Differing views of internal Green Party developments.
Long flame by Peter Camejo in Counterpunch. He explicitly refers to Ted Glick as a “hard core Cobb supporter”, and rants on in extended fashion about how the “Cobb current” is “pro-Democrat”.
Briefer commentary by Ted Glick in ZMag. He directly refers to Peter Camejo as part of a group of people who “are continuing to level ridiculous attacks on David Cobb and those who supported him as little more than fronts for John Kerry.”
Each claims the other side is a “small minority”. The truth is that the both Nader and Cobb had widespread support within the party, and that the party as a whole never managed to reach a consensus as to what the proper strategy for 2004 was (and still hasn’t).
I currently serve on the Green Party’s Presidential Nominating Process Working Group, and I can truthfully testify that the “one Green, one vote” issue has been throughly debated, and that the general consensus is that the situation with “apportionment” (determining how many delegates to the Presidential nominating convention each state will get in 2008) is nowhere near as simple as Camejo potrays it.