This man has been my hero for 40 years. He reminds me of Cinncinatus; willing to serve for the public good with no thought of personal gain. He is the thinking person's candidate. That said, there's no chance he can win an election but he CAN influence the discussion. A third party is an excellent idea and an idea whose time has come. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats since all are wholly-owned subsidiaries of their campaign financing donors (lobbyists) by the time they take their seat in government. Let Ralph do what he does best; speak truth to power. Everyone should go to votenader.org and help him take his place in this political discussion. He's the only "lobbyist" the American taxpayer has (and he works for free.) Nita

Nita,

I was only made aware of Nader back in 2000 and have been a fan. Also, I agree with Norm that his presidential runs are very valuable for bringing these issues to light since I'd only ever heard of him due to his presidential runs. Anyone who blames him for Democratic losses misses the point of what elections are about. Yes, the world would be a better place if we'd had Gore or Kerry in charge but they didn't lose because of Nader, they lost because the American populous is full of uneducated "free-market" morons who don't realize they're pawns in the preservation of "economic growth" for corporations.

I disagree that there isn't "a dime's worth of difference" between Dems and Repubs on social, foreign affairs and cultural issues, but on the issues only because there seem to still be some Democrats fighting for the citizens rights (Dodd being a prime example though there are others), where the Republicans have far fewer. That said, most are completely useless including the two options for the Democratic nomination right now.

But, when John McCain is sworn in I'm sure it'll be Ralph Nader who all the liberals blame again for our loss.

By the way, if anyone here wants to take Nader's advice and educate themselves on political economy there are free classes on all this stuff offered at http://www.henrygeorgeschool.org/theschool.htm in NYC. Don't know if they offer online courses but I highly recommend them.

P.S. MSNBC can only afford one microphone, two lights and novice camera-persons? This had the worst production value this side of YouTube.

Hi, I'm Ralph Nader from the department of redundancy department, here to provide you with a way out of Corporate Facism.

Too many choices got ya down and confused? Don't worry, everyone will be issued this blue jumpsuit to protect them from confusion. Serenity now!

No major candidate supports consumer protection as far as I know, because I didn't hear Obama say this on March 27th.

I think all of us here today would acknowledge that we’ve lost that sense of shared prosperity. This loss has not happened by accident. It’s because of decisions made in boardrooms, on trading floors and in Washington. Under Republican and Democratic Administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both. Nor is this trend new. The concentrations of economic power – and the failures of our political system to protect the American economy from its worst excesses – have been a staple of our past, most famously in the 1920s, when with success we ended up plunging the country into the Great Depression. That is when government stepped in to create a series of regulatory structures – from the FDIC to the Glass-Steagall Act – to serve as a corrective to protect the American people and American business.

See, he didn't say "consumer protection", so he must not mean it like I do.

...

I really do appreciate Ralph Nader, I do. I just wish he wouldn't stick to his "both parties are the same" rhetoric. It turns me off REAL quick.

Also, I agree with Norm that his presidential runs are very valuable for bringing these issues to light since I'd only ever heard of him due to his presidential runs.

Yeah, except Nadar's presidential runs have caused him to be disliked by the left and a pariah of democrats in general.

It's about as productive as it would be to have George bush as an international spokesman for African Aid.

People would ignore it just because they hate him.

Something to consider:

What if Ron Paul is completely right when he speaks of the tyranny of the state?

And, what if Ralph Nader is completely right when he speaks of the tyranny of the mega-corps?

Is it possible, just possible, that both of these institutions are hopelessly corrupt, and fundamentally opposed to the ideals of free humanity?

It would seem to me that the real question is this- which master would you rather serve? The state? Or the corporations?

Tough call. I'm not sure I like either choice.

No, Obama didn't say consumer protection. He also didn't say anything about what he would do, how the president can effect change in the government to better serve the citizen, rather than the corporation. In the excerpt above, all he did, really, was give a history lesson.

A third party is an excellent idea and an idea whose time has come.

I'm wondering if it's really a good goal, in and of itself? If we create a stable 3 party system, would the cries for a 4th party be beneficial? I'm all for more parties, or more choices if at the end it satisfies this question:

Does the system give people the leadership that they want and/or need?

I'm not so sure that our method of democracy is all that bad. Isn't the goal to allow power to effect the process, but to balance ambition against ambition? The rich and the poor? The majorities and minorities? Corporations, unions, non-profits, religions and issue groups? If we take the stand that they all should get the hell out, who's left to take a stake in the system? Government should be their battle ground, no?

Our political leader should try to take the position of balancing the system, and playing referee, so that the struggle for power doesn't destroy us all, but rather benefits the future prosperity of the greater collective organization called the United States.

It would seem to me that the real question is this- which master would you rather serve? The state? Or the corporations?

Nail hit on the head.

Free assembly anyone?

No, Obama didn't say consumer protection. He also didn't say anything about what he would do,

If you want that, I included the link to the entire speech, but alas, I ask too much.

It would seem to me that the real question is this- which master would you rather serve? The state? Or the corporations?

Given that specific choice, The State would be the obvious answer from an accountability point of view. At least you get to throw the misbehaving S.O.Bs out and bring in someone else (hopefully better qualified) with your right to vote.

What options do you have with corporations when things go wrong and they're the ones making all the rules?

It would seem to me that the real question is this- which master would you rather serve? The state? Or the corporations?

Ron Paul & his ilk consistently miss the boat on this issue. For starters, by serving the state, you are serving corporations, so there is no real choice. Secondly, in a government of the people by the people for the people, which is what we're supposed to have, serving the state is simply serving the people, which is us. I'm sick of this libertarian definition of the state as some outside force that has been imposed upon us. The only time that is true is when, like now, the electoral process & the government it produces has been usurped by corporate interests.

Yeah, except Nadar's presidential runs have caused him to be disliked by the left and a pariah of democrats in general.

It's about as productive as it would be to have George bush as an international spokesman for African Aid. - RedSeven

Ralph Nader has done nothing to hurt this country other than use his right to free speech in the hopes of making this a better country. If people don't listen to him, distrust and consider him a pariah then the people deserve to have George Bush, John McCain and every other politician who whole heartedly enjoys raping us blind.

You may not agree with his methods but blaming him for the failures of the Democratic Party is absolutely childish and delusional. Is he responsible for the ignorance of American's who thought Gore and Kerry sounded "elitist" and "effeminate" while considering it a good thing to have a president with an intellect like theirs? Is he responsible for votes not being counted and for the Supreme Court's selection of Bush? People might as well blame him for the doormat mentality of the Senate, impotency of the Congress, and Britney Spear's bad parenting skills.

If we don't support his right to run for president on ideals that we find essential to our nation's survival and prosperity, then why even hold elections? Why even bother being concerned about the fate of our nation and why give two sh!ts about "Hope" or "Change" if you don't listen to those who actually deliver both?

Big Daddy:

Has (thunderclap) THE STATE (lightning) represented YOUR views these last 8 years? I rest my case.

I'm all for representative democracy, but never forget Mr. Hitler's election. In the context of history, the state very rarely acts in the interests of the people, be it a republic, democracy, monarchy or despotism.

The collusion of the state and corporations is the very root of the problem. However, this is not "free market" in the Paulian sense of the word.

However, I agree with you that we Paulians are naive to say a "free market" will solve everything. It won't. Is this to say that our only alternative is to grant more powers to the state?

I want a third option. Not just a third party, a third take on the current corporate-fascist paradigm.

cirano:

If a corporation is "breaking the rules", the proper response is boycott, or better still, to create new competition. You can "vote with your dollars". Personal example: I refuse to be an iPhone due to AT&T's cooperation with the NSA.

Granted, this is an imperfect, and often, ineffective solution. However, the same can be said for representative democracy, no?

See also: how many people here voted for Bush in '04? Show of hands?

Has (thunderclap) THE STATE (lightning) represented YOUR views these last 8 years? I rest my case.

Is this world so upside down that sound now travels faster than light? Must be the Fed. Reserve's fault.

Zaphod said:

It would seem to me that the real question is this- which master would you rather serve? The state? Or the corporations?

Tough call. I'm not sure I like either choice.

There is one difference. The people decide who is in power of the "state". None of us have any say about what takes place in corporations. Corporations are operated based on "profit" and could care less about the consequences of their actions as long as they make a profit. The "state" is the elected government which has to answer to the people.. Well, at least those who vote.

I see that Cirano stated this better than I did:

Given that specific choice, The State would be the obvious answer from an accountability point of view. At least you get to throw the misbehaving S.O.Bs out and bring in someone else (hopefully better qualified) with your right to vote.

What options do you have with corporations when things go wrong and they're the ones making all the rules?

Big Daddy Malcontent, Oh no! We are once again in agreement.

Zaphod, Has (thunderclap) THE CORPORATIONS (lighting) represented your views these last 8 years? I rest my case. ;)

The collusion of the state and corporations is the very root of the problem

It seems that you're saying here that the State should intervene and not be in collusion with the corporation, and thus you prefer that the state be the master of the corporation?

want a third option. Not just a third party, a third take on the current corporate-fascist paradigm.

What is this third option? Could you provide more detail?

If a corporation is "breaking the rules", the proper response is boycott, or better still, to create new competition. You can "vote with your dollars". Personal example: I refuse to be an iPhone due to AT&T's cooperation with the NSA.

What if a corporation is producing, say some product which poisons people, but the people are not aware of this and therefore aren't aware of any reason to boycott?

See also: how many people here voted for Bush in '04? Show of hands?

Hell no!

Personal example: I refuse to be an iPhone due to AT&T's cooperation with the NSA.

Qwest did not cooperate. Did everyone then decide to use Qwest instead of AT&T?

I didn't approve of Nader's 2000 or 2004 runs but he is a great hero of the American left and this video shows why. People should judge someone on the balance and even if you do blame him partly for Bush you've got to give him a lot of credit. He has spent a lot of time thinking about what works and working for good causes for decades.

I'd love to see him debate any conservative out there. He's getting old but he was sharp in this interview.

Back to Nader. Unfortunately, he has no clue how to go about forming a third party. If we are ever to have a viable third party, it won't be the ineffectual Ralph Nader who will make this happen.

I'd love to see him debate any conservative out there. He's getting old but he was sharp in this interview

Yes, he's sharp, but has no political acumen.

Nader v. Buckley

That would have been awesome.

JoAnn:

I decided to get rid of my mobile phone altogether, however, in theory, had everyone followed suit, AT&T would have to reconsider their business model.

Oh hell, who am I kidding? The Fed (evil laugh) would probably have given 'em a bailout.

In theory, a representative democracy (THE STATE) is controlled by the people (voters). In reality, Paul can't get elected, Edwards is out, and now we are stuck playing the lesser of two evils game.

In theory, a publicly-traded company is also incredibly democratic. Shareholders can vote to out a bad CEO. Consumers can boycott. Competitors can exploit weaknesses. In reality, our economy has become psudeo-nationalized anyway, except that, unlike Chavez, no one even JOKES about sharing the wealth with the underclasses.

A corporation exists only to earn profits. They are happy to sell us poison and toxic wastes. However, they would be just as happy to sell us sustainable quality- if that is what the market demanded in order to make a profit.

I.e. if we all bought hybrids, no one would sell anything but. If we continue to buy McDonalds, it is silly to expect McDonalds to change.

Herein lies the debate. The irony is that we all agree on the end result- a world in which "regular Joes" and "regular Janes" can live a normal life without being exploited by anyone. However, how do we best achieve this goal?

The Paulians are naive, and hopelessly convinced that market forces alone can solve the world's problems, so long as the state leave them alone.

The Progressives are naive to think that a government empowered to control commerce cannot also abuse this power against its own people.

Neither solution is perfect. A state subservient to corporations becomes Musolini's Italy. Corporations subservient to the state create Mao's China. Neither of these extremes is wanted.

However, we also agree that the current "middle ground" is no solution at all.

So what will it be? Less power for the market, and more for the state? Less power for the state, and more for the market? Or is it possible there is some third factor that can come into play here, and form a trifecta- a better system of checks in balances, much like the three branches of our Federal Government?

I have no idea what this 3rd arm is, mind you. I just see a strange thing happening here. Paulians and Progressives agree on almost everything- except the economy. And to be totally honest, I'm not sure I agree with either view. I don't claim to have details of this magical "3rd arm", simply the opinion that such a thing might someday exist.

For example, JoAnn and I probably agree on 90% of the issues, even though you would call her "far left" and call me "wacko right". Doesn't that strike you as strange? If we are polar opposites, as this paradigm would have us believe, why do we both give a big kudos to Chris Dodd and Quest, while at the same time hating McCain with all our hearts (although, probably, for very different reasons).

Just some food for thought. I love Nader. I love all 3rd parties. I love all underdogs, and all "no chance in hell" candidates. However, unless we can find the common ground, and achieve plurality, we are doomed to a life of armchair quarterbacking, and to be blunt, that sucks.

P.S. Magnolia, I nearly pissed myself. ROFL.

Zaphod: In the context of history, the state very rarely acts in the interests of the people, be it a republic, democracy, monarchy or despotism.

The logical conclusion to this line of reasoning is anarchy, I guess, eh? As the Voltaire quotation I sometimes see on the sidebar states, "There has never been a perfect government because men have passions; and if they did not have passions, there would be no need for government." So, since we [Lightning, Thunder] need government, but we do not need corporations, the logical choice is a government as free of corruption as is possible. One quick way to achieve that is to reign in the corporations by reversing Santa Clara County v. Souther Pacific Railroad, and thereby removing 14th Amendment protections for corporations & reinstating the corporate charter. This simple minded maligning of the government no matter what form it takes is a goldmine for industrialists.

Follow up:

In a perfect world, a properly functioning judicial system would eliminate the need for my magical "third arm" proposed above, assuming the democratically-supported laws properly represented the views of the people.

Sadly, in it current form, the judicial has become little more than a tool of government tyranny. See also: eminent domain, current drug laws, the refusal to prosecute corporate criminals.

Proposal: CAAE- Citizens against another Enron. An armed militia with the authority to attack any corporation proven to abuse the public good.

Totally impossible: how do we define "proven" and "public good" without involving the state?

But seriously folks, we agree this sucks. Surely there is a better way.

they lost because the American populous is full of uneducated "free-market" morons who don't realize they're pawns in the preservation of "economic growth" for corporations.

It's this kind of respectful dialect that sways people. Well done!

In response, rather than just call you a smug liberal prick, I can just point out the obvious fact that your type seem to continuously miss: that the 'economic growth' of these 'evil corporations' is our livelihood. This is a capitalist society. So while you're yelling and screaming about all these 'stupid' people who are worried about keeping the free market economy running, you might want to look at the name at the top of that paycheck you cash every week. I guarantee you it ain't 'Nader'.

And, because I love the ironic mistakes made by people while calling someone else stupid, it's 'populace'.

What if a corporation is producing, say some product which poisons people, but the people are not aware of this and therefore aren't aware of any reason to boycott?

One can always come up with an outlier example because there is no perfect solution. There is no system of government, no manner of business conduct, no social construct that is infallible.

So yes, you're right, there could be a corporation that is causing harm that we do not know about - and there have been many cases of such behavior. The point is that when this news is made public, we have the power through our government and through our patronage (or lack thereof) to force this company to change.

As an example of this, look at Wal-Mart. Nobody is going to claim that they've become a sunny, happy place that adopts African orphans and plants hemp. But they have started to repair a lot of the issues that got them into hot water with the consumers. Why? Because they started losing money, because word-of-mouth spread that they were a truly horrible example of the free market gone to greed, and people stopped shopping there (and told their friends to stop shopping there).

We are constantly preached a message of hopelessness because it generates hysteria, and people like Nader want you to be hysterical about the status quo so you'll be easier to persuade. But the fact is that we have a remarkably good system - one that allows ample room for course correction when problems are found.

Nader v. Buckley That would have been awesome.

Here's Buckley v. Chomsky:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

Big Daddy:

I agree totally with you- anarchy is no answer at all. And let's be real: can you even imagine what a "normal", McDonalds eatin', Idol watchin' American would do under anarchy?

And Voltaire is totally right. The only solution is place the passions of some against the passions of others. I.e. checks and balances. I.e. power corrupts no matter what we do, so we must learn to share the power.

And yes, no matter who the villian is, the fault is ultimatley on the shoulders of the people. WE voted these clowns in. WE empowered these corporations via purchase and investment. WE did this to ourselves.

Or more specifically, the dumb and illiterate did this to themselves, and pulled us down to hell with them.

However, as the grandson of survivors, I'm pretty sure an IQ-based genocide is a lousy solution.

So the answer is: elect a good government. Sure, fine and good. But when a Bush or Nixon or Wilson gets hold of that power, now what?

Make sure not to elect bad people? Now who's being naive? If it were that easy, we would have no problem in the first place.

Caligraph:

This is a capitalist society.

Says who? It has become a capitalist society, but that's not what was intended by the framers. People frequently confuse capitalism with democracy, but the two are diametrically opposed, which, I'm afraid, strengthens the earlier argument that," the American populous(sic) is full of uneducated 'free-market' morons who don't realize they're pawns in the preservation of 'economic growth' for corporations."

Zaphod:

Agreed, agreed & agreed. Not sure what the solution is, except for what we've already stated: Restore checks & balances and emasculate the corporations.

Neither solution is perfect. A state subservient to corporations becomes Musolini's Italy. Corporations subservient to the state create Mao's China. Neither of these extremes is wanted.

Exactly. Both Corporatismo/Fascismo and Communism, even if carried out NOT as a dictatorship, share the problem of big business and government emanating from one source.

However, we also agree that the current "middle ground" is no solution at all.... I have no idea what this 3rd arm is, mind you. I just see a strange thing happening here. Paulians and Progressives agree on almost everything- except the economy. And to be totally honest, I'm not sure I agree with either view. I don't claim to have details of this magical "3rd arm", simply the opinion that such a thing might someday exist.

It will require a vastly educated populace. NCLB (and no child gets too far ahead wither) has had the effect of turning education into McEducation - all one mediocre product that hooks us in for more. The spirit of testing is good, but it's turned education into a product: students are information bags that churn out parcels in their bags. Writing skills at the collegiate level have deteriorated since the 80s (and probably 70s) - not just in terms of grammar, but - more dangerously - in cohesion, positing and supporting a bias, and innovative thinking.

Until our educational system is revamped, we will not have a citizenry capable of holding our elected officials accountable, of electing intelligent officials when confronted with the fear and loathing card, of giving a damn about government beyond take-home pay. We are a "government for the people and by the people" in name at the moment; our eligible voting percentage for the >a href="http://elections.gmu.edu/VoterTurnout2006.htm">mid-term election was about 40% and for the last presidential election, about 60%. Folks ain't gettin involved in politics unless they have a grasp of the stakes and the issues - again, beyond the fear and loathing card.

So, the 3rd arm? Good guess. It could be the service arm or party, the we give a damn (really!) arm or party, the humanism and understanding deal. Something's gotta give if the Democrats can't take a definitive progressive stand and draw people into the fold.

Yes, but after we emasculate the corporations, we must reduce government again, as the threat is defeated, else we become slaves to our former liberator.

Of course, then the corporate powers will rise again. And so we will need a stronger state. And then, of course, collusion is the inevitable result.

Somewhere in the back of my skull is the name of this magical "3rd option". If I were smarter, I might very well have saved the world today.

Que sera. Serves us right.

(thunderclap)

Your pal,

Zap

Ralph's espoused his view on Clinton's Candidacy.

Senator Clinton: Just read where Senator Patrick Leahy is calling on you to drop out of the Presidential race. Believe me. I know something about this. Here’s my advice: Don’t listen to people when they tell you not to run anymore. That’s just political bigotry. Listen to your own inner citizen First Amendment voice. This is America. Just like every other citizen, you have a right to run. Whenever you like. For as long as you like. It’s up to you, Hillary. Just tell them – It’s democracy. Get used to it. Yours truly, Ralph Nader.

He apparently advocates that noone ever drop out of a race, ever again.

gypsy sister:

I am totally in favor of more education. I'd endorse a European-style system with free university up through the doctorate level. If I lived in Denmark right now, I'd go and get my PhD in a heartbeat. Here in the USA, its not really cost-effective to do so.

However, how can a populace educated by the state be taught to remain skeptical of things the state says? See also: Mao's little red book.

Does this mean we should abolish public education? Not at all. But it is something to consider.

Every time I hear this guy speak to his specialty, I want to stand up and applaud. If he ran for Congress or the Senate, I'd not only vote for him, I'd pound pavement and make phone calls. But running for Prez, he only opens himself up to ridicule, marginalization, and often outright contempt (I'm thinking of Eric Alterman, for example, who, every time he mentions the latest Bush depredation, adds, "thanks Ralph").

In Congress, this guy could eventually be one of the most powerful people in Washington. But with each Quixotian presidential bid, he only alienates more and more of the American electorate, and that's pretty sad.

Zap:

I am totally in favor of more education. I'd endorse a European-style system with free university up through the doctorate level. If I lived in Denmark right now, I'd go and get my PhD in a heartbeat. Here in the USA, its not really cost-effective to do so.

However, how can a populace educated by the state be taught to remain skeptical of things the state says? See also: Mao's little red book.

Does this mean we should abolish public education? Not at all. But it is something to consider.

My biggest concern about education is pre-college quality, not more: how many - if any - degrees. I'd like to see 90%+ high school grads be able to reason and write well. Bummer about your PhD aspirations, though (I enjoyed my doctoral work but would have avoided it if I could've gotten a tenure-track college gig without it).*

I was quite fortunate that my public education was not marred by the government - hell, in grade school Nixon was in office and I had teachers running around with the anti-Vietnam War bracelets and we sang protest songs once in a blue moon. So I don't think that public education necessarily means indoctrination to the state. I also think we need affordable education available to all, so public ed stays on the table for me. We can make it better. It may take 7 generations to fix.

*Thanks to those who chimed in on the "professor" controversy. By the time I got the thread, anything I would have contributed would've been redundant.

That's not what was intended by the framers.

The framers died a long time ago. I always find it interesting when people try to tell me what the framers' intended. The framers' were not Nostradamus. They did not have a blueprint for eternity.

And certainly the framers' understood that capitalism was a key force in our nation - they were all professionals of some type.

People frequently confuse capitalism with democracy, but the two are diametrically opposed

Again, you are simply misrepresenting the truth. Nobody is confusing anything here - we are a capitalist nation - and it is simply false that democracy and capitalism are 'diametrically opposed'. They couldn't coexist if they were.

Certainly it is possible for capitalism to be harmful to democracy, but when people state that they seem to forget that capitalism got us to where we are - the pinnacle of civilization throughout human history. Capitalism has elevated the entire world, and for some reason it is always judged by its few and infrequent failures.

It seems to me that you're just opposed to capitalism and bending & shaping other arguments to try to bolster this pre-formed opinion. I'm not surprised - as the founder of Greenpeace stated, 'liberalism' has been entirely usurped by anti-capitalists.

If you're against capitalism, I guess that's fine, if a little naive and hypocritical. But don't pretend it's in service of some loftier goal.

Regarding sound (thunder clap) travelling faster than light (lightning) I propose that the fact that light travels faster than sound makes some people appear to be smart before their voice reaches your ear. (Not directed to any blogger in particular.) Dialogue is good. Diatribe is not.

Democracy no longer means the will of the people. Democracy the way the Bush Administration has used the term means making the world safe for Exxon et all. Nita

gypsy sister:

I grew up in the Reagan 80's. By the time I got to them, your teachers had all become sellout Yuppies. Interesting perspectives, to be sure.

My prior comment was a bit self-centered. Yes, K-12 is in need of a lot of work first. The "teaching the test", NCLB method is total bunk. I for one would like to see our elementary schools outsourced to Montessori.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori

It is interesting to hear about anti-War songs in your school. When I was in school, history class taught that the state fixes all problems by itself, and that people just get in the way. These days you get suspended for hugging.

Anyhow, I'm way off topic now, so I will shut up. Interesting thread y'all.

No difference between the right and the left? When did I last hear that - oh yeah, 2000. When things were a helluva lot better than they have been every year since.

And, I don't blame Nader for Gore's loss - I blame people who voted for Nader where it counted (I believe it was a symbolic vote in some states), I blame Gore for picking Lieberman which turned so many people off, I blame people for not being better informed and falling for the kind of bogus marketing that tells them there is no difference between the right and the left, and I blame the right wing for dummying up the election but I don't think they could've gotten away with it if it had been so much closer than it should've been.

And, anyone who is defending the corporations as they are now is very unaware of what is going on. I don't understand why - it is pretty visible. Greed has overtaken most of the corporations to an incredible degree at the expense of the workers and the people in it for the long haul (I watched my CEO make decisions he didn't want to make for the investors which meant quick returns - not long term gains and those investors were gone as soon as they could cash out with huge profits and then we had to try and pick up the pieces of what had formerly been one of the fastest growing companies in the technology sector) - at times, at the expense of the country. But heavens, let's not tell anyone the bad news - that will bring them down.

I'm with you Brian. I'd like to see Ralph work in the political system a little bit before he goes for the Presidency.

Caligraph, if anyone is "bending & shaping other arguments to try to bolster this pre-formed opinion" here, it is you. I'm guessing capitalism has benefitted you in some way and, like all social Darwinists, you see this as the perfect approach for all of humanity.

And certainly the framers' understood that capitalism was a key force in our nation - they were all professionals of some type.

On the contrary, they were wary of capitalism:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -- Thomas Jefferson

Capitalism has elevated the entire world, and for some reason it is always judged by its few and infrequent failures.

The only portion of the world that Capitalism has elevated is white, suburban America. Everywhere else, it has brought ruin. Guadalajara, Mexico, for example, where Magnavox employees live in cardboard shacks. Or Jakarta, Indonesia, where Nike factory workers make about $1.15 per day for a 15-hour day; or Colombia, where Coca Cola hired millitary death squads to assassinate union organizers; or Tehran, Iran, where oil interests toppled the democratically elected government of Mohamed Mossadegh; or Guatemala...well, you get the idea.

If you're against democracy, I guess that's fine, if a little selfish and diabolical. But don't pretend it's in service of some loftier goal.

It is simply not true that Obama has never addressed issues of consumer protection in detailed policy terms. Perhaps he cannot compare to someone who spent his career has a consumer advocate, but on the issues, Obama gets it right--long ahead of time. Here is a letter he sent to Bernanke and Paulson over a year ago delineating major problems in the housing market and suggesting concrete proposals to address them.

I do not see how after seven and half years which included the initiation of an illegal war; the continued and recklessly mismanaged occupation of two foreign countries; the unchecked expansion of executive power; the stripping of environmental, health, and financial market regulations; the overturning of crucial international treatises, such as Geneva; the subsequent alienation of a many of our allies; the falling over numerous citizens into poverty; the incompetent management of our relationships with North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, and other states which, for various reasons, threaten our interests; and much else, anyone would suggest that there is not much more than a hairs-breadth difference between the two major contending parties; imply that the mismanagement of government by the cynical and incompetent is an argument against governance in general; or hold up as a superior candidate someone who has done nothing whatsoever to build his own party or to acquire positions at lower levels of government, such as local, state, and national offices other than that of president, which might bring greater visibility, cogency, and staying power to the issues he supports in the general populace (sic).

So all apologies for not living in the fantasy world of anarchist visions of free association, or of socialist revolution. I'm more interested in our country taking some simple steps first: like following the Constitution and abiding by treatises that ban torture.

The race to the bottom of the cost barrel is what capitalism has become. Our version of capitalism, where cheaper is always better, MUST exploit other poor countries to exist. The reason why everyone has a higher "standard of living" (governed only by the amount of junk they own) is due to the fact that chinese labor is making your stuff infused with lead and toxins.

I don't think anyone is decrying the benifits of capitalism, just at this moment in time, "capitalism" is akin to exploitation, toxins, greed, corruption, and product before people.

Corporations no longer are the support structure for america they once were. Look at all the American Car Companies and the lifelong employees they've had to throw to the wolves.

I think it's time to intellectually audit the current corporation, rather than base it on a 20 year old idealist version of what corporations used to be, back when they were, ya know, Regulated.