That would be funny if it weren't for Salon's continued tub-thumping for Hillary.

Is Ralph Nader's running mate.

Ralph won't be a spoiler, his "base" has signed on for Obama, along with the rest of the country that doesn't watch Hee Haw reruns.

Good on you Joan, you got it read into the record, not that it had anything whatsoever to do with the ostensible subject of this post (and not that it is anything more than a politically motivated, dishonest, record-distorting screed- that it is too much so for the Clintons to dare go there sure says something. In fact, given your track record in this area, I for one am surprised you didn't commission it).

In any case, as I've said before, when this is said and done, and despite numerous instances where I've objected strenuously to their underhanded tactics, I will feel sorry Hillary Clinton and her supporters if she does not gain the nomination. There will be but few exceptions for that, notably for those whose advocacy hurled them and their publications overboard to deception.

Saying that they just siphon votes is implicitly buying into a two party system. We need more choice.

If nader runs with republican funding, then the dems can fund libertarians. or Ron Paul. There are better options than removing choice.

... about amending the constitution until the pain of the current law stirs widespread action. mike gravel's 'initiative for democracy' is the carrot, maybe nader's campaign will provide a bit of stick.

i doubt it. democracy is never popular among people who can change things easily because their position is dependent on things staying as they are. so joan walsh is upset if someone threatens the ascendancy of 'her' candidate, but is quite uninterested in establishing actual democracy.

unfortunately, neither are the vast majority of americans who should be interested in democracy. like sheep in a field,they turn grass into fleece collected annually, and line up to be counted bi-annually as to whether tweedledum pastoral corporation should run the station, or tweedledee's.

I am disappointed and certainly disagree. WHAT is it that bothers liberal/progressives about choice? The common fall back, as Walsh dredged up, is that third parties can't compete adequately against the entrenched system. Well. if we really believed in a fully functional democracy, should we not work to EXPAND choice rather than contract it with the spurious appeal to realpolitik?

Geez. Yeah, the Republicans are bad guys, but what have the Democrats proven to be except enablers?

Salon needs a local San Fran news section.

Third party from the left is just lame. I understand the Dems have almost become the centrist party but they have too much baggage to do it.

I centrist third party would steal form both sides and allow both the left and the right to be more extreme.

Also you could compromise with either side to get require majorities. But a farther left party is really just a protest party against left.

Of course the two party system is only slightly better then the one party system.... oh well.

If the Nader voters haven't learned their lesson from the 2000 election, then frankly there's no hope for this country.

Thanks for this piece, Joan. In particular, thanks for the link to your earlier piece about Gonzalez which pretty much confirmed everything I suspected about him. I always thought it was telling that this impassioned person of the people did not run for mayor of SF again when he had the chance. Nor has he run for any other office. He's been conspicuously quiet, until now. Gonzalez seems to have a great capacity for pontificating, but little for actually leading or governing. This quality makes him a perfect running mate for Ralph Nader. It truly is a marriage of two pompous cyphers.

Frankly, I wouldn't worry about Nader taking votes away from the Democratic presidential nominee. I predict he'll have an even poorer showing now than he did 4 years ago.

But I didn't hear Dems bitching when Perot siphoned off votes from Bush.

I'm in basic agreement with Nader and Gonzales on pretty much everything - At least their rhetoric sounds really, really good to me. But have they become prisoners to their own message, masters of beat-a-dead-horse polemics? Um... Well, one does have to be fairly narcissistic to go into politics in the first place, but what would they do if they actually won?

The problems facing the planet now are so huge that it's going to have to take something that can rise above left/right dichotomy.

It gives me a little hope that this time around people are waking up and smelling the coffee.

*double sigh*

Actually I'm still hoping for a neocon/evangelical 4rth party candidate in 2008. Even have some candidates who might just do it.

Actually I voted for Nader twice in the general but that's because I live in texas and it counts the same as a democratic vote. He's welcome to run here or any other state that in recent history has gone more than 60% red state in the general election. Maybe that will soothe his ego enough that he will stay off the ballot where it really matters. (I'm talking to you, Florida!)

"I'm scared that Nader will take votes from Hilldog, who I still consider my champion. He must be smeared and marginalized at all costs."

Looks like Ron Paul isn't as crazy as they say. Only a crazy person would want to be known as "the guy that got Hillary elected", so he said no 3rd party run. But for Nader to further known as "the guy that spoiled it for Hillary", that's pure genius.

Ron Paul 3rd party run doesn't seem so bad now does it, eh Dems? Lolz.

And he has some pretty good critiques of Obama. His political views probably match my own more than any of the major candidates. But at the end of the day, this election is too important to waste votes "challenging" the 2 party system.

If Nader and Gonzalez were serious about changing America they would do what Bernake (sp?) and Lieberman have done - they would run as independents for Congress. They would take the time to actually build a 3rd party.

The one quibble I have with Gonzalez is on CAFA. As a law student who studied it, I just think its patently unfair to make defendants defend 20 different class actions suits about the same behavior across 20 or so states. And the way jurisdiction rules work plaintiffs could pick and choose the "best" courts and laws to attack defendants. I think Obama is right on that one. Its not his fault the Federal judiciary is packed with conservative judges who may be hostile to class actions, democrats need to win some damn presidential elections!