If Howard Dean isn't chosen to head DNC then I think Nader should support

[In Truth We Trust]

Mr. Dean and Mr. Cobb as the nominee's of the Greens in 08.

[Radical Activist]

1. Not in a million years

Neither Dean nor the Greens would ever go for it. They are too far apart ideologicaly and Dean is too much the practical politician.

[GainesT1958]

2. Don't give up if a guy like Si Rosenberg is elected...

He's a "New, NEW Democrat"...and gets along very well with Dr. Dean!:D

B-)

[Maat]

4. I could live with Rosenberg.

I'm supporting Howard Dean no matter what - he CAN be a good buttkicker-at-large.

[imenja]

3. Dean is a Democrat

He's not going to leave the party. He wants to reform it from within.

[aquart]

5. NADER???

Yeah, his support is worth spit. Sure.

[NoPasaran]

6. Nader who?

[Krocksice]

7. I still don't understand the Nader bashing...

We all know that the Democratic Party is fucked up and needs to be changed. Why get on him for saying it?

[QC]

8. I still don't understand the Nader defending...

particularly when I have to look at this every time I turn on the news:

[NoPasaran]

9. Oh, get off your high horse

Nader isn't a Democrat. For the last decade or so he's been working to weaken and destroy the Democratic Party.

I agree, the Democratic Party needs change. I also agree with Dean's strategy of rebuilding the party from the ground up. That's why I'm a member of Democracy For America. If Dean or a like-minded person becomes the next DNC Chair, great. It will make the work of reform easier But it is not reform in and of itself. If not, it just means that a majority of the leadership still doesn't get it. One way or another, the rebuilding at the grassroots level still has to go on.

I am much more in tune with Howard Dean, who has shown himself to be a real leader working for real reform of the Democratic Party, than with Ralph Nader, who has squandered most of the respect he earned years ago as a consumer advocate on increasingly irrelevant political crusades which seem mostly about promoting St. Ralph.

[sendero]

10. Because...

.... siphoning votes from the Dem to enable a Rep victory, when there is absolutely no upside for you is not the answer.

Promising to not campaign in swing states and then breaking your promise is not the answer.

Taking money from Reps is not the answer.

Policywise, I believe in almost every position Nader takes. As a person Nader epitomises everything I dislike in a politician. I still believe that had Nader merely kept his own promises in 2000, Gore would have been elected and this whole nightmare would have never happened.

Nader once had a chance to be a player on the national stage. He blew it - he alienated most of his supporters in 2000 and they are not coming back.

[dansolo]

12. Because Nader is notoriously quiet about criticising Republicans

Nader spends far more time attacking the Democrats, then trying to educate people about the excesses of the Republicans. Nader gained his notoriety as a consumer advocate, and yet he is silent when it comes to pointing out how the policies of the Republicans are destroying the middle class. He is right to criticize the Democrats for enabling the Republicans, but the real blame should be directed towards the Republicans themselves.

[Krocksice]

13. sounds like same sort of propaganda I hear from Republicans

No fact behind any of what you're saying... just so you guys know, I threw my support behind Kerry for this election.. but I think all the 'reasons' you people posted are bull. Like Ralph Nader not blaming Republicans? Are you serious? The only reason he attacked the Democrats is because they were more serious about getting him out of the election than attacking Bush... and look where that got us. He is absolutely right about the need to reform the party, and most of us know it, it's just easier to have a scapegoat to blame than to point the finger within.

[Mike L]

11. FUCK NADER!!!!