Ralph Nader's Serious Campaign

posted by John Nichols on 05/23/2008 @ 10:32am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (135)

Subscribe Now

Ralph Nader is making every effort to be the most serious candidate for president this year, and he is succeeding despite the dismissals of the political class and the media that sustains it.

Watch Nader today, as he lays down his marker on behalf of presidential accountability and you will see why.

The notion that Nader is serious runs against the narrative that has developed in regard to the pioneering consumer activist who in recent years has turned his attention toward presidential politics. Nader has not run enough time for president to be treated with the respect that was accorded Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party stalwart who after six runs for the nation's top job was ultimately accorded a the respectful "elder-statesman" status that the political class bestows upon candidates who are seen as thoughtful but harmless.

Nader is thoughtful. But he does not choose to be harmless. And that leads to dismissals of his candidacy by journalists and political commentators who can't stand the notion that America politics is something other than a narrow two-party duopoly.

The independent candidate scares tacticians in both parties -- not merely because he has upset their calculations in the past but because he continues to campaign with a boldness that draws attention and opens fundamental debates about the direction of the campaign and the country that insiders work very hard to avoid.

Nader will do so again today, with a press conference outside the White House at which the candidate -- who has been using Washington as a backdrop for a series of challenges to official secrecy and wrongdoing -- will call on President Bush and Vice President Cheney to resign.

The candidate will cite the long list of failures, neglected duties, corruptions, high crimes and misdemeanors that have attached to the lame-duck administrators of a nation that is stuck in a Middle East quagmire, descending into recession and seemingly incapable of addressing even the most pressing human needs -- a nation now so badly off course that three-quarters of its citizens tell pollsters "America is headed in the wrong direction." And, of course, Nader will suggest that if a Republican president and vice president choose not to resign, then a Democratic House and Senate should impeach and try them -- moves that substantial pluralities, and in some cases majorities, of Americans tell pollsters are now appropriate.

For his trouble, Nader will be portrayed as unduly radical or, worse yet, out of touch with the political zeitgeist of a moment in which we are supposed to be talking about candidates and their pastors.

But Nader will still be heard by enough Americans -- thanks to his current campaign's dramatically more media-savvy approach than those of his 1996, 2000 and 2004 efforts as a Green and independent presidential contender.

A good many voters will find themselves to be more in tune with Nader's Constitutional urgency than with the more cautious constructions of Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton or Republican John McCain. And, despite the dismissals of his candidacy by most of the media, a decent number of those voters appear to be considering casting a ballot for the independent candidate.

The latest Zogby poll has the consumer advocate at four percent nationally (in a contest where Obama beats McCain 47-37) and a recent California survey has Nader at five percent in the vote-rich Golden State (again in a race where Obama dominates).

Nader may not be seriously in the running for the presidency.

But he is running seriously, and his challenges to Bush and Cheney, to a sputtering two-party system, and to the media that maintains failed presidents and failed politics are not nearly so radical -- or so off-putting -- as his dismissers would have Americans believe.

Comments (135)

A "serious" Ralph Nader candidacy (one where he's pulling down more than the 0.34% he got in 2004) can be summed up in two words.....

"President McCain"

Posted by Mask at 05/23/2008 @ 10:35am
the less said about Nader the better.

Posted by emile duBois at 05/23/2008 @ 10:43am
Go Ralph Go!!

Ignore the false progressives.

Speak truth to power.

"A serious Gore candidacy can be summed up in a few words...

8 years of Bush"

Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2008 @ 10:52am
the less said about Nader the better.

Posted by emile duBois at 05/23/2008

What is it about what Ralph is saying that you don't like? Is his message wrong? Is he lying? Is the duopoly working ?

Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2008 @ 10:55am
Nader costing Gore the election goes in the same column as Saddam having nukes.

Urban myth spread to make the masses afraid.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2008 @ 10:56am
Nader standing outside the white house calling for Bush's resignation approaches nutcase acting out.

Nader is quite simply irrelevant. (to me)

Posted by emile duBois at 05/23/2008 @ 11:06am
I have to express disappointment at how quick people are to toss a good man under the bus, because he does not buy into the hogwash of the DLC/RNC/DNC/Club for growth propaganda. Without Nader the progressive agenda would still be fighting for a ticket to the back of the bus. With Nader many countless thousands of lives have been saved, millions have safe working conditions and decent pay.

[Ralph Nader's Record of Accomplishments

(short list)

Instrumental in the passing of the following legislation:

National Automobile and Highway Traffic Safety Act (1965)

Clean Water Act (1968)

Clean Air Act (1970)

Co-Op Bank Bill (1978)

Law establishing Environmental Protection Agency (1970)

Consumer Product Safety Act

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Mine Health and Safety Act

Whistleblower Protection Act

Medical Devices safety

Nuclear power safety

Mobile home safety

Consumer credit disclosure law

Pension protection law

Funeral home cost disclosure law

Tire safety & grading disclosure law

Wholesome Meat Act

Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act

Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act

Wholesome Poultry Product Act

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 1970

Safe Water Drinking Act

Freedom of Information Act

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

---

Now why don't you guys list Obamas accomplishments?

Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2008 @ 11:26am
[Nader standing outside the white house calling for Bush's resignation approaches nutcase acting out.]

Where should he speak?

the FEC won't give him a seat at a "debate".

The congress won't give him a seat at a congressional hearing on the crimes of ChimpCo. The dems won't even hold hearings on most of chimpies malfeasance.

why? Not because he is a "nut". It is because they are afraid that if the masses actually get to hear him they will agree with him.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2008 @ 11:31am
Nader has had a very big soapbox for a long time now. too long.

Obama's accomplishments? does dem candidate for pres count? indeed it does.

Posted by emile duBois at 05/23/2008 @ 11:47am
How ironic. Ralph Nader is polling well because of the increased anxiety the eight year fiasco he has helped to usher in has engendered. Progressive "purity" doesn't sell it just helps to muck up the works.

Posted by DebraD at 05/23/2008 @ 11:48am
How right you are, John. Thoughtful but harmful.

Posted by Sorelish at 05/23/2008 @ 12:15pm
CULTWALK...uh I mean CRABWALK...

Does Ralph Nader have a reasonable chance of becoming President?

second question...after 2000 and getting 0.34% of the vote in 2004....does Ralph have a reasonable chance of Barack Obama listening to him?

Posted by Mask at 05/23/2008 @ 12:23pm
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2008

Even if a lot of people (relatively speaking) break for Nader, I think McCain's chances aren't much better than Bob Dole's.

That said, my favorite third-party candidate - at the moment - is Frank Moore. He gets results! Why settle for identity politics that ends with blacks (Obama), women (Clinton), black women (McKinney), or seniors (McCain, Nader)? Why not move on to cerebral palsy? What? Don't tell me you've got something against differently abled people too?

http://frankmooreforpresident08.com/

Posted by srjenkins at 05/23/2008 @ 12:44pm
Ralph Nader is the ONLY candidate that a true progressive can vote for in good conscience.

It's a shame that everyone says he has no serious shot. If all of the people who agree with him, simply voted for him, he'd likely win.

Even if 50% of those who agree vote for him, that would prove a serious progressive mandate in this country, thus building a legitimate movement in left wing politics, as opposed to these timid neo-liberals like Obama and Clinton.

If I had a dime for every time I heard a politician talk about "change in Washington", I'd have a better tax rate.

Posted by DJGoody at 05/23/2008 @ 1:06pm
Ralph Nader is the ONLY candidate that a true progressive can throw his vote away for in good conscience.

Posted by emile duBois at 05/23/2008 @ 1:24pm
president ralph nader.

wow.

then i woke up.

it was only a dream.

maybe in 2108..............

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/23/2008 @ 1:26pm
finally, some sanity on this matter from the Nation! both corporate parties can't stand Nader for bringing attention to serious issues that they work night and day to distract us from.

to 'frosty zoom': once upon a time everyone thought getting ending the slavery of African Americans in this country was 'only a dream' too. fortunately, there were people who were not willing to support the lesser evil between the whigs and democrats.

with millions of lives at stake regardless of which corporate candidate wins ( http://betterthannader.blogspot.com/2008/05/whats-at-stake.html ), you seriously expect me to vote for war mongering, PATRIOT Act reauthorizing, corporate welfare protecting politicians like Obama or Clinton? When is enough, enough?

Posted by betterthannader at 05/23/2008 @ 1:45pm
It's sad to me that so many of you talk the talk, but when it comes time to pull a voting lever, you jump ship for the USS Status Quo, that you will not even give Nader a seat at the table to talk about things you allegedly care about.

Lets say Obama wins the presidency. I would be willing to bet that his progressive accomplishments will pale in comparisons to what Nader has done.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2008 @ 1:50pm
What is it about what Ralph is saying that you don't like?

Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2008

To me its his ego. "[P]ioneering consumer activist who in recent years has turned his attention toward presidential politics" says it all. Nader just has to go for the top job. If it wasn't for his ego, he would work on getting candidates on the ballot and in elected offices at the state level and in Congress. Why, here's an idea - he could even run for Congress.

Either that, or he is just plain stupid. Nader has a lot of good things to say, but apparently he thinks he is more effective with no-shot runs for president.

Posted by Hman23 at 05/23/2008 @ 1:52pm
betterthannader

oh, believe me, i would be ecstatic to see mr. nader as president.

my comment wasn't about him but about the voters.......

Friday, May 23, 2008 1:53:36 PM

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/23/2008 @ 1:53pm
Posted by madlib at 05/23/2008

COWARDICE. I should have known. The dominant trait of bullies.

Posted by Benchrest at 05/23/2008 @ 2:40pm
Thank goodness there is Bob Barr so Ralph Nader becomes Irrelevant for Obama and the democrats.

Carol

Posted by harriscrl3 at 05/23/2008 @ 2:48pm
The last two national elections have been stolen, according to serious research. While I was very angry with Nader in 2000 for entering the race, today I have a very different view of what is happening. My respect for the political institutions in the US, is almost nil. Even Obama has to sell out in order to get in, and once in who knows if we the people can really affect his actions in order to really do the things that have to be done to right the many wrongs. If Democrats can't get into the White House after 8 years of scandalous deceit and mismanagement, even if Nader runs as independent, they should move out of the country!!!

Posted by etniks at 05/23/2008 @ 3:08pm
Quiz time...

besides the "true blue" "purest of the pure progressives"....

who ELSE in the body politic, would be pushing for a Ralph Nader candidacy?

(If you need a hint...one of them's nickname is either "The Architect" or..."Turdblossom")

Posted by Mask at 05/23/2008 @ 3:16pm
"The independent candidate scares tacticians in both parties . . ."

MR. NICHOLS,

Please name me a Republican tactician that Nader scares.

Posted by Hman23 at 05/23/2008 @ 3:18pm
Nader will be an important candidate as he will provide a place for the millions of disgruntled Hillary voters to go in the fall who do not choose to vote for Obama or McCain.

Posted by pete kent at 05/23/2008 @ 3:39pm
Nice level of discourse here -- NOT!

BTW Bob Barr is an irrelevancy. Barack Obama will unify the base like no other candidate in history. His fumbling on foreign policy this week alone is just a foretaste of what a disaster hsi presidency would mean for this nation. Granted many on the left would like nothing more than to see our nation humbled and to puruse a "one world" type foreign policy, but that is a fringe group that perhaps has its best class of adherents rights here at THE Nation!

Posted by pete kent at 05/23/2008 @ 3:42pm
Free Trade is a bleeding wound for all governments that can only be fixed by pulling out of the WTO, Nafta like trade agreements, and erecting tariff walls, so that our economic problems can be solved by our government. I am a lifelong Democrat, who has always voted for Democratic candidates. But we have collection of Free Trade idiots as candidates in both parties. I am going with Nader. He will probably lose, but I will not have it on my conscience that I voted for the coming Depression. I may go to the Green Party too.

Posted by P. J. Casey at 05/23/2008 @ 3:44pm
Let's go through the Obama thing with you folks. Let's say he wins and is not assissinated. And lets say he disappoints you all.

Because you know he's going to. Although he would not disappoint as much as Ms. Centrist, McCain-Lite, Ms. Clinton.

Then would you consider that wasting a vote for the ruling party Democrats EVER is why this country is in such a shithole.

Posted by ElyDog at 05/23/2008 @ 3:52pm
It seems to me that many that have posted here have never heard Nader speak.

The depth of his knowledge is astounding.

He knows the government inside and out.

He really fights for what the Obama disciples think Obama stands for (but, in reality is just a lot of hot air). Why wouldn't a democrate vote for Nader. He is very democratic. Very patriotic. He really cares about this country. Why would people trash him? I really think, it is because they haven't heard him talk. And, have no clue what he has done for every man, woman and child in the U.S. over the years.

The guy is fighting for you, always. Why would you trash someone who fights only for you?

Posted by not buying it at 05/23/2008 @ 3:57pm
"Despite the dismissals, the independent candidate is saying things that matter and attaining poll numbers worth noting."

jeez...this is good? what is that asperger syndrome monstrosity thinking? is he working for the defeat of progressivism by siphoning off everything suxer votes to ensure a third bush term? is he paid off by the very bugbears he claims to oppose?

or is he simply incapable of seeing the world as it really is and perfectly comfortable with dragging the country down to hell with him if he cant get everything he wants?

jeez...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/23/2008 @ 4:00pm
Dear John,

Thanks for writing this piece, which helps to make the role Ralph Nader has played in American presidential politics more transparent. In my experience this aspect of Nader's career has been hard to talk about in a reasonable way since the Florida debacle in 2000 and only now are calmer voices coming to the fore. Let's hope this marks the beginning of a trend.

I personally believe that the "Nader done it" line is a factoid based on what we think we know about election dynamics, but which has never been reasonably verified. This lack of verification applies as much to my fellow social scientists as to the broader public and really is a rather shameful thing.

With pieces like this you help us to recognize the complexities of the American political context and to accept that when less familiar voices cry out, they need not remain in the wilderness forever.

Posted by Solon Simmons at 05/23/2008 @ 4:01pm
I used to support Nader. That ended in 2000. I had no problem with his running in states where votes cast for him would not affect the election, but Florida clearly was not one of those states. Nader's huge ego and general mean-spiritedness towards Gore elected Bush and gave us the war in Iraq. One thing that election taught me was there really is a difference, at least sometimes, between the two major candidates. If Nader didn't think so and still doesn't think so, I guess he feels that hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq and millions of refugees are not a real difference. Not to mention Bush's positions on the environment, on stem cell research, on taxes, etc. Even Bush supporters ought to feel something is wrong when the man who received the greater number of popular votes did not win the election.

It's easy for a minor party candidate to take a very purist, holier than thou stand on the issues. If Nader were a candidate of one of the major parties, he would have to change his views. He would have to deal with the fact that politics inevitably means compromise, that no matter how dead certain you are that your views are right and other people's views are wrong, when millions of voters don't agree, you have to move towards their position. Nader has the luxury of saying exactly what he believes in an uncompromising fashion, because he knows he will not win and in the end his views will not be held accountable. Whatever one thinks of Obama and McCain, they are going to be held accountable for their views.

Posted by petiver at 05/23/2008 @ 4:03pm
If Ralph Nader did not favor abortion, I'd vote for him in a minute. He meets every test on foreign and domestic policy that the Obamas and McCains do not. But I'm Catholic and my faith comes first. And, similarly, this faith won't permit my supporting either of those other two clowns either. Sorry Ralph, while in most respects you're head and shoulders above the rest of the pack, you just topple right back to earth when you're seen as finding nothing objectionable in some murder monger's sticking an ice pick into the brain of an innocent little one. Go find out what a human being is before you launch another run at the presidency. Do that one for me.

Posted by john lowell at 05/23/2008 @ 5:09pm
"I used to support Nader. That ended in 2000..."

Well said, Petiver. Left-wing uncompromising fundamentalist talk, is just that; uncompromising and therefore not sellable nor workable.

Posted by DebraD at 05/23/2008 @ 5:12pm
People, please. Ralph's crazed, egomanical attempt to play spoiler has more of a base in mental illness than it does in political principle. He has gone from progressive icon to drool-flecked madman. His friends should have done an intervention back in 2000. He's now beyond hope. Sad. Very sad.

Posted by Progressivealways at 05/23/2008 @ 5:15pm
The "spoiler" argument is purely anecdotal. It's almost proven statistically to be a matter of coincidence. Not to mention the fact that Gore lost his home state Tennessee, Ohio, etc..... please..... this spoiler talk proves the inability for people to make rational and considerate adjustments in their understanding of reality.

Furthermore, someone wrote this:

"Left-wing uncompromising fundamentalist talk, is just that; uncompromising and therefore not sellable nor workable."

To which I say - how about the Neocons? They "suffered" through a little over a decade of uncompromising, fundamentalist talk, and now have the clear upper hand in this country.

We as progressives (I'm so sick of that word) need to stop thinking about "the next 4 years........ the next 8 years", and seriously consider the next 20-40 years. This short sighted capitulation is doing us and the country no good.

Posted by DJGoody at 05/23/2008 @ 5:32pm
"pete kent"...."pont ifi kus"?

hmmm???

Posted by Mask at 05/23/2008 @ 5:41pm
Hey crabwalk.

You forgot to list the George W. Bush Administration and the resulting Iraq War on the list of Ralph's accomplishments.

You and he can blame everyone else, but facts are facts.

Posted by StephenKaus at 05/23/2008 @ 7:26pm
I think it is a distraction to try to impeach the president but he is right on the issues of corporations and the party system is not good. It forces us to align ourselves to one idea and ideology. It becomes an organization running a country instead of people governing it and electing officials.

Posted by dpcough at 05/23/2008 @ 7:36pm
I think it is a distraction to try to impeach the president but he is right on the issues of corporations and the party system is not good. It forces us to align ourselves to one idea and ideology. It becomes an organization running a country instead of people governing it and electing officials.

Posted by dpcough at 05/23/2008 @ 7:36pm
Norman Thomas, unlike Nader, never deliberately threw an election to the forces of the Right. What Nader did in 2000 taints everything else he's ever done or ever will do.

Posted by jgold2 at 05/23/2008 @ 7:53pm
He is right on everything, but it is not going to happen and the result siphons off votes from the better of the two possible outcomes.

There are other ways to advance causes than running for President. Pat Paulson ran for President. Ralph Nader can and should do something else.

The next President and future foreseeable Presidents are going to be chosen by the two party system, sputtering or not, so pretending we live in France is not very responsible.

Posted by StephenKaus at 05/23/2008 @ 8:19pm
[Hey crabwalk.

You forgot to list the George W. Bush Administration and the resulting Iraq War on the list of Ralph's accomplishments.

You and he can blame everyone else, but facts are facts.

Posted by StephenKaus at 05/23/2008 ]

What facts? Nader cost Gore nothing. Gore cost Gore. Quit blaming the one guy with ethics for the failure of a weak candidate.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2008 @ 8:38pm
If you want to blame someone for Bush's failures, other than Bush himself, blame the lame democratic congress, which includes Clinton and Obama.

More sheep drinking off-brand sugary colored kids drink from the propaganda kitchen at the DNC:

[What Nader did in 2000 taints everything else he's ever done or ever will do.

Posted by jgold2 at 05/23/2008 ]

Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2008 @ 8:43pm
Who cost John Kerry the election?

Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2008 @ 8:53pm
Posted by jgold2 at 05/23/2008

Take a gander at this simple analysis

http://prorev.com/green2000.htm

Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2008 @ 8:54pm
Posted by jgold2

This business of Nadar having owed the Democrats something in 2000 has to be the just about the most patently absurd bilge ever to see the light of day. By what possible line of reasoning is a presidential candidate - any presidential candidate - only to be defined in terms of the interests of the two system parties, and, worse, to be held accountable to them for having them? One can't in the United States have one's own interests wholly separate and apart from those of the Democrats and Republicans? To hear you tell it, one can't. Lets see if we can make this crystal clear for all of those who think the system parties have some form of proprietary right over the electorate: Keep your cotton-picken hands, together with the all of your noxious presumption, off of my right to vote for whom I wish! Don't you dare suggest to me that I owe something to some candidate for whom I didn't vote! I owe them, and you, absolutely nothing.

Posted by john lowell at 05/23/2008 @ 9:54pm
Ralph Nader (and the Greens) have long been the scapegoats for causing the Bush presidency. The common claim: Gore lost Florida because Nader spoiled votes from him.

I have some alternative theories:

What about all of the African-Americans disenfranchised in Florida? And why did Al Gore ignore the claims of the black caucus in Congress?

What about "Slick Willy?" Has anyone considered that perhaps Bill Clinton is to blame for the Bush presidency? Relative peace and the prosperity of the 1990s are difficult to rally mass opposition against, but then again, Democrat infidelity and corruption are the meat and potatoes of the GOP machine. In the end, perhaps Clinton's affair doomed the Democrats' chance at the White House in 2000.

In the end, it's unfair to blame Ralph Nader alone for Gore's loss 2000. It's a far easier story to blame Ross Perot for HW Bush's loss in 1992. Then again, Perot won nearly 20% of the popular vote.

Ralph may be serious, but the media, and Democrats, are writing him off the books and condemning him alone for their mistakes.

Posted by poseidon1982 at 05/23/2008 @ 10:09pm
Look, guys, the reason CRAB and the die-hard Naderites refuse to blame Ralph for 2000 and Gore losing is simple...

they'd have to blame THEMSELVES for voting for him and BELIEVING him when he said there was little difference between a Gore Presidency and a Bush Presidency.

Can you IMAGINE the guilt that that would engender in a person? To know that you (via your support for Ralph, and the fact you didn't think of vote trading in 2000) allow "Dubya and Darth Cheney"?

So...they don't accept it....they can't.

Posted by Mask at 05/23/2008 @ 10:33pm
Not to mention the fact that Gore lost his home state Tennessee, Ohio, etc.....

Posted by DJGoody at 05/23/2008

By "etc." did you mean Florida? Just curious.

Posted by Hman23 at 05/23/2008 @ 10:55pm
"they'd have to blame THEMSELVES"

You're probably right Mask.

You know what? I think Ralph Nader should apologize to the American people for telling them that there was little difference between a Gore Presidency and a Bush Presidency. In fact he should apologize to Al Gore for making such a misleading, outrageous, erroneous claim. And all those who drank the koolaid should be ashamed of themselves for believing the lie and admit that they screwed up.

Posted by DebraD at 05/23/2008 @ 11:18pm
"Quiz time...

besides the "true blue" "purest of the pure progressives"....

who ELSE in the body politic, would be pushing for a Ralph Nader candidacy?

(If you need a hint...one of them's nickname is either "The Architect" or..."Turdblossom")"

Quiz time...of Clinton, Obama, and Nader, which one has explicitly rejected US imperialism? (If you need a hint, it's not Clinton or Obama)

"You know what? I think Ralph Nader should apologize to the American people for telling them that there was little difference between a Gore Presidency and a Bush Presidency. In fact he should apologize to Al Gore for making such a misleading, outrageous, erroneous claim. And all those who drank the koolaid should be ashamed of themselves for believing the lie and admit that they screwed up."

To the 1.5 million Iraqi people who died while Gore was a vice-president, if they are in a place where they can express such things, they probably don't see much of a difference. The groundwork for the Bush presidency was laid down by the Clinton Administration. Don't much recall Gore saying too much in opposition, but then again, such is the life of a drone.

Posted by onthehelm at 05/23/2008 @ 11:58pm
A vote for Nader is a vote for one thing only: Bush's third term.

Posted by mfed at 05/24/2008 @ 12:04am
Oh no, not Nader. Does he really want to give the presidency to the GOP again? 3rd party candidates have no chance at the presidency and won't for the foreseeable future, so why does he run? The only way to help 3rd parties advance anytime soon is to go to instant runoff voting. That way people could actually vote 3rd party as their first choice without worrying about them spoiling the election and letting their most dreaded candidate win - ala 2000. But since instant runoff is not how it is, now is not the time to vote 3rd party. We cannot risk another 4-8 years of more of the same.

Posted by rmm69 at 05/24/2008 @ 01:33am
It's a far easier story to blame Ross Perot for HW Bush's loss in 1992......

Posted by poseidon1982 at 05/23/2008

The Repubs didn't whine much, now did we?

Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/23/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

Yeah, that's almost a true statement, Happy. Your side whined, raged, bitched, moaned, and virtually soiled yourselves for the entire 8 years that Clinton was President. Your side attempted a coup over a blow job. Your side's every argument about its own utter depravity was always best expressed as "but...but...but...but...Clinton!". Nobody whines like Republicans, Happ. You whine about taxes, you whine that not everyone takes their religious and other marching orders from you, you whine when your party sociopaths are called out - hell, McCain's people apparently don't know the difference between "lost his bearings" and "lost his marbles". And, of course, you whine when those of us on the left call into question the patriotism, courage and decency of all of you armchair warrior chickenhawks. Republicans have been major league whiners since at least 1964, and the pathetic whining shows no sign of abating any time soon.

Posted by jmusolino at 05/24/2008 @ 01:53am
duBois,

Barack Obama's resume is quite impressive, to the masses of a dumbed down wasteland called America that is.

Posted by POSEIDON at 05/24/2008 @ 04:36am
John Nichols,

LET KATRINA S.I.C. (SELL OUT IN CHIEF) VANDEN HUEVEL KNOW THAT WE ARE STILL WAITING ON CONCRETE ACTIONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING ANY CANDIDATE WHO IS NOT IN FAVOR OF ENDING THE IRAQ WAR:::::

Katrina Vanden Huevel and The Nation stabbed Ralph Nader in the back and sold out their faithful following in 2004. Although far from complete in its assessment of Nader's reasons for running, why give Ralph Nader good press on the Nation Website now?

Posted by POSEIDON at 05/24/2008 @ 04:54am
The voice Mr. Nader speaks with is truly our collective common sense and conscience. Unfortunately the under-educated, brainwashed and outright sinful land in which we live and tolerate has no necessity for common sense and conscience.

If you are serious about the advancement of our civilization, vote Nader. If you are content with letting big money run your life, at least begin by trying to mitigate this FUBAR situation and vote Obama.

Posted by joeru at 05/24/2008 @ 05:01am
Posted by onthehelm at 05/23/2008

Now....answer MY question.

Posted by Mask at 05/24/2008 @ 07:27am
[they'd have to blame THEMSELVES for voting for him and BELIEVING him when he said there was little difference between a Gore Presidency and a Bush Presidency.

Can you IMAGINE the guilt that that would engender in a person? To know that you (via your support for Ralph, and the fact you didn't think of vote trading in 2000) allow "Dubya and Darth Cheney"?

So...they don't accept it....they can't.

Posted by Mask at 05/23/2008]

What total bullshit!

Blame rest squarely with AL gore and his campaign staff. Any attempts to place it elsewhere is just BS.

You "people" are anti-democratic, anti-free will, anti-choice. You are sheep that have bought The Lie.

something like 940,000 "democrats" did not vote for Gore in Florida. They voted for Bush! Is that Naders fault?

Sad Gore cultists! cultists! cultists! Blame Ralph for the war? What total nonsense. What crap.

BOO!

Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2008 @ 09:09am
[Posted by rmm69 at 05/24/2008]

Do you think the dem/repub machine is EVER going to allow you to use IRV?

Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2008 @ 09:13am
Hey, did you Gore "cultists" know that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear program? He had drone planes that could attack your children. He had links to AQ.

All of that is of the same cloth as "Nader cost Gore in 2000".

[o Sixty-two percent of Nader's voters were Republicans, independents, third-party voters and nonvoters.

o Had Nader not run, Bush would have won by more in Florida. CNN's exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent and Gore at 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical Nader-less Florida race.

o Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, Bill Clinton's Arkansas and traditionally Democratic West Virginia; with any one of these, Gore would have won.

o Nine million Democrats voted for Bush, and less than half of the 3 million Nader voters were Democrats.

o Ninety thousand African Americans were illegally and intentionally stricken from the voter rolls in Florida under the guise of felon disenfranchisement.

Every one of the eight third-party presidential candidates in Florida received more than the 543 votes cited as the deciding factor in the election.

On some discarded ballots, voters both filled in the bubble for their candidate and wrote the candidate's name in the write-in-space. If these had been included in the count, Gore would have had a net gain of 662 votes, enough to win the election.

In the highly Democratic county of Palm Beach, an abnormally large number of votes were cast for the conservative candidate Pat Buchanan. Buchanan himself estimated that as many as 95% of these 3,500 votes were Gore's because of the faulty "butterfly" ballot. [6]

According to exit polls, over half of the Nader voters would have stayed home, 25% would have voted for Gore, and 15% would have voted for Bush. The rest would have voted for another third party candidate.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2008 @ 09:26am
oops, that should read "240,000" "democrats voted for BUSH!", not 940,000.

So, who "stole" those votes FOR Bush?

Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2008 @ 09:27am
29 Senate democrats voted for Bush's "war resolution" .

Do any of you see Ralph Naders name on that list?

Did the dems vote at anytime to stop the war?

Did they vote to withhold funding?

did they ever hold Chimpy accountable for his crime spree?

Why was impeachment "off the table"?

Yes, by all means, let us stick with the dems, they are for us! (if "us" is Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros, Halliburton, Bechtel etc etc etc...)

Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2008 @ 09:36am
Posted by DebraD

"I think Ralph Nader should apologize to the American people for telling them that there was little difference between a Gore Presidency and a Bush Presidency."

Yeah, I've been noticing what a difference there might have been between a Gore Presidency and a Bush Presidency: Zilch. The behavior of the Democratic Party in Congress is as sure link as we have to the truth of what a Gore Presidency might have been like and if you think that there's any noticeable difference between them and the Bush administration on any aspect of Middle Eastern policy its just because you can't spell AIPAC. And I notice how willing the Democrats have been to end funding for the war in Iraq. So pick your lobbyist, DebraD, and tell me if you really think it makes much difference when he or she approaches some slug politician whether they - or the politician - care very much whether there's a D or an R next to their name. I think you should apologize to the people on this blog for this kind of tripe.

Posted by john lowell at 05/24/2008 @ 10:03am
[I'M AN IDIOT SHEEP!!

Posted by mihnea at 05/24/2008]

I believe you

Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2008 @ 10:35am
So John Lovell, are you saying that there would be no difference between an Obama presidency and a McCain presidency? Do you think Nader would have the nerve to say that this time?

Posted by DebraD at 05/24/2008 @ 11:42am
So...would Nader not be running if we Democrats came to our senses and were on the verge of nominating Kucinich?

No. Nader would still be running and to some flank of Kucinich. Nader is calling attention to the "tyranny of the duopoly."

Ironic that Obama actually sees the problem that Nader rails against in similar terms. Nader frames it as both parties conspiring to dilute real debate of the issues. Obama sees it as both parties being guilty of leaning on the same power supports (the cabal of monied interests which exclude the rest of us).

I have resigned myself to taking at face value Nader's strong preference for a true multi-party system. I also believe that post-Nader, any additional political parties would rapidly fall victim to the same monied interests that currently dominate our political landscape.

Posted by Egalitare at 05/24/2008 @ 11:59am
Posted by frankshitz at 05/24/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

Yeah, Frank, sure. Righties don't get all whiney when they're called out or even criticized, do they? So for starters, you're a fan of Bush's war, so why aren't you in theater, fighting it? No balls? No decency? But we'll get back to that. As I said, you righties can sure handle it, like you did so well when Whoopi Goldberg called your Dear Leader a "liar and a thug" all those years ago, when his ratings were still pretty high. The great right-wing whine fest that ensued on that one was a sight to behold. Of course, she was, and remains correct on the point.

And I can see your and Bush's idea that there is only one defining struggle of our times - more than one gets a little complex and, dare I say, way too nuanced for the limited attention span/intelligence of so many of you on the right. In case you've been asleep, Frankie, there are a number of defining struggles, and those include (besides the bogeyman of the moment hiding under the collective American bed) the demise of the middle class at the hands of the multinational corporatists who've seized power here, the demise of the US Constitution and individual liberty here and abroad, endless war waged solely for the profit of the very few (again, Frankie, why have you not enlisted in your leader's great crusade?), and the destruction of the environment, to name a few defining struggles of our time.

Ahmadinejad looks a lot like Hitler did when Chamberlain agreed to meet with him at Munich? How so? Has he amassed huge armies? Does he possess, not only a massive nuclear arsenal, but the means to deliver the weapons effectively? Or is it just that he's another guy sitting on what you consider to be US oil supplies? Who (other than you) is suggesting handing Israel over to Iran? Who is suggesting ceding so much as one city block anywhere to Iran? The fundamental reality, Frank, is that Israel has nukes, has had them for decades, and it's hardly American business if other countries do what the US continues to do - develop nukes. Back in the day, sadly, it was called Mutually Assured Destruction. You have way too many people here talking about using nukes in Iran - it would be irresponsible for any government to take that talk idly. So we've given them little choice but to proceed. Iraq, after all, disarmed. And look what happened to them when they did.

As for the Bush-Hitler analogy, let's see...both of them corporatists, both of them contemptuous of civil liberties, both started wars of aggression, both demanded that all others appease them, both claimed that God was on their side, neither ever showed any regard for innocent human life, both had messianic self-images, both were lousy military strategists, both sociopathic liars and thugs with sadistic streaks...shall I go on?

And, of course, you always get back to your warmongering. So, Frankie, once again, why are you here hiding behind your keyboard, rather than in Iraq, fighting your Dear Leader's fight? Do you lack the courage to stand on your stated principles? Do you lack the fundamental decency? Do you lack the patriotism? It's your war, Frank, and it's your occupation. When are you going to show a little backbone here, instead of a lot of tough sounding, but ultimately mindless ands spineless drivel? Or is it, Frankie, that like so many of the chickenhawks on your side of the political spectrum, you long ago gave up patriotism for jingoism and multinational corporatism. Because, until you put your ass on the line here, Frank, it's nothing but coward's talk.

Posted by jmusolino at 05/24/2008 @ 12:22pm
crabwalk, Probably not anytime soon. Since 3rd parties would stand a much better chance with IRV.

Posted by rmm69 at 05/24/2008 @ 12:37pm
One more thing about Nader that nobody ever brings up: he is even older than McCain!

Posted by rmm69 at 05/24/2008 @ 12:52pm
Don't be a sell-out....Vote your principles!

Vote Nader/Mihnea in 2008!!!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/24/2008 @ 12:59pm
Nader lovers: 2 HUGE differences between a Gore and Bush presidency that took all of one second to think of:

With Gore - no Iraq war and no Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. With just those 2 issues alone, how can you say there is no difference between Gore and Bush with a straight face?

Posted by rmm69 at 05/24/2008 @ 1:13pm
Nader lovers: 2 HUGE differences between a Gore and Bush presidency that took all of one second to think of:

With Gore - no Iraq war and no Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. With just those 2 issues alone, how can you say there is no difference between Gore and Bush with a straight face?

Posted by rmm69 at 05/24/2008 @ 1:14pm
I'm ambivalent.

When Obama went to Florida stressing that he will reject Palestinian right-of-return (one of the pillars of the "final status issues") and that Israel's "security" will be the corner-stone of his Mid-East policy, then it's like having a wet blanket thrown on all the enthusiasm that I, and other progressives, have for an Obama presidency. It's as if constructed his policy statements from a drop-down menu.

When Obama gave his acclaimed speech on race, and spoke of "perceived" oppression in the Arab world, when he lended credence to white voters' qualms with busing and affirmative action, when he dismissed the fact that racism is still endemic in American society or that white privelege still very much exists, then I scratch my head and ask, "This is the most liberal member in the senate?"

Enter Ralph Nader, who actually speaks sanity, catnip to my ears. How much I would like to give him my vote.

Still, GWB nominated two supreme court justices. John Paul Stevens is 88, Ruth Ginsberg is 75, and Stephan Breyer is 69. In a McCain presidency, these three could be replaced with another Sam Alito or, worse yet, Antonin Scalia. Think about privacy, torture, capital punishment, civil liberties, corporate "personhood", and many other fundamental issues that affect people's lives. I shudder. This is why an Obama presidency, whatever its shortcomings, is so crucial.

Still...I live in a solidly blue state, and given the electoral college, will my vote matter anyway?

Posted by downwarddog at 05/24/2008 @ 1:24pm
It blows my mind that so many democrats are Nader-haters. Its very Karl Rove of you guys to want to deny me my democratic right to have options at the voting booth. At the risk of sounding juvenille don't hate the player hate the game. Its not Nader's overwhelming charisma that makes him appealing to people like myself, its his willingness to be honest about the corrupt system and advocate fixing the root of the problem. The two democratic candidates can only change things on all a superficial level despite all of Obama's rhetoric. Al Gore lost his own election. I'm tired of this good cop, bad cop political process we have with Dems and Repubs. that addresses very little. Obama and Hilary are beholden to the same 'powers that be' that influence Bush and its not the voting public. To blame Nader for Roberts and Alito is ludicrous. I didn't see those milktoast do-nothing legislatures put up much of a fight. I'm tired of the lesser of two evils, its time to simply vote for whats right!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by starvinmarvin at 05/24/2008 @ 2:22pm
downwarddog, you make the point perfectly about why there is no place for 3rd party voting in this election. The Supreme Court is a huge consideration. McCain would set progressives back decades in that regard. (And you probably saw my post just before yours about 2 huge differences in Gore v Bush).

So Nader lovers, do you understand? We already got 2 new right wingers on the court - you want even more?

Posted by rmm69 at 05/24/2008 @ 3:01pm
[I`m a stupid ...WHITE RACIST!!!! Posted by crabwalk

YOU are certainly! I ..STRONGLY .. believe YOU!!!

Posted by mihnea at 05/24/2008 ]

HAHAHEHEHA

Yep, you go on about BLACK MUSLIMS in the BLACK HOUSE and the green flag

and call me a white racist.

'scuse me ibble...may I borrow that...

Chumtalk to the max.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2008 @ 5:47pm
starvinmarvin makes an excellent point. How much resistance did the dems put up against Roberts and Alito? Bush only nominates, the congress has to approve, and they did.

dem resistance to the war, negligible

dem resistance to the "energy policy" of Cheney, negligible.

dem resistance to Gitmo, negligible.

dem resistance to earmarks, negligible.

dem resistance to impeachment, palpable, almost strident at times.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/24/2008 @ 5:56pm
Political expediency, wanting to win at any costs, is why our current political system allows all the injustice to occur. You need money to win, and the polititian's votes go to the highest bidder.

And most progressives fail to make a democratic candidate accountable, including Mr. Nichols, to the protection of basic democratic principles and human rights. All this cheerleading for Obama (or worse yet, Hillary) for acting just a little better than the average republican is why I joined the green party this year (though I did vote for Nader the last two elections and will this year again).

Can you think of the last time the government took the initiative on any major issue without being forced to? And Nader was the force that made many of those changes.

"I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want, and get it." - Eugene Debs

My take on how the democratic party supporters fear of Nader is counter to democratic principles.

http://www.wordsareimportant.com/nader.htm - Don't Fear Nader

Posted by NotOneMore at 05/24/2008 @ 6:04pm
PS- I stubbed my toe the other day. It is all Nader's fault. Add that to the list of how everything is Nader's fault.

By the way, do any of you remember who Gore's vice president war? (hint - Lieberman)

And do you remember what Kucinich did just before the 2004 Democratic Convention? (hint - he dropped out basically ending any supposedly progressive voice at the convention. He put the democratic party ahead of democratic principles.)

And why is this article published only as a blog item and not appearing in the Nation magaizine? Because that is how serious Mr. Nichols is about Nader. Too little too late. Let the status quo remain and you can pick which 'mainstream' candidate can carry out the policies of corporate America.

Posted by NotOneMore at 05/24/2008 @ 6:22pm
We need to support a third party, vote for Ralph Nader.

Yeah, and what third party is he aligned with?

What third party has he worked to build over the past forty years?

Similar to Ross Perot, he is above political parties. "It's all about me!" His ego can not be contained within a party structure.

Posts above note the next president will probably make appointments to the Supreme Court, better a moderate democrat than a neanderthal.

nhojjohn

Posted by Nhoj_John at 05/24/2008 @ 8:07pm
Gore lost my vote because he was too much aligned with the Republicans. This was not apparent to too many others at the time, but his selection of Joe Lieberman said it all to me. He sold out on the environment after writing "Earth in the Balance" and selected a DINO for a running mate.

Good Bye, Democratic Party.

Posted by Glenn Fritz at 05/24/2008 @ 9:17pm
Posted by madlib at 05/24/2008

You LIKE to make base, stupid points at the expense of those who cannot defend themselves. You tear them down in order to make yourself look, what? Smart? Brave?

No, you are a coward. A small person who likes to dish it out, but can't take it.

They did not ask for their disability any more than you asked for your ugly face.

You give the impression of a twenty something female with emotional problems. You say you are a mad liberal, you probably think you are, but you are not. Most likely a hard core socialist/soft core communist. Liberals care about those who cannot defend themselves, while you look down your sneering nose at them as something to be tolerated.

You are a douche, actually a stupid douche, who does not deserve to be taken seriously. I'm sure you're quite used to that.

If you wish to pick on handicapped kids as you have shown you like to do, then have at it. It just further proves my point.

Posted by Benchrest at 05/24/2008 @ 9:29pm
It's like winning the special olympics. Even if you win, your still retarded.

posted by madlib 05/23/2008

Make an effort to answer now and defend your position.

Since you are a coward, and I know you are, I'm guessing you take the coward's way out and put me on ignore, since your debating skills appear amateur at best.

aww, no thanks, and boo hoo kind of give away your intelligence level.

Posted by Benchrest at 05/24/2008 @ 10:31pm
Posted by Nhoj_John at 05/24/2008

That's the other part the Nader Cultists never can explain..."Where was Ralph from 2001-2003?....where was he from 2005-2007?"

"Working on various issues"...is the vauge nonsensical answer they give.

Why wasn't he out working to get Green Party guys elected in Congressional mid-terms?

Why wasn't he out FUNDRAISING for the Greens?

Why does he ONLY seem to show up about 9-11 months before the Presidential election....and disappear 9-11 HOURS afterwards...only to appear 4 years later?

Posted by Mask at 05/24/2008 @ 11:15pm
Oh, and why do all these "Nader supporters" magically appear to egg Ralph on....and then they themselves disappear the other 3.7 years?

And why do I get the feeling if you did a tracer on the IP Addresses, it would lead you back to 310 First Street SE Washington, D.C.?

(RNC HQ, if you don't know)

Posted by Mask at 05/24/2008 @ 11:18pm
Posted by Mask at 05/24/2008

So it's possible this scumbag I'm trying to engage is actually a lowlife dittohead along the lines of libzsuck?

Posted by Benchrest at 05/24/2008 @ 11:28pm
Posted by DebraD

"So John Lovell, are you saying that there would be no difference between an Obama presidency and a McCain presidency? Do you think Nader would have the nerve to say that this time?"

For all intents and purposes he's said that already, DebraD. And so will I, actually.

Explain, please, how it is that Obama's understanding of the role played in our present Middle Eastern difficulties by our now decades long policy imbalances differs meaningfully from John McCain's. Or his willingness to "keep all options open" when it comes to doing violence to Iran. Or his pandering to AIPAC. Obama's recent spat with his pastor demonstrated that clearly enough. And when it comes to domestic questions, just take your pick of which lobby you'd prefer, AMA for McCain, malpractice attorneys for Obama, for example. But you'll always be picking a lobby, DebraD, not a candidate. And you'll have that kind of picture on just about every domestic issue you might consider, the overriding consideration, the all pervasive strangle-hold that these vermin have on our system and on both major parties. Neither Obama nor McCain enjoy immunity from such influences, they are equally and deeply involved with them and are equally vulnerable. As they say "there not a dimes worth of difference", nor is there ever likely to be until this rotten system is purified root and branch. Obama and McCain ARE the problem, DebraD. The rest is window dressing.

Posted by john lowell at 05/25/2008 @ 01:21am
Where is Ralph between elections? Why has it taken him all this time to start screaming at the White House fence?

Posted by pestone at 05/25/2008 @ 02:56am
it's very important to challenge Obama's liberal credentials -- because he's not particularly progressive. thank god Ralph will be in the mix, in that role, however marginalized he might be. (Going after McCain, beyond that, is a no-brainer.)

one thing no one i've read has pointed out, though: Nader/Gonzalez is our anti-Hillary insurance policy. If she had gotten the nomination this year, there'd have been a significant exodus into their arms (not nearly as much for Obama). so much for Hill's "electability" arguments!

and, finally, i was pumped that Gonzalez is back in the national spotlight. he's a terrific public figure in his own right! i was hugely disappointed that he didn't emerge as more of a figurehead in the Green Party after he nearly took Gavin Newsom down for mayor of San Francisco. glad to see his reemergence, most definitely!

Posted by freakpowerticket at 05/25/2008 @ 03:46am
Ralph Nader is a true American hero on the scale of Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin. As a matter of fact, those three men have probably saved more lives than any of their contemporaries. As Salk and Sabin saved millions of lives with their polio vaccines - so has Ralph Nader (including mine) with his car safety advocacy. He's also anti-politician to the point of brutality - sometimes unwittingly against his own causes. The very un-independent Commission on Presidential Debates (run by insider Republicans and Democrats alike) silenced Mr. Nader's voice by labeling him an electorally insignificant candidate. Therefore, logic would dictate that the same Democratic Party power brokers who went on to blame Ralph Nader's candidacy for Al Gore's "defeat" should now welcome a significant Ralph Nader to the debates. Of course, the Republican power brokers want less than nothing to do Mr. Nader will veto the move, and no matter how enlightened the new "Obama Democrats" may be, I seriously doubt the larger Party will ever welcome Nader with open arms. That's a shame, because treating Ralph Nader with respect (which the ornery SOB deserves) would confirm the Democratic Party's critical backing of Senator Obama's Mantra for change. No matter their opinion of Mr. Nader, few would argue the depth of his convictions and breadth of his knowledge and accomplishments. Even fewer would doubt that in a one on one on one, John McCain's attempt to paint himself green would quickly be hacked away revealing the toxic lead underbelly of Mr. McCain's vision for America.

Posted by wbramh at 05/25/2008 @ 04:07am
So it's possible this scumbag I'm trying to engage is actually a lowlife dittohead along the lines of libzsuck?-----Posted by Benchrest at 05/24/2008

Sure. (Well, not libzsuck, he's just barely able to form a coherent sentence...heheh)

But how much would it cost the RNC to pay a few staffers to blog as "pure progressives" on a few websites, trying to "convince the liberals to 'not sell out their principles' and vote Nader"?

Now, our friend CRABWALK is a true believer...and there are maybe a few others....

but notice all the NEWBIES!!!!

Interesting, huh?

(BTW, seen this on another blog, where there is this sudden influx of "Hillary supporters" who "now" are "forced" to vote for John McCain.

Not like FRANKGRITS, who lost hisf frickin' mind over Her Nibs, but a lot of NEWBIES who just popped up once Obama had the numbers and started saying "I've been a Democrat MY WHOLE LIFE (always a caveat to watch for) and I can't vote for Obama, I have to vote for McCain."

For an investment of a few thousand....not a bad way to try to convince a few Hillary folks to vote for McCain...or HERE, convince a few liberals to vote for Nader!

Posted by Mask at 05/25/2008 @ 07:30am
Where has Ralph been?

doing his job.

where have Obama/Clinton been?

AWOL from their jobs, raising money from the same people that the RNC raises money from.

Where were O/C when impeachment talk arose? AWOL.

where were they when GITMO opened? AWOL

Posted by crabwalk at 05/25/2008 @ 07:50am
Been voting for him in every election he was on the ballot, and it looks like I will again, even though Obabma has been a somewhat not too rotten an option.

Posted by pachonegro at 05/25/2008 @ 10:05am
Posted by Mask at 05/25/2008

Yes. That is VERY interesting, and makes much more sense than my hypothesis. It explains alot actually. Thanks for the heads up.

Posted by Benchrest at 05/25/2008 @ 10:29am
Posted by madlib at 05/24/2008

madlib = FRAUD

madlib = knuckledragging mouthbreather

oh yeah, almost forgot..

madlib = stupid douche

Posted by Benchrest at 05/25/2008 @ 10:33am
I must come down on Crabwalk's side. Not that I agree with (all of) what Nader's up to, but he has correctly identified the "two"-party system (The Party of Big Business) as the main political problem in the US, precluding any real 'change', refusing to accept any challengers.

Sheesh, look at all you 'liberals' whinging like banshees at this challenge to the status quo. Makes you look _very_ conservative from the outside.

To put it bluntly, seen from outside the US, the Democrats aren't the real opposition to the Republicans - they are the 'good cop' in the police-state pair. Their job is to bamboozle and mollify the 'people', but to keep things going in favour of big business. The 'bad-cop' Republicans do the same thing but more bluntly and with more of a 'f*ck-you' attitude. Just follow the bucks. Where did they go? How many of them went to the top .5%? Regardless of whether the good cop or the bad one ran things...

Well done Ralph Nader for continuing to point this out!

Posted by mikecope at 05/25/2008 @ 12:49pm
Where has Ralph been?

doing his job.----Posted by crabwalk at 05/25/2008

Oh then, please...give us ALL the details.

And just to be fair (and not prove my point)...list everything from losing by 0.34% in November 2004 until he announced for his quadriannual run on February 24, 2008.

uh...in detail.

Posted by Mask at 05/25/2008 @ 2:03pm
If everyone voted for the candidate that had the only sensible platform, Nader would win. Nader won't win because most of the electorate is either lazy, ignorant, or fearfully close-minded.

Posted by samspayed at 05/25/2008 @ 2:47pm
Posted by samspayed at 05/25/2008

RNC Mole Naderite Troll

Posted by Benchrest at 05/25/2008 @ 3:38pm
Posted by madlib at 05/25/2008

That's it? That's all you got?

LMAO!!!

Posted by Benchrest at 05/25/2008 @ 6:03pm
Here, I will try to type slowly so you can comprehend the question.

How does making fun of handicapped children make your point look anything more than the struggling rational of a very small, sniveling piece of shit?

Posted by Benchrest at 05/25/2008 @ 6:08pm
Here is another way to put it so your limited reasoning capality can understand.

As someone who works with these kids, it would be alot of fun to put you on the awards stage in front of about 12,000, yes thats right, 12,000 competitors, coaches, aides, and proud parents and have you make your little assinine statement. Then you might, just might, realize what a complete and total asswipe you really are.

But then again, you are a coward, and that would be far beyond your capability.

Posted by Benchrest at 05/25/2008 @ 6:20pm
Second post.

Posted by Benchrest at 05/25/2008 @ 7:48pm
Nice dodge. As much fun as I am having raking you over the coals, I also realize we all say things we regret, and if I keep this up then I will look like a bully same as you, and that I do not wish. Picking on someone smaller than me is not my style, so have a nice life.

Posted by Benchrest at 05/25/2008 @ 7:53pm
One word suffices for Nader's "campaign" and this blog entry: Bogus.

Nobody with half a brain believes either one.

Posted by sjduskin at 05/25/2008 @ 11:04pm
I don't quite understand the criticism here against Nader that seems to blame him for singlehandedly sabotaging the 2000 elections and putting G.W. Bush in office for two terms. This is just unsubstantiated and at best wildly speculative. But more importantly, we need not think that the Democratic Party is genuinely interested in reforming our institutions and international/domestic policies. Look at what the Democrats have done since they have reclaimed the numbers in Congress. They are still authorizing a misguided war; they are failing to come through meaningfully in a serious economic crisis (I'm sorry but stimulus checks will be offset by skyrocketing gas prices that neither party can do anything about). Within the ranks of their presidential candidates, they are either taking hawkish foreign policy positions (Clinton) or foolishly appeasing the pro-Israel lobby with unconditional support (Obama) while not acknowledging the fact that peace in the Middle East must inevitably and fairly address Palestinian concerns. Remember also that Lieberman was on the ticket with Gore in 2000: virtually making a vote for Gore unacceptable. Lieberman is now pretty much campaigning for McCain and has turned his back on the Democratic Party. The Democrats are no better than the Republicans not so much because they are capable of making similarly bad decisions but because they believe that contenders outside of the two party system should have no voice. The whole punditocracy's notion of Obama's or McCain's appeal to independents seems to assume that independents ought to, in the final analysis, vote for a Republican or Democrat: as if these were the only valid choices. We need to diagnose this mentality as arising from a two-party system unwilling to give up its dominance of our political system/discourse.

Posted by red_dwarf69 at 05/25/2008 @ 11:32pm
RE: Ralf Nader's ...

Ralf's a good guy, a life-long advocate for little guys. But nowadays who need that? I wish Ralf's our president till 2050.

Posted by HelenDAO at 05/26/2008 @ 12:12am
"How ironic. Ralph Nader is polling well because of the increased anxiety the eight year fiasco he has helped to usher in has engendered. Progressive "purity" doesn't sell it just helps to muck up the works.

Posted by DebraD at 05/23/2008"

And ironically, that's what he was saying in 2000, that things have to get much worse in order to get better (i.e., burn down the village to save it). See, he's got this all planned out -- he's polling at 4% now, so it will only be 10 or so more thrown election cycles before he gets a plurality of the vote!

Then, things will be great!!!!1111111

Posted by Ham_I_Am at 05/26/2008 @ 02:49am
"I don't quite understand the criticism here against Nader that seems to blame him for singlehandedly sabotaging the 2000 elections and putting G.W. Bush in office for two terms. This is just unsubstantiated and at best wildly speculative...

Posted by red_dwarf69 at 05/25/2008"

Actually, it is substantiated -- Nader won 97,000 votes in Florida, and exit polls had about half of his voters saying they would've voted for Gore in a 2-way race. And as you remember, Bush's margin of victory was about 500.

Posted by Ham_I_Am at 05/26/2008 @ 02:56am
Jesus, give the man a chance to speak, and be heard. Besides, every time Ralph speaks he speaks directly about the issues, not abstract notions of unity. I want him in there to attempt to keep the other two speaking about real issues and ideas. For that, we all owe him a great deal.

Posted by Dethtol at 05/26/2008 @ 05:13am
And Ralph didn't cause Gore to lose. The bottom line is that America loves a loser, and Gore absolutely obliterated Bush in the debates, but he did it in a manner that was too obvious and aggressive, and that's why they flocked to his side. Just enough of a sympathy vote to win. It's all numbers.

Posted by Dethtol at 05/26/2008 @ 05:18am
Okay, let's see.

Ralph born in 1934...so NEXT time around (2012) he'll be 78...and the time after that (2016) 82.

So, if we're lucky (in many respects)...Obama wins this year, wins re-election in 2012...

we'll finally be shed of ol' Ralph. I don't think even CRABWALK would try to make the case for electing an eighty-two year old man....or would he?!?!?

heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2008 @ 08:54am
It's one thing to oppose a candidate because you disagree with his position on the issues. But most of the people (the so-called 'progressives', at least) who oppose Ralph Nader agree with him on the issues, and what they oppose is the very fact that he runs for office. This point of view cannot be reconciled with democratic principles. You may have all kinds of reasons why (according to you) it would be better if Ralph Nader didn't run for office, but don't kid yourself: when you oppose the right of others to participate in the political process, you are engaging in repression. To find out just how far Democrats have pursued this extreme point of view, check out the complaint Nader filed against the DNC, which documents how Democrats filed 24 complaints against him in 18 states in an effort to prevent him from running in the 2004 presidential election. Doesn't sound very 'progressive' to me: http://newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com/2007/10/democratic-party-sued- for-anti.html

Posted by Tom Jeff at 05/26/2008 @ 09:43am
Posted by Tom Jeff at 05/26/2008

Tell me two things honestly...

1. WOULD a Gore Presidency have been "about the same" as a Bush Presidency from 2001-2008?

2. Can Ralph Nader really get elected President in any REALISTIC scenario?

If you say "yes" to either....you're naive or delusional...mostly the latter.

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2008 @ 11:19am
"Actually, it is substantiated -- Nader won 97,000 votes in Florida, and exit polls had about half of his voters saying they would've voted for Gore in a 2-way race. And as you remember, Bush's margin of victory was about 500."

Posted by Ham_I_Am at 05/26/2008

People had the right to cast ballots for Nader since he was a legitimate candidate and one who appealed to their interests. You honestly can't blame them or Nader for feeling that the two party system caters to corporate, special interests.

But if you want to play a numbers game, consider these numbers. Al Gore chose one Joe Lieberman as a running mate: as I said before, this was an unacceptable choice and one obviously calculated to appeal to Reagan Democrats who still ended up voting for Bush. We also know about the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision which basically ended the recounts in Florida. The 97,000 who voted for Nader in Florida can't be blamed for the margin by which Gore lost in Florida. The 97,000 people who voted for Nader were obviously people that Gore did not reach so that to me signifies that something was wrong with the Gore campaign itself. And no, it's not like that 97,000 were composed of radical leftists: more likely they were ordinary people who felt that the government was failing them by blatantly catering to corporate interests and lobbyists. That's a legitimate criticism of the two party system and Gore did not try to reach out to people who felt that way. Gore really did not present himself as a progressive candidate. He presented himself as a watered down Democrat who hoped to provide as president the type of politics of the Clinton administration (although Gore was reluctant for Clinton to campaign for him). For all the talk of Gore as a progressive, cuts in welfare and federal programs for the needy, NAFTA, and other right wing initiatives co-opted by Democrats were all enacted when Gore was in office under Clinton. Gore just wasn't a good alternative and failed to explain to Nader voters/independents/progressives why he would necessarily act in their interests if elected.

Posted by red_dwarf69 at 05/26/2008 @ 12:06pm
"Tell me two things honestly...

1. WOULD a Gore Presidency have been "about the same" as a Bush Presidency from 2001-2008?

2. Can Ralph Nader really get elected President in any REALISTIC scenario?

If you say "yes" to either....you're naive or delusional...mostly the latter."

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2008

You completely miss the point, that was made, Mask.

This is a democracy and Nader ran for president. As (I assume) you could. Or I.

Gore lost, as he was (is) far from an actual progressive.

Doesn't matter if everyone who voted for him is a delusional nut-job. That just means he got the delusional nut-job vote and Gore didn't.

Remember, I didn't (nor would I) vote for Nader. But he brings alot to the debate. (Or, he would if he was allowed to participate in our democracy. I'm guessing he's not really a citizen, or something, based on how his candidacy is treated).

Nader is a nut-job. BUT, he is an American nut-job, over the minimum age requirement.

Deal with it.

Aside from your bad quotes, which you seem to have resolved of late, this seems to be your major hang-up.

This is (supposed to be) a Democratic process. Just like the first amendment, sometimes it is trying. But, deal with it anyway.

Posted by Malcontent at 05/26/2008 @ 12:52pm
I see several issues with yet another Nader PR campaign for the presidency:

1. He only comes out at presidential elections and he knows he won't win when he starts these PR stunts. Why won't he come out for other elections; senator, representative, etc if he were so intent on being an elected politician? The fact that he only comes out of the woodwork every 4 years indicates to me that this starting to be more about his legacy now then really fighting for the issues that he used to be so good at.

2. With the issues between the Clinton and Obama camps I can envision a situation where a major number of people from one side or the other going to Nader which means McCain will be the president. So how does a McCain presidency further Nader's goals? If it doesn't then why is he running? Any political system is built on compromise but it appears Nader does not want to accept that premise.

3. One of his major complaints about the election system is actually a complaint about voter cynicism and turnout. So how does a Nader PR campaign reduce voter apathy? If anything his run this year may actually increase the number of people who sit at home in November because they will feel even more disenfranchised after this primary season. He does not bring new voters out he just forces a redistribution of the exsiting voters who were engaged in the process anyway.

So in at the end of the general election in November what will Nader accomplish if McCain is elected? Nothing. The Democratic Congress and McCain will be at each other throats about Iraq/Iran so any issues that Nader brings up will be lost in the noise.

If he truly wanted to work on the problems he rightly brings to the table then I just wish he stick to his strengths of grassroots organizing and working on Congress instead of the White House. If there was a time we need grass roots organizers that can get the headlines it is now. Instead he continues to attack the US political system and then shrugs his shoulders, complains that we should have listened to him and walks away for another 4 years leaving the rest of us to work with the political system he, himself helped create.

Posted by wrodgers01 at 05/26/2008 @ 2:31pm
Posted by Malcontent at 05/26/2008

Eric, I've never said Nader doesn't have the RIGHT to run for President.

Nor do I put down that all his votes in 2000 were "nutjobs"....I believe all his votes in 200FOUR were nutjobs like CRABBY, hence the figure of 0.34% that he got.

The rest of us figured it out.

I merely maintain that SOME opposition to John Nichols' cotton candy-and-ice cream view of Nader must be voiced, else people start taking him seriously again (Nader, not Nichols...though.....hmmm?).

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2008 @ 3:14pm
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/26/2008

1. Yes I do get riled up about the chance in an alternative history, where Nader wasn't in the picture....Gore won Florida...and we saved ourselves TRILLIONS in debt, 4000+ dead GIs, and untold number dead Iraqis.

You should too. If not for Bush winning, the GOP might have held Congress as a "bulwark against Gore'ism".....Dubya cost you Congress and likely the WH this year.

2. "abortion on demand"?...no.

Idiots who think they can make a reproductive "Prohibition" work on an issue they lost 20 years ago with most Americans?....yes.

3. The DLC pays me nothing....again, I find it humorous as I used to be accused of being a REPUBLICAN "paid operative" by some here....heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2008 @ 3:17pm
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/26/2008

Like those on the Right think that SAYING you support the troops...

is the same thing as DOING it!

Posted by Mask at 05/26/2008 @ 4:13pm
"the chance in an alternative history, where Nader wasn't in the picture....Gore won Florida...and we saved ourselves TRILLIONS in debt, 4000+ dead GIs, and untold number dead Iraqis."

Do you really think the "supreme" court would have allowed Gore to win, even if they added that 0.34% to his total? Weren't there questionable practices, which created even more of a difference?

I guess what bothers me most about your position is that BOTH Nader ran AND Gore won. The reps. and supremes stole the election.

Yet you blame it on Naders ego and Crabbies politics.

Seriously puzzling.

Posted by Malcontent at 05/26/2008 @ 5:37pm
Nice to see the principled left coming back to support Nader (after many deserted him).

This is just the start.

Soon everyone wil be supporting Nader: true progressives, principled lefties, and then the majority of pissed off ‘working class' --- where the real definition of ‘working class' is anyone who makes more from their ‘work' than from clipping coupons; in other words, the real 90% majoritarian sentiment of the US -- not the ruling-elite of this ‘corporatist Empire' hiding behind the facade of this two-party ‘Vichy' government and ‘Vichy' MSCM.

Posted by amacd at 05/26/2008 @ 7:40pm
yeah,

it wasn't nader.

it was the supremes!

Federal official vote for the state of Florida (25 electoral votes)

Presidential Candidate Vote Total % Party

George W. Bush (W) 2,912,790 48.847 Republican

Al Gore 2,912,253 48.838 Democratic

Ralph Nader 97,421 1.634 Green

Patrick J. Buchanan 17,484 0.293 Reform

Harry Browne 16,415 0.275 Libertarian

John Hagelin 2,281 0.038 Natural Law/Reform

Howard Phillips 1,378 0.023 Constitution

Other 3,028 0.051 --

Total 5,963,110

HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!

IF "OTHER" HADN'T RUN, GORE WOULD HAVE WON!

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/26/2008 @ 11:43pm
Nader's got the right to run. The onus is on Obama and the rest of us Democratic activists to make the case to would-be Nader voters that this time might not be the time to cast a protest vote.

Posted by Egalitare at 05/27/2008 @ 12:58am
re: Posted by red_dwarf69 at 05/26/2008

Many interesting points, some of which I agree with, but they don't really speak to the point I actually made, and admittedly it was a narrow (but crucial) point:

"'I don't quite understand the criticism here against Nader that seems to blame him for singlehandedly sabotaging the 2000 elections and putting G.W. Bush in office for two terms. This is just unsubstantiated and at best wildly speculative...

Posted by red_dwarf69 at 05/25/2008'

Actually, it is substantiated -- Nader won 97,000 votes in Florida, and exit polls had about half of his voters saying they would've voted for Gore in a 2-way race. And as you remember, Bush's margin of victory was about 500."

It *is* a numbers game after all, because they're votes we're talking about, and the numbers do substantiate that Nader singlehandedly sabotaged the 2000 election. His involvement was singlehandedly sufficient to alter the outcome, and he *knew* this (he was aware that this would alter the outcome), and he's supposed to be on the side of the progressives. And, given that he wants to repeat this, why isn't that enough to point the finger at him?

Gore was the best we were going to get in 2000, and Nader knowingly made it become Bush instead. Is it reality or theory that you care about?

There is NO scenario by which Nader can win or improve things, using his methods.

Once again, Gore was the best we were going to get in 2000.

This is absolutely a "with friends like this, who needs enemies" scenario..

Posted by Ham_I_Am at 05/27/2008 @ 12:58am
Full disclosure: I voted for Al Gore in 2000.

Why does people blame Ralph Nader for Gore's loss in 2000?

It was not Nader's fault that Gore lost. I can think of other reasons:

Gore should have won the election by several percentage points but didn't for several reasons:

(a) a mainstream media that jumped on Gore's case frequently but let Dubya get away with ignorant statements and gave him a free pass (the media's favorite this year is McCain)

(b) a Supreme Court that helped steal the election and install Bush

(c) Gore's lousy choice of a running mate, Joe Liebermann who is equally if not more hawkish on the war as McCain or Bush and who embraces John Hagee. He should have picked someone better and ran on the surplus instead of distancing himself from Clinton and cozying up to Liebermann.

(d) Gore's tepid response (similar to Kerry's) to Bush during the campaign. It was only after those general elections were over that they came out fighting like tigers. Those guys aren't counterpunchers in a general election. I think Bill Clinton was and Obama will be against McCain.

I don't think Nader has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Presidency and one of the earlier commenters suggested that perhaps he should run for a Congressional seat where he might have a better chance of winning.

But he has every right to run for the Presidency in a democracy.

Posted by mohave at 05/27/2008 @ 07:32am
On each sunday a group of us in Toledo protest against the wars ever since the Iraq war started. This group never grew to more than 50 and nowadays it is about 10 or 15. Where are all these progressives, democrats for peace? Where is that 47% that vote for the peace candidate Obama? They are a joke.

So don't lecture me I should not vote for Nader. Don't tell me I am saving this nation by voting for the left wing of the War party. I am glad we have a choice in this election other than Rpublican and Republican-lit.

Posted by rnagisetty at 05/27/2008 @ 08:18am
Bush's thank you speech from 2000:

I'd like to thank everyone that helped install me into the White House:

Katherine Harris for purging legitimate voters from the rolls and stonewalling any attempt at extending the certification deadline,

The U.S. Supreme Court for halting the Florida recounts,

My brother Jeb who enabled Harris (and was probably fvcking her),

designers of the butterfly ballots,

and of course Ralph Nader, without whom I would never have won Florida (and New Hampshire for that matter).

lol

Posted by rmm69 at 05/27/2008 @ 09:22am
Nichols is starting to understand what no pundits previously did --- when I wrote earlier this year:

""No pundits understand this three party race.

Understanding the current three candidate race for the figure-head presidency of the ‘corporatist Empire' hiding behind this façade of ‘Vichy American' government requires a broader understanding of history, revolution, and the nature of these ‘crisis times' than the ‘Vichy Media' punditry can integrate, because they all think we are still in ‘normal times' --- and, of course, they are also all pawns to the ruling-elite, class-based ‘corporatist Empire'.

1. The dynamic of the multitude, now, during these ‘crisis times', is already trying to birth a new, three-party alternative to the dying two-party façade of the corporatist empire that has been ruling our country, in claimed ‘normal times', for more than the past half century.

This birthing effort by the multitude represents a massive and majoritarian movement by a new and naturally recognized ‘working-class' which is broadly self-defined as the vast common-wealth of all Americans (over 90%) who earn more of their income from actually ‘working' than from ‘un-earned ‘ interest on idle-elite investment of their accumulated wealth.

2. Ralph Nader first recognized, in his 2000 campaign, that the actual ‘majoritarian' position of Americans was already aligned with the Green ‘working-class' values, issues, and economic reality of our ‘common-wealth', and against the entrenched ‘corporatist Empire' --- but that this new majority was not yet self-aware of these changing times, and that the propaganda of the private corporatist controlled ‘Vichy' political and media monopoly would try to abort any such revolutionary public awareness.

Unfortunately, as early as 2000, the ruling-elite ‘corporatist Empire' hiding behind the façade of their two-party ‘Vichy' charade of ersatz democracy also was aware of Nader's truth about the actual majoritarian position in America -- and that they suspected as early as 2000 that their election ‘fixing' by the end of the Bush regime would have to become more sophisticated and guileful to continue fooling the rubes into ‘wasting' their voting POWER.

3, The 2008 election scam was designed by the ruling-elite ‘corporatist Empire' to offer the apparent "hope" of a ‘third party' alternative to the old two-party (single lock) ‘Vichy' façade -- but within a corporatist controlled environment.

The three ‘corporate Empire' vetted candidates we are now looking at were supposed to represent a ‘pressure release valve' for the frustrated, and increasingly self-aware majority of American voters (actually what Handt and Negri define as the "Multitude") --- but keep this not-yet-articulable sense of revolution against empire and for democracy entirely constrained and controlled within the confines of the corporatist Empire's ‘Vichy' charade.

4. Since the true majoritarian position of American voters is in conventional terms "far to the left" (and in more accurate terms, "anti-empire and pro-democracy") of the corporatist Empire's rule, the corporatist Empire could not allow the ‘crisis times' 2008 election to be recognized as being between empire and democracy. Thus the current contrived three candidate race actually represents the corporatist empire's allowance of a controllable ‘proxy election' of three choices -- but each of which remains controllable by the empire.

5. Placing the ‘third-candidate' choice (sic) within the Democratic Party allows the ruling-elite ‘corporatist Empire' to control --- by abortion, or co-option --- the results of the looming majoritarian surge of the frustrated, angry, and even bitter, but still POWERFUL American voters in the broadened self-awareness of the ‘working-class' multitude.

While not allowing a real (and potentially disastrously uncontrollable) three party race in these ‘crisis times' of 2008, the corporatist Empire is ‘allowing' a contrived ‘pressure release valve' of a three-candidate race --- but within the safe confines of the two-party ‘Vichy' duopoly which the empire can fully manipulate.

6. The appearance of a truly independent, articulate, and aggressively anti-corporatist, anti-Empire, and pro-democracy third party (including the openly uncontrollable ‘democracy advocate' and anti-empire candidate, Ralph Nader) will drastically confront and shatter these best made plans of the ‘corporatist Empire'."

Posted by amacd at 05/27/2008 @ 10:36am
Serious about? His issues are very serious and should be part of the Democratic platform.

But is Nader serious aobut building a political movement? He is alienatied from the progressive community and has spurned even the Green Party, so the question is: what's his game plan?

What is he trying to do?

Posted by alexmh17 at 05/27/2008 @ 10:44am
america will vote for greens the day it adopts the metric system.

till then, it's wonderbread with creme cheese and ¡¡¡FIGHT LEAGUE!!!

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/27/2008 @ 10:58am
The fascination with Nader or with third-party presidential runs (Barr, etc.) reflects the frightening seductiveness of playing at presidential politics instead of building real political movements.

Advocates of Nader's run have their hearts in the right place: how could any progressive not wish that someone who has done so much for so many, whose positions on both domestic and international issues would improve the lives of almost everyone on the planet, not wish that Nader could be elected president of the United States?

But wishing does not make it so.

One frequently sees the comment, "If only all the people who agree with Ralph would vote for him, he would win." Would that it were true. I cannot recall ever seeing a shred of compelling evidence showing a politically-based path to a Nader presidency.

And why not?

Posted by richardbelldc at 05/27/2008 @ 11:15am

About the Authors

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)
Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)
Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)
Cora Currier (Posts | Bio)
John Nichols (Posts | Bio)
Katrina vanden Heuvel (Posts | Bio)
Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)
Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)
Max Blumenthal (Posts | Bio)
Tom Engelhardt (Posts | Bio)
Victor Navasky (Posts | Bio)

Ralph Nader's Serious Campaign

posted by John Nichols on 05/23/2008 @ 10:32am

About the Authors

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Cora Currier (Posts | Bio)

John Nichols (Posts | Bio)

Katrina vanden Heuvel (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Max Blumenthal (Posts | Bio)

Tom Engelhardt (Posts | Bio)

Victor Navasky (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» Altercation

Ralph Nader's Serious Campaign

posted by John Nichols on 05/23/2008 @ 10:32am

Share this article

About the Authors

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Cora Currier (Posts | Bio)

John Nichols (Posts | Bio)

Katrina vanden Heuvel (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Max Blumenthal (Posts | Bio)

Tom Engelhardt (Posts | Bio)

Victor Navasky (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» Altercation