The idea is that if you have to claim that people have an obligation to vote for a certain candidate, which is absurd, but nonetheless, if you must, then it is only reasonable that Democrats are more obligated to vote for Gore than would be non-Democrats, e.g. independents, Greens, Republicans, Libertarians, etc.

So then have a look at the Democrats who broke their "obligation" by not voting for Gore. Some few thousand voted Nader. Some hundreds of thousands voted for Bush.

And yet your conclusion is to blame Nader.

It makes no sense. What does make sense is that Nader makes for an easier scapegoat than examining the true reasons for Gore's defeat, which are complex, multitudinous, and fall heavily on the shoulders of Democrats themselves.

The flaw with your argument is that you presume that Nader is on your team, or that he ought to be. No, he isn't. He's the opposition. Who cares if he "hurts" the Democrats? He ins't a Democrat. His platform is radically different than the Democrats' (if only Obama would plagiarize that-- then you'd have yourself a candidate!). How arrogant--and yes, narcissistic-- of Democrats to presume that you own him, that he's supposed to be working for you. Nader doesn't cave, pander, or water down his positions. That's why he isn't a Democrat. So forget about him, quit bitching about the opposition, and instead consider what it might take to make your own party better, and worth voting for.

you blame the 2000 election on "the media. the courts. nader." wow. that is amazing. the democrats aren't responsible at all? try some self-examination, consider that your party has to earn votes, or continue beating your head against this 3rd party brick wall for a long time to come.

i'd bet that great numbers, perhaps even a majority, of democrats would love to have a single payer health care system. and yet they stick with a party that tells them it's too radical, it can't be done. meanwhile, they gather in gymnasiums to chant YES WE CAN. comedy!

He might have experience and scholarship, but all this greatness is sure hard to detect when he's out there staring into the headlights on the campaign trail. His Hillary shilling has been quite unimpressive as well.

Yes. Went to rock bottom in a hurry, didn't it? This video is one of the most boring, unfunny things I've seen in a while. Um, War Room, ever think there might be a limit to how long we can stay interested in this Hillary-Obama BS?

How much time must we continue to waste obsessing over these two? Neither has anything to offer you and never will. They are Democrats and their TOP concern is obtaining and retaining power. The way to obtain power is to play it safe (evidence: congress 2006-2008). The way to retain power is once again, surprise, to play it safe. An endless cycle with no room for real solutions or anything outside the status quo.

Every moment spent on them is a moment wasted.

Wow, did you ever get owned. And to think you wrote not just one but *several* letters embellishing your story about your "practice". Oh...My...God you suck.

I think the more likely truth (the truth you also know, but for some reason loathe to admit) is that most (or all) shrinks in the business have seen their share of bona fide bisexual men. Moreover, a quick glance at the literature by any layman will reveal a wide acceptance of the idea of male bisexuality by the psychological community.

So what's your story? My guess is that you are a gay man who hates bisexuals. Just like the homosexual bi-bigot from Northwestern who did the "study" that is the subject of the NYT article. Nobody hates a bisexual like a gay man. I understand why, but come on, deal with it.

I was happy to see the following in Obama's speech:

After all those years in Washington, John McCain still doesn't get it. I commend him for his desire to accelerate the search for a battery that can power the cars of the future. I've been talking about this myself for the last few years. But I don't think a $300 million prize is enough. When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win -- he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people. That's the kind of effort we need to achieve energy independence in this country, and nothing less will do.

My belief is that we must invest in an emergency national effort to discover and develop an alternative energy solution with the scale and urgency of the Manhattan Project and the moon landing the combined. Otherwise we're screwed. If we can toss off a trillion in five years on a nonsense war, I think we can afford to make a play at saving our asses and spend another trillion in the next five years on alt. energy. I HOPE Obama means it, but I have my doubts.

...from the embarrassing fact that she's not ready to to talk to the media. This just buys her more time in her behind-the-scenes crash course in foreign policy. If she's not ready to talk to the media, how can she be ready to be VP? Forget the lipstick, this is what the Dem's rebuttal should be about. Maybe Joan will make this point tonight with Matthews? Hopefully.

Of course they're not dumb. The problem isn't dumb, the problem is the possibility that they're serving corporate interests and their own political interests. Doesn't matter much how cautious, thoughtful, and intellectual Obama is, what matters are his motivations. I think that's one of the points of Krugman's piece.