Re: "Would Michael Moore sign up to this?"

Following on from my post on the Democrat Leadership Council's conference last weekend, this report on the Green Party. In a dubious selection process last year, the Green Party nominated nonentity David Cobb as its Presidential candidate ahead of Ralph Nader. Cobb ran on a "safe states only" ticket, refusing to challenge the Democrats effectively, and thus supporting the ludicrous anti-war votes for pro-war candidates campaign Michael Moore was leading.

Things are coming to a bit of a head now in the US Greens, with the Cobbites (Cobbets? Cobblers?) pushing for an all-but open electoral alliance with "progressive" Democrats:

The Cobb wing of the party, which controls the national leadership based on the current undemocratic system, has developed a close partnership with liberals who created the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) in an attempt to corral third-party advocates back into the Democratic Party.

The other wing of the party, led by Nader’s vice presidential candidate Peter Camejo, initiated Greens for Democracy and Independence (GDI) to address the organizational and political problems that compromised the Greens’ challenge in 2004. Over the last several months, the GDI developed proposals submitted to the national committee to require proportional representation, delegates accountable to the will of the membership, and independence from the two corporate parties...

Camejo stressed the significance of building the Green Party as the political expression of mass social movements and argued for the importance of encouraging debate and allowing many tendencies to exist in the party. He called Green Party’s project of an independent challenge to the two party system “the spirit of the future.”

Cobb’s speech repeated many of Camejo’s points, but with significant differences. For example, he went out of his way to condemn what he called sectarianism--his label for anyone who opposed his “safe-states” strategy.

Greens for "more troops" Hillary, 2008?