mattw wrote:
I would define [progressive] as an attempt to move forward from the regressive (you like that?) policies of the Bush administration.

I actually think this definition risks playing into the solipsism and amnesia of electoral politics and the mass media. If the term is to have real meaning I don't think the last presidency or the last several presidencies should ever be the only frame of reference. Otherwise you end up with retrospective assessments of the Clinton presidency as a "progressive" one (compared with what followed), when it was anything but in terms of its own agenda and policies once in office.

The transformation of European and Commonwealth social democracies into liberal democracies over the past 3 decades - concurrent with trade and labor liberalization and privatization and deregulation - has been hastened by just as many "Labor" and "Social Democratic" governments as "Conservative" ones... and in this sense there's been very few, if any progressive administrations in power anywhere for a generation or more.

Neoliberalism has been like a global Counter-Reformation, in which the structural reforms made by organized labor (in particular) and progressive movements are systematically undone in favor of economic "progress." With the welfare state discredited, there's not much vision in the leftern hemispheres of parliamentary capitalism. "Green" capitalism and slightly less regressive taxation: yeehaw.

The most exciting thing about Obama has nothing to do with his policies, which as he constantly reminds us are very close to HRC's. What's exciting about Obama is precisely why he's dismissed by some: he moves people. He mobilizes people, especially young people, and makes them believe. I don't know where that will lead, but it's historically important. There's hardly a whiff of political courage in his platform, meanwhile. He actually wants to increase the size of the military, which is really depressing, for example.

As for Nader, Mark Lansing said it best up above.

He is a fucking egotist.

I actually voted for Nader on '00 because I thought having a strong third party would help dissolve bipartisanism.

Anyways, being one of the demonized, and being told my vote was wasted, personally, only made me feel more marginalized and disenfranchised. So I said fuck it and didn't even vote in '04. I just couldn't get that worked up about Kerry anyway.

Since then, I've decided to support the green or other left leaning reform parties where I can on a civic or local level. If we can have some reform minded aldermen that'd be a good step forward.

Nader's not even part of a strong third party anymore, and has seperated himself from the good fight. I don't even know to what end he could possibly be thinking anymore.

gcbv wrote:when i voted for nader four years ago, i thought:

"it's okay, i can vote my conscience, because there is no way Bush will take this election."

boy howdy.

so it's crap. he can do whatever he wants, fine. but crap.

Kerry carried Maine in 2004 so I won’t call you a complete fucking moron, just a moron.

mattw wrote:...I find Nader's [recurring] views to be a breath of fresh air...

Same here. One of my favorites was his observation that there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

Pure genius.

I voted for Nader in 2000 too. At the time it was a good choice for me, as he most closely represented my views
. Gore took Wisconsin anyway, so fuck your "spoiler" lines.

He made his piece, fought the good fight, lost, ran again, marginalized himself, and lost again.

He really just wants to be a pundit in this race; wanting to bring topics to the discussion that no one else will address, and bully for that. However, since the corporate mass-media won't let him be a pundit, the only way he can get any media coverage (pathetic as it will be) is to run. He had no desire to win, to serve as president, and no way of building enough consensus on the day hell gets icy to accomplish any of his goals anyway.

So fuck Nader and his presidential bid with a big fat low-carbon-emission, CPSC and OSHA approved, union-made stick! I'll take the fake-liberal over the real-conservative this time, thank you very much.

geiginni wrote:Gore took Wisconsin anyway, so fuck your "spoiler" lines.

According to the Wikipedia fountain of knowledge, Gore took WI on a .22% margin. Nader pulled 94,000 votes or 3.6% of the Wisconsin electorate. That's a case fucking example of how a egotist third-party candidate can derail a tight election.

Geiginni, this slight rant isn't really directed at you personally. Spoilers matter. Call me cynical and calculating, but in the U.S., voting for the person who envisions the world as I would like it to be accomplishes very little and can create significant hardship on large groups of people.

Fuck Ralph Nader. Though since he's been doing a good job of that these last several years, I don't think anyone else will need to.

joelb wrote: That's a case fucking example of how a egotist third-party candidate can derail a tight election.

Yeah, being an alternative to the two major parties is really egotistical. There's already so many choices out there that his run is completely unnecessary. He just wants attention; he's not trying to stimulate debate or actually change anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzJBnvDeC4Q

You can't listen to this and not tell me he's "on" here.

Nader: Egotist. Self-glorifying. Uninterested in the work of coalition-building.

In 2000, there were a number of factors that led to Dubya "winning" the election. Not the least of which was the Florida debacle. If Gore was such a golden boy, he would've killed Dubya's chance of winning, Florida steal or no. Gore's campaign was weak, and that's something even he admits.

2004, Nader made even less of a dent. Plus, we had Kerry. Lamest damn Democratic candidate ever. Frickin' boring sagging tree of a man.

This year, the Democrats should be able to annihilate McCain. Obama is leagues better than Kerry, so he should have no problem clinching the nomination. Hillary? I think she's through.

To use Nader as a scapegoat is pretty ridiculous. Since he had virtually no effect on the 2004 election and Bush still got re-elected, what does that tell you?

Sad to say, I'm starting to believe the old adage that you deserve the president that you get. Let's just hope it's the Obaminator this time.