She is correct because there is no essential difference between those two candidates. Both are representatives of what is usually called "big business."

In a further demonstration of his subservience to Wall Street, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said that the $700 billion bailout of US financial institutions now moving through Congress would force a delay in additional spending by an incoming Democratic administration.

In an interview Tuesday morning with NBC's "Today" show, Obama said of the bailout, "How we're going to structure that in budget terms still has to be decided." He continued, "Does that mean I can do everything that I've called for in this campaign right away? Probably not. I think we're going to have to phase it in. And a lot of it's going to depend on what our tax revenues look like."

The new spending Obama has proposed on programs like education, infrastructure and health care is so minimal, compared to the vast social need, that it doesn't deserve the label "reform." It is barely a sop. But even this is likely to be withheld initially, and then canceled outright once the cost of the Wall Street bailout mushrooms, as it inevitably will.

Bill Moyers says the same thing.

Good on Nader for trying to get in the debates.

I'm tired of dems and reupubs in the debates talking about hair dos and all sorts of irrelevant BS.  Good on Nader.  I will support him being out there.

The only cowards who don't want him in the debates are Dean et al. who don't want their crappy power questioned.

Good for Nader.

You want democracy?  You think Obama is the answer?  You think he is "better" than Bush or McCain?  Puh-leezze.  

You mention amnesty for non-violent drug offenders as the "big one" among Nader's positions.
Good idea. About time. But there are other big ones also:

Six months for getting out of Iraq. A major big one. The root cause of our economic and moral collapse.

No to nuclear power. Yes to solar.

How about a single payer health plan?

How about going after Bush/Cheney for their demonstrable impeachable offenses. Don't we want to prevent these kinds of crimes in the future?

What about an adequate task force for going after corporate crime?
What about a minimum wage that would help people to survive?
How about going after the telecoms instead of rewarding them for invading our privacy?

The sad and funny thing about these issues is that they represent core democratic values. That is - they represent the views that used to be and should be held by the democratic party.
Nader sounds like a democrat. So does Kucinich.

The democrats, especially progressives, turned their backs on both of them. I believe that a democrat who ran as a democrat and represented these views forcefully would win in a landslide against a fossil like McCain and his party.

But no. We have a horse race instead.

Why you see Gonzales in a debate with Biden and Palin, but not Nader in a debate with Obama and McCain escapes me.

You call Nader a necessary voice - and one that gets people thinking - but go on to say you don't see him in the debates.
Don't you want people to be thinking about life and death issues that are not being addressed by the representatives of either the democrats or the republicans?

All the democrats have as their issue at this time is fear of the republicans. This is Orwellian.

People are not so sure that there is any deep difference between the candidates. So they are deciding, once again, on who seems nice and a potential beer or latte drinking partner.