy" for Iraq and withdrawal of our troops, or hawkish threats of war on Iran?

Biden is a plus. He will help Obama in the senior demographic where McCain is doing better (despite his support for privatization of soc. sec.) Seniors are like other Americans, irrational. Biden will also help with the blue collar and unionist branch of the party. But he won't please the ideologues on this forum, no doubt.

"Hey, question: were you one of the three (yes, three) people at the Oregon nominating convention for Nader? (Seriously, WTF? A three person convention? Sounds like a real exercise in democracy...)"

Actually, I've never voted for Nader, and I certainly haven't even been a fan of his presidential campaigns. I also don't own any Kucinich stickers. I think Biden's a perfectly acceptable choice, although I would have preferred a non-Senator.

But what the fuck does this statement mean anyway?

"...who would you have preferred? And no, don't tell us about Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader... the whole point of a veep is someone whose values are similar enough with the presidential candidate that they can work together."

Nader almost single-handedly created the consumer-protection infrastructure in this country. He encouraged and empowered young activists with his PIRG model. His entire life has been about empowering the middle class from the exploitation, abuse and negligence of the rich and powerful. He decries the influence of money in politics and the corrosive effect it has on our people-powered Democracy. He fights for the little guy.

By any stretch of the imagination, anyone who labels themselves a "progressive" (I prefer liberal) necessarily shares a great deal of values with Nader.

I would hope to Hell that Barack Obama and all Democrats share at least as many values with Ralph Nader as they do with Joe Biden -- at least as many. If they don't, the Democratic Party is in a shithole of trouble and has strayed -- in pursuit of its own power -- far afield from its stated ideals.

Fortunately, I think Kari's overly exuberant smug and dismissive attitude is the result of his being intoxicated by the Party pep rally he's attending (like a Wal-Mart employee getting caught up in a pre-opening cheer) and doesn't really reflect the values of Democrats en mass.

Let's see, where else have I encountered this attitude? Oh yeah, from this guy:

"Unless we each conform...unless we obey orders...unless we follow our leaders blindly - there is no possible way we can remain free." Maj. Frank Burns, U.S. Army, MASH 4077

We used to have populist progressives but I charge here we are seeing a new political faction in Obama, Merkley, Blue Oregon regulars led by Kari: opportunist progressives. Opportunist progressives tend to push positions which can be progressive positions which are popular, but frequently with a dehumanizing paternalistic and maternalistic spin intentionally designed to opportunistically further their own status, power, and privilege. They are exemplified the DSCC/DLC wing of the party that also has no problem with being water carriers for the powerful and dumping on working people when the opportunity to advance themselves requires it.

Some of us also noted from the outset that Obama had never actually won a genuinely competitive political race because his opponents spectacularly self-destructed. We saw that happen in the Democratic primary once the race came down to just him and Clinton, another opportunist progressive, when she made the mistake of playing the race card, causing genuine progressives to have no choice but to repudiate her.

What's different about this race for the presidency is that the Republicans are not about to let their candidacy self-destruct, even if they have to reduce McCain himself to just a jester for the Republican candidacy. The fear Obama really can't win on the strength of his own advocacy when his opponent fights back has already been confirmed now that we've seen the race even up and Obama has called in Biden.

I think Kari misinterprets the fact that once the race was down to two opportunist progressives, those who defend genuine progressive Democratic Party values supported Obama when Clinton opportunistically played the race card is not genuine support for the Obama himself. Genuine progressives will never vote for McCain, but they just might stay at home in November if Obama, as he has started to do, continues to opportunistically dump on genuine progressives who stand for working people and social justice in the best tradition of the Democratic Party. It's going to be up to real progressives to hold him accountable every step of the way, and to shame egotistical glad-handers who try smugly try to divert attention by snarking against those who do defend genuine progressive values.

If Obama is a true progressive change agent who is just limited by political circumstances and who believes he needs the help of true progressives to move the agenda, rather than an opportunist progressive, he will embrace the chance to be held accountable as the justification he needs to push change.

Here's a little Sunday reading which should give everybody a little better insight why Biden was a totally predictable pick for Obama:

Jones took Obama, the 'pushy' organizer, under his wing http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1123166,CST-NWS-jones24.article

Jones said he just remembers Obama as a hard worker who, on his first day in the state Senate, volunteered to take on any thankless projects. Jones remembers Obama's comments after the Democrats won the majority in the state Senate in 2003, making Jones president.

"He came to me and he said, 'You're the Senate president. You have a lot of power,' " Jones recalled.

"I said, 'I do? What kind of power do I have?' He said, 'You have the power to make a United States senator.' 'Oh? I didn't realize that. If I have that kind of power, do you know of anyone I could make a United States senator?' He said, 'Me.' He caught me by surprise. I said, 'Let me think about it.' And we continued to talk, and I told him, 'That sounds good. Let's go for it.' That started the campaign."

A People's Convention? http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/347442

We seem to have poked a buzzing hive of Naderites who are bringing the cranky. Whatever.

That's what happens when you tout Blue Oregon as "a place for progressive Oregonians to gather 'round the water cooler and share news, commentary, and gossip."

Now let me repeat a challenge I made in the past and went unanswered. Name a Democrat with stronger progressive credentials who can claim anything like Nader's achievements, such as (1) tackling and beating GM and Big Auto to make automobiles safer; (2)founding Public Citizen and (3) establishing a variety of non-profit organizations working in the interests of citizens and consumers. Let's not nitpick over relatively minor items that even "Naderites" might agree on. Let's look at the whole picture. Contrary to Nader, you have Democrats such as John Dingell, who work on behalf of Big Auto.

td--populists were "for the little guy" and one strain of that movement once backed Buchanan for President--there is a racist, "white Americans only" strain in that movement.

Progressives believed in solving problems and opening up the system for everyone. Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive, although not everyone here may have agreed with everything he did.

LT - I fail to see the point in your academic emphasis on just one strain of each movement.

The label "Progressive Populist" has actually been revived in the last 20 years by progressive-leaning types (google it) in an attempt to connect with the tradition of the Progressive parties of 1912, 1924, and 1948. Particularly with regard to the 20's incarnation, supporters are also characterized as populist progressives, or progressive populists because of the form the movement by necessity actually takes on the ground: It is seldom the powerful and elite who want to "open up the system for everyone" or who are "for the little guy" (except in ways that reinforce their power and elite privilege, of course). There were also arrogant, elitist flirtations with eugenics and temperance by people well within the ideological confines of the progressive movement, but those are separate stories in themselves.

Your gratuitous references to right-wing populist sentiment typified by Buchanan, and the earliest anti-corporate but still paternalistic/maternalistic, elitist-leaning progressive sentiments of Roosevelt are simply irrelevant. (In fact, the Progressive Party of 1924 was even a more Midwest populist response to Roosevelt's defunct Progressive Party of 1912).

Now do you have anything consequential to say with regard to the substance of the point that the appellation "opportunist progressives" AS I DEFINE IT so suitably describes the core Blue Oregon community?

An Oregon anecdote about Joe Biden: Congressman Les AuCoin endorsed Biden for president in '88 and was at his official announcement in June 1987. This was significant because most Democratic U.S. Reps were supporting one of their own for president, Dick Gephardt.

Biden campaigned for AuCoin for Senate and headlined the Fall 1992 DPO Wayne Morse banquet in Portland. Someone mentioned on Blue Oregon earlier that Biden appeared on behalf of the Clinton Gore ticket in Crook County, most likely on the same trip.

Perhaps Les will talk about his friendship with Biden on his blog.

anony #1: Criticism of those like Biden or Obama for their unqualified support for US-Israeli crimes will diminish our rapidly failing campaign to elect Republican lite candidates.

Winning the next election is the only goal worthy of consideration, no matter how many must die or be ethnically cleansed in the pursuit. The deadends justify the means.

My first choice for VP was Kerry's first choice. Too bad he's taken.

Bill, are you saying that Tom Harkin and his late friend Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, and many other Senators never accomplished as much as Nader? Do you disregard Biden's work on the Violence Against Women act?

It is a given that Nader has done good things in his life. That doesn't mean I have to support that man over 70 years of age anymore than I have to support the Ariz. senator over 70.

Bill, are you saying that Tom Harkin and his late friend Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, and many other Senators never accomplished as much as Nader? Do you disregard Biden's work on the Violence Against Women act?

LT: Wellstone was what I would call a good progressive. You could have added Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich alongside Wellstone, but I don't believe any of them achieved anything on the scale of what Nader did. As for Harkin and Kennedy, I believe they are mixed bags and over-rated as progressives. Kennedy was prominent in No Child Left Behind which most people now regard as a flop. Again, if they have any achievements that would compare with Nader's I stand to be made aware of them and will appreciate being corrected. (If you go back to my specified criteria you will note I was careful enough to include a reference to achieving.)

It is a given that Nader has done good things in his life. That doesn't mean I have to support that man over 70 years of age anymore than I have to support the Ariz. senator over 70.

No argument there. However, if "Nader has done good things in his life" that is a good reason to support him especially when the presumed candidates for the presidency have so few good things to their credit and many of the opposite to their discredit.

LT, I accept your point about Ralph Nader not having the chops now, over 70 years old, that he did at 35. Paul Wellstone was a great inspiration but tragically we never saw what he might have done with more time. Tom Harkin, in my opinion, has not accomplished as much as Nader, but your judgment might vary. It's a close call on Ted Kennedy - he is a complicated figure, to say the least. I wish he had not been bamboozled on NCLB, for example, but he has done much that is good.

All that being said, I wonder if you would mind looking at Alex Cockburn's piece on today's Counterpunch site
at http://www.counterpunch.org/ (sorry, I don't know how to create a live link here) in which he critically examines Joe Biden's career.

For example, Cockburn's second paragraph begins: "The first duty of any senator from Delaware is to do the bidding of the banks and large corporations which use the tiny state as a drop box and legal sanctuary. Biden has never failed his masters in this primary task."

Do you want to argue that this is not substantially true? Or, if it is substantially true, do you want to argue that it doesn't matter?

Kristin, although I am not particularly a Nader person (I voted for him in 2000, though not in 2004) I hope you won't mind if I take a swing at your question.

By far the largest party in America is the I Don't Participate party. These people are convinced (I believe) that democracy does not work, that there is no realistic prospect of obtaining more meaningful control over their lives. If they saw that there was a real possibility of this changing they would participate, I believe. So, the short answer to your question is, the change comes from new voters.

In this sense, more meaningful control over people's lives would mean a major party that moved in more or less the following directions(all this is off the top of my head, no manifesto intended):

*full employment, with more power to workers over their basic working conditions and a fair living wage for all; a more democratic workplace

*single payer Canadian-style health care for all

*free (or essentially free) good public education up through college for all

*free (or essentially free) good public transportation for all

*serious attempts by serious people to deal with the savage inequalities of race, class, and gender that divide us . . . these attempts should end not by empowering more social workers and lawyers etc. but poor people, people of color, etc. themselves

*a pledge to stop poisoning the planet and to begin to reverse the damage done

So: essentially, a pledge to create a flatter, more socially responsible society

This sounds like a pipe dream until you realize that many other societies - in fact almost all other industrialized societies - are much further along this path than we are. We can do this, but not if we keep accepting "Republican lite" Democrats.

Thanks for your response Kristin. Again, one of the Nader people should respond here. For myself, the goal is to try and raise my own consciousness and the consciousness of others about what Camus called "the indispensable virtue of solidarity" - although I'm betting he said it in French!

Perhaps naively, I believe that almost all of us really want the world symbolized by that list above. I am not sure it will happen through elections - after all, the Soviet empire fell through actions in the streets (despite what the Reagan acolytes will try to sell you).

It is now 40 years since 1968. Perhaps that is the way it will happen. Or perhaps another way we don't know of yet. I'm pretty sure the Senator from Delaware (a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking and chemical industries) who may now become our Vice President will not bring it into existence.

If the Democratic Party is to be relevant, something needs to happen to move the party to the left, and that will not occur, I fear, unless we make it so.

The Naderite self-delusion consists primarily in the fantasy of that warm and fuzzy self-righteous satisfaction that comes when they mark their ballot, knowing that no matter what disaster befalls the planet they can say with unquestioning certainty that they are right, and when the disaster happens,as it will, it will feel 'oh so good' to say to the unthinking rabble, "I told you so, if only....."

By far the largest party in America is the I Don't Participate party. These people are convinced (I believe) that democracy does not work, that there is no realistic prospect of obtaining more meaningful control over their lives. If they saw that there was a real possibility of this changing they would participate, I believe.

Thanks for this, Joe. It pretty clearly encapsulates where I think you're mistaken, and I'm pretty sure that Obama, Biden, and most other progressives also think you're mistaken, which explains why they don't take the action you prescribe.

Millions of people don't participate because they don't care. And the reason they don't care isn't because they don't understand. . .they do. You can sit down with them and explain the importance of voting and the importance of having a say in our democracy and the need for universal health care and good education, and they'll nod and agree with you. And when it comes to election day, they'll stay home.

It's not unlike the reason lots of people don't save (although the demographic of non-savers is different than the demographic of non-voters). There are millions of Americans who make enough money to save a few hundred or a few thousand dollars a year. And they understand how important it is, how it directly improves their quality of life, how it sets them up for a better future. But instead of setting money aside, they buy the flat screen tv or the weekend at the beach or whatever. If we can't get people to take action that directly improves their own lives, do you think we can ever get everyone to do something (vote) that indirectly improves their lives?

Finally, I question whether the silent majority you're referring to are actually progressive at all. I know polls show strong support for things like universal health care, but in my opinion those polls never capture the trade-offs. I worry that if you actually get those millions of Americans to vote, they're going to support populist sounding Republicans like McCain in a heartbeat over idealistic sounding Democrats like Obama.

I agree with Bill R. Moreover, I see a Democratic Party locally more active and involved in election campaigns of all types than maybe since the late 1980s-early 1990s. Do all those folks have the same ideology? Of course not--no group of 50-100 people is all going to think alike! But they do agree no change can happen without good people in office.

If you are a Naderite, what are you going to do? Actively campaign for Nader? Take potshots at anyone who doesn't think he is the greatest candidate ever?

Or just maybe you might volunteer for a federal, statewide, legislative campaign? We need good people elected at all levels. That comes from folks volunteering at the local, state, federal level in campaigns.

I guess I just have one question for the Nader folks...what's the plan? Seriously. I really, really, really want to know. How are you going to succeed in getting enough people to agree with you, how are you going to make it work in our system of government, how is it all going to happen?

How about if we set a goal like one of those politicians offer but never deliver? Maybe a nation where all people will have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and justice. Then how about finding a leader and a path that will lead to that goal and not getting sidetracked onto the same old ruts like voting for the lesser evil that have us in the mess we are now in? Then how about considering that we might never get there ourselves but a future generation will, like those who took the first steps for the liberation of slaves and their descendants surviving in a segregated and hostile world? How about considering the old Chinese proverb about a journey of a thousand leagues beginning with the first step?

Nader did a lot a long time ago when we was in the right place. It just seems that of late he has simply lost his mind. It's not uncommon for a genius to take a step too far. I hope he can take a step back. The list is impressive, but what has he actually done lately besides derail the Dems? Bottom line, his influence is diminishing, not rising.

Many of Kari's posts and remarks remind me of David Reinhard of The Oregonian, but from the other end of the political spectrum. They are more entertainer than political commentator, although it can be difficult to distinguish between the two nowadays.

And what's the plan for getting there? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or upsetting...I REALLY want to know. If you are for Nader, what is the plan?

Kristin: I believe you are too hung up on my other comments about Ralph Nader. My comment in response to your question above suggested what we might do. It was generic and principle based. I suggested finding a leader and a path and sticking with them - nothing about who that leader might be or what the path might be like. That is for other people to decide and to take the first steps toward their goal.

Nader was directly responsible for the formation of the Environmental Proection Agency, and the Consumer Product Safety Act. Legislation that he is credited for includes the Freedom of Information Act, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Wholesome Meat Act, Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, Clean Air Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act, Consumer Product Safety Act, Safe Water Drinking Act, Clean Water Act, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Mine Health and Safety Act, and the Whistleblower Protection Act. Additionally, he founded several nonprofits including Public Citizen, and the Pirgs.

Oh, please. That's WAY too much credit for Nader.

If you credit him with all that, you have to blame him with the Leave No Child Behind Act, the Patriot Act, the Iraq Invasion, the doubling of our debt, and the stonewalling on global warming. You have to credit him with Guantanamo Bay, with Abu Grahib, with failing to resolve the violence against Isreal, and with the next 30 years of right-wing Supreme Court rulings.

And so what if he created the PIRG system that makes idealistic young people into cynical fundraisers? Not sure that's a net gain.

I simply can't look at the data and understand how what Nader's currently doing translates into a more progressive country.

Can we define "Naderite"? Cuz I want to know if I am one.

Specifically, I want to know how all-encompassing the term is. Does it include everyone who believes that the guy has the right to be on the ballot? Does it include everyone who thinks he would bring important issues to the campaign? Does it include everyone who believes in voting your ideals?

I believe in most of that stuff, but I wouldn't call myself a "Naderite", and I'm not planning to vote for him. But if Democratic party folks (or their friends at Our Oregon, SEIU, etc.) pull some of the same sleazy shit to keep him off the ballot--like sabotaging nominating conventions and harassing signature gatherers--I just might have to sign up.

Kristin,

You ask about the plan for getting votes but I think that misses the point entirely. I haven't visited Nader's website in years or heard an interview with him in a very long time either, so I don't suggest I have up-to-the-minute strategy goals to report...but I'll bet they haven't changed much because the political circumstances haven't changed much.

Nader isn't running to win any elections, and with his diminishing support in each successive cycle any role he may play as a "spoiler" diminishes as well. His point [used to be] is to highlight the undemocratic aspects of the current two party system [seen any third party members in a debate lately? Kucinich was even barred from one of the later debates in the primaries.] and the rightward lurching of the Democratic party [I repeat, Kucinich was even barred from one of the later debates in the primaries].

Nader's point is to get some broader public exposure for these otherwise neglected points of view. If he announces his candidacy at least he gets an invitation to Meet the Press every four years.

His point is to get you to ask, "What's his point?" and for me to respond by suggesting that I think he's a little annoyed by the fact that the Democrats won control of the Congress in 2006 amidst a strong end-this-war! sentiment and all they've been able to muster is taking impeachment off the table and few bucks an hour raise in the minimum wage.

His point is to get you to ask, "Why have they accomplished so little? If they can't override a veto, couldn't they at least stall the Administration's juggernaut?" Yes, they could, but they choose not to.

At this point I think he's hoping you'll ask yourself why you continue to support a party that refuses to wrestle any power away from this Administration that has been so destructive for this country domestically and internationally.

What's the alternative? Stop supporting the party's leadership. The party is like an amoeba--if there is a movement away from the current direction of travel, enough of a movement, the rest of the organism will follow.

Ralph's just standing on a soapbox shouting, "Hey, bring that party back over here!"

Kari-- Once again, you have ignored the bulk of my comment.

Re: Nader's right to be on the ballot: I have not followed Nader's attempts this time around (I'm not a Naderite, remember?), so I'm primarily referring to past efforts to get on the ballot--efforts that some of your friends, and maybe you yourself, tried to shut down. Sleazy shit, I say. Undemocratic.

Anyway, I'm still looking for a definition of Naderite, as well as your comments on the Bankruptcy bill (I was kidding when I said you needn't respond since I was a GOP troll).

p.s. Anyone know where I can find the progressive water cooler to gather round? I'm thirsty...

Nader's plan, use Republican money to get on the ballot, like he attempted to do last time. Nader and his followers are a bit like Lucifer in Milton's "Paradise Lost." He'd rather be a cast-off exile in hell, than to serve in paradise. So there he stands, frozen in the sea of the ice of his own resentment and rancor, singing, " I did it my way...." If you're so special, you have to pay the price.

Is it really progressive to throw the election from Gore to Bush?

Kari: That is pathetic. That claim has been shot down completely over and over again. I expected much better of you.

Biden a great choice. Yeah. Right.

"But Nader's work of the last decade has been anti-progressive. Is it really progressive to throw the election from Gore to Bush?"

I think the thin air in Denver has affected that last half a wit you had workin' for you, kari, 'cause that statement borders on LT-style dementia. Actually, it's completely on the other side of the border. Maybe y'otta just quit while you're not too far behind, Maj. Burns.

"He has no more "right" to be on a presidential ballot than does, say, David Hasselhoff."

Now that we know Kari despises actual democracy, we can move on to something most Democratic Party players seem to have forgotten.

The Democratic party is ascending not because of anything it has done, but because of the Republican implosion.

Don't forget that.

Again, I've never voted for Nader, but remind me again who Gore chose for his running mate in 2000?

Oh, that's right, It was Joe Lieberman, a guy who is so conservative he can't even win a Democratic primary in his own state.

Al Gore lost in 2000 because he ran a poor campaign and because he had the unfortunate timing of following Bill "stoopin'-the-intern-in-the-oval-office" Clinton.

OK, Naderites.

It was just on the radio news that LUBA has agreed with Coos County and rejected a permit to allow digging on a spit in Coos Bay (if I heard that correctly) for an LNG terminal.

What does Nader believe about siting LNG terminals where locals object? Or is that too current an issue for a guy on the Oregon ballot?

Al Gore lost in 2000 because he ran a poor campaign and because he had the unfortunate timing of following Bill "stoopin'-the-intern-in-the-oval-office" Clinton.

. . . and because Nader took enough votes from him in Florida to throw the election to Bush. Had any of those things been different, Gore would have won.

I have a lot of respect for Ralph Nader, but I disagree with him on some points. Now for you anti-Naderites name one thing he has done worse than Biden (Click this link and scroll down to Biden Shepherds the War Authorization) and other Democrats voting for the war on Iraq and trashing the Constitution.

On water coolers, progressive and other wise--

Yesterday, I went and re-read the "about Blue Oregon" mission statement or whatever it is. It mentions progressives about 400 times, welcomes "radical vegetarian leftists", invites provocation, and desires a diversity of opinion. But what seems to be the status quo around here is a knee-jerk Democratic party defensiveness. I would think "Naderites" (whatever they are) would be more welcome around the "progressive" water cooler than Novick-attacking Schumerites, or Iraq War cheerleading Democrats. I think there is a great deal of consensus among progressives on many issues. Where there is division is the best way to get where we want to be, and if the Democratic Party is consistently moving in that direction. Many voices here seem to argue that Democrat=Progressive. And while I will admit that they may sometimes be true, it is definitely not always the case.

But back to Biden: besides stopping Bork and dramatically changing his tune on Iraq, what's so progressive about the guy? And how can someone that's been in the Senate for so freaking long be a candidate of "Change"?

I used to be quite mad at Nader and argued many times that he cost Gore the election in 2000.

Since I'm a little older and wiser now (at least half that's true) I've come to see that blaming Nader for what happened is convenient but foolish.

Gore was running against George W. Freakin' Bush. He should have wiped the table with him. But he ran a safe campaign (i.e. Lieberman as VP) and then he failed to aggressively pursue an accurate vote count in Florida when things got to that point. The reality is that it never should have been that close. And that's not Nader's fault.

As I hinted in a previous comment, the trend of modern politics isn't about one party's ideas and policies rising over the other's, it's about the party in power over-reaching or misbehaving and getting thrown out in favor of an allegedly less-caustic choice.

Real change in politics is not simply throwing one party out and putting the other in. That's what we always do.

Real change will come when one party can actually inspire the electorate rather than being elected because it is the only alternative available when the party in power inevitably shoots itself in the foot.

What we have now are two parties that perpetuate the worst aspects of our system because that's how they keep their power.

That's what needs to change if we want real change in this country. Don't hold your breath.

He made a significant contribution toward giving us George W. Bush.

As Hermann Goering once said, "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth."

More from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler: "This and similar lines in Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf about what he claimed to be a strategem of Jewish lies using "the principle— which is quite true in itself — that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily," are often misquoted or paraphrased as: "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed."

You're in interesting company, Carla.

Anyone want to commment on Stephen Zunes' piece on Biden?

why is it such a pain to post links here?

Where is the evidence of this, specifically? How does one conflate Nader voters with "people who would have voted Gore if Nader wasn't on the ticket," as compared to "people who voted Nader but would have stayed home otherwise?"

It's all in the numbers. Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida. Bush "won" by 537. It's not like Bush won by 96,000 and we're speculating that every Nader voter would have voted Gore. All Gore would have needed is a .5% margin over Bush from those erstwhile Nader voters to have won. Even if you assume that 90,000 of those Nader voters would have stayed home, Gore still would have needed a less than 8% margin over Bush.

So, TJ, is it possible that in the absence of Nader almost all of those voters would have stayed home, and the rest would have tilted towards Bush? Sure. It's also possible that monkeys will fly out of Biden's ass when he speaks in Denver.

As for the other factors you bring up as to why Gore lost, I agree. But the fact that there are other reasons doesn't mitigate Nader's culpability.

And what would have been different [had Gore won?]

Darrel, I can't help you if you choose to believe Adolf Reed or the other fantasy writers who argue, after 8 years, that Gore and Bush are exactly alike. But I will say that such a view borders on insanity.

Carla--

Thanks for the offer on the link help--I get it, but I wanted to whine (just like in most of my comments).

The thing I almost added in the last post was how I appreciate your much more civil tone on this stuff, as well as your acknowledgment that there were multiple reasons for Gore's electoral defeat. In that spirit, I will admit that Nader's presence on the ballot in Florida likely tipped the state to Bush (but I still think Gore deserves much of the blame for blowing that election overall!)

So what about that Zunes article?

And are monkeys really going to fly out of Biden's ass? That would totally make the dog and pony and monkey show worth watching!

A few years ago someone explained to me how some things worked in Saudi Arabia. For instance, he explained, if you take a taxi to get to some place and the taxi gets in an accident you will be held liable on the grounds that if you hadn't asked the taxi driver to drive you where you wanted to go the taxi driver wouldn't have gotten in that accident. I don't know how true that is, but it resembles the logic, or lack thereof, applied to blaming Nader for Gore losing the 2000 election.

Here is one way to post a link:

Copy and paste "this is blueoregon" from HTML tips below the comments box to the location where you want to place the link. Replace "this is blueoregon" with the words you want to use for your link (for example, "Biden sucks") and replace "http://www.blueoregon.com" with the URL for the article you want linked to. You can also use the copy-and-paste function for these replacements.

So what about that Zunes article?

I doubt you'll get much out of the Democrats on the Zunes article. Zunes usually knows what he is talking about and the Democrats would just as soon have his article ignored.

Kristin asked, "I guess I just have one question for the Nader folks...what's the plan?"

What if someone were to ask you the same question about Obama? Wouldn't the answer be something on the order of, "Do some reading"? If you don't know by now what Nader represents, you haven't wanted to know.

Regarding Nader's "plan for actually winning the election", I think I need to call your attention to the fact that it's Obama who seems not to care about winning the election.

Take his shifting stances on NAFTA, including playing footsie with Canadian corporatists to reassure them that he didn't mean what he had been saying during the primary. This was a decision that obviously (even to a geezer like me - almost as old as Nader) was a loser on two fronts at once: (1.) it told the voters in the swing states that have been harmed by corporate-friendly trade deals that Obama had lied on an issue important to them; and (2.) it showed us all that Obama would be open to similar corporate-friendly deals in the future.

Carefully consider now: Obama did something that he knew would cost him politically. Why would he do this? It was unethical for him to pretend that he was anti-NAFTA in order to win the primary, but why would he then reverse field and risk his election? There are several more issues that I could list here to further illustrate this point, but NAFTA is key to understanding how toxic an Obama administration would be.

And Kristin, Nader is not "increasingly reviled by many aspects of the Left". He's increasingly reviled by right-of-center Democrat poseurs.

I am SO freaking tired of the whining of people who supported Gore's pathetic campaign in 2000. Even they, if cornered, will usually agree that if he campaigned with even the limited moral clarity that he has now, he would have won going away. Gore lost because he ran a loser's campaign, and even then, the election was stolen by the Supreme Court. Gore's supporter's, predictably, were too allied with the corporate status quo to even consider what to do next.

The problem with the Democratic Party is that it constantly tries to be Republican lite, and it never, ever, ever learns. In its determination to cater to ignorance and fear it has become the apotheosis of Charlie Brown charging at the Lucy with the football. This time, she won't pull the ball away at the last minute. This time will be different. It has to be.

Consider: the last Democratic campaign that ran unabashedly to the left was FDR in 1936. He carried, if memory serves, 523 electoral votes.

Before that you have to go back to the fusion ticket of the Populists and the Democrats in 1896 - William Jennings Bryan lost when he couldn't hold the Northern cities, probably because of his bellicose championing of Prohibition and other accouterments of Protestant evangelicalism. Also . . . McKinley and Hanna dropped the entire wealth of the Gilded Age on him. But I digress.

If Obama wants to win, he'll stand up there and say: We are taking our country back, and you can get on board or you can eat tread.

But . . . he sees that football and the hunger to bring us all together comes back . . . he knows in his gut he can make it different . . . everyone will listen to reason this time . . . it will be different this time . . .

Yes, I can see how all this is Nader's fault.

Kristin - thanks for your comment, but don't you think that it is a contradiction to on the one hand lament (for example) Nader's lack of a fifty state strategy, building a coalition across race, class, party, religious, gender, geographic lines, etc. and on the other hand have the official Democratic party apparatus use every means available to oppose these very possibilities for not only Nader externally but for everyone else in the party internally?

With respect to externally, the desperate efforts to keep (for example) Nader and/or the Green Party or any other party to the Democratic Party's left are well known and have been going on for a long time. Isn't it inconsistent to lament that these efforts are not going on while belonging to an organization who zealously tries to crush them where they exist?

With respect to trying to change the party from the inside, one only has to look at the dynamics of this blog, for example, or the Steve Novick campaign, or any number of other very mild kind of examples. I wonder if you would concede that the Democratic Party, both locally and nationally, seems to be not very democratic, nor does it seem to be committed to principles that are commonly defined across the world as "leftist."

And your best rejoinder to that is that someone who believes the Democrats under Gore may have been just as hot to trot on Iraq must be "insane."

Yes, insane. Bush used 9/11 to avenge his father who, according to neocons, failed to "finish the job" in Persian Gulf I, in a way that Gore never would have. Whether Bush fabricated the intelligence or just failed to ask the right questions is immaterial in an analysis of his presidency, because he was hellbent on getting back in there no matter what. The evidence to date supports this.

The same cannot be said of Gore except by someone who fails to recognize the world around him (i.e., insane). I would respond similarly if you said the earth is flat and the moon is made out of cheese. What would Gore's motive be for invading Iraq? Particularly after 9/11, when he would have been focused on Afghanistan, what would have led him to invade Iraq? The intelligence community said during the Clinton Administration that Hussein had WMD, yet they chose not to attack. Why do you think Gore would have changed Clinton's policy on Iraq?

Nader supporters desperately need to blame Gore -- and only Gore -- in order to absolve their own guilt over handing us George Bush. Very few political movements have been so spectacularly wrong as Nader 2000. Darrel, why do you think it is that I can blame Gore for his mistakes, but you cannot bring yourself to blame Nader when a simple review of the numbers shows that he played a massive role in Gore's defeat?

I like the taxi analogy above, except that Gore is actually the taxi driver. Sure, he's not the best driver and he took the long road, he should have changed the oil and gotten new tires. But still, he's just about to his destination when Nader broadsides him in a semi. Gore could have made all kinds of different decisions that would have taken him on a different route, but Nader was the one driving the goddamn semi.

Darrel: I myself have posted excerpts from your link (Gore Debate) several times here. The Nader-bashers always ignore it, without exception, and then they go back to claiming that Gore couldn't possibly have done what Bush did, and, therefore, Nader destroyed America. It's this unwillingness to incorporate truth into their politics that leads me to see that old mule as refusing to drink even though she's been led to water countless times.

Kristin: I'm sorry you're sad, but I'm not being "defensive". That you won't respond to my NAFTA questions is telling. I don't believe that Obama is interested in winning this election because he, like the majority of DP elites, would prefer to be the junior partner in hegemony rather than be a catalyst for significant change. I also admire "Joe Hill"'s writing, but you could have found most of what he said here.

As for Obama "rejecting lobbying and PAC money": typepad once again refuses to allow me to post a list of links to this information. Let's try it this way: "Obama and McCain Suck Up to the Bankers"; "Big Business Is Making Sure It Wins the Presidency"; "Welcome to Donkeyland!": "Obama's Money Cartel"; "The Obama Bubble Agenda". Google the titles and maybe you'll change your mind.

HEY! How about concentrating on the rest of the system? I'm feeling like a broken record... If we want to change the system, we're not going to do it by tossing a symbolic vote to Nader. Quit your moaning and put real liberals in everywhere else. That's how you move things. Not to mention that Nader's not such a great candidate to begin with. Bring us an exciting, relevant lefty and maybe more of us will be persuaded. Nader smells like Grandma's old couch.

Kristin, you've been really gracious and patient, and I imagine you must feel sort of ganged up on. Apologies, and I want to ask this to ANYONE who is excited and positive about the Obama / Biden ticket:

Do you believe that Biden's vote FOR the bankruptcy bill was a wise one? Do you believe that Obama's vote against an amendment in the same bill to cap interest rates at 30% was a wise vote?

Do you generally think that the Democratic Party has an appropriate relationship with corporations?

As Kristin said above, I'm genuinely interested. I haven't seen anyone address these issues directly - I've just seen people attack others for supporting Ralph Nader. I want to know from those who are enthusiastic about the present state of the Democratic party if they are enthusiastic about this particular aspect of its polity.

ryan - agreed. So, what about the case of Steve Novick here in Oregon. He was clearly to the left of his opponent (at least it seemed so to me, perhaps you have a different opinion?) and the party apparatus did everything it could including, if I recall correctly, dropping a rather surprising amount of money (and hiding, for a time, the fact that this money was spent) to make sure that the guy they were comfortable with won.

Was Steve Novick insufficiently (a) exciting, (b) relevant, or (c) lefy in your view? Or was the institutional Democratic Party wrong to use its power to marginalize and defeat him?

Just askin'.

Joe, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I don't think that getting liberal candidates elected is that easy. That said, Merkley didn't win by a huge margin. The DP surely viewed Merkley as the guy more likely to draw votes from the "centrist" Smith, although I didn't think the Democratic candidates were that different on most issues. I think Novick's run is an example of it working. He did have an effect on the campaign, and forces Merkley to court his voters. That the DP chose Merkley doesn't negate Novick's effect. Nader on the other hand would never be chosen by the Democrats, and couldn't get numbers like Novick anyway. Can you imagine Nader splitting the vote almost down the middle with Obama? No way. I think Novick's high numbers should encourage us to keep pushing for candidates like him.

Nader on the other hand would never be chosen by the Democrats, ...

Nader would be aghast if the Democrats chose him, kind of like a virgin in a horror movie being pursued by some grotesque ogre. Nader is there as an alternate choice for people to say they want what he stands for and not what the duopoly offers, but most people will as usual go for a Democrat or a Republican because they have concluded the other candidate is worse. In other words, they will vote as they mostly do for their perceived lesser evil without considering they will be assured of getting evil.

Yeah, thanks Bill. Nader's like a virgin. My point is that we ought to push for more Novicks, rather than sacrificing votes to the evil volcano god.

Love your comment, Ryan. Novick is the future, Nader is the past.

Joe Hill---for once and for all, the "party apparatus" prevented Novick from launching a grass roots campaign in counties to the south and east of Multnomah?

Prevented Novick from having an active campaign among Willamette University students and a town hall meeting at Willamette University in Salem? It was the "party apparatus which set up the WU town hall meeting with Merkley, no individual action by someone not holding office in DPO or DSCC?

Allowed people who had known Steve Novick from way back in his days working in the State Senate to communicate their experiences with a guy they had known for years? Those people would not have shared their stories about the years they had known Novick if not for "party apparatus"? No one would have publicly thanked Merkley for things he got done in the legislature without "party apparatus"?

Get Real!

If Steve Novick runs again for a different office (like Kopetski losing a Congressional primary and getting elected a legislator before running for Congress again and eventually winning) and learns the lessons of this campaign (including the importance of a grass roots operation, not just ads, consultants, bloggers, but people who actually talk to their friends, go door to door, hold town hall meetings, etc.) he could very well deserve to win.

It may come as a surprise to some people that not everyone votes for the candidate who is most "to the left". Many people vote for the person they like, the person they see as a problem solver, the person who actually asks for their vote rather than demanding it. Notice the Democrats who have won elections in counties with at least partly rural populations (Marion, Polk, Linn, Jackson, Douglas, etc). People who win in those areas please the voters who actually vote in those elections, not some theoretical "this candidate is too the left of that candidate" ideological scorecard.

Miles, I just cited a debate where George Bush said he wanted to oust Saddam Hussein and Gore basically agreed. What would Gore's motive have been? Most of his Democratic colleagues listened to the same neo-cons. . .

Gore agreed? Funny, I don't remember hearing about Gore's advice to Clinton to declare war on Iraq during the 1990s. Is it your argument that Clinton was the great defender of peace, fighting off Gore and all those other Democrats on their relentless march to war? (Was Clinton actually a Naderite?)

You've plucked out of context a particularly antagonistic section of a political debate, and you're arguing that it is a perfect predictor of Gore's future actions. Meanwhile, you ignore the entire Clinton/Gore presidency as perhaps a more accurate indicator of Gore's future actions. I'm sure there is lots that Clinton/Gore did that you didn't like, but occupying Iraq ain't on that list.

You're also drawing a ridiculous conclusion that Democratic support in Congress for Bush's war shows that they would have done the same thing. What you're ignoring is the power and primacy of the presidency when it comes to foreign affairs. But that's not surprising since that's the same mistake you made in supporting Nader in the first place.

Chalupas!

ryan asked, "Can you imagine Nader splitting the vote almost down the middle with Obama?"

14% of all voters say they would vote for Nader if they thought he could win. That's with a virtual media blackout of his campaign. If we had a democracy, Ralph would be in the debates, and it would be a three way race (He doesn't need 50% of Democrats' votes, just one-third of all votes, actually less than that if Barr were to get some traction).

Kristin: I understand your reticence to comment on my questions regarding Obama's calculated, losing position on NAFTA. But your continuing claim of Obama's "rejection of lobbying and PAC money" is an outright lie. Either you don't care about the truth, or you want to obfuscate it.

Furthermore, your smear of Nader under the guise of a concerned question ("What's the plan?") should demonstrate to progressives why "respectful debate" doesn't defeat partisan hack arguments. Without vehement repudiation of both corporate parties' lies and half-truths, we will get nowhere.

14% of all voters say they would vote for Nader if they thought he could win.

The people in the 14% should still vote for Nader - win or not win - so that the American people and the politicians running for election can get the message as to where the people in this group really stand, instead of writing Nader off as someone on the fringe.

... not one single Nader supporter seems to be able to answer my question.

Kristin: I believe what you really mean is you didn't get the answer you wanted.

Kristin:

A quote from the holy NPR does not contradict reality. Did you try to google any of the items I provided for you? Of course you didn't, because your "questions" are concern trollagisms. You and most Democrats don't care about why Obama is the coporatists' choice.

"Obama's Money Cartel":

"Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages...But hasn’t Senator Obama repeatedly told us in ads and speeches and debates that he wasn’t taking money from registered lobbyists? Hasn’t the press given him a free pass on this statement?...Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists? Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms, he’s not really taking money directly from registered lobbyists? That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying."

"The Obama Bubble Agenda":

"...when its non-registered law partners, the people who own this business and profit from its lobbying operations, give to the Obama campaign, the contribution is classified as coming from a law firm, not a lobbyist...Senator Obama’s premise and credibility of not taking money from federal lobbyists hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is taking money, lots of it, from owners and employees of firms registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual lobbyists. But is that dealing honestly with the American people?"

"Big Business Is Making Sure It Wins the Presidency":

"The truth is that the campaigns of both Barack Obama and John McCain are being inundated with cash from more or less exactly the same gorgons of the corporate scene...Overall, Obama is flat-out kicking McCain's ass when it comes to Wall Street contributions, raking in nearly $9 million from securities and investment executives, compared to $6.2 million for McCain. Obama has received more contributions from Goldman Sachs than from any other employer -- more than $627,000 at this writing -- not to mention $398,021 from JP Morgan Chase, $353,922 from Lehman Brothers and $291,388 from Morgan Stanley. Even among hedge-fund executives, who have an unequivocal interest in electing McCain, Obama is whipping the Republican, collecting $500,000 more than McCain."

"Welcome to Donkeyland!":

"While the Obama campaign has had unprecedented success with raising small donations through the Internet, it is also getting a friendly reception from big business interests...the Democrats’ financial base is centered in the finance, real estate and insurance industries and blue-chip corporate law firms...To date, Obama has raised $112 million in donations of $1,000 or more, thanks in large part to the efforts of more than 500 bundlers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 and up."

One of these days, Bill, I must personally thank you for your part in giving us these last 8 years of George Bush and the Republican party.

You had a chance to oppose it - all the war, the torture, the environmental destruction, the corruption, the hate, all of it - and you chose instead to "send" your petulant stupid-ass "message".

Well the "message" has been received: you are a classic useful idiot for the conservative Republican establishment, and as such you deserve every bit as much contempt from real progressives as we reserve for Bush and Cheney.

First of all, Steven, allow me to compliment you on the eloquence and mature judgment you have shown in your comment. It adds so much class to this debate, elevating it and Blue Oregon to the highest standards making them outstanding examples for all other "progressive Democrats" to follow.

I just wish I had access to your profound wisdom prior to the 2000 election so you could have warned me that Bush and Cheney would get us into the war on Iraq and other horrors. Too bad, you didn't share your prescience with Gore and Lieberman so they could have warned the nation of the apocalypse that would come down the pike on the Bush/Cheney wagon. Why didn't you head up or over to Pioneer Square or write a letter to the Oregonian and warn all Portlanders and inevitably other Oregonians about this?

Before I make another "mistake" this election can you give me a little heads-up? If Obama increases the number of troops in Afghanistan will that resolve that problem? How about if McCain increases the number of troops in Afghanistan, will that make matters worse?

While waiting for another oracle from you to reveal your profound wisdom I'll head off to the woodshed and indulge in a little self-flagellation in penance for my sins. Don't you think the Democratic senators and representatives in Congress who voted for the war on Iraq and signed the Patriot Act should join me? And maybe all those Democrats who voted them into office after the vote for war on Iraq in October 2002?

14% of all voters say they would vote for Nader if they thought he could win. That's with a virtual media blackout of his campaign. If we had a democracy, Ralph would be in the debates, and it would be a three way race (He doesn't need 50% of Democrats' votes, just one-third of all votes, actually less than that if Barr were to get some traction).

Harry, I'd love to see when and where that statistic of 14% comes from. Regardless, if I'm understanding you right, you envision a perfect 3-way tie. You're presupposing that a certain percentage of Republican voters will now vote Nader. (10%, 15% ?) I don't buy it. In fact, I suspect that the magic 14% is also the percentage of voters who consider themselves liberal. It would never be 30/30/30, but more like 40/26/14, with Nader STILL delivering it to the Republicans. I don't think I want to count on Barr to keep things out of Republican hands. Voting Nader will never fix anything. START LOWER ON THE TICKET!!!!!!!! arrrgh.

I'm not being snarky in asking this, I want to know how Nader's supporters are going to reach their goals.

Kristin: You seemed to have a problem with my first response to your question. Let's try it another way using part of Hillary's speech at the convention. She referred to a small group of women who got together at Seneca Falls in New York in 1848 to fight for women's rights. They took on a challenge that has not been fully realized 160 years later but has achieved some worthwhile successes. That is a version of what Ralph Nader, those before him and those who share some of their positions hope to achieve. To put it in simple terms: A government of the people, for the people and by the people. We'll never get there by taking our eyes of that goal. Voting for the lesser evil is one of the biggest distractions impeding success.

Kristin: I may owe you an apology, but I give up. You remind me of a kid who asks "Why?" and after getting an explanation asks "Why?" again. I don't have a copy of Nader's schedule but mine is to take it a step at a time.

Ryan: I don't "envision a perfect 3-way tie", and nothing I wrote suggests that. I'm saying that 14% (pretty much a constant since 2000) converts to a significantly higher total once the voters are able to compare Nader's positions in a true (not corporate-only) debate.

Since Nader has attacked Bush far more powerfully than Kerry, Gore or Obama, I think it's clear that they're the ones you need to whine to about "delivering" elections to the Republicans. (Kerry actively opposed attacks on Bush during his campaign, and Obama and Pelosico currently oppose the impeachment of the war criminals Bush and Cheney).

And, instead of attacking Nader, why don't you Democrats do something about the caging and voting machine scandals that threaten another of your regressive campaigns?

In other words, just like so many of your fellow travelers, (Republicans) who also hate Al Gore, you just, simply, trusted George Bush.

Other than being full of that smelly stuff, Steven, how do you explain your comment when I was at one time prepared to hold my nose to vote for Al Gore as the lesser evil but couldn't go through with it as his campaign became more disgusting with each passing day. I said something similar on a couple of Blue Oregon threads some time ago. You can look them up or take my word for it.

As for my questions above, I presume you will continue to ignore them because you can't answer them and that you will continue with your disreputable tactic of attacking the messenger instead of the message.

My understanding is "The Onion" is a satirical site, but you seem to be taking it or expecting readers to take it as for real.

Because I bear you no ill will allow me to suggest that you quit digging yourself into a deeper hole.

Kristin: Your and Obama's lies about "rejection of lobbying money" have been revealed over and over again, even in the MSM. Even McCain sees it, so it will lose you even more voters than you already have lost via your regressive campaign if you continue to lie about it.

Which of these FACTS do you disagree with?:

(1.) Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages.

(2.) Obama is taking money, lots of it, from owners and employees of firms registered as federal lobbyists, even if they're not the actual individual lobbyists.

(3.) The campaigns of both Obama and McCain are being inundated with cash from more or less exactly the same corporate donors.

The four references I posted are a small sample of what is readily available for anyone who is interested in the truth. Typepad refuses to allow me to even post links to those references (Why?) Here's what the NYT says:

"An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries...Lawyers make up the largest group, numbering roughly 130, with many of them working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses...Obama has pledged not to accept donations from lobbyists or political action committees registered with the federal government. But some top donors clearly have policy and political agendas. Hedge-fund executives, for example, have bundled large sums for Mr. Obama at a time when their industry has been looking to increase its clout in Washington." (Big Donors, Too, Have Seats at Obama Fund-Raising Table

And Kristin, you still are avoiding my question re NAFTA (not whether or not you disagree with Obama - almost everyone disagrees with him). Why did Obama risk losing the election by reversing his position on NAFTA? The answer is instructive.

You say you respect Matt Taibbi, so you must know that he agrees with me:

"Obama...is running as a symbol of a new politics, a politics somehow less disgusting and full of shit than the old politics. But if it were to get out that he's not that —that all he is is the same old deal dressed up in black skin and a natty suit —then he quickly morphs into a different kind of symbol, a symbol of how an essentially bankrupt political system can seamlessly repackage itself to a fed-up marketplace by making cosmetic changes, without altering its basic nature." (Matt Taibbi, Symbolic change)

Clearly, you're going to continue to vote for Nader. I was trying to be open minded but nothing that you've written has convinced me that Nader has any idea what the heck he is doing.

Ralph Nader took on and beat General Motors, one of the largest corporations in the world. He established highly respected consumer-interest organizations (some of which help to protect your child) and you come up with the preposterous conviction that he doesn't know what he is doing. He is a personal and close friend of the likes of Lewis Lapham and Phil Donahue, both highly respected in what is generally referred to as the "liberal" camp, and you appear to consider him clueless. Now isn't that a kicker?

So, Kristin, what have you achieved that compares with what Ralph Nader has?

If you believe Nader doesn't know what he is doing and is clueless, then here is a way to expose him as a fraud. Push to get him on the presidential debates.

As Kucinich said, you don't run unless you expect to win.

That's a good one. Do you think Kucinich, Biden, Dodd and Gravel really expected to win? Some people run for exposure either of themselves or their agenda knowing full well they won't win.

So does this mean that Nader is doing that? For the third time? With decreasing votes?

I should have added some people such as Nader run to give the people a choice that the duopoly doesn't give.

Check this.

Well, Harry, I'm not a Democrat, but I do know that the issue of voting machines hasn't been ignored. It's not so simple as to snap one's fingers and make them go away. It'll be easier when people get the Republicans who installed them voted out. Hmmm, I wonder if that would be a better use of people's time and energy than the Sisyphean Nader Campaign? And I'm still waiting for a source for your 14%. Here you say: He doesn't need 50% of Democrats' votes, just one-third of all votes and then you say: I don't "envision a perfect 3-way tie", and nothing I wrote suggests that. but maybe you can explain. Maybe you meant that Nader gets 33% (one third of all votes) and the other percentages are different. I guess you probably meant 50% Republican and 17% Democrat. That would be sweet. Unless you meant 33% of Democrats' votes. I'm not sure what that entitles him to. Please enlighten me.

Look, as I've said above, I'd LOVE for a candidate to come out of the left with a viable, organized campaign. I'm sick and tired of hearing about the goddamned Corvair! It's 2008 for Christ's sake! The goddamned CORVAIR! Thanks for saving me from the Corvair, Ralph. Here's the presidency, you've earned it. No, please, take it, no one else around here has done so much.

Ryan,

Chickens and Eggs: You want a viable candidate who has a viable organization, but you won't support a candidate with a better agenda such that you make the candidacy viable.

And the Democrats gain control of the Congress and refuse to exert their influence over the Administration.

At what point would you consider not supporting the Democrats? What degree of capitulation / compromise on their part would cause you to reconsider your support for this party?

Nader was never viable. I'm not going to support him, although I have voted for other parties' candidates regularly. I am not pleased with the Democrats, but I think you overestimate their current influence over the administration. In addition, they're still largely centrist. I'm proposing that we work on voting in liberal Democrats where possible. That's achievable. Nader's a dead end. If I liked him, I'd absolutely consider it, but I'm more concerned about a McCain presidency at this point.

Iraq was obvious - threats were made against his father and we all knew he'd go after Iraq for it.

Then why was Paul O'Neill so surprised ten days after Bush's first inauguration that Bush was so focused on Iraq at his first cabinet meeting? Iraq certainly wasn't a significant topic during the 2000 campaign. (Jenni: What did you do prior to the 2000 election to warn the people about our chances of going to war on Iraq? I was a subscriber to the Oregonian at that time and don't recall any letters to the editor on that topic.)

Regardless of this, Bush couldn't have gotten his war on Iraq or any other disasters attributed to him without the collusion, in some cases, and absence of moral courage, in other cases, on the part of many Democratic senators and representatives in Congress. Blaming Nader for all this is like blaming automobile companies for all the traffic accidents on the highways. If these corporations hadn't made cars, irresponsible drivers wouldn't have been able to cause these accidents. Automobile manufacturers make motor vehicles and deliver them to the lots. When a purchaser buys one of those vehicles and gets behind the wheel he or she is then responsible for what happens when that vehicle is operated. The same applies to Congress and the White House. They are responsible for what happens in the nation. Congress failed. All members took an oath to uphold the Constitution and about three fourths of them reneged on their oaths to give Bush a blank check to go to war. Without that there would have been no war. To prove they still don't give a damn for the Constitution, Congress with a Democratic majority (including Obama and Biden) approved the more recent FISA bill to give telecom corporations who donated to their election campaigns immunity for violating the law. Nader did nothing to encourage them to vote as they did. The ball was in their court and they screwed up royally. To the contrary, Nader was against both acts.

And to repeat a question that Jenni chose not to discuss, what about all the Democrats who voted these pathetic senators and representatives into office in the first place? Then in November 2002, a couple of weeks after these shameful votes for Bush's blank check to go to war, hundreds of thousands of members of the Democratic party voted to send these scurrilous wretches back to Congress to give us the Patriot Act and the bankruptcy bill.

Now, the Democratic Party has voted for Joe Biden to be the next vice president. The same Joe Biden who pushed for the war on Iraq and the bankruptcy bill. Both of these vile and squalid events were opposed by Ralph Nader.

Then in November 2002, a couple of weeks after these shameful votes for Bush's blank check to go to war, hundreds of thousands of members of the Democratic party voted to send these scurrilous wretches back to Congress to give us the Patriot Act and the bankruptcy bill.

Perhaps "... hundreds of thousands of members of the Democratic party" should read "millions of members of the Democratic party..."

Kristin: For someone who has "given up" several times, you sure haven't stopped disinforming. If you can look at Nader's list of issues and claim that Obama is on board with them, I may be wrong in assuming that you are a disinforming DP operative rather than stupid.

Is Obama in favor of single payer, non-corporate health care? Is he in favor of a six month withdrawal of all military and corporate personnel from Iraq to home? Is he in favor of even-handedness on Palestine/Israel rather than unqualified support for Israeli crimes? Is he in favor of cutting the bloated Pentagon budget rather than increasing it? Is he opposed to nuclear, with solar first? Is he in favor of ending corporate welfare to his buddies who are funding his campaign? Is he in favor of a carbon pollution tax? Is he in favor of impeaching Bush and Cheney? Is he in favor of repealing Taft-Hartley? Is he in favor of a Wall Street speculation tax? Is he in favor of ending corporate personhood? Is he in favor of taxing wealth before income?

No, you can't be that stupid, so you must just be a disinforming DP operative who assumes that others are too stupid to understand the issues (which may be true on BO). Just keep repeating the same lies over and over again and some of it will eventually stick, like Obama "rejection of lobbying money".

Here's the answer to your ridiculous question: Nader is campaigning in all 50 states in order to get onto the ballots and in order to spread his anti-corporate/anti-hegemonist message. He wants to create a mass movement of progressives who will demand that he be included in debates with the corporatist candidates and who will continue as congressional-district-based democratic institutions. He wants to profoundly and fundamentally change our political system, including through the use of the National Initiative (National Initiative).

Contentious... elegantly asked Ryan, "At what point would you consider not supporting the Democrats? What degree of capitulation / compromise on their part would cause you to reconsider your support for this party?" And that's perhaps the single most important question that Democrats need to ask themselves. Is there anything that these non-representatives of ours might do or not do that would cause you to say, "Enough!"? My guess is that the answer for most of you is, "No".

Chris L: As usual, I agree with most of what you say.

But: "And doing it in a way which makes the people you want to mobilize feel blamed or attacked isn't going to change many...."

I hope that you are not saying that my arguments and citations would have "mobilized" you for Nader had I not caused you to feel blamed or attacked. Because that would be a childish response to debate, and I don't see you as childish.

Many voices with many different points of view and many different emotional contexts are needed in this debate. I suggest that you go back over this thread and others like it and see how your and others' "respectful debate" has affected those DP operatives who are uncommitted to anything other than "winning". I would argue, in fact, that your tactic has encouraged repetition of lies and disinformation. If all of us stood vehemently for truth and justice, these amorality trolls could not dominate the conversation.

Furthermore, your claims about Nader's harmful influence on the Green Party are ridiculous. I myself am a PGP member (before that, Green Party of Ca.), and I know for a fact that the party never would have achieved as much as it has without Nader's influence (ask Matt Gonzalez). I recommend that you view Crashing the Party on Free Speech TV. Nader, McKinney, Sheehan, Clemente and Gonzalez have coalesced in their opposition to both corporatist parties. They are waiting for you and other progressives to join them both in offering an alternative to McBama and in repudiating the status quo.

Ryan: The voting machine/caging issue has not only been ignored. It has been impeded by DP operatives, just as has the impeachment issue.

Danny Schecter (mediachannel.org) reports:

"ELECTION PROTECTION

The Obama campaign has announced plans to expand their election protection program by mobilizing more lawyers to monitor polling. But the folks in the election integrity movement say this doesn't go far enough because the problem is that there are unreliable machines and shady software. Andy Novick, a lawyer in New York State, is bringing suit to try to guarantee fair elections and is running into resistance from Democratic politicians.'To the dems this is one of those issues no one wants to touch…It's rather extraordinary when you're close to an issue to watch them back away like you've got a highly contagious plague…voting on software is secret vote counting….Voting on software is a corrupt system- opens the door to undetectable tampering. It's the antithesis of a democratic electoral system.'"

Your argument regarding statistical "viability" requires greater attention to context. 50% of eligible voters didn't vote for any candidate in 2000. About 22% voted for Bush, and about 22% voted for Gore. Therefore, someone with both name recognition and a record of public service should be able to garner enough support to be "viable", especially if they start out with 6% to 14% potential support. The 14%, as I said before, has been a constant since at least 2000. If you have an alternative figure, post it. Ross Perot, a bizarre and ridiculous personality whose response in debate to the question of how he would solve problems was to "lock up a bunch of experts in a room and don't let them out until they come up with an answer" received almost a fifth of the total vote count. Was he "viable"?

Although I am agnostic on the question of Nader winning the election, I lack the metaphysical certainty of some of you. I doubted just as much that Obama could beat Clinton. The future is unwritten. We could become a democracy.

Harry, once again, what is the source for your statistic? That's all I'm asking. I don't have a competing one, I just want to see who says Nader gets 14%. That's all. I'm curious. Who says it? You're evading my request.

Let me see if I understand this "context". Of the 50% who actually vote, Nader gets 14%, Republican gets 22%, Democrat gets 8%. Is that how it works? Sounds great. I guess that depends on whether that 14% is from the 50% who vote, or the half that don't. (I imagine it's from the half that don't. They were sitting out the last few elections when they could have voted for Nader, but for some reason they'll suddenly decide it's worth it.) But I don't know. I don't have any idea where this number came from.

By the way, how does Nader's actual vote count match up to Perot's? What does that tell you about who gets votes, and who does the voting? I'm sorry, but at this point the Nader campaign looks more and more like a wild-eyed guy standing on the corner yelling and waving pamphlets from inside a hand-scrawled sandwich board. He's got something important to say, but nobody's listening. Time to try something else...

Oops, I forgot to point out that, as I stated above, it's my opinion that we have a much greater chance of fixing voting machines by working to elect the right Democrats. The current ones are too centrist/corporatist. This is, as I said, an achievable goal. Of course, if we can put candidates from other parties in who will do it, we should. IF we can. Let's take it race by race, and not waste time building a cardboard rocketship to the moon. I'm proposing we work harder and smarter with what we've got, rather than complaining that it's not perfect yet. I'd lose my job if I approached it the way Nader people approach politics.

Let's take it race by race, and not waste time building a cardboard rocketship to the moon.

Many major projects begin with doodles on napkins (Southwest Airlines) and "cardboard rocketships." The declines and falls of nations often begin with a habit of voting for the lesser evil.

Ryan said, "...we have a much greater chance of fixing voting machines by working to elect the right Democrats."

That's magical thinking.

The rigged voting machines, caging, and other election-stealing techniques are preventing Democrats and progressives from getting elected in the first place.

So why are Democrats impeding the fair election movement? Could it be that, believing that telling the truth would challenge their corporate bosses, they would gladly lose elections in return for a continuing place as the junior partner at the political power trough? Isn't this also the reason for Obama's election-threatening change of position on NAFTA (which two-thirds of Republicans oppose)?

Chomsky and many other progressives have consistently called attention to the fact that the 50% who don't vote at all in U.S. federal elections are demographically similar to European, left-of-center voters who belong to parties that more represent their interests than the US corporate parties. The people I know who don't vote want, e.g., less militarism and more social programs, and well designed polls consistently show this.

The assumption that Nader votes could only come from Democrat voters is foolish (as you know). 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. (I've read other analysis that suggests 60% would not have voted for Gore.) So, since Nader already represents the great majority of Democrat rank-and-file on the issues, once the lies of regressive Democrats have been exposed in debates, Ralph would not need many Republican votes in order to be "viable", regardless of the accuracy of the 14% statistic that you seem to be fixated on.

Harry, you still haven't provided your source for the 14% statistic. I'm fixated because you're not apparently able to back up your argument by citing sources. It's not an unreasonable request. Moreover, your unwillingness to cite your source gives the appearance that you're either reciting this number from memory, or the source is biased. I enjoy debate, but I like to know what kind of debate we're having. I love the idea that there's a huge European Voter sleeper cell hiding inside the U.S., just waiting for Nader to utter the secret code words in a national debate. It sounds magical.

One more thing; I love Chomsky, but go outside the major urban areas of the West and Northeast and tell me those who don't vote want protectionist socialism. Ask them what they want. It's closer to Libertarianism than it is to anything else.

Ryan: If I do your research for you and find a reference for the 14% stat, will you agree to support Nader? Is that single statistical reference really that important a matter to you, or are you just trying to avoid answering questions about Obama that are far more significant? You say you enjoy debate, but you don't want to respond to my questions. Why won't you answer these:

(1.) Why are Democrats impeding the fair election movement and the impeachment movement?

(2.) How is trying to elect Democrats going to magically overcome the rigged elections that prevent them from being elected in the first place?

(3.) What is the reason for Obama's election-threatening changes of position on NAFTA and other populist issues?

(4.) Is there anything that these regressive Democrats might do or not do that would cause you to say, "Enough!"? (Contentious... asked you, "At what point would you consider not supporting the Democrats? What degree of capitulation / compromise on their part would cause you to reconsider your support for this party?")

(5.) Why do you continue to disinform about all Nader votes having come from (otherwise) Democrat votes?

Re: "Ask them [outside the major urban areas] what they want. It's closer to Libertarianism than it is to anything else."

I want libertarianism, too. Nader and Chomsky both have described themselves as libertarian. Removing or decreasing the power of corporations is a libertarian pursuit. Increasing democratic participation is a libertarian pursuit. Real libertarians fear the power not only of government, but of all anti-democratic, illegitimate institutions (e.g., the DP and the RP).

<hr/>

Chris L: re: "individuals in isolation end up making calculations based on perceptions of "can he win?"

Even if this is true, the answer to the question is far more likely to be affirmative if Nader gets into the debates, i.e., being in the debates is an indication to voters that a candidate can win. Perot, as rich as he was, could not have received almost 20% of the vote had he not been able to debate.

re: "..it doesn't matter if they aren't liberals, they will just be labeled 'extreme liberals' or 'socialists' and then the labels will be attacked"

That's exactly the argument I've made on several occasions on BO, but my conclusion is the opposite of yours. The Reich is doing that with Obama (!) now, and they would have done it to McCain if he had joined Kerry in '04 (as the Democrat "liberals" had wanted). Why do Obama, Biden, Kerry and the other DP elites insist on praising McCain for being a "hero" instead of attacking him with labels that are far more accurate than the ones used to tar Democrats?

Let me repeat that I am agnostic on the question of whether or not Nader can win. It seems unlikely to me, just as it seemed unlikely that Obama could win the DP nomination. But Ralph is the best by far of the present candidates, and I will therefore support him, win or not. I am not an amorality troll.

(If you guys want to debate Chomsky, you can do so at zcommunications for $3 membership fee. I'd love to see it.)

If I do your research for you and find a reference for the 14% stat, will you agree to support Nader?

??? It's your statistic. You brought it up. I'm supposed to do your research for you? If you use a statistic to bolster your argument, you should be able to provide its source. You're acting like I'm the unreasonable one. If you can actually provide a source for the statistic you are using, I'll tell you whether I think it helps make your argument or not. Until then, I'll assume it's something you made up.

So, here goes: 1. They have no chance of succeeding in an impeachment, and they're afraid of backlash. This is a reason to elect more and better Democrats, or even candidates from other parties who will impeach if we can. (Remember, I'm not a Democrat.) Republicans won't. 2. Democrats have an apparatus that's been functioning for while. Pushing them to the left isn't as hard as attacking a rigged system by building an entirely new apparatus from the ground up. We can get overwhelming majorities through an existing party. 3. Obama sucks. McCain is going to destroy our country. Nader has no hope of being elected, and probably wouldn't make a very good president anyway. I wouldn't vote for him even in an instant-runoff. 4. I'm not a Democrat. I try to vote realistically based on doing the most good, and/or the least harm. Sometimes I vote for a long-shot, sometimes I play it safe. I do not always vote Democrat. I will not ever vote Nader. 5. I do not believe Nader could win without Democratic voters.

So, why isn't Nader running as a Libertarian? Wouldn't that make him more likely to actually have a shot? Since when do Libertarians want government to provide social programs? That involves taxes.

Ryan: Re: "Since when do Libertarians want government to provide social programs?"

I think you're confused about Libertarian vs. libertarian. The same way Democrats are often confused about Democratic vs. democratic. Removal of the anti-democratic, illegitimate corporatocracy from health care, for example, is a libertarian political movement, even if "government" collects the taxes that will be used to run a replacement system.

Here's how I approach political debate: If someone makes an argument and backs it up with general poll results, and if I disagree with the argument, I look for other poll results that challenge the results of the initial argument. As far as I know, there are no results that challenge the 14% stat of those who would vote for Nader if they believed he could win, a stat that I've read about since 2000.

A recent Fox poll says 14%. You will consider that source "biased", I'm sure. I am searching for other sources, but I doubt that you have any real interest in the stat. I did not "make it up".

By the way, Zogby reports from 3/14 that, "Ideologically, Nader wins 18% support among progressives, and 12% among libertarians." So there is an overlap.

I'm finding multiple polls showing Nader at 5%-6%. I'm finding nothing at 14%.

And, yes, that's why I capitalized Libertarian in my posts. I guess you missed that.

Ryan:

I saw that you capitalized the L, and that's why I called your attention to the fact that when people like Chomsky call themselves libertarian, they are talking about something different than what people who are members of a right-wing party are talking about.

Most Americans are progressive on the issues, and they are libertarian in the sense that Chomsky discusses. In other words, they are similar to Nader, and they would vote for him if they understood what his values and principles really are. Democrat elites consistently try to bury this reality beneath "far left" or Rovian personality-based arguments.

Chomsky also quite clearly supported Nader in the last few presidential elections, although he recommended a "safe-states strategy". He definitely has a different perspective than you on both libertarianism and Nader.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032008_release_web.pdf

"Nader is at 6% according to CNN, and those who would vote for him if he were competitive was 14% in a recent Fox poll. It is vastly easier to go from 14% to 30% than to go from nothing to 14%." (http://counterpunch.com/kafoury07122008.html)

Chris L wrote: Bill, at some point you have to do something more with the doodling. Nader's been doodling 16 years.

First of all, Chris, even though you take exception to what I say, I appreciate the challenge and the information you provide to support your position - unlike others locked into their whatever-mode.

On strategies in general, they change with circumstances, but Nader seems, as he has suggested, to prefer to give the Democratic and Republican parties a chance to do what he believes is right (something of a forlorn hope), and if they don't then he steps in to give the voters an option to vote for someone who believes in the Constitution and is not owned by the corporatocracy. He is, I believe unfairly, criticized for failing to get support to become a force to change the dynamics of the parties and the voters, but I suggest that the people are as much, if not more, to blame for accepting the low qualities the duopoly candidates offer. We have three candidates - McCain, Obama and Biden - who have shown their oaths to uphold the Constitution are meaningless when political expediency takes precedence, and all but a few of us will vote for them.

In the 2004 election I was programmed for Anybody-but-Bush and asked Nader not to run. I was wrong and Nader was right. John Kerry was a pathetic candidate, and the voters deserved another candidate they could respect and not waste their votes on.

Back to strategy. When Herb Kelleher and his friend were doodling on a napkin to begin establishment of Southwest Airlines they may have had a strategy to get financing, but given their choice of a name for this new airline, it would appear they didn't have a strategy to make it a national airline. That came with changing circumstances.

When George Washington was building an army to fight the British, his first strategy was to get enough people to fight. He obviously had a goal of defeating the British, but at one time you can bet he never had strategies about how and where to attack the British. With a limited army he had to make insurgency his strategy instead of set battles that he might have decided on if he had a larger army. Kind of like the insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

<h2>I have a lot of personal stuff coming up over the next three weeks, so this will probably be my last contribution for a while, but I'll look forward to getting back in the debate towards the end of the month.</h2>