WSJ: US will stay in Iraq, no matter who wins the presidency

An article in Friday's Wall Street Journal, notes that the Democratic nominees will not have a a full withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Despite the rhetoric of the Democratic presidential candidates, significant numbers of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq regardless who wins in November .... senior adviser said that Mr. Obama was comfortable with a long-term U.S. troop presence of around five brigades, which -- depending on the numbers of support troops and other personnel -- would likely leave around 35,000 troops in Iraq. Sen. Clinton takes a similar approach

This will not surprise anyone who follows US foreign policy closely. As Steve correctly observed in his excellent piece, The Obama Doctrine:

"there will certainly be a long-term US presence in Iraq. The money that was poured into the war in the interest of securing permanent military basing in the heart of the world's remaining energy reserves will not have been spent in vain. What will happen, however, is a gradual troop reduction over the course of the next administration amid much fanfare from the media and academia.

It is, I think, worth the effort in reminding readers that of the reality of this situation as the democrats (and much of the media) often portray the race in a way that might give people the false impression that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will end the war while in office. The reality, however, is they will just scale back on troop levels and sell it as an end to the war. This is obviously preferable to John McCain's position on the war who calls the war a success and says he would be willing to keep US forces there upwards of "1000 years". He also made the absurd claim that a US withdrawal would result in al Qaeda taking over the country. This shows that McCain is either a liar or a complete idiot. I suspect it is the former, but in either case, it does not reflect well on the Arizona lawmaker (Juan Cole has more on this, here).

But, despite the obvious contrast between the Democrats and McCain, voters ought to know that Obama and Clinton do not have any specific plans to bring all the troops home. This means that it will be the responsibility of the anti-war movement to raise hell, and demand a troop withdrawal, now, all the way through the conventions and into the next presidential term -- no matter who is in the seat of power.

The Left and Barack Obama: The good, the bad and the empty

It was somewhat amusing to watch Hillary Clinton as her campaign, once widely thought to be invincible, began to fall apart. Facing the increasing likelihood of losing the nomination to Mr. Hope himself, Clinton took to outright mockery in describing the junior senator from Illinois and his seductive narrative of hope, unity and change.

“I could just stand up here and say ’Let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified,’” she told supporters at a rally in Providence, Rhode Island. “The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.”

At this stage of Clinton’s flailing campaign, the move comes off as desperate. With polls showing a likely Obama triumph, the Clinton camp has had to pull out all the stops – including accusing Obama of disloyalty to Israel in the latest Newsweek cover story. Still, we have to admit: she has a point. While Obama’s stump speeches speak glowingly of dramatic change, his policies fail to match up; in fact, his policy positions are, in many cases, barely distinguishable from those of Clinton. And on some crucial domestic issues, he is actually outflanking her from the right.

Of course, there are some positives about the Obama phenomenon. First, he is clearly preferable to Clinton, whose record (in the senate and as first lady) on trade, welfare, gay marriage, the War in Iraq, and media regulation has been horrendous. Obama, a one-term Senator with a background as a community organizer, is far less entrenched in the Washington establishment than Clinton. Further, he opposed the invasion of Iraq and supports some level of diplomacy with Iran, Venezuela and other countries that have typically poor relations with the US.

More important, I think, is the mass outpouring of grassroots support that Obama has received. While I doubt very much that Obama is the vehicle for change his supporters think he is, the fact that millions of Americans have donated time, money and sweat into trying to make this country a little more humane, speaks volumes about the American peoples’ desire for change. This shows the very real potential for more significant social movements to succeed in the not-so-distant future.

And, this happens at a time when the conservative movement, once monolithic in its control of all three branches of government, is collapsing due to poor leadership and a sharp disconnect with the American public on foreign and domestic policy.

These are all positive things. But we lose out by romanticizing Obama’s platform –which is still well to the right of the majority of the public on virtually all of the crucial issues.

Obama and foreign policy

Since the executive branch has far more influence over foreign affairs than it does over domestic issues, it makes sense to begin there. As I noted, Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, But Obama’s record since that vote has been pretty dismal.

For starters, Obama has voted repeatedly to fund the war he opposed. As Dennis Kucinich noted last year,

“[Obama's] voted to fund the war at least ten times, each time, it's like reauthorizing it all over again. If they keep voting to fund the war, it's not credible to say they are for peace.”

In fact, just when members of the newly-elected 110^th congress were beginning to square off against Bush over Iraq legislation lst March, Obama made a point to cave into the president, asserting that he does not want “to play chicken with our troops,” by threatening to cut of funding for the war.

And even now that Obama is trying to run as the anti-war candidate, he still refused to say he would have the troops out by 2013.

Obama defended his record to reporters. "I have been very clear even as a candidate that, once we were in (Iraq), that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could,” he said.

On foreign issues other than Iraq, Obama offers even less substantive change. For starters Obama is an unambiguous interventionist. When Obama gave a speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs outlining his foreign policy views, Robert Kagan, one of the world’s foremost hawks, who along with Bill Kristol co-founded PNAC, wrote glowingly about it.

“America must ‘lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good.’ With those words, Barack Obama put an end to the idea that the alleged overexuberant idealism and America-centric hubris of the past six years is about to give way to a new realism, a more limited and modest view of American interests, capabilities and responsibilities.”

One can only imagine Kagen, a staunch unilateralist, also enjoyed Obama’s expressed willingness to “attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government.” Obama’s piece in Foreign Affairs should likewise put to rest any idea that he is seeks to lessen the United States’ interventionist ways. In this piece he praises Roosevelt and Kennedy for building strong militaries and asserting US dominance around the world.

In terms of the Middle East, it comes as no surprise that Obama has taken a very assertive pro-Israel stance: all Democrats take a pro-Israel stance, especially ones that hope to become president.

But when Obama gave a speech in front of AIPAC, he was so egregious in his pandering that he drew jubilant praise from some of the most hawkish supporters of Israel in the media today. Samuel Rosner, arguably the most pro-Israel voice at Haaretz, said Obama was “as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Guliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.”

Marty Peretz, the editor-at-large of the New Republic, and a chronic apologist for Israeli war crimes, was also impressed. He said of the speech:

“I believe he must have satisfied (nearly) all of those who had been skeptical of his grasp of the Israeli conundrum. Very much satisfied them. Me, included. (His was an extremely sophisticated analysis.) And he must also have disillusioned all of those who'd hoped--like the lefty blogosphere--that he'd be oh-so-sympathetic to the self-inflicted Palestinians.”

Indeed, Obama was no such thing. He said that Israel was "our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy," He added, "we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs" which would "deter missile attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza."

“As if the starved, besieged and traumatized population of Gaza are about to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles,” noted Ali Abunimah in Electronic Intifada.

Further, David Sirota has noted Obama’s connection to at least one big-wig in the defense industry.

“Buried at the very bottom of a New York Times story marveling at Barack Obama’s ability to shakedown wealthy Chicago scions for big cash, we find out that one of the Illinois senator’s biggest donors is the family that owns one of the largest defense contractors in the world, General Dynamics. What a shock, then, that Obama hasn’t discussed our bloated military budget even though polls show the public wants that budget reeled in.”

And this is just scratching the surface of Obama’s non-progressive ways. As Paul Street observes, Obama voted to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT ACT, gave his valuable support to neoconservative Sen. Joe Lieberman (I- CONN) as he faced off against his anti-war challenger Ned Lamont, voted to approve Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state and opposed Sen. Feingold’s move to censure Bush for his illegal wiretapping of US citizens.

Obama and Domestic Policy

As bad as his foreign policy positions are, they are still unambiguously to the left of Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The same can not be said of his domestic platform, where Obama has been especially disappointing. His policy positions, in some cases are to the right of Clinton’s.

For starters, as Robert Kuttner observed in an excellent article for the American Prospect, Obama has strong ties to Richard Rubin, former chairman of Goldman Sachs and the chief economic strategist for Democrats throughout the Clinton years. Rubin represents the old neoliberal thinking that dominated the 90s; he is also a key player in the Hamilton Project, which as Kuttner notes, is dedicated to promoting “free capital movements.” They also flirt with privatizing social security.

That Obama has solicited the help of Rubin is a sure sign that, despite the countries growing antipathy for neoliberalism, he will not be endorsing any kind of substantively different economic word view. Kuttner writes:

“If the Rubin doctrine again dominates the Democrats' pocketbook program, it will once again blunt the Democrats' (now resurgent) appeal as the party of the common American.”

And indeed the extent of Obama’s Rubinization is evident in his campaign. On health care, he favors a plan that, while similar to Clinton’s, is slightly less ambitious. This is mainly because Obama concedes his plan, which unlike Clinton’s (and Edward’s) plans do not require one buy insurance, will leave a few million without insurance; Clinton claims her plan cover everyone, which, as Harvard’s Steffie Woolhandler notes, “is pure fantasy.”

Reasonable people can disagree over which nominee’s flawed plan is less bad.None of these candidates are anywhere close to the public on health care. 56 percent of the country said they would support a single-payer plan “like Medicare” to our current program. Further, the country is willing to pay higher taxes to see such a plan implemented. What’s more, there is a bill, HR676, which would provide Medicare for all. It has more than 80 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, but Obama, like a lot of Democrats, will not go near it.

But what is especially unsettling about Obama on this issue, is the angle he has taken in critiquing the other’s health care plan. As Paul Krugman observed in the New York Times:

“[L]ately Mr. Obama has been stressing his differences with his rivals by attacking their plans from the right — which means that he has been giving credence to false talking points that will be used against any Democratic health care plan a couple of years from now …. by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult.

Obama has used the same approach on Social Security. He continues to perpetuate the right-wing myth that Social Security is in some kind of fiscal crises. These talking points are designed by conservatives to dismantle one of the lasting relics from the New Deal, and Obama, by repeating them, only helps this myth gain traction. “Everyone knows Social Security, as it’s constructed, is not going to be in the same place it’s going to be for the next generation, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives,” Obama told Tim Russert on Meet the Press.

Krugman, again, takes issue with this assessment.

“But the ‘everyone’ who knows that Social Security is doomed doesn’t include anyone who actually understands the numbers. In fact, the whole Beltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population is misguided. As Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, put it in a recent article co-authored with senior analyst Philip Ellis: “The long-term fiscal condition of the United States has been largely misdiagnosed. Despite all the attention paid to demographic challenges, such as the coming retirement of the baby-boom generation, our country’s financial health will in fact be determined primarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs.”

Indeed, Obama has literally taken to praising the vision of Ronald Reagan who he views as a man of bold ideas.

“I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Matt Stoller, a blogger from MYDD observed that Obama “agrees with Reagan's basic frame that the 1960s and 1970s were full of 'excesses' and that government had grown large and unaccountable. Those excesses, of course, were feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement. The libertarian anti-government ideology of an unaccountable large liberal government was designed by ideological conservative to take advantage of the backlash against these 'excesses.'”

All in all, I think David Sirota may have put it best. Obama, he observes, is only

“interested in fighting only for those changes that fit within the existing boundaries of what’s considered mainstream in Washington, instead of using his platform to redefine those boundaries. This posture, comes even as polls consistently show that Washington’s definition of mainstream is divorced from the rest of the country’s (for example, politicians’ refusal to debate the war even as polls show that Americans want the troops home).”

Voting for Obama?

Steven Maher recently told me that he was surprised that consumer-advocate Ralph Nader decided to run for president. He thought Nader might endorse Obama this year.

I was less surprised. As I noted earlier, there is in fact much to be excited about in regards to the Obama campaign: he would be the first black president, he has a decent background, he has energetic well-meaning grassroots supporters and so forth. But, when you really look at what Obama is offering, it represents a lot more of the same.

This is not to say one should not vote for Obama; in most states voting for Obama makes a lot of sense. The differences between Obama and McCain are not as big as many of us would like to see, but they are different enough to affect thousands of lives. But I do not think it is credible to say that Obama has taken enough bold steps to bypass a third-party challenge from the left. His weakness on health care and the military budget alone, are reason enough to expect such efforts, no matter how futile.

Indeed, Obama’s rhetoric, if not his policies, have moved to the left. This is true of Edwards and Clinton as well. The candidates understand that the public is outraged about the economy, our failing health care system and our endless wars. And so, unlike previous elections, they feel compelled to address these issues.

This is the true lesson of the Obama phenomenon. Politicians do not bring change, people do. And the best way to facilitate change is not to get behind a candidate, but to force them to take better stands on issues.

As Howard Zinn recently wrote:

Yes, there are candidates who are somewhat better than others, and at certain times of national crisis (the Thirties, for instance, or right now) where even a slight difference between the two parties may be a matter of life and death ... Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes-the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.

But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.

Obama's cross-party appeal?

Phil Primeau is right to point out that Barack Obama does have a somewhat curious cross-party appeal. However, this support — like Obama's campaign — seems a little empty.

For example, his piece does not point out one specific policy position that would make Obama attractive to Republicans or to anyone. This is not Primeau's fault: Obama does not care much for policy specifics, but rather enjoys vague platitudes about the "politics of hope" (his words) and "a place of stable jobs, amiable foreign relations (that is) not paralyzed by baby boomer culture wars" (Primeau's words).

Primeau mentions Andrew Sullivan's piece in the Atlantic, (Goodbye to All That, December 2007)), which, I would argue, was an assault to serious journalism and smart political engagement. In fact, Sullivan even admits that the logic behind an Obama candidacy “has little to do with his policy proposals.”

He writes:

“Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us.”

This is just silly, Chris Matthews-esque politico hero worship. This worldview asserts that charisma and so-called “intangible” leadership qualities are more important that how one would run the country. And sadly it is dominant in the media’s coverage of US national politics. And we wonder why most American voters don’t really care about issues (AP IPSOS 3.11.2007). And this is without getting into the fact that Obama really has no proposals that appeal to the left either. His health care proposal is a continuing of the status quo; and he, like Hillary Clinton, is totally Rubinized with virtually no new economic ideas.

The one thing that Obama offers both the left and the right is that he is not Hillary Clinton, whose pathetic triangulations, war mongering and submissiveness to corporations irritate lefties like me, while the fact that she is a Clinton irritates conservatives like Sullivan. Hell, even Sean Hannity types occasionally speak glowingly of Obama.

And this is what I think is at the root of Obama “cross-party appeal.” Indeed, not being Hillary is a good thing. But it doesn’t make him a good presidential candidate – and certainly not a “transformational” one.

Hillary the Hawk (Part II)

More from TNR on Hillary Clinton's hawkish mind. This one comes from John B. Judis.

Michael Crowley has done a superb job explaining why Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war resolution in October 2002, but he didn't dwell at length on her current views about Iraq. These views, recently expressed in a New York Times interview, reveal an approach to Iraq that is entirely consistent with Crowley's analysis of her October 2002 vote. In spite of her support this month for a Senate resolution mandating withdrawal, Clinton is still a hawk on Iraq--and, in my opinion, is still flying blind

Hillary the Hawk

Michael Crowley on Hillary Clinton's hawkish record.

Clinton and Accountability

Matt Stoller notes that while Hillary Clinton has kept command of the race, there seems to be too much quiet out in the wilderness.

Hillary Clinton, while no George Bush, cannot by any measure be considered an anti-war candidate. So I'm wondering, and this is the big danger to our party, why there isn't more of a profound concern about how dangerous she really is. Why aren't there PACs lined up against her stance on the war? Why are donors rushing in to support her? Why are her supporters going along with the fiction that opposition to her candidacy comes from some blind hatred of Clinton instead of a real disagreement with her policy choices and her judgment, both of which are demonstrably bad for America and the Democratic Party? Why aren't local bloggers demanding she answer questions at events? Why does Vilsack get off scot-free for endorsing her?

We're having a big fight over a supplemental bill, which we all know can only bring the date of the war's end closer but cannot end the war before Bush leaves office. And the fight is among a group of progressives who all agree on the ends but disagree on tactics. The amount of heat generated is high relative to concern about what happens in Iraq after 2009. That does seem to be where we actually have leverage. Whatever you think about the supplemental fight, our party's standard-bearer at this moment does not represent the party or the country.

What is going on with us Democrats? Are we really that stupid?

A fair question. Democrats elect a new Congress because they are fed up with income ineqaulity and the War in Iraq, and yet, they seem poised to choose the candidate who is the most friendly to big-business and the most hawkish on the War on Terror. It boggles the mind.

Hillary Clinton: The Occupation will Continue

Hillary Clinton will keep troops in Iraq if elected president.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

[...]

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

Matt Stoller over at MyDD gives sage advice, upon learning the news.

This stance deserves deep consideration by Democratic primary voters. It's a genuinely and deeply conservative foreign policy strategy, involving indefinitely keeping US troops in Iraq for unspecified national security interests while calling the war over.

Hillary Clinton's promise to continue the Iraqi occupation will become the Democratic Party platform if she is the nominee. This is a very dangerous roadmap for the Democrats.

Hillary on Homosexuality

Kos rightly attacks Hillary Clinton for refusing to "say, unambiguously, that she agrees with 80-year-old Republican Senator John Warner that no, [gays] are not "'immoral.'"

I don't really understand her political motive for taking this approach. Is she genuinely conflicted on the issue? Or is she banking on getting some of that coveted "anti-gay" vote? Neither answer is very flattering for Clinton, that's for sure.

Opposing Hillary Clinton

Originally published at Oped News.

The Other Reason to Oppose Hillary Clinton

Michael Corcoran

Hillary Clinton's enabling of the Iraq war disaster, and her subsequent refusal to apologize for it, has by far been the left's biggest gripe the presidential candidate, and understandably so. Her role in enabling this painfully misguided war is a stain on her record, and on this country.

But her view on Iraq, however unforgivable, only represents part of the reason why progressives should oppose a Clinton candidacy with vigor. And even if she were to get down on her knees, admit her foreign policy follies, and beg us to accept her apology for the infamous 2002 vote to authorize Bush to go to war, it would be a huge mistake for the left to support her candidacy. The other reason? It's her affiliation with the Democratic Leadership Council, stupid!

The DLC--best known for its sketchy alliance with big-business, its McCartyite attacks on the anti-war left, its loving admiration for Joe Lieberman, and its hawkish stances on foreign policy--has been trying to take the liberalism out of the Democratic Party for more than two decades now, and in many ways has succeeded.

It was when the DLC was at it its most influential that Bill Clinton began his "era of big government is over" campaign, and passed historical cuts to welfare. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which has led to a drastic increase in media consolidation, was also another unfortunate byproduct of the DLC president's capitulations.

The group has founder has made a habit out of attacking anti-war candidates, as seen in 2003 when founder Al From along with Bruce Reed, attacked the Howard Dean campaign, saying it was from the "McGovern/Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest group elitism at home." When Ned Lamont was running against Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, the DLC lamented what they called return of "liberal fundamentalism."

In short, the main reasons why Democrats were elected in November--sharp condemnation of the war, and a push against our neoliberal trade policies--are dismissed by the DLC as losing issues that ought to be permanently abandoned by the Democratic Party. Their reaction to the 2006 midterm was to declare victory for the vital center (pointing largely to Lieberman's victory, which resorted to taking a de-facto endorsement from the RNC) and urging Democrats to, among other things, "exercise self-restraint in promoting new public-sector activism."

And Now that Tom Vilsack, who chaired the DLC from 2005-2007, is out of the race, there is simply no doubt that Clinton is the DLC candidate.

Her picture rotates among the top of their web site where she is prominently touted as a member of their "leadership team," along with From and new DLC Chair Harold Ford, who disgracefully voted for the Military Commissions Act, which effectively legitimized torture and killed habeas corpus.

To be sure, Clinton has worn the DLC hat well. On top of her support for the war in Iraq, she has supported free trade agreements like NAFTA; voted for the Patriot Act--twice; given speeches at AIPAC events with aggressive rhetoric on Iran; cosponsored flag burning legislation and said she would support torture in the case of an "imminent threat to millions of Americans."

Contrarily, other Democrats who could serve as possible alternatives to Clinton as a nominee have been running away from the DLC. John Edwards, once closely affiliated with the group has taken a decidedly more populist tone on the budget, trade and Iraq. Al Gore, a founding member of the DLC, has been straying from them ever since he made his 2000 convention speech. He advocated for a single-payer health care in 2002, endorsed Dean in 2003, and gave unambiguously strong critiques of Bush's war long before it became politically fashionable to do so. In 2003 Barack Obama, upon learning that the DLC listed him as one of "100 New Democrats to Watch," promptly asked for his name to be removed.

Cleary Democrats are running away from the DLC, if not due to personal opposition to its policies, than at least due to an understanding that its platform is no longer palatable to winning elections.

Moreover, the Bush nightmare has enlivened a spirit of change in this country, a small hint of which was seen in the 2006 election where a new Democratic majority was won largely on populist, anti-war platforms. Consider Sen. Jim Webb's response to Bush's State of the Union which, contrary to the DLC line, spoke of only two things: income inequality, and leaving Iraq. This momentum could provide a chance for the party to break free from what has been an Iron grip of triangulation.

A Clinton presidency, however, would be a huge blow to such an effort, and a huge boost to the DLC. If triumphant in 2008, they would be able to claim that they--not the netroots, union workers, or its political base--have been behind the only two Democratic presidents since 1976. Surely, they point to this as evidence that a run-to-the right electoral strategy is indeed the only path to success and continue the Party down the road that has already failed them once before.

For too long now the Democratic Party has been woeful in representing working class Americans, weak and compliant in the face of Republican power, and a chief enabler the grossly misguided and amoral invasion of Iraq and the loss of liberty that has come with it.

Clinton, and her DLC brethren are not part of the solution--but rather, part of the problem.

Nader and the Netroots: strange bedfellows?

The AP is reporting that Ralph Nader may run for president if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader hinted Thursday that he would enter the presidential race in the next year if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes the Democratic Party's nominee.

'Flatters, panders, coasting, front-runner, looking for a coronation. ... She has no political fortitude,' Nader said of Clinton during a radio appearance when he was asked to describe the former First Lady.

I find this to be fascinating and will be following up on it closely. My initial reaction is that while this is sure to anger Nader's harshest critics, he appears to offering a sort of compromise to Democrats. Consider that the vast majority of the netroots views Clinton unfavorably and will almost assuredly push for Edwards or Obama (Wesley Clark and Al Gore would also be strongly considered if one of them decides to run).

So here, Nader is hinting to Democrats that he will not run so long as a real progressive Democrat ( opposed to the war, bold on health care,not beholden to the DLC etc ...) wins the primary. In short, the netroots and Nader, normally bitter rivals, could be strange bedfellows in the move to find an alternative to Hillary Clinton for the nominee.

This could get interesting.