The system in America certainly is different: the electorate don't directly vote for their president, the electoral college does. It's not a show of hands - which is why I get frustrated with Democrats who refer to the popular vote numbers in 2000 (I realise you're talking about something different here, Richard), and who are doing so again wrt to the primaries of 2008. It betrays a continuing naivety about how votes translate into electoral wins - Karl Rove was a master of exploiting this, and if they're not careful the Democrats could lose out again. Fortunately, I think Obama is a little more savvy - he recognised what he needed to do to win the nomination (focus on the caucuses); hopefully his strategists can carry that over.

Anyone who thinks McCain is a straight talker with clear views needs to run a quick comparison of his statements before winning the nomination, and those he has made since.

I think there's a great deal to be said for attempting to put forward a different, and in this case greatly more honest and truthful, view of politics than the plutocracy masquerading as democracy peddled by the two major parties. Keeping the ideas alive and responsive is one of the most important functions of left-of-mainstream political thinking. If the votes for the main parties are so close in a presidential election that Nader's 2.74% of the vote is decisive then one solution would indeed be to discourage third-party candidates from standing. Another would be for the main parties to actually stand for different things. The US Democrats have decided against this, so if there's a close vote that they "lose" they'll once again be blaming Nader for their own "catastrophic" failings.

I can see we aren't going to find a point of agreement on this, but I do think it's extremely unfair to single out Nader and Chomsky for this, especially since in 2000 it would not have been possible to predict the events of the following four years, and, sadly, if it had been Bush would certainly have won many more votes than he did.

So it should be, given that on "the left" the issues are supposedly more important than the race for power. No, I find your "one might wish to learn from that" patronising and defeatist, and your placing even part of the blame for the US's foreign policy disasters on Chomsky and Nader massively wide of the mark. Al Gore, let us not forget, was Clinton's vice-president when sanctions were starving Iraq's population into death and desperation (and indeed when Iraq was being regularly attacked by US aircraft) and as of 2000 he had a great deal more blood on his hands than Bush junior. It is rather naive to assert that as President he wouldn't have ordered the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Projecting American power across the world through economic means when possible and violent means when not is what US presidents do, since 1917 at least, without exception. That isn't a "ridiculous little opinion", I'm afraid, it's a lesson learned from history.

In the Grauniad this am, notwithstanding Steve Bell's cartoon suggesting that the fix is in, Sarah Palin (who sight unseen I assumed was related to Michael) has an unusually ripe selection of banana skins on her trail-not least  her support for an independent Alaska(oil reserves etc notwithstanding), as well of course as the 'sinner' pregnant unmarried daughter.
I guess its really the backroom boys who count, perhaps its time the pundits unearthed who the new Cheney, Rumsfeld etc  etc might be.
Whatever your politics, the dumb soundbyte schtick by which the candidates are presented and adjudged is still a real cause for concern I think.

Not as such, no, but neither did Clinton, who was responsible for murderous outrages in Iraq and Yugoslavia to name only these. Republicans and Democrats are both in the pay of the same people, lobbyists and industries. Gore has said he would have done exactly the same as Bush with regard to attacking Afghanistan in 2001. Given that Clinton/Gore's policies differed in no substantial respect from the Republican position on Haiti, Somalia, Cuba, Bosnia, Iraq in the 1990s, gays in the military, NAFTA, GATT, labour unions, welfare, health care, "anti-terrorism," and most other policies, it's hard to see why Gore as president would have made an exception with regard to invading Iraq.

I'm just going to say Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove and Rumsfeld. That will have to do - no, clearly we're not going to agree.

I've seen some of Sarah Palin's speech on the BBC news channel. Shiver. Shudder. It made my flesh creep. Smug, self-satisfied. This was just her manner - the bit I heard didn't really reveal what she thought, but we know anyway what her views are. I find the fact that so many people apparently find these views acceptable, even desirable, quite terrifying. If she and McCain get in, I shall be even more depressed than I was when Margaret Thatcher did. They are potentially far more harmful to the world.

And please, what is a "hockey mom"? She is presented as a devoted all-American Mom. Since she quite clearly doesn't intend to look after her own children, I don't see how this can be the case, even if it were a qualification for being Vice President.