The first quite I read in the comments on the Ralph Nader article pretty much sums it up for me, and my thoughts on his critiques...

"Ralph Nader gave us George Bush because he couldn't see a difference between Bush and Gore. That error in judgment pretty much ended any interest I might have in Mr. Nader's opinions. Pity, he once was a hero of mine."

...and Didn't Ralph just get done predicting that Obama was going to pick Hillary a few days ago? I think it's time Ralph puts down that magic eight-ball of his for a while.

Nader says:

In naming the MasterCard Senator and pro-war Joe Biden to be his Vice Presidential nominee, Senator Obama has chosen a running mate whose biting primary season criticisms of Obama will be used by McCain.

WTF? Hillary Clinton criticized Obama much more than Biden did, and her critcisms had more bite that Biden's criticisms had. Hell, the McCain campaign is already using her words against Obama in their attack ads.

Lest we forget, Hillary Clinton said:

And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Senator McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton is also pro war. She voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 and she stated the following:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran if it attacks Israel. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

Obama is far from perfect, but it's something how the HIllary supporters are now making her out to be some kind of ultra progressive saint of the left.

Anyway, the die-hard Hillary supporters all stated that they would not vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket. They were all saying that she should not stoop to being vice president and that they want Obama to lose so that Hillary can run in 2012.

Also, 49 percent of population polled say that there is no way that they would vote for Hillary Clinton.

Therefore, Obama selecting Hillary Clinton would have been a lose-lose situation.

Yes, I liked Clinton's "obliterate" comment. And her shrieking cheerleading speech while Israel bombed in Lebanon. She's a right wing warmonger just barely to the left of other Republicans like Lieberman. I am glad she's not the nominee, and I hope we never see a Clinton or McShrub near the White House again. The task is to defeat McC@nt. Nader's efforts on McSame's behalf are sadly familiar, and like in 2000, selfish and regrettable. I agree with most of his ideas but he's not seeing the forest for the trees. He should support the Obama/Biden ticket, and run any other year but this one. What is needed is a landslide of popular vote for Obama, to overwhelm the forthcoming onslaught of swift boat lies and deliberate election fraud. Protest votes in this context are votes for McBomb. The patient - our democracy - needs to be stabilized.

The votes are fixed, have been for years, the election's been cancelled.

Yes - good ideas Nader, but you really wish to be a politician, get yourself into a more attainable office. Otherwise, stick to what you do best - consumer advocacy.

The article on the science teacher was both encouraging and disparaging. When I lived in Florida things didn't SEEM that bad - although that was in the 80s. I'm not sure how church leaders can get SO many to discount evolution - such an obvious process - but succeed they do. It's back to "Through belief comes understanding (knowledge)" vs. "Through understanding comes belief."

What year is this?

I'm a little late, but PZ has a right-on commentary on the biology teacher.