OPINION: GIVE ME THE NOMINATION OR GIVE ME DEMOCRAT HUMILIATION

The distortion of Patrick Henry's famous statement, "Give me liberty, or give me death" in 1775 shows my estimation as to the depths Hillary Rodham Clinton has gone in the race for the Democratic nomination. Last night's results in Indiana and North Carolina have killed her candidacy after a long and damaging campaign which has seen her trade principle for her own ambition. Yet still she hasn't ended her candidacy and called for the party to unite.

She has won many of the larger states and has performed admirably in debates, but Obama has won more states, more delegates and more of the popular vote and it is he who has got the the charisma and eloquence which she so badly needs and which is lacking in her political arsenal. She is the calculating politician, he simply is the great inspirer, who else but Obama could get the world watching as a nation shouts "Yes we can." Obama's campaign is built on hope, Clinton uses the Karl Rove guidebook with negativity the soup of the day, Chef's special and dessert on her menu.

Hillary has rejected all the calls from Democratic Party leaders to stand aside and allow Obama to bring much needed Progressive policies back to a White House mired in the shallow regressive Conservative ideals of the Republican Party. If she fails to stand aside soon as decides to go all the way to the convention then it will be the Democrats as a whole who suffer. She could exit the stage gracefully in defeat knowing that senior positions in the Senate or even the Administration could be hers, if she wants them and if the Democrats win big in 2008. However, sadly she seems to be blinkered like too many politicians to the allure of power and is willing to hold her party ransom, even allowing McCain to continue the neo-con agenda in the White House, just so long as Obama doesn't get the nomination. America will lose if she doesn't stand aside till the Convention as she may have been largely responsible for depriving America of possibly its greatest leader since FDR and JFK.

If she does this she may as well turn around tonight and declare to Democrats "GIVE ME THE NOMINATION OR GIVE ME DEMOCRAT HUMILIATION" for that seems to be her campaign's true slogan.

-By Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent

YOUTUBE VIDEO: 3 DUNCES AT THEIR BEST

The video beneath from youtube and Have I Got News For You perhaps sums up the claibre of the Mayoral candidates to a tee. In what has been a tight race one might have expected for a better quality of candidate but all 3 of the main parties' candidates have been woefully inept so far and I am sure they have left Londoners feeling as if they are between a rock and a hard place with the choice given to them:

OPINION: LABOUR’S LIB DEM PLEA SMACKS OF DESPERATION

By Adam Evans
In an election campaign which could play a pivotal role in the fates of Messrs Brown and Cameron it isn’t surprising that when the going gets tough New Labour gets panicking. After all it appears that the once popular Mayor of London, Red Ken, is going to face his stiffest test yet in the Mayoral election next month and London politics’ great survivor may find himself defeated against Boris Johnson a man known more for his clownish antics on TV shows than his real political agenda. With the London electorate firmly split between these two huge personalities it is little wonder that the third party is facing a characteristic squeeze in London opinion polls, but don’t underestimate the importance and quantity of London Lib Dem voters for in such situations they could be the powerbrokers and decide who will wear the chains of office come May 1st.

From reading the Guardian this week it appears that Labour hasn’t underestimated the significance of Lib Dems in this election as can be seen by an open letter from the General Secretary of the Fabian Society to Nick Clegg and his eight strong team of London MPs. This letter shows how nervous Labour insiders are at what could happen, they are on the run and know that Ken is losing ground to Boris. The significance of the Mayoral election is obvious to many, if Labour lose such a powerful position to the Conservatives, to a candidate they have denounced as a clown then Brown will be weakened and Cameron emboldened as these adversaries set out the battle lines for what could be the most fascinating General Election campaign in decades with much at stake for both leaders namely, their survival as leaders of their respective political parties. Labour will be worried that many Liberal Democrat voters in London are seriously considering giving their second preference to Boris and have calculated that such overtures are a risk worth taking, the Tories will have already been planning such moves themselves though probably in a much subtler way.

You may think from what I have written so far that I think that the next General election will be a squabble between the usual suspects, you would be wrong. There is much for the Lib Dems to gain as well from the May elections this year, they already run, either in a minority administration or as the leading partner in coalitions, four of the biggest councils in Wales providing services to one third of the Principalities population and they can take great heart in the fact that their main opponent in all four councils, Labour, suffered its worst electoral performance since 1918 in last years Assembly election. In England they run many councils that will be elected next month and success in holding those councils and taking target wards and councils from both Labour and the Tories will be essential to Nick Clegg’s leadership of the Party. There is much room for a third party at the moment in British politics, it appears that the electorate have grown tired of the same old Labour-Tory bickering and narrow partisan politics, they are tired of centralising Governments eroding liberties and they want politics to be reformed with sleaze cast aside for politicians delivering the services they want and need.

Britain is witnessing the slow but sure stagnation of a meddling, archaic and centralising Government and the time is right for radical ideas to capture the hearts and minds of the British public and make a new politics based on people not petty partisan interests. Lib Dems should reject Labour’s advances and condemn them as a disgusting act of hubris by a party that fails to realise that people can decide for themselves how to live and to vote and that the Labour Party doesn’t have a natural right to rule, safe in the knowledge that if they can seize the right message and agenda they can revive themselves and make the next General Election more than a straight two party fight.

Gordon Brown's Drug Dilemma

by Tomas Hinton

In the last couple of weeks, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has faced a dilemma in the classification of the drug Marijuana. At present, the drug is a Class C drug, and if caught with enough marijuana to deem for personal use, it will simply be confiscated. Having any cannabis in your possession can however, get you arrested depending on your age and the circumstances. Furthermore, having enough cannabis to suggest distribution or Drug Dealing can land you with up to fourteen years in prison. Now, as if this isn’t enough of a charge for a drug that does no serious damage to people in moderation, Gordon Brown wants to make the classification tighter, and wants to “clamp down” on the use of Cannabis, despite advice from the Drug Advisory Committee to allow it to remain the same. In order to make a judgment on this decision; let’s have a look at Cannabis as a case study. Comparisons for political and legal context will be made with a popular illegal drug; Alcohol.

Cannabis is a Class C drug, which we have already pointed out, can have you arrested for possession, and land you with fourteen years in prison for intent to supply. Cannabis, or Marijuana, is a plant that grows naturally on our planet. Marijuana grows naturally on the planet and is harvested and thus distributed to other countries as a drug. The main legitimacy for the fact that Cannabis is illegal comes from its dangers and health risks to the body. The negative effects of Cannabis is the very small risk in the development of cancer through smoking, and the psychological effects that the drug may have on sufferers of serious mental illnesses. If Cannabis was made legal, the taxation could pay for such small sections of society as the mentally ill to receive treatment, in the same way as cigarettes and alcohol are taxed. The idea that Cannabis can have a negative effect on the mentally ill is true, but is also true of all drugs. Surely, any drug could have a negative effect on a person with serious mental illness, including nicotine, alcohol and various prescription drugs.

Cannabis is a drug that in its effects, tends to expand peoples perceptions, opinions and attitudes to a more relaxed and tolerant state of mind. There has never been a case of a person under the influence of marijuana feeling any forms of aggression or anger, or disrupting the social equilibrium in any way whatsoever. As for alcohol, aggression, fighting, anger and exaggerated emotions are a classic effect of the drug, and most “Friday night” mishaps and social disturbances are down to Alcohol directly. I am not suggesting that Alcohol should be made illegal, nor am I against the use of Alcohol as a drug; but it is obvious and logical to me that if Alcohol is made and distributed freely in our society, then so should other drugs that cause equal, or less negative effects. Brown's classification dilemma with marijuana is not a single issue; it is not a concentrated debate over the legality of Marijuana, but a larger issue of drugs over all, and the human rights behind our freedom in drug use.

LSD is another perfect example of this. LSD is a Class A drug; and you can do as much research as you like into the drug, but it cause little or no negative side effects whatsoever. The only negative side effects to LSD, just like Alcohol, Cannabis, and any other drug, are its effects on the mentally ill, and its effects when used to excess over a long period of time. Again, this can be said for all drugs, especially illegal ones. On a positive side, LSD has proved to be extremely helpful in science, and has advanced psychology to a whole new level in research. Patients in LSD experiments have experienced levels of psychology previously uncharted by scientific research, and the drug has an apparent “link” between the user and a theoretical stream of information, inaccessible by the natural human mind. By making LSD a Class A, the government are saying it is as bad as Heroin or Crack Cocaine- and it simply is not. This “pick ands choose” attitude of the government in drug classification is far more unacceptable than Mr. Brown deems the use of marijuana.

It is in these various different types of advantages of drug use by scientists that we can see the lack of logic behind Mr. Brown’s decision. The fact that he has ignored the advice of 20/23 of the drug advisory committee members is disturbing. Politically, this could be an embarrassment to Gordon Brown, and also, the idea that one (unelected, might I add) man can deem what is “acceptable” to British society is highly disturbing, and Gordon brown should consult his committees and take their advice accordingly instead of following his agenda regardless, which by doing so, he will laugh in the face of democracy. It also disturbs me that Gordon Brown is taking such a moral standpoint on wanting to "crack down" on the use of Marijuana. He seems to use his apparent moral omniscience to legitimise his decision- a morality coming from the same man who was part of starting the illegal war in Iraq, so we should be sceptical at very least about this mans judgement.

Personally, I do not use the drug, but as a liberal I believe that people should be free to use the drug as they wish, as long as it is sensibly and socially controlled. Cannabis should be legal for personal usage, but distribution should be limited to licensed sellers in the same way as alcohol. It would be foolish to immediately legalize Cannabis, but initial steps in the freedom and liberty of humans can be taken, firstly by limiting the criminal offences caused by Cannabis. Making Cannabis “more illegal” can only lead to a further conservative society of oppression, and the intrusion of our liberties and choices. Freedom of choice plays such an important issue here, and we are dictated to by the government and the media on what to believe of these drugs. In reality, we should be given the fair, balanced and unprosecuted choice to make our own personal judgments to discover the real effects of drugs if we choose, Marijuana in particular.

Whenever you see a news article or story on the Television that says “scientific study suggests that…” you would not be wrong in assuming that the following story is true, as scientific research is, after all, the study of fact and what is. However, you must observe these stories with a level of logic and observation that the media does not provide you with. These stories are not direct reports on scientific research; they are interpretations, anchored to you by the media to connote a certain message. The way that scientific research is conducted is that a series of tests on something, for example, the effects of marijuana on the human body, are carried out and reported on. These various tests are tested and re-tested and submitted to committees for revision and are eventually reported officially. It has often been the case that scientific research comes out with various, opposing results. For example, it is possible for a study of Marijuana effects to be conducted in comparison to the effects of smoking cigarettes, and in the first result it is shown that Cannabis is twice as likely to elevate the development of cancer, but in another test it could show the opposite. Which result is picked up by the media and the government for usage is up to them.

This would explain why in high school, I was told by a resident police officer that smoking cigarettes was far worse than marijuana, and there had never been a report of someone dying from the use of Cannabis, and yet thousands die from cigarette smoking related illness every year. Alternatively, not one year later in 6th form at a different, more conservative school, I was told by the same officer that smoking one “spliff” of Marijuana was like smoking five cigarettes at once in terms of its damage to the human body. These stories contradict each other all the time and we should take them with a pinch of salt. Some results of the same tests by scientific research will turn out contradictory, and we need to be aware of this as these results can easily be manipulated by the media and the government when trying to anchor a specific message or ideology.

This scientific context is important in relation to drug classification. The government re-classified Cannabis in the opposite way in 2004, declassifying it as the penalty was dropped from five years in prison, to two for possession. Then the classification was reviewed in 2005, and now again in 2008. This “flip-flop” attitude to classification makes it clear that different political ideologies are the deciding factor in these classification debates, and not necessarily the realistic effects. Tony Blair made Cannabis a Class C drug, and now Brown wants it bumped up to Class B as he deems it “unacceptable”. It is also disturbing that mind expanding drugs such as LSD, and perception advancing drugs such as marijuana are illegal to the point of even being Class A drugs; where as Alcohol - a drug that slows down the development of brain cells and causes anger, aggression and violence in our society is plastered all over billboards, TV advertisements and football club sponsors all nationwide.

When are politicians like Gordon Brown going to stop hiding behind the illusion of morality to mask their political agenda, and start addressing the whole issue of drugs from the view of human rights, and our freedom to choose the drugs we use in our lives? I understand that Heroin and Crack Cocaine and various other drugs are socially dysfunctional and harmful, but there are many illegal drugs that simply are not, or certainly less so than Alcohol. Gordon Brown said that he wanted to put across the message that Marijuana is not only dangerous, but "unacceptable". I say to you, Mr. Brown, that it should not be in the mind of one person to decide what is "unacceptable" to our society; certainly when there are far more harmful drugs such as Alcohol that are deemed "acceptable" by the government.

Dr. No Calls It Quits

One of modern history's most controversial and divisive political and religious figures, Rev Ian Paisley, has announced that he will be retiring as First Minister and Leader of the DUP in May.

Paisley, 82, has come under intense pressure within the DUP in recent months to stand down amidst internal discontent within the party about working with Sinn Fein and the party's fall in popularity. The dissent within the party has heightened in the last few weeks due to the party's loss in a high profile by-election to the UUP and the resignation of Dr. Paisley's son, Ian Paisley Junior, as a Junior Minister in his department following allegations about inappropriate dealings and lobbying of groups for his constituency.

Mr. Paisley will be remembered for many negative things and for many catholics and nationalists in Northern Ireland he will remain a despised figure for his hate filled rhetoric including denouncing the late Pope John Paul II as the anti-Christ during the Pope's speech to the European Parliament in 1988, even in announcing his departure date he managed to fit in an attack on Catholicism saying that "This is not the Church of Rome," and that "This is not Apostolic succession and I have no right to say who will succeed me." Despite this, he was willing to take the bold step and incredible political gamble to work with his bitter enemies and try to forge a new peaceful Northern Ireland and to the surprise of many on both sides of the divide, it appeared that he and his Deputy, Martin McGuinness, actually had an excellent working relationship even being called the "chuckle brothers."

Perhaps to some in the DUP that cosy image was incomprehensible and action had to be taken and the DUP, the creature that the Iron Man of Ulster politics formed around 40 years ago appears to have finally beaten its creator and master who had led them to unparalleled electoral success and had taken them into Government in Stormont. What's for sure is that as the race hots up for his successor, he will leave a lingering shadow over politics in the province.
-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent

Clegg claims majority of Britons back him

Liberal Democrat Leader, Nicholas Clegg, has today defended his Party's position over a European Referendum by publishing the results of an opinion poll that the Lib Dems had commissioned MORI to undertake. The poll shows that of over 1,000 people asked a majority of 2:1 backed a referendum on Britain's future in the EU which is the stance taken by the Lib Dems compared to the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty which has been demanded by I Want a Referendum, the Tories and some Lib Dem and Labour rebels.

Mr. Clegg will be relieved by the findings of the poll following a media attack previously on these proposals and the walk out staged by Lib Dems following Ed Davey MP being ordered out of the Commons due to the refusal of the Speaker to allow a Lib Dem amendment to the EU Reform Treaty calling for a vote.

This poll comes a day after the rival I Want a Referendum campaign announced that 88%of voters wanted a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty according to their private polls which have taken place in Lib Dem and Labour marginals due to those respective parties stance on the Reform Treaty.

Nick Clegg welcomed the MORI poll results and called on David Cameron to support his party saying "It`s still not too late for him to change his mind and support us in giving the public the real choice on Europe that they want." He also commented that he believed a referenum on Britain's place on Europe would "defeat the Eurosceptics for a generation and that he would "relish the chance to lead the Liberal Democrats at the forefront of that campaign."

However, despite Mr. Clegg's overtures to the Conservatives and the results of this poll, the referendum he seeks is unlikely to happen and he will have to focus on limiting any damage his stance may cause in Lib/Con marginals and to stop his party splitting on the issue. That challenge may be greater than any he has faced in political career to date, but these results can only boost him in his efforts.

-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent

Campaign "Theme Song's" strike up controversy amongst artists

by Jack Cooper



The chief songwriter and founder of soft rock heroes Boston, Tom Sholz, has slammed Mike Huckabbe for using their classic track “More Than A Feeling” in his campaign.

Huckabee’s band Capitol Offense recently required the services of former short term member Barry Goudreau. What seemed like a chance to capture the hearts (and votes) of middle aged men everywhere, Sholz claims the band has performed the song at campaign events around the country despite his permission.

In a letter to the presidential hopeful he stated “Boston has never endorsed a political candidate and with all due respect, would not start by endorsing a candidate who is the polar opposite of most everything Boston stands for. In fact, although I'm impressed you learned my bass guitar part on More Than a Feeling, I am an Obama supporter.”

Fred Bramante, chairman of Huckabee's New Hampshire campaign, called the allegations ridiculous. He said he attended dozens of Huckabee rallies in New Hampshire and other states and never heard Huckabee play "More Than a Feeling," other than when Goudreau campaigned with him in Iowa in October.

He’s not the only Republican in hot water. Last week, McCain's campaign agreed to stop playing John Mellencamp's songs "Our Country" and "Pink Houses" at his rallies after the liberal rocker complained.

The Democratic candidates have had better luck however. Celine Dion said she was “thrilled” that Senator Clinton has chosen her track “You and I” as her official campaign anthem.
Bono has yet to comment on Obama’s preference of U2’s “City of Blinding Lights” at his events.

Rock effect crumbling Labour's poll standings

An Opinion poll in today's Independent by Com Res has put the Tories 11 points ahead of Labour enough to get a small majority if an election was held tomorrow.

The poll which places the Tories ahead on 41%, Labour second on 30% and the Lib Dems on 17% will make worrying reading for Gordon Brown, not just because of the overall results but because it shows the Tories ahead of Labour in every region bar Scotland.

The Lib Dems whose overall poll position hasn't changed since the last Com Res poll will be boosted by the fact that 80% of their identifiers say they will vote for the party at the next election.

This poll shows the first sign of a backlash against Labour for their handling of the Northern Rock crisis and its nationalisation and perhaps shows how much of an albatross the bank could become for the Labour Party, with much banking on the success of the bank for the Labour Government.

David Cameron will have to be careful about reading too much into this one poll, but if these polling figures are repeated in polls such as ICM, which generally higher polling figures, and the Lib Dems and Labour does badly in May's local elections, in particular the Mayoral election in London; then Brown could be facing the same fate as Jim Callaghan who dithered over calling an election when it could have been won and in the end lost in '79 to Thatcher leading to 18 years of Tory rule. For Brown it's not too late to save his Premiership, but he'll have to turn the tide pretty fast.

-Adam Evans, Chief Political Correspondent

Editorial: Ralph Nader announces his entry into the Presidential Race

by Tom Hinton



Ralph Nader has officially announced his candidacy for the President of the United States as an Independent candidate on an NBC talk show “Meet the Press.” This will be the fifth time that Nader has stood for the presidency; he stood once in 1992, then in 1996 and 2000 he stood for the Green Party, and in 2004 he stood as an independent. Nader has expressed his concerns with the current situation in the United States, stating that a “Jeffersonian revolution is needed”, citing Thomas Jefferson in his belief that you should enter the electoral arena when you lose your government. When logging onto Nader’s website at votenader.org, it is simple to see the kind of concerns this candidate is highlighting. One word comes into mind when thinking of the Nader campaign; Corporate. Ralph Nader gives the impression that he is against all things corporate, and the profit orientated nature of America. He highlights the corporation dominant nature of both the leading parties in the US, and in a list of his most important issues he lists an “Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare.”

So who exactly is Ralph Nader? Ralph Nader is a 73 year old Arab-American attorney from Connecticut, who has made his name as a political activist. Nader has ties with the Reform Party, the Green Party and has been known to stand for Consumer Rights, Humanitarianism, Environmentalism, and Democracy all round. If you have never heard of Ralph Nader, you may find it hard to believe that this the man who determined the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, sued the General Motors corporation for privacy infringement and the man who led an entire generation of inspired investigative writers. These writers were known as the “Nader Raiders”; they published a number of successful books inquiring into the government corruption of Washington D.C. Ralph Nader symbolises a number of things in the USA. For one, he is a symbol of rebellion; he is never afraid to speak his mind and stand up against the corruption present in America and the corporate world. A symbol of environmentalism, Nader is an openly anti-nuclear activist and has various Green Party properties in his agenda. However Nader is less concerned with single issues and seems to address the problem with America from the outside, giving him a sense of distance from the world of politics. This poses as an obvious downside for many voters who seek politically experienced candidates and Washington insiders such as John McCain.

In an election as close as the 2000 Presidential Election, it was, and still is so easy to think of endless ways in which the vote could have been swayed. The first year of the new millennium saw the closest election in the history of US politics, with the decision going to the Supreme Court after stopping re-counts across the board. Obviously, George W. Bush was announced as the winner, but what did this mean for Ralph Nader? At the time, Nader was standing as a green party candidate, and many democrats feel bitter towards him, as his left wing policies attracted sections of the electorate away from the Democratic Party and to the green party, resulting in a loss of voters for them, and in 2000, Al Gore. However, this criticism of Ralph Nader’s is but a superficial one. Democrats fail to remember that their candidate still won the popular vote, and are more concerned in speaking negatively about a candidate that could harm their campaign than address the dubious and suspicious irregularities that really lost them the election in 2000.

In 2004 the re-election of George W. Bush was a questionable one. John Kerry looked like a promising candidate for the Democrats, and the controversies surrounding the presidency of Bush’s first term, as well as electoral irregularities made the Election one of the most interesting re-election campaigns in history. Ralph Nader stood, this time as an independent. Nader expressed his concerns with the bureaucratic Washington of the 21st century, claiming that “There's too much power and wealth in too few hands.” His candidacy was met with great hostility after the delicacy of the 2000 election, and Nader’s part in it, but Nader fought strong and maintained his right to stand. The worries of his election “spoiling” in 2004 were soon proved insubstantial as the margins between Bush and Kerry were considerably larger than the percentage of votes given to Nader, which dropped dramatically from his 2.7% in 2000.

Now, in 2008, Ralph Nader faces the same judgement from The Democratic Party. Republicans welcome his candidacy as they think they can “cash in” on his attraction of left wing voters away from the democrats and take advantage of his significance. This was shamelessly expressed by Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, in which he stated; "[Nader] would probably pull votes away from the Democrats and not the Republicans, so naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race". What is most concerning for the Democratic Party is the thin margin between candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Their contest for nomination is so close, that Nader’s candidacy poses a threat to their nomination as the party is clearly split between the two candidates; resembling the split of the nation in 2000 between Bush and Gore. Both of the democratic candidates have spoken out against Ralph Nader’s bid for the presidency, as they both fear that it could effect their campaigns in a bad way come November. It is disappointing that such inspirational candidates as Barrack Obama have spoken to ruthlessly about Nader’s announcement, with little signs of respect. Credit is to be given to Hillary Clinton in that she has addressed her natural concern for Nader’s candidacy and what it could do for her Party, but also highlighted that “it’s a free country” and he should exercise his right to run.

One of the key attractions to Obama’s campaign is the inspirational and positive atmosphere that has accompanied it. His history as a civil rights lawyer and idealistic compassion combine to create possibly the greatest most motivational speaker that US politics has ever seen. However, over the last week or so, there has been some negative criticism to the methods used in Obama’s campaign when attracting negative criticism to his opponents. In various campaign literatures against Hillary Clintons health care proposals, the Obama campaign have suggested that Clinton will provide health care for all who can afford it, alienating the poorer American. In response the Clinton campaign has angrily back lashed, calling Obama a liar and that his negative campaign against Clinton is completely misleading and untrue. Hillary Clinton herself even compared Obama to former Deputy Chief of Staff to George W. Bush, Karl Rove; who is known for his ruthless strategic campaigning for various Republicans.

Obama has said that Ralph Nader “did not know what he was talking about” in 2000, and that Nader is someone who “thinks you’re not substantive” if you “don’t listen to [him], and adopt all his policies.” A harsh judgement from Obama, who has also expressed that Nader “seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work”. Nader’s announcement to run for President should be met with a welcoming smile by the American People, who need to be provided with a suitable alternative to yet another conservative republican who wants to stay in Iraq, and two democrats who cant seem to stop fighting with each other and squabbling over their differences. The candidates need to stop highlighting their differences, and start unifying America and sorting out the real problems on the inside, as well as addressing the endless list of issues put on the table this election. The democrats in particular have been too critical of Nader’s presidential proposal; they need to stop attacking him for his decision and concentrate on compromise, representation and union. Obama still remains a source of primary inspiration for the American People, and it should be highlighted that he is probably the best chance America has of a righteous government.

Ralph Nader’s presidential candidacy seems to have brought out the worst in all the candidates from both parties, and once again he is seen as a controversial figure in yet another American Election. It will certainly be interesting to see how many Ballots he manages to get his name onto, and indeed how many people will be confident to vote for this man in November. Nader should be seen as a symbol of inspiration to voters and politicians everywhere, as a man who is not afraid to stand up to corporate America, a man who will not sit back and allow corruption to take place in the government, and also a man of active professionalism, who can make informed decisions and judgements on behalf of the people.

However, despite what Nader could and could not do, he is seen as simply too radical and his judgements are slated by conservatives across the board. The issues at the top of his proposals include an impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, to “cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget”, and “work to end corporate personhood.” These issues are understandably controversial and may be a little over the top, and too activist-orientated to be incorporated into the White House. Maybe this is what is at the heart of Nader’s campaign, the fact that Nader’s activism is seen as incompatible with the American government is surely an outrage in itself. The sad truth is, however, that America is not ready for a liberal such as Ralph Nader, for his activism is too radical. He may stand for what human nature tells us is right, but I’m afraid to say that corporate America will not allow such a candidate to be elected, at least not as long as the people demand conservatism.