A life long Democrat, I have completely given up on them.
In 2000 I was in a rage against people who didn't see that voting for Gore was vital. The "Not a Dimes bit of difference" talk was practically treason I thought.
8 years later, it is clear that as bad as Bush was, it would have never happened but for cowardly and selfish Democrats going along to get along. Which they basically did when first confronted by the Reagan Presidency.
Or to put it into perspective, the Indians got screwed no matter which party held office, and that is not by accident.
Just as the Palestinians are screwed no matter which party wins.
Bill Clinton actually screwed them more than Bush did, because Bill set up the take down through his Camp David betrayal.

Some very good points here. But they repeat a Clintonian fiction, that Obama is a candidate ...

who
is mostly hype and hope and very, very little substance or resume.

Check out Is Obama more style than substance? We consult FactCheck. Obama sponsored more than eight hundred bills in the Illinois legislature, many before Hillary ever held public office. And FactCheck describes his US Senate career as "brief, but action packed." See specifics at the link. They conclude "Clinton is wrong to suggest that Obama lacks a substantive legislative record."

@masbury,
There is no substance to your claims of Obama substance when one looks at your links.
I can see why his supporter 'whiffed' a softball question. I wouldn't try to defend that alleged record for him to be a Senator. And he ran for that office against Alan Keyes, a stand in, not real candidate. Wow.
And that 'whiffed' rationalization is an example of the explain the errors away rationalizations that Obama gets away with so far.

yanceducat, Despite the fact that Obama is THE most unqualified person in the Senate and House of Reps combined - his Liberal-rating is lower than Bernie Sanders, a Socialist.
It is not as if Obama doesn't have an anti-Liberal and anti-American agenda, it is just that he cannot say so and beat McCain. Nader knows this and does not care. What Nader wants is to affect debate and force the issues. You re absolutely right - That is his Constitutional right and I cannot think of a more patriotic act. He knows he will not be elected.

I am disgusted at the mentality of people who have the gall to BLAME
Nader for their candidate not getting elected. How they can claim they
believe in freedom and yet have the hypocrisy to blame someone for
exercising that freedom they would claim for all, unless apparently it
keeps them from getting their own way is beyond me to look benignly upon

Right On!!

It's scary how much pull the "hype" has in this country. The "war on terror", to me, is the most dangerous hype of our time. It's taking us down a road of no return.

I'll vote Nader or nothing. Kucinich was dropped like a hot rock and McKinney isn't even on the map.

Lucky 13 !

@willhelm
Nader knows he will not be elected??

Why? Cuz the majority of Americans don't know that they are being lead like sheep to the slaughter?

Maybe it's true.

@willhelm
Nader knows he will not be elected??

Why? Cuz the majority of Americans don't know that they are being lead like sheep to the slaughter?

Yes. And most of the people that know we are being led like sheep to the slaughter also know that totalitarian, socialist, and materialist enterprises are not the cure.
Nader is a voice in the wilderness for those principles and he knows it. I may not agree with Nader but I do not think he is so stupid as to believe he has a snowball's chance in Hell. He is just fighting what is basically one party rule, and in that regard I am on his side.

@katsteevns,
Thanks.

@ willhelm

He is just fighting what is basically one party rule, and in that regard I am on his side.

One party rule is what I have seen it to be for quite a while now. On another clip earlier today someone wasn't understanding why the Democrats didn't do more, and I was thinking of saying that maybe they were operating under the false assumption that the Democrats were actually much different than the Republicans.

@willhelm
If totalitarianism is not the cure, then why has America applauded Bush as he takes us down that road?

The cure ,in my view, would be to shake up the present power structure. This in itself would bring in fresh faces and new ideas. Nader would be a good vehicle in that respect.