An Opportunity to Open Presidential Debates

The latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey of registered voters nationwide puts Democrat Barack Obama at 46 percent.

Republican John McCain pulls 44 percent.

Is everyone else undecided? No.

A striking six percent of Americans who are likely to vote this fall back an alternative candidate: Independent Ralph Nader.

Another three percent back Libertarian Bob Barr.

Those are some of the highest percentages in years for independent or-third-party candidates. And they matter, especially Nader's six percent.

Google and YouTube are organizing a unique presidential forum in New Orleans for September 18. It is likely to be the first debate (or debate-like "event") after the major-party nominating conventions are finished.

A candidate polling at 10 percent in national polls -- just four points ahead of where Nader is now at -- earns a place in the forum.

As Nader's campaign says: "If we get on the Google sponsored debates, we're convinced Nader/Gonzalez will move toward 20 percent.

"At twenty percent, people see a three way race."

"When people see a three way race, everything is possible."

"And we believe that in this momentous election year, everything is possible."

Frankly, the 10 percent threshold is too high.

Presidential debates should include all candidates who have qualified for a sufficient number of ballots lines to accumulate the electoral votes to be elected president.

It is not all that easy getting on ballots. And those candidates who meet the standard -- usually no more than two or three beyond the major-party contenders -- deserve a forum.

Would that put too many candidates on the stage? Don't be silly. Both Obama and McCain came from crowded fields of Democratic and Republican contenders who debated frequently -- and functionally -- prior to and during the primary season.

In other countries, such as France, presidential debates are open not merely to the two most prominent candidates but to the nominees of all parties that display a reasonable measure of national appeal. The discussions are livelier and more issue-focused, and they tend to draw the major-party candidates out -- providing insights that would otherwise be lost in the carefully-calculated joint appearances that pass for fall debates in the U.S.

The corrupt Commission on Presidential Debates -- which was set up by former chairs of the major parties and their big-media allies to limit access to the most important forums for presidential nominees -- has made mockery of the democratic process. And some, admittedly very foolish people, have actually convinced themselves that one-on-one "debates" organized by party insiders to fit the schedules of friendly television networks are meaningful.

The truth is that America needs more and better debates. And Google and YouTube have taken an important step in opening up the process by establishing the ten-percent threshold -- a standard that is significantly easier for an independent or third-party candidate to meet than the CPD's overly-strict and anti-democratic regulations. (Among rules, the commission requires a candidate who is not running with the approval of the Democratic and Republican parties to attain a 15-percent support level across five national polls.)

Will any independent or third-party candidate reach the ten percent threshold this year? Nader appears to be best positioned to do so. Despite scant media attention, he has polled in the four- to six-percent range in several different polls. Getting up to ten percent will be hard. But as Obama softens his positions on civil liberties, political reform, trade policy, presidential accountability and ending the war -- issues on which Nader has long focused -- his prospects improve.

And one does not have to be a Nader supporter to hope, for the sake of democracy, that they improve sufficiently to earn him a place in the Google/YouTube debate and other fall match-ups. And if Nader gets in, why not Barr and likely Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney?

An Obama-McCain-Nader-Barr-McKinney debate would be less crowded than most of the Democratic or Republican primary debates, and much less crowded than the debates in the last French presidential election. But it would still be sufficiently energetic and ideologically diverse to boost the quality of the presidential dialogue and give America something closer to a genuinely democratic discourse.

Comments (33)

1. Debates including all the candidates?? Come on, that would be too democratic...lol. The republican and democratic parties will do everything they can to prevent Nader from participating in debates because he is honest and not afraid to speak the truth. He has a lot of comonsense solutions for many of america's problems that would only highlight the special interests controling both democratic and republican parties.

   Posted by danconstan at 07/06/2008 @ 3:46pm

2. I have always liked Nader but never voted for him. This time I will if Obama keeps pursuing his drive to the right. He is shucking off progressives and I am ready to go.

   Posted by mansobravo at 07/06/2008 @ 4:01pm

3. Like the migration of birds, the tides of the sea, so too comes the issue of third party inclusion. First John uses the CNN poll, which is one of the few polls that has the overall nationwide opinion being close, there are many more with much larger (re: 12 and 15 point) leads, both would seem to be outliers. So when does one get sprinkled with the magic dust of not being a niche kook? 10% in one poll, 5% in all or a majority of polls? Then John throws in a dash of corrupt majority party interest and main stream media and blammo another non-issue this year.

   I would be more inclined to agree that we would need more voices in the debates if there wasn't a gap in the views between the two major parties (circa 2000, where gore and bush were very much alike it seemed). But let's humor this starry-eyed view that if only we had the educated voices of Barr and Nader would our democracy be once again whole. Did you catch the democratic debates or the republican debates, where there was little time for answers and rebuttals, where there were questions that involved raising one's hand in order to answer? Where week to week there would be a new target to pile on? Did you watch those debates?

   My standards for getting into a debate would be much higher and with good reason. There is a reason why the two major parties don't want third parties to butt in on their little game, they want to monopolize power between each other. I would totally agree with that premise, but is allowing third parties to debate the answer to this monopoly? I would say no, that would require third party movements to revolve more around an individual than a set of ideas. Rather I would like to see these parties contest more elections, try and get into city government, state government, or congressional seats, in other words have a presence in the political system other than a weak run for the white house.

   Additionally, would we want a third party president? Really. Imagine the potential gridlock as the two parties refuse to work with the indy president? But that's not the point, the point is to not get Nader elected or Barr, the point is to raise the profile of certain issues/parties. Isn't there a better, grassroots, way of doing this other than turning presidential debates into a a freak show of rodeo clowns, falling over each other to get attention.

   Posted by Tzimisce at 07/06/2008 @ 4:03pm

4. Nader has even less chance of getting into these "debates" as Kucinich had getting admitted into the primary debates. Limited.

   He might - unlikely, but might - get into Google's. If so, it's not at all a question of our having a 3rd party president, we know that's not in the cards.

   But it would be extremely beneficial to have a blunt intelligent voice on the issues, someone who's unbeholden to The Owners. They don't give Nader a dime. He owes them nothing.

   Nader would force some intelligent discussion where we might otherwise get "debate" on the level of lockboxes (remember those?) & who's better able to protect us from Osama, however dead he already is.

   Might even get to talk about truly outré issues like, watchmacallit, that Constitution stuff.

   Posted by sloper at 07/06/2008 @ 4:41pm

5. Having multiple parties works better with a parliamentary system, where it becomes necessary to form working coalitions in order to govern. Believe me, that looks better and better as this congressional term goes on. That would have made it harder for the religious right to take over the republican party, for one example. In Israel the religious right has several parties of their own.

   As for debates, I agree, I would like the system to change. I would also like the debates to become real; I would like the moderator to have less of a role, and to focus on differences in policy. When the questions become the focus rather than the answers, we learn nothing.

   This is a bad year for innovation. Maybe Nader will push Obama back to the ideas of the primaries, but maybe he would push McCain into the white house. I was taken aback in '04 that the candidates were not allowed to interact with each other. The Clinton-Obama discussions in the later debates were much more revealing than less personal earlier debates.

   Nader and Barr? Maybe. I would like to see it easier to get on ballots, which I think is more important.

   Posted by ramara at 07/06/2008 @ 4:49pm

6. I just read an interesting post on the Huffington Post on debates, and recommend it.

   Posted by ramara at 07/06/2008 @ 5:02pm

7. Thanks, John, for keeping our wan and waning hopes alive. The candidate-popularity contest is but one determinant: when it comes to "policy popularity," the majority of Americans (if not financiers or media moguls) actually DO support his policy iniatives over those of his rivals. That in itself should get the man a seat at the table. And while that 20% number sounds high, I'd be willing to guess that allowing Ralph a seat on at least initial debates would see climb to at least 10%--and would definitely result in a clamor to at least keep him on--there's something refreshing about the folks who adress the elephants in the room, whether crazy Ron Paul or Sensible Ralph. More on the same w/ additional analysis on my site at http://www.nosuppertonight.com

   Posted by nosuppert at 07/06/2008 @ 6:09pm

8. Excellent post Tzimisce. I'm far more hyperbolic about this issue and far less reasoned.

   Dream on Repukes! Nader is irrelevant. His claims that Obama is speaking "white," just reveals what century he is from. Since when is speaking in a thoughtful and intelligent manner, speaking white? Oh yeah, when corrupted old white men ruled the day.

   All I can say is that "times, they are a changing!" and the dismissive tone of white supremacy is on the way out.

   Nader is as tired as we are tired of him trashing our democratically selected candidates in his self-righteous tone of superiority.

   I'm still bitter that he takes on this "holier than thou" attitude when he is the one who enabled the defeat of Gore in 2000. He does not think of what is BEST for America. He only thinks of what is BEST for Nader.

   He is not a senator, congressman, governor, he's not had to compromise, work with two bad solutions that are only less horrid than doing nothing.

   He just runs to the press and then POOF! he has the national stage.

   This is just more mundane media manufactured manipulation for mediocre minds; much like the debates now that I think about it.

   I told you I was hyperbolic.

   Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/06/2008 @ 6:11pm

9. I like Ralph Nader, and I really like proportional representation, which would give us at least four parties rather than only three. That's four PARTIES, not just four personalities. "Tzimisce's" myriad fears about third parties would evaporate if we had Instant Runoff Voting instead of the execrable Electoral College.

   I also appreciate what John Nichols has written about the corrupt rules that the duopoly has used to preserve their exclusive privilege to debate each other. These rules (along with the media's generally supine complicity) insures that these debates frequently touch depths of mediocrity that would simply not be possible if the Democrats and Republicans tolerated any real competition, either in elections or in the electoral process.

   However, I must add that it is tactically imprudent to set a 10% threshold for participation in general debates and to hold out the not very realistic hope that Nader will soon cross this threshold. It would be better to lower this threshold to 5%, which is the threshold used in the Federal Republic of Germany in elections at the federal level. This would qualify Nader (with his 6% support) right away, so that rather than putting more pressure on poor old Ralph Nader, it would put pressure where it belongs: On the duopolists who deny us the diversity of choices that we deserve.

   It is also tactically imprudent to focus on Nader's chances to win the Presidency. Nobody really believes that Nader has a chance to be elected President, given the structure of the electoral system that we have. The most that we can hope to do by threatening to vote for Nader is to pull Barack Obama back away from the center and toward the left.

   The way to accomplish this is not by talking about Nader's popularity - which is always and will always be pretty dismal in a non-proportional electoral system. (Yes, I'm delighted that Nader's got 6%, but I can also see that Obama's edge over McCain is pretty thin.) I suggest a different set of tactics: Don't talk too much about Nader's "horserace" statistics, but DO give Nader more interviews and DO air his opinions frequently. Let Obama hear, as often as possible, that there are more "audacious" positions that he could take; Nader has PLENTY of them. Make Obama's advisors worry about how many people might consider Nader as their boss unwisely ruminates publicly about "revising" his position on Iraq - the bravest position he has ever taken. Then suggest loudly that Nader would make a great EPA chief in an Obama Administration.

   The interview with Dave Zirin (also of The Nation) is a great example of what I'd like to see more often in the REAL liberal media (and if you haven't read this interview, please do). This great piece is a reminder to all of us why Ralph Nader, with all his faults, is one of the most decent people ever to run for public office. It should shame us all that because of anti-democratic, duopolistic electoral rules, and for this reason alone, this great man is unelectable.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 07/06/2008 @ 6:36pm

10. I am grateful to "PrairieDeb," for showing us a sample of the clay of which Ralph Nader's feet are made. Nader's poorly worded remark is a reminder of why nobody should really feel threatened by his candidacy.

    Actually, the site "http://www.rockymountainnews.com/ news/ 2008/ jun/ 25/ nader-critical-of-obama-for-trying-to-talk-white/" has a good recapitulation of the controversy. A gaffe is a gaffe, but context is important. The following excerpt shows what Nader MEANT by "talking white":

    'Asked to clarify whether he thought Obama does try to "talk white," Nader said: "Of course. I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law," Nader said. "Haven't heard a thing."

    "We are obviously disappointed with these very backward-looking remarks," Obama campaign spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said.'

    I'm sorry to say that the spokesperson for the Obama campaign has taken the easy road. Rather than pay any attention at all to Nader's substantive criticism, she focused on the offending soundbite. With journalistic acuity like this, perhaps Ms. Gilson has a career at CNN in her future.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/06/2008 @ 7:01pm

11. I hope you enjoyed your game frankgrits, but I contend with you, I am not wrong.

    Nader complaining that Obama has not been talking enough about the poor is like saying that the only reason that blacks vote for Obama is because he is black. It is trying to reduce him to a simpleton, unable to approach myriad complex issues that are all interconnected.

    Also, Obama has been talking about the underserved of our society which is why he is addressing education, incentives for public service, and tax relief for the lowest spectrum taxpayers, and for healthcare.

    Anyone who still believes that Nader is about anything other than promoting Nader, is delusional in my view.

    Yes, he makes some good points, but not by working with others in a bipartisan way, by kicking dirt every which way and watching where it sticks.

    At least I admit when I'm hyperbolic.

    Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/06/2008 @ 8:41pm

12. John, you'd do more good by informing the pseudoliberal Democrats at places like Kos, TPM, etc. that Nader is NOT a Green Party candidate.

    Beyond PrairieDeb's generalities re Nader, I just offer this one additional fact:

    In the Terri Schiavo case, he was just as ready for government intervention as was Bill Frist.

    Please, true progressives, do NOT support, do NOT tout, do NOT back Nader. If McKinney gets the Green nomination, the party will have its most famous non-Nader candidate ever. Don't pee on the parade.

    Ditto to one other poster on Nader not costing Gore the election, though, Deb. Beyond Gore's own issues and the MSM, Theresa Poore also cost him the election, if you want to put it that way.

    Posted by SocraticGadfly at 07/06/2008 @ 8:55pm

13. Why is it that people want to blame Nader for Gore losing the election?

    Why don't you hear anyone saying, "Hey, it is GEORGE W. BUSH'S FAULT THAT GORE LOST THE ELECTION."

    Isn't that really the most likely cause? Occam's razor, and all?

    Come on people. Use your heads. No one is "owed" an election. You win, or you lose, or you're cheated out of it by slimy tactics like having the ballots thrown out and not counted.

    In America, we should not be vilifying people who have the nerve and the dedication to run for office, just because your candidate of choice didn't win.

    As Nader's mom might have said (according to the movie) - "I think the reason is YOU."

    Look in the mirror if you're not happy with the way the elections are run, and do something about it.

    Like pick up the phone and start dialing the executive offices of Google and You-Tube and insist they have a debate of all candidates who have qualified for ballot lines.

    Posted by babsO at 07/06/2008 @ 9:03pm

14. "Oh yeah, when corrupted old white men ruled the day."

    This is the first time in our history a non-white person is likely to become president, yet we're <i>not</i> ruled by white people? I find that hard to believe.

    I also find it hard to make sure I can use italics when the preview function doesn't seem to be working. Frown.

    Posted by Mandaliet at 07/06/2008 @ 9:12pm

15. "Dream on Repukes! Nader is irrelevant. His claims that Obama is speaking "white," just reveals what century he is from. Since when is speaking in a thoughtful and intelligent manner, speaking white? Oh yeah, when corrupted old white men ruled the day."

    Actually what he said was that Obama was speaking like any other white politician, which is correct. He (Obama) is trying to appeal to the soft middle, a largely white middle class group. It would be wonderful if he went all Malcolm X, or even something more tepid like Ralph Nader, but instead he is just sounding like the mainstream Democrats that are no different than Republicans when it comes to bowing down to corporate power.

    Posted by onthehelm at 07/06/2008 @ 9:17pm

16. Elections should be more about a candidate's position on issues that affect the average American rather than how much money can be raised or how many 30 second TV spots can be purchased. These debates reach millions of potential voters and can be used to explore in depth the issue of global warming, the Middle East and the military budget, our economy, healthcare, alternative energy programs, etc . Instead, we get a debate that is more about excluding, not offending voters and playing it safe. The Commission on Presidential Debates is corrupt to the core and is controlled by former heads of Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee. The crime is that we, the people, let them get away with it and accept that this as the way it should be. What happened to using the public airwaves for the public good and educating and informing voters? Google has an opportunity to provide a more democratic forum. What are we so afraid of?

    Posted by redwoodsforever at 07/06/2008 @ 9:28pm

17. "Since when is speaking in a thoughtful and intelligent manner, speaking white?"

    Mumia Abul Jamal agrees with Nader on Obama. How sad that people treat independents like second class citizens. If people want to support Obama and McCain that is fine, but don't hold back Indepedent candidates from giving independent voters somebody to vote for. We should have representation along with our taxation.

    Posted by IndependentVoter at 07/06/2008 @ 9:32pm

18. Not that Nader isn't a factor, but this may be a slightly bigger one:

    FLASHBACK: Ten Years Ago, Bin Laden Demanded Barrel Of Oil Should Cost $144»

    In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden -- the terrorist organizer of 9/11 who still roams free -- listed as one of his many grievances against the U.S. that Americans "have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims" by purchasing oil from Persian Gulf countries at low prices. The real price of a barrel of oil should be $144, bin Laden demanded.

    Ten years ago today, the price of a barrel of oil was just $11. Heading into this holiday weekend, the price of a barrel of oil rested at $144 -- a thirteen-fold increase.

    One month after 9/11, the New York Times wrote of possible "nightmare" scenarios that would deliver bin Laden's goal. Neela Banerjee warned that among the "misguided decisions" that would put oil supplies at risk would be "that the United States attacks Iraq." The Times included this quote in its story:

    ...

    Bin Laden didn't have to become king of Saudi Arabia to achieve his goal; in fact, Bush's policies delivered it for him. The Bush administration's catastrophic decision to invade Iraq, sink the nation into debt to pay for that war, and consequently, weaken the dollar have all caused oil prices to soar astronomically.

    Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last May, Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, reminded Congress about bin Laden's goal:

    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/05/bin-laden-144-oil/

    Uhmmmm, repub new con hsuB/cHeney petty dic'tatorship's total capitulation to OBL... McCave more or less-- more.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 10:10pm

19. Posted by Maskbeta at 07/06/2008 @ 10:52pm

    Hey, is the name in response to Freta? As in 'beta' than Freta? j/k

    In any case, that more candidates from more parties aren't running isn't the point as more candidates ran in the primaries and if one were to compress time one could see lots of elections taking place simultaneously to get down to the current two to four. And then there's the vp picks!

    Of course I'd like to see at least four strong parties and a shorter period of time.

    Ultimately, as the 'Highlander' says-- "there can be only one"...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 11:51pm

20. I had a lot of hope for the Green Party; we need a strong, quick moving disciplined anti-war party. It is unfortunately building utopia while US foreign policy murders and tortures at will.

    We don't have time, notice the rising sea levels, to spend 50 years building up one level at a time. Of course run local but the Dems brought Clinton, Gore and Jesse Jackson to stop Green Party Matt Gonzalez from becoming mayor of San Francisco; and he damn near won. So no illusions there.

    Instant Runoff Voting solves "spoiler problems" and the Dems have been blocking it for 8 years.

    We need someone who is true, doesn't cave, articulates well, and can handle MSM - that is Nader and we are lucky he is still strong enough to do it one more time.

    Nader wants Obama to win, but to do it with principled stands. His being in the debate gives a great voice to what we want, and Obama gets to move toward our positions when the polls show that Nader's positions have huge support.

    Posted by ex-green at 07/06/2008 @ 11:59pm

21. I think Nader is an egomaniac. Sorry, I'm biased. I'm more than 2happy to piss people off with my opinion. I'm still ticked. And you can ruminate about Nader's altruistic intentions until I am in my grave, it will not move me one bit. He is dismissive and clueless as to compromise and give/take scenarios.

    And as to widening the spectrum of debate participants? Our pabulum puking mindless media moguls cannot even handle the binary right/left partisans of today. To think that they would have to be more dimensional than a rock, is too much to ask.

    Have you all noticed? The MSM has been quoting the blogs and allowing our dribble to lead the story. This may in fact be a good thing.

    I'm not a hater, just don't like Nader.

    Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/07/2008 @ 12:35am

22. Someone wrote, "Maybe the "real" Nader supporters can help me out on something... how do we tell the difference between you guys and Republicans/conservatives who want to boost Nader to help defeat Obama??!?!? Some "code word" or something you would use that they wouldn't??!?!??" --------------------

    You got yer logical fallacies strapped on pretty good, doncha? Along with your Punctuation Plus Add on...

    Look. Why is it SO hard to understand that some people want to move the debate forward? To talk about the issues that the public wants to discuss, not just the issues that the 2 major parties and the Mainstream Media have decided are the topics du jour?

    When will you wake up and realize that IDEAS and DEBATE and CHOICES are not dangerous in a healthy democracy. It is the LACK of ideas, the LACK of debate, the DEARTH of choices, that is the death knell for any democracy.

    The fewer choices you have, the more power you give over to those who hold the strings of those choices.

    Just like in a free market - competition is what strengthens the marketplace. If your only choices are Coke and Pepsi - well, hell, you drink it, right? And rot your teeth and get an ulcer. What if water or tea or root beer or lemonade were OFF the table, TOO DANGEROUS to offer to you - boy, you might be just too dumb and drink too much water and drink yourself to death? I mean, really, why is everyone so afraid to have choices in our country ONLY when it comes to political candidates?

    McCain and Obama will dance for the next four months around an increasingly small number of issues, and the mainstream media will play along. Hell, it makes their jobs easier - less research, easier prep, they can go home at 6 and they know which camera angles to shoot from.

    Why not make these people earn their livings, and raise the level of the debate, and strengthen our democracy?

    Make the Pie Higher!

    Posted by babsO at 07/07/2008 @ 12:38am

23. babsO,

    You act as though Obama has it easy navigating the sound-snipe house of mirrors. This is a culture where clarity is a nebulous echo with biased voices seeking to murk up the message and define their opposition.

    Reality and truth take a back seat to rhetoric and smear. I am all for hearing the voices of the meek and disenfranchised; however Nader, with his white privilege, barking at Obama for not being black enough in his estimate, is not it.

    Retire Nader and let some people who have an idea what it is to not be heard, voice the corruptive nature of white privilege.

    Simply look at the funding of our educational system, or the % of minorities incarcerated, or the difference between convictions for crack and cocaine which are virtually the same thing.

    Obama is addressing issues of poverty, but apparently not in the way that Nader feels that he should.

    I do not feel that Nader has any high ground because as long as I've been familiar with him, he has torn down those who have been trying to navigate the system and get something beneficial done. If he knows so much about our system of government, then why hasn't he risen to the top and assisted in solving some problems? Perhaps because he would have to work with others, compromise, cross party lines, and see issues through the lens of the underserved. But no, when Nader wants attention, he just runs for president and the whole country is at his beck and call.

    I think that the only reason for him saying that Obama is talking white is to get attention, because had he not said that, no one would be listening.

    Not a hater, just don't like Nader.

    Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/07/2008 @ 02:28am

24. Posted by babsO at 07/07/2008 @ 12:38am |

    You don't think there are Republicans who want to promote Nader as much as possible to cut into Obama's numbers?!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2008 @ 08:49am

25. Nader is called a spoiler, while it is really the system that is spoiled. Under the current systme we may only choose between two corporate candidates.

    If we want Peace, Single Payer Health Care, the impeachment of the squatter in the White House or we want the creation of a W.P.A. project to build a new energy system -- we are out of luck.

    Wanting these things we are afraid to even consider Nader---fearing the election will be 'spoiled'. We must get over that fear and stand up and vote for what we want!! Be brave!! Let's try democracy.

    Posted by patsygee at 07/07/2008 @ 10:46am

26. "who debated frequently -- and functionally"

    functionally?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 11:30am

27. Deb wrote: ***** "babsO, You act as though Obama has it easy navigating the sound-snipe house of mirrors. This is a culture where clarity is a nebulous echo with biased voices seeking to murk up the message and define their opposition."***

    Deb – In what way did I "act as though Obama has it easy"? I don't think you can point to any language, or any "action" I took here on this blog, that could be so characterized.

    I agree with your assessment of a culture where the message is easily distorted. Unfortunately, I think that is just the nature of human being, to try to use whatever tactics they can to get what they want. The fact that Obama has decided to play the game the way it has always been played, doesn't mean he has it "easy" – it just means he's a player, in the sense that he's playing The Game.

    Deb wrote: ******* "Reality and truth take a back seat to rhetoric and smear. I am all for hearing the voices of the meek and disenfranchised; however Nader, with his white privilege, barking at Obama for not being black enough in his estimate, is not it. Retire Nader and let some people who have an idea what it is to not be heard, voice the corruptive nature of white privilege." ********

    Deb, I would submit to you that your comment is just as bigoted if not more so, than what you accuse Nader of… if not more so. You think that Nader's skin color defines what he is allowed to say? Hmm, that sure brings back memories of another century. Nader may not have had the experience of being oppressed by the dominant culture for his skin color – but he has certainly put himself in a position by his actions and his career, to be shunned, silenced, attacked and abused by that same white power structure. In other word – he has taken on the "white power structure" in hand-to-hand combat. I think he's earned the right to at least ask the question of Obama, as to why Obama is so silent on the same issues that Nader brings to the forefront of his platform.

    Deb wrote, ***** "Obama is addressing issues of poverty, but apparently not in the way that Nader feels that he should." ******

    Please tell me how Obama is addressing the issues of poverty. I would like to understand. Do you have specifics? Can you paste some language from his website about things he has actually accomplished in this arena?

    Deb wrote, ***** "I do not feel that Nader has any high ground because as long as I've been familiar with him, he has torn down those who have been trying to navigate the system and get something beneficial done. If he knows so much about our system of government, then why hasn't he risen to the top and assisted in solving some problems? Perhaps because he would have to work with others, compromise, cross party lines, and see issues through the lens of the underserved. But no, when Nader wants attention, he just runs for president and the whole country is at his beck and call." ******

    Deb, I get the sense from your comments that you may be unfamiliar with Nader's decades-long history as a SUCCESSFUL consumer advocate. If there were no Nader – would we have auto safety regulations? Seatbelt requirements? Crash airbags? Safe drinking water? The Freedom of Information Act?OSHA? The Environmental Protection Agency? All brought to you courtesy of Ralph Nader. Where is the list of Obama's accomplishments?

    The list of consumer watchdog groups Nader founded, the big corporations he has taken on, is so long that it would make your head spin. But you imagine that he "doesn't play well with others" because he did not "risen to the top" of the very power structure that he has been fighting his whole career – fighting for YOU, fighting to make your world safer, and government and industry MORE responsible. But all you can see is the media smear on Nader – the very media smearing you complain about when it takes just a little jab at your candidate. They've been pummeling Nader for decades and he's still standing. I think Obama can go a round or two for four months.

    And by the way - if the "whole contry is at [Nader's] beck and call" - why don't they include him in the debates?

    Posted by babsO at 07/07/2008 @ 11:39am

28. It was really great to see Ralph Nader on CNN Newsroom with Rick Sanchez last night. It was good of Sanchez to put both Nader and Barr on his program last night. The interviews were both good. He clearly took both candidates seriously. Best of all, he issued an open invitation for them to come back anytime! I'm sending Newsroom positive feedback (via the link below) and suggesting that Rick Sanchez have Nader and Barr on again--possibly to debate some issues!

    http://edition.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?92

    This is just the sort of thing that could bump Nader and Barr in the polls. Although I am a Nader supporter, I also think it is important for Barr to get exposure and support. Democrats will want Barr in the debate to "take votes from McCain." And if that happens, Republicans will **insist** on having Nader in the debate. Nader is at 6% in CNN polling, Barr is at 6% in today's Zogby poll. But as of now, they need 10% to get into the Google / YouTube debate on September 18. Go to:

    www.neworleansdebate.org

    Tell the organizers that 10% is an arbitrary threshold. 5% would be better. Better would be just being on enough ballots to have a chance at 270 electoral votes. Better would be qualifying for matching funds. Tell them to let Nader and Barr into the debate!

    Posted by Pro-Democracy at 07/07/2008 @ 3:42pm

29. It was really great to see Ralph Nader on CNN Newsroom with Rick Sanchez last night. It was good of Sanchez to put both Nader and Barr on his program last night. The interviews were both good. He clearly took both candidates seriously. Best of all, he issued an open invitation for them to come back anytime! I'm sending Newsroom positive feedback (via the link below) and suggesting that Rick Sanchez have Nader and Barr on again--possibly to debate some issues!

    http://edition.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?92

    This is just the sort of thing that could bump Nader and Barr in the polls. Although I am a Nader supporter, I also think it is important for Barr to get exposure and support. Democrats will want Barr in the debate to "take votes from McCain." And if that happens, Republicans will **insist** on having Nader in the debate. Nader is at 6% in CNN polling, Barr is at 6% in today's Zogby poll. But as of now, they need 10% to get into the Google / YouTube debate on September 18. Go to:

    www.neworleansdebate.org

    Tell the organizers that 10% is an arbitrary threshold. 5% would be better. Better would be just being on enough ballots to have a chance at 270 electoral votes. Better would be qualifying for matching funds. Tell them to let Nader and Barr into the debate!

    Posted by Pro-Democracy at 07/07/2008 @ 3:43pm

30. It was really great to see Ralph Nader on CNN Newsroom with Rick Sanchez last night. It was good of Sanchez to put both Nader and Barr on his program last night. The interviews were both good. He clearly took both candidates seriously. Best of all, he issued an open invitation for them to come back anytime! I'm sending Newsroom positive feedback (via the link below) and suggesting that Rick Sanchez have Nader and Barr on again--possibly to debate some issues!

    http://edition.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?92

    This is just the sort of thing that could bump Nader and Barr in the polls. Although I am a Nader supporter, I also think it is important for Barr to get exposure and support. Democrats will want Barr in the debate to "take votes from McCain." And if that happens, Republicans will **insist** on having Nader in the debate. Nader is at 6% in CNN polling, Barr is at 6% in today's Zogby poll. But as of now, they need 10% to get into the Google / YouTube debate on September 18. Go to:

    www.neworleansdebate.org

    Tell the organizers that 10% is an arbitrary threshold. 5% would be better. Better would be just being on enough ballots to have a chance at 270 electoral votes. Better would be qualifying for matching funds. Tell them to let Nader and Barr into the debate!

    Posted by Pro-Democracy at 07/07/2008 @ 3:43pm

31. Why won't Obama & McCain debate Ralph Nader? Write to Google and tell them you want Nader in their debates! Send letters to 1. Ginny Hunt, Google Elections Program Manager, 2. Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt.

    Google, Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 253-0000

    Posted by 24hrlib at 07/07/2008 @ 11:14pm

32. As a long-time 3rd party voter, I will admit to a very high level of cynicism regarding election outcomes; i.e., the "winners" just keep getting worse. So I will predict -- as impossible as it may be to imagine -- that either McCain or Obama will turn out to be no better (and perhaps even worse by some measures) than the criminal Current Occupant. Government will continue to expand, liberty will continue to shrink.

    Posted by marksstc at 07/08/2008 @ 1:07pm

33. 24hrLib wrote: ---Why won't Obama & McCain debate Ralph Nader? Write to Google and tell them you want Nader in their debates! Send letters to 1. Ginny Hunt, Google Elections Program Manager, 2. Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt. Google, Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 253-0000 --

    I called that number. Google refuses to connect you to either Ginny Hunt or Eric Schmidt.

    Their automated "dial in the person's name" fails for both people - says "subscriber not Found"

    When I got through to a human operator, she refused to transfer me to either person, and refused to give out her name.

    She refused to transfer me to the executive offices.

    I called back again. The next operator said she didn't have a number for the executive offices and wanted me to give my message to her. I told her the reason for my call and she continued to say she had no contact information for the CEO OF HER COMPANY.

    I said, Look, I just want to talk to his assistant or anyone in the executive offices. She finally transfered me directly into a voicemail for ericschmit. Which said the best way to contact them is via email at

    ericschmidt@google.com and pamshore@google.com

    What is Google's problem? Why so secretive and difficult to reach people? WHy did it take 15 minutes and 4 phone calls to get to a voicemail box that it sounds like no one checks anyway?

    I say, everyone, call Google at 650-253-0000 and wait through the message and then press "0" for the operator. Ask them why their CEO's office refuses to take direct calls on this issue.

    Or just send emails. Who knows if those are regular email accounts that they check, or dummy accounts that they give out to people like me who want to provide feedback. All we can do is hope they listen...

    ericschmidt@google.com and pamshore@google.com

    Posted by babsO at 07/09/2008 @ 12:54pm