Nader has one central theme to his candidacy, and it is the theme of his life's work as well--to draw attention to the takeover of the US government by corporate interests, and talk about the horrendous human suffering that is occurring as a result of it.

Now, as a Nader supporter, if I can roll that theme off without giving it a second thought, that is a good thing. I understand many people don't know that is the central theme in his 2004 campaign, just as it was his 2000 campaign. But I also understand that if you aren't paying any attention to Nader, except to react to what you are seeing and hearing and reading in the mainstream media and Democrat leaning publications, you aren't going to know what Nader stands for, and what his focus is. You have to do extra legwork to really find out about third party candidates.

Based upon what I'm reading here, I'm guessing a majority of those who are so vehemently opposed to Nader, probably have spent a whole lot more time and energy listening to what the Democrats are saying about Nader, than to what Nader is saying.

I use the example of 1968 Democratic primaries and convention, because I believe the Democratic party has again reached the crossroads, by circling back and trying to woo back it's most conservative and reactionary southern base, to the detriment of the progressive wing of the party. It fractured the party in 1968, and it could well end up fracturing the party in 2004. The Democratic Leadership Council, and their candidate John Kerry, are now circling the wagons to keep the progressives out. Which is another reason why Nader chose to run.

He had said he wouldn't run if Kucinich received the nomination. It is blatantly obvious that the DLC was behind the media demonization of Dean, and the marginalization and haughty dismissiveness of Kucinich. So it is quite clear that they either learned nothing from the 2000 election debacle (though Gore certainly did), and that they have no intention of risking offending their corporate masters, just to keep their progressive base on board.

Anyone who thinks that the Democratic party is going to be a champion of progressive causes may have drunk a bit too much spiked koolaid, IMO. They are deeply enmeshed with corporate interests, some of the same ones as the Republicans, but some different ones. Both parties have happily supported media conglomeration, because media interests have been big donors and controlled the Dems access to the airwaves.

The only difference between the two parties is the Democrats don't share the regressive, repressive Republican right idealogical worldview. But hell, most the power mongers in the Republican ranks aren't Christian soldiers either--they just know how to masterfully manipulate those soldiers to their political advantage. The same way the Democrats have learned to manipulate their moderate Democratic progressive ranks to their political advantage. But both sides only pay lipservice to their committed voter bases, while taking their marching orders from their corporate masters.