You are really smart. J.
i realize that part of above is rhetorical flourish but... re. pfp in 68: cleaver & doug dowd (bless his heart) were on ballot in 12-13-14 states, received about 75,000 votes nationwide, made no difference in any state (which is what folks must focus on re. prez elections given electoral college), other left candidates that year included your guy swp fred halsted, slp, and liberal gene mcarthy (who had independent ballot line in 6-7 states and received about 13,000 votes)... re. witch hunt: if reference is to truman (who as senator in 40 had said on senate floor that us should back which ever side was winning between soviets and nazis and then turn on winner), loyalty oaths and other ferreting out of 'reds' precedes 48, in any event, wallace made no difference in any state while strom thurmond actually won 4 southern states (repeat after me: electoral college, electoral college)... re. gp building gp: of course, which is why greens should have abandoned nader after he failed to campaign in 96, poli sci people used to contrast 'third' parties as 'idea' parties and 'personality' parties, latter have no legs because they serve as and are identified with individual campaigns... re. learning from nader campaign: you surely don't mean 96 noncampaign, as for 2000, well, several possible lessons - don't rely on famous name, choose candidate who is not so boring, don't run prez candidates because money, time, effort might be better spent elsewhere... re. learning fuck-you to leftists who have failed: latter have certainly failed (for lots of reasons, not all their doing), as for nader, dem stupidity was failure to ignore his potential candidacy... re. nader comparison to allende: borders on sacrilege (if one were religious) for obvious reasons... michael hoover
