however much millions of people may regard Bush,jnr's questionable win over Gore as a horrible consequence of Nader's participation, I'd argue we want spoiler candidates to be able to act as spoilers, insofar as the threat they pose potentially influences policy.

All the money of all the Nader supporters probably couldn't significantly influence the democratic party to act against against the ADMs and Verizons and Citibanks, if the Greens just "behaved themselves" and voted for the democratic nominee and gave all their financial support to the democrats, along with stern letters cautioning the democrats to be more responsive to the wishes of their left wing. Based on how they vote and act, what do you think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do with those stern letters?

The argument regarding spoiler candidates cuts both ways: while I am sympathetic to the people who feel the Naderites cost Gore Florida in 2000, I recognize that it's just as easy to say,

1."when will the Greens and other lefty kooks learn their lesson and get on board?"

as it is to say,

2."when will the accomodationist democrats learn their lesson and actually behave like an opposition party and actually oppose the republicans?"

"For some reason, Mike Huckabee is still running for president."

I had a great deal of sympathy for the policies Edwards stood for, and essentially none for the politics of Huckabee, but shouldn't Salon stop trying to steer candidates out of running just because you've decided they can't win?

Whether you do it to Kucinich or Edwards or even a loony like Huckabee, I intensely resent this kind of journalistic hubris, whether it comes from CNN or CBS, or even Slate or Salon.

Why no reports on how the democratic establishment ganged up on Kucinich and poured money into Cleveland to defeat him in the democratic primary, muscling him out of the race? That's a real story.

Has it occurred to you that, just possibly, republican primary voters are actually a little clearer in their outlook, at least when it comes to this, in their not mindlessly rejecting the candidates their leadership (and the media) tells them they have to, and not having become mesmerized by the shiny, spinning "electability" bauble that you have been waving in front of them?

I genuinely appreciate this article, and I appreciate the lengths Salon went to to get the access that you got--

Nevertheless, it's difficult not to wonder if you were just snowed by a US military disinformation campaign. Maybe Mark Benjamin has wondered about this himself.

The ex-military human rights watch guy may even really believe what he told you. But given how deceptive and conniving our government has been in so many aspects of selling the Iraq war, why wouldn't they also lie to their own personnel who might have moral qualms about what they are doing?

Over two thousand sorties a day, and they're just killing "bad guys?"

Samantha Power comes across as a smart, well-meaning person who wants to do the appropriate amount of lamenting of how things are, to demonstrate her sensitivity, but without taking the next step and acknowledging the collective blood on our hands as citizens of an empire.

For one thing, I am puzzled by her observation that Iran's Ahmedinejad is a "problem." Why is he a problem? Because he sponsored an anti-holocaust conference? That's just window-dressing, designed to mollify the fundamentalist wing.

On the other hand, if Iran does in fact sponsor terrorist organizations, this is a systemic problem that predated Ahmedinejad's arrival. Otherwise, whenever Power(or for that matter, Obama) say that Iran is "a problem," their rhetoric in the present context serves to give legitimacy to the warhawks who want to pre-emptively attack Iran.

GK:So white enthusiasm for Obama is driven by his race. But there's nothing wrong with that fact. Those who criticize it are simultaneously too idealistic and too cynical: They assume that it's possible to simply ignore Obama's race, while also imputing unsavory motivations to those who are inspired by it.

Ok, I'll impute: although I wouldn't use the word unsavory, I'd call it a schizoid mixture of denial and projection and white guilt.

How many people will vote for him because it makes them feel good about themselves, but would be angered at the idea that the US should formally apologize for our history of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation?

Likewise, Obama is the one major non-white candidate, in a time when, regardless of what we may call it, we are fighting an unprovoked war of racist aggression.

How many people will vote for him because he's said he's against the war, but fail to make the connection that he's also been supportive, at least rhetorically, of the Bush administration's contention that Iran is a dangerous rogue state?

Let's see: 1865-2008, 143 years.

1945+143=2088,

2003+143=2146...

So, at this rate, maybe we'll have our first Japanese-American president in 2088, and our first Arab-American president in 2146(or 2148). Apart from the fact that I'll be dead by then, I can hardly wait.

Those would be pretty important, as gestures. Gestures that would also help people feel good about themselves while avoiding learning any lessons about the consequences of our bloody history.