I didn't start reading Salon until after the last election season, so I have been surprised to find it such a slave of the Democratic spin cycle. I went to a Nader rally in San Francisco in 2004, and he directed his attacks at both sides equally. Outside, a group of Democratic picketers insulted people as they walked and all in all, acted like stormtroopers.

If you'll recall, our Democratic candidate in that race had not only voted for the war in Iraq, he had been calling for the invasion since 1998. In 2000, Nader was the Green Party candidate, a position I think unlikely if he had Republican backing. In 2004, the Green Party made an agreement with the Democrats to not run anyone seriously. The Democrats made headlines during that cycle by using influence and large coffers to keep the third party candidate off the voting sheets, though I saw no mention of that when Conason was mocking Nader for getting less than a percentage point of the vote. How could he have gotten more, when the Democrats circumvented the democratic process to stifle his candidacy.

One of the biggest criticisms G.W. Bush had of John Kerry, was that there was no difference in their platforms. Kerry offered no solution to the Iraq mess, except that he would ask Europe and NATO to get more involved.

The last two years show that the Democratic party has not changed its stripe. It is not the anti-war party, it is not the people's party-- it is the stay relevant at all costs party.

This article was partisan hackery.

I am increasingly angered by Salon's linking of the left with support of the Democratic party. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME THINGS! I remember feeling distinctly suckered two years ago when Democrats ran on a platform of stopping the Iraq War, and then did nothing once people organized and got them into congress and the senate. I recall that Barack Obama was one of the beneficiaries of that particular strategy.

Seriously, Joan, I would take your criticism (and that of Conason) more seriously if you ever discussed the Democratic party's unctious attempts to keep Nader off the ballot in 2004. I would consider your arguments if, in weighing in on Obama and Clinton, you mentioned how little they or their party have done to champion the issues of their often-reluctant supporters.

The Democratic candidate in the 2004 election was about one centimeter closer to me in the ideological spectrum that you mention; I suppose I should have just eaten it and voted for the guy who thought that the only problem with the Iraq war was that NATO wasn't involved enough. Sorry, Salon. I didn't. I threw away my vote on someone who was closer to me on the ideological spectrum in the hopes of sending a clear message to the Democrats--our support is not free. You need to represent us!

If you have concrete reasons as to why Nader shouldn't run, then be clear about them and contrast them with the integrity of the Democratic party (if there is such a thing). These insulting jibes are beneath you.

I caught Mathews today. Its just amazing how devoid this hour long show is of news. A long gossipy roundtable on whether or not revelations that Obama may actually support NAFTA will hurt him. Of course they won't hurt him! Of course he supports NAFTA! Clinton does too! THEY ALL DO! If Matthews and the like were doing their job, they would explore the records of the candidates to see what they have done, rather than spend countless hours hashing and rehashing rhetoric and innuendo from the right wing rumor mill.

And, of course, they had to go into the whole Barack is muslim thing, is only slightly more revolting than watching Obama tapdance rightward. His comment about praying to Jesus nightly almost made me vomit.

And now, our own Joan Walsh, so content with what passes for the democratic process in this country, so elated with the state of our discourse, so overjoyed with the integrity of the Democratic candidates, crticizes Ralph Nader. On the issues? Hardly. Nader probably champions everything that Salon readers stand for. Nope. Walsh is pissed off that Nader would have the nerve to run when we have two possible Democratic candidates who have done nothing but bend over backwards for this administration.

Truly sad times. But its election year isn't it?

Neither disingenuous nor dishonest. I went to a Nader rally in 2004, picketed by screaming Democrat operatives who insulted us and waved banners in our faces. Sorry, but i can tell you from personal experience Nader does criticize both sides equally. It wasn't as popular back then, for some reason, even though the Democratic candidate supported the war--had even supported an invasion in 1998.

Talk about disingenuous, neither Conason nor Walsh talks about the repulsive attempts by Democratic political operatives to keep Nader off the ballots in 2004. I am not so beholden to the Dems that I think kindly of their stifling democracy in my name. And I would direct you to the link Joan posted for Matt Gonzalez about Obama. Third party candidates broaden platforms and create discourse, they point out the weaknesses of Dems to their own base, holding the institutional parties accountable to their constituencies. In this particular instance, Gonzalez moved Newsom further to the left on many issues that he would have simply ignored.

Nader moved Kerry to the center? Ha! If he moved him to the center, then that was a significant left-ward shift. Kerry's platform was literally indistinguishable from that of Bush. Kerry's conservative positions (and that of others) has little to do with the threat of third party candidates and much more to do with Democrats consistent cowardice. Look it up--Kerry supported invading Iraq in 1998! And please, when you are going to critique something I have said, do read the whole post, and not just pick out one little thing to nit pick about. That is wasting everyone's time and