Talk:Todd Chretien

message: ... was me. Kalkin 22:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  160.39.236.156 

message: I'm really not sure why this is notable.  No evidence is presented that they were ever particularly close, or that the "rift" was anything more than a simple political dispute over ABB - the quoted article by Chretien also polemicizes against other pro-Kerry leftists.  I'm an inclusionist, but this unbalances the article to a misleading degree.  Anyone have a reason why I shouldn't remove the section? Kalkin 07:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No defense yet... I'll be bold. Kalkin 03:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm restoring the "Rift with Medea Benjamin." It's on Medea Benjamin's page. Why not here as well? I think it brings into focus Chretien's ideas about what the Green Party should be. Griot 14:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On Medea Benjamin's page, it's about her position.  The "rift" between the two individuals is not important in itself to either of them, it's only important as an example of the ideological division in the Green Party and where they respectively stand.  If the mention on the Chretien page can be reformulated so it's about the ideas, and doesn't give the impression that a fight with Medea Benjamin has somehow been important to Chretien's personal or political life, then it should stay.  I'm not sure how to do that, given that I don't have a source for specific criticism of Chretien.  Otherwise it should go. Kalkin 06:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information about Medea Benjamin is trivial to this article.  Why did it come up? In 2004  leading San Francisco Greens with close ties to Benjamin endorsed (with her) David Cobb over Ralph Nader which greatly upset the majority of California rank and file green party members.  The result was a ruptured party that never regained the political strength it had in 2000.  
Apologists for Cobb (and his strategy for running only in "safe states" which kept Greens from opposing Kerry in the 2004 presidential race, policies which encourage Greens to move away from national and state candidates  and put emphasis on small local campaigns often involving close relationships with Democratic party alligned powerbrokers which kept many prominent Greens from making a great impact in 2006, and preferences for elitist leadership and patronage as opposed to "One Person One Vote" imperatives) are very active rewriting history on the Wikipedia. 
http://www.counterpunch.org/miller08072004.html http://www.counterpunch.org/chretien08102004.html 
Until the Green Party reforms, I have been reluctant to make sunstantive changes to any "pro-democracy" Green Party articles.  I am not personally disposed to flogging the past issues when it is more important for intelligent Greens to reassess what is important to saving the issues they presumably all espouse.   Meantime, I hope people read these articles with some skepticism as to the intentions of its contributors... and I hope someone with more skill and less partisan than I myself will help eventually set the record straight.
This wikipedia article needs to include information about what Todd Chretien has stood for and what he stands for-- not what others stood for and stand for.Robert B. Livingston 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rift with Medea Benjamin