hp…soon there will be nothing left to sell. Already many people are cold, hungry and homeless. The systems, all of them are failing. What about the 40,000 people who have just been notified that they might have been exposed to hepatitis and/or HIV ? The medical facility cut costs and now we have 40,000 people in anguish.

I just wanted to say how much I’ve enjoyed reading this thoughtful discussion. Here in Zimbabwe we’re experiencing something (a bit) similar to Ralph’s entry into the “race” with a third contender (Simba Makoni) attempting to challenge Robert Mugabe. Makoni’s entry has been met with extreme dislike by both Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) supporters and Zanu-PF supporters. Unfortunately there isn’t the openness and courage among our electorate to welcome more choice. Makoni because of his Zanu PF affiliation is automatically disregarded, and blind loyalty shrouds the MDC campaign. Anyway - perhaps a bit off the point but I’ve read and learned from you all.

JBPM: Clever, and creative. And pretty funny.

Deadbeat: DailyKos and Wonkette scare the hell out of me. They prove, on a daily basis, William F. Buckley, Jr.’s old line about liberals being people who advocate diversity of opinions and then are shocked to learn that other people actually have them.

Everyone else: I do not agree with Ralph’s reasoning about there being room for lots of progressive candidates, and I’m not happy that he’s out on his own again, but having said all of that, I went and saw him and Matt Gonzalez speak tonight in D.C. and I was quite surprised (yes, I actually base my opinions about candidates after I go and listen to them, read what they’ve written, and digested their arguments).

I was surprised at the reception he got from the audience, which was virtually all George Washington University students (plus a sprinkling of oldtimers like me), most of whom seemed to have little knowledge of Nader in general and his presidential campaigns in particular. They were attentive, they were openminded, and they were obviously moved at several points by what the man had to say. His criticisms of the current political system, and of numerous injustices of all kinds which the Democratic Party never discusses, are quite persuasive.

Both he and Matt Gonzalez made it clear that they are very raring to go, they came out swinging, they obviously organized their campaign themes & structure very well, they know what they want to emphasize and they did so in impressive detail. The sense I got overall is that this campaign is already way beyond the 2004 Nader campaign. The vibe in the room was very reminiscent of 2000 and I was not expecting that. Basically it confirmed what I’ve been sensing in the media, from the surprisingly large number of pro-Nader blog entries around the web to supportive comments from the likes of Michael Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times. None of this was present four years ago.

Also, and most interestingly from the perspective of Green Party partisans who read DV, Ralph said at one point “we’re thinking of forming a new party.” Hmmmm.

In any event, even given all of the above, I don’t see this ticket getting 5% of the vote, which means Cynthia McKinney will be lucky indeed to get over 1% of the vote. I’m not sure what will be left of the Green Party at the national level after this campaign. I agree with those who feel that, by this time, the GP should have attracted at least one other leader in the Nader mold. As I’ve written before, I very much like the direction Cynthia McKinney is going in and the people she’s bringing into the fold who otherwise wouldn’t give the GP the time of day, but I’m not convinced yet that her campaign is the vehicle to really grow the party up and beyond the Nader era.

We’ll see. I was really stunned by the Nader/Gonzalez event tonight and that has changed my thinking quite a bit.

With this kind of insecurity you’d think something is “lacking” with their potential (Obama) nominee — LOL.

You are right, if the Democrats fail to landslide this year they’d ought to fold up but their insecurities and their unwillingness to discuss reality and to challenge their nominee’s positions (such as health care) is pathetic and absolutely undemocratic. I remember when the Democratic Party used to fight but they haven’t done that since 1974 with the entry of the so-called “New Democrats”. Since then they’ve been ever drifting to right.

I was hoping to see some traction with the Greens but clearly Nader/Gonzalez are planning to run a 50-state campaign and are much better on the issues than Obama or Clinton and I am looking forward to their campaign.

Son problem is that Democrats take all non-Republican votes for granted, and so assume that any vote that goes to a third-party was “stolen” from a Democrat. Here’s my solution. Register as a Republican and then vote for Nader (or the “third-party” candidate of your choice). That way, you add to the statistics that show how a Republican vote was lost to the third party, and you undercut the entire “a vote for a third party is a vote for a Republican” meme.

And frankly, if the Democrats can’t defeat the Republicans at this point, after 8 years of Bush and a candidate as obviously unhinged as McCain, then they need to vanish from the page of history. Period. They are to blame for their obsolescence, and not the voters.

( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_for_a_Sound_Economy ).

Whether or not he actually draws enough votes to actuaaly effect the election, his presence will provide cover for the upcoming election theft.

He has every right to run, but his motivations are far from pure. He could have worked towards making a viable 3rd party of election reform with an IRV system. Instead, it seems that he has an interest in seeing Rethuglicans get elected. He was offered a cabinet level post in 2000 if he would just work within the party but rejected it on the basis that he could do more good from without. Now one has to ask, good for whom?

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader#Presidential_campaigns )
( http://www.tompaine.com/articles/naders_grassroots_campaign.php )

According to something Ralph has mentioned several times in interviews, Theresa Amato (his 2000 & 2004 campaign manager) is finishing a book on how RN was kept, not out of the debates per se, but off of various state ballots in 2004. I’ve got stories of my own. Those who went through the experience aren’t exactly eager to jump back onto Howard Dean’s DP bandwagon.

What you say here is consistent with what I’ve observed.

While Nader has, in principle, expresses his support of other progressive third party efforts, the evidence, as you point out here, is quite mixed. If he wants others to pick up the ball, why no favorable comments about McKinney, or for that matter, other Green points of light such as relatively strong showings for state offices in Illinois and Massachusetts or the one mayoralty the Greens managed to pick up in Richmond, CA.

Now, maybe he has thrown in the towel on the Greens, for reasons which I’m sure we would both understand if not entirely sympathize with.

But if so, a clear statement from him as to what is necessary for independent politics to develop along with a commitment to set up the kind of infrastructure that is necessary.

Succeeding in this could be the crowning achievement of his career.

JH

I think he’s really anxious for people to pick up the ball and run with it, which would include shoring up the Green Party, forming other parties with deep roots where that may be necessary, and in the process encouraging other people with leadership abilities to step forward. One example of the supportive organization to which you refer is the Populist Party he formed in several states last time out, which never really took off, but at least he made the effort. Ultimately it’s up to other people to keep the embers burning, as it were. I think when all is said and done that it’s way more difficult to make headway against the two-party system than RN thought it would be.

This gets to Rosemarie’s point….I agree that he really was waiting for someone else to run. In fact, I heard him say something more or less to that effect on news show interviews last year. Of course, he has been suspiciously silent re: Cynthia McKinney, who is the closest thing to a charismatic leader that can really move the Green Party forward that has come along since RN. I moderated the February 2nd GP candidates forum here in Washington DC and I was favorably impressed by what her people had to say and how well received they were. It looked like a whole new and unexplored (or, more accurately, weakly explored thus far) potential “market” for GP candidates.

All things considered, I share the favorable evaluation of Nader which most people have evoked here, and which David has expressed very eloquently.

There is, however, one paradox which I can’t reconcile: why is it that someone who has spent his lifetime building hugely successful organizations to achieve his objectives (those who have seen “An Unreasonable Man” will recall the concluding title sequence itemizing these which takes about two minutes to scroll on the screen!) seems to have no interest in establishing an organization which can support his and other independent runs for office.

Maybe someone with better insight into his character, philosophy, or recent experiences can speak to this.

I’m baffled by it.

John

From my perspective Nader could be running on any Party or non-Party. If you believe it is worth it to create a real alternative to the 2 Party (inny-minny Parties) then that is the framework you work within.

I don’t think Nader is particularly interested in that. That has nothing to do with the stands he’s taken or how nice he is to children. I like the guy. I think he’s a real intellect. I respect his integrity to the nth degree, etc. etc. He’s a fellow CT Yankee and much of what he stands for has its roots there as well as his family up-bringing.

But that was not my point assuming (don’t tell me you were “addressing” someone else) you were responding to me.

Cheers
Max

From my perspective Nader could be running on any Party or non-Party. If you believe it is worth it to create a real alternative to the 2 Party (inny-minny Parties) then that is the framework you work within.

I don’t think Nader is particularly interested in that. That has nothing to do with the stands he’s taken or how nice he is to children. I like the guy. I think he’s a real intellect. I respect his integrity to the nth degree, etc. etc. He’s a fellow CT Yankee and much of what he stands for has its roots their as well as his family up-bringing.

But that was not my point assuming (don’t tell me you were “addressing” someone else) you were responding to me.

Cheers
Max