You negelected to quote this bit:
>But that contrast indirectly brings up the first of the unpleasant
>reservations about Nader: his refusal to address any of what pundits
>call the social issues. While Buchanan thrives on them, Nader is
>silent. He refuses to comment on abortion or affirmative action, and
>ducks any discussion of race relations, surely one of the most
>important political issues of the last, oh, 200 years. And he's
>rather repellently dismissed concerns about gay and lesbian rights
>as "gonadal politics," as if they weren't fundamental issues of both
>civil rights and human social life.
>
Doug:
>And that contemptuous dismissal of gonads leads to another
>reservation about Nader: his humorless, hair-shirt personality. Of
>course, his joylessness is his own concern, but it informs his
>politics, which exude an austerity that sharply limits his appeal,
>mainly to the affluent and the voluntarily poor. Successful
>politicians, mainstream or radical, have to project optimism and a
>sense of liberation, rather than a hectoring tone that seems to
>promise only self-denial.
>
>Nadernomics
Hari: I guess I am a bit like James H here; perhaps it is our familiarity with Brith S-D politics of the Labour party. Or - Perhaps I really do not understand the nuances of USA politics. This is porbably futile - but.............
......But, whoever said that Nader was the bees knees? Surely, it is a matter of building a Front that can begin to challenge the apparent 2-party lock-hold?
I know that I could not expalin my viewpoint adequately last time I trid this here, so I do expect to be patted or twacked on the head again!
Anyway, Your comments on Nader above, are probably are very accurate - So?
In a variation of the 'swim in the same sea' metaphor as the fishes metaphor from Lenin (I think), it is a matter as I see it - of building a sea-reservoir behind a dam which is not 'off-limits' to the likes of you & I (If I may be so bold as to equate our goals for just a short term moment anyway!).
After all, all of you keep saying that you all know how awful Kerry is anyway...
I know, that many of you say that it is just such a terrible thing to contemplate - that Bush might get in. But - Why do you seriously think that Kerry getting in, would enable you to organise for anything beyond the Dem muzzle? Cheers & Wanting Enlightenment, H