In the latest DSM IV they have actually created a category of mental illness in which one of the criterion for diagnosis is if an individual blames Nader (or a Nader voter) for Gore's loss of the election. If they first speak in detail about why over 900,000 registered democrats refused to vote for Nader or Gore and if they then detail at least 12 factors related to the DNC's inability and/or unwillingness to shape the party more along populist lines, they can mention Nader as an insignificant component of the election without being considered mentally ill. But anybody who avoids the top 34 factors on the list of Gore's loss and blames Nader is dealing with some really big stuff. Nader isn't a democrat. At all.

There really is no logic (accept the logic of denial) that can justify why ANY party would blame another party for its own greatest weaknesses. Think about it. Sure, if Nader believed in the democratic parties fundamental economic world-view that would have been one thing. But even if you disagree with Nader, this is a guy who believes in his bones that our country can't avoid a massive near-future disaster via the democrats economic ideology. It's gross. Nader (no matter how wrong he is) believes that we are in BIG trouble and that neither party mentions the underlying structure. Nader is the kind of person who thinks that there won't be a society to improve women's rights and protect their right to choose and to overcome racism and use solar panals if we stick with the republicans and democrats shared economic world-view. If he is wrong and it is true that the democratic party is the answer, at least you've got to respect the fact that he isn't a democrat and he isn't crazy to think that the mess we are in involves a deep blind-spot that the republicans and democrats share.

But if you are a democrat it would be just as foolish and crazy to vote for Nader or Marx or anybody else who thinks your party is a major part of the problem.

Did anybody read this:

http://www.counterpunch.org/wise06072008.html

It's not perfect either.

That was the great thing about the late William F. Buckely. He cared about language. I didn't agree with any of his world view, but he spoke well. Can you imagine if the world was in the hands of those who spelled correctly?

I don't think Olbermann's comments were sexist, but he often bugs the hell out of me. And I LOVED how you deconstructed that awful sexist analogy, Joan. I like your brains.

I don't hate Hillary at all. But I know it isn't sexist if somebody does. And it obviously isn't racist just if somebody can't stand Obama. I think to charge sexism you have to be able to point to it, not just feel it. I am a strong feminist and I not interested at all having Hillary in charge. It is a good thing that people can speak strongly against individuals without that meaning they are isting.

Hillary had to deal with sexism, big time. You can point to it.