" If the Democrats had run an issue candidate, like Nader, they might have won."

Agreed. That's probably what they should have done, Mike, but they didn't, and they very seldom will. I think that's because the big interests that stand behind the Dems and Repubs don't want an issue candidate like that in front of the voters...except on certain rare occasions when they want one specifically so he can lose on his issue, thus killing it dead for awhile.

They want business as usual, and they do not want to address the kind of real issues that might change things too much.

When I say that America has a grand imperial policy, I am simply stating what happens with any great power at the height of its power and influence. Before the USA it was Great Britain. Some short term upstarts arose in Germany, Japan, and Italy, but they overplayed their hand, gambled, and lost, so their hour of glory was very short indeed. No thousand year Reich. ;-)

The Russians have also been practicing grand imperial policy since the end of WWII (if not long before), but the USA outproduced them, so their policy didn't do as well.

Saddam Hussein was practicing petty imperial policy (it no doubt seemed grand to him), until he got in the way of USA grand imperial policy.

Any country that arms itself to the teeth, gets into a lot of foreign wars, and engages in occupations of other people's land is engaging in imperial policy on some scale. In the case of the USA...they're doing it on the biggest scale now, and have been since the end of WWII, with Russia as the runner-up. The UK tags along with the USA, thus retaining some of the perks it once had when it owned about half of the world map.

The British and the Romans, so far, have been the world's most successful practitioners of grand imperial policy...they did it the best, and managed it for the longest.

The USA is simply the latest. As such, I like to criticize them. If it was 100 years ago at this moment, I'd probably be a lot more inclined to criticize the English...although, America was already well on the way with their opportunistic wars with countries like Mexico and Spain.

Anyway, I do not say that the USA is the only one who does it...by no means! They just happen to be the biggest imperial power right now, and I don't much like imperial powers, because they always pretend they're conquering for all kinds of wonderful idealistic reasons. They're not. They're doing it for the money, the resources, and the power. Just like Rome did.

I would have loved to see the Democrats run Ralph Nader. I wish.

"The Democrats thumbed their noses at their own base and nominated an empty suit whose best asset was that he wasn't Bush."

Yeah, I agree. That's because they don't give a shit about their base or what their base truly wants. They care about the established policy which I alluded to. They are not serving the people, the people are serving them. They pick the "suit"....you vote for the suit...or you don't.

The problem is very similar in Canada. The $ySStem, as it is, does not serve the people, it serves itself, and it has elections mainly so that the people won't realize how completely they've been had. They can't vote the $ySStem OUT!

(But really, most people here do realize it. Hence the general cynicism about what goes on in "Ottawa" or in "Washington". Just listen to the standard jokes about politicians anywhere.   Only...hope springs anew in people with every new election call. They figure it'll be different this time. It's kind of touching. I watch it with interest, and I vote with a roll of my eyes...usually for the candidate I figure is most independent and least beholden to the powers that be. Such candidates are NOT likely to win, because they usually don't have much financial backing.)