Hey Adam.. just wanted to say hello and let you know that I still exist. I'm glad to see you still exist as well. Talk with you later..

Hey Ali. Leave me a comment more often. I'm pretty busy these days but I'll be on a two week break in a few days.

Hey Adam, I recently had the opportunity to meet David Cobb, the green party presidential nominee in Little Rock last Saturday. Have you checked into him? He's a cool guy. He talked about coming back to Arkansas before November, if he does you should meet him.

Obviously you have heard of him, I glimpsed at your post and didn't pick up on the Cobb part, haha.

I've heard Cobb speak on TV and I've read a little about him, but that's all. I don't really agree with his approach to battleground states, where he campaigns in "secured" states and leaves the undecided states to Kerry and Bush. To me that is more like Green party politics, but with that in mind I'd rather them not run a presidential candidate at all. Don't bother running if you're not planning to win. There are plenty of other projects to take on at local levels if you're just out to drum up support.

I disagree Adam. Although I would like to see Cobb running in all states including "battleground" states, I think it is rather harsh of you to say that he shouldn't bother running at all if he isn't going to run everywhere. He has a message that needs to be heard by as many people as possible, whether it be a "battleground" state or not.

I think that there is a lot more to the situation than you are seeing. The Green funds are sparse, and I have heard talk that not attacking battleground states is a strategy to get as many new Greens as possible. By attacking non-"battleground" states with the agenda of showing those people how forgotten and disenfranchised they are, more new party membership can be achieved than by attacking states that are highly fought over by the huge political machines of the Democratic and Republican parties.

There is also the elusive 5% that the Greens are dying to reach to be eligible for federal matching funds. Being that there are only 12 "battleground" states, more resources can be focused on the other 38 states where more forgotten voters can be rallied, therefore giving the Green Party a better chance at hitting that elusive 5% mark.

I don't think that focusing all of your efforts on local issues is such a good idea either. Although local issues are very important and need to be fought for, the road to becoming a major political party must include national coverage; such as running a presidential candidate. People want to join a party that at least looks as if it fights for what it believes in, not a party that completely cowers to the larger parties. Conceding the swing states to the Dems and Reps may actually seem like a fearful withdrawl, but I think it only helps to even the playing field a little for the Greens in the other states. While the Dems and Reps are busy spending all of their resources in 12 states, the Greens can focus on the other 38 states, giving them a better chance (although still slim) at gaining the popular votes (instead of electoral votes) needed for federal matching funds.

I just feel like the power of the Greens has in the past been with local government. There is a division between the two sides sometimes I think between those who want a national party and those who see their strength at local levels. If this is in fact a way to build more support that's okay I guess. It just seems like a waste of money right now with how little they do nationally compared to how much they do locally.