True Confessions: A lurid tale of a young woman's 3rd party tryst.

[chiburb]

A fabulous column on DU's front page, that is a MUST READ for Nader fans and foes alike...

Snip:

So, Ralph Nader is running for president again.

I know you're upset. Everyone is. So perhaps this isn't a good time to finally come clean about my dark past as a Nader voter. But I'm going to do it anyway, because a) I'm a lunatic who doesn't know what's good for me and b) it is my fond hope that by the time you all are done reading this column, you'll be less worried about Nader costing the Democrats the election. On your way to that happy ending, you will undoubtedly encounter things that will piss you off; and for that reason I would like to point out that the administrators of Democratic Underground, all of whom I love like brothers, cannot in any way be held responsible for the opinions contained herein, as they are mine and mine alone.

But then again, they're not mine alone, not really. The story of how I came to vote Green in the 2000 presidential election, trivial though it is, is part of a much larger story about some things that went wrong in the Democratic Party during the Clinton years -- and more than that, about the pernicious and apparently incorrigible effect that the increasing rigidity of our two-party system has had on American politics. If you long for the day when a Nader candidacy gets about as much support as a Plaidder candidacy would, then you're going to have to help me figure out how to change some of this stuff. I am only one among many Democrats who felt, by the time the 2000 election rolled around, that we were being held hostage by two-party politics. At the time, Nader looked like a possible escape route. As it turned out, he wasn't. But that doesn't mean that the crisis that created his candidacy wasn't real, or that it doesn't need to be resolved.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/plaidder/04/14.html

[Plaid Adder]

1. Wow, that didn't take long!

Let's see how long it takes to generate the first flame!

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[BR_Parkway]

2. No flame; Applause is my thought! n/t

[chiburb]

3. I'm gonna guess No flames...

What's there to flame? You wrote from your perspective, you were honest and accurate.
Btw, did you see Sully's screed?
Also, I thought you were in Illinois? We ALWAYS vote the Dem candidate!

[Plaid Adder]

4. Nope, not in Illinois.

Alas. As for Sully's screed, which one are you talking about? I posted an open letter to him over in the GD forum about his initial response...

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[chiburb]

6. Beautiful letter to Sully...

And I edited the title of this thread...

:-)

[Plaid Adder]

8. Thanks for the "young" woman...

I feel pretty old most of the time.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[trotsky]

5. Why on earth should you be flamed?

I also voted for Nader in 2000, for a lot of the same reasons. Except in my case, I knew that Gore would carry my state, so I felt like I could cast my vote and not hurt his chances.

It's just another fine piece of writing from you, Plaid Adder. I agreed with virtually all of what you said. I don't know how to pull the national debate back towards the left either, but like you, I know Nader is not the answer.

[lcooksey]

10. Do we need a 12 step program for Nader 2000 voters?

"Hi, my name is Laura and I voted for Nader in 2000."

I only voted for Nader because I lived in a state (Virginia) where Gore had no chance in Hades of wining. I wasn't especially enamored of Nader, but like you, I was fed up with the Democratic Party trying to be GOP-lite.

An excellent article as usual. Although I think we should form a society for the protection of ham sandwiches. What did ham sandwiches ever do to you?

Ummmmm, ham sandwiches. :9

[Plaid Adder]

20. You voted for Nader?

Wow, now THAT is a true confession. I thought I remember you trying to talk me out of it. Not true?

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[davsand]

7. I think it is an excellent article..

I voted Gore (granted, I held my nose when I did it because I was a Bradley supporter) but I fully understand why so many progressives DID vote Nader in 2000. I contemplated it myself after that primary was over and Lieberman was selected as Gore's running mate.

I've always kinda liked Ralph--seriously. He's been very good to a local health care consumer group I've worked with over the years, and Ralph is just an OK guy in my book. I've met him a couple times at functions for that organization, and I've admired his passion as well as his commitment to change. He's a hell of a guy.

When Ralph was first getting into the race, he called a guy I know locally and asked him to get on board with the campaign. I was kinda surprised when my buddy said no--but I also understood that the local ties to the Dem party are terribly important to my buddy's organization and that goodwill has got to be maintained.

I am a longstanding Dem. I am about as progressive as it gets but one thing I also carry is a very strong tie to labor. Locally, labor and Dems have not always seen eye to eye--so it is sometimes an easier choice than others. Gore was a fairly easy decision after the primary simply because he did have labor support and poor old Ralph is not too well liked by a lot of labor. I took the path of least resistance.

The Dem party has sold out labor several times both locally and nationally. I get pissed off and announce to my husband I'm gonna form a labor party in the extreme cases--but usually it comes down to finding a labor based Dem and then working the daylights out of them in Dem primaries. That is how the political system works--that is how we impact on it--by participating in the primaries. At least I've always said that publicly...

I can't stomach the GOP for a number of reasons--probably the same ones the rest of the DU readers will understand. I have also come to the point where I am not happy with the Dems either--for several of those same reasons. It frustrates hell outta me that the party I have worked so hard for has done such a lousy job of fighting for the issues they ran on.

I keep coming back to the realization, however, that THIS is exactly why the primary process is so very important. I have opinions--and for the most part, they agree with the stated ones of the Dem party. HOW any given candidate will deliver on those ideals and positions put forth in the campaigns, however is individual. It has nothing to do with the Dem party.

WE have what is, essentially, a two party system right now. That may change in time--but it is what we have now--it is the only tool we have to direct our governmental process. I remain convinced that the best avenue for change is the primary election.

But I hear you, Plaid Adder. You'll get no flames from me.

Laura

[chiburb]

9. Nice post, Laura...

Are you still "educating" the kids in your Sim-Senate role?

[davsand]

11. Yeah--but my time is running out.

As Primary season intensifies, I am limited on my available time. I was at a Senate race outing (Hynes this time) earlier this week, and have another set for Friday at the Electrician's hall. (Again, more Hynes.) Obama is supposed to be in town later--and I'm planning to be there as well.

Hubby is actively working Hynes, and I am still working Obama in spite of some limited pressure from my labor clients to back off on it. I'm gonna be glad when this primary is over. In many ways, Clark stepping out of the Presidential primary lightened the load already, but not enough.

The kids over at the Senate sim are still hearing from me regularly about the realities of life in politics--but I am seriously thinking I'm gonna have to cut back some on it. Wanna come take over for me? :)

Laura

[chiburb]

14. No, but thanks for asking! Nice to see you again...n/t

.

[CWebster]

12. Honestly, the first part was worth the read.

Ultimately, it was a rationalization.

A blithe acceptance of the forces that targeted Dean and ignored Kucinich make for some good rationalization of anger but all the issues become moot. Now you can rally around a candidate who, in typically Clintonian fashion, puts a disclaimer on the legitimacy of Gay relationships--marriage is reserved for between a man and a woman only. When asked, Nader responded he supported gay marriage, adding there wasn't an abundance of love and commitment in the world.

Yet Nader is the bad guy. How far we have come.

[chiburb]

13. I'm for whichever candidate provides...

The best prescription drug benefit for all Americans. Then maybe we can get you some of that Prozac stuff I keep hearing about.

:-)

[CWebster]

16. No problem

Don't worry, be happy. ;-)

[davsand]

18. If you are buried on high moral ground are you still dead?

Sorry to be so blunt, but in many ways that frames a lot of the debate for me.

There is a subgroup of voters out there who are most unhappy with both parties. The Dems HAVE ceded the high moral ground in a lot of cases--and there is no way to deny it. After seeing how Kucinich has been marginalized by both Dem voters and the media it is painfully evident that the problem is there.

What I keep wondering, however, is as long as this perception is there, and since we have a system dominated by two parties--is there any real way to change it OTHER than working for my candidates in primaries? My final conclusion thus far, has been that any ONE of the Dems are gonna be light years ahead of the other guys when an issue gets put in front of them.

Pete Fitzgerald doesn't call me back--Dick Durbin's office does and THAT is how I manage to look at myself in the mirror when I think about the idea that the Dems are less than I'd like for them to be. Much as it makes me flinch--Kerry's more likely to be willing to listen that shrub ever will be. Much as I hate it--Nader's not gonna be likely to even be in office because he's not got the Dem machine behind him.

Pax to you.

Laura

[Plaid Adder]

21. Kucinich is better on gay marriage than Nader.

He's also better than Kerry. If he's still in the race when the primary gets to me I'll vote for him; but what are the odds?

If you made it to the last paragraph it should be obvious that my 'acceptance' of Kerry as the most likely candidate is not 'blithe.' But what I care about is having that fucking amendment NOT become part of the constitution. The best way to have that happen is to get Bush the fuck out of that office. Voting for Nader is not the way to do that.

C ya,

THe Plaid Adder

[MurikanDemocrat]

15. *clap* *clap* *clap*

:toast:

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Election reform is the answer. See my website, link within.

[wryter2000]

19. Ditto that!

That's a fantastic column. A few thoughts...

1) No one had any idea how bad Bush would be. I thought he'd be like his father -- no one I could possibly vote for but not as bad as Reagan. In fact, maybe Bush himself isn't the problem. Maybe he's just an incredibly stupid and malleable man who's being directed by the forces of evil all around him.

2) In a state that's already decided, a third party vote is a good idea. If I didn't fear outright theft of this election, I'd be fine with someone voting for a Green in a state that's already going to go to one of the major parties or another.

3) The Gore of today isn't the Gore of 2000. Many Dems have found their spines. I do think that's Howard Dean's doing. And I do believe that the Adder's assessment of why he didn't win the nomination is right on. I have a hunch that Dean, himself, is less disappointed with the outcome than many of his supporters.

[chiburb]

22. Kick for lunch...n/t

.

[davsand]

23. Another kick for the afternoon crowd.

:kick:

[chiburb]

24. As good today as it was yesterday....

In case you missed it.