Nader Runs, Obama Responds Wisely

posted by John Nichols on 02/24/2008 @ 8:29pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (142)

Subscribe Now

Ralph Nader is running again for president.

After four previous bids, mounted in varying forums and with varying goals, Nader is used to the slings and arrows that will be tossed his way. He is conscious and committed. He will not back off.

He knows how to campaign in the face of a firestorm of criticism.

Above all, he knows how to make himself heard -- even when almost everyone who guides the political processes of the nation wants to shut him up.

The latter knowledge will serve him well in a 2008 contest where the man who is either a national treasure or a national frustration, or perhaps both, may find himself more marginalized than ever before.

Nader is running for the same reason he has run in the past: Because the likely nominees of the two major parties do not begin to meet the standards that might reasonably be asked of progressive contenders in 21st-century America.

Fundamental issues -- Wall Street-defined globalization, rampant and frequently deadly corporate crime, out-of-control military spending and an imperial foreign policy -- are not going to be addressed in a realistic let alone definitional manner by the Democratic nominee (be he Barack Obama or be she Hillary Clinton) or by Republican John McCain. And that, says Nader, will leave millions of Americans feeling frustrated and disenfranchised.

"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," he explained on NBC's "Meet the Press," the same forum where he announced his 2004 presidential run. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."

Nader's points are all well taken.

And they come from a man who is quite rational in his awareness that he will not be sworn in as president on January 20, 2009.

While Nader has yet to determine whether he will run as the Green Party candidate, a Green-backed independent or a genuinely unaffiliated independent, he is clear about his chances.

The arc of history bends toward Obama and the Democrats, not his candidacy, acknowledges Nader.

After eight years of George Bush and Dick Cheney, he said, "If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form. You think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war John McCain who almost gives an indication he's the candidate for perpetual war?"

Presumably, the Democratic landslide that buries McCain will also sweep away various and sundry third-party and independent candidacies, including Nader's.

If that is the case, it will not be a new phenomenon.

Nader has bid for the presidency in different ways in every election since 1992 -- as a write-in candidate in the New Hampshire and Massachusetts primaries of that year, as a Green contender in 1996 and 2000 and as an independent with support from some of what remained of Ross Perot's Reform Party in 2004. His most notable run, in 2000, won 2.7 percent of the national vote, along with anger from Democrats who thought he "spoiled" their chances by tipping Florida -- and the presidency -- from Al Gore to George Bush. In fact, Gore won Florida, only to have the results manipulated into Bush's column by the Republican nominee's many allies in state government, with an assist from the Supreme Court.

In the intense 2004 competition between Bush and Democratic John Kerry, Nader's run won just 0.3 percent on 34 state ballot lines.

This year, Nader could have a harder time of it even than he did in 2000 or 2004.

Unlike Gore and Kerry, Obama -- now the likely Democratic nominee -- has taken savvier stands on a number of issues close to Nader's heart, such as trade policy. This is not to say that Obama is as good as Nader on the issues. Far from it. But Obama's more nuanced platform, as well as the movement character of the Illinois senator's campaign, is likely to leave even less space for Nader to deliver a message.

That said, Nader is a determined, sometimes unrelenting, truth teller.

He notes that Obama is something less than a pristine progressive.

Obama may be "the first liberal evangelist in a long time," says Nader, but the senator's "better instincts and knowledge have been censored" since he hit the nation stage.

"(Obama's) leaned, if anything, toward the pro-corporate side of policy-making," Nader said of the senator from Illinois. The consumer activist also scored Obama on on foreign policy, noting that, "He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois... Now he's supporting (right-wing Israeli policies that thwart progress toward peace in the Middle East)."

Such blunt statements may not win Nader many friends among Obama's enthusiastic backers, and Obama did not exactly welcome his new rival to the race. "Ralph Nader deserves enormous credit for the work he did as a consumer advocate," Mr. Obama said while campaigning in Ohio "But his function as a perennial candidate is not putting food on the table of workers."

But Nader's not looking for Valentines from the Democrats.

Frankly, he's not even all that interested in popular approval.

The public-interest crusader worries far less about poll numbers and even vote totals than about saying what he feels needs to be said -- and using the forum of the electoral process to say it. And he is certainly not the first progressive -- inside the Democratic Party or out -- to suggest that Obama needs to be prodded on issues ranging from labor law to corporate regulation to single-payer health care and Middle East policy.

Nader's greatest value in any race is -- like Socialist Norman Thomas in his races against Democratic Franklin Roosevelt -- as a source of pressure on the Democratic nominee to address fundamental questions and perhaps to take more progressive stands on a few issues. As in 2000 and 2004, Nader's appeal will be determined in large part by the extent to which the Democratic candidate is willing to be bold.

Obama seems to understands this. Unlike Gore or Kerry, who never quite "got" the point of Nader's runs in 2000 and 2004, the Illinois senator appears to recognize that it is pointless to grumble about Ralph Nader as a "spoiler." Rather, the point is to be more appealing to progressive voters who might consider voting Green or independent.

"I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference," says Obama.

That is the bottom line with regard to Nader's latest bid.

If Obama runs as a progressive, Nader will have little room to maneuver. If Obama runs to the center, Nader's space will open up -- a bit.

Comments (142)

"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down,

This is the root of the whole fear of another voice from the dems.

Well said Ralph.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/24/2008 @ 6:40pm
"Nader is running for the same reason he has run in the past: Because the likely nominees of the two major parties do not begin to meet the standards that might reasonably be asked of progressive contenders in 21st-century America."

No, Nader is running this year for the same reason he did in 2004...because he's a raving egomaniac who uses the excuse that the two candidates don't meet RALPH's standard of a "progressive contender"!

Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 6:48pm
It is too bad when a venerable and respected advocate for so many good causes then persists in making himself at best a laughingstock and at worst a spoiler.

As Al Gore (among others) has shown, there are many other bully pulpits than a Presidential campaign.

Posted by bcazden at 02/24/2008 @ 6:56pm
Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 6:48pm

Isn't that his right? His duty if he is compelled and able?

Whattsa matter MASK, can't stand to have someone point out the herd of naked emperors?

Posted by crabwalk at 02/24/2008 @ 6:57pm
In fact, Gore won Florida, only to have the results manipulated into Bush's column by the Republican nominee's many allies in state government, with an assist from the Supreme Court.

John Nichols, that is so not true. Al Gore was a total loser just like John Kerry.

Posted by ACook at 02/24/2008 @ 7:03pm
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 7:03pm

well, at least Gore and Kerry won't be leaving office having lost 2 wars.

Chimpy should get the L tattooed on his tongue, for full metaphorical value.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/24/2008 @ 7:08pm
"Truth teller"??? Here's some truth.. Nader is running for his ego, he sees himself as the only "true" candidate of "the people". The truth is he has been rejected every time he's run. Maybe, if he had sought out the spotlight the last 2+years (like he is now) then I would have some respect for him. Nader refuses to see that his candidacy is a vanity campaign and that he is being used by the MSM (why do you think HE was able to get booking on MTP when others aren't (Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Noam Chomsky, John Nichols etc)? The "Truth teller" is his own worse liar.

Posted by lvdjgarcia at 02/24/2008 @ 7:09pm
Posted by CRABWALK 02/24/2008 @ 6:57pm

No, I have a problem with self-absorbed old men who continue to think they matter (more than just as a spoiler) and their sychophantic army (small though it fortunately is) of cultists who dream of (A) Ralph actually winning or (B) a Democrat moving so far to the Left that it GIVES the Presidency to the Republican....

when the answer (C) atleast in some small part HELPS the Republican get elected in swing states.

Nader pushes "vote trading" this time, in "Solid Red" (Utah, Alabama, Georgia) and "Solid Blue" (Massachusetts, Illinois, New York)....fine, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

He doesn't and campaings in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, any swing state....I'll call him for what he is and what you fetishists are.

Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 7:12pm
Nobody respects Ralph Nader, not even the Progressives themselves......0.3% & 2.7%!!! `Progressives' are tiny in numbers, probably less than the number of skinheads in the country!

Posted by Happy at 02/24/2008 @ 7:14pm
well, at least Gore and Kerry won't be leaving office having lost 2 wars.-----Posted by CRABWALK 02/24/2008 @ 7:08pm

No, Gore would have never fought it and 3900+ GIs and countless Iraqis would be alive and HALF A TRILLION dollars not wasted....

if only 600 of the 93,000 votes (less than 1%) in Florida had gone to Gore and not the guy who said "there is little difference between Gore and Bush"....what WAS his name again?!??!? First name sounded like the onimatopoetica of "vomit".

Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 7:14pm
well, at least Gore and Kerry won't be leaving office having lost 2 wars.

Posted by CRABWALK 02/24/2008 @ 7:08pm

Crabbie, those two tied together couldn't win fly catcher of year.

Posted by ACook at 02/24/2008 @ 7:18pm
No, Gore would have never fought it and 3900+ GIs and countless Iraqis would be alive and HALF A TRILLION dollars not wasted....

Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 7:14pm

Of course he wouldn't Mask, he would only continue his predecesor's bombing campaigns that left 500K children starving and dying. And then have his Secratary of State say on national TV that it was "worth it" in order to keep Saddam Hussein contained.

Posted by ACook at 02/24/2008 @ 7:26pm
Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 7:14pm

Then blame the guy responsible. Al Gore.

Watching you all squirm because you are afraid of the .3% of the vote that you claim is up for grabs is good fun. If Ralphy wasn't speaking the truth he would be totally ignored like so many of the "3rd party". I don't hear too many of Mcains droids squeaking in fear over the Christian Falangalists or the Constitution party even though the hard core cons are lukewarm over McCain.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/24/2008 @ 7:29pm
First name sounded like the onimatopoetica of "vomit".

Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 7:14pm

Don't you mean "onomatopoetica"...as in mask/crap?

What is your first name, anyway?

Posted by Malcontent at 02/24/2008 @ 7:43pm
Hopefully that is true, and the former Pied Piper will not attract even as little as he did in 2004. I know that, once the Democratic nomination is secured, that (hopefully) Obama will let Nader have his say without trying to approach his idealist structure. We have to be more creative, less ideological, in changing the state of health care, etc, inside America. Obama has stated quite clearly that he wants to "change priorities," which is what Kucinich was saying, in rather more emphatic terms, but without the absolutism that can alienate voters. This is more real. How are we going to structure more affordable health care? Simply passing legislation nationalizing health care is not a realistic goal at this time, if ever. Even if it were to be done, the enormous task of re-structuring the system would be daunting. There are other options, more creative, more accessable.

The other issues, such as Israel-Palestine, need creative problem solving as well and we do not need to box in Senator Obama in these matters. It is well enough to know that he is deeply concerned and is committed to making progress.

Gore was not an effective candidate and showed no interest in making any progress out of the tragic stalemate that Bill Clinton had inherited and sustained inside Iraq. Well, we certainly have a different situation now.

Anyhow, Nader is not a Green candidate. I would vote for Cynthia McKinney over him any day, so why not vote for Senator Obama instead?

Posted by Jim Willingham at 02/24/2008 @ 7:58pm
"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down,

This is the root of the whole fear of another voice from the dems.

Well said Ralph.

Posted by CRABWALK 02/24/2008 "

pardon me, this is the comment thatt I was referring to, before the name calling. You guys are a hoot.

Posted by Jim Willingham at 02/24/2008 @ 8:01pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 02/24/2008 @ 7:43pm

Actually, MAL, the pairing you suggest is not an example of onomatopoeia but assonance-- something you should know quite alot about, it seems.

Not getting all worked up about Nader. There is more than ample evidence to show that it was the Supreme Court, not Nader that voided the popular vote in 2000. There are plenty of culprits in that indelible blot on what remains of our constitutional heritage and national history. Nader actually will look like a clean actor compared to most of the others.

Why is he running now? It's a reflex-- he knows the pull of corporate money and the venality of the professional political caste. The road to hell, Nader remembers, is paved with fine words and good initial intentions. And as a counterweight to Clintonian "triangulation" he wants to put pressure on the party's left flank to keep it and its candidate from caving in completely to the Ownership class's imperatives. He's not going to "steal" good votes from Obama, and to the extent that O. assuages Nader's concerns by sticking to his initial representations, the old iconoclast will do us all a favor by making sure the Democrats we support end up governing like Democrats, not Pubs in drag.

Posted by goyadad at 02/24/2008 @ 8:02pm
Posted by GOYADAD 02/24/2008 @ 8:02pm

GOYA, Al Gore was a total loser period. He was stiff, boring and a Clintonite. Need I say more?

Posted by ACook at 02/24/2008 @ 8:34pm
`Progressives' are tiny in numbers, probably less than the number of skinheads in the country!

Posted by HAPPY 02/24/2008 @ 7:14pm

quite telling, actually.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 8:39pm
if only 600 of the 93,000 votes (less than 1%) in Florida had gone to Gore and not the guy who said "there is little difference between Gore and Bush"....what WAS his name again?!??!? First name sounded like the onimatopoetica of "vomit".

Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 7:14pm

or if 600 otherwise intelligent people hadn't been confused and voted for the incompetent business man and ruthless executioner "from" texas..................

:=]

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 8:43pm
or if the election system weren't so dang stupid.......

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 8:45pm
Posted by CRABWALK 02/24/2008 @ 7:29pm

Gore lost Florida by 600 votes....0.7% of the 93,000 votes that Nader got there. If he had vote-traded or ANYTHING a week before hand, it could easily sway that number if not more.

The only option for him (Gore) to you nuts is to move to Nader's agenda COMPLETELY (anything less than 90% and Ralph would say "Not good enough") and put him out of the mainstream of the vote and lose EVEN WORSE to Dubya. That is if even that would have been good enough for Ralph.

So 0.3% can matter...it did in Florida, and if this was REALLY about "us" and not Ralph, he'd be saying he'd support vote trading NOW....he isn't.

Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 8:46pm
An Environics poll conducted in the fall of 2000 found that 49% of Canadians would have voted for Gore if they were citizens of the United States, while 29% would have backed Bush.

see, we're not SO dumb..............

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 8:49pm
bush won 2000 by one "vote".

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 8:49pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 02/24/2008 @ 7:43pm

Let me guess, Eric....you voted for Nader in 2000.

And now, ego (a trait that seems to run through the Nader cult) prevents you from saying it was a mistake and helped Bush.

Well, as you know, I don't have a problem admitting my vote in 2000 was a mistake. I was in a solid Red State so it didn't matter that much....but every little bit of the Nader vote in 2000 DID matter.

And I wonder how many of you guys lay awake at night (when the ego is quiet) and think "Oh my god, could it be I REALLY DID help elect Bush?!?!?"

Then the morning comes and you say "No, no. GORE lost it by not becoming a Green-dressed-as-a-Dem instead of 'no different than Bush'"....I wonder if 3900+ GI families think that...ever?

Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 8:49pm
John Hagelin 2,274 0.038 Natural Law

if only john hadn't run.....................

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 8:51pm
"Obama may be "the first liberal evangelist in a long time," says Nader, but the senator's "better instincts and knowledge have been censored" since he hit the nation stage."

Well, it's a game he and the rest of us have to play if we want to thwart McCain's presidential aspirations. AKA reality.

Posted by MATTMAN at 02/24/2008 @ 8:51pm
Other 3,028 0.051

if only other hadn't run....................

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 8:54pm
Of course he wouldn't Mask, he would only continue his predecesor's bombing campaigns that left 500K children starving and dying. And then have his Secratary of State say on national TV that it was "worth it" in order to keep Saddam Hussein contained.

Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 7:26pm

the cheaper of two evils...............

The estimated, unofficial cost of this war to U.S. and British taxpayers is around $1 billion per year. As of August 1999, over 200 military planes, 19 naval ships and 22,000 American military personnel are committed to enforcing the "no-fly zones" and to fighting Iraq.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 8:58pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/24/2008 @ 8:58pm

And many more OPTIONS than what we have now, too.

Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 9:19pm
And many more OPTIONS than what we have now, too.

Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 9:19pm

NO WAY!!!

BUSH HAS SAVED US FROM THE TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 10:04pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/24/2008 @ 10:04pm

And yet oddly only 30% of America seems to appreciate it?!?!?!??

Not him, must be them, I guess.

Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 10:11pm
Obama hit it on the head. Nader's activites as a consumer advocate have greatly benefitted many people, but his activities as a quadrennial presidential gadfly have done nothing to put food on anyone's table, expect maybe Halliburton's. What he fails to see is that his campaigning helps no one and potentially hurts many. He would do much more good as the head of the FDA or FCC or some such agency, which he might have a chance at if he'd stop gumming up the works. And the Green Party should stay far away from him. They will never amount to anything on the national level as long as they hitch their wagon to his falling (fallen?) star.

Posted by Dudio at 02/24/2008 @ 10:49pm
Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 8:49pm

Actually Mask, I voted for gore (somewhat, non-enthusiastically, as I didn't realize how bad bush was yet. I just wanted someone with an IQ over 80).

If you read your archives, you'll see I am no fan of nader. I am just amazed at the response he gets in otherwise sane poeple. People who espouse democratic values and bemoan the two party system, suddenly get all protective of the parties they formerly disdained and trash the guy who, in reality, probably most matches their political ideology.

It's bizarre.

When he ran in 2000, i thought, big deal, I'm not voting for him. But, when I saw him be excluded from the debates for the office he was a legitimate candidate for, I started secretly rooting for him.

I know I like to antagonize you, mask. But, I am especially (genuinely) baffled by your anti-naderism, mostly based on your vote. If he "helped" get bush, who he was running against, elected. What did you do, with your vote for bush.

I also tend to defend his statement about bush and gore. It's all relative. From traditional bullshit American "democracy" perspective, they were different. From where nader stands (or where I stand) there ain't much difference at all.

Plus, your disparaging remark about his name, was the sort of remark you'd usually chastise as childish.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 02/24/2008 @ 11:07pm
Posted by GOYADAD 02/24/2008 @ 8:02pm

"Actually, MAL, the pairing you suggest is not an example of onomatopoeia but assonance--"

A term, picked by mask, not me. I merely corrected the spelling.

" something you should know quite alot about, it seems."

Actually, I had to look it up. Your comment doesn't seem actually relevant to anything I posted. But if you're impying I'm an asshole, thank you.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 02/24/2008 @ 11:13pm
It is not always about wining elections! Sometimes it is about telling the truth! I think the American people are looking for Leaders who tell the truth. If there was a truly Progressive Democratic, Nader wouldn't be running. I am going to vote for Nader. I settled for Bill Clinton twice and got NAFTA, which paved the way for the Bush economic policies that have ruined this country. Democrats of my generation knew that "Free Trade" was Social Darwinism designed to keep people in poverty. It was and is a given that development occurs behind trade barriers. This is not theory, but historic fact. Any time there is a free trade relationship between an industrially developed nation and an underdeveloped nation, the underdeveloped will be buried under these cheap good and be prevented from developing into an industrial base. This is Economic Imperialism, which my generation of Democrats opposed, Even when the U.S. was the country doing the dumping and preventing other countries from developing, Liberal, Progressive Democrats opposed these methods. There used to be Progressive Republicans who opposed these practices. I will not vote for Obama or Clinton because they are "closet " Free Traders" and will bring not only poverty to the U.S, but the world. I am going to vote for Nader, because he is the only candidate worth supporting. There are no other choices!

Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/24/2008 @ 11:16pm
"I also tend to defend his statement about bush and gore. It's all relative. From traditional bullshit American "democracy" perspective, they were different. From where nader stands (or where I stand) there ain't much difference at all."

It doesn't matter what it looked like from where Nader stands. He's a privileged man who will be fine regardless. It matters what it looked like (and looks like) for all the people hurt by Bush. While it's true that Gore was not ideal, he was in fact better than Bush in substantive ways that probably would have meant no Iraq war (pretty big difference to those killed and maimed because of it), no tax cuts for the rich (pretty important for all those who rely on social safety net services cut by Bush et al.), and much better participation or even leadership by the U.S. in environmental issues (pretty important for my son, and his children, and so on). These effects do not belong to some abstract realm of "traditional bullshit American democracy." They are major forces operating in the lives of very real people.

Posted by Dudio at 02/24/2008 @ 11:18pm
One more thing I am curious about.

How many of you, who voted for gore, because bush appeared to be a bumbling idiot, had any f**cking clue, how bad bush would be.

Maybe I am alone in being amazed at how fast he destroyed America, but I truly didn't hate him then. I just thought he was a dumb-ass incompetent, running on his name and he would be a do nothing president. (And from all appearances, without 9/11 (the neo-cons much anticipated "pearl harbor", he might have been just that).

I guess what I am trying to say is, blaming the Iraq war on nader voters, is really, really stretching your angst, into irrationality.

Posted by Malcontent at 02/24/2008 @ 11:42pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 02/24/2008 @ 11:42pm | ignore this person

no body knew it could be so bad. but i voted gore cause i knew at least half the smear campaign was bullshit and i didn't want to lose the supreme court.

but who could have guessed?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 01:16am
but every little bit of the Nader vote in 2000 DID matter.

I voted for Nader in 2000, in MD. I did not contribute in any way to Bush being elected. This is an example of what malcontent is talking about. This statement by Mask is obviously false, and he knows it. It was preceded by his claim that his vote in a red state didn't matter.

I have said my peice about Nader. Anyone who thinks that he is the most salient explanation of why Bush is president is probably just a democrat who doesn't want to admit how uninspiring and cowardly Gore's campaign was for most of 2000. On the other side anyone who says that Nader played no role in getting Bush elected probably didn't do that well in their 2nd grade arithmetic class.

Does anyone here think there is good reason to vote for Nader in a swing state this time around? Does anyone have a good reason why those of us who are farther to the left than Obama and live in solid blue or solid red states shouldn't vote for him? If we agree that the answers to those questions are no, then what are we really talking about here?

Posted by dentedpat at 02/25/2008 @ 01:39am
I am thoroughly sick of finding such juvenile comments following the articles and blogs here. The same 'names' again and again! Do you do nothing else?

Ralph Nader's around this time partly as a reality check: Obama isn't perfect. No matter how much Nader's ridiculed and blamed, he's here to stay.

Some of the negative comments I've seen here are just like what people were saying about Kucinich - and just as useless. Please leave some serious thoughts or don't bother.

Alieda

Posted by Alieda at 02/25/2008 @ 01:57am
I also voted for Nader in 2000, in Maine, where Gore won.

But I'd second DENTEDPAT's comments about Gore's uninspiring campaign. Don't forget, Gore LOST Tennessee, and he lost it by more votes than Nader won there. He also lost Arkansas by more votes than Nader won. As you like to point out, Mask (esp. in reference to Edwards), what does it say when a candidate can't even win his own state?

For the most part, Gore ran on a continuation of Clinton (despite the "my own man" claim), and for a lot of us then that wasn't nearly enough after welfare reform, failed health care, failures on gay rights, the bombing in Iraq, and NAFTA (which Gore defended so often and vociferously).

I still respect Nader and much of what he said yesterday still rings true about the problems in the US and how/why they aren't being addressed. But he's wrong about Obama on one key point--Obama IS calling for an electorate that is educated, that keeps pressure on him (and Congress) to continue to pass necessary and helpful legislation, and that remains a part of the governing process. That alone is much more inspiring to me than Nader being 'right' on a handful of key issues. And it's why I don't think he'll draw many votes away from Obama this time round.

Posted by Rintrah at 02/25/2008 @ 03:53am
If I was Hilary Clinton I'd take one wild last stab: go to San Antonio and file divorce papers on Bill. Say he passed through San Anton' for one too many rodeos with his pal, Cisneros, and she the numbers of these ladies still to prove it, and in fact, she was divorcing Cisneros too and that whole Texan Ranchero politics infesting the state which has helped lead to this whole immigration mess.

Tell the world you'll appoint Bill the Transportation Secretary when you're elected Prez - heck, someone's going to be need to talk through the web of beauracratic overlay to get something done in this country as we try to rebuild.

In one wild last stab, she might secure 90% of the female vote, a good chunk of the white men's vote (who can't stand Bill), and any independent thinkin' Texan who figures it for the real thing rather than some cheap political thrill. Who knows, it just might get her an election which, even as a Kucinich man, might just be what's best for this country.

Posted by Tatoo at 02/25/2008 @ 06:13am
Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 8:49pm

whoa...!!!

Hold the horses Jethro!

Are you saying you voted for Nader in 2000? The year Nader cost Al Gore his rightful place in the Oval office?

Well slap my ass and call me Judy!

You are the reason Bush is in office, along with the 2000 plus that voted for Haglund and the 3000 plus that voted for Other and the 3000 Jews that voted for Buchanon in FL, and the Al Gore that rolled over and played dead... "For the good of the country".

---

The dems in FL and MI have shown us exactly how much they appreciate our votes in 2008.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2008 @ 07:44am
well, at least Gore and Kerry won't be leaving office having lost 2 wars.

Posted by CRABWALK 02/24/2008 @ 7:08pm

Crabbie, those two tied together couldn't win fly catcher of year.

Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 7:18pm

hmm, well I guess that means Iraq and Afghanistan should be run by the CIC dog catcher. Maybe that position could beat 3000 AQ members into submission and secure two 3rd world countries with no navy, air force or modern army.

Cuz Chimpy ain't gettin it dun too well, now is he ACOOK? Why don't YOU list the number of new functioning democracies in the ME, as the rest of the neo-cons seem unable to come up with one. While your at it, list the WMD's that I was saved from. Here, I'll start;

1: 20,000 litres of Anthrax....oops, nope, didn't exist

2: drone planes capable of reaching the US...oops, nope didn't exist

3: centrifuges made from aluminum tubes...oops, nope, those wouldn't work in centrifuges

4: Uranium from Niger...oops, nope, that was a forgery

OK, you go now...

Posted by crabwalk at 02/25/2008 @ 07:54am
Posted by CRABWALK 02/25/2008 @ 07:54am

Now Crab, play nice! You know how ornery the lemmings get when you use facts and logic (as opposed to propaganda and tired rhetoric).

Their responses will usually fall in one of three categories:

1. It's all Clinton's fault

2. Bush isn't a real conservative

3. The liberal media never reports how successful the GWOT has been.

Posted by Turk33 at 02/25/2008 @ 08:18am
"Nader is running for the same reason he has run in the past: Because the likely nominees of the two major parties do not begin to meet the standards that might reasonably be asked of progressive contenders in 21st-century America."

These words are as accurate as they come. May all Democrats take note!

Sure, "Mask," Nader has a huge ego. EVERY politician has a huge ego. But Nader's not running to win. He's running to pull the Democrats to the left.

Maybe this time he will succeed! In 2000 and 2004, the Democrats were too frightened of the Republicans to do anything about Nader except to ignore him and to hope that he'd go away.

Now, the Democrats have the luxury of moving a little to the left. They had this luxury back in 1996, too, thanks to H. Ross Perot, but they blew the opportunity. Bill Clinton wouldn't budge from his comfortable triangulating position, which is why I, and quite a few other progressives, voted for NADER in 1996. Most of us haven't dared to do so again since.

The best-case scenario would look like this: Obama moves toward Nader on a few issues so as to make himself even more popular; for example, he talks about adding binding resolutions to NAFTA and other treaties to protect workers and the environment. Then, after Obama wins, he appoints Nader the head of the EPA, proving that he really does "transcend boundaries" and can make friends of former rivals.

I can dream, can't I?

Posted by JakobFabian at 02/25/2008 @ 08:38am
"As you like to point out, Mask (esp. in reference to Edwards), what does it say when a candidate can't even win his own state?"

Posted by RINTRAH 02/25/2008 @ 03:53am

What it says is that qualified candidates can come from stupid fucking states.

Posted by drhammer at 02/25/2008 @ 08:41am
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 02/25/2008 @ 08:38am

hi.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 08:47am
"Nader has yet to determine whether he will run as the Green Party candidate, a Green-backed independent or a genuinely unaffiliated independent..."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Nader doesn't own the Green Party, John--it's actually not his decision whether to run as the Green Party candidate or with Green Party support; it's the decision of the party. Nader can decide to seek the Green's Party's nomination or endorsement--but whether or not he would actually receive it is dubious, given the lukewarm response he got from the Greens in 2004. His relationship with them is even more tenuous than it was then, when they declined to give him their endorsement. I seriously doubt he would do any better this year.

Posted by Margaret78 at 02/25/2008 @ 09:08am
Just heard Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, on POTUS '08 on XM...

he worked for Nader back in 1980, and when the host asked him what he thought of Nader running, Alter basically said Nader has lost it.

Reviewing his comments on "Meet The Press", have to agree. He said that REPUBLICANS would vote for him, not to mention Democrats and that voters aren't excited about the two parties!?!??!

First, if he thinks pissed-off CONSERVATIVES are going to vote for Ralph and not just stay home, he's a loon.

Second, not excited about the Democrats?!?!??! What news is this guy watching? He somehow overlooking the fact that Democrats have been turning out in RECORD NUMBERS to vote in the primaries, as well as moderates and independents, and most fired up for an Obama candidacy?

As I said above, let's see Nader run. It will accomplish several things. 1. He'll be ignored by Obama (sorry JAKOB). 2. He'll pull fewer votes than probably 2004, much less 2000. and 3. Three runs will finally establish him as...."the new Lyndon LaRouche"!

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 09:14am
ACook-If we lived in a Democracy then Gore,the one you called a total loser, would be president,but we ended up with an appointed president who started telling other countries that they need to have a Democracy even though we don't have one.Kerry was supposed to lose big to a war time incumbent,but came quite close to winning.

Posted by i'm nobody at 02/25/2008 @ 09:48am
MSNBC 10 February 2008 : '...Obama's speech Tuesday night in Chicago: "We are the ones we've been waiting for, we are the change we seek."...'

David Brooks: 'If we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we've been here all along?'

Leon Wieseltier (describing John Updike): 'a man who has words for everything and nothing but words.'

--------

See website: http://www.draftnader.org/

'Dear Ralph Nader:

We, the undersigned Green Party members, are urging you to run for President again with the Green Party of the United States (GPUS) in 2008.

We expect that if you did so, you would do what you did in the Nader-LaDuke Presidential Campaign of 2000.

• run on all available Green Party ballot lines • run on the Green Party's values • help raise money for the Green Party and local Green candidates in accord with Federal Election Commission laws • inspire the running of more local, state, Congressional, and Senatorial Green Party candidates • help organize to surpass the ballot access requirements and legal barriers in all states where applicable • further spread the Green Party agenda of peace, justice, democracy, and ecology throughout the United States and world

Running with the Green Party in 2008 would allow your campaign to add its resources to the Green Party's resources and ballot lines, thus increasing the strength and attractiveness of the campaign and maximizing the mandate of votes against the corporate control agenda. A united campaign would also spare the Green Party the divisiveness and inefficiency of another split campaign.

The U.S. is in a profound need of a progressive third party to take forth the people's agenda so betrayed by the worsening corporate parties. The Green Party needs a united and exciting national campaign in order to be able to fill that role.

Please give our grassroots Greens, and us, the undersigned, the opportunity to support you and unite with your campaign should you seek the Green Party nomination for 2008.'

Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/25/2008 @ 10:07am
Ralph Nader: I'm in it, and I'm in it to spoil it!

Barack Obama: Nader is not putting any food on your tables. Now, Lets all do the Obama chant! Hope for change, hope for change, change, change, hope, hope!

Hillary Clinton: Bill is not guilty of NAFTA, and if he is, so what?

John McCain: Nader is obviously too old to be president (heh,heh)

Mike Huckabee: Ralph Nader will exit the race with grace and class, when the time is right.....(and if you believe that, I've got a clean, low mileage '63 Corvair I'll sell you....)

Posted by TransitDave at 02/25/2008 @ 10:16am
A third party is certainly a great idea. Probably a fourth party-the Republicans will put out a Christian spin-off party, let's call it the "right party". But seriously- the one person most responsible for the limited public progress of a progressive third party is RALPH NADER. The real work needs to be done between presidential elections. The media only talks about third parties when St. Ralph joins the race- maybe third party people need to WORK HARDER for positive Nader-free press coverage. Ralph has made a joke of the process and has soiled the idea for many liberal / progressives who will never forget Florida 2000. I think people would warm to the idea if they were potentially voting for Green candidates on the local level, or for the US House- not elections that directly affect the future of mankind- that can come later. And sorry, but 74 years old is an issue. Makes McCain seem, young.

Posted by phillymark at 02/25/2008 @ 10:19am
Now we get to see who is really for "choice" when it comes to voting. More is better, right? Isn't that what all the "free" market fruits are always claiming? And why shouldn't Nader run? If there's a market for what he's offering, why shouldn't he offer it to the electorate? All the Democrats attacking Nader are not supporters of democracy. Why should the Dems get votes they are not willing to earn?

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 10:44am
So McCain's younger than 74 years old? Wow! He looks 84. Well I guess going from being a POW to Congress will do that to you. Isn't anyone else bothered by the many years of war he doesn't mind engaging in if he becomes president? That scares the shit out of me. Makes me not want to procreate. Seems like I would just be providing soldiers for the war machine. Very, very scary if McCain becomes president.

Posted by k330k at 02/25/2008 @ 10:44am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 10:44am

So if even Obama gets the Democratic nom...are you voting for Ralph?

(Prediction-straight answer not forthcoming!)

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 10:58am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=k330k

procreate away. your issue will not be draft age for another twenty years from now. at that time the answer will be McCain who?

you should worry?

my son will be draft age in half a year. I have reason to worry.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 11:00am
(Prediction-straight answer not forthcoming!)

Posted by MASK

Always insisting everyone answer your questions. Always.

Answer this: Why are you against voters having more than two choices? Why do you feel men and women concerned with issues that conflict with corporate interests do not deserve a choice other than corporate sponsored candidate A or B? Why should America's working class have only a radical right wing candidate or a right of center candidate to vote for?

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 11:04am
no matter how many hopeless candidates you put on the ballot, the choice will always be between the two candidates of the two major parties. don't like it? tough. this is what it is, not what it should be.

the "third party" candidates have been dismal failures, and that was before they ran. Nader, Forbes, Perot, Wallace, etc.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 11:11am
the "third party" candidates have been dismal failures, and that was before they ran. Nader, Forbes, Perot, Wallace, etc.

Posted by EMILE DUBOIS

No, third party candidates can be successful by influencing, pressuring the Repubs and Dems to address issues not on their agenda. That is the traditional role of third parties in the US, especially on the national level.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 11:15am
That's what I thought, mary.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 11:24am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 11:15am | ignore this person

please provide examples of this, using the guys I mentioned, if you can.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 11:29am
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS

If the Dems and Repubs were willing to relax their iron grasp on the process, things could be different; but, of course, they and their sponsors have absolutely no intention of sharing power. So much for "democracy."

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 11:30am
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS

No one was talking about the deficit until Perot forced the issue.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 11:31am
No, third party candidates can be successful by influencing, pressuring the Repubs and Dems to address issues not on their agenda.

this looks like you are quoting something you read somewhere. it has, in my view, nothing to do with reality.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 11:32am
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS

I think the first time I heard it was in high school government (Mr. Norman) and it was not the last time. You obviously have no formal education in politics or history.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 11:36am
You obviously have no formal education in politics or history.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 11:36am | ignore this person

this kind of lame insult has no place in the discussion.

it is just as I thought, an empty formula.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 11:42am
No one was talking about the deficit until Perot forced the issue.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 11:31am | ignore this person

which deficit? trade or budget?

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 11:44am
MTSpence=Perot had a national audience unlike the others who just preach to the choir so a third party candidate can have influence,but it's rare and Nader has no influence..

Posted by i'm nobody at 02/25/2008 @ 11:44am
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS

Oh, now you're gonna feign insult, huh? And after posting: "this looks like you are quoting something you read somewhere." Take my remark as an insult if you like; there's nothing wrong with stating a fact.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 11:45am
Yawn. Another article about how Nader lost the election for Gore.

Please. Bill Clinton defeated the first President Bush back in '92, even with Ross Perot winning 19% of the popular vote.

Please don't tell me anybody is worried because of Nader's whopping 0.3% popularity.

Posted by Zeddmen at 02/25/2008 @ 11:48am
Posted by I'M NOBODY

Oh, and why is that? Why was Perot allowed a national audience while Nader is shunned, shutout of the process? "Reducing the deficit" was code for eliminating government. If you want to argue that Nader has nothing to offer, that's your opinion, but there are a lot of men and women out there that disagree, and if they're willing to turn out and support him why should anyone attempt to stop them? What kind of democracy allows you only two choices?

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 11:50am
Please don't tell me anybody is worried because of Nader's whopping 0.3% popularity.

Posted by ZEDDMEN

Those that want to control the agenda are.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 11:55am
there's nothing wrong with stating a fact.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 11:45am | ignore this person

you know nothing about me, yet you are stating a fact. you are a jerk.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 11:59am
MTSpence-Perot,unlike Nader,had support and was a viable candidate and debates can't include every person who wants to debate.If Nader wanted to debate then he could declare himself to be a member of one of the parties and then debate and when he doesn't get the nomination he could then run as an independent.I agree that the system should be changed,but until that happens you have to live in reality.You have more than two choices.You can write in anyone you want.They won't win,but neither will Nader.Protest votes that are divided between greens,libertarians,nader etc makes those votes even more irrelevant so if you're going to protest then get all the protesters behind one of them so it looks meaningful..

Posted by i'm nobody at 02/25/2008 @ 12:00pm
I am so looking forward to a Nader vs McKinney debate. I'd really like to listen to this on Pacifica Radio. Perhaps they would be kind enough to add someone from the Natural Law Party just to get some additional perspective.

Posted by sntauri at 02/25/2008 @ 12:06pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY

Oh, I see, you can either fall in line or suck on it, huh? Yeah, that's a real democracy we have. Don't talk of "reality" to me. That's nothing more than capitulation; nothing changes by simply wringing your hands and saying "Oh well."

If Nader wants to run as an independent, that's his right; and if voters want to vote for him, that's their right. What's wrong with that?

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 12:07pm
you third party fans, be careful what you wish for. example, Germany has five major parties. the only kind of gov't possible there is a coalition gov't. is that what you wish for?

Israel too has coalition gov't. that is why the religious right wing Shas party has far more power than their numbers would indicate.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 12:13pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS

When I was elementary school I spent the recess hour outside, doing something physical.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 12:15pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 12:15pm | ignore this person

that's nice, Mary.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 12:18pm
When people are attempting to insult me they refer to me as "Empty" (personally, I prefer "Mr. Empty"). Mary is an epithet for mask.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 12:21pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 11:04am

I didn't insist....I merely predicted that gutless punk that you are, you wouldn't answer the question with a straight answer...and here's why-

1. Say definitely "yes, I'm voting for Nader even if Obama is the Dem nominee" and you'll assign yourself PERMANENT fringe status here at TN blog and forever be the "Naderite" and member of the "0.2 (or less) Club of 2008".

2. Say definitely "no, I won't vote for Nader"....and your bulls**t "I'm a pure progressive, you guys are corporate Dem sell-outs" stuff falls flat since you won't back up what you SAY you believe in with a vote.

So....actually it was an easy prediction.....care to prove me wrong with an answer to my question?

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 12:23pm
Nader is mearly performing a most nessecary function in our political process:

Giving cowardly Democrats an excuse for not investigating and exposing rigged elections.

Posted by Gargle at 02/25/2008 @ 12:24pm
Mary is an epithet for mask.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 12:21pm

"Mary" is also a old homophobic slur and not unusual for Empty-

BLOG | Posted 05/24/2007 @ 11:36am Comments for "Blogging for Business" by Ari Berman

But this constant barrage of "little fruit" or other gay allusions or epithets as insults or put-downs....is rather strange from someone who purportedly is a "progressive"?!?!? Posted by MASK

Says you. I'm not all that concerned with the speech police.

And fruit is not something I would call a gay man. Fruit, faggot, butt pirate, sucker of cocks--these are epiteths for people like you. You intentionally distort, fabricate, play little games that are not characteristic of what I consider a man.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/25/2007 @ 11:16am

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 12:27pm
MTSpence-If you read what I wrote then you'll discover that I don't care if nader runs nor do I care if you vote for him,yourself,or some cartoon character.I did not say that you had to fall in line or suck on it.I said that the system needs changed,but until that happens then you have to deal with what exists.If nader was president he would sell out like all of them do so he would be no different,anyway.

Posted by i'm nobody at 02/25/2008 @ 12:29pm
Posted by MASK

And of course, the gutless punk failed to answer a simple question, didn't she?

And what are you, other than a liberal? A suburbanite, non-working class liberal, so much concerned over mere words instead of the plight of millions of Americans; a fool that thinks a geniune democracy can endure the working class reduced to penury, a vanishing middle class? You're so concerned with the soldiers in Iraq, yet when they're over here they're nothing more than statistics on the economic chart, worth no more than any other raw resource in the equation of production? Just another phoney, baloney liberal from the suburbs--all talk.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 12:33pm
If nader was president he would sell out like all of them do so he would be no different,anyway.

Posted by I'M NOBODY

Says you. How long has he been working for consumers?

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 12:34pm
http://www.borowitzreport.com/

a valuable contribution to the discussion.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 12:43pm
MtSpence-Nader made a fortune working for consumers.

Posted by i'm nobody at 02/25/2008 @ 12:50pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 12:33pm

Crush my statement on your cowardice, Empty Suit....and say CLEARLY....

"Yes, I will vote for Nader even if Obama is the Dem nominee"

or "No, I will not vote for Nader"...

anything else just keeps proving my point! You're all talk and your "I'm a pure progressive, Ralph's right, both parties suck" stuff is just so much horse crap.

Easiest thing in the world to do, SPENCE....say "yes" or "no".

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 1:02pm
Obama seems to understands this. Unlike Gore or Kerry, who never quite "got" the point of Nader's runs in 2000 and 2004, the Illinois senator appears to recognize that it is pointless to grumble about Ralph Nader as a "spoiler." Rather, the point is to be more appealing to progressive voters who might consider voting Green or independent..."I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference," says Obama.

This is the best summary I've seen on the topic.

Posted by LVDJGARCIA 02/24/2008 @ 7:09pm

All campaigns are vanity campaigns. It would probably be better if we could elect people that didn't want the job in the first place. I'd also like to see what evidence you have the Nader is an egomaniac - beyond the fact that you don't like him.

Posted by ALIEDA 02/25/2008 @ 01:57am

Amen.

Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 12:23pm

Ever consider that there is, at least, several other options. Some that occur to me:

1. No, I won't support Nader. I'll vote for Obama because I think having a Democratic "Bush" is just what the country needs to make "real" change.

2. Yes, I'm supporting Nader because both major party candidates are still arguing for "strong defense" as defined as the capability and willingness to militarily strike anywhere in the world within 48 hours when we choose to do so.

3. Maybe, I'm going to sit on the fence for a bit and see if Obama starts drifting to the left when Nader starts pressing him on the issues or drifts right in response to the Republican noise machine.

You really should stop trying to play "gotcha".

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2008 @ 1:19pm
You really should stop trying to play "gotcha".

Posted by SRJENKINS 02/25/2008 @ 1:19pm

No, no "gotcha". Proof that Empty is all talk. He could offer ANY of those answers and "explanation", but wouldn't. Just his usual ad hom against me AND no answer.

Even #3 would be a dodge, but an honest dodge. Of course, he'd then have to reconcile any FUTURE posts gushing over Nader (or attacking "both sides") that he made.

But he won't...he can't. He's a creature of habit and of a nearly static personality. He wants to "fit in" and have his blatherings taken seriously, but he wants his "I'm so better than you DLC sell-out so-called progressives" as well.

Support Nader?...and he's off on the Fringe and can't come back to talk "seriously".

Oppose Nader?...and he's back-pedalling on all the "I'm a REAL progressive" stuff he's posted for over a year.

Ambivalent about Nader?....tough, and dangerous, row to hoe...since he will constantly be balancing sounding supportive, but not TOO supportive of Nader's run. Attacking the Dems, but not TOO much of Obama is the nominee and it looks like 99% of the Left are backing him.

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 1:58pm
MtSpence-Nader made a fortune working for consumers.

Posted by I'M NOBODY

Isn't that the reality you were speaking of? I can't stand lawyers, but when you have to have one you want the best, right?

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 2:04pm
Posted by MARY

Funny, you never answer any questions. Why is it that we all must subject ourselves to your bs, but you will not do the same? You're a rank polemist with an agenda, masquerading as some sort of "realist." You're a shill, a hack, and you are not (nor ever will be) man enough to admit it.

Answer this: Why are you against voters having more than two choices? Why do you feel men and women concerned with issues that conflict with corporate interests do not deserve a choice other than corporate sponsored candidate A or B? Why should America's working class have only a radical right wing candidate or a right of center candidate to vote for?

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 2:08pm
Funny, you never answer any questions.----Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 2:08pm

Who asked first, Empty?

Sorry, you don't get to distract. You answer mine up or down, happy to answer yours.

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 2:13pm
Why should America's working class have only a radical right wing candidate or a right of center candidate to vote for? Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 2:08pm

The working class voter should have choices- just don't try to convince them that their situation would be the same whether it's Gore or Bush or McCain or Obama. The problem isn't a third party-the problem is a third party spreading lies while portraying itself as the honest option. If Nader truly believed Gore and Bush were identical- I wouldn't trust his analysis on other matters pertaining to the oval office.

Posted by phillymark at 02/25/2008 @ 2:28pm
Why should the Dems get votes they are not willing to earn?

Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 10:44am

And what exactly would be enough to "earn" the votes of Naderites?

No matter what Obama says or does, Naderites will NEVER vote for him. EVER.

Posted by Hman23 at 02/25/2008 @ 2:55pm
No matter what Obama says or does, Naderites will NEVER vote for him. EVER.----Posted by HMAN23 02/25/2008 @ 2:55pm

Exactly, that "Obama needs to EARN the Naderite vote" is b.s.

Look at the NURSVIC (sp?) post on Ms vanden Heuvel's "Nader" thread....he/she accuses Obama of being part of the 'right-wing Zionist conspiracy under the guise of angelic faced black man'.

You really think nutjobs like that would be swayed by Obama offering up "Medicare for All" and "dissolution of NAFTA"?

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 3:00pm
BTW, just noticed this below...

"BLOG | Posted 02/21/2008 @ 1:05pm Change to Win... For Obama by John Nichols"

Where Mr Nichols put great store in the CTW endorsement of Obama....but now he's practically cheering for Nader's bid?!?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 3:03pm
Posted by HMAN23 02/25/2008 @ 2:55pm

The answer is obvious. Provide a better alternative. If it were a Clinton vs. McCain match-up, Ralph starts looking good to me. It may also be that Obama moves to the right, after getting the nomination - as part of being sucked in by the "Third Way Democrat" mentality - and I'm in the same boat.

Not everyone that would consider voting for Nader is a "Naderite".

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2008 @ 3:05pm
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 3:00pm

Your own agenda is helping you to make bad arguments. You can't even argue that this one poster on The Nation is representative of people that vote for Nader in general. But you do...in your standard fashion. Rather disappointing really.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2008 @ 3:07pm
Posting again, since it went to the front of the line.

Posted by HMAN23 02/25/2008 @ 2:55pm

The answer is obvious. Provide a better alternative. If it were a Clinton vs. McCain match-up, Ralph starts looking good to me. It may also be that Obama moves to the right, after getting the nomination - as part of being sucked in by the "Third Way Democrat" mentality - and I'm in the same boat.

Not everyone that would consider voting for Nader is a "Naderite".

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2008 @ 3:09pm
No matter what Obama says or does, Naderites will NEVER vote for him. EVER.

Posted by HMAN23

Bullshit. Why is Nader attractive to voters? For those too obtuse to figure that one out, let me help: He offers something neither the Repubs or Dems can or will offer. It's that simple.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 3:09pm
The working class voter should have choices- just don't try to convince them that their situation would be the same whether it's Gore or Bush or McCain or Obama. The problem isn't a third party-the problem is a third party spreading lies while portraying itself as the honest option. If Nader truly believed Gore and Bush were identical- I wouldn't trust his analysis on other matters pertaining to the oval office.

Posted by PHILLYMARK

And how has Bush managed to do all the harm he wanted? Because the Dems in the House and Senate allowed it, acquiesced. It's an old game; it's time the working class, lower middle class recognized the scam.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 3:38pm
He offers something neither the Repubs or Dems can or will offer.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 3:09pm

See, you've already made the determination.

Posted by Hman23 at 02/25/2008 @ 3:45pm
Not everyone that would consider voting for Nader is a "Naderite".

Posted by SRJENKINS 02/25/2008 @ 3:09pm

Point taken. I did not mean it in that way or as slander. It was merely shorthand.

Posted by Hman23 at 02/25/2008 @ 3:45pm
Provide a better alternative.

Posted by SRJENKINS 02/25/2008 @ 3:09pm

And my point is, how "better" would that have to be, exactly?

Posted by Hman23 at 02/25/2008 @ 3:47pm
I am not conviced that many of the folks who would vote for Nader would be statisfied with anything Obama, Clinton or any other Dem nominee would shift on.

But I would be interested to know if there was a minimum out there for anyone.

Posted by Hman23 at 02/25/2008 @ 3:48pm
Bullshit. Why is Nader attractive to voters? For those too obtuse to figure that one out, let me help: He offers something neither the Repubs or Dems can or will offer. It's that simple.----Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 3:09pm

So....are you going to vote for Nader?

(HMAN...watch this response!)

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:06pm
See, you've already made the determination.

Posted by HMAN23

Can I say what Obama will really do if elected President? Of course, not. I can, however, look back on the eight years Clinton was in the Oval office; I have seen what the Dem controlled Congress has done since taking over in the mid term elections; I witnessed what the Dems in Congress have allowed Bush to do. You might be dumb enough to fall for the same old trick over and over.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 4:23pm
Posted by HMAN23 02/25/2008 @ 3:48pm

I don't think you are going to see anyone give you a minimum standard. For me, I'd like to see more discussion of deemphasizing the military in our society. Neither McCain, Clinton or Obama - and probably any electable candidate - will make that the center of their campaign. Obama, for instance, states:

"We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#21st-century-military

However, Nader says that his second issue is "Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget." Ralph is addressing my central issue in a way the other candidates are not.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

Now, I'm willing to consider Obama. Being a viable candidate that could make some improvements, such as getting out of Iraq and not spending a 100 years there, has some appeal. He has some good ideas, but are they good enough that I'm willing to overlook that he is not addressing my central issue? Is there enough of a difference between him and McCain that I should put practicality over principles - in a vote for "lesser-evilism"? He (or Clinton, for that matter) might pass that test, but it still remains to be seen.

I'll not even mention the issue of placing the vote within my personal circumstances - e.g, not living in a contested state for the Presidential race, my spouse is a Clinton supporter that will skip the election rather than vote at all in an Obama vs McCain match-up, etc.

In other words, it's a lot more nuanced of a decision than frequently gets discussed here.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2008 @ 4:28pm
voting for Nader, or any marginal candidate, will not address the shortcomings of the two major parties and their politicians. it is in fact not a choice at all. to choose something that does not exist, is a pointless exercise. we are voting for a president. to vote for someone who has absolutely no chance for that office means not participating in the election for president..

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 4:30pm
Posted by MARY

You're clearly omniscient, mary. You know it all, so why don't you just answer for me? Or, better yet, why not 86 this little distraction game you're mommie taught you and stick with the issues?

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 4:31pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS

Does mommie and daddy know you're playing on the computer?

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 4:31pm
MTSPENCE05-

If you want to use my quote, why don't you address it or answer the question. I'm not sure how my quote about Nader deceiving working class voters about Bush and Gore being equal has anything to do with your critique of Democrats in congress. I suppose you agree that Bush and Gore were the same candidate in 2000?

Posted by phillymark at 02/25/2008 @ 4:33pm
nuance, shmuance. when confronted with a choice between a hamburger and a hot dog, it is useless to choose filet mignon. we will get either the hot dog or the hamburger, we will not be getting filet mignon.

by voting "your conscience" you are not really participating in the election. you may as well stay home.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 4:33pm
I suppose you agree that Bush and Gore were the same candidate in 2000?

Posted by PHILLYMARK

What did the Dems do to block the war? What have the Dems done since gaining control of Congress? If you're too simple to connect the dots, that's your problem.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 4:35pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS

Does mommie and daddy know you're playing on the computer?

Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 4:31pm | ignore this person

don't be an ass, (fat chance.) I am a mature man, a professional, respected all over America and overseas for my work. The Library of Congress is one of my clients, and they owe me a bundle of money.

now tell us your CV again.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 4:37pm
nuance, shmuance. when confronted with a choice between a hamburger and a hot dog, it is useless to choose filet mignon. we will get either the hot dog or the hamburger, we will not be getting filet mignon.

by voting "your conscience" you are not really participating in the election. you may as well stay home.

Posted by EMILE DUBOIS

And what does it hurt to request the filet?

With elections as tight as they have become, maybe either party could recognize that there is a demand there. Why should a voter in the home of the great "free" market have to settle for a lousy hamburger or hotdog? Why are our choices so limited when it comes to elections?

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 4:38pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS

And Georgie Jr is the President. So what?

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 4:39pm
Posted by MARY

And it was not long ago that you labeled me irrelevant because I stated I would stay home before I voted for Hillary. But now that I'm planning on turning out, you're still attacking me? What, I have to vote like you think I should? Is that it?

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 4:43pm
And Georgie Jr is the President. So what?

Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 4:39pm | ignore this person

and you are a fool. so what?

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 4:44pm
MTSPENCE05 Gotta give you credit- you really don't see a difference or care who is in the White House. My life would be so much easier if I could see things your way, or I guess as you said, I'm simple. Personally I feel with certainty the Iraq were would not have happened under Gore. But I'm sure you would say something else equally catastrophic would have occurred. I'm curious though what that event may have been, no response to Katrina? Please don't reply with more Congress bashing. St. Ralph is not running for Senate.

Posted by phillymark at 02/25/2008 @ 4:51pm
were=war

Posted by phillymark at 02/25/2008 @ 4:52pm
HMAN

Read Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 4:31pm and Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/25/2008 @ 4:43pm

Maybe it's personal...so try it yourself, but I'm willing to bet that even if YOU ask, you'll find Empty (and many others of the "Run, Ralph, Run!" Crowd) are NOT willing to come out clearly and say they will actually vote for Nader.

They know what that does to their "TN" blog "street cred"...

and the fact that I'll save the post....heheh

Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:54pm
MTSPENCE05 Gotta give you credit- you really don't see a difference or care who is in the White House. My life would be so much easier if I could see things your way, or I guess as you said, I'm simple. Personally I feel with certainty the Iraq were would not have happened under Gore. But I'm sure you would say something else equally catastrophic would have occurred. I'm curious though what that event may have been, no response to Katrina? Please don't reply with more Congress bashing. St. Ralph is not running for Senate.

Posted by PHILLYMARK

The point is that the executive branch cannot act unilaterally, unless the Congress is willing to acquiesce its responsibility.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 5:01pm
"Does anyone here think there is good reason to vote for Nader in a swing state this time around? Does anyone have a good reason why those of us who are farther to the left than Obama and live in solid blue or solid red states shouldn't vote for him?"

First question: No. Second question: Yes. Polls have been way off a number of times during this campaign, and if you rely on them to determine your options, you may be surprised.

Posted by Dudio at 02/25/2008 @ 5:13pm
The notion of Ralph as spoiler only works with a strategy of winning with 51% of the vote. This strategy has been common with Democrats of late. Obamas 50 state big win strategy makes Nader less of an issue. Obama should be happy to have someone running to the left of him. It will help him appear moderate without moving to (what passes for) the center.

Posted by greycat at 02/25/2008 @ 5:51pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/25/2008 @ 4:30pm

This is why I generally ignore your posts. Would you like to pretend that it makes no difference to the Democratic party that Obama and Clinton are running - even though one of them won't get elected? Do you think the process hasn't caused them to change their policies in significant ways? No explain how a third party candidate is difference. Also, explain how Ross Perot and Ralph Nader did not impact outcomes in Presidential elections.

Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/25/2008 @ 4:33pm

At base, your argument is a viability argument. If you don't choose A or B, then you haven't made a choice.

I could make any number of arguments - in this same vein.

1. If your vote is 1/1XX,XXX,XXX of a choice, then you aren't really making a choice.

2. If you don't choose the candidate that "wins", you haven't made a choice.

3. You do choose candidate A because they say they will do X. They don't do X.

Ultimately, only the person representing the people makes choices. Voting is not a meaningful choice.

Ultimately, your argument is just a variation of this line. The problem is that you don't universally apply it - partly, because it is a logic of despair. If you buy this line, then you are right - you should stay home. Personally, I think lesser-evilism is a disease and that true freedom means finding option C.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2008 @ 6:20pm
Posted by GREYCAT 02/25/2008 @ 5:51pm

Exactly.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/25/2008 @ 6:21pm
my son will be draft age in half a year. I have reason to worry.

Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/25/2008 @ 11:00am

the basement apartment here is empty.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 6:21pm
No, third party candidates can be successful by influencing, pressuring the Repubs and Dems to address issues not on their agenda.

Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/25/2008 @ 11:32am

unfortunately, neither can the people..........

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 6:22pm
"We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines."

•••••• well, people gotta eat. i guess they could go to china a find a job, too.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#21st-century-military

However, Nader says that his second issue is "Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget." Ralph is addressing my central issue in a way the other candidates are not.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

•••••• people are sheep, quivering in fear.

Posted by SRJENKINS 02/25/2008 @ 4:28pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 6:26pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=srjenkins

there is no realistic option C. that is the fact. I did not make the world. I just live in it.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 6:45pm
ignore my posts? why that is

monstrous.

I'll gladly return the favor.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 6:48pm
we are choosing a pres from the two major candidates. to pretend otherwise is an illusion and does nothing. in the context of the presidential election is it the same as not voting. were you one that held forth at great length on that course of action?

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 6:51pm
why do you think they call it a two party system? you will not change it by voting for a marginal candidate in a pres election.

it took the Greens over twenty years to become a player, and that is in a country without the two party system.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 7:05pm
Most people that will vote for Nader this year are not those whose daily life is likely to be hurt and damaged by another Republican presidency. Those with low income, poor family background, no parental support, no academic education, unemployed or working hard for very little money, those people can't afford the luxury to vote for a Nader candidacy that won't improve their situation but makes it more likely to make it worse.

"There's no real difference between Gore and Bush" said Nader in 2000. One became the leader of the worst right winged government in a long time and the other won the Nobel prize for peace. No difference?

I respect Nader's ideals but his tactics for improving Americans life on a national level are just counterproductive.

Posted by cyberprimate at 02/25/2008 @ 7:42pm
Posted by CYBERPRIMATE 02/25/2008 @ 7:42pm | ignore this person "Most people that will vote for Nader this year are not those whose daily life is likely to be hurt and damaged by another Republican presidency."

I couldn't agree more--with this point and your entire post.

Posted by Dudio at 02/25/2008 @ 11:05pm
Great article by Nichols.

He correctly states:

"Fundamental issues -- Wall Street-defined globalization, rampant and frequently deadly corporate crime, out-of-control military spending and an imperial foreign policy -- are not going to be addressed in a realistic let alone definitional manner by the Democratic nominee (be he Barack Obama or be she Hillary Clinton) or by Republican John McCain. And that, says Nader, will leave millions of Americans feeling frustrated and disenfranchised."

Nichols could easily add to imperial foreign wars, military spending and corporate crimes, all additional problems (both foreign and domestic) of spying, tyranny, economic oppression, raping the environment, destroying democracy, and many more -- all caused by this corporatist EMPIRE.

Think about it for a moment. All our problems have a singular common source --- Empire.

Nader's greatest contribution would be to define the key source causing of all these problems and "sorrows of Empire" as being just that -- caused by a hidden corporatist Empire that has overthrown our previous republic and is operating (Ralph would say "occupying Washington") behind the facade of a two-party ‘Vichy' government -- just as the Nazi Empire was really hiding behind and controlling ‘Vichy France'.

If Ralph explains corporatist ‘Empire' as the name of our common nightmare, and pledges to confront that treasonous Empire, then the Democrats will have to either salute and absorb this seminal issue, or Ralph will capture all true patiots' votes.

Either way, it's a win for democracy and the beginning of a Second American Revolutionary War against Empire.

Posted by AlanMacDonald at 02/29/2008 @ 5:48pm