The REALLY SAD thing about the role of Nader is that......

[Armstead]

...he is the only one who is going to be bringing up a lot of important issues, and offering alternatives in this election.

I am NOT endorsing or supporting Nader's candidacy. I believe he should find a different way to advocate for his views. Especially this year, when a return of the GOP to the WH would be especially devestating and Democrats are likely to at least offer a whiff of change.

BUT, BUT, BUT......In the campaign -- especially the General when the Democratic candidate will hew to the "center" --- Nader is the only one left who is actually raising important questions both on the broad and specific level.

While Obama or Clinton will be talking about solving the crisis in the middle class in centrist fashion and focusing on tax policies, NADER will be the only one really bringing out the more fundamental issues like corporate concentration, the systematic destruction of regulation, etc.

John Edwards was bringing out the basic problem, and added to the debate, as did Kucinich. They put more pressure on Obama and Clinton to get real. But they're gone.

Instead of bashing Nader, IMO the Democratic candidates and campaigns ought to steal Nader's issues and make them more central to their campaigns and then to governance.

Nader is wrong for running. But he has the progressive populist message and positions that Democrats ought to appropriate instead of demonizing him as a person.

[BootinUp]

1. If we take the number of Nader lovers and multiply by 3

this forum is going to be a fucked up place for the next several weeks. :eyes:

[Armstead]

3. Please eitehr ignore the post or address the subject

I am not a "Nader lover."

But I do stand on my longheld belief that Democrats ought to at least take the very valid points Nader raises and use them.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

2. It's all message, nothing more. It's an easy message now that Kucinich and then Edwards took their

hits. He could have helped either in a number of ways, but he prefers the spotlight to himself. It's sad, I had such profound respect for him.

BTW, I'm listening to him on MTP and he's attacking Sen. Obama right now. Asking if he, Obama, has the "moral courage" to get things done. :puke:

He's an opportunist.

[tridim]

7. "Everyone is wrong except me" -Captain Ego

I really wish the dude would just stop fucking with our elections so I could like him again.

[Armstead]

22. No it is a substantial message that has long been ignored by Democrats

To repeat my original post, I DO NOT support his decision to run again. However, as I also said, whast is sad is that many issues are going to be ignored and he is likely to be the only one even mentioning them.

This is the first year Democratic presidential candidates have even sounded remotely populist or acknowledged that corporations have too much power.

But neither Clinton or Obama has so far been willing to take the next step and actually get below the easiest positions to the meat of the problem.

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. You got it.

Let's not forget that the longest lasting Democratic primacy in our history was started when FDR blatantly stole a half dozen planks from the socialists in 1932.

Reaching to the left is a WINNING strategy. Reaching for the center, in the DLC fashion, is a LOSING strategy - the center is the default postion of the uninterested, unknowing, uncaring. The center is not a voting bloc - it is a stagnant pool of sometime voters who will go with whichever side excites them. And you don't exite someone by being just like them.

Obama would do very well to co-opt many of Nader's positions. He has already shown a propensity for this by adopting the populist style and rhetoric of Edwards, becoming the default populist candidate, something that was not evident in the early days of his campaign. I would love to see him kick off a new 4 decades of Democratic governance.

[KittyWampus]

4. what "issues" is he bringing up that Obama and Hillary haven't addressed?

[Armstead]

9. A few

Adopt single payer national health insurance

Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law

Work to end corporate personhood

...among others


If your response is "What the hell is corporate personhood?" the you are illustrating why it is important to broaden the political debate.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

26. Then why did he not throw his support behind Kucinich or Edwards?

Why has he not done anything at the grassroots level to help get a true progressive third party up and running? Especially after the debacle of 2000?

He speaks well, and has great progressive ideas. But, as you and I know, just speaking the words does nothing if there isn't any hard work or strategy beyond those words..

[Armstead]

27. he basicvally said in the past that if Edwards were the nominee, he'd stay out of it

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

28. When was that?

[Armstead]

31. On Hardball

He basically said as much in an interview with Chris Matthews.

I recall other times when he said that, but can't remember the details of when.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

Link? I'd really like to see that, it's suprising that was missed here.

[Armstead]

49. Hardball, MSNBC...visit the website and find the transcript.

I'm not going to waste my time with the "supply a link" stuff. I heard him say it, it's there.

There also was discussion about it here on DU at the time.

[mtnester]

52. That is not the same thing as endorsing Edwards

it's a weasel.

[KittyWampus]

35. single-payer isn't going to happen overnight, Dems are pro-union, you think corporate personhood

is going to get a candidate elected?

IMO, this is about YOU and a few other people wanting to feel superior.

Your last line illustrates this nicely.

I KNOW about Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886).

I also know about politics and pragmatism.

Nader can talk about corporate personhood without runninng for POTUS.

[Armstead]

61. Byte me crank matey -- It's not about "Me" and I feel far from superior

[OnionPatch]

71. I think you're right about single-payer.

Sadly, at this time it's a kiss of death for any serious candidate. Incrementally is the only way we're going to have single payer. Like cooking a frog....we'll have to put those insurance companies in the pot and turn the heat on slow. Throw them in the boiling water and they'll all jump out.

[all.of.me]

48. Single payer! Thank you!

Last night, I was reading about Obama's and Clinton's health care ideas. It's all mandated, required, with fines, and so on. It's scary to me, a self-employed, over 50, single parent of two teens. I realized I had not seen anyone talk about single payer anymore! That, to me, is the solution. And now I know why I have not seen anyone talk about it - too progressive.

[CJCRANE]

5. Obama mentioned renewable power

such as solar, wind etc in his Houston speech. Obama is already on the ball when it comes to green issues.

[UALRBSofL]

12. Hillary mentioned clean Green energy a year ago

and how it would bring several hundred thousand jobs.

[rodeodance]

58. Ha ha---he is playing catch up to Hillary's comprehensive eviromental-green economy plan.

[Armstead]

70. I guess you haven't been paying attenmtion for the last 30 years

Nader has been advocating for green energy and solar power for many years.

[rodeodance]

73. Try not making ASSumptions. I was referring to O.

[Armstead]

76. My mistake. I apologize. I misread your post.

[rodeodance]

80. sorry for the snap

[DFW]

6. I don't demonize him for his positions

I demonize him for the Administration of George W. Bush.

No worse act has been committed against this country in
my lifetime. And it wasn't even because he hates us. It was
all for an ego trip. That hurts the worst.

[Lost-in-FL]

11. Best quote on Nader that I ever heard.

[MadHound]

34. And you have been demonizing him for no good reason

Nader didn't cost Gore the election. You can blame that travesty on the Supreme Court, the Gore campaign and the Democratic party, along with the Republican party. But Nader had nothing to do with it.

Journalist Greg Palast handed the Gore campaign the entire Votescam scandal on a silver platter early in the recount process. Names, numbers, players, all there. Now imagine this, you have not just the constitutional duty to see justice done in this case, but you would also be banishing Bushco to the political wilderness forever. What would you do? Well we see what Gore did with it, he sat on it, and tens of thousands of people were disenfranchised.

Also you've got to consider another thing, how Gore pissed off Florida voters. He did this on the issue of off shore drilling, and the question of letting the industry come closer to the Florida shoreline and beaches. He was, at his corporate backer BP's insistence, all for shortening the limit. This pissed off two hundred thousand registered Dems, and four hundred thousand self described liberals so much that they went and voted for Bush instead. Whoopsie!

And if you think that Nader cost Gore the election, don't you think that Democratic leadership would be looking to hang it all on Nader? God knows, they needed a scapegoat. But even Al From, head of the DLC stated: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race." <http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>

Then there was the fact that the Supreme Court made the call, in a one time ruling that even they were ashamed of, since they said it should never, ever be used as a precedent.

Oh, and one other thing, a consortium of newspapers and magazines actually went into Florida and did their own vote count. You know what they found? That Gore actually won the state.

So as you can see, Nader wasn't at fault here. But the Dems would rather scapegoat this man and use him as a diversion, that way they don't actually have to deal with their own flaws and problems.

I suggest that you wake up and stop buying into the bullshit. Otherwise those same flaws that plagued the Democratic party in '00 and '04 will continue to plague the party and cost us all.

[UALRBSofL]

8. Armstead, Now your thinking

You are absolutely right on this issue with Nader. I do believe Obama or Clinton should embrace some of his issues. Good Post.

[Armstead]

29. Thank you.....I'm feeling like a voice in the wilderness at the moment

I'm not supporting Nader's decision to run.

But I wish the Democrats would appropriate the liberal progressive populism of his positions more.

[sellitman]

45. If he is all about issues then why....

Why didn't he get behind Dennis Kucinich? He has had 2 elections to do so now.

Why does he only come out from under his rock when its election time?

Why does he only go after the Democrats?

Why does he take Repiggy monies without thinking why they are donating.

No it's never been about the issues.

It's always been about Ralph.

F-Him.

[Armstead]

64. Um, there are several factual errors there

He has often been "out from under the rock" at non-election times on many issues.

One of his core campaign platforms (and something he has called for repeatedly in recent years) is the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

[Zodiak]

75. You are not alone

The reactionary Nader bashing on DU flies in the face of the evidence (more Dems voted for Bush out of Florida than voted Nader), relies heavily on being able to read his mind (it's all about his EGO?), and ignores the structural flaw in the positions of the Democratic party (read: the DLC) in just about every election in the last generation.

But after the insanity and willful ignorance I have seen on display in this primary season, it comes to no surprise to me that so many DUers buy into their own brand of groupthink and look no further into it. One's reputation here can be built on being a blind loyalist and nothing more.

Nader will not be a factor in this upcoming election. The tea leaves aren't reading that way. There are far greater forces that are going to work against the presumptive nominee.

[Lost-in-FL]

10. He comes around every 4 years...

He has no issues to present and if he has they aren't different than the issues we talk about in this board constantly. He only talks about those issues every 4 years giving me the impression that he is just an egomaniacal asshole looking for air time. There's nothing progressive about him, progressives do not screw others for the sake of airtime. I hope he doesn't run in the Green party platform cause he would give a bad name to them.

I think Obama or Clinton are going to take good care of him.

[Armstead]

13. We may talk about those issue, but the candidates don't

[CJCRANE]

20. Did you watch Obama's Houston speech? nt

[Armstead]

24. yes I did

I support Obama and agree with his speech.

But he doesn't go far enough in address the root causes of our problems.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

32. Nader seems to agree with you about Obama's shortcomings. He said as much on MTP.

He went after both Democratic candidates within a minute or so on MTP, and the Democratic congress. Not a word about the R's or the McCain.

[Armstead]

38. He did go after the GOp in very harsh terms on Meet the press AND...

on his website this is one of his core positions:

Impeach Bush/Cheney

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

43. Promote him elsewhere. He's done his damage. No difference between the parties except for

women's issues, LGBT issues, health care and the SCOTUS. But, he doesn't do nuance.

[Armstead]

74. Great deflection

If you are caught in a mistake, you might just acknowledge it insteasd of tossing out a cheap shot and adding another error.

I said in my OP I do not support his candidacy and i would prefer that he not be running.

He does do nuance. You just seem to lack the capacity to appreciate nuance.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

81. Thanks. The personal attacks on me continue. I've said not one negative thing to you personally

just told you why I disagree with Nader jumping into the race at this point.

You've been attacking me, personally, through this entire thread. It's OK, I can take it. I see it for what it is.

[Armstead]

84. Oh and what is it?

My "personal attack" was limited to the post above, because you both misrepresented Nader's position towards the GOP, and claiming that I am promoting his candidacy.

I got impatient with your "got links?" reponse above because that was simply a request that I waste my time, and that if I didn't spend 15 minutes looking for a link my initial answer was not valid.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

86. I'm just talking about the name calling. Everything else is fair game.

And, I won't repeat the various adjectives you applied to me personally, there are several.

[Armstead]

88. All right....Truce? (as I used to say to my brother)

I try not to get into personal attacks on here.

Let's just agree to disagree on this and leave it at that.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

89. Truce. You are a poster I respect.

I think we both have different views of Nader, at least at this point in time. And, I still plan on reading the book you recommended. I'm always looking to open my mind and I really DID respect and like Nader until quite recently.

:toast:

oh, and on edit, I did resort to calling you fatalistic. I admit it. :-)

[Hutzpa]

47. YOU support Obama?? Really??

I would not have known....beats me.....:shrug:

you have a weird way of showing your support.

[Armstead]

66. Being honest is a weird way of showing support?

Yes I have actively supported Obama here and in real life.

But that doesn't mean I agree with him 100 percent of the time. I base things on my basic beliefs, and look at the candidates through that.

[Zodiak]

78. I support Obama as well.

Well, after Edwards and Kucinich dropped out, that is.

I personally feel absolutely no threat from Nader if Obama is our candidate....this is not going to be a run-of-the-mill election where only the politically active vote.

But that fact that I feel no threat at all is also why I try to discuss Nader in a rational context...not a reactionary one. But apparently, if one is not a reactionary, then one gets denigrated on DU as one of Nader's supporters.

[Armstead]

82. Rational context? What a novel idea.

That's what I tried to do in my OP above.

And of course it's characterized by flames characteriing it as coming from a "Nader lover" who hates the Democrats.

Go figger. :shrug:

[Zodiak]

87. You have seen the environment here lately

Did you honestly expect a different response from people who think it is a valid political argument to call a Democratic presidential contender a "cult-leader" or a "bitch"?

This primary has shown me how little substance there truly is amongst GDPers. The substance is there, but the source of it is from a minority of DUers. So many have become politically active, but still so few could argue their way out of a paper bag.

[ulysses]

91. one has to buy into the Nader Terror to support Obama?

Why? That doesn't make any sense.

[Armstead]

96. Got a case of Deja Vu today?

[ulysses]

98. all over again, yup.

Down the rabbit hole, my friend. :D

[Lost-in-FL]

21. He has done so much for America in the past 7 years

:sarcasm:

[UALRBSofL]

17. This is why we will never have a viable third party candidate

No one is willing to break out of the mold of our two party system. I'm not advocating voting for Nader but I would like to see a viable alternative in the future.

[Lost-in-FL]

25. This is not the time to play the "values" game

Time is a luxury we do not have and things are pretty fucked up as they are. We need to gather the good Democrats that we still have and bring down the money/coorporate hungry ones and fix our party. I used to be an Independent voter who switched to Democrat with the intention of trying fixing a broken party.

We don't create third parties when the ones we have aren't working you try to fix the system cause at the end is MONEY and not a THIRD party which is destroying America.

[CATagious]

39. But the fact of the matter is...

we DO have a two-party system. And we will continue to have a two-party system until the electoral college is scrapped. Supporting Nader does nothing to change this fact, it only helps to elect a Republican. We can't afford another republican administration right now and, NO, the republicans and democrats are NOT the same! Nader helped us get Bush elected and we know how that turned out.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

62. How does one get a third party candidate? Well, first one needs a third party.

Something into which Nader has not invested. If he'd thrown his time and energy behind the Greens, for instance, eight years ago, we would possibly have seen that party represented on the national stage, perhaps in the Congress.

[LWolf]

14. Of course, if Democratic voters had

thrown their support behind DK and/or Edwards, then those important issues would be on the table within the party, and there would be no risk of splitting the progressive vote.

I hold Democratic voters accountable for this situation, and I'm not afraid to say so.

It's without integrity to nominate a centrist and then blame the left for your losses because they didn't abandon the issues and march in line to the center.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. I'm surprised he's running again

but I think most people will dismiss him as one of those people who keep running for President every election. Nadar is old, and even those who agree with his progressive message appear to realize that his time to be spokesman for it is long past. And, sadly, for this reason alone I think our candidates can ignore the progressive message.

Is Nadar running on the Green Party ticket or simply as an independent? If he's trying to go Green, doesn't he have to be nominated? How can that happen when so many primaries are already over?

[Bluenorthwest]

79. I think the Greens are running Cynthia McKinney

so what that means for Ralph I don't know. Even by third Party standards he seems like excess baggage.

[Tatiana]

16. Completely agree. I'm tired of the Nader fear.

We aren't "owed" anyone's vote. People who vote for him aren't likely to vote for the Democratic candidate anyway. Votes still need to be earned.

However, I'd respect Nader a lot more if he ran for Congress.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Fuck Nader.

[flyarm]

19. Ralph took repiglican corporate money in 2004 to run,..wake the hell up

he is bought and paid for by the reich wing!

fly

[Armstead]

23. suuuuree

[flyarm]

60. yep..rich repiglicans were bundling money for him..

why don't you do a little research before being nasty?

I was a Kerry/Edwards delegate in 2004 the Kerry Camp was very angry over this..and i sent this info out for the campaign to thousands...and thousands of Kerry contributors.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31K1.DTL

Nader, who has decried the influence of corporations in the political arena, also has received more than $20,000 in "bundled'' contributions since March from GOP fund-raisers, according to the Federal Elections Commission documents that tally donations through May 31.

Bundling is the practice of gathering contributions together for maximum influence.

Records show Nader raised just more than $1 million for his presidential effort through May 31. Most of the money came from small, individual donors.

snip:

Contributions from those who have also given to Republican causes, including the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.

Among Ralph Nader's top Republican donors:

-- Billionaire corporate executive John Egan of Massachusetts, who has raised at least$200,000 for the president's re-election campaign, donated $2,000 to Nader.

-- Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.

-- David Reed, president of Washington-based Foundation Petroleum Inc., who donated$1,000 to Nader and $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

-- Jack and Laura Dangermond, both executives in Redlands-based Environmental SystemsResearch Institute, who each donated $2,000 to Nader's campaign and the Bush- Cheneycampaign and $25,000 to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee.

Source: Federal Elections Commission

[formernaderite]

30. I am not going to vote for Nader but I support his

convictions and think it's great he's running. It will have little effect on the election if Obama wins...however, he would prob take quite a few votes from Hillary and I might actually change my stance on voting for him. I would like to see more and more parties run viable national candidates. That my friends, is democracy at it's best.

To malign Nader and blame him for the ills in your party is dishonest. People should always have choices, and the democrats have a lot of nerve assuming that every person who votes for Nader would have voted for their candidate instead. Simply NOT true. THe argument is just as stupid when repubs blame the Libertarians.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

33. Tell me again what he's done in the last seven years when our country needed him most as an

advocate?

[formernaderite]

37. it doesn't matter what you perceive

Nader isn't a democrat in the first place. He has many advocacy groups, and if you haven't noticed...most progressive voices are drowned out by the media. He has consistently been on the honest side of every issue that is important to progressives. He doesn't have to pander to anyone, which is why it's great to have his voice as a barometer.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

42. Alert.

[NashVegas]

36. Yup, Yup, Yup

I agree whole-heartedly.

[Bonobo]

40. Here is a picture of a "narcissistic piece of shit" from an earlier time.

Anyone know who it is?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

46. John Brown

Brown was killing because he feared for his life (the massacre) and to protect free soil. He really thought he could keep Kansas free by ballot, and then by not letting the pro-slavery forces win. I don't know what to think about the Pottawatomie massacre. I understand that he had reason to fear for the lives of his family. However, I cannot condone straight up murder in the middle of the night with a sword.

But again, Brown knew he *could* make a difference defending Kansas from pro-slavery forces pouring in. He thought that his plan at the armory *would* work. Nader knows that he can't win. He knows that there's absolutely no way he can win. He also knows *somewhere* in his brain that there really is a difference in the two parties. I guarantee Gore would not have lied about war.

[provis99]

51. looks like John Brown. That treasonous asshole deserved what he got

Doesn't help your argument, comparing Nader to a nutcase like Brown.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

67. Should every Confederate have been hanged?

Just want to know your thoughts.

[Hutzpa]

44. Another Nader patronizing post,

whether its a good thing or bad thing its not our point to look or discuss, he is the

enemy, he is against what most of us believe in....he is in the way of stopping ordinary

folks from getting their voices heard.

Besides, this is a conspiracy against the Democratic Party, why should a Democrat support

this or even try to play a 'Devils Advocate' is beyond me.

:think:

[Taverner]

50. Incorrect. Kucinich and Edwards pushed a progressive agenda

And as a result, Health Care is THE issue of 2008

[Armstead]

54. Two variations of the same approach

Neither Obama or Clinton is willing to put the possibility of true universal public healthcare on the table (even though Obama has said in the past he believes in it).

And please not in my OP that I did point to Edwards and Kucinich. But they are gone now.

[Taverner]

77. BS. Both Clinton and Obama will give us Universal Health Care

And they wouldn't even be talking about it if Edwards and Kucinich didn't put it on the table.

Nader will only destroy our chances - and I wish him ill

[Armstead]

83. Nader will have little or no impact on the results

My OP simply said that I believe it is too bad that many of Nader's positions are ignored and that they ought to be incorporated into the the Democratic platform more.

[Taverner]

85. What like a Wall Street securities speculation tax?

Ending corporate personhood?

The first would kill the market, and by proxy, the middle class.

The second is impossible, unrealistic and will accomplish nothing (as long as corporations have the money for lawyers, they will skirt any rules.)

[Armstead]

90. Finding a balance shouldn;t be dismissed as unrealistic

I doubt that if speculators have to pay a small percentage on windfall profits they are going to stop speculating. We have to start doing something to prevent the siphoning of economic benefits from the larger economy into the hands of a few elites.

Corporate personhood (a bad term I'll admit) is an issue that should be fought, at least in steps. Whittling away the enormous power that status has given to corporations does not have to be seen as an unachievable goal, if the majority is made to realize how it would help to correct the imbalance of power and resources against individuals and small and mid-sized businesses.

[cloudythescribbler]

53. Virtually ALL the attention Nader draws in the MSM is to his role as potential spoiler ...

If he wants to push issues, he should plunge into the Democratic primaries, something he looks upon as a 'money race'.

[Armstead]

56. I agree with you there....He should have run in the primary instead

Please note in my OP that I said I do not support his candidacy in the General election.

[H2O Man]

55. He marginalizes

important topics.

[Armstead]

57. I disagree with you on this....But since I usually agree with you, I'll leave it at that

[NoodleyAppendage]

59. Nader uses his "issues" to pump up his ego and delusion. Modern Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Without his "issues" Ralph Nader would have to content with obscurity...a prospect that his ego cannot stomach.

J

[rodeodance]

63. don't matter. He is now in the race.

[NoodleyAppendage]

65. He still has to raise signatures to get on the ballot, right? n/t

J

[rodeodance]

72. He has already won some states as a Green Party candidate--i do not know

specifics of the pres. race.

[dansolo]

68. Nader is not at all interested in solving these problems

If he was really interested in solving problems, he would run for something other than president every four years. He runs because of his ego.

[caledesi]

69. I used to respect Nader...now? where has he been last 2 years? NT

[ulysses]

92. there you go, being all rational and shit again.

;-)

[Armstead]

100. Time to rekindle the Sloth and Indolence Party and shame Nader and Obama

[ulysses]

101. I was looking for that banner the other day.

You know Utah has been sick, right?

edit: "benner"?

[Armstead]

103. No. Didn't.

[stevenleser]

93. Nader is not an advocate for anything but Nader. I am not interested in anything he says

His hubris and lies caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands and he isnt satisfied with that. He could give us McCain who would definitely attack Iran during his Presidency. The GOP are itching to do that and it would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands more. To hell with him or anyone trying to rehabilitate him by saying his advocacy for anything has any sort of meaning.

[stevenleser]

94. For trying to rehabilitate Nader, you sir are on Ignore

[Armstead]

97. Aw shucks....Thank you. Bye

[Rowdyboy]

95. I'm sorry but my hatred for the man makes rational conversation on my part impossible

The mention of his name makes me nauseaus, the sound of his voice makes me wince. I could agree with him 100% and I would still consider him beneath contempt. I freely admit that I am irrational on the subject and my usual comment on those threads is very ugly and rudely vulgar-on a par with my expressions of contempt for Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman.

I'll pass this time. I'll just be glad when this one day wonder of a story is forgotten (sometime around 9am EST tomorrow I' predict)

[Armstead]

99. Thanks for your honesty. I can understand your feelings.

Seriously, I appreciate your acknowledging that, instead of just bashing yours truly.

I certainly don't support his candidacy. But I guess I do have a higher tolerance for him because I do agree with 85 percent of his positions, and I just wish they were more a part of the mainstream political debate.

[VotesForWomen]

102. obama folks are worried that nader will show people what a real progressive is like. nt