Fine.  It's all speculation about the past.  I'm interested in the present and especially the future, and while the past is educational it is not necessarily predictive. What I presented in my diary is factual.  It's not the 90s or 2000 or 2004.  It's more of an opportunity and, in terms of the U.S. rejoining the international dialogue on a more constructive basis, the Democrats capturing both houses of Congress (which as of today is official) is likely to begin that process.

Ralph Nader contributed a lot to knowledge and attitudes about particular issues and facets of contemporary life and politics.  As a candidate for president in 2000 he was a disaster, and his attitude and that of many Greens in the U.S. was destructive, and one of the factors that gave us GW Bush. I happen to live in one of the few parts of the U.S. where the Greens are somewhat influential and even hold some local offices. While I agree with some especially on environmental and energy issues (and even voted for one for city council; he lost) as a political party they are small, internally contentious, self-righteous and clueless, and this election they lost much of what influence they had even locally.

 I'm sorry if I react strongly to the destructive side of Nader's self-righteousness, but I regard it as a tragic flaw, with tragic consequences.  There's a thin line between trenchant analysis and self-righeous cynicism, and an addiction to anger--and unfortunately I've seen too much of all of it. We've been waiting for six painful years for some sign of hope here, and we've finally got it. It is a further responsibility for those of us who voted Democrat and who are Democrats to keep the pressure on these elected officials to do the right thing. But I'm not about to let cynicism dampen the energy that may yet save the future.      

"The end of all intelligent analysis is to clear the way for synthesis." H.G. Wells "It's not dark yet, but it's getting there." Bob Dylan