Gaborok, to pass an impeachment resolution, or specific articles in it, all it takes is a simple majority in the House. The Democrats have had a majority in the House for two years now and there were maybe a few Republicans (like Ron Paul) who would have supported impeachment proceedings too.

Bottom line: If the Democrats sincerely wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney, it would have already happened by now. Ergo, they have no interest.

Yeah, I get tired of hearing that statement from Obama fans or Democrats, when they have little idea how to define "good" and "perfect" and are simply repeating something they heard somewhere and it sounded like a good argument against Nader. For them, the Democratic party line and their candidate's positions become the best that's possible, and anyone asking for more is labeled as "perfect" and an enemy. Their definition of progressive is "whatever Democratic Party says or does."

(and I wish he hadn't spoiled Gore in 2000 but that's another whole argument)
======
There you go again, spreading misinformation.

It's really simple - first of all, Gore did not lose - the election was decided by the Supreme Court.

Second, if Gore lost, he lost because of his own faults and because of his party's poor tactics, and underestimating Bush, not because of Nader.

He failed to even carry his home state Tennessee as well as Clinton's state Arkansas. A win in either would have placed Gore in the WH.

We live in a democracy where people are free to contest elections and convince voters to vote for them - it's not an entitlement for Gore or anyone else. Sometimes, Ross Perot gets in the race and helps Clinton get elected, and sometimes Bob Barr gets in the race and helps Obama win Indiana and North Carolina. That's just the way it is and it's no reason to restrict other third-party candidates because they helped Clinton and Obama win, and neither does it make anyone a "spoiler." If anyone deserves that term, it's the two major parties that have spoiled our electoral process.

If the two major parties are concerned about third-party candidates influencing the outcome, they can easily implement Instant Runoff Voting. It's eight years since 2000 - why haven't the Democrats called for IRV?

Also, if third parties do influence the outcome, then there's no reason to keep them out of debate. It's that simple.

DON'T LET PERFECTION BE THE ENEMY OF GOOD.

===

usstudnmi, could you please take a look at Nader's issues page and let me know which one of his positions you consider as "perfect" and thus impossible to attain?

"Don't let mediocrity be the enemy of the possible."

And Kucinich was barred from a debate during the Democratic Primaries too (as was Ron Paul from Republican Primaries), and his other three co-party candidates - Edwards, Obama and Clinton - who were in the debate, didn't say a word of protest. Even though Edwards was the only one who had been making some perfunctory noise about abuse of corporate power, yet when an opportunity arose that demonstrated that abuse of power by corporations to shut out a candidate, Edwards remained quiet when he should have been protesting loudly at the exclusion of Kucinich as it validated his words.

By the way, do you realize how deep and how wide the lie that "Nader cost Gore the election in 2000" has been spread? And that lie forms the starting point and foundation of all political analysis whenever Presidential race is talked about or Nader's name is mentioned in the mainstream media, some alternative media as well general public, with no desire to examine this "truth" that is casually handed around. I can give you countless examples, be it editorials, columnists, TV anchors, cartoonists, and many of my educated, progressive friends. It's shocking that so many people so easily latch on to a scapegoat instead of some introspection of the Democratic Party and Gore's failings in 2000, or making an attempt to look at the facts first and doing some independent analysis instead of being spoon-fed.

I don't know if you have read the book "No Debate" by George Farah, but if you haven't, maybe you should check it out and you'll find out why Nader and other third-party candidates are excluded from the Presidential debates.
====

Sidenote: Is there a bug in IntenseDebate? This has happened to me before - I am logged in and when I try to submit a comment, I get the error message that "Oops, you need to write a comment first before submitting it." when I've already written a comment. I've logged out and logged in and still get the same error message. Any ideas on what's happening? Thanks.

That is a good idea. I did write an email to CPD this year and never got a response (as well as to Google Debates which were canceled), and will continue to do the same. There's also Open Debates.

The other option is to support and strengthen Free and Equal and pressure the two major party candidates to participate in debates conducted in future by F&E - which I hope they will continue to hold. It was a positive step that the third-party debates were held - I wish Cynthia McKinney had attended them too. It's important for all the different third parties on the left and right to continue working together on those issues where they are in agreement with each other.

Amirflesher,

When it comes to issues like the Iraq war authorization, or where unambiguous abrogation of US Constitution is involved, I'll take the moral certitude of elected representatives like Feingold, Ron Paul and Kucinich et al (who voted against the war) any day with my eyes closed over the so-called nuanced position of rest all who voted to authorize it. Sorry, there's no compromise when it comes to issues like these, and if you have a different opinion, then we must agree to disagree.

I do understand where you're coming from though, and I'm quite familiar with TNH's philosophy myself. TNH would probably not approve of anyone lying either (that's one of the basic tenets of Buddhism), and if you go to factcheck.org, you can find lots of outlandish claims and lies by Obama's campaign as well as McCain's campaign, the difference being maybe of degree. So I doubt that Obama would be any better if you started applying TNH's criteria and words to him and other politicians, and Nader would actually come out ahead as he is honest and principled. :-)

I've seen my friends discuss issues like Iraq war, domestic spying, torture etc. and hold very strong and initially uncompromising positions on them, but as soon as Obama was nominated, they started to adjust their positions on these issues according to what Obama's positions were, and started putting them on the back-burner. So it seems to me that it does come down to voting for whoever wins the Democratic party nomination (lesser of the two evils) and not so much about the issues, though they are loath to admit this truth and get all flustered when challenged.

What we come back to is that the democratic system in the US needs to be repaired (IRV, open debates, no gerrymandering) and I will support anyone who is calling for that, because supporting those who don't even talk about the problem though they are aware of it will not solve the problem. Sadly, the Democratic Party fails that simple test, in spite of its name. So I hope you and other Obama supporters can put some pressure on him to bring about some change in those areas while others continue to work from the outside or support Green Party and Nader.

shalom to you too.

Thank you, Nader, Gonzalez, volunteers and campaign staff, for being courageous and taking a stand. Your actions inspire me, and I'm sure countless others. So a big thank you to all of you!!

But that is moot if Obama was born in the US. He becomes a US citizen merely because of that fact, irrespective of the status of either of his parents.

As for Israel-Palestine issue, what's the amount of taxpayer money that goes into aid to Israel and other countries in the region? And why shouldn't we be discussing it and promoting peace efforts, if success of such peace efforts results in a huge saving to American taxpayers?