Friday, March 7, 2008

Gaza Under Siege

Guest Perspective/Ralph Nader

The world’s largest prison—Gaza prison with 1.5 million inmates, many of them starving, sick and penniless—is receiving more sympathy and protest by Israeli citizens, of widely impressive backgrounds, than is reported in the U.S. press.

In contrast, the humanitarian crisis brought about by Israeli government blockades that prevent food, medicine, fuel and other necessities from coming into this tiny enclave through international relief organizations is received with predictable silence or callousness by members of Congress, including John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The contrast invites more public attention and discussion.

Israel has militarily occupied Gaza for forty years. It pulled out its colonials in 2005 but maintained an iron grip on the area—controlling all access, including its airspace and territorial waters. Its F-16s and helicopter gunships regularly shred more and more of the areas’ public works, its neighborhoods and inflict collective punishment on civilians in violation of Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

As the International Red Cross declares, citing treaties establishing international humanitarian law, “Neither the civilian population as a whole nor individual civilians may be attacked.”

According to The Nation magazine, the great Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, reports that the primitive rockets from Gaza, have taken thirteen Israeli lives in the past four years, while Israeli forces have killed more than 1000 Palestinians in the occupied territories in the past two years alone. Almost half of them were civilians, including some 200 children.

The Israeli government is barring most of the trucks from entering Gaza to feed the nearly one million Palestinians depending on international relief, from groups such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). The loss of life from crumbling health care facilities, disastrous electricity cutoffs, gross malnutrition and contaminated drinking water from broken public water systems does not get totaled. These are the children and their civilian adult relatives who expire in a silent violence of suffering that 98 percent of Congress avoids mentioning while extending billions of taxpayer dollars to Israel annually.

UNRWA says “we are seeing evidence of the stunting of children, their growth is slowing…” Cancer patients are deprived of their chemotherapy, kidney patients are cut off from dialysis treatments and premature babies cannot receive blood-clotting medications, reports Professor Saree Makdisi in the February 2, 2008 issue of The Nation.

The misery, mortality and morbidity worsens day by day. Here is how the commissioner-general of UNRWA sums it up—“Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution, with the knowledge, acquiescence and-some would say-encouragement of the international community.”

Amidst the swirl of hard-liners on both sides and in both Democratic and Republican parties, consider the latest poll (February 27, 2008) of Israelis in the highly respected newspaper—Haaretz: “Sixty-four percent of Israelis say the government must hold direct talks with the Hamas government in Gaza toward a cease-fire and the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit. Less that one-third (28 percent) still opposes such talks. An increasing number of public figures, including senior officers in the Israeli Defense Forces’ reserves have expressed similar positions on talks with Hamas.”

Hamas, which was created with the support of Israel and the U.S. government years ago to counter the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), has repeatedly offered cease-fire proposals.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

There, somebody finally said it

Taegan Goddard actually did: ["Clinton's Path to Victory is Through the Smoke-Filled Room"].

Howard Fineman has a bit here:



Both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich won their primaries yesterday meaning their dreams of the presidency did not keep them from their day jobs.

CBS News has the delegates this way:

Obama 1,512
Clinton 1,423
Edwards 26

Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Texas results

I'm amazed that thousands of people are still voting for John Edwards even though he dropped out a month ago.

State-by-State Votes
03/04/08 Presidential Primary / Caucus
March 05, 2008 - 07:13AM ET(i) = incumbent
= winner
= runoff
Ohio

President - Dem Primary
11194 of 11238 Precincts Reporting - 99%

NamePartyVotesVote %
Clinton, HillaryDem1,203,92454%

Obama, BarackDem976,36844%

Edwards, JohnDem37,8822%
President - Delegate-at-Large - GOP Primary
11194 of 11238 Precincts Reporting - 99%

NamePartyVotesVote %
McCain, JohnGOP632,57560%

Huckabee, MikeGOP323,07431%

Paul, RonGOP48,7425%

Romney, MittGOP34,8103%

Thompson, FredGOP16,3422%
Rhode Island

President - Dem Primary
176 of 179 Precincts Reporting - 98%

NamePartyVotesVote %
Clinton, HillaryDem106,47158%

Obama, BarackDem73,60940%

Edwards, JohnDem1,1121%

UncommittedDem1,0121%
President - GOP Primary
176 of 179 Precincts Reporting - 98%

NamePartyVotesVote %
McCain, JohnGOP17,34265%

Huckabee, MikeGOP5,76622%

Paul, RonGOP1,7617%

Romney, MittGOP1,1734%

UncommittedGOP5652%

Keyes, AlanGOP1140%

Cort, HughGOP240%
Texas

President - Dem Primary
8231 of 8247 Precincts Reporting - 99%

NamePartyVotesVote %
Clinton, HillaryDem1,452,77651%

Obama, BarackDem1,354,55347%

Edwards, JohnDem29,8041%

Richardson, BillDem10,6670%

Biden, JoeDem5,2960%

Dodd, ChrisDem3,7170%
President - Dem Caucus
2947 of 8247 Precincts Reporting - 36%

NamePartyVotesVote %

Obama, BarackDem20,20952%

Clinton, HillaryDem18,68948%

UncommittedDem320%

OtherDem40%
President - GOP Primary
7959 of 7959 Precincts Reporting - 100%

NamePartyVotesVote %
McCain, JohnGOP707,62251%

Huckabee, MikeGOP521,95138%

Paul, RonGOP69,8245%

Romney, MittGOP27,5792%

UncommittedGOP17,6111%

Thompson, FredGOP11,7861%

Keyes, AlanGOP8,5711%

Hunter, DuncanGOP8,2541%

Giuliani, RudyGOP6,1690%

Cort, HughGOP9180%

Tran, HoaGOP6230%
Vermont

President - Dem Primary
224 of 260 Precincts Reporting - 86%

NamePartyVotesVote %
Obama, BarackDem82,49860%

Clinton, HillaryDem52,83938%

Edwards, JohnDem1,6961%

Kucinich, DennisDem9101%
President - GOP Primary
224 of 260 Precincts Reporting - 86%

NamePartyVotesVote %
McCain, JohnGOP25,07072%

Huckabee, MikeGOP4,86714%

Paul, RonGOP2,3327%

Romney, MittGOP1,5725%

Giuliani, RudyGOP8172%

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

McCain clinches GOP nod; Dems not so clear

John McCain clinched the Republican nomination tonight. Mike Huckabee conceded and told him he would give him his total support.
Over on the Dem side, it's a free-for-all. Obama wins Vermont. Clinton wins Rhode Island and Ohio. Texas is too close to call. There is no way Clinton is going to quit this race.

It's going to be an interesting night ...

Vermont is being called for Obama.
Exit polls say Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas are "dead locked." This is interesting, from ABC News:
The early exit poll data suggest a smaller-than-previous turnout by union voters in Ohio. At the same time it also finds broad anti-trade sentiment: About eight in 10 believe that trade with other countries takes more jobs from Ohio than it creates. Anti-trade sentiment is lower in Texas, with about six in 10 there saying trade takes jobs.
Well, not sh*t Sherlock. You watch your neighbors lose their jobs at the factories, over and over again, and you see how you feel about these horrible trade deals passed by Democrats and Republicans.
Newsweek's Alter says Hillary could win 16 straight and still lose the nomination: ["Hillary's Math Problem"].
Huckabee seems ready to give up: ["Huckabee: Wednesday will be a 'planning day'"].

This is funny:

The Double Standard

Guest Perspective/Ralph Nader

The breaking news about 23 year old Prince Harry secretly being deployed in Afghanistan as a “battlefield air controller” since December created a public sensation in Britain. It also resulted in the quick return home of the Prince – third in line to the British throne – for security reasons.

The episode pointed to the British tradition of expecting the sons of British kings and queens to enter military service during periods when their country is at war.

The same was true during World War II when four of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s sons entered the armed forces, as did General Eisenhower’s son, John Eisenhower.

Since the expansion of the number of women in the military, what about George W. Bush’s daughters – Barbara and Jenna? Their father repeatedly describes the war in Iraq as crucially important to protect the United States and to spread democracy in the Middle East. Early on, he called it a “crusade” until his advisers made sure he never mentioned this word again, since it has a special meaning for the Islamic world.

President Bush also repeatedly asserted that the losses of life and the costs of the Iraq war are “worth the sacrifice.” Whose sacrifice? Certainly not that of the family in the White House. There have been no indications in this town of 24/7 gossip of either the parents urging or the daughters considering joining the armed forces.

Recently, a Midwestern mother, who lost her son in Iraq, declared, half weeping, “Why am I planning for a funeral when George W. Bush is planning for a wedding?”

Is this mother being unfair? Or is she reflecting a feeling that there is a double standard operating here? Senator Jim Webb and Senator John McCain, against and for the war respectively, each have a son who has served in Iraq. No double standard for them.

There is a certain moral authority to govern—setting an example—sharing in the sacrifice initiated by the White House – that escapes both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney – both early draft dodgers who were gung-ho for the Vietnam war so long as someone else in their age group was doing the fighting. They both have children who have declined to serve during the Iraq war—occupation.

It would be a different question if the Bush and Cheney offspring had come out publicly against the war or were conscientious objectors. No signs of these positions thus far.

Although Bush and Cheney register very low in the polls; they were re-elected in 2004, with some help from Republican voting shenanigans in Ohio. It was already known that both Bush and Cheney were against full Medicare for all Americans, against raising the minimum wage to 1968 levels, adjusted for inflation, against a decent budget for investment in public housing, against defending the pensions of millions of workers from the erosions and crimes of their corporate bosses.

Yet both Bush and Cheney received a big pay increase from a big tax cut for the wealthy President Bush signed that included their total investment income and salary. They live in exquisite public housing, with great pensions and marvelous health insurance.

This double standard between the political rulers and the ruled extends to Congress as a whole and mirrors the double standards between corporate executives and their workers.

There is a simple safeguard regarding the decision to make war while leaving the younger adult sons and daughters of Congress and the White House enjoying civilian life as the casualties and illnesses of the “other Americans” keep mounting in counted and deliberately uncounted ways,

Ask your member of Congress to introduce a one page bill that says the following: Whenever Congress and the White House take our country to war, all able-bodied military-age children of every member of Congress, the President and the Vice-President will be conscripted automatically into the armed forces.

That simple law will generate deliberations containing relevant, accurate information and assumption of proper constitutional responsibilities by the Congress and the President.

When politicians’ children are required to go off to war, it tends to concentrate their minds toward waging peace before waging false pretense wars.

Monday, March 3, 2008

Jerry Williams biographer on Howie Carr today at 6 p.m.

I received an email a few minutes ago from Bob Katzen letting me know that Alan Tolz, co-author of the new book, "Burning Up the Air," about talk host Jerry Williams, will be on Howie Carr's show at 6 p.m. today. You can listen at 680 AM in the Boston area or online at www.wrko.com.

Update: It was a pretty good interview with both the authors. They played sound clips of Jerry and talked shop. A really good show.

Pre-Tuesday 2008 delegate counts

These were posted on Political Wire:

ABC: Obama 1,380, Clinton 1,276
AP: Obama 1,373, Clinton 1,277
CBS: Obama 1,373, Clinton 1,265
CNN: Obama 1,369, Clinton 1,267
NBC: Obama 1,194, Clinton 1,037

To be nominated, the winner needs 2,025 delegates.

Marc Ambinder over at the Atlantic blog predicts the future primaries and he doesn't think that Hillary Clinton has much of a chance of catching up at this point, even if she wins some of the states: ["Inside Delegate Math: The Numbers"]. Of course, what he hasn't speculated about is the fact that the craven Clintons will do just about anything to win. This means it ain't over until Obama has actually been elected the winner on convention night.

Two quick things

First, the BostonRadio.org subscribers list has been abuzz all weekend about radio and newspaper layoffs. For those readers interested in that topic, click here for an archived list of some of the emails: ["March 2008 Archives by Thread"].
Second, Nader's VP Matt Gonzalez has a well-written oped from Counterpunch about why he would not support Barack Obama's campaign for president: ["Count Me Out"]. Obviously, we knew he was not going to support Obama due to the fact that he is running for VP himself. But this collection of quotes and positions should really make Democrats think twice about this guy. I mean, who can't vote for increasing the amount of money the nation collects from mining interests? Who can't support capping credit card interest at 30 percent?! As I have said before, although probably not as loudly as I should have, everyone has to wonder what the definition of "Change we can believe in" actually is. If it is just getting Bush/Cheney out of the White House, which was pretty much the change Hillary Clinton was offering before she repeatedly started fiddling with her themes, well, that just isn't good enough.

Sunday, March 2, 2008

40 Under 40 list ...

The New Hampshire Union Leader has its 40 Under 40 list out and I wanted to note two significant finds in the list this year [the list actually came out in January and I'm just getting to looking at it this morning].
First, hats off to WASR's Joe Collie who is on the list this year: ["Joe Collie's voice wins accolades for excellence and involvement"]. Joe is a good guy and deserves the honor for all the hard work he has put in over the years in New Hampshire radio.
Second, and a bit more on the critical side, is this one: ["GOP's Kelly Hurst has found life better on this side of the border"]. Oh, I thought when I first read it, an immigrant is acknowledged this year. How cool. Coming to America for a better life ... Well, not quite. You see, Kelly's from Massachusetts:
Kelly Hurst was living in Massachusetts, working for then-Gov. Mitt Romney when that state's Supreme Court deemed that gays and lesbians should be able to marry.

For the conservative Republican, it was a blow to democracy - a far-reaching decision made by judges rather than elected officials. She called then-Gov. Craig Benson in New Hampshire, asked for a job and joined the decades-long exodus of Bay State residents northward.

She can recite the date - March 6, 2004 - when she crossed the border, a decision reinforced every time she's caught in a traffic jam staring ahead at license plates.

"I love the whole Live-Free-or-Die mentality: low taxes, minimum government intrusion, neighborliness," said Hurst, who is 27. "Mostly I love the culture here, the common-sense, no-nonsense Yankee spirit."

Now, I don't know this person. Maybe she is a nice woman. Obviously, to make the list, she has had to have done some good things in her life. And while I mean no disrespect, I find it funny that her first inclination after the gay marriage bill passed was to call another Republican governor out of state and beg for a job. A Massachusetts hack called up begging to become a New Hampshire hack.
Why was she immediately looking for a safe passage, potentially taking the job away from a qualified, possibly less-connected New Hampshire resident? Is that the "conservative" thing to do? Why was her first instinct to go looking for a handout in another state instead of shakin' it in the dreaded private sector? A true conservative would not have relied on the state for employment but instead, gone out on their own to find their own way. You know, that "Yankee spirit" ... to pull yourself up by your bootstraps ... or, in this case, pull yourself up by your bootstraps with a politically-connected state job! Wasn't then-Gov. Benson supposed to clean up this kind of corruption?
To be honest though, we know why she didn't even bother to look for private sector work ... there is little to no work here which is why so many of us who aren't politically-connected have to drive to Massachusetts in order to survive!

Terminator is here [and other thoughts for the day]

The other day, when I was reading some papers and Web sites online, I saw this and almost spilled my cup of coffee all over myself: ["Automated killer robots 'threat to humanity'"].
To be honest, I hadn't quite thought about the terror implications of a rogue nation [or mercenaries hiding in caves] getting their hands on a bunch of these. I was more thinking what would happen if all of a sudden these machines just started running themselves, randomly killing everything? What if there was a computer glitch, and we couldn't get control of them again [like, say, a funky, secret spy satellite in the sky, hint, hint]? Are we really ready to enter "The Terminator" age? I think not.

Speaking of movies and modern times, check this article out: ["Department of Pre-Crime"].


This is the new Dodge ZEO concept car, unveiled at the Detroit Auto Show last month. ZEO meaning "Zero Emissions Operation." I hate the color but it looks pretty snazz, can go from 0 to 60 in six seconds, and will go 250 miles on one charge. In other words, this might be the kind of electric car many of us have been waiting for.

Speaking of cars, here is a story about a guy who has rigged his Toyota Prius to get 100 mpgs: ["100 mpg: Experimental hybrid extends mileage"].

This is pretty interesting: ["Comcast Admits Paying Attendees"]. What are these folks so afraid of? It's not like he is Roger Smith or "Chainsaw" Al or Jack Welch. What a 'fraidy cat, can't stand up to some Birkenstock-wearing protesters? Amazing.

What is good for the government should be good for the corporation, right?: ["Employee's suit: Company used waterboarding to motivate workers"]. Wrong!

It's tax time again. So, after you're done with them, go on over to the Fair Tax Web site and use their calculator to figure out what your taxes would be with a consumption tax: ["Americans For Fair Taxation"]. Personally, I'm not completely sold on this idea. I believe that the retail sector - the only jobs-producing sector in the economy right now - would be hit really hard.
I also think that any sales tax concept should include a stock transaction tax. Including a stock transaction tax would lower the percentage of the consumption tax because those people on Wall Street do a lot of flipping. As well, it would encourage the investor class to hang onto stock and stop flipping, which would stabilize investments and the economy.
In addition, food purchased at the grocery store - not meals at restaurants but milk, bread, etc., as well as fuel and utilities - should be exempt from the consumption tax.
But while I'm not sold on the idea, experimenting with this would be better than what we have now.
Also, here is a column from the Boston Globe written by a Boston University professor on why this tax change is a good idea: ["Why Democrats should love the Fair Tax"]. Too bad this wasn't published before the Massachusetts presidential primary.

This is a different take on a Top 10 list: ["Ten Best: People who will never be president"].

The write-ins have finally been counted in New Hampshire. Here are some of the results: ["Ballot count complete"]. Usually, this is done a lot earlier but the SOS's office has been a bit distracted by all those recounts.

You think that in 2008 kids could be, well, kids, and wouldn't have to worry about this kind of stuff: ["Ohio school suspends boy over Mohawk"].

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Free Manch daily to go weekly

In the "not another good sign for the newspaper industry" category comes news that the Manchester Daily Express, the free daily put out by the folks who produce the Hippo, has decided to go to a weekly. PolitickerNH.com has the story here: ["Manchester Daily Express to become a weekly paper"]. The paper laid off two and moved some other employees.
What is so surprising about this is that of all places where a free daily could work, you would think Manch would be the place. Right now, there is a free daily in Laconia, but that is about it. I was only able to read the newspaper a couple of times, since I don't live in Manch and the newspaper isn't available in Concord. But I liked what they were doing.
Daily newspapers are, unfortunately, getting hammered out there. Hey, what am I saying, newspapers in general are getting hammered. The Boston Globe/Worcester Telegraph organization announced a cut of 80 employees last week. A few weeks ago, GateHouse Media, the company I work for, cut 60 positions.
It actually does not seem to be a good time to be working in media in general, unless you are a small operator who is in touch with local listeners and advertisers. Radio folks are getting let go all over the place. Citadel, the company that owns Disney Radio and ESPN Radio, posted an $800 million-plus loss and started butchering staff.
This all really, really sucks. It also makes me wonder if the non-profit media model forwarded by the Poynter Institute is the way to go for media companies. Yes, you have to make money, but do you have to make scads of money? What happened to journalism? The Poynter papers turned a 9 percent profit last year. Not enough to satisfy the ghouls on Wall Street. But because they are not traded on Wall Street, they don't have to worry about that. Nine percent profit is just fine. These days, anything above 0 percent profit is a good thing in my mind.

R.I.P. Rep. Mike Whalley

I just heard on WMUR-TV Channel 9 that state Rep. Mike Whalley, R-Alton Bay, passed away today of cancer. He was 54.
When I was a radio journalist covering the State House in 2005, I would often be in the Elections Committee where Whalley was the chairman. I talked with him a number of times and when I was in his committee, he was always a gracious host. Whalley played hardball politics which sometimes rubbed people the wrong way. However, he was a good chairman and ran a tight committee. He will be missed. Best to his family in this tragic time.

Update: PolitickerNH.com is reporting that Whalley died from a brain tumor.
Update 2: WMUR is reporting that Whalley died from "
complications from a recent fall." Calling hours for Whalley are in Concord on Wednesday at the Upham Walker House from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. A funeral service will be held Thursday at 11 a.m. in Alton.

OK Mother Nature, I give up. You win.

OK Mother Nature, I give up. You win. Earlier today, I spent three-plus hours clearing off snow from the roof and snowblowing snow from the ground. We have eight-plus foot snow drifts where the snow has been piling up. For the first time in my life, I actually feel 42. Please Mother Nature, no more snow. It's March. Let's let it all slowly melt now. Please.

Nader makes a huge mistake right out of the box [updated]

Editor's Note: After watching Ralph Nader's interview from Friday on C-Span's Web site, I have updated this blog entry explaining why he is not seeking the Green Party nomination.

According to the national Green Party in a press release yesterday, the Nader/Gonzalez ticket will not seek the Green Party nomination in 2008: ["Greens Respond to Ralph Nader's Decision Not to Seek the Green Party Nomination"].
This is a fatal, tactical error on Nader's part.
First, this decision means he will have to obtain 50 state ballot lines on his own, a daunting task due to the reprehensible ballot access laws in so many states. In 2006, the Green Party obtained ballot lines in 30 states and D.C. Since Nader is probably going to have even fewer resources this time than he had in 2000 or 2004, he is setting himself up for failure by not utilizing the ballot lines of the Greens.
If he then changes his mind before the Green convention, and decides to go after the Green nomination, it could create bedlam at the party's convention like it was in 2004. In addition, if Nader fails to get the nomination, after saying he wouldn't go after it, he will look foolish, just as he did in 2004. A slew of bad press in the wake of losing the Green nod will probably follow, as it did in 2004.
Second, this decision goes against what Nader said he would do just last month. On Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" program, Nader stated:
Well, if I run — and we are testing the waters now — I would certainly go for the ballot lines with the Green Party.
So, what changed? I missed the National Press Club event where he supposedly said he would not run under the Green Party mantle. I did a Google News search to try and find out but nothing came up explaining the change in the decision. So much for thorough political reporting.
But I was able to watch Nader's interview from Friday on C-Span and he basically ceded the Green nomination to Cynthia McKinney saying "it would be wonderful to have an African-American woman" on the Green Party ticket. He praised McKinney for being elected to the Congress numerous times and added that there should be "several progressive initiatives" in 2008. He also said the Greens were only on 21 ballots.
"The Greens have their way of doing things," he said. "And we have our way of doing things."
Third, not unlike a repeat of 2004, Nader will be competing for votes with another left-of-center candidate. In 2004, it was the silly "safe state" Green ticket of David Cobb and Pat LaMarche. This essentially fractures the independent left's "power" - what little they have - by splintering the vote into two options for voters unhappy with the Democrats in 2008 [or more, depending on how many socialists run].
With Nader out of the Green nomination race, more than likely, it will be awarded to McKinney and that is the perception from what I have been reading on the Web. In the Green primaries, McKinney has won some and came in second in California behind Nader. While we don't know the strength of McKinney's organization, it should be assumed to be a dynamic one given that she is a former Dem, a black woman, and a very powerful speaker with an underground following nationally. She will surely receive more than 118,000 votes, the amount Cobb/LaMarche received in 2004.
Fourth, the dynamic of Nader rejecting building alliances nationally essentially feeds into the Democrat's comments that the Nader 2008 race is about nothing more than his ego. Personally, I reject this position. Anyone with a brain knows this race is about all the unfinished work the Democrats will ignore [and have ignored since taking back the Congress in 2006]. We know it is about the Nader agenda - fighting corporate power, more regulation and protection for the American people, and a single-payer health care system - all very popular positions with voters. The Nader's ego thing is just a cheap shot by partisan hacks who don't get it.
But, this all begs the question: What is the eventual outcome of a 2008 vote for Nader if we all know, deep down, that the chance of him being elected president are slim to none?
At least in 2000, everyone knew that a vote for Nader/LaDuke would go towards the 5 percent goal of making the Greens a national party. If Gore, Democrats, and supposed progressives who were happy to settle for crumbs instead of real electoral reform had not feared away millions of votes from Nader at the last minute, the Greens would be that national party now. The party would have had millions of dollars to grow beyond local elections in 2004 and probably 2008. Had things turned out differently in 2000, Nader/LaDuke would have provided the Greens with what Ross Perot was able to do in 1992, which led to the creation of the Reform Party. Of course, the outcome of this result could have been a collapsed Green Party. Money has a strange affect on people, especially politicos. Look at what happened to the Reform Party in the wake of Perot abandoning the party. Would that have happened to the Greens? Possibly, but we will never know at this point.
If Nader is not smart enough to realize that he needs help in obtaining ballot access across the country - which means he has to work to create alliances with Greens and others - I truly wonder what the 2008 race is about beyond a handful of important political positions. As a former Nader supporter - and a huge fan of Nader and his work - I can reach no other conclusion about the 2008 race than to suggest that this is some sort of vanity campaign. Does that mean Nader should not run? Of course not. He can do what he wants to do and people can support him if they so choose to. But, Nader, right out of the box, is running a campaign which will get little accomplished.
My conclusion has nothing to do with what the Democrats and Republicans do with their nominations. If Hillary Clinton is able to steal the nomination from Barack Obama, many, MANY people will want a left-of-center third choice. And hopefully, Nader and McKinney will be there for voters. But beyond a protest vote, I don't see where any of this accomplishes much.