::::::::
I want Nader in the white house as much as the next guy, but it is never going to happen. There is never going to be an invasion of common sense people who just look at the issues when they vote. Before the election I spoke with a person who said that her friend did not vote for Obama, because an e-mail said he was the anti-christ. These are things the "big 2" parties are doing, to get their message out. The country as a whole subscribes to a mob mentality, one bad sound bite goes out and they all freak out. People can be reasoned with one on one, but in a group they look to each other to see if it is alright to agree with something.What are we doing to get our message out? We are telling people who already agree with us what we think. We should find a candidate who has a chance at winning, let's use puppets like the big 2. What is more important, the message or the messenger?
I want voters to see issues, but they look at other stuff. Like what? Looks, how they speak, do they smile, do they have cute kids. These things are not important to me, but they are to the people who vote. Nader looks old, and isnt fun to listen to (though he has important ideas).
Can't we find one person in the whole country with good ideas and is appealing to voters? When are we going to learn to play the game? Do we want to win, or always be the victimized outsiders?
Think about who the audience is. How do THEY get information on issues, this site or USA Today? How are they going to read our ideas if they are in some snobby blog site? If we know that they won't get his message, how can we complain when they don't get it.
So, I never thought you were trying to please anyone, and that is the problem. Don't change your content, put it in a bright new box and people will eat it up like they do everything else.
