In 2000, I was quite aware that BushCo. LLP, would be bad for the US. He'd ruined our state of Texas as governor and now suddenly after one term as Gov. he wanted crack at the White House, er...I mean,...a crack at the White House. The two viable options on the table were of course Al Gore, and his...enemy?...Ralph Nader.

Now, I am so aware of what Bush did after 2000 that I look back and ask myself, would I have voted any different? Answer...still...Nope. I voted for Ralph Nader. And there was a clear reason why I voted for him.

I was in Texas when lost its mind years ago and I knew, and it was shown in the results, even if you added Nader's votes on top of Gore, Gore lost Texas anyway. This is what caused many to use the "vote trading" system where people who were in states that were definitely red, would vote for Nader and not endanger shifty states or blue states. This showed some conciousness on their part. Even then the Gore camp focused more on Nader than Bush.

The fact that the Gore supporters attacked Nader instead of Bush is why I didn't vote for Gore. Their efforts were completely anti-democratic. He didn't know who his real enemy was, and had he campaigned differently he could have succeeded at TWO victories: One for president, One for a new party.

But that isn't what happened. In the months before the Nov 2000 coup de etat from CheneyCo. LLP., the Gore camp launched repeated attacks on Ralph Nader instead of George Bush. It was this that forced me to make a decision about the future of democracy as I saw it: a two party system leaving nobody of alternative when the two fail you.

What was often missed by the Gore supporters is that Nader was singing the populous tune and resonating with the cynicism against American politicians by the public.

And frankly, when I was young, I used to watch Nader's raiders TV show where I could learn how different corporations where swindling me thru various forms of deception about their products and services. That's how I learned how to become an active citizen about issues in my community and with my small buying power.

So what about it.

Well, now we have the story breaking about Hillary Clinton and John Edwards talking on-mic about weeding out their competition. It sounds like they are ready for their own VH1 celebrity elimination show instead of leading the US. They are very quick to try to eliminate, FOR US, other options with a bullshit nobility that they think they own.

My personal choices for candidate are so limited that I don't want to have these two work to weed me out of the political process a year and 4 months until election day. My candidate of choice is one who was bold enough to call for Impeachment with HR 333. His name is Dennis Kucinich.

Mr. Kucinich has been very quick to respond to these comments by Clinton and Edwards, and I was quick to call both campaigns and encourage them to rethink their comments. These comments are steaks in front of hungry poodles at FauxNews, CNN, MSNBC, and of course the pulp wasting NYT, WSJ, National Review, FrontPage, and so forth. They were stupid enough to say these things with their mics on, and I'm thankful.

There is virtually no way I'm voting for John Edwards after watching, yet again on CSPAN this week, him get owned by arch villain Dick Cheney. Edwards looked ill-prepared to attack this monger.

The politically flaky Hillary would be an ironic punch in the gut of the right-wing juggernuts, but at what risk? Would she also be willing to carpet bomb Kosovo? Would she be willing to carpet bomb anyone who was easy pickins to make her look tough?

Biden and Dodd come off as blowhards, though Dodd comes out on top between the two, Bill Lopez Richardson loves to show his credits, but hasn't convinced me of his readiness to be president. Obama is fresh and young, which keeps him in my pool of possibilities, but with a short trackrecord....where's the experience?

That leaves the apparent looney Mike Gravel. He seems to be campaigning as if he's got nothing to lose but future generations. He seems to be hearing the reaper and wants to do his last best effort to confront our nations legacy and current path. This makes him one of the most honest candidates there, and I think its him that Clinton/Edwards want to refer to when they say, "not serious" candidate.

We'll be seeing in the next few weeks if this story has legs, but right now, it isn't a light matter to have presumptive candidates deciding that we shouldn't be seeing the others. I'll side with keeping the whole lot of them up there in UNION with each other focused on one target, this administration and their buddies.