Hillary's Double Standard is Showing

After being asked about Ralph Nadar's announcement that he was again running for president, she said the following about his 2000 run : "Well, you know, his being on the Green Party prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we could have had and I think that’s really unfortunate. I think we paid a big price for it."

Gee, I thought it was Pat Buchanan's chads that caused Al Gore to lose in Florida?

Seriously, this raises a question I'd like to ask her. "You said: "(I)t’s a free country,' which implies it is his choice. However you also said: "Obviously, it’s not helpful to whoever our Democratic nominee is." That sounds to me like you think it is wrong for a powerful 3rd party candidate to run. So, does that mean you think it was wrong for Ross Perot to run in 92 because he took votes away from the Republican nominee, thus helping your husband win? Ditto in 96? & that it was wrong for Pat Buchanan to run in 2000 because he took away votes from that year's Republican nominee? Or does this only count when it will hurt a Democrat? & if that is the case, aren't you once again proving how big a hypocrite YOU REALLY ARE?"

I have never been a fan of the arguement that Hillary put forth. Over the years, both parties have put it forth, Buchanan & Nadar being the recepiants of the objection in recent years. The arguement makes it sound like the only 2 valid parties are the Dems & Republicans. Last time that I looked, there is nothing in the Federal or any state Constitution that even requires a person to run as a member of any political party let alone the 2 major parties that currently exist.

Republicans have a selective case of amnesia in this area of their history. They started out as a 3rd party. The current major parties as they are today congealed only during the Civil War. & I firmly believe that a new party could spring up & take the place of 1 of the current major parties.

Besides, I don't know how much harm Nadar would do. Right now the Republican power stands to lose a lot of votes to a strong conservative, Pro-Life candidate running on a 3rd party.

Historically, in the last 150 years 3rd parties have tended to be more of an impetus for 1 of the main parties to adopt their major issue they are running on. That is why I see them as a good thing, not a bad thing. I know this isn't popular in some areas, but that isn't my problem.

I also seem them as a way to give voice to people who feel shut out of the major parties. & in doing so, they will encourage more people to get involved & vote. & in the end, that is what is most important to a healthy republic.