I should’ve prefaced my earlier comments with the fact that I don’t support everything Nader stands for, but I welcome the radical change that he represents. Third party candidates may be the answer, and they may not be – I’m not entirely convinced that a nation as diverse as the US can be governed by any one ideology anyways.

Obama says nice things that make people feel good inside, but of course that’s his mission – he’s a politician out for your vote, and he and his team of well paid marketing executives are smart enough to know how to get it. He knows that most Americans don’t think LBGT people are equal, so he’s not going to take a stand that would cost him votes. He hasn’t promised to end US aggression overseas ASAP (something that even Ron Paul – a Republican – said could and should be done), so yeah, a vote for Obama IS a vote for inequality and more dead children overseas.

Maybe Obama’s biggest example of bullshit is his call for unity (right before bashing his opponents – hardly an act of unification). I’m sorry, but I have no desire to unify with certain segments of the population. I truly hate rich people, elitists (whether Republican or “progressive”), and the druggie douchebag who knocked up my sister, and I have no religious qualms that would make me feel sorry about it. Maybe a better clarion call for Obama would be “Unity among those who like me” or “unity for some, holier-than-thou attitudes towards the rest.”

I was in Boston for those protests against the DNC in 2004. The Democratic Party we saw there was not a party of the average American….these people stayed in nice hotels, ate at expensive restaurants, and went to fancy parties….OMG, just like the at the RNC!

When you’re not the one on the losing end of the government shaft, then a massive upheaval wouldn’t seem beneficial.

As somebody who has been registered (and voted) for the Green party most of his life (independent at other times), I just reregistered as a Democrat because I cannot stomache the thought of continuation of Bush policies for another 4-8 years. Though Obama and McCain may have their similarities, if anybody thinks that there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans at-large when it comes to a lot of important issues (like abortion, environment, foreign policy, drilling for oil in Alaska, social welfare policies, giving global aid etc.), then that person clearly has not been paying attention.

It amazes me how many people don’t realize that when voting for a president, you are not just voting for that person but for that party as well. That’s why I would love it if the Green party had a chance of winning…I agree with pretty much everything they say. But I’ve realized that it’s just not going to happen. So I’ll go with Obama as he represents baby-steps towards the ideal, which is certainly better than no progress, or going in the opposite direction as McCain would.

For those of you who will be voting neither for the Republican candidate or the Democrat candidate, clearly that’s your right and choice. Personally, I’m not sure about the usefulness of such a move anymore. I respectfully disagree with Rural Vegan when he/she says that the two party system “…has not and will not work.” The fact is that US political system–with all it’s flaws and special privileges accorded to the rich, and historically, white males–has for the most part worked just as good or better than most other young democracies. There is a reason why we have not seen coup d’etats or counter-revolutions in this country, and I’m willing to bet that we will NOT see such things in the near future as well. For better or worse, most people are content enough with our political process that they don’t feel they need to resort to such means. This is rather unusual if you study history of most countries in the world.

What I realize now is that the third party candidates are much more likely to be elected at state/county/city level (esp in progressive places like CA, MA, NY, etc) and at that level, I still plan on voting for Greens and other progressive independents as much as possible. However, in a democratic republic such as USA, it’s important to remember that it’s not necessarily the most intelligent/progressive/honest/whatever candidates that will be elected as presidents but only those who can convince the majority (people/electoral votes). This may not be an ideal situation but IMHO it’s self-delusional to assume that by voting for a 3rd party candidate, who clearly lacks any chances of winning, one will make an iota of difference for the hungry/weak/disempowered/whatever cause. Looking back at it, the only thing that I ever soothed with all my independent/green votes was my own ego and self- righteousness.

you can find it here: http://flickr.com/photos/escapehelicopter/2653370141/in/photostream/

And if one more person says that voting for X is actually voting for X – I don’t know what I’ll do… Everyone needs to look carefully at the Gore/Bush election. More Democrats , by a HUGE number, voted for Bush than voted for Nader.

And a vote for Obama isn’t a vote for McCain. A vote for Obama is a vote for continued war and continued gender/sexual orientation based discrimination, and it lends support to the continuation of the two party system, which has not and will not work.

Katcher, great blog btw!

I’m not too fond of Obama, but he’s better than McCain. Instead of passively voting in Nov, why don’t more Nader supporters get involved earlier in the process to try and get better candidates represented?