How about Obama practicing his strategy for foreign leaders in opposition to the US out on Ralph? Doesn't he say he'll open dialogue, to show that our country (quoting from BO's site) "is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead"?

Do this for the Democratic party, Barak!

Make a show of talking to Nader. He won't likely compromise enough to back off or even admit that a current party nominee is even on the right track, but one argument that gets me looking at Nader sympathetically is that he has been treated like a leper since he started his running in 96. Here was a guy who seems prophetic in retrospect on issues of campaign finance, corporate abuse, foreign policy and trade, that was totally blocked out. I remember how Clinton and other party hacks happily sidelined him as best they could, and that was only the beginning. Look at this article above! No wonder Ralph's so confrontational and unyielding.

He would be a great asset to the party if he could be brought into the fold--say in the EPA? What a great test of BO's powers of persuasion to say to Nader and his followers, "You matter. How can we make you part of the process?"

If we knew our history, the man should be revered by the Dems given all that he has done for public policy, even if he is pain in their side. Why hasn't anyone reached out? Instead, our leaders shake our fists and jump up and down and call him and anyone who follows him names like "Spoiler!" and "Egomaniac!", and we're supposed to follow suit.

Sounds like Bush's policy on Iran.

If we need a new strategy in the world, let's start in our party. Not saying it would work but it would be a positive way to address that potential margin of 500 votes in Florida that could "decide" the election.

Posted at February 24, 2008 11:50 PM in response to Nader Who Doesn't Deserve Attention

I'm talking about an overt gesture.

I don't argue that it would be easy or successful, but if Nader sympathizers (especially those like me who are reluctantly moving to vote for a Dem) could see that he was given a real chance to be a part of the solution other than his candidacy, perhaps we would have a sense that the Democratic party welcomes more than just the elite voices of the DNC.

And Genghis, why would he say he's responsible and what does that matter? That's ridiculous! He's a valid voice of dissent and that makes our country stronger! If he hadn't been marginalized and silenced he wouldn't be so intractable toward the Dems and thus so magnetic for the press.

Posted at February 24, 2008 11:50 PM in response to Nader: I'm Running Again

Nader is and was a great patriot, a great citizen who made real change. We should all have at least a sense of this, but instead we know him as the "spoiler" who ruined our country. He helped give us seat belts, air bags, crash-worthy cars, better labeling on food, lower levels of lead in the environment, worker protections, etc. etc., but rather than this, we can all talk about those 500 votes he "lost".

I can see why this angers our unimaginative voters who must be allegiant first to the two-party (Dem and Repub) system. He isn't a compromising individual. He could never have been if he wanted to do what he has done. Should those of us who voted for him apologize for his unyielding fight for things we take for granted in public life, while we fall in line and vote for the lesser of evils that we are stuck with? I can just hear the current Dem candidates above, the Gore voters, the Kerry backers echoing..."Third party efforts are a waste of time! Just vote for one of the majors, the one most like your candidate and work for real change!" And while I'm at it, I'll have forget the deep history of our past parties, since according to this logic, no other parties will exist or ever have existed other than these lesser of two evils. Hmmmm...where are the Whigs on this ballot?

I'm speaking hypothetically here, because my vote this year is not likely to go to Nader. BUT I don't begrudge anyone the right to vote in any way they see fit. Further, scapegoating a leader who, as a matter of record, has given the American public more valuable policies (not to be confused with promises of policies, or the taking credit for policies) than any current or former presidential candidate in my lifetime, is just an exercise in ignoring history and disregarding not just a man but a movement, that those who claim to be liberal, should revere.

Why can't Democrats all take a step back and say, yes, Nader is an important voice and he and his like minded voters deserve to be heard out and recognized. After all, his policy recommendations aren't as crazy as unlawful wiretapping or illegitimate wars with out end.

BO begins to show some recognition, but paints him an egomaniac, ultimately disregarded. Why not try out that position that he's heralding for foreign leaders of our so-called enemies, the one that says we engage first before we condemn? Why not formally sit down with him and make an overt gesture?

magurakurin makes a good point. Nader could do a lot of good if he were enfranchised and brought into the fold. Everyone says he's choosing to play for keeps (President Nader or nothing), while I'd argue he's just sick and tired of being shut out by people claiming to be on his side, that meanwhile protect corporate interests and corrupt party hacks that are taking our country into the toilet.

Posted at February 24, 2008 10:45 PM in response to Nader: I'm Running Again

If this is what you mean, here's what I said...

"It won’t matter if they get seated after BO wins mathematically"

If you mean if he wants them seated for whatever reason I'll assume it's to keep the party together, although is that likely to happen before he looks to have it locked up? I doubt it.

Posted at February 22, 2008 3:24 PM in response to Hillary: I Will Press To Get Florida And Michigan Delegations Seated

Echoing what chautauquan said above, those of us who disagree with this what is obviously HRC's attempt to game the system for her benefit should not bother voting Democratic if the party leadership lets her get her way. It won’t matter if they get seated after BO wins mathematically, but if the party stays divided and FL and MI get seated, I'll walk away and tell everyone voting Democratic to do the same.

I wish I could say I am surprised, but frankly by now I expect it from the Clintons. This kind of maneuvering is a reason why in the past I have cast votes for 3rd party candidates. Last general election I held my nose and voted for Kerry, realizing that GW was the worst president in history, which of course sadly was all for naught.

It's funny that this year I actually feel some hope. Although I still have major reservations about the weakness of the commentary coming from both BO and HRC re: universal healthcare, military spending and governmental accountability, I'm tentatively back in the fold. This is in large part thanks to a lively early primary influenced by Kucinich, Biden, Richardson, and Edwards and I feel like at least Obama offers a nuanced approach and he seems to be listening to previously less heard voices in the party. I imagine there are many other independently minded voters who now intend to vote Democrat but, I'm sure for many of us, this is a tenuous bond.

It is critical for the DNC to realize that this sort of fudging of rules after the fact, for a specific candidate benefit, is the kind of behavior that makes the Democrats look like the Republicans. It feeds the arguments that Nader and others have made that there isn't a significant difference between the two.

Let's all send a message to the Democratic National Committee to honor the agreed upon rules and find a way to make clean up this mess--OR ELSE!

Go and be heard!

http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact

Posted at February 22, 2008 2:45 PM in response to Hillary: I Will Press To Get Florida And Michigan Delegations Seated