I’m not so sure about that. But a Nader candidacy could have the positive effect of keeping the Democratic candidate from going too centrist and talking too much about Reagan and “post-partisanship”.

Did that work before? Or did it go the other way?

And if it worked did the “liberalized” Democrat win?

We need something besides the same old, lame old two party representatives! This country is failing fast and without someone to seriously address the economy and foreign policy, we’re sunk.

We want the TRUTH from our president not platitudes and placation.
We want to engage our government for the things we want funded and supported, not be told what to think and spoon-fed pabulum.
We want the corporatocracy OUT of government.
We want the collusion ended.

i think it’s unfortunate that nader is running in this cycle. i won’t vote for him this time- i’ll cross my fingers with obama or hold my nose with hillary… there is a definite benefit that he will have some gravity pulling clinton or obama to the left during the election.. hopefully he can bring up issues that YES, have been undebated, although this problem has definitely not been as apparent this cycle, with the attention to the debates etc. If the “media keep his candidacy alive” (ironic since he, like edwards, had a media blackout when he ran before), then so what?

he definitely will not poll even a fraction of what he did before. but it is offensive that everyone seems to jump at this character when he has always been a true believer and lived his life that way. i don’t think his run will have an impact. he has every right to run, and i grant anyone has the right to criticize him for doing it. i say save your venom for mccain, or focus on getting accountability for bush…

Could not agree with you more. And what nonsense from Billy Jean King. She should focus her disappointment on Sen. Clinton’s poor campaign and reluctance to apologize for her disastrous Iraq war vote.

http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1895
Pretty elementary but …………..

Just now she was bleating on [whatever show she was on; I didn’t look] that this is all “so unfair” to Hillary, because “like so many women, Hillary has worked hard for a long time, and then here comes this young, er, young guy who pushes her out of the way.”

She also said, “I was talking to Billie Jean King the other day and she said, ‘I feel like everything I’ve worked for my entire life [presumably women’s rights] has been lost.’ “

News flash: being President isn’t a let’s take turns game [although I admit I laughed when, long ago, my then-4 year old daughter said, “so mom, next time will it be Dukakis’s turn?”]

We feminists who’ve labored right along with Hillary for lo these 30 or 40 years are making our choice NOT based on her gender, but based on her positions [as we see them]. Isn’t that the same type of “content of her character” standard that we’ve always wanted?

If I could see Hillary espousing positions I agree with, admitting her mistake on the Iraq war vote, distancing herself from the Clinton era policies that weakened the Democratic party, not having the kind of negatives that will draw wingers out of their caves to vote against Dems up and down the ticket — then I might vote for her. But I won’t do so just because it’s “her turn.”

Enjoy your beakfast!

Please clarify why it is silly? Let me try to make my point once again.
I did not take this “talking point” from Ralph Nader. I used my own brain to criticize Gore’s results in Tennessee. To paraphrase Sen. Moynihan “We are entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts”

What I state is fact, so how does become “silly”?

(deep breath)

Time for breakfast.