by WhatAre Progressive Values [courtesy of Blog for America]

 America's health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system.  Walter Cronkite

Patricia Player volunteers for  OneCareNow.org, the California single payer health insurance initiative.   I interviewed her at a street fair in El Cerrito, California where she was staffing the One Care Now booth. She didn't identify as being progressive because she doesn't like labels. She did talk about the value and importance of security and from her talk, I realized the relationship between security and caring. When people don't have health care and are feeling anxious and insecure, it causes them to become more concerned about themselves. When they feel secure, knowing they don't have to worry about having health care, it's easier for them to care about others. If progressives want to create a caring society, we need Single Payer Health Care.

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

This is one of the funniest emails I've gotten in awhile: a press release from the California Nurses Association complaining about being "stalked" by a "roving band" of union members and describing progressive union activists as "bullies." Yes, the same CNA that has stalked Democratic political leaders and launched personal character attacks against its legislative opponents and their families.<> <>Even funnier, it's now blasting SEIU has having a "pro-corporate agenda." I'm sure the Chamber of Commerce agrees.<> <>This is the same radical leadership of the CNA -- probably priming itself to endorse Ralph Nader for President again -- that thought providing millions of Californians (including 800,000 kids) from having health care was a "pro-corporate agenda." Instead, CNA seems more interested in tearing down other labor unions instead of working with them to move the progressive agenda forward.<> <>Way to go, Rose Ann.Hilarious excerpts from the press release over the flip...

by DFA Staff [courtesy of Blog for America]

Joe Conason has an interesting take over at Salon on Ralph Nader's presidential campaign:

Nader's proclivity to boost Republicans and blast Democrats has been a matter of historical record ever since the Florida debacle eight years ago, when his 97,000 votes probably deprived Al Gore of victory in that crucial state. Although the consumer advocate and his supporters continue to deny any such culpability, Republicans clearly feel that his presence on the ballot works to their advantage. As Mike Huckabee noted on hearing of Nader's impending announcement last week, a Nader candidacy tends to siphon votes away from the Democratic presidential nominee. "So naturally," said Huckabee bluntly, "Republicans would welcome his entry into the race."

Danny
Communications Director

by Bob Brigham [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

To be perfectly honest, I feel sorry for Matt Gonzalez (who I like personally). He's had a tough run at politics. First, he had to rebel against the Democratic Party for not being the Green Party. Now, he's rebelling against the Green Party to run with Ralph Nader. Along the way, he managed to completely miss out on the most important progressive realignment in decades.

Justifiably, he's getting whacked. There's the new Facebook Group Former Gonzalez Campaigners for Obama (recently joined by Chris Daly). I actually don't think I've seen a single positive comment about this stunt. And is it really any wonder?

I asked Gonzalez about this, about whether he is really arguing that there's no difference between Obama and McCain on the war. His answer was there's not a "drastic" difference.

And this was the best candidate to challenge Newsom last year? Really?

by Be_Devine [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Matt Gonzalez, who, as BrianL pointed out, recently gave up his polticial career to run to be Ralph Nader's V.P., says we should get beyond the fact that Nader handed the White House to George Bush in 2000.  Gonzalez told Matier & Ross:

I'm not out to pull the election one way or the other, but people need to get beyond 2000.

Matt's theory is this: Nader handed the election to Bush in 2000, but Perot handed the election to Clinton in 1992. So we're even, right? No harm, no foul. Or, as MattyG says:

You have to be fair, both sides have benefited from this.

Um, yeah. "Third parties: Spoiling Elections Since 1992."

Matt, if this is the best argument you can come up with for the legitimacy of your candidacy, you are lost. And as we'll see on the flip, even your weak and ill-conceived argument is just flat wrong.

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

by Cheryl Abdon-Wolford [courtesy of Blog for America]

I have always liked Ralph Nader for being a consumer advocate - but, he is a spoiler!!! He takes votes from the Democrats and seeing there is no chance of a win for him - he needs to stop - let this election play out without him!!!!!