I liked your piece. I think it is very important that folks consider how to support Obama's run for presidency while at the same time pointing out his beliefs and decisions that we are strongly against. One simple way is to simply reiterate that (and why) you are voting for him despite have some strong disagreements. Also, it doesn't hurt to mention if (and why) you respect him as well.

I just watched the documentary "An Unreasonable Man" and it reminded me of why I have so much respect for Nader. People get bent out of shape that Nader stresses there is no significant difference between democrats and republicans. If you stand within the democrat's frame of reference, Nader's comments are more than stupid. But from Nader's vantage point, it is obvious that he is making an astute observation. Abortion is an massively important issue but not in the face of the bomb or in the face of the massive economic future we face. My child's future college education is important but only if it is an actual option in 13 years. The things that make the bombs and economic/social meltdown increasingly in our face have nothing to do with the moral arguments about when life begins. Nader has a strong opinion about abortion but it's easy to see why he doesn't talk about it too much when you understand the things that really have him worried and angry.

Nader is much further away from being a democrat that the average democrat is from being a republican. This makes it obvious why- as a responsible citizen- he should scream and shout about what he disagrees with.

The only way to be upset at Nader is to assume that he agrees with democrats but just wants to be their leader.

None of the evidence points to Nader agreeing with the democratic platform at all. It would be like thinking that Carl Marx should not run for president if his run might disrupt one of his opponents potential victory. No matter what we dislike about the personalities of Obama, Clinton, McCain or Nader, what matters most are the actual decisions they make and their effects. Carl Marx would be closer to the democrats and that would help explain why he would probably feel the need to slam them the hardest (people would be saying, "hey, Carl, just be a good democrat and help get Carter elected") I'm not advocating Marxism must making an analogy.

Joan applauds Glenn Greenwald as have a pitch perfect response to the FISA legislation (I agree Joan), but Joan must seriously disagree with Glenn's basic approach to political action these days. Go read to Glenn's blog and read what he believes about how we must best effect the democratic party to get it working for Americans again. It's exactly what Joan insists we must NOT do.

I'd love to watch a real conversation between Glenn and Joan about his strategy for effecting change. Nader might not always speak carefully, but his actions and his life are a wonderful indicator of what he demands from his government. In the documentary there is a portion where they ask the viewer to imagine what it would be like if the word "nader" was placed upon all the things in our society that are a direct result of his advocacy. You don't have to hear much of the list to realize that this guy is a tower compared to those democrats who have spoken almost "perfectly" over the last 30 years. Nader looked just a cooky and narcissistic back when he was insisting that the government take responsibility in regards to corporate abuses. He never looks narcissistic to those who's lives he is saving. He can look rather haggard and imprudent, yes indeed.

I'm voting for Obama. And I am going to do everything I can to encourage all of his other supporters to shape Obama in the direction of his rhetoric to a greater and greater degree. If we don't create the kind of pressure that the real leaders of the democratic party need, we will at best get versions of neutered leaders like Obama and Clinton in office and at worst folks like Bush and Cheny.

I think all of the evidence points to the fact that a neutered Obama or Clinton isn't going to help us avoid the real impending cultural and economic disasters that are already showing their faces but will certainly take over the party in the not very distant future. I understand that there are Obama and Clinton supporters who feel that simply letting them run the executive brach as they current are is enough. These people see the Obama's and Clinton's as already formed answers to our problems. I respectfully disagree and counter that the only reason Obama should give us hope is because he very well may be the person to right the ship. That will take a kind of courage and audacity that we simply haven't seen in the white house for a long long time. And it will only happen if his supporters demonstrate to him that it must. Otherwise we simply get the consolation of his victory in November. We need much more than that to face what is coming. Or maybe not. I like Obama.

and imagine if bell hooks was quoted with Nader's criticisms of Obama...

hey, did Joan ever suggest that as a woman Hillary should be expected to speak out on aspects of sexism in our society?