Dean vs. Nader (DING! BRING IT ON!)

You really should listen to the audio available at:

NPR Audio
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3262027

C-SPAN Video
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04070904_naderdean.rm?start=7:53&mode=compact

Transcript
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/features/2004/07/13/dean_v_nader_debate.php

It gets pretty heated at times, but I feel somehow that Nader came out 
on top with this one.  It helped to finally have these two heads beat it 
out of one another.  That's pretty much all they did the whole time.

like rams.      bitch.

-j

Dean v Nader Debate

July 9, 2004 Friday

TYPE: NEWS EVENT

LENGTH: 10441 words

HEADLINE: HOWARD DEAN AND RALPH NADER PARTICIPATE IN A DEBATE SPONSORED 
BY NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO

SPEAKER:
HOWARD DEAN AND RALPH NADER

BODY:


HOWARD DEAN AND RALPH NADER PARTICIPATE IN A DEBATE SPONSORED
BY NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: IF QUOTED OR EXCERPTED, MANDATORY
CREDIT TO BE GIVEN TO NPR'S "JUSTICE TALKING"

JULY 9, 2004

SPEAKERS: RALPH NADER,
INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

FORMER GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN (D-VT)

MARGOT ADLER, NPR

ADLER: This is "Justice Talking" from NPR. I'm Margot Adler. We're 
coming to you from the Annenberg Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

We have a special edition, a debate between two of the country's 
political mavericks, Howard Dean and Ralph Nader. We're looking forward 
to a frank conversation about third parties in American politics and 
their impact on the 2004 presidential election.

Please join me in welcoming former Vermont Governor Howard Dean and 
independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader to NPR's "Justice Talking."

(APPLAUSE)

Governor Dean and Ralph Nader, as you'll notice, we don't have official 
clocks timing your responses, because this isn't a presidential debate. 
We'd like to keep it informal. I just ask that you keep your responses 
as brief as you can. And if you go on, I will interrupt you and ask you 
to stop.

Before we get going, we want to acknowledge the Annenberg Foundation 
Trust at Sunnylands for making this debate possible. Thanks.

And let's get going.

Historically, third parties have given us such reforms as the abolition 
of slavery, women's right to vote, the minimum wage.

Governor Dean, do you believe that there is a value in third parties? 
Without third parties, don't we close ourselves off from change, 
innovation and new directions?

DEAN: I absolutely believe that. I think third parties have proved to be 
exceptionally helpful in changing the body politic in this country, 
because what happens is they rarely succeed. The only one that I can 
think of that succeeded in the history of the country was Abraham 
Lincoln, who was a third party candidate of the Republican Party was it 
was a third party. And it's very important.

However, this year we're threatened with an extraordinary emergency. We 
have the most far-right president probably in the history of the 
country. We have sent our troops to fight and die in a war in a foreign 
country without being told the truth about why they're there. We're 
running half-trillion-dollar deficits year after year after year. The 
extraordinary attack on the environment is something that I've never 
seen in my lifetime.

And my argument is that we ought to unite behind a Democratic candidate 
who is progressive -- we can argue about how progressive -- but clearly 
progressive, clearly stands for a progressive income tax, clearly stands 
for attacking some of the corporate privileges that have been granted 
under this administration.

DEAN: My argument simply is, when the house is on fire, it's not the 
time to fix the furniture.

QUESTION: Mr. Nader, let's talk practical politics here for a minute. 
Many have suggested that you would have reached a wider audience with 
your message and would have had a stronger effect on policy if you had 
run in the Democratic primary rather than as a third-party candidate.

So what advantages do you get from running outside the system instead of 
within it? And why did you make that choice?

NADER: It's called freedom -- freedom of conscience, freedom to 
authentically communicate the necessities of the American people without 
the trappings of special interest commercial cash, all kinds of 
lobbyists that hover and are inside the two major parties, whose record 
has been dismal.

They have gone along with big business which is the real power in this 
country to say no to universal health care, to say no to living wage for 
families, to say no for a fair tax system, to say no to get out of the 
war in Iraq -- Howard Dean was an exception -- to say no for addressing 
the major issue in this country which is the domination of our country 
by a concentration of greed and power in the hands of multinational 
corporations that have no allegiance to our country other than to 
control it or abandon it, as they see fit.

Plus, if you really wanted to do something about poverty and the 
criminal injustice system and the failed war on drugs, how can all that 
fit inside a Democratic Party that has ignored, year after year, these 
important changes for a more just and prosperous America?

QUESTION: In the year 2000, a majority of Americans chose Al Gore to be 
their president, but Gore lost the Electoral College vote. Some people 
say he actually won that vote, too, but lost the election in the Supreme 
Court.

In any case, here's how you, Mr. Nader, analyzed your role in the 200 
election.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NADER: In the year 2000, the Democratic pollsters exit polls had me in 
the following categories: 25 percent of my vote would have gone to Bush, 
38 percent would have gone to Gore, and the rest would not have voted.

And now I think it will be switched. I think now there will be far more 
votes coming from independents and Republicans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Mr. Nader, do you still believe that more Republicans will 
defect to you than Democrats? And how can your campaign bring 
Republicans into your fold if your running-mate, Peter Camejo, is a 
former Socialist Workers Party candidate?

NADER: First of all, he's a successful leader of the socially 
responsible investment movement and a successful investment adviser 
without shedding any of his conscientious defense of minorities in this 
country.

NADER: Second: let me put it this way: Does anybody doubt that the 
Nader-Camejo ticket is being abandoned in droves by liberal Democrats?

So, obviously, since the polls are about a little bit ahead now than 
they were in 2000 for us, other people are filling in the breach. And 
when you look at conservatives and Republicans who are increasingly 
upset with President Bush about huge deficits, their dollars going to 
corporate subsidies and other corporate welfare, the big government 
Patriot Act, which they hate, the sovereignty- destroying impact of WTO 
and NAFTA and the softness on corporate crime, they lose their 401Ks to 
corporate crime, as well, and the federal regulation of local education 
districts.

And, and, and, you have to believe that out of 50 million of these 
people, we're going to draw away a significant number who will either 
stay home, because we're taking the Bush administration a part in ways 
that the Democrats are afraid to or are too indentured to, or they'll 
vote for the independent candidacy of Nader-Camejo, Peter Camejo being 
the first Latino vice presidential candidate in modern American history.

QUESTION: Governor Dean, here is Mark Kamleiter, co-spokesperson of 
Florida's Green Party.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMLEITER: Nobody mentions that 250,000 Democrats voted for Bush in the 
2000 election. It's easy -- people want to find a scapegoat. In the 
bottom of it all is this: They don't believe that third parties should 
be involved in politics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Governor Dean, is Mr. Nader responsible for the election of 
President George Bush? And will he be a factor this time around?

DEAN: I think that what's gone is gone, what's done is done. I didn't 
begrudge Ralph Nader running in 2000, because he had a role to play, and 
nobody knew the election was going to be this close. And nobody knew how 
dreadful George Bush was going to be as the president.

But, Ralph, I think you're being disingenuous about your candidacy this 
year. And let me tell you why. You have 46 percent of all of your 
signatures to get you on the Arizona ballot that turned out to be 
Republican supporters.

You accepted the support of a right-wing, fanatic Republican group 
that's anti-gay in order to help you get on the ballot in Oregon.

You have accepted -- one out of every $10,000 checks that you've 
accepted have been from people who have already given money to Bush- Cheney.

DEAN: Your own organizer said in Virginia that you go to tractor pulls 
to try to get the signatures because they think they're doing Bush a favor.

This is not going to help the progressive cause in America.

And the thing that upsets me so much about this is you have the right to 
run, you can get in bed with whoever you want to, but don't call the 
Democratic Party full of corporate interests. They have their problems, 
we all have ours. None of us are pure. And this campaign of yours is far 
from pure, if you are willing to accept the help of a right-wing, 
anti-gay group to get you on the ballot. You need to repudiate those 
people. And as your own running-mate says, send back those Republican 
checks.

NADER: You really are engaging...

(APPLAUSE)

ADLER: Just a second before Ralph Nader replies, again, let's try not to 
have too much applause.

NADER: You're really being very inaccurate, apart from being unfair. We 
have not accepted the support of an anti-gay groups. We have not 
accepted as fulsomely the support of Republican dollars the way the 
Democrats have. The Democrat fat cats, Republican fat cats pour millions 
into each other's party to hedge the bets.

I think the issue here is the corporate government. Let's not be 
distracted by the two parties that are simply proxies.

We don't want to settle for the lesser of two evils in our country. We 
don't want to have another special interest clone in Washington. We 
don't want to have another Washington insider who shifts back and forth 
with every poll. And we don't want to have an insensitivity for the 
plight of workers, American workers in this country, who have lost their 
manufacturing jobs.

All those quotes come from Howard Dean I against John Kerry in the 
primary campaign. What you're hearing now is Howard Dean II, in a 
desperate attempt to smear out campaign, which is struggling to get on 
the ballot against the massive anti-civil-liberties obstruction of the 
Democratic Party, which is the one that's really interfering with our 
campaign, not the press releases by Democrat -- Republicans who haven't 
produced any results.

(APPLAUSE)

DEAN: That is also more disingenuous nonsense. The truth is that you 
told the people of this country that you were going to use volunteer 
help to get on the ballot in Arizona. You hired out that help, and 
that's why they made so many mistakes.

The Public Citizen, which you founded, earlier said this year that John 
Kerry ranks at the top of senators in standing up against political 
action committee money, which he has never accepted in his career, and 
lobbyist money. Not only has Kerry refused historically to take PAC 
money, but his record shows that he's been a leader for more than a 
decade in full reform of campaign financing, advocating for clean public 
money not only for presidential, but also congressional campaigns.

(CROSSTALK)

DEAN: My purpose here is not to smear Ralph Nader. You have an 
extraordinary...

NADER: Oh, no, not at all. Thanks.

DEAN: You have...

ADLER: OK. OK, guys. Let's bring some other people into this discussion.

DEAN: Let me finish what I'm going to say, because it's important. You 
have an extraordinary career in standing up for the American people. You 
have saved lives with your extraordinary work with automobile safety. 
You are responsible for much of the extraordinary environmental work 
that has been done in this country in the last 40 years. I ask you not 
to turn your back on your own legacy.

NADER: Well, let me just say...

QUESTION: A quick response.

NADER: Yes, a quick response.

Howard, look, I took you for your word when you were running in the 
primary when you called John Kerry "another special interest clone in 
Washington," when you called him "turning his back on the American 
workers," when you called him giving George W. Bush "a blank check on 
the war in Iraq," when you called him voting for the Leave No Child 
Behind, which you in significant part opposed, and when you called him 
"the lesser of two evils."

Now, let's get it over with. The issue here is the corporate domination 
of our country that has prevented electoral reform that would have 
eliminated your objectives, like instant runoff voting, proportional 
representation, public funding of public campaigns, same- day voter 
registration, and making every vote count with a paper trail by these 
Diebold-produced voting machines.

Let's focus on the corporations.

QUESTION: Now we're going to go into some of those issues in voting 
reforms in a minute, but first, you are listening to NPR's "Justice 
Talking," where Howard Dean and Ralph Nader are sparring on the role of 
third parties and other issues. Let's take some questions from our audience.

QUESTION: Regardless of how anyone feels about what the Supreme Court's 
ruling in Bush v. Gore enabled, in terms of who gained access to the 
presidency, its language affirms that Article I, Section 2 of the 
Constitution puts the ultimate power to determine the electors in a 
national election in the hand of the state legislatures.

I'm interested to hear from both of you gentlemen what position, if any, 
you take on the adoption of a constitutional amendment positively 
asserting the unambiguous right of American voters to choose their 
electors in national elections.

DEAN: I think we need complete electoral reform. I think we need, first 
of all, that Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s constitutional amendment, giving 
Americans the right to vote ought to be passed, so that the right wing 
of the Republican Party could not, as they did in 2000, disenfranchise 
thousands and thousands of African-American voters.

Secondly, we wouldn't be having this debate today if we had a system of 
instant runoff voting in this country.

DEAN: Then Ralph Nader would pose no threat to the election of John 
Kerry. He would not be facilitating the election of George Bush, the 
most right-wing president that we have had.

If we had instant runoff voting, we could have the kind of debates that 
Ralph wants, open debates, because minor parties, third parties wouldn't 
cause those problems.

We need fundamental electoral change. I argue to you that we have a 
better chance of having that with John Kerry as president then we do 
with George Bush as president.

NADER: I would abolish the Electoral College. I think for the United 
States government to lecture people overseas about democracy and then 
turn around and say the man who got the lesser number of votes becomes 
president in 2000, and the person, Gore, who got more votes, is a rather 
difficult position to uphold.

I think it's also important to recognize, it's the only way third 
parties have had leverage over the major party candidates is to deny 
them votes, is to say to them that for too long, they have ignored the 
needs of the American people. They've had their chance. How many times 
have they flunked? How many times did they betray us? How many times did 
they disrespect the voter? How many times did they become more and more 
similar than they are different? I speaking of the Republican and 
Democratic parties.

You can have all of the electoral reform that you want, but even (ph) if 
you have vigorous citizens involved, informed voters involved to take 
back our country and our government, the reforms just will be overridden 
by the overwhelming power of commercial interests that have turned 
Washington into corporate occupied territory.

ADLER: We're going to go to another question. But, just quickly, you 
both support instant runoff voting?

DEAN: I do.

NADER: Yes, it's good to see how it works.

QUESTION: And, as far as you, Governor Dean, do you support or oppose 
the end of the electoral college?

DEAN: I have never thought about that a lot. And the problem is that my 
state's a small state. And if you abolish the electoral college, nobody 
would ever campaign there ever again.

However, I think that Ralph's point is a good one. We don't need any 
more candidates elected president of the United States who have 500,000 
fewer votes than the person that they competed against. But, if that's 
what it takes, we'll do it.

QUESTION: A few blocks from here, the Senate is debating a 
constitutional moment. They're trying to decide whether to enact a 
federal marriage amendment. What can either and both of you say today to 
send a message to the Senate to stop this constitutional train wreck?

DEAN: This is exactly why I'm here. I'm not here because I dislike Ralph 
Nader, and I'm not here because I don't think he has a right to run for 
president. I think he does have that right.

But I'm here to argue that under John Kerry, he has publicly said that 
he would not ever use the Constitution of the United States to take away 
rights from people.

This will be the first time, should this succeed, that the Constitution 
of the United States has been used to remove people's rights. This is 
none of the business of the federal government. The Defense of Marriage 
Act was unconstitutional. This is outrageous. States ought to be able to 
decide for themselves.

We decided. We were the first in the nation to decide that every single 
gay and lesbian American deserve the same rights as everybody else did. 
Massachusetts has now decided. Let the states do this.

The only role of the federal government should be this: One, they ought 
to make clear that every state has a responsibility in the way that they 
choose to make sure that every gay and lesbian American has the same 
rights as everybody else. And two, the president of the United States, 
as I have promised and I believe Senator Kerry has promised, should make 
available every single immigration right, taxation right, inheritance 
right, and all the other 1,600 rights that are not available now to gay 
and lesbian Americans because they're not allowed to get married, those 
rights should be available to every American, every single American 
without an adjective about what category that American might belong to.

QUESTION: Thank you, Governor Dean.

And now, Ralph Nader.

NADER: Well, we believe in equal rights, and our position is much better 
than John Kerry's position. You can compare our positions by logging 
into our Web site, vote Nader.org. Without going into elaboration, the 
gay and lesbian community would prefer our position to the opposition of 
John Kerry to what's going on in Massachusetts.

Certainly his position is better than George W. Bush, but our position 
is the best. We've got to get rid of this discrimination, this chilling, 
this bigotry toward gays and lesbians that are reflected in literally 
hundreds and hundreds of statutes and regulations in this country.

QUESTION: We have a question in the audience from a very successful 
independent, third party candidate, John Anderson.

JOHN ANDERSON, FORMER THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT: Thank you. 
John Anderson of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and also of the Center for 
Voting and Democracy. I want to applaud both candidates for their 
endorsement of instant runoff voting.

ANDERSON: I would only hope, Governor Dean, that it will become part of 
the Democratic platform, a specific plank endorsing that, and working in 
the states to make sure the state legislatures make that possible.

The other point that I think should be made on electoral reform, again, 
I applaud Governor Dean for his willingness to debate Ralph Nader here 
today, but what about the coming general election campaign?

Will you and the Democratic Party insist that we reform the present 
debate process, which has become the property of the so-called 
Commission on Presidential Debates, just another name for the two major 
parties?

Would you accept the kind of reform in that area that would say that if 
a candidate has ballot access to the extent that he could win a majority 
in the Electoral College, if he has the qualifications that would be 
manifest by a national poll showing that at least half of the American 
voters in September would like to hear that candidate in the debates, 
will you support the inclusion of an open debate process that would give 
a third party or independent candidate the right to participate in those 
debates?

DEAN: The way you ask the question is very interesting, because you also 
laid out a series of thresholds.

I don't care who runs the debate. If you want somebody else to run this, 
if you think it's the property of the two parties, fine, let's give it 
to somebody else to run it.

But there have to be a threshold. Right now there is a threshold, it's 
15 percent in the polls. Well, maybe that's not the right threshold.

I just went through a primary where there were nine candidates on the 
stage at the same time. That was not very enlightening to most voters. 
It was a good...

ADLER: But on the other hand, it was really interesting, right? I mean...

DEAN: I thought it was incredibly dull...

ADLER: I don't know. I...

DEAN: ... and most people I talked to did, too.

(LAUGHTER)

ADLER: I don't know. I remember, you know, when I looked at the debates 
and I saw Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun and you and Dennis 
Kucinich, I thought it was a lot more witty and engaging than I think 
the possible snooze we're going to face in the presidential party debates.

DEAN: Well, the bottom line is...

(APPLAUSE)

The bottom line is, I agree with the premise that the debates ought to 
include everybody. The question is: What kind of a threshold do you use? 
Because sometimes there are 20 people on the ballot.

DEAN: And it obviously is not practical to have a 20-person forum up on 
the stage or even a 9-person forum.

NADER: Well, people don't want to get involved in opening the debates, 
as John Anderson suggested -- and I believe, by the way, proportional 
representation is critical to instant runoff voting, working better -- 
log into opendebates.org, because the threshold is a reasonable one. If 
a majority of the American people, as they expressed in 2000, in poll 
after poll, want a candidate on the debates, that ought to be enough.

And a majority of the American people wanted me and Buchanan on the 
debates in 2000. It isn't because they just viewed the debates as a cure 
for insomnia. I think they wanted a broader agenda. They wanted more 
exciting issues. They wanted to get rid of all of the taboos that put 
marbles in the mouths of the two major presidential candidates, hemming 
and hawing.

So 5 percent in the polls is one criteria. A majority is another. And 
that ought to be good. What are they afraid of?

The audience for the debates are going down every four years. They were 
down were down to 38 million last time in contrast to 92 million when 
Perot was on the debate.

There is no other way to reach tens of millions of Americans other than 
go through the gateway dominated by the two parties. I mean, what other 
democracy allows that?

You can campaign all over the country for the largest arenas, like the 
biggest arenas that we filled in the year of 2000, we only reached 2 
percent of the people we could have reached on just one debate.

What is the reason for all of this sanctioning, all of this restriction, 
all of this politics of fear from new ideas and fresh vistas in a record 
of 40 years of accomplishment.

QUESTION: Let's go on. Ralph Nader has accused the Democratic party of 
waging a battle to prevent him from getting on the ballot in Arizona, 
Texas, Illinois, Florida, Michigan...

NADER: Oregon.

QUESTION: ... Oregon.

(LAUGHTER)

Governor Dean, is the Democratic party trying to prevent third parties 
and independents from getting on the ballot?

DEAN: Not to my knowledge. I refuse to participate in anything like 
that, because I don't appreciate that. Some of my former staff members 
are doing that. I told them I wasn't going to have anything to do with 
them, because they are the same people running that group who tried to 
knock me out of the caucus in Iowa.

NADER: David Jones.

DEAN: That's right, not my favorite person. You all know him well, right?

Jeannie (ph) knows him very well.

Here's the problem with what's going on. I do believe that Ralph, that 
your access, your attempt to get on the ballots, is fatally flawed. I 
don't believe -- if you really did go out and get all those signatures 
in Arizona, it would be great. But the truth is, a lot of them were 
illegal. And it's not picking on you. This happens to every candidate. 
If you pay somebody to go get signatures, they generally do a much 
lousier job than if you use volunteers.

It is true that the Oregon Family Council, which is virulently anti-gay, 
right-wing group, called up all their folks and tried to get them to go 
to the Oregon convention to sign your petition.

I don't think that's the way to change the party. I agree with much of 
what you say, but the way to change the country is not to do it with any 
means to the end, the way to change the country is not to get in bed 
with right-wing, anti-gay groups to get you on the ballot. That can't 
work. It can't work.

The problem with a democracy is that the two major parties have tried to 
use any means to an end. I think there's a big difference between the 
Democrats and the Republicans. I'll grant you that there's significant 
corporate influence that we don't like and I campaigned against in the 
primary.

I'm not running for president right now, not just because I lost in 
Iowa, but because I made the calculation that if I did, I would take 
away votes which that otherwise would go to John Kerry and the result 
was going to be the re-election of George Bush. That is a national 
emergency, and we cannot have it.

(APPLAUSE)

NADER: I think just what you said about that group, it was a legitimate 
smear. Do you know what a legitimate smear is, Howard? It's a smear 
premeditated and knowing.

We don't even know this group. Don't try to tar us with this. There have 
been groups that supported your campaign you wouldn't want to have 
breakfast with, even if you were starving.

DEAN: Then just renounce them. That's all I ask.

NADER: Well, fine, I renounce them. You know what else to renounce. Do 
you renounce Pfizer and Chevron and other companies who were criminally 
convicted of crimes by the federal government, giving millions of 
dollars in the year 2000 to the Democrat Party, and they did not return 
the money? That's a matter of record.

DEAN: Damn right I renounce that. It's exactly why I ran for president. 
I don't want that stuff anymore. And we're going to have real campaign 
financing, with public financing of campaigns in this country, but it's 
not going to happen under George Bush as president.

NADER: OK, so you'll urge John Kerry to return all money coming from 
corporate executives who presided over corporations who either pleaded 
guilty or were convicted of antitrust, environmental, labor and other 
crimes.

DEAN: I will urge him to do that if you will give back the 10 percent of 
your $1,000 contributions that came from people like Richard Egan, the 
ambassador to Ireland appointed by George Bush, because you should not 
be taking that money.

NADER: I wasn't aware that he was a corporate criminal. He's an American 
citizen who might be -- is a Republican, just happens to believe in 
civil liberties maybe. I don't even know the man.

ADLER: Well, let's go on at this point.

NADER: But Republicans are human beings, too.

(APPLAUSE)

DEAN: Right-wingers may not be.

ADLER: Let's go on to another question here on "Justice Talking," where 
we're talking with Ralph Nader and Howard Dean, and we're debating third 
parties and the 2004 election. Let's take another question from our 
audience.

QUESTION: I am a big fan of third party politics. I think it's something 
that we need to integrate into our federal system.

I was fortunate enough to spend a lot of time living over in Germany, 
where they have a very strong Green Party, and I'm sort of questioning 
the tactics in which Mr. Nader is taking and trying to establish that 
party as a third party: the Green Party, independent party.

The Green Party in Germany was able to establish itself more at the 
local and state level, where they were able to become politicians in 
those areas, and they slowly gained confidence and familiarity by the 
people (OFF-MIKE)

And do you think that it might be more effective to take a similar 
route, which in turn would add to the long-term future stability and 
popularity of the Green Party instead of running for a presidency in 
which you really have no chance to win?

NADER: Well, I don't really see the contrast here. It would be good to 
have proportional representation.

In West Germany -- or Germany now -- when the Greens got over 5 percent 
of the vote, they got over 5 percent of the parliament. If they get 10 
percent, they get 10 percent of the parliament.

In this country, you can get 49 percent of the vote and you get nothing. 
So a lot of people's votes don't mean anything at all, assuming they 
even vote.

So it is important to keep in mind that our divided power, separation of 
power system sometimes has a good asset in stopping things, but it's 
much more sluggish in getting new frontiers reached, new things done.

That's one reason why in Western Europe they came in after World War II 
with universal health care, a living wage, good benefits, four to six 
weeks paid vacation, good public transit.

NADER: We could have had all of this here had we had a parliamentary 
system, actually. Now with the filibuster and the obstruction, it's very 
hard. It's like they've made our society one that's stuck in traffic. We 
have far more problems in this country, far more solutions on the shelf 
than we apply, because of this kind of gridlock, this winner-take-all 
system.

QUESTION: And I wanted to know why, Mr. Nader or Mr. Dean, think that 
Kerry is running to the right of President Bush on the occupation in 
Iraq? And what should the peace movement's response be?

NADER: Excellent question. The Nader-Camejo ticket is the only avowedly 
and determined anti-war candidacy. We want to have a responsible 
six-month withdrawal of the U.S. military and corporate occupation, 
internationally supervised election, so that the Iraqi people don't feel 
that they're facing a permanent military occupation and the control of 
their oil resources and of public government. If they feel that, the 
majority of the Iraqis are going to support the insurgency. They're not 
going to distance themselves from the insurgency.

John Kerry voted for the war, as Howard Dean reminded us many times 
during the primary days. George W. Bush launched our country into a war 
in Iraq based on a platform of fabrication, deception, and lies, and did 
it in an unconstitutional manner. So that's one reason why we need more 
distinctions in the candidates. We need more voices and we need more 
choices.

Furthermore, it looks like John Kerry is running to the right of George 
W. Bush on the Israeli-Palestine issue. Why, if the U.S. government is 
really interested in peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, why 
doesn't it support the broad and deep Palestinian and Israeli peace 
movement, especially the Israeli peace movement that's put 120,000 
people in a protest demonstration in Tel Aviv the other day and 
represents former legislators, existing legislators, former ministers of 
justice, former generals, former combat officers...

ADLER: OK. I'm going to have to break in here and let -- I'm going to 
have to let Governor Dean get his licks in here.

DEAN: Let me just say a couple of things. First of all, I'm not 
convinced that John Kerry is running to George Bush's right. That's hard 
to do.

DEAN: Secondly, I think that if Ralph were as concerned about the war, 
and I think you are deeply concerned about the war, but then what was 
the reason for recommending that John Edwards be John Kerry's 
running-mate, when John Edwards also voted for the war? I don't 
understand that at all?

NADER: Because everyone but you on the vice presidential slate, you 
weren't on, for obvious reasons, Howard, because you were an insurgent 
who is now adopting the role of being a detergent of the dirty linen of 
the Democratic party.

Gephardt was for the war. Gephardt was for the war and so on. That's the 
answer to your question.

(CROSSTALK)

NADER: Also, Edwards is good on torts on civil justice and right of 
Americans to sue.

DEAN: Let me just see, if I'm going to be the detergent, let me explain 
why I think that that's necessary.

Here's what makes me so passionate about the issue. It's not a dislike 
for third parties. I think third parties have contributed a lot.

It's not a dislike for the platform that Ralph's talking about. I do 
have some concerns with the means to the end.

The real problem is that the people are going to suffer from your 
candidacy should you take more votes, as you did in 2004, from John 
Kerry than you did from Bush -- our people, your people and my people, 
the people, the folks in this room.

There are kids who are losing health insurance everyday because of what 
George Bush is doing. If he gets re-elected, those people are going to 
suffer.

There are schools that are going down the tubes in inner-cities and 
rural areas all over America. Those people are going to suffer if George 
Bush gets re-elected.

There are not just Americans dying everyday in Iraq, there are Iraqis 
dying everyday in Iraq. Those people are going to suffer if George Bush 
gets re-elected.

And so what I see in this candidacy is the perfect becoming the enemy of 
the good. The reason I chose not to run as a third party myself, which 
took me about five seconds to think about, after I had really endured 
the slings and arrows of having been the front-runner of the Democratic 
nomination, is in the long-run, it's not important that Howard Dean be 
president or that Ralph Nader be president.

In the long-run, this is about American people who can't defend 
themselves against the kind of administration that George Bush has. And 
that's why I wish you were on our team, Ralph, because we really need you.

(APPLAUSE)

NADER: I would just like to say: What have the Democrats done about the 
poor in this country? What have they done about the...

(CROSSTALK)

DEAN: They've done a lot.

(CROSSTALK)

NADER: They've generated as many loopholes in tax systems for their 
corporate benefactors as anyone.

Neither Howard Dean nor John Kerry will attack the military budget, 
which is swollen, redundant, and full of corrupt contracts that are 
eating half of -- the whole military budget, now, is one-half of the 
federal government's operating expenditures. That draws money away from 
clinics and schools and public drinking water systems and public 
libraries and public transit and the environment.

And the Democrats are fully complicit. John Kerry will not challenge the 
bloated military, redundant military budget. And if he doesn't do that, 
he cannot pay for all those programs that Howard referred to so 
sympathetically.

The Democrats haven't done anything on attacking corporate crime. They 
haven't done anything on corporate welfare. You look at John Kerry's Web 
site, there's nothing on corporate crime under crime. There's nothing on 
corporate welfare bleeding hundreds of billions of dollars from 
taxpayers from the necessity of the American people.

So now, you put that rap on anyone, I could put it on you, if I wanted.

ADLER: Let's...

NADER: Let's talk about the future here and assume that we are all 
well-intentioned toward the American people.

ADLER: OK, well I'm going to...

DEAN: Wait a minute.

ADLER: OK.

DEAN: While you evaluate what Ralph Nader just said about the Democrats, 
just think about who put Medicare in here without a single Republican 
vote. Everybody over 65 now has health insurance in this country because 
of Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats.

Who did Medicaid? Children all over America have health insurance. Who 
did the earned income tax credit? You know, who that was? It was Richard 
Nixon with Democratic support.

It makes a big difference whether you have a Democratic or a Republican 
administration.

NADER: That was the old Democratic Party.

DEAN: All I'm asking is that we not let the perfect become the enemy of 
the good, because in this election it matters. I believe in most of the 
reforms that Ralph Nader talks about. He has been a hero of mine because 
of his exceptional, extraordinary career. But I am desperate to send 
George Bush back to Crawford, Texas, and we need your help in doing that.

ADLER: OK. I'm going to lighten things up a minute, just take this away, 
because we could continue this way all along. And I just want to ask you 
a couple of -- actually the most difficult questions you're going to 
face, because they require really short answers. So, are you ready? Are 
you ready?

OK. One sentence. Howard Dean, who is your favorite president?

DEAN: Two, George Washington and Harry Truman, for different reasons, 
obviously.

ADLER: And Ralph Nader, yours?

NADER: Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson.

ADLER: Governor Dean, would you take a Cabinet position in a Democratic 
administration if it was offered to you -- oh, you know, health and 
human services, surgeon general, you know?

DEAN: I haven't made any deal like that, but if Ralph comes on board, 
maybe we can both get Cabinet positions.

(LAUGHTER)

ADLER: Well, that was my next question.

Well, if Senator John Kerry wins and asks you, Mr. Nader, to be head of 
the Environmental Protection Agency, would you take the job? You might 
get a pension.

(LAUGHTER)

NADER: Are you supposed to be impartial?

(LAUGHTER)

The answer is no, because I want to be, after the election, what Howard 
Dean told me he wanted to be during the election when he lost the 
primary, is to be a hair shirt to the Democrats, a real hair shirt, not 
a linen handkerchief.

(LAUGHTER)

ADLER: Mr. Nader, if you could give Howard Dean one piece of political 
advice, what would it be?

NADER: I would tell him to explain to the American people why Howard 
Dean I comments on John Kerry, which were unbelievably searing, makes me 
look modest by comparison, why they are no longer part of Howard Dean II 
political repertoire?

DEAN: When you're running against somebody for office, the fact is that 
it's tough and you focus on the differences. When you're running as a 
team, you got to look at the fact that the differences between any of 
the nine of us that ran for the presidency are so -- the difference 
between any of us are so small compared to the difference between us and 
George Bush that we are on the same team. We need to focus on one thing 
in this election: sending George Bush back to Crawford, Texas.

And then we have a chance at instigating some of the reforms that we're 
both talking about.

ADLER: Governor Dean, what one suggestion would you give Ralph Nader?

DEAN: Lighten up.

(LAUGHTER)

NADER: Well, that's better than what I thought he was going to say.

(LAUGHTER)

Hey, listen? Have you been on "Saturday Night Live" four times, Howard?

(LAUGHTER)

DEAN: Are you kidding? I don't even dare go on "The Daily Show."

(LAUGHTER)

ADLER: OK. Howard, in the last few weeks, the "Boondocks" comic strip 
featured the abduction of Ralph Nader. Justifying his action, the 
kidnapper in the strip said, "Don't you see he's going to mess 
everything up just like he did the last time."

ADLER: Howard, is this the only way to stop Ralph Nader, to take him to 
an undisclosed location until November?

(LAUGHTER)

DEAN: I don't think we ought to stop Ralph Nader. I just don't want you 
to vote for him, because we need your votes for John Kerry so we can get 
rid of George Bush, and then at least have a chance, at least have a 
chance at health insurance.

John Kerry has publicly said that the first bill out of the White House 
if he becomes president is going to be health insurance for every single 
American. It seems to me that's worth waiting for and worth working for.

ADLER: And last quick question: What's the worst campaign photo of you 
out there, the one that rivals Michael Dukakis in the tank, Gary Hart on 
the boat, the monkey business? Tell us about it, Mr. Nader.

NADER: You think I spend my time looking at those things?

(LAUGHTER)

You know, we're being told by the Democrats to look at hair, John 
Kerry's hair and John Edward's hair. Let's get back to corporate power 
in America.

(LAUGHTER)

ADLER: Governor Dean, your worst photo?

DEAN: I don't know. But I'm sure if you look at the New York Times, 
you'll find one.

(LAUGHTER)

ADLER: So we're now going to go back to more serious stuff. Let's go 
back to the audience.

QUESTION: My question is for Mr. Nader. It's very, very important to me 
that my vote count in this election. And I'd like to know what kind of 
plan you have for getting to 270 electoral votes?

NADER: Well, first of all, we're going to get on more than enough 
ballots to get that number of electoral votes.

And, second, we know that the system is rigged by the two parties from 
ballot access to ballot harassment to exclusion from the debates to give 
us a fair chance. So we're, frankly, a underdog campaign representing 
millions of underdogs in this country, people who are pushed around, 
harmed, ignored, laid off without any reasons, arbitrarily defrauded, 
you know, all of the things the mainstream press reports about. But 
then, they don't conclude that there needs to be real change here.

So we're going to go all out. If people want to vote for their 
conscience, fine. If they want to vote for us in the slam-dunk states 
that are dominated by Republicans, like Texas, or Democrats like New 
York, that's fine.

But, just remember, after this election is over, that the Nader- Camejo 
ticket put forth an agenda of immense humanity and practical 
implementation that was long overdue and long ignored by both parties, 
and that we gave you the chance to vote your conscience.

NADER: And if you don't vote your conscience, I'd like to hear from you 
about what part of your body you are voting.

ADLER: Now, if a month before the election it becomes clear that it's 
mathematically impossible for you to win the presidency because you're 
not on enough state ballots, do you stay on or do you withdraw?

NADER: Well, you remember that headline in Daily News, "Dewey Wins," 
because the polls said that he wins. The polls can be wrong.

The polls were wrong about Howard Dean. They all said he was going to 
win in a landslide against his Democratic primary opponents.

We're building beyond November. An oak tree always starts with an acorn. 
And we are determined to give this younger generation of Americans a 
horizon for a better country and a better world and show them how to do 
it. Because the older generations have conceded two- party monopolies 
and narrow choices and low expectations and least- worst mentality far 
too long.

The American people deserve better. They deserve independent- minded, 
reform-minded and diligently minded voters, just the way they are as 
sports fans.

QUESTION: Quick question for each.

Governor Dean, what's your position on groups pulling out all the stops 
to keep Mr. Nader off the ballots?

And, Mr. Nader, would you consider stepping back off the ballot in some 
of the key states that were close in terms of 2000, like New Hampshire, 
like West Virginia? Couldn't you still make your point and reach a 
certain goal in terms of vote-getting without getting into those 
critical areas that are going to be the difference -- Arkansas, 
Missouri, those type of places?

ADLER: Start with Governor Dean.

DEAN: I do not think that there ought to be people like David Jones 
going out and trying to get Ralph Nader off the ballot.

I do, however, think that Ralph is playing a victim when he ought not to 
be, because he is using techniques that get other candidates in trouble 
to get on the ballot.

If you pay people to get your signatures and they get them from 
Republicans, you are bound to have trouble. Democrats do that to each 
other to get each other off the ballot.

So I do not think this is a conspiracy to keep Ralph Nader off the 
ballot. I think if Ralph was using the means that he ought to be using, 
which is tons of volunteer signatures and not getting in bed with 
anti-gay groups like Oregon Family Policy, then he wouldn't be having 
these kinds of problems.

NADER: See why I go after the Democrats as well as Republicans? They 
face falsehoods and they keep repeating them again and again and again.

The way this system is orchestrated, sometimes you have to have paid 
signature firms to get you on the ballot. Why? Because the two parties 
are working overtime to keep you off the ballot.

The other thing is this: As far as the questions directed to me is 
concerned, I'm never going to betray -- and I'm sure Peter Camejo is 
never going to betray -- our supporters, and before the election say, 
"Sorry. In a few states, we're cutting out." That's not the way to build 
the progressive political movement. And Rome wasn't built in a day. We 
got to look beyond November, too.

Secondly, people should think Electoral College, as long as we're 
saddled with it, and if you're in Texas, you can easily vote your 
conscience and vote for the Nader-Camejo ticket because the Democrats 
are abandoning Texas at the presidential level and, of course, hurting 
their slate of candidates all the way down to city council. And the 
Republicans do the same thing in places like Minnesota.

We have to get over this idea that only small parties take away votes. 
It's big parties that take away votes. And as long as the Democrats are 
not concerned that in 2000, 10 times more Democrats deserted Gore -- 8 
million Democrats deserted Gore and voted for Bush, 10 times more than 
deserted and voted for the Nader-LaDuke ticket.

It is baffling that the Democrats will not focus on 10 times more votes 
that they can get back and whine and carp about a third party candidacy. 
And they can, in the process, start registering 9 million 
African-American voters which Jesse Jackson thinks the Democratic Party 
is ignoring.

(APPLAUSE)

ADLER: Governor Dean, when you were running in the primaries, you often 
sounded like Ralph Nader. You talked about the domination of corporate 
interests. You opposed the war in Iraq. How do you politics differ from 
Mr. Nader?

DEAN: I'm sure there are some. My purpose in coming here was not to 
differentiate my politics from Ralph.

DEAN: He may choose to do so more vigorously. But here's the decision, 
here's the fundamental decision that we made differently. I believe that 
in the end the people that I care about are served better with a John 
Kerry presidency than they are with a George Bush presidency.

The whole reason I ran -- it partly was about corporate interests, but 
mostly it was about human beings. One of the biggest shocks I got was 
when I got to Iowa, coming from an eastern state, and found out that 
working people didn't trust American corporations, because they weren't 
American anymore. They would sell their jobs, move them to Mexico or 
China or India, and forget about people who worked there for 20 years.

If George Bush is re-elected, that's going to get worse. John Kerry 
really has a program in place to stop that. He's even been in trouble 
with the business community because he called corporations that do that 
"Benedict Arnolds."

I believe it is a big difference between John Kerry. I know Ralph has 
said some things that John Kerry hasn't said, and I agree with Ralph on 
some of them, but we cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the 
good. The stakes are too high. And it's human beings.

This isn't a debate about who has the right to be on the ballot and 
philosophy and let's get lots of different points of view. This is a 
debate about human beings and whether they have health insurance or not, 
whether they have jobs or not and whether we're going to stand up for 
public education in this country or not.

And there's a big difference between John Kerry and George Bush, and I 
cheerfully support John Kerry because I think he can do the right thing.

QUESTION: OK. Here is a clip from Democratic presidential candidate 
Senator John Kerry.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

U.S. SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I 
think my candidacy will speak to and appeal to many of the people who 
were attracted in the year 2000 to Ralph Nader. I've known him for a 
long time. We've worked together on many issues.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Mr. Nader, what do you see as the prime differences between 
you and Senator Kerry?

NADER: Well, there are a lot of them. I can just give you a quick list. 
I mean what I say about getting rid of corporate subsidies, handouts, 
giveaways. I think we should have a national crackdown on corporate 
crime, fraud and abuse that's drained and looted trillions of dollars in 
the last five years from innocent workers, pension holders and small 
investors.

I do believe in the electoral reform that John Anderson talked about. I 
haven't heard John Kerry say anything about proportional representation 
or instant runoff voting.

I believe in full public financing of public elections, not putting them 
on the auction block to the highest bidders, who, you know, come from 
the wealthy elite and the corporate commercial givers.

I believe that people should have a right to benefit from repeal of the 
Taft-Hartley Act, so Wal-Mart workers and others can form unions and 
improve their life and collectively bargain against these corporations 
whose executives make millions on the backs of people who are making $6, 
$7 an hour, single moms and others.

I also believe that there should be no draft in this country, and I'd 
like to see John Kerry and George W. Bush come out against it.

I also believe we should get out of this war in Iraq, as 42 percent of 
the American people want the troops back now and over 55 percent think 
it was a mistake to send in the first place.

I believe in national charters of global corporations.

ADLER: OK. I didn't ask for every difference.

(LAUGHTER)

NADER: I'm just trying to make sure that I make my point abundantly 
clear here.

ADLER: I think you have. And we're going to go on to another question 
from our audience here on "Justice Talking."

QUESTION: I'm from the Green Party. Mr. Nader has been the only one who 
has mentioned the defense budget over and over and over, and the 
profiteering, and how it's half of everything and straining everything.

Our president depends on fear over and over and over. We're told that we 
are in danger, and of course we're all meant to be terrified.

And the spineless Democrats have never said, "Well, you're overdoing it 
a little bit."

So what I'm asking is hypothetical, but if you were in power, either 
one, would you cut in half the defense budget? Would you go back to the 
ABM Treaty? Would you rescind, repeal the Patriot Act? Would you rescind 
the FISA Act? Would you close down the CIA? Would you get back to real 
government?

Thank you.

ADLER: Now, I'm assuming that Ralph Nader would say yes to most of this, 
so I'm going to turn this over to Governor Dean.

DEAN: I think it's only fair to let Ralph just have his own word for a sec.

I mean, would you say yes to all of that?

NADER: No. We do need an intelligence capability in this country, but 
not $40 billion of mistakes every year. This is the most bloated budget 
that has led our country astray and wrong from the time of the Soviet 
Union to the Iraq war.

DEAN: I think there are two big problems with the defense budget. One is 
that there are the contracts that get let out, like the Halliburton 
contract of course is the most famous, let out by a vice president of 
the United States who was actually getting money from Halliburton in 
deferred compensation. That's a violation of the federal ethics code, 
even though it may theoretically not be against the law.

And the other is that the problem with the defense budget is not 
entirely its size, it's what it's spent on.

For example, yes, we should be go back into the ABM Treaty. I believe we 
ought to sign the land mines treaty. There's no reason to do that now 
that the DMZ is not such a problem as it was between the Koreas. Land 
mines are a weapon which principally serve to blow the heads and hands 
off small children around the world.

I believe that instead of building the tactical battlefield nuclear 
weapons program, which is a weapons program that does nothing to fight 
against terrorism, we need to invest in special ops and human intelligence.

I believe that instead of investing in Star Wars, which has failed the 
majority of its tests, that we ought to be doing different kinds of 
things with that money, such as paying soldiers and making sure there 
are adequate schools on our military bases.

So I'm not sure I subscribe to all the list. I think we need a change in 
the defense budget, but you're not going to cut the defense budget. What 
you're going to do is reallocate it and do things that make sense.

ADLER: In the last presidential election, only 51 percent of Americans 
voted. Among 18- to 25-year-olds, the percentage was much lower. There 
are many voters who have felt for years that they've been choosing 
between the lesser of two evils.

I want to ask you both how you engage people who feel that none of the 
candidates represent their interest?

Start with you, Governor Dean.

DEAN: I think you ought to speak to people's interests. That's one thing 
that Ralph does, and I did, too. And that's probably why we're both here 
instead of in the White House.

(LAUGHTER)

I do think the Democrats have made a mistake -- and I'm very frank about 
this -- in ignoring our core constituency groups.

There is a political scientist by the name of George Lakeoff (ph) who 
teaches at Berkeley whose view is that -- the Republicans have learned 
this and we haven't yet -- that instead of going to the swing voters, 
what you do is you energize your base. They've gotten big turnouts; we 
haven't. I made no bones about that. I still believe that's the way to 
win elections.

So I think we ought to go to the base. I think we ought not to give 
people the lesser choice between two evils.

I believe, however, that if you look at John -- I mean, right now, 
George Bush is calling John Kerry the most liberal senator in the United 
States. Well, whether that's true or not, I don't know. But I certainly 
know that he's stood up for the environment. He has stood up for a 
progressive tax code. He's already talked about getting rid of all the 
Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. This is a guy who has progressive 
credentials, and we ought to be supporting him.

ADLER: Way to energize the people who think their interest are not being 
represented, Mr. Nader?

NADER: There are a lot of small and big ways. Small ways, for example, 
make election day a holiday for people who have long commutes. The 
second is to have same-day voter registration. That's one reason why the 
vote turnout in Minnesota is higher than in many states. The third is to 
have proportional representation so people feel that their vote counts, 
even though they don't get 51 percent of the vote, like the Greens in 
Germany. The fourth is to have more candidates out there. You know, 
that's what we're trying to do. All of this will be laid out in detail 
and for public debate on our Web site, votenader.org.

But here's the main one, here's the one that I really like the most: In 
addition to having more initiatives on the ballot -- because they don't 
want to vote for the candidates, they come out for a particular 
initiative that they want enacted into law -- but the big one, in my 
mind, is binding "none of the above."

NADER: In America, you can only vote "yes," when you go to the polls. 
You have no opportunity to vote "none of the above," or "no confidence" 
in all the candidates.

So if you have binding "none of the above" on every ballot line, if you 
don't like the candidates and you don't want to write anyone in and you 
don't want to write your own name, you can vote binding "none of the 
above." And if that wins, it sends that election packing with the 
candidates and orders new elections in 30 days.

(APPLAUSE)

ADLER: Governor Dean, would this be your...

DEAN: That is exactly the difference between the two of us. I think the 
last two things that Ralph Nader said, I could not disagree with more 
strongly.

We live in a real world. We have to make real choices. Binding "none of 
the above" means we don't have to make real choices. That's the first 
problem.

The second problem is I could not disagree with you more about 
referendum. Referendum is a very attractive thing. People like to go and 
give their opinions. And most people in America believe in referendum 
government. I don't.

We gave civil rights to a despised minority in 2000. The gay and lesbian 
community got the same rights as everybody else did. If that had ever 
been put to a referendum, it would have gone down.

Can you imagine what would have happened in Arkansas if you tried to do 
a civil rights amendment through a ballot referendum?

Referendum is not always the best form of government. It is the tyranny 
of the majority. And I'm surprised to hear Ralph defend it, because 
Thomas Jefferson was one of the people who stood up and talked about the 
tyranny of the majority when he wrote the Constitution. That is why this 
democracy is such a powerful and wonderful force, is because the 
minority -- whatever that minority may be -- still has its rights 
protected. And referendum doesn't do that.

NADER: A minority is protected by the constitution of the state and the 
federal Constitution. You don't stifle the voice of the people in direct 
democracy when their legislature and governor turns their back on them 
by saying no initiative, referendum, recall.

I suppose you're against the recall, too?

DEAN: Referendum has been used to deny the rights of gay people in 30 
states in this country, and I think it's wrong.

ADLER: OK, I'm going to jump in here because we only have a few more 
minutes.

(CROSSTALK)

ADLER: We only have a few more minutes, and I want to get my favorite 
question in.

NADER: OK.

ADLER: It used to be that you couldn't run for office on a major party 
ticket and be Catholic or divorced. It's still not clear you can be a 
woman and win the presidency. And you certainly can't be an atheist. 
There are probably a host of things you can't be or can't say and be 
considered a viable major party presidential candidate.

Isn't this a problem?

ADLER: How can we get our candidates to reflect the diversity of America?

Start with you, Governor.

(LAUGHTER)

DEAN: That's called look left and fake right.

(LAUGHTER)

ADLER: I wasn't sure. I was...

DEAN: I think we prove that you can have a viable candidacy. We did come 
very close to winning. I think John Kerry ran a very great three-week 
campaign in Iowa and nosed us out. We all knew whoever won the first 
primary was going to win the whole thing because the way the primaries 
were compressed.

I feel pretty good about what we did. We raised $53 million. We have an 
e-mail list of 700,000 people. And most of the contributions we got were 
under $100.

I remember a woman from Penn State University who sold her bicycle for 
$100, sent us the money, and said, "I'm selling my bicycle for democracy."

This country is alive and well if we'll have candidates who will stand 
up and say what they think. And it's my function, and I believe in the 
Democratic Party, is to get John Kerry elected, and then stand up and 
say what we think so we're going to do all those things that he's 
talking about on the campaign trial.

ADLER: All right. I'm going to give this to Mr. Nader, but I still 
haven't heard about women and atheists and other things like that.

NADER: Certainly, there are all kinds of taboos. There is a taboo about 
criticizing Israeli military regime. There is a taboo about criticizing 
anything that would be considered anti-religious. There's a taboo in 
many Democrat and Republican circles of even using the phrase "corporate 
crime," until recently. There's a taboo about saying that we need to 
repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Even the Democrats, who rely on organized 
labor to win or lose elections, are turning their back on the workers.

There are a lot of taboos. And the way to get over it is to have more 
voices, more choices, more regional primaries so Iowa and New Hampshire 
don't decide the nominee for either party.

And I might say, with a little bit of immodesty, the fuller answer to 
your question is in this new book...

(LAUGHTER)

... called "The Good Fight."

(APPLAUSE)

ADLER: OK. Quick response. We have 30 seconds quick response, Governor Dean.

DEAN: I think you ought to buy the book. I haven't seen it.

ADLER: No, no, no, no.

(LAUGHTER)

ADLER: Women, atheists, taboos.

DEAN: As long as we're promoting ourselves, though, 
democracyforamerica.com. We want you to go to that Web site.

(APPLAUSE)
_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/