Don't blame Nader.

As a supporter of Barack Obama at the Iowa caucus, I was hopeful that finally we could have a president that we could be proud of: a leader, an orator, an intellectual, a nonpartisan who spoke of a new direction for our country. And yes, I cannot even imagine how bad a President McCain would be. But if Mr. Obama loses the election it won't be because of Ralph Nader. It will be because he "threw the progressives under the bus."

How can you ask us to vote for a man that veered right once he secured the nomination? Mr. Obama promised to tell our citizens what they needed to know, not what they wanted to hear, but then fired his first foreign policy advisor for speaking the truth about Senator Clinton, disowned his pastor for damning the United States for our treatment of Native Americans and "African-Americans" and censored General Clark for saying that McCain's military experience didn't qualify him to be president.

How can you ask us to vote for a man that will continue our involvement in Iraq for sixteen months or longer, who wants to expand the unwinnable war in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan if necessary and who wants to strengthen our military, which is already larger than the rest of the world's combined?

How can you ask us to vote for a man who said he would filibuster the unconstitutional FISA bill and then voted for it without a whimper? He is the same man who voted for the Wall Street bailout when the overwhelming majority of voters were against it.

How can you ask us to vote for a man who shuns the scientific community and supports "clean coal and safe nuclear" technology in order to get the votes and money that those industries provide?

For the last fifty years, the Republican and Democratic parties have taken turns promising change but delivering the same corruption and lies, promoting corporate interests above the public interests, and enriching the military-industrial complex through a policy of wars and empire-building.

It is time for a change, so don't throw your vote away--vote third party!

Jerol Mitchell

San Diego, CA

Sorry, I'm done with the Democrats. They're liars, thieves and scoundrels. The few that aren't are despised and actively sabotaged by their own party. The Democrats have contempt for the popular will, and they'll never change. They're corrupt to the core.

Look who is advising Obama. And he has the audacity to claim he's for change? What's the difference between Bob Rubin and Henry Paulson? Give me a break. Obama is a liar--he's just easier on the eyes.

What are you now, Tom? A used-car salesman?

Jan Morales

Takoma Park, MD

I've heard these arguments before, both in 2000 and 2004. These types of pressures, these kinds of suggestions and the political system that enables them to become legitimate claims veer towards a more and more limited form of democracy. There can never be a viable third party nationally under these pretenses--the idea of the exception, that "this is the most important election," doesn't float because that phrase is uttered every four years.

All of these frustrating elements to this election--the speech-politik, the unaddressed issues, the tepid pool of candidates--have contributed greatly to my decision not to vote at all. Now, I've caught a lot of heat for telling people that. But it's important for me to act and not voting is precisely that action; they are asking for my vote, and I'm telling all of them that they can't have it. "No" is a choice also.

So I will say "No" in four weeks. The American government may have my consent tacitly, but its going to have to show me something substantial to get the active form.

Eric C Gade

Washington, DC

I was leaning towards Obama until I read Hayden's plea. His writing that "the other side (a few thousand) denies that the Nader vote caused Gore to lose Florida" maddens me. Nader did not cause Gore to lose Florida. Hayden's plea is making me consider switching to McKinney; he might wish to rattle the Greens less if he wishes them to vote his way.

Tim Ringwood

Denver, CO

After several paragraphs of virtual incoherence, Tom Hayden's latest apologia for the least worst viable candidate ultimately presents some useful information. Namely, that the upcoming election is virtually certain to be decided in a very few battleground states.

While Hayden does not mention it, an obvious conclusion follows from this: in every other state, progressive voters need not be bludgeoned by the house organs of establishment liberalism into validating a candidate who supports an expanded military presence in the Middle East, jobs-killing free-trade agreements, FISA, the Wall Street bailout, the death penalty and "clean" coal, while rejecting single-payer healthcare and same-sex marriage.

November 4 will be an opportunity for progressives to show that while corporate interests maintain their monopoly control of both parties and the electoral system, we will not be silent when Obama attempts to implement these and other aspects of the neo-liberal agenda during his term in office.

John Halle

Red Hook, NY