This is not 2000; Jill Stein is not Ralph Nader

The short version: 

1. I'm a former Democrat, former Green, now unaligned, left-of-center, independent. 
2. It was Bill Clinton's first term that chased me out of the Democratic Party. 
3. I proudly supported Ralph Nader's Green Party candidacy in both 1996 and 2000, and have no regrets (Gore lost all by himself, get over it). 
4. I have been a fan of Bernie Sanders since he became Mayor of Burlington, VT 35 years ago and was thrilled to be able to give him my vote for President earlier this year. 
5. I have had serious reservations about Hillary Clinton (and have taken heat about expressing these opinions on Daily Kos). 
6. Nevertheless, I believe that a vote for Jill Stein (or Gary Johnson) is a foolish, unproductive, and dangerous act, and I urge all Greens and left-leaning independents to join me in supporting Hillary Clinton.

The long version: 

I don't need to get into much detail on #1 and #2 above; I've told the story many times before. With the election of Bill Clinton, the "third way" of the Democratic Leadership Council had officially replaced the progressive liberalism of the Democratic Party I grew up in. That, and the arrogance of my local Democratic State Assembly member, telling me he didn't care what I think because "Who else are you going to vote for?" made me realize that I did have other choices to explore.

For me, Ralph Nader entered the Presidential electoral arena at just the right time. Here was somebody who I had considered a hero since my 1960's childhood. In '96 I volunteered for the campaign. Going to hear him speak when he visited Sacramento (where we lived at the time) was an experience unlike any other political event I've ever been to. Here was truly one of the most intelligent and thoughtful people to ever seek office, speaking for hours without a single sentence that could be considered pandering for votes.

(Read the rest at Daily Kos)

Bill: "Hillary = Dukakis"

Here's a little exchange earlier today between a reporter and former president, Bill Clinton...

Reporter: What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you [Clintons] to beat him?

Bill Clinton: (laughs) ... Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in '84 and '88...

1) This doesn't answer the question asked, 2) It's an attempt to downplay a primary loss by dismissing the state as unimportant or non-representative, and 3) It's an obvious ploy to reduce Obama to being "the Black candidate" and nothing more. But the other blogs are already discussing these three points quite thoroughly.

I'd like to look at the other implication here. If Obama equals Jackson, then where does that leave Hillary? In 1984 few Democrats were willing to risk their reputation and future electoral plans by running against the extremely popular Ronald Reagan. In 1988 the lackluster field was openly referred to by the press as "the seven dwarfs."

These primary contests resulted in the nominations of Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. So, when Hillary is unable to beat Obama/Jackson, does that mean she's on the same level as Mondale/Dukakis, or that she couldn't have beat them either? And what does that say about her chances in November?

Of course, the former president wasn't intending that comparison. He was simply trying to inject race into a contest where it doesn't belong. Obama is no more "the Black candidate" than Hillary is "the female candidate." Clinton does nothing but damage his own reputation along with the chances of either leading Democrat to win in November.