This is what I've been telling people. This year is the time to vote Green Party. The only party that does not accept corporate donations. The only party with that recognizes global warming as the greatest threat to mankind. And the only party that has the most comprehensive plan for a sustainable farm-environmental-enery policy.

after all, what could go wrong?

grist.org

I might vote green, but in a 2-party system, you are only left with the choice that (1) if the 2-party outcome looks like the lessor of two evils, then (2) maybe someone somewhere will notice which 3rd parties got some votes, and it will be worth a protest.

The Democratic candidate knows that (s)he owns every vote here.

The same kind of thing is happening on the other side, as the Republican candidate knows that he owns every evangelical vote.

If you think you can live with a compromiser then Obama may be the guy.  But I've about up on discovering a real visionary among any presidential candidates.  The system just does not select for vision, at least at the national level.

For me the new luster on Obama started wearing off when I first heard him talking up coal to liquid.  I wish I could have more hope, but I think a lot of policy, no matter who the candidate is, will be limited by the rigid mechanics of keeping the gears meshed and turning in this technocratic beast. Our destiny may be set.  

I knew I was drawing a bit of a caricature, but not totally.  I might not be the isolated moderate that I sometimes imagine myself to be ..

But.  The main reason I respond is to note that last night on NPR a Republican spinner listing the reason people can't vote for Democrats.  It's because they listen to "special interests" ... a list .. blah ... blah .. "trial lawyers, environmentalists."

At that point I perk up and shake my head.  To his side, environmentalists are still bogey men.  They are a scary thing to lock in that rightist party vote.

"The Democratic candidate knows that (s)he owns every vote here.

The same kind of thing is happening on the other side, as the Republican candidate knows that he owns every evangelical vote."

That's the kind of hubris thinking that leads to candidates taking certain parts of the electorate for granted. No candidate or party owns or is entitled to anyone's vote! It's simply ridicuouls to say that the Democrats are entitled to all Black votes or environmentalist votes.

What are Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionists suppose to do? Tell us we can't participate in the democratic process?

I apologize for sorta derailing the thread though.

Obama is just bound to too many industries. Illinois is a big coal state so Obama doesn't want to offend the Big coal.

...this time he's accusing Hillary of being too "sixties", which is code for, well, stuff like, as that radical Tom Brokaw pointed out on Keith Olbermann's show, the civil rights movement, not to mention things like, gee, the anti-Vietnam war movement, and...oh yeah, the birth of the environmental, feminist, gay, etc. movements.  So I guess he's going to try to go to the right of Hillary, which is not a new direction, it's a right-wing direction.

The problem here is where the primaries are taking place.  Iowa is a big, big corn-based ethanol producer.  Nevada is a big mining state; the largest domestic source of gold, among other minerals.  Those industries provide a lot of jobs in the state, and have a lot of influence in the media.  The canidates, including Obama, know that if they are painted in Iowa as anti-ethanol or in Nevada as anti-mining, it will hurt them politically.  Obama is not as well known in Nevada; he can't afford to have many voters learn of him first as "anti-mining." In a national race, they could easily afford to upset these interests, but in a close race in these small states, they can't.  This is the problem with having our nomination battles essentially fought in four small states that in no way represent the nation.

He's going to do absolutely nothing to change things.  Nor is Hillary.  

In fact, if we absolutely have to elect a Democrat, let's go with Kucinich.  I think at least with him we could get rid of the electoral college so we wouldn't have to choose between Democrat and Republican.  We'd have some real choices.

According to my elementary schooler, the kids overwhelmingly like Obama.

According to his 22 year-old babysitter, the grown-up kids do too.

Given the all-powerful zeitgeist, I think we'd best focus on changing the positions taken by the frontrunners, rather than tilting at windmills by touting Kucinich -- or, God forbid, a third party that could again tip the balance (lest we forget, in 2000 Nader got 90,000 votes in Florida...).

I like Kucinich as much as anyone, but honestly, the country's not going to elect a guy who looks like an elf and says he's seen UFOs.

Please let's keep it real.  This election is too important.

i really liked this guy early on. i still do because of his bright mind and well trained intellect, BUT....

sadly,  can't see voting for him now since he supports the whole liquid coal idea and a couple other faux pas(s) lately. i feel stuck with no choice.
i threw away my vote on Ralph Nader last time - should have voted for Gore, but he was SOOO "Ken doll" then.....

Reading the comments about Obama's stance on the proposed mining legislation made me wonder how many people have actually read the 1872 law and amendments AND understand the very real risks and uncertainties that characterize hard rock mining. As a committed environmentalist I support reforming the 1872 law but have to give Obama credit for taking what I interpret to be a reflective position rather than one that is "politically correct" from a green point of view but basically knee-jerk.

I'd agree.  Obama isn't ever going to be the greens' candidate, but he will be the green candidate in the general election. Like everyone, I hope he drops the coal and ethanol nonsense -- but at least it's understandable.  Still, it seems that
a. he's open about his real views
b. he's thought about the issues
and
c. he'd consider changing his mind.
He needs stronger green voices on his staff, especially since he seems to really listen to people .  Is there really another viable Democratic candidate?  The fact that Obama is a listener frustrates those of us who understand green issues, since lots of the people he listens to don't.  The trick is to get our voices to be heard in his entourage.