McKinney is clearly a superior person to Obama. A President McKinney would get the US military out of the the Middle East on day one.

But there will be no President McKinney, Nader, Brown or Barr. There will only be a President Obama, or a President McCain – or if old age hits Senator John – a president Palin.

John McCain bombed the citizens of Hanoi, was set in 1962 to do the same to Cuba. Now he wants to Bomb Bomb Iran. He regards Venezuela as a dictatorship, Saudi Arabia as a democracy – because the latter does as it is told.

Obama will unfortunately keep US troops in the wars already begun, but even is likely to wind them back. He will use his legal advice and mediation skills to settle other difficult areas. Whereas John McCain would use his killing skills.

If you live in Elephant states like Texas, Utah, or Alabama, by all means vote with your heart. Similarly if you live in the donkey states of California, Illinois, or New York do likewise. When you vote for your congress men and women do likewise ( if you are able to ) This would tell the Conservatives within the Democrats how you really think.
However, when it comes to the vote for Presidency, if you live in one of the more marginal ” battleground ” states, for the sake of the country and the planet please vote for Senator Barack Obama!

My strong impression over the last several months is that the clear distinction between the Nader/Gonzalez campaign and the McKinney/Clemente campaign (besides one campaign having a compelling, well-designed, easy to use website and the other campaign having a complete disaster for a website) is the emphasis on completely different issues. In terms of what the candidates talk about in depth, the two campaigns may as well be campaigning on different planets. Who talks about corporate crime and campaign finance reform, and who talks about post-Katrina New Orleans and the militarization of Africa?

Also, McKinney’s campaign has significantly more appeal, from what I can see on the ground, to the radical segment of the African-American community. She has been somewhat successful at not only drawing those people into the Green Party, but increasing their numbers among GP candidates. This is a group that, as a whole, has never been attracted to Ralph Nader. I may be alone in thinking this, but I don’t see a whole lot of McKinney votes going to Nader were he not on the ballot in a given state.

This is a superficial analysis and I agree with the person who said that there should be more discussion of the essential differences between McKinney and Nader instead of lumping them together as twin candidates all the time.

I am also frustrated by the fact that the media only focuses on two parties, the Democrats, and the Republicans. There are six different parties on the ballot where I live as well as a write in option.

Nader has already stated that the Greens are too disorganized.
I think Rosa Clemente did a great job on Democracy Now presenting distinctions between her ticket and Nader/Gonzalez.

Unfortunately many writers (including Dr. Petras) still frame Nader and McKinney as though they are running as a sole ticket without any distinctions.