You wrote that you “feel” Ron Paul is far more progressive than all the progressives around.

Hardly.

One can “feel” anything whether it’s the reality or not. I look at what the candidate writes and says (outside of prepared pabulum speeches) and their platform.

I’m not going to sit here and argue back and forth about Ron Paul. I don’t give a damn about Ron Paul. He does nothing for me. Just 3 examples that come to mind:

He calls abortion murder (April 2008)
Roe v Wade was harmful to the Constitution (April 2008)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Méxican border. (Sep 2006). .

That’s so-called “progressive” huh? (Rhetorical question). Sounds rather reich-wing to me.

Why would Nader join with Ron Paul when Nader already has a running mate: Matt Gonzalez.

I campaigned for Matt Gonzalez when he ran for mayor in San Francisco. I like him a lot.

None of this really matters in the end, because most people won’t have the intelligence or ability to vote for anyone other than Walk-On-Water Obama or McCain. That’s how the sheep have been programmed. D or R is all they know or can think.

OK, may be I’ve desmissed Nader too harshly, but I feel that he has not got the charisma of a Ron Paul…

“Nader/Gonzalez are the true anti-war, pro-US Constitution, pro-impeachment progressives.” If so, why doesn’t he join forces with Ron Paul who is just as anti-war, pro-US Constitution?
United they could scare the shits out of the “status quo”, divided they will be just voices in the wilderness which will suit perfectly the warmongers…
Why?… because Paul is a Libertarian Republican and does not display a “progressive” pin on his lapel? …even though, I feel, he is far more progressive than all the progressives around…

“It will be the first Democratic presidency in the internet age, …”

Obama is not a Democrat. He’s a Bush-enabling Repug when the truth be told. He just calls himself a Democrat, like most of the other “Dems” who are really Bush-enabling Repugs.

The Dem supporters will remain in their Denial. We already have 7+ years of evidence of how the so-called two parties are the same, yet it has little bearing, if any, on most of the Dem koolaid drinkers. The suckers. They refuse to see it and will not see it no matter how much it is shoved in their face. They refuse to see the reality. They will continue to make excuse after excuse and apology after apology for their useless and worthless Bush-enabling Dems, no matter what they do.

I think the disillusionment guaranteed by an Obama presidency will be a great opportunity for a real paradigm shift in politics. It will be the first Democratic presidency in the internet age, and unless Dems are still so deep in denial that they blame Obama’s positions on “fear of Fox News” (not a great statement about a politician’s integrity or courage to start with), I think it will prove to many of them just how alike the Dems and Republicans are when it comes to treating the rest of the world like our own slave plantation, toilet and all-you-can-eat buffet.

What I find pathetic is that some people criticize some candidates for running. Nader has as much right to run as anyone else. And even though I can’t stand Walk-On-Water Obama or McCain both have as much right to run as anybody else.

Ralph Nader is hardly a “has been” since he hasn’t been in congress or in any elected position. The “has beens” have unfortunately gotten re-elected one “election” cycle after the other and have made a total disaster of things.

Nader/Gonzalez are the true anti-war, pro-US Constitution, pro-impeachment progressives. If one had taken the time to look at what Nader/Gonzalez stands for one might not be writing negative comments about them.

Those who are “just too dumb” and “stupid” are frankly the partisan Dem koolaid drinkers who vote solely for a candidate because the candidate has a big D behind their name. And I don’t consider that group necessarily “left” whatsoever because they enable—vote for, send them $$$, support and make excuses and apologize for them—the scum in congress who have enabled the illegitimate Bush regime. Someone who is truly “left” or “progressive” would not do that.

As I have said before, most people won’t have the intelligence to vote for Nader/Gonzalez because all most people know is D or R party line. That D or R has been programmed in most people from an early age.

Assuming there is an “election” and assuming that Bush and Cheney leave in 2009, no matter who gets in (Obama or McCain), this nation and the world is going to lose. The Repugs will continue to control the agenda whether they are in the minority or the majority…the way they always do. And most of the Dems will, as usual, continue to eat the Repugs’ ass.

————> Nader/Gonzalez 2008, if there is an “election.”

Well, I bet Garcia would love to put his money and energies towards such a grassroots cause as RON PAUL’s REVOLUTION !

Sadly, it still baffles me that “has been” Ralph Nader ever so often emerges as a candidate of choice. PATHETIC!

No wonder that either warmonger, Obama or McCain, will grace the Oval Office in 2009 with free LICENCE to KILL , as often and for as long as they wish, because the Left is JUST TOO DUMB and STUPID and sees no further than tip of their noses…

Cynthis McKinney is another choice … but my vote logic reasoning (as discussed in comment and the article above) will go to the grassroots Peace Candidate “Ralph Nader”

Add Barbra Streisand to the list. I often would visit her website after the stolen 2000 “election,” and began to realize she was (and I suspect still is) an intense Dem koolaid drinker. Not a word of criticism about the congressional Bush-enabling Dems anywhere on her website. Only criticism of the Repugs. I would read her comments about the Repugs and say to myself: Well, what you just wrote about the Repugs can also be said about your beloved Bush-enabling Dems, but because of your partisan blinders, you’re not about to say that are you? No. I suspect things haven’t changed with her in that regard. I don’t feel like going back to her website to find out. I read on another site where she said recently she would sing for Obama. Well, of course you would Barbra, the man has a big D behind his name—that’s all that matters to you—when there should be a big R behind his name.

As for Bush’s terrorist attack on Iraq, I thought it was a given to most people at this point in time that the imperialist control of oil was the #1 reason for the attack of Iraq (remember the oil fields were protected during the attack?) and occupation and is why the PNAC Empire (under an Obama no less than under a McCain) can’t and won’t leave Iraq until the last drop of oil is extracted from the sands of Iraq.

Of course some lying scum politicians will say Iraq has nothing to do with oil but rather it’s about bringing so-called “democracy.” Yeah right. Tell that to somebody foolish enough to buy it:

Oil a factor in Iraq conflict, says Australian defence minister
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/05/australia.iraq

Anyone with two functioning gray cells (speaking of cannabis) knows that imperial control of oil is a critical factor in the invassion of Iraq and in why the Empire (under an Obama no less than under a McCain) can’t and won’t leave Iraq anytime soon.

IVAW, White Light Black Light, BAR, Naomi Klein, Counterpunch… there’s a jillion out there Jeremy.

The main problem is coming from the Left itself. To place Naomi Klein in the same sentence as CounterPunch is part of why Jeremy faces confusion. The problem is not really the Democrats or the Mainstream Media. Of course they are very powerful and have a great deal of influence. However national polls indicate that both the Democrats and the MSM have a very low trust rating.

The real problem is the lack of alternatives. The “Left” is a major source of adding to the confusion. People did get active in 2003 so therefore the people are not at fault because the Left betrayed those people who got active. The Left deliberately dismantled the anti-war movement in order to obscure question about Zionisms role in the lead up to the War on Iraq. The Left promoted the extremely dishonest “War For Oil” canard in order to misdirect the underlying reason for the War and the consequential economic problem caused from the War.

To put Naomi Klein on the same level with Alexander Cockburn is tantamount to slander upon Cockburn and obscures the role Ms. Klein is playing in obscuring and camouflage the core reasons of the War. Actually her primary reason for the War on Iraq is to advance Chicago School economics. However somehow Project For A New American Century (PNAC) escapes her. And to add irony upon irony, Milton Freedman, who is primarily associated with Chicago School economics was against the War on Iraq.

The reason why Jeremy is confused is because cannot find solidarity from the Left because he cannot find truth, justice, and adherence to principles from the Left.

I’d say the readers here don’t so much, but we’ve been sequestered by the entertainment industry to stay inside rather than go out and protest. We’ve been culled into submission, separated by large roads so that you have to be a part of the system to go anywhere. It’s crap.

If someone knows an organization fighting this type of thing, please let me know, because I’d be very interested in helping them.