Thank God! Finally the country can go back to paying attention to real news and issues… hopefully with a real statesman at the helm.

I’m disappointed how much the MSM and Obama’s people used the race card. I’ll have to be more careful to whom I give my money too in the future. Race matters.

Obama is only 6 to 7 points ahead.

With the margin of error moving up or down and taking into account that a huge segment of the population will not vote for a African American I think he might lose.

Jack Beatty is counting his eggs before they hatch.

I hate to say this I think Obama might lose. Today McCain is gaining in Ohio and Pennsylvania, without these states Obama will lose.

I am most disturbed by the caller who just indicated that Obama is being considered solely because of his race. I find that kind of offensive. I’m not voting for him because he’s a black man, I’m voting for him because he is considered an intelligent man who is speaking to the country’s needs at the moment and trying to empower the electorate instead of treating us all like idiots as the current administration does.

Fact check: McCain+RNC has outraised Obama+DNC by over $$ 20 million. McCain’s acceptance of public financing is a sleight of hand. All the fund raising just goes into the RNC coffers, which are used liberally (ahem) to support the McCain campaign.

I hate to say this I think Obama might lose.

All the signs point to a strong Obama win on Tuesday. The world’s most reliable “poll” by far is the Iowa Electronc markets (http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08_WTA.cfm ) which, as of this writing, shows a very strong Obama lead. (N.B. that the above link points to current data, which gets updated all the time, so if you are seeing this message on, say, Monday Nov 3, it might not correspond to what I described, above).

Also today’s NY Times/CBS poll shows Obama with a 13-point lead and a margin of error of 3 points.

But even if Obama loses there is no denying that, from a political science and sociology perspective, the result would be fascinating! Imagine a candidate with such a huge lead in the polls, and a huge funding advantage, running against the incumbent party in the teeth of a major economic recession and losing at the last minute!

This would give social scientists and political science junkies like me stuff to think about, analyze, discuss and chew-on for years. It may not make up for an Obama loss, but at least it would provide a silver lining.

We live in an amazing, fascinating universe and people should spend more time appreciating that. Last fall a comet exploded out in space and for a month it was right over our heads at 10PM. It was almost as big as the full moon and naked-eye bright even in my light-polluted suburb, and it didn’t look at all like a comet (it was perfectly round). Yet almost everyone I spoke to was blisslessly unaware of it. An Obama loss would be something like that - an amazing, unexpected event that should beguile and fascinate us, and humble everyone in our newfound appreciation for the mysteries in our everyday lives.

Just wanted to thank Ray from Michigan. As a passionate Obama supporter, I have rarely heard a clearer case for Barack than that which Ray made in just a few moments on the air. Here’s hoping he’s out there doing a lot of talking and calling and sharing his fabulous articulations of the issue!

I think that every time McCain says that Obama will “redistribute wealth” he wins another vote for Obama. I wouldn’t be surprised if a certain percentage of Republicans who are poor will go into the voting booth and pull the lever for Obama because they want more wealth distribution - through food stamps, through job creation, through higher taxes for the rich, etc., etc.

People that say we talk too much about race, or that we are making it too much of an issue, are people that have never felt racism.

Aren’t we tried of the suggestion that Blacks will riot if the election is stolen? My concern is whites in the U.S.: with the female marking her face and blaming a 6 foot 4, black guy, or the plot by the two white guys. My concern is whites fearing a power shift.

To tell the History of this country is to describe
the constant struggle over the distribution of wealth.
Beginning with the reign of the British over the
American Colonies to the present. What belongs to whom
and in what proportions is NEVER the result of a
simple contract. What the terms of these contracts are
is a constant matter of debate and conflict - that is
mostly what we mean by the term “politics”.

The main point - which is always missed - is that,
because we live in a Democracy, we settle these
arguments with political compromise and Law. We do not
break into local social or racial battles that
constantly take the economy apart, thus, costing much
more in the long run to anyone trying to build on a
stable foundation. A plan that is costly in the short
run but magnificently civilized and profitable in the
long.

And the bullshit that rains all around this is
amazing. The same business man who thinks that
Welfare is a good idea when it protects local
economies and infrastructure (should the plant down
the street go bust) wants to call it the moral crime
that defines “little people” and “socialists”, on
another day, when the economy is not so local.

Who pays what taxes and how much is up for grabs -
and whether that’s a good thing or not, ought to
depend on what’s happening today and to whom it is
happening. For some weird cause, that isn’t as true
as it should be. The fact that there are trillions
of Tax dollars to spend to stabilize the world
economy right now, for the business class who’s
economic plan has gone so wrong, gets washed out
to sea! “Abracadabra”. “On the count of three, you’ll
all wake up. 1 . . .2 . . . 3″ !

Gawd. Please note; the Myth of Human Reason.

fact that there are trillions
of Tax dollars to spend to stabilize the world
economy right now, for the business class who’s
economic plan has gone so wrong, gets washed out
to sea

This old canard is like a zombie - you can kill it as many times as you want and it won’t stay dead.

For the nth time (where n is a very large integer), the money the government is pumping into the financial system is NOT intended to protect the interests of the “business class”! It is an ATTEMPT to protect Main Street from the economic catastrophe that will result/is resulting from the freeze-up of the credit markets.

Already 3/4 of a million people have lost their jobs this year and that number could easily run into the MANY millions over the next year if this spirals downward.

If you actually look at the FACTS instead of your fevered imagination you’ll see that the shareholders of most of the big institutions involved - AIG, Lehman, Bear, Fannie and Freddie, etc, lost almost everything - much of their stock is worth pennies on the dollar, if it’s worth anything at all. And the stock of the other nonfinancial institutions in the broader market is down 40%. So if this scheme was supposed to advance the interests of the “business class” it doesn’t appear to be working.

Granted most people who are voting for Obama are not voting for him because he’s black; however, among the group of people who have probably never voted before, or infrequently, and will make the difference in this election; race will matter both pro and con.

When Obama says he will redistribute wealth, a large segment of the population believes that means that he will take from those who work and give to those who don’t even those who could. I don’t make $250K now, but I sure would like to someday. Knowing that 20 cents more of every dollar I earn above $250K will be paid in taxes so Congressmen can have generous lifetime pensions and healthcare will take some of my incentive away.

How about the white liberal guilt? Is that a factor in some percentage of votes going Obama’s way to balance out those votes going against him because of racism? Or is this a taboo subject?

The reality is that we have been a socialist country for a very long time. As I have shown, time and time again, it is not the rich creating jobs for the benefit of the people, it has been the government borrowing and printing up money to give to the people in different forms, from welfare to the defence budgets that has created the so called wealth. In the end however, the government ends up in debt to the “rich” and the public ends up obligated to the “moneyed” for the “federal obligations”.
And what we have is and “illusion of prosparity”, buying big houses and cars and IPods and Iphones, all of them financed by the government in some manner.This is the ultimate socialism, also called slavery.

If Obama/Biden wins on Tuesday they will inherit 8 years of the destructive force that Bush and Cheney have brought on this country.

Right now they are in a scramble to deregulate a host of environmental and worker safety laws. These are going to very hard to overturn.

On top of that Bush has appointed more extremely conservative judges to the federal appeal courts.

Then we have the bailout to nowhere, in which the government has given the banks billions without a mandate to for them to start lending again. In a sense are emptying the coffers

Almost every federal agency from justice on down to the EPA has been diminished and turned into nothing more than patsies for the Bush regime.

If Obama becomes president he will have his work cut out for him.

If Obama/Biden wins on Tuesday they will inherit 8 years of the destructive force that Bush and Cheney have brought on this country.

jeff, true. But don’t forget that the destruction by Bush/Cheney wouldn’t have been possible without the support of Democrats in the Congress. If we’re being honest, let’s at least put a little bit of responsibility on the Democrats too, instead of giving them a free pass, for being complicit and voting to further Bush’s agenda. Yes, the major share of that responsibility does go to Bush/Cheney/Republicans, but if there was law-breaking, we haven’t seen much movement by the Democrats to hold those who broke the law accountable. AFAIK, the Congress can still investigate and prosecute ex-Presidents and ex-Vice Presidents if they broke the law. But do you think that the Democrat controlled Congress in 2009 will take any steps towards that? I doubt it but I’d love to be proved wrong.

If Obama loses, I need an EXIT PLAN! Probably move to another country. This country is getting scary, it’s moving away democracy before you know it.

If you have watched the documentary on HBO about how much frauds and errors that the voting machines are made by Diebold, I won’t be surprised Obama might loose.

It’s absurd to say Obama has a shot at this election because of his race. To put it correctly, he only has a chance when the last 8 years of disasters after disasters.

Please go to this link to read this article, I know a real maverick when I see one, but not John McCain.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

This is true I blame them as well Pelosi is the worst speaker of the house in recent history.

However for the majority of the time Bush has been in office the Republicans had control of both houses.

I’m don’t like most of the Dems myself, but Bush and Cheney have really done a number on this country.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and a fair amount of CIA and military people have committed war crimes. It would be good for the world if they could be brought to justice.

If Obama loses, I need an EXIT PLAN! Probably move to another country. This country is getting scary, it’s moving away democracy before you know it.

Rachel:

Or you could learn from Ralph Nader on how to be persevering in the face of overwhelming obstacles, time and again. We have a real American hero here who at 74 years young, would put many of us half that age to shame with his energy and enthusiasm.

Here’s what he said: [source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081110/greider
“I believe in I.F. Stone’s dictum that in all social justice movements, you’ve got to be ready to lose. And lose and lose and lose. It’s not very pleasant, but you have to accept this if you believe in what you’re doing.”

I agree with that - regarding social change, one has to do what one believes in without expecting results. I concede that in our American culture which is so focused on results, that zen-like approach is hard to grasp, let alone put into practice.

USA is still a free country and citizens have many resources available to them, unlike those poor people in Cochabamba, Bolivia who opposed a mighty corporation like Bechtel as well as their state machinery and prevailed, so I find this kind of pessimism very puzzling. There are still many non-partisan citizen groups like Common Cause, Center for Responsive Politics/Open Secrets, Citizen Action, Democracy Now, Fair Vote campaigning for Instant Runoff Voting etc. which one can lend support to.

Unless you’re conflating healthy democracy with a win for the Democrats. Then, you’re entitled to your narrow interpretation as well as your pessimism.

Also, while the Presidential elections are important, these are not the be-all and end-all of our lives, or even of democracy. We have the option to put more pressure on the elected members in the Congress, who do have considerable power, and start preparing for the next one in 4 years.

As for democracy in the US, it has been in trouble for a long time now. Simply having the freedom to vote for the “lesser evil” does not mean we have a healthy democracy.

A better and healthy democracy means
1. more choices for voters instead of just two which overlap a lot (and in many cases, the other one is not even a serious competition),

2. fair ballot-access laws that facilitate citizens to run in elections without being multi-millionaires,

3. a press/media that doesn’t regularly black out candidates who are not Rep/Dem,

4. debates that are open to third-party candidates, and

5. no gerrymandering of districts by both Reps and Dems in their respective states to minimize any competition and ensure an easy win.

If you have watched the documentary on HBO about how much frauds and errors that the voting machines are made by Diebold, I won’t be surprised Obama might loose.

I’ve wondered about that, and also read the articles on how easy it is to hack them. But if Diebold machines are supposed to favor Republicans, how did the Democrats win a majority in the Congress in 2006? Or was that just a move to lull us into complacency before striking the death blow in 2008?

Or do the Diebold machines favor Republicans only during the Presidential elections? I’m willing to accept that there may have been some bureaucratic bungles, but I’ll need more facts/proof before accepting this Republican conspiracy, which plays out well in some left/liberal circles.

****I’ve wondered about that, and also read the articles on how easy it is to hack them. But if Diebold machines are supposed to favor Republicans, how did the Democrats win a majority in the Congress in 2006? Or was that just a move to lull us into complacency before striking the death blow in 2008?****

I did not make the case for Republican only, it actually can go both ways. For some reason, interestingly the end number always favors Republican. And Diebold’s CEO did endorsed Republican party.

And more importantly, it’s about the defect and the lack of security those machines and softwares are made of. A group of people went tested the outcome of the vote counts, one of this group of people was the Director of Board of Election in FL state in 2004, Any democratic citizens would feel very discouraged and frustrated realizing how easy the voting machines can be hacked. Any citizens would wonder if the final “RESULT” of the election is real or not? According to your ZEN philosophy, any RESULT of the election in a DEMOCRATIC society is only a fraction of our whole human history, then tell me why we should care about DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM???

Make no mistake (gosh, hate to sound like Bush, well at least I still pronounce NUCLEAR instead of NUCULAR!), I am not a hardcore democrats, I am not some ideology hypocrites out there, talks about ideology all day long, still leave no food and health on the table.

But I know whom I want to vote for, and whom I won’t vote for, regardless of partisan.

According to your ZEN philosophy, any RESULT of the election in a DEMOCRATIC society is only a fraction of our whole human history, then tell me why we should care about DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM???

Rachel:

First of all, if you or someone doesn’t care about democracy, that’s his/her prerogative - there’s no penalty in the US for not voting or not interacting with one’s elected officials. Democracy does have its faults, and I do agree with what Churchill and some other philosophers have said about a democratic system.

Second, the zen-like approach implies to me that if Obama loses, I don’t descend into a well of despair, but instead, accept the result of the democratic system and start working for the next election. I should have been clear on that - of course we put in efforts towards an (expected) outcome. The point is not to get attached to that outcome either way - and go crazy with happiness if outcome happens, or become depressed if outcome doesn’t happen.

Yes, our human history and earth is just a fraction of the life of the universe, and if that outlook and approach is helpful to you and brings you happiness in day-to-day life and interactions, then good for you. Whatever floats your boat.

If Obama/Biden wins on Tuesday they will inherit 8 years of the destructive force that Bush and Cheney have brought on this country.

Not to mention the fact that Bush’s fiscal policies have run up such an insane deficit + debt that there is no money left to actually do anything. GOP strategists as far back as 2000 said that this was their goal (they called it “starve the beast”).

But let’s not let the Dem’s off the hook. They never saw an appropriation they didn’t like and the general piling-on that added an extra $170B to the $700B bailout package had a lot of donkey-prints on it.

Furthermore the general public also bears a lot of the blame because they also never saw an appropriation they didn’t like, and furthermore, they were so used to getting up to their own necks in debt for their houses, cars, vacations and widescreen TV’s, that a few trillion dollars of federal debt doesn’t bother them, so they are perfectly happy to put their hands out for government programs and stimulus checks and then punish any politician who proposes to raises taxes to pay for it.

“I believe in I.F. Stone’s dictum that in all social justice movements, you’ve got to be ready to lose. And lose and lose and lose. It’s not very pleasant, but you have to accept this if you believe in what you’re doing.”

The idea of doing something - especially something that seems repetitively pointless like losing over and over again, is faith-based reasoning. Intellectually it doesn’t make any more sense when a liberal does it than when a religious fundamentalist does it. Nader (and other extreme minority parties) should at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that what they’re doing is performance art, not politics. If they were serious they would come up with a plan to actually win, but they’re not serious - they just like playing the gadfly role.

Minority parties on the left and the right try to convince themselves that they are “moving the debate”. Just as the LP tried to take credit for school vouchers and pollution credits, the tiny lefty parties will, no doubt, try to take credit for the fact that everyone’s talking about national health insurance. The reality is that these ideas have been floating around for decades with real-world examples outside the US for much of that time, and in every case public pressure and practical problems facing millions of people are what moved the major parties, not influence from the fringe.

A better and healthy democracy means
1. more choices for voters instead of just two which overlap a lot (and in many cases, the other one is not even a serious competition),

2. fair ballot-access laws that facilitate citizens to run in elections without being multi-millionaires,

There are lots of political parties and lots of uncontested, or hardly-contested, seats. And this is EXACTLY what I meant above when I said Nader is not “serious”. Neither are the other fringe parties.

Have you ever noticed how every fringe party in the US feels a bizarre, neurotic, compulsion to put up a Presidential candidate? The Greens, the LP, the Socialists, etc? Why? If you were serious about getting a national voice and actually getting elected why put even ONE PENNY or even ONE MAN HOUR into a presidential race?

Across the country there are DOZENS of House seats that are uncontested. And Houses races are cheap to run and because they are in a small geographic area they can be done with a small force of motivated volunteers going door-to-door. Furthermore there are THOUSANDS of state legislature seats that are hardly contested across the US.

Any political party that was serious about actually winning elections and voting on, or introducing real legislation, and someday growing up to be a big political party would start at the grass roots winning local elections and a few House seats. If the Greens or the Socialists or the LP or other national parties took their few, meager resources and concentrated them on a small number of carefully-chosen races they could really win then they would achieve vastly more success than they ever have before.

But that would take the fun out of it. They aren’t serious about real politics; they like playing this game and whining about the dominance of the two major parties.

***Second, the zen-like approach implies to me that if Obama loses, I don’t descend into a well of despair, but instead, accept the result of the democratic system and start working for the next election. I should have been clear on that - of course we put in efforts towards an (expected) outcome. The point is not to get attached to that outcome either way - and go crazy with happiness if outcome happens, or become depressed if outcome doesn’t happen.***

“accept the result of the democratic system” ???? First of all, you have to question if this is really the result of the democratic system.

Yes, I will definitely be depressed, because I was very depressed in 2004. Because I couldn’t stand to watch Bush and his administration for another 4 more years in 2004. Just like I couldn’t stand the fact to watch Palin and McCain for the coming 4 years. Yes, life will move on, yes, zen like thinking will help me to through another 4 years, zen like thinking is a way to survive when you don’t have lots of options, yes, I will need to continue breathing deeply for another 4 years if McCain wins, I will need to learn some kind of Qi Gong to redirect my anger and frustration energy whenever McCain administration drops some dramatic and fearful bombs on this nation. Life does move on no matter it’s better or worse, but I choose better. If the worse wins, so what?????

One of the many reasons I support Obama —– He doesn’t attack “Republican Party”, he only criticizes the “policies” of Bush and McCain. He is wise enough to know he will need the support of both parties if he takes office. Kudos to Obama! If this election is about IQ, McCain is not qualified to be a candidate.

Besides, why get caught up by some party ideology? It is such a waste of time to talk about those ideologies when 2 most essential human rights in a democratic societies are not fulfilled — food and health.

As a democrats, Obama believes in Free Market with some rules and guidance. I support him because he practice “common sense” not some fancy ideology.

If this election is about IQ, McCain is not qualified to be a candidate.

And if this election is about divisive bluster then Obama is unqualified. And if this election is about pesto and cream cheese then neither candidate is qualified.

What does it mean to be “about” IQ? All elections are about the same thing - making an emotional appeal to people’s hopes, fears, and identity. Elections are a combination of witch-burning (of the candidate’s opponent) and witch-burning-in-reverse of the candidate.

The only sense in which this (or any race) is “about” IQ is in regard what IQ means iconographically the voter, i.e., it could be a plus or a minus.

Peter, I understand the point you are trying to make, and the point I was making about IQ, is just a figure of speech.

That’s why I support practicality with basic human moral values, to make it happen, it does take a candidate with common sense and wisdom to bridge the gap.

Erm Peter, here we go again.

You seem to be out of touch with the Green Party’s activities. They have been doing exactly what you’re saying for the past few years - focusing on the grassroots and winning elections at the local level. Attitudes like yours prove to me exactly why it’s important that media cover the activities of third parties. Maybe if you’d been involved with the Green Party instead of supporting the corrupt duopoly status quo, you’d know what they’ve been up to over the past few years.

I could rebut all your points, but I’m simply not interested. Suffice it to say, your arguments do not convince me to adopt your apologist stance, as well as “voting for the least-worst” phenomenon. Nice try though.

Let’s agree to disagree and you vote for Obama and let me have my choice of “wasting” my vote on a Green Party candidate or Nader.

The idea of doing something - especially something that seems repetitively pointless like losing over and over again, is faith-based reasoning. Intellectually it doesn’t make any more sense when a liberal does it than when a religious fundamentalist does it.

What’s wrong with faith-based reasoning? If it doesn’t make sense to you, then don’t do it - I’m not forcing you to. Or are you saying that everyone has to see the world and every action and phenomenon exactly as you do, and vote exactly as you do? How’s that any less fundamentalist?

Besides, how else do you explain people believing in Obama’s empty rhetoric of ‘change’ and ‘yes we can’ and glossing over valid criticisms of him? Just as Obama’s words make sense to maybe you and many others, Nader’s words make sense to me. We just happen to have different world-views and neither of us is omniscient or knows the future.

Embrace diversity.

Erm Peter, here we go again.

You seem to be out of touch with the Green Party’s activities.

I think you are the one who’s out of touch. The Green Party has a Presidential candidate (McKinney). That is a complete waste of money and resources.

Just like all the other fringe parties the Greens just have to grandstand, wasting their scarce resources on a presidential race they cannot win, just to say “we have one too”, when that money and the volunteers’ time getting McKinney on the ballot could have been put into a few local races. BTW, they are also running candidates for governor they can’t win either. The Greens are doing the same sort of political masturbation the other fringe parties are doing. They are not serious about winning.

What’s wrong with faith-based reasoning?

Nothing if you don’t care about political change.

My point is that it’s hypocritical for a candidate to say he cares about effecting polical change and then behave in ways that are not demonstrated to work - i.e., get elected. If Nader was serious he’d run for a House seat, because he has a enough name-recognition to win one. But that would force him actually put his theories to the test in the real world.

I think that a party that is serious about making real political change can do so. There are enough seats around the US that are either uncontested, or where an incumbent is sleepwalking past some halfhearted opponent, that a few can be won by concentrating money and an army of volunteers on them.

I’ve seen both the Greens and the LP up-close-and-personal and I’m convinced that they don’t WANT to win legislative seats, especially un-glamorous ones like state-senate. It’s more fun to sit on the sidelines and cat-call then to have to deal with the day-to-day work of legislation and constituent issues.

John McCain has run reprehensible campaign. His reputation has been badly tarnished.

I was so shocked hearing Tom make the comment about Chicagoans hanging Obama signs if McCain wins, that at first I just thought I had misheard - until the listener called in to reprimand him. Yes, REPRIMAND. That remark was incendiary, really racist like a scare tactic and beneath Tom Ashbrook. Everyone makes mistakes and I will certainly still listen to this very bright articulate host. But at best, he made a stupid mistake. At worst, we see up close and personal how near the the surface racism lives in most of us.

Given, the current polling results, I can’t help but agree with Jeff. Obama needs a lead of at least 10 points to overcome the Bradley effect and win. Things are not looking good in the Obama camp.

The problem is however that the controversy that will arise over the racial issue if McCain wins with Obama ahead by seven points. Let’s just hope for the best.

Obama was not impressive in all 25 debates in which he participated as Jack seemed to imply. He had little to say in the primary debates, sat making notes while Hilary Clinton had all her facts and numbers in order, then he proceeded to agree with everything she said. He’s even stolen ideas from Ralph Nader such as putting the country back to work to rebuild the infrastructure. That this country might elect an African-American is monumental and a testimony to our ability to finally look beyond skin color. But I still don’t think he is/was the most qualified.

Given, the current polling results, I can’t help but agree with Jeff. Obama needs a lead of at least 10 points to overcome the Bradley effect and win. Things are not looking good in the Obama camp.

As I pointed out above, the Bradley effect has been discredited. There is no good evidence that it ever existed. See NPR’s On The Media, last week . . .
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/10/24/04

That doesn’t mean Obama can’t find a way to pull defeat from the jaws of victory. The link I posted previously to the Iowa Electronic Markets shows that just since I posted it the race has narrowed significantly, although Obama still enjoys a big lead.

He’s even stolen ideas from Ralph Nader such as putting the country back to work to rebuild the infrastructure

That is complete nonsense - infrastructure investment to create jobs is a basic tenet of Keynesianism. It has been for decades, and continues to be, promoted by many on the left. If Nader and his supporters are taking credit for it, this simply proves what I was saying earlier about the fringe parties trying to grab more credit for moving the debate than they deserve.

This

If Nader was serious he’d run for a House seat, because he has a enough name-recognition to win one. But that would force him actually put his theories to the test in the real world.

And have his voice drowned out and be ineffective like Kucinich’s and Feingold’s? That’s some really astute analysis from you, Mr. Real World.

If the Democrats want votes of those who support Green Party or Nader, here are two simple solutions:

1. Actively call for, and support efforts for Instant Runoff Voting.
2. Adopt some of the platform/issues of Nader/GP that attract voters to them.

If the Democratic Party was serious about winning the elections, they would have taken either of those steps. “Anybody but Bush” - as it was in 2004 - is not a viable candidacy, in spite of Nader, who is just an easy target to blame and prevent some much-needed introspection.

Third parties are here to stay, gadfly or not, along with the corrupt two-headed single party we have (and their willing apologists). Get used to it - we need more voices and ideas in a democracy, not less. There’s more to contesting the national election than just winning - that’s just your opinion which I don’t share. If you are so full of ideas for what GP should or shouldn’t do, join it and bring your ideas with you.

As for Nader’s campaign having an effect, it has had an effect on me and made me aware of many things - people behaving pusillanimously and becoming apologists because that’s the “real world”; liberals and progressives showing their fundamentalist colors and their low tolerance for diversity of ideas as well as their close-mindedness; the media’s approach to third parties and their distortions and spin, including their successful campaign to malign Nader; a different view-point to compare and contrast with what the two parties put out; and a desire to work towards having more acceptance of third parties and inclusive democracy. Best of all - to not be influenced by your cynical attitude and “real world.” In a nutshell, grassroots change, baby.

Then again, elections are more about symbolism and pageantry than rational thinking or logic (according to you), so why should it surprise you that Nader or McKinney/GP appeal more to some than McBama?

And have his voice drowned out and be ineffective like Kucinich’s and Feingold’s? That’s some really astute analysis from you, Mr. Real World.

His voice is drowned out anyway. There is no evidence that he’s having any effect on any policy or legislative matters.

At least as a Congressman he could serve his constituency and benefit his district. He could also vote on legislation and introduce legislation and serve on committees that send send bills to a vote.

It’s clear that these gadflies and ivory-tower airmchair politicians in the fringe parties do not actually care about improving the lives of real people in the real world. Because that would require winning real elections and dealing with the practical day-to-day problems of constituent issues, Washington politics, and actually putting their theories to the test under real-world conditions. It’s so much easier to sit on the sidelines and mount pointless campaigns for “President” to get a few minutes of interviews with KPFK or some other set of old lefties.

In Europe the Green Party plays real politics, wins real elections, and uses their power to actually pass real legislation or get real cabinet seats to help real people and really accomplish something. If that requires being part of a coalition government, so what? The American Greens are too worried about getting their hands dirty or being sullied by having to kiss babies and eat knishes and do all the other theatrical things politicians have to do to win real elections.