Wednesday June 18, 2008, 1:48 pm
Now Gregory you don't really want my opinion on politicians and such like do you ?

Wednesday June 18, 2008, 2:15 pm
See no one is arguing yet lol !! thats a plus !

Wednesday June 18, 2008, 3:09 pm
I am not commenting on either of these guys...:-)

Wednesday June 18, 2008, 3:14 pm
Ralph Nader's experience is in the form of a third party candidate and I question his motives everytime he runs. In the article he mentioned a 16 year old voting. I know of no state that permits a person to vote under the age of 18. I heavily support the formation of Young Republicans and Young Democrats organizations in high school so by the time they reach voting age, they are actively participating in the system, up on the issues and they are able to cast an intellegent vote based on each candidates stand. With John McCain, you will have 4 more years of Bush policies because he has supported those policies and completely backed the most unpopular president in the history of the country. Yes,Barack Obama lacks experience but in my opinion that is a plus. He is highly intellegent and is a diplomatic person who listens to the voices of reason. That is what this country needs...someone who is not jaded by the political system in this country. Our country has to change, we have no choice of we will self destruct. We need level headed leadership and I believe Obama will give us that leadership.

Wednesday June 18, 2008, 5:45 pm
In the middle of the Alphabet there is an O which is like a hole as in a doughnut or is it doughnit or dungknwit.

Wednesday June 18, 2008, 6:38 pm
Ralph Nader works for conservatives, I just know he does! He gets in the way of Liberals' voting every time and always at well chosen times.

Wednesday June 18, 2008, 6:51 pm
Nader is right. There is no way anyone could get to where Obama is now without playing footsie. If that were not true, Ron Paul would have the Republican nomination. Remember how he got shut out with next to no media coverage?

Media played up Obama starting last December when we all thought Hilary had it in the bag.

As a Canadian, I'd rather Obama than either of the other two, but I'm under no illusions about him...and you shouldn't be either. You are going to have to be just as vigilant with him as you are with Bushco.

So don't think that because a "nice guy" is in office you can go back to sleep after the election.

Wednesday June 18, 2008, 7:13 pm
Nader is a spoiler - look at what happened in Florida during the 2000 elections. He took votes away from Al Gore. Nader needs to retire from running for President, period.

TY, Gregory.

Wednesday June 18, 2008, 7:15 pm
Just another resaon Nadar does not get my vote LMAO!!!!

Wednesday June 18, 2008, 7:16 pm
For those of you knocking Obama - what alternate do you propose...McCain!!!

Wednesday June 18, 2008, 7:20 pm
Noted and thanks for the story Gregory.

Wednesday June 18, 2008, 7:34 pm
Jim, I soooooo agree with you, I am soooooooo sick and tired of Nader.

Wednesday June 18, 2008, 8:10 pm
TY NOTED

Thursday June 19, 2008, 1:37 am
Well, I think Barack Obama is in training to become panderer-in-chief. That was really a disgraceful speech. It didn’t further the peace process, the two-state solution favored by a majority of Jewish Americans, Arab Americans, a majority of Israeli and Palestinian people. He basically sided with the militaristic approach to occupying, repressing, colonizing, destroying the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza. He hasn’t even spoken out against the international crime of the blockade of Gaza, one-and-a-half million people, from medicine or drinking water, fuel, electricity, food—lots of silent fatalities in Gaza because of that.


Barack Obama really now has to be examined very carefully. He has worn out the word “change.” We now want to know what change is involved. And it’s quite clear that he is a corporate candidate from A to Z. In his voting record, he voted against reform of the Mining Act of 1872, which gives away our hard rock minerals. He voted for a terrible class-action restriction law that the corporations wanted him to vote for. He, in many ways, has disappointed people who had greater hopes for him. He’s voted for reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. He refuses to even discuss—he’s vigorously against impeachment of Bush and Cheney. He won’t even support his colleague Senator Russ Feingold motion to censure the Bush administration for systemic repeated illegal wiretaps. He—you know, he’s letting the corporate-dominated city of Washington, the corporations who actually rule us now in Washington, determine his agenda. And that does not augur well.


He’s just appointed economic advisers right out of the Robert Rubin school of Citigroup and the University of Chicago. His Middle East advisers involve people who actually helped write his AIPAC speech. You know, it’s a sad thing to see, because he knows better, but he’s suppressing himself repeatedly until he becomes a different person, should he be elected president.

This is all true..., and even the dreaded Nader sees it, but somehow Obama still ended up getting the nomination...only in America..
Noted, and thank you Gregory

Saturday June 21, 2008, 6:38 am
DarD, I couldn't agree with you more. And Chris, we have MORE than two people to choose from. Until we get off this two party thinking NOTHING is going to change. I am so sick of everyone saying "I don't like McCain, and don't like Obama, I don't know what to do" I feel like screaming at the top of my lungs "RESEARCH THIRD PARTIES PEOPLE!!!!" We HAVE GOT to get out of this two party thinking.

Saturday June 21, 2008, 7:50 am
OK, make a suggestion - people keep saying that we need to get away from the two party system but then say nothing about an alternative. Throw another hat in the ring!!! I happen to have considered ALL the candidates and Obama still comes to the top LOL

Saturday June 21, 2008, 8:47 am
Well, there is a good alternative, the model practiced in most of Europe, multiple party parlament, with proportionalism. Let me give you example of how this works in a more democratic way than the "Westminster model" practiced in the US and UK. In the early eightees a Green party was formed in Sweden, no one took much notice of them and they got maybe 1% of the vote in general elections. But in the summers of 1987 and 88 the Baltic sea was overflowing with algae and dead seals floated up on the beaches, because farmers in the encircling countries used too much fertilizers which ended up in the sea. People were shocked by this. Same year a nuclear reactor in Chernobyl in the Soviet union not far from the swedish border broke down, and swedish farm animals and reindeers were contaminated by radiation and could not be used for food in large parts of the country. So the environment, and the question about getting rid of our nuclear power, sailed up as the most important issues in the 1988 general election in Sweden. Now the Green party only got 5,5% of the vote, but because of their success in polls BEFORE the election, all the other parties made environmental issues a priority from that year on. Today the Greens have been in parlament for fourteen consecutive years and kept on pushing the other parties´ when it comes to environmental issues. Still, they´ve never gotten more than, at the most I think 6-7% of the votes. Now, lets compare that to Great Britain, where the Iraq war was the biggest political issue in a long long time, the biggest manifestations of opposition maybe ever a.s.f. There, The Labour party (Tony Blair´s party) and the Conservatives both wanted to go to war. The "third party" in Britain, the "Liberal democrats", gets about 20% of the vote in every election, but because of the two party system, they never get the power to govern. So the other two parties can basically ignore them, even though they represent 1/5 of the voters. Which is exactly what they did when it came to Iraq, the Liberal democrats opposed the war, but the conservatives and Labour didn´t have to care, because they knew that even if the Liberal democrats were to gain 5% more of the vote on this single issue, they still wouldn´t threaten the two-party hegemony.

Chris, you say you think Obama is the best of ALL candidates. What do you think about his foreign policy stance? He said the Palestinians voted Hamas to power in Gaza, which was a big problem, and his solution was not to have held elections- or not to let Hamas be on the ballot. Is that the words of a democrat?

Saturday June 21, 2008, 8:58 am
Obama perfect - no way - no one is. One can find "flaws" in every person, much less any politition. You have to weigh all the pieces together. The earth and its survival is important to me - I for, example, believe the climate crisis is very real, and potentially could make "politics" irrelevant...So that weighs heavily in my decision process - not the only factor however. For example, McCain has a very strong climate change platform - but based on the other factors, there is no way I would vote for him. Agin, I see a lot of knocking Obama in this tread, but little offering of alternatives...

Saturday June 21, 2008, 9:27 am
What, wasn´t that the whole point of the discussion, that the two-party system not give people the alternatives they really want. (I don´t think people here wants McCain in the White House...) I mean, even if Obama and McCain wasn´t frontrunners for their parties´ nominations, everybody KNEW before the primaries even begun that Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich would never win the nominations. What does that tell us?

Had I been living in the US, I´d probably vote for Obama in this election for FEAR of what a McCain administration might do with regards to foreign policy. After what he said at the AIPAC meeting, I don´t believe Obama will be a progressive force on the world stage either, but he seems a little less likely to kill a lot of innocent people in the name of "security".

Thursday July 10, 2008, 6:15 pm
Again, not an Obama fan, but thanks for the article.