One thing that is quite significant about all this is that Diane Feinstein changed her vote to reflect the wishes of her constituents. That is a press-stopper right there.

This shows that even the most corrupt, bought-and-paid-for politician can be forced to do the right thing through clogging the switchboard and email. In fact, back in December when she first started feeling this pressure, she sent out a sudden slew of emails touting her support of progressive causes. She must have realized then that she was on thin ice.

the only populist, the only authentic progressive, and the only candidate with the courage of real principle available in the race.

Yes. Nice, isn't it? However, given that he won't win and will not affect the campaign of either major candidate in any way whatsoever, exactly what affect does this "authentic progressive" provide by running, that he wouldn't be able to provide by, say, broadcasting on Air America? Apart from siphoning votes from the democratic candidate and making it more likely to let another disastrous republican in?

But I suppose it's beyond most of Salon's devoted readers to comprehend why a person would do something as heinous as support Ralph Nader. ::gasp::

I understand. There's that saying about cutting your nose off to spite your face, which explains it perfectly. You're sad that Edwards dropped out. (Me too.) And because of that, you want to vote for John McCain, which is the same as voting for Nader. That is, because you can't vote for Edwards, you'll instead vote for another 100 years of Iraq occupation, plus bombing Iran, continued wiretapping, and who knows what else. Nice.

Nader never took a vote away from Gore because none of us wanted to vote for Gore to begin with.

In 2000, I voted for Nader instead of Gore. So, your statement above is wrong. And something tells me I wasn't the only one.

Brand me a blind, ignorant idealist with no understanding of how politics in America really, really works.

Took the words right out of my mouth...

For anyone interested, I do think GWB's foreign policy has been criminally vulgar. And if I had to do it again I still would have voted for Nader in 2000.

Damn. Your statement strikes me as criminally stupid.

The bottom line: Grow up. In a year's time, we're either going to have a president who works to bring back the troops from Iraq and keep us out of any unnecessary wars in the future, or we're going to have 100 more years in Iraq and who knows how many new wars to watch on the teevee. Choose your preference from one of those two outcomes (there are no other options, unfortunately). But for god's sake, don't throw your vote away on Nader, Tinkerbell or the Cowardly Lion.

When I first read this, I thought "who the hell would give this guy $10 million to pursue something that even Don Quixote would pass on?"

Then I read Elephantman's post, and I realized: all his donors will be republicans.

Is this guy serving progressive interests in any sort of real way?

It's a shame. If Nader had stuck with consumer protections, he'd be canonized in the end. Now he's just going to fade away, a stupid old man.

But isn't the average American more aware of the nuances of middle eastern affairs now compared to 8 years ago? Aren't we collectively better for having highlighted the roots and failures of neoconservative ideology? Or the potential of a News network to intimidate free media and thus our democracy. The ease with which government can abuse the constitution, human rights, etc.

I can think of about a million Iraqis who are most definitely not better off, because they're dead, and another few million who have had to leave their homes.

The setback on addressing climate change over the past 8 years has been disastrous. It's possibly too late to avert a real calamity on that one at this point, but may have not been 8 years ago.

Media intimidation? That ship has sailed. The media is Officially Intimidated now. While you can get academic about how much they're intimidated, and how much worse it could get, the fact remains that many Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim who attended a madrassa, and that the democrats want to help the terrorists, which is why they oppose telecom immunity. And you're saying, you're happy for this to get worse, so long as you can put a check next to Nader's name, and hum to yourself all the way home.

As for the understanding we have gained in the past 8 years due to Bush's failures, that understanding is shared by you, me, the rest of Salon's readership, and...that's about it. It's nice to feel smart, sure. But I'm here to tell you, it's having marginal affect on the political dialogue in this country.

Overall, crooked_teeth, your support of Nader comes across as the kind of pointless naval-gazing self indulgence that liberals are so often slammed for. Enjoy yourself, though.