We should all put an end to this divisive sectarianism immediately. Otherwise we risk irreversibly splitting our party. The first step is to expose the weaknesses of both the anti-Cobb and the anti-Nader arguments. I agree that the ABB forces— people who are only interested in defeating Bush— were working all along for the Cobb nomination. There are a number of reasons to believe they were doing so. • Cobb’s "safe states" strategy implied that he would avoid campaigning in “swing states,” the only places where the Democrats fear Green “competition” • The Cobb campaign’s inability to get even minimal press coverage would further decrease the competitive threat from the Greens • Cobb was supported by the prominent ABBs at the convention, such as Medea Benjamin, John Rensenbrink and Ted Glick And I heard plenty of allegations of funny business at state nominating conventions, all intended to marginalize Nader supporters; which of these allegations is true I don’t know, so I won’t repeat any of them. Maybe some academic will do a research project on it. However, my —largely unsuccessful— attempts to convince other Massachusetts delegates to vote for a Nader/Camejo endorsement convinced me that this is only a small part of the picture. I went to Milwaukee as an uncommitted delegate, but determined to oppose any "safe states" candidate or any other capitulation to the Democrats. By the second day it was clear that the race had come down to a Cobb nomination (supported by the ABB crowd but not exclusively them) vs. a Nader endorsement (supported by a good portion of the left wing of the party, but again, not all of the left). Among the 36 delegates of the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow party, only the 9 officially accredited to Cobb were totally committed to him, and only a few of these were motivated by the ABB argument. In fact, the primary contact for the Cobb campaign in Massachusetts had helped me write a resolution rejecting unilateral concessions to the Democrats, which was approved at the state convention in May. Cobb’s message of running a Green Party campaign for president— one that would build the party and support local candidates— resonated with Greens around the country. I concluded that much of the support for Cobb actually comes from dedicated Greens who want nothing to do with the Democrats, but are reacting to the way Ralph Nader is running his campaign; to the way people associated with his campaigns have treated local activists, both in 2000 and in 2004; not to mention his unwillingness to run as a Green and actively support other Green candidates around the country. The ABB forces were far too small to carry the day without a good dose of help from the Nader campaign itself. At the other extreme are those Greens and Green-Rainbows who have jumped on the Nader-bashing bandwagon, parroting lies and rumors coming from the Kerry campaign and its front groups, like MoveOver.org, and similar "antiwar-lite" organizations. Since the convention, a number of the more radical activists committed to building the party have engaged in a smear campaign against the Nader/Camejo ticket. Some, for instance, accept the story about Republican money financing the Nader/Camejo campaign. They should check out the convincing rebuttal on the Nader web site. Some have even publicly rejoiced that our one-party state’s access laws kept Nader off the ballot— thus celebrating the disenfranchisement of voters who are now denied the right to vote for their candidate. This short-sighted attitude will not only drive away some of the most dedicated party activists who happen to support the Nader/Camejo ticket. More importantly, our selective outrage at voter disenfranchisement via ballot access shenanigans is most likely to hurt our candidates next time around. This fall, many committed Greens are working hard on the Cobb/LaMarche campaign. Others are working for Nader/Camejo. Come November 3, all of this will end, and we will all need to come back together and get back to building a unified party, to be ready to welcome disillusioned Kucinich and MoveOver.org supporters, who are about to realize that they’ve been taken for a ride— especially if Kerry wins and continues the same policies of war, free trade, and cuts to the social safety net. I predict that most of us (the non-ABB majority) will wake up on November 3 and realize that we made a strategic miscalculation, not only losing our ballot status in many states, but being seen as willing to "sit out" close races in order to not hurt the Democrats. I hope I’m wrong. Those of us who supported Nader must not treat the Cobb nomination as a takeover of the Green Party by Democratic Party infiltrators or reject the Cobb campaign at the state level, as was actually done in Vermont. This only plays into the hands of the Democrats. A permanent split within the Green party will truly make us irrelevant, and for much longer than one election cycle. If we reject those who are supporting Nader, we risk the same outcome. Let’s not make either of those mistakes. I agree with criticism of the convention’s formula for selection of delegates. Currently, we use the unfair and anti-democratic electoral college formula for assigning delegates to different states. So in a state with a large, vibrant party, each voter’s voice has a lot less weight than in a state with a small party comprised of a handful of activists. Some, especially Nader/Camejo supporters, have been promoting a "one person one vote" system where delegates are assigned according to the actual number of votes that a candidate receives during the primaries. Other alternatives include a mix where votes are counted proportionally, with adjustments made to give more voice to newer and/or smaller state chapters. We need to be a mechanism for supporting the growth of smaller parties in states where progressive organizing is more difficult. We need a discussion around how this can be done without reducing the voice of those who have worked to build stronger state parties.