Skip to main content

McKinney apparently won the DC primary with 55% of the vote - I don't have any other info about voted for other candidates.  Also - I'm reading alot of sources who seem to indicate that nader's win in CA is less about groundswell for Nader than the fact that McKinney announced late and didn't campaign there.

Not that you would know it from the MSM, but along with the Dem and Rep primaries and caucuses, third parties are also in the process of choosing a presidential nominee.  And yes, all you Nader-haters and Green haters out their can frag me, but this is post is meant to be informational rather than an endorsement of any candidate.

Note, delegates will cast ballots at the Green Party national convention in Chicago on July 12 (at the Blackstone Hotel and Chicago Theatre - home of the 1968 Dem convention, interestingly).

The race is shaping up similarly to 2004, where Nader was the 800lb gorilla, who was seeking the Green Party endorsement (not the nomination, b/c he was trying to cobble together a coalition among Reform, Independence, Green and other 3rd parties), and relatively unknown party activist David Cobb. Cobb went on to narrowly win the nomination on the 2nd ballot, running on a platform of party building at a local level as opposed to the spoiler effect of a Nader run.  Cobb was good to his word,  spending much of 2004 lending his support to events for local parties and local candidates, and all but telling people in swing states to vote for Kerry.  You may know Cobb best as the spearhead of the recount efforts in Ohio (and NM) when Kerry turned his back on the thousands of disenfranchised voters there.  Full disclosure - I was one of the few Cobb delegates from the NY delegation in 2004.

This time around Nader is only on a few ballots due to his late interest in the race, but he has stand-ins in a couple of others, who are on the ballot but have announced that their delegates will vote for Nader if he decides to seek the nomination (or endorsement).  His main opponent is the controversial but passionately anti-war and pro-impeachment six-term former democratic congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who hemmed and hawed before officially throwing her hat in the ring a few weeks ago.

Here is a list of all the states (and DC) that get more than 10 of the 836 delegates, as well as the date (if known) and the method of delegate selection.  The method of allocating delegates in complicated- based on a combination of factors: Green registration, elected green officials, and green votes in statewide and national races.

168   California   Primary   February 5th, 2008
44 Illinois Primary February 5th, 2008
44 Maine        Caucuses February 10th, 2008
40 New York Balloting April 1st, 2008
32 Massachusetts Primary February 5th, 2008
32 Pennsylvania Caucuses April 22nd, 2008
24 Michigan Selection
24 Oregon        Internal Primary
24 Wisconsin Mail Ballots February 28th, 2008
20 Connecticut State convention April 26th, 2008
16 DC       Primary February 12th, 2008
16 Florida Mail Ballots February 1st, 2008
16 Maryland State convention
12 Colorado State convention May 3rd, 2008
12 Minnesota Caucus & mail ballots March 4th, 2008
12 New Jersey State convention March 29th, 2008
12 Ohio        Online poll March 5th, 2008
12 Texas        State convention June 14th, 2008
12 Washington Mail Ballots April 1st, 2008

Full list here.

As for results, this is what I've been able to cobble together:

CA Results (168 delegates available - 20% of total, and 40% of the 836 needed to win the nomination)
Nader: 60.5%
McKinney 26.6%
Elaine Brown 4.6%
Kat Swift 3.1%
Jared Brown, Kent Mesplay & Jesse Johnson less than 2%

IL results(44 delegates available)
Cynthia McKinney 57%
Howie Hawkins (Nader Stand-in) 17%
Kent Mesplay 14%
Jared Ball 12%

AR results (8 delegates avail - Nader not on ballot)
McKinney 20.5%
Jared Ball 10.5%
Kent Mesplay 7.9%
Kat Swift 5.7%
Uncommitted 55.3%

Unofficial MA results (32 available)
Nader approx 47%
McKinney Approx 40%
Mesplay 4%
Ball 3%
Brown 3%
Swift 3%

I haven't found any Maine results yet, but they went overwhelmingly for Cobb last time around (Pat LaMarche won 11% of the vote for Gov here in 2002, and was Cobb's running mate in 2004).  The DC Statehood Green Party has a primary today.

I haven't seen any official delegate counts (and with all the state conventions for the states that do not have ballot status, it's unlikely that we ever will), but here's my math for the results above, assuming delegates break down evenly by percentage of vote with no threshold:

419 delegates required for nomination.
Ralph Nader - 117 delegates
Cynthia McKinney - 87
Kat Swift - 11
Jared Ball - 9
Elaine Brown - 8
Howie Hawkins - 7
Uncommitted - 5
Kent Mesplay - 3
Jesse Johnson - 3

Professor and Hip Hop producer Jared Ball has dropped out and not only endorsed McKinney, but has joined her campaign - he may be influencial in the DC primary today.  Elaine Brown has also dropped out - and has not endorsed anyone as far as I know, but my guess is most of her delegates go to McKinney.  Howie Hawkins is a stand-in for Nader.  Swift and Mesplay both ran in 2004, and I think they split between Cobb and Nader.

Clear as mud, right?  Looks like we won't have much idea of how things are headed until late March, unless Nader decides between now and then not to run.  My guess at this point is that McKinney will end up with the nomination, but not as easily as I would have guessed a couple of weeks ago.  Nader's support is strongest in California - he probably won't get any more big wins in big states. New York seems to be rallying around McKinney (the NY delegation was almost all Nader in 2004).

I'll do an update in a few weeks as things develop, and will try to blog from the NY convention, and hopefully from the Chicago Convention in July as well, if I get elected as a delegate again.

Originally posted to green in brooklyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:20 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for the update (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pd, calistan, esquimaux, Fawkes
  •  Look. Seriously. Cut this shit out. (21+ / 0-)

    I appreciate you trying to keep us "informed" as you work your way towards getting

    elected as a delegate again

    but you are at the wrong blogsite for this shit.

    Take it somewhere else.

    Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar. Edward R. Murrow

    by Pager on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:23:01 PM PST

  •  This site is orange. (6+ / 0-)

    Progressive Dems.  Read the FAQ.  You're not only irrelevant to this site, you're pretty irrelevant to the process too.

    "Force shites upon Reason's back." - Benjamin Franklin

    by Bob Love on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:25:38 PM PST

    •  Not progressive (4+ / 0-)

      Just democratic.

      Of course some 85% of the people here are progressive :D

      •  Well, the FAQ says progressive Democratic. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        A Siegel

        So does kos.  Maybe not progressive enough.  But trying to siphon off Dem votes to nearby greenery is at cross-purposes to this site's reason for being.

        What's an "almost liberal", btw?  

        "Force shites upon Reason's back." - Benjamin Franklin

        by Bob Love on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:33:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  almost? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          "allmost" (yes the typo is there forever).

          It just means that i would never be a liberal where i live, as the liberals here are very different (sort of right wing). So i can't be liberal.

          I just had the impression that it was democratic, because that would mean that the Bush dogs should be kicked out.

          But hey, at least it is not green.

          a virtual tip for you.

        •  No, it does not (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          norm, Libertaria

          From the FAQ mission statement:

          This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory

          "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

          by Bouwerie Boy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:04:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm probably about to get thrown off this site (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bouwerie Boy, Libertaria

            But I would contest that point based on Sen. Joe Lieberman's treatment during the primaries in '06.

            If the site wanted to ensure a Democratic victory over an agenda of the Democratic candidate, be it centrist, conservative, or liberal, then it has to support Sen. Lieberman's bid. He met the sole criteria. He was the best candidate to win, as time proved. It did not, therefore that final declaration is either false or given circumstantial latitude (given what I've seen of the man, I'm comfortably sure its the latter).

            If you cannot explain how a Ned Lamont candidacy did not ensure a Democratic win over a Joe Lieberman nomination, then you cannot hold that position.

            No arguments about behavior, the stance on the war, statements or the like are acceptable. He met the ONE criteria he was a Democrat and the one who ensured the best chance of a Democratic victory. And remember he mostly voted with the party, so you can't go there either.

            Just so you know, though, I absolutely, unequivocally do not support the man. In fact, I consider much of his foreign a threat to national security and bereft of conscience or decency.

            The Iraq war cost another $48,000 in the time it took you to read this sentence. - QT

            by kafkaesque on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:42:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've thought of that, (0+ / 0-)

              the maligning of Lieberman and yet the dkos FAQ statement; odd disconnect there.

              It's not the tragedies that kill us; it's the messes--Dorothy Parker

              by Libertaria on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:53:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well, in some respect I agree with you (0+ / 0-)

              however, if you examine how Senator Lieberman has behaved since he was returned to the Senate, one can argue that his treatment here was pretty much deserved. Of course, some political observers now believe that Senator Obama's recent victory in CT was largely due to Lamont supporters who put him over the top. If that was the case then the Lamont effort was well worth it.

              "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

              by Bouwerie Boy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:53:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  But at that point he's in independent limbo (0+ / 0-)

                and not the good Sen. Sanders kind either.

                I agree with you, he's almost gone Zell Miller since then. But, I would bet he would argue not without provocation.

                Firstly, we can't assume all that happened since, other  than absurdly hawkish votes would have happened had he not been rejected by his party. More importantly though, all of this was in the future, rendering it moot.

                The Iraq war cost another $48,000 in the time it took you to read this sentence. - QT

                by kafkaesque on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:09:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  yawn (18+ / 0-)

    "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

    by Bouwerie Boy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:27:29 PM PST

  •  I like parties (6+ / 0-)

    Even though you will always find me in the kitchen at them.  But I shan't eat my greens, Mum, and you can't make me, so :p

    Is there jelly and ice cream at this party?  I'm not coming if there's not.  Who is this Ralph Nader, anyway?  Any relation to Ralph Wiggum?  His cat's breath smells of catfood.

    Victoria Concordia Crescit.

    by TruthOfAngels on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:28:15 PM PST

  •  No tip jar? (5+ / 0-)

    Afriad of the frag pile?

    Bipartisanship: I'll kiss your elephant if you kiss my ass...

    by surfbird007 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:28:42 PM PST

  •  Do the greens (13+ / 0-)

    Have any intention of ever becoming anything other than a national joke, or is it in the plans that someday in the distant future they might try actually building a party and getting some people elected to Congress before wasting all their effort and money on Quixotic runs for the presidency?

    •  with the unitary exectuive (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that's the only branch they need to win.

    •  I'll go with national joke (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coigue, Big Tex, trashablanca, A Siegel, Fawkes

      Although there's nothing funny about Nader's ego.

    •  town council would be great (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greendem, coigue, balancedscales

      buuilding a grassroots organization would be refreshing

      To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

      by Tanya on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:33:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I used to be (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        norm, greendem, balancedscales, Tanya

        Quite sympathetic to the Greens. I like their platform and what they stand for, but this has been an ongoing joke for decades now. For crying out loud, how the hell do they ever expect to be taken seriously with these every 4th year shows of stupidity?
        They have been around plenty long enough by now to have at least a couple seats in the house, maybe a senator, but no. A mayor or two here and there a few city councilmen that's abut it. I have lost all patience with this idiotic stategy of trying to get some sort of recognition by running for president.
        How much money is spent on this farce every four years? Couldn't that money and effort be better spent in local organizing?

    •  Forget Congress (5+ / 0-)

      If they were anything other than intellectually dishonest self-promoters, they'd work on building a real and actual bottom-up campaign beginning with local politics.

      Or, maybe they'd do a better job of explaining how it makes more sense to build an entirely new party infrastructure rather than work to take control of the Democratic Party through a strong progressive coalition (but that takes too long for their instant gratification minds). Or, they’d explain why they put people with questionable ethics at the top of their tickets (have you busted a union? Nader has). Or, they’d explain how they will manage to be so politically pure without either succumbing to outside political influences while also managing to get reelected.

      To be fair, some Greenies believe in doing this, but they have little influence and are the minority within a minority. No, it'll be the self-promoting top-down approach for them again.

      Bipartisanship: I'll kiss your elephant if you kiss my ass...

      by surfbird007 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:36:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly right! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        surfbird007, dougymi

        If they were anything other than intellectually dishonest self-promoters, they'd work on building a real and actual bottom-up campaign beginning with local politics.

        You cannot stand in front of progress for your country because of your fears, you must stand behind Her in spite of them.

        by coigue on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:41:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Some additional information I'd like. (11+ / 0-)

    Specifically, how much $ has the GOP contributed to these Green Party candidates to help fund their campaigns?

    Don't trust any UID over [insert current highest number here].

    by pattyp on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:29:38 PM PST

  •  Don't listen to the naysayers (5+ / 0-)

    This is interesting stuff presented in a mostly neutral way.

    In terms of throwing the election to Republicans, I'm actually much more worried about McKinney getting the nomination than I am Nader. Nader's impact diminishes with every contest he contests.

  •  Isn't there another website for (6+ / 0-)

    people who give a fuck?

  •  Go green! Get a fuzzboard! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bouwerie Boy


    The Democratic Congress is now divided into three parts: igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary.

    by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:31:01 PM PST

  •  Thankfully the Green Party is dying out (4+ / 0-)

    It's down to 0.81% of registrants in California from a peak of 1.07% in 2003.  

  •  This is (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    surfbird007, Pd, calistan, forgore

    actually pretty interesting; thanks for the info. It's interesting in the sense of... well, not know your enemies... more like know your enemies' well-intentioned but delusional little pawns. Anyway, if Jello Biafra isn't running for the nomination this year, I don't have a horse in the race.

    I heartily endorse this event or product Obama. (I actually like your candidate too. Just not quite as much.)

    by David Jarman on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:31:20 PM PST

  •  Ignore 'em (6+ / 0-)

    Your diary, so you can write what you want as long as you aren't violating the TOS. They don't have to recommend your diary. There is nothing wrong with more voices being added to the dialogue. Kossacks should be ashamed of living in a bubble.

    Instead of saying "not welcome here" you should be responding with why you disagree with the Green party platform, why your candidates are better, and why "green in brooklyn" should consider Democratic candidates.

    Thanks for the update. I didn't even know the Greens were holding primaries.

    I have nothing to say.

    by calistan on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:31:51 PM PST

    •  I can't say I disagree much (0+ / 0-)

      with the Green Party platform (it matches my views more than the Dem platform), but it is just irrelevant (at best) or a potential spoiler (at worst) anywhere beyond the local level at this point.

      Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

      by bythesea on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:41:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm curious, why did you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      balancedscales, Tybalt

      troll rate andgarden's comment? How is that rating in keeping with the newly established rating guidelines of this community? What exactly needs to be hidden there. I'm sure many here would be very interested to know..

      "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

      by Bouwerie Boy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:55:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What the fuck? (0+ / 0-)

      The hell it isn't against the terms of service. Advocating for political parties that are not the Democratic party is against the fuckin' rules.

      Jesus, where do you people come from?

      Hillary Clinton: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory!

      by Vincenzo Giambatista on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:47:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah - who cares? (4+ / 0-)

    The Green party is just as much an enemy of the Democratic party as the Republicans. Perhaps even more so because of their insidious habit of attempting to make alliances with progressive Dems in places like San Francisco, which in the long-run is a bad strategy for our party to follow.

    And the fact you have that crank Cynthia McKinney running speaks volumes about the sad state of affairs in the Green Party.

    the shane life The story of a boy alone in New York City. God help the city.

    by Shane Hensinger on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:32:34 PM PST

  •  Greens were strong in Germany years ago (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    where there was a chance that some would get voted in..problem here is that they are going for the Presidency without getting much down the line and that is a bit strange..

    There is more to the Office of the President than Ralph Nader is capable of handling at this point..I don't think Cynthia McKinney will go very far... but I like her and her stand against the war.  She was also questioning 9/11 and asking the tough questions when no one else would..she was targeted by the Democratic Party and lost her seat which is what is happening to Dennis Kucinich at this time..

    While most people percieve Nader to have been a spoiler in 2000..well..yes..he was..He says if Al Gore was a stronger candidate it wouldn't have been that it wouldn't .. but the result was to weaken Gore enough so that he couldn't fight back in Florida where the vote was obviously questionable..

    So damn Ralph Nader and to Hell with the Greens..

  •  More advice that will be ignored ... (9+ / 0-)

    ...just as it was ignored when I was flirting with the Greens in 1998-2000 (never consummated).

    You want to be a viable alternative, a party that might actually have a chance of implementing your platform? Then stop this gigantic waste of time promoting candidates for offices they will never win and get down to the business of party-building at the precinct, district and state levels. Focus on getting elected to a few dozen municipalities where the party can prove (or disprove) that it can actually govern. Then, maybe, you'll gain an audience among progressives who aren't all that happy with the Democrats (quite a few of whom spend time at Daily Kos). Until then, nobody much gives a shit what you have to say.

    The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:37:51 PM PST

    •  Local (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades, balancedscales

      A good side-effect of running local races with good Green candidates, and not pushing a Presidential candidate, would be turning out more progressive voters who could support the Democratic nominee.

      A "spoiler-free" November like this would go a long way toward helping people move on from 2000 and start to build better coalitions in the future.

    •  reform the system (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux, Tybalt

      Don't want to see Greens or other progressives run on a national or state level?  Force the two parties who control ballot access to change the laws in more than 2 dozen states that base ballot access ONLY on votes in presidential or statewide races.  

      Local candidates can't get on the ballot in many states unless Greens get ballot access.  Until Dems get serious about IRV and reforming the draconian ballot access laws in this country, then Greens will have to live within this system that has been given them, which means running candidates for president and governor.

      •  I agree that ballot access is unfair in some ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...states, but I don't see Greens following my precinct-district-state advice in those 31 states where ballot access is not blocked in the way you cite. Nor do I see very much action at the local level in states like California where Greens have had ballot access for more than a decade.

        The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:08:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not a huge fan of their platform myself.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shane Hensinger it might be that Americans just don't respond to your platform and no amount of local organizing will do much good if people just don't want what you're pitching.

      That would involve a lot more work.

      There's something attractive about invincible ignorance... for the first 5 seconds.

      by MNPundit on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:59:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which part do you disagree with ? (0+ / 0-)

        Not trying to start an argument - just curious


        Grassroots Democracy
        Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives; no one should be subject to the will of another. Therefore we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations that expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

        Ecological Wisdom
        Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society that utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must have agricultural practices that replenish the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

        Social Justice and Equal Opportunity
        All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and heterosexism, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

        It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to our current patterns of violence at all levels, from the family and the streets, to nations and the world. We will work to demilitarize our society and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote nonviolent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

        Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system that is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

        Community Based Economics
        We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living, for all people, while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a "living wage" which reflects the real value of a person's work. Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers' rights, broad citizen participation in planning, and enhancement of our "quality of life". We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that spread out resources and control to more people through democratic participation.

        We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control, with more cooperative ways of interacting which respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the -sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

        Respect for Diversity
        We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines. We believe the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms and the preservation of biodiversity.

        Personal and Global responsibility
        We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

        Future Focus and Sustainability
        Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or "unmaking" all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counter-balance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions. Our overall goal is not merely to survive, but to share lives that are truly worth living. We believe the quality of our individual lives is enriched by the quality of all of our lives. We encourage everyone to see the dignity and intrinsic worth in all of life, and to take the time to understand and appreciate themselves, their community and the magnificent beauty of this world.

  •  A green vote is a vote for Republicans (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coigue, Bouwerie Boy

    at all levels, at all times and in all ways.

    •  That's not true on a local level. n/t (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tybalt, juancito, JeremiahFP, forgore

      Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

      by bythesea on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:42:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, it is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mia Dolan

        Green votes detract from Democratic totals, and move the Democrats to the right, as the Greens drain off votes on the left.

        If we want to have a more progressive politics, we should NEVER vote Green, but should hope that some group of right wing nuts forms a viable party on the right.

        •  Seriously? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          esquimaux, balancedscales

          There's no other way of achieving more progressive government other than letting the Right destroy itself?  
          I think there are a lot of people on DKos who are feeling burned by the strategy of pushing Democrats and having them fail them over and over.

          I don't think voting Green is any kind of viable alternative to that, but surely something is.

        •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mia Dolan, bythesea

          Where I live (Brooklyn) the Repubs don't really play a role. So when there is a really lousy Democrat running (e.g. Marty Markowitz) I consider alternatives. I did support the Green against Markowitz in 2005...and I know a number of other Dems who did as well. Of course didn't make much difference, but it is a situation where a vote for a Green does NOT help the Repubs.

          Of course those are isolated cases.

          For those who really want to move the Dems to the left, a better option is helping out groups like Progressive Majority, DFA and Wellstone Action. Those are playing a far stronger role in strengthening the left.

          •  I bet there's a lot of isolated cases like that. (0+ / 0-)

            Chicago's the same way, with Da Mayor.

            •  Could be... (0+ / 0-)

              Since 2000 I think I have only voted Green once. And it really took some effort to make the decision. In the end a bunch of us did publicly endorse the Green against Marty Markowitz and helped her out a bit. But if the Greens had stuck with Nader in 2004 I doubt any of us would have.

              It will be a long, long time before I feel comfortable considering Greens a fall back when I can't vote for the Dem. Now I am more likely to vote for a Dem that I don't like because of 2000. As a strategy it really backfired for the Greens, alienating people like me who are basically Dems but occasionally vote Green, WFP or such when we feel it appropriate. I know that has been thrashed out over and over, but it remains an obsticle for many of us. I grew up considering Nader a hero. Now I can't stomach him. I always looked at Greens with sympathy even though I have always been comfortable as a Dem. Now I feel very uncomforatble about the Greens. So I am interested in what they do in 2008. They could further alienate me or make me feel more comfortable with seeing them as an occasional alternative.

          •  I'm all for primarys in those situations (0+ / 0-)

            but whatever helps the greens hurts the Democrats

            •  Not always possible (0+ / 0-)

              Brooklyn is run by a particularly sleazy Dem machine. Its former head is now in jail and the current head should be. I find it really embarassing and disgusting. Primaries are hotly contested here, but it is really hard to beat the machine because they get tons of developer money (since there are no real Repubs to give it to).

              In a recent judicial election I all but endorsed the Republican...a very sad state, but the candidate pushed through by the machine was a known homophobe and blatantly unqualified (he had never even practiced law!). At least the Repub was qualified, though conservative. Had a Green been running I would have supported that candidate.

              Having options in the general can be good. But I agree that too often the Greens have taken a very bad strategy and that has made it very hard for me to support them except under very desperate circumstances.

              •  well, I did *once* vote for a Repubican (0+ / 0-)

                against a Democrat.  That's once, in 30 years of voting, on all levels.

                I would think the way to look at beating machines is to look at the history of how other machines were beaten - Tammany Hall, etc.  I'm not an expert on that, but it did not involve a third party, AFAIK.

              •  Working Families Party? (0+ / 0-)

                I thought that was one of the reasons for the existence of the WFP in NY. Since parties can cross endorse in NY, they can endorse Democratic nominees assuming they're best, but also serve as an outlet for votes against bad Democrats - especially in heavily Democratic districts. They've actually come close to winning a couple of city races (special elections I think). And votes on their line have added to Democratic totals in many close races.

                Did they run anyone against Markowitz? Seems like a good target -- and certainly a repug will never will that district

                Once social change begins,it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read...You cannot oppress people who are not afraid anymore.

                by terjeanderson on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:04:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                  WFP has won one big race: Letitia James for City Council and I like her. I have voted WFP, but they didn't run anyone against Markowitz. Can't remember if they went with him or not.

                  Problem with WFP is that they will only back candidates who have tons of money. That means rarely does the real grassroots candidates get their attention. They often go for the mainstream candidate simply because they have the money. That said, they can be a good dynamic in a race and I probably agree with them more often than I disagree.

          •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

            That's the route I've been taking since 2001.

            I also told the Human Rights Campaign and the Sierra Club that I wasn't going to give them money to elect moderate Republicans. And run Coors ads. (Seriously.)

        •  I would never vote Green (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          on a national or state level, but if I want to vote a Green on the city council or the school board who has a chance I will without hesitation.  I see no way in which that "weakens" the Democratic party in any real way.  Also I might vote Green if our party doesn't bother to put up a challenger to the Republican, which happens all too often.

          Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

          by bythesea on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:04:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thinking Democrats are right fro America (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      is a continuation of a 2 party dicatorship. Nothing better than a republican attitude.

  •  Eventually (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I doubt this is the way to make it happen, but I agree a radical departure from our two-party system is needed.

    The same people who are clamoring for more Democrats in office inevitably gnash their teeth when stuff like this FISA vote happens and a huge chunk of the party caves. It would make more sense to have coalitions of parties that could cooperate on issues that mattered to them, rather than being expected to conform to some huge laundry list of issues.

    But splitting Democrats while Republicans remain "congealed" is suicide. So it remains the same. I'm certainly not considering a Green vote in this climate. Nor did I in 2004.

  •  These responses are disappointing. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    green in brooklyn, ceti, esquimaux

    If you don't think this diary is interesting, don't read it. I understand that this is officially a Democratic blog, but Green party people are committed to progressive causes too, and real progressive shouldn't turn on each other like this.

  •  flame away (7+ / 0-)

    here ya go, Green haters, frag away.

    Keep in mind, tho, that I've been posting here for more than 4 years, and many here appreciate the perspective and information I bring.

    Also keep in mind that as an uncommitted delegate in 2004 who voted for David Cobb, I was instrumental in keeping Nader off the green party ballot, and therefore becoming more of a threat to Kerry.

    •  I take you at your word... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ceti, terjeanderson, esquimaux, Tybalt, forgore

      " is meant to be informational rather than an endorsement of any candidate."

      The tone in your diary seems to reflect that.  We talk about what the Republicans are doing a lot on dKos.  Greens aren't in the media all that much, so what better place to get information than directly from a Green?

      Not saying I want to see Green news every day, but I found this diary to be informative.

    •  A vote for a green is a vote for a green (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ceti, esquimaux, Tybalt

      Someone once said (weather you like this person or not) that our current two party system has just one more choice than a dictatorship.  The winner- take-all kind of voting is the only reason that the green party is seen to threaten the dems.  If we instituted instant roll-off voting, it wouldn't be a problem.

      It makes sense why people want to vote for who they think will win, but some people prefer to vote for the change they want to see, instead of holding their nose.

      I've observed the green party helping the dems in down ballot election.  The greens further progressive ideas and campaign for bringing attention to the issues, not because their 'a shoe-in' for the race.

      The green party keeps the democratic party honest by making sure they stay progressive instead of being part of the conservative slide and apathy.

      •  One way to look at it... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming

        The green party keeps the democratic party honest by making sure they stay progressive instead of being part of the conservative slide and apathy.

        Another way to look at it:

        If Greens would come home to the Democratic Party, it would be a hell of a lot easier for us to elect progressives in the first place.

        •  If more dems came home... (0+ / 0-)

          It's not the greens that are the problem.  It's the undemocratic system that pits them against each other.  This is why we need instant run-off voting.

          Many people have seen a conservative slide and apathy in the democratic party, one that never happened to the green party.  Some even insist that this is how the green party formed in the first place.  Its the stray democrats who stray into the conservative side who represent the real problem.

          •  I'm with you on IRV. (0+ / 0-)

            Also, I understand why a lot of you folks left the Democratic Party.  However, a lot has changed since then.  We're wrestling control away from the DLC and it is a lot easier (and more common) now for progressive upstarts to challenge more conservative incumbents.  Daily Kos plays a role in this.

            The Democratic Party is not perfect, but it is getting much better.  I hope you give us another look.  Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Peace.

            •  Lets end narrow vision (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              green in brooklyn

              We're all familiar with circular logic.  The classic example is "The Bible is infallible", why? "Because it says so right in it and everything in it is infallible."

              This can be applied to any institution, political or religious. So why are you a Democrat?  "Because I believe in their policies", why? "Because I'm a Democrat"

              I've talked with Democratic senior citizens who say "I was born a Democrat and I'll die a Democrat."  I don't have the heart to tell them that they were born into an entirely different Democratic party than the won that they will die in.

              It's sad to see the Daily Kos stifle progressive discussion and breakdown into name-calling simply because it could be (wrongly) interpreted to support the Green party.  Instead of being a progressive Democratic blog, it becomes an anti-non-Democratic blog.

              If an ally gives her/himself a different title, he/she should not instantly come under attack and mockery.  It should be the cause that we support, not the banner that fies over it.

    •  as a democrat (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terjeanderson, esquimaux

      i think we ought to be confident enough in our own party to be able to discuss the dynamics in other parties without freaking out. i'm more than wiling to talk about republican inside baseball, no reason to treat greens or libertarians any differently. political geekery is political geekery, after all.

      a green party pushing hard at the local level may well make the democratic party more responsive to left and liberal voters in the deep indigo districts of the country. not as confident that running in presidential elections is as productive for either green or liberal democratic purposes, but then again it's not my party, do what you will.

      i was surprised to see nader win the CA green primary, though. i had assumed he was a lot more washed up than that, but perhaps a lot of it is name recognition.

      surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

      by wu ming on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:23:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I liked this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      thank you and ignore the complainers. Reporting on the Green party is welcome to me. I come here for political news and discussion and this stayed on the side of reporting not advocacy. The MSM sure isn't going to tell me about the 3rd party candidates.

    •  I appreciated the diary (0+ / 0-)

      I hadn't heard much about what was going on in the Green nomination race, and it was great to have the update. Whether we (dKos folks) like it or not, we have to realize that the Green nomination will impact the November race -- so good to know what we're up against.

      We've got to look at serious electoral reform (IRV would be my preferred version) that allows a diversity of ideas in the race but still assures that we don't end up with right wing winners because of divided left (We face the issue here in Vermont very directly, where we have a very viable Progressive Party with seats in the legislature, control of city hall in the state's largest city, and a real base around the state. The Dems and Progs have been doing a better job recently about working together strategically -- but with IRV, both could go out and get voters excited and out to vote -- ultimately strengthening our ability to build a majority for the ideas we agree one (whatever we call them)

      Once social change begins,it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read...You cannot oppress people who are not afraid anymore.

      by terjeanderson on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:13:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a site for Democrats (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shane Hensinger, swampus

    while the Greens are mildly interesting, We are here to Elect Democrats

    We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

    by ScrewySquirrel on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:54:55 PM PST

  •  Eh... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming, Brecht, ceti, Tybalt

    Thanks for the info. Honestly, the Greens would do much, much better if they just plain moved on from Nader. Leave him to his ego and move on. He once was great but he is taking the Greens down with him. And face it, there will be no Nader revival. The Greens won't revive either unless they find a new strategy than 2000. In 2004 I respected the fact that they didn't blindly follow Nader, but it shouldn't even be a question anymore. Nader failed in the end...and hurt the left in the process. And alienated many leftists from being sympathetic to the Greens. I assume the Greens don't want to go down that path again. It took 5 years after 2000 for me to even consider voting Green under ANY circumstances. And I still feel a strong, viceral reluctance. I felt more able to vote Green when there was no acceptable Dem choice after 2004.

    The Greens have a role to play on the local level. If done carefully they can be a good influence. But not if they follow Nader's lead.

    •  Nader's definitely gotten lost in his ego (0+ / 0-)

      but do you really think he's a GOP whore?

      Sorry to follow you here, but you didn't explain your uprate there, and after that commenter ignored my fact-based arguments and insulted me half a dozen ways, including for "flat-out Nazism", I'd just as soon have the whole thread hidden.

      "Problems can't be solved by the same level of thinking that created them" Einstein

      by Brecht on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:18:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

        At times one wonders. He did take money from Republicans and he did, wittingly or not, help them. His own arguement seemed to be better to bring down the Dems and let us suffer the worst rather than compromise. I admit this is my take on it, but...

        As to that specific comment, I looked at other comments by that person and overall thought he/she was not a troll. Now I didn't see the "Nazism" accusation, so that could change my opinion.

        •  I was - at first - all for Nader in 2000 (0+ / 0-)

          I think lobbyists have bought and sold our govt. for too long, and was pleased to see him standing up for Democracy. When he chose, late in the campaign, to forget building the Green base by campaigning in states where the Green party was growing, and to go instead to the states he had the best chance of spoiling for the Democrats, I lost all respect for him.

          I think there is an argument to be made that Nader is so self-righteous that he has let the GOP use him without even realizing he's a tool; I just don't think commenting 'Nader is a GOP whore' half a dozen times in a pro-Nader diary is a valid way to do that. When I asked the commenter to back up his point, he brought nothing, just devolved immediately into insulting me personally.

          The thread I linked to is only 6 comments long - please look at it and reconsider whether it adds anything to the conversation or should just be hidden. And thanks just for looking, and deciding for yourself.

          "Problems can't be solved by the same level of thinking that created them" Einstein

          by Brecht on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:31:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I think I probably agree with the guy but don't like how he says it. I guess I maintain sufficient resentment for Nader that I understand where he is coming from.

            Now that I see the Nazism comment, I am keeping my original uprating, because I didn't think "Nader is a GOP whore" was worth a troll rating, but I have now troll rated the Nazism comment because THAT is pretty over the top. How's that?

            •  Your entire comment makes sense, I agree (0+ / 0-)

              I went back to that diary, and read all that that commenter had said. No, he's not a troll, he made several sensible points. But whenever someone disagreed with him, he started slipping personal insults in.

              A very common malady here on DKos, alas. And I am not immune, I just try to watch myself on it.

              "Problems can't be solved by the same level of thinking that created them" Einstein

              by Brecht on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:26:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Its not about the candidate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      When greens run, they want their voice heard, they want policy change and a movement at the grass roots level.    It's not about the vote, its about a discussion.  People need to get away from an 'us' versus the world mentality.  If elections are done fairly and democratically the greens can only help the democrats.  With instant run-off voting the voters rank who they want to have the position and they count as first vote, second vote and so on.

      When people say greens will never have a chance, I hear "democracy will never have a chance."

      •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

        I disagree on several levels. But perhaps if the role of the Greens had been different in the 21st century I would feel differently. I am wary of them, to put it mildly. I have seen instant runoff voting work in the context of a local Demoratic club...and that makes me open to it. But I have to say that the green's support of it makes me wary of it as well.

        As to democracy and the Greens, in most contexts the Greens don't really get that many votes. Again, in local contexts they can, but not nationally. Hard to see how they will be big winners no matter how strong our democracy is.

  •  GREEN: Getting Republicans Elected Every November (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    qwerty, mole333, The Other Steve


  •  So today, you are proud of the Democrats? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    They are the hypocritical face of the same pro-war, anti-civil liberties, and status quo establishment that most of us decry over here.

    How many years of betrayals can people take? It's amazing that people pledge their loyalty to a party that does not respect them.

    Plus the calls for censorship, when other diaries are covering the Republican primaries shows more the fear and hatred of the Greens here than anything else. At least the Greens know where they stand. The Democrats, what do they really stand for and why are so many of them cowardly and craven in face of the Republicans? That's the question you should ask those people who voted today to give the telecoms immunity, not the Greens who have every right in this democracy to organize and represent so many who feel disenfranchised.

    I'm mad as Gravel, and I'm not going to take it anymore!

    by ceti on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:15:15 PM PST

    •  Erase party affiliation from your mind (0+ / 0-)

      To me, its about a conversation, change and policy.  It's not about sides, affiliation or titles.  

    •  "democrats" aren't one solid thing (0+ / 0-)

      greens have the right to organize.

      whether automatically running a national candidate in every election cycle is a good idea, is a real and legitimate political question.

      it is not the same as supressing the right to do so, or advocating supression of ballot access fro small parties, which is undemocratic with a small "d".

      probably a Nader candidacy could be putatively exploited by Republicans.

      I don't think it will matter because people understand that there is a real difference this year.
      (the left usually shoots itself in the foot when it tries to tell people stuff that they know isn't true... sigh)

      "Una ley inmoral, nadie tiene que cumplirla" --Oscar Romero

      by juancito on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:43:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think green-haters simply don't understand (0+ / 0-)

        In a democratic election, smaller parties will not hurt the Democrats. The first choice on the run-off ballot would be Green, if it is last for first choice, its thrown out and their vote turn towards their second choice, Democrat.

        The mockery on this thread is the same mockery Republicans use.  We need to get away from this kind of thinking.  Winner-take-all is undemocratic, shutting people out is undemocratic and un-Democratic.

        Who can argue with me when I say that the European parliamentary system that allows many parties and coalitions is more democratic?

  •  Green Party is active in Illinois (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In Illinois, the Green Party is an active (legitimate) 3rd party. In the 2006, govenor's election they got around 12% of the vote so they became a legitimate party. On Feb. 5th, Illinois had their first Green party primary for presidency on the ballot. They were alot of confusion because the poll workers were not aware that a Green Party ballot was an option. Alot of precincts only had democratic and republican ballots. I saw an interview with Nader awhile back and he explained the importance of 3rd parties. 3rd parties allow issues to be brought to the political discourse that the 2 party system ignore. The Green Party has been promoting fighting global warming long before the democratic or republican party took notice. One more thing, I hope McKinney beats Nader for the nomination. My neighbor is a Ron Paul supporter and plans on voting for her if she wins. And no my neighbor is not taking away democratic votes. If McKinney was not running, he would stay home and not vote. He would never vote for Obama, Clinton or McCain. He did tell me that he would have voted for Edwards if he got the democratic nomination though. I have alot of Green Party friends who liked Edwards but now plan on voting for McKinney in November. Personally, I can't wait to see how much of a percentage the Green Party moves up here in Illinois.

  •  imagine, three brokered conventions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    this may be an election for the ages.

    surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

    by wu ming on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:15:29 PM PST

  •  This isn't a Green web community (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shane Hensinger

    I suspect there are many web communities out there who would be more than happy to host your discussion.

    Seek and ye shall find.

    •  Why not let people who are interested in... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...the Greens be part of the discussion here, too? This diary is a hell of a lot better and has more content than a lot of things I've seen posted here.

      It would not do the Democrats any harm if a Green competitor helped push Daley out of Chicago, or at least forced his hand a little bit. There's no reason why cross-party alliances between Dems and Greens couldn't be as important to our issues and causes as our choice of Dem nominees. There's plenty of local Dems who get away with murder (literally!) because people don't have a viable alternative, and won't turn to the Republicans.

      •  There's no reason to believe (0+ / 0-)

        That Greens won't do anything but help get Republicans elected.

        The one Green city council member they had up here was arrested for taking bribes from building developers.  Hardly the kind of group I want more of.

  •  why would the greens pick Nader (0+ / 0-)

    when he doesn't seem to do anything to build either the Green Party --some of whose local candidates I have supported-- or independent politics at the local level?

    or am I wrong and he is devoted to building the Green Party as a source for independent politics?

    thanks for your informative diary.

    I know at least one paid-up GP member who actively caucused for and supports Obama.

    I believe that the Greens running a national candidate this year is an error for a variety of reasons -- including that it continues a trend that is self-isolating and undermines the alliances necessary for independent progressive politics to work at a local level.

    But I have no eternal emotional attachment to the Party of Senator Eastland and Senator Bilbo of Mississippi, either:

    A historical footnote:  

    "I call on every red-blooded white man to use any means to keep the niggers away from the polls"

    Senator Theodore Bilbo, Democrat, 1946

    "Una ley inmoral, nadie tiene que cumplirla" --Oscar Romero

    by juancito on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:36:19 PM PST

  •  Hey, After Your Convention (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shane Hensinger

    Are you going to have a fantasy inauguration, then you can have a fantasy Presidency, Ralph can get a fleet of little submarines that he can play with in his bathtub and he can pretend to declare war on other countries, he can just have all kinds of fun!

  •  I care about this and praise Greens (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    Shane Hensinger

    They will get my vote if Hillary is the nominee.

  •  I'm waiting for someone (0+ / 0-)

    to write a diary about the Libertarian Party presidential race update ;-)

    It's not the tragedies that kill us; it's the messes--Dorothy Parker

    by Libertaria on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:46:43 PM PST

  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)


    It's not the tragedies that kill us; it's the messes--Dorothy Parker

    by Libertaria on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:56:46 PM PST

  •  I Voted Green Once.... (0+ / 0-)

    On principle.  The 2006 Massachusetts governor's race was ugly, with Deval Patrick and Kerry Healey sniping at each other throughout the primary in both debates and in the press.  The Green-Rainbow candidate, Grace Ross, was the only one to stay out of the food fight.

    She was smart, focused, and stayed above the fray and I admired her for that.  So I voted for her.  Honesty and perspective go a long way in my book.

    I agree with the other posters here though that trotting out Green candidates at the last minute for the presidency is simply a waste of time and resources.  I wish the party the best, but you don't get to the big leagues unless you've paid your dues in the minor leagues.

    I simply can re-live what happened in 2000 with Nader in Florida....not again.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site