Ralph Nader Tells Clinton "Don't Listen" To People Telling You To Drop Out

The Politico :

A startling ally is calling on Senator Clinton to resist suggestions that she consider abandoning the presidential race - Ralph Nader, the independent presidential candidate who arguably cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000.

Nader has released a statement reacting to comments by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) suggesting an apparently insurmountable lead by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.):

Read the whole story: The Politico

Comments

[Tellmethetruth]

What do John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Gary Hart, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd all have in common? They all ran for the Presidency and failed to gain the Democratic nomination and suffered humiliation and defeat.

Bill Clinton is the only Democrat elected for two terms since FDR - that his a 60 to70 drought on the Democrats to get the office of President for two terms in a row by any one person.

So, the fact that Hillary Clinton will give the Clinton's another 4 years has got to have enraged into a jealous, spiteful and envious rage against the Clintons. Obama has captialized on hatred to get to where he is at, learning well from the cult movement in the church of Rev. Wright.

He has capitlized on Blacks hatred of whites, hatred of women, anti-authority hatred among youths, and yes, jealously of the Clintons among the Democratic leaders who all wanted to President at one time in their careers and failed.

Obama has shown on more than one occassion he can rally hate to his side, over and over again, as GW Bush used fear to get elected.

Thanks Mr. Nader, for speaking the voice of reason and open mindedness. Hatred causes so many folks to be come small minded, petty, and revengeful, silences more people than hate is willing to listen to.

[The 13 Colonies]

Ralph Vader.

[vallon]

Don't worry Ralph, she won't. As far as I'm concerned, Sen. Clinton should stay in the race for as long as she wants---or at least until enough super delegates come forward in support of Sen. Obama and make a Clinton win impossible.


The reason most Obama supporters are angry at Hillary is because of the kitchen sink that her campaign keeps throwing around. Because the two candidates have such similar plans, and since so many Democrats favor Obama as their messenger, the only thing the Clintons can do is reduce their attacks to a personal level.


If Sen. Clinton continues on the path she's on, then Ralph will have to share his place in the hearts and minds of us all.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Yeah, because it doesn't matter if you get 50% of the votes or 3%, you're a spoiler if the Dims lose.

[vallon]

No, you're a spoiler if you enter a race simply because you didn't like the way you were ignored last time. You'd also be a spoiler if you keep saying that John McCain would be a better choice for president than the guy you'd take as your VP.

[JeffinIllinois]

Nader is not a spoiler. He's another candidate. It wasn't Nader's fault that Gore couldn't find another freakin' 537 votes in Florida. The spoiler in this whole thing is Barack Obama.

[hershy]

The presence of Ralph Nader highlights the flaw in team Clinton's 2012 strategy. There be no surer way to firebomb goodwill than spoil an election.

Clinton '12. Good luck with that.

[strifeknot]

All the ignorant posts badmouthing Nader from you gutless Democratic Party loyalists remind me why I've always been an independent and have never voted for a Democrat for President.

You lack the courage of your convictions, and instead of voting for people of integrity and principle, people who actually share your values, like Nader, you settle for whatever weeny establishmentarian centrist nominee the Democratic Party gives you every four years, because you're so terrified of the big bad (R)s. With your party knowing it has your vote every time, no matter how pitiful the nominee, there is no incentive for the party to ever give you anything but the most lukewarm politicians. I'm not talking strictly about presidential elections here. Only by threatening to withhold your vote, and having the guts to back up that threat, will you convince your party to move to left where you'd like to see it. Votes need to be earned, not given out of complacency or fear.

We do not have a two-party system. We have one party with two wings: right-wing and extreme right-wing. All thanks to you.

[dijo]

Yes, and we all know how Nader puts the country and the democratic pary first...ah­ead of personal interests. He has zero credibility with me.

[Yansher]

Who asked him for his opinion? I wish Mr. Nader will 'have a coke and shut the f*** up'

[unsolved999]

I don't necessarily agree that Nader is wrong about Hillary staying in the race. I just wonder what he thinks he is now trying to accomplish in running for president. He did say he loved Edwards when he was running. And now Hillary is trying to run as an anti business populist (which is the height of hypocrisy given her pro Nafta, pro lobbyist stands in the very recent past). Maybe he is hoping that with a completely self-destructed Dem party and an incredibly weak Republican candidate that he wil be able to eak out a victory in November? I think he's hoping (like the Republicans) that Hillary will win the nomination and he will be able to inherit the Obama/Edwards supporters and fundraising machine.

[chicagoexpat]

Nader has every right to run, and a long resume that puts him with more experience than most candidates.

But as Leahy said of Clinton, he "has little reason" to do so... unless the Billary steal the nomination. That's what Nader needs to drag him up to the single digits (percentage wise) in votes

[LOL123]

Nadar is assoicated with the "GREEN PARTY" and Hillary wants to win Pennsylvana (coal country) good move on her part (I'm sure she asked for his endorsement or someone on her campagin did...of course we would never know because they lie so much). I just hope that the people become aware of the fact that she is on record for her support of ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INDUSTRIES- "Indeed, some industries would gain considerably if Clinton wer elected. Her "Economic Blueprint" calls for the creation of a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund to support alternative energy industries. "With herrecord and proposals, there is great visibility in terms of what you get with Hillary Clinton, "says Bryan Sherbacrow,cheif operating officer of Charleston­(S.C.)base­d Ethanex Energy and ethanol producer.- Business Week by Moira Herbst. On the side-"Sherbacrow and his wife have maxed out on donations to Clinton, contributing 2,300 each for the primaries. Clintons are for the "GREEN" party alright.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Maybe you could try reading the article before spewing.
Nader did *not* endorse Clinton and he's not running for the Greens.

[LeoMarvin]

Nader told HIllary, "Just like every other citizen, you have a right to run. Whenever you like. For as long as you want." He just doesn't get the difference between having the right to do something, and something being the right thing to do. Hey Ralph, every citizen has the right to fart in a crowded elevator. Should we also do THAT whenever we like for as long as we like?

[dissentiscool]

I think that blew my mind a little bit...

On that note, I wish Nader would drop out.

[leftbehind2000]

Satan whispers in the ear of Doctor Faust....

[disqo21]

sharp

[JohnFromCensornati]

I don't know what Democrats stand for, but when they call Nader satanic, one can only conclude that that they stand for winning and winning only.

[rixhex56]

As I read through all these posts that attempt to blame Clinton, Nader, or whoever else for what currently ails our nation, I am disgusted with the degree of blindness exhibited in these assessments. They are like a doctor blaming the symptoms of an illness for the existence of that illness, instead of blaming the illness for the symptoms.

The illness to which I ascribe the symptoms is the status quo, Dems and Repubs, in a society possessed of too many citizens who cannot think critically, clearly, and logically about the issues we face as a nation.

If either Hillary or Barrack offered something truly outstanding, there would be (one would logically assume) a stampede of supporters running towards that candidate -- if change was really the issue. Instead, we saw one of the strongest fields of primary contenders we've seen eliminated and distilled down to the two most generic, status quo candidates available. And they were largely chosen through the media, which gave them far more free coverage than any of the other candidates who actually addressed the real issues.

Sadly, those issues have fallen by the wayside with those candidates, as the media has succeeded in doing exactly what it wanted, and needed, to do for its own sake. This is why we NEED contentious primaries, and REAL CHANGE candidates. And in the end, the composition of congress will be the important determinant of any change that may occur, not either of these two Dems, or even McCain.

[AnninCA]

I SORT of agree. However, I see such divergent opinions about solutions. Take health care. There's no question in my mind that Hillary's plan is really the only solution. That's due to the uninsured problem in my own area. We'll get killed with Obama's plan. He'll drive costs up and solve absolutely none of our problems. It's probably not a mistake that he didn't take CA, either. He's not good for CA.

But.......­..I can't see anyone willing to even talk about the issues. They are all excited over some perceived slight or another, like they are watching Survivor on TV.

I give up.

[vallon]

'Ann', you've taken some hits on HuffPost, some of them deserved. But it's obvious that you're a loyal Hillary supporter. I really hope, after this nomination drama is over, that you'll use that passion in support of the Democratic nominee. The problems we face as a country are too important; the nightmare of a third Bush term should scare the hell out of you.

Please think carefully before you decide to cast a revenge vote. And I would ask the same of Obama supporters should Sen. Clinton become the nominee.

[IslandGyal]

AnninCA,
Please elaborate how Hillary Clinton plans is better than Obama's. Simply saying it's so doesn't give us anything to go on.

[vallon]

You make some valid points. However, Ralph said similar things in 2000: 'the lesser of two evils is not a good enough reason to elect Al Gore...' After two terms of BushCORP., and more than a million lives destroyed in Iraq, I say the lesser of two evils (Dems vs. GOP) is still the lesser of two evils.

[scottarino]

Clinton/Obama doesn't matter. The war WILL continue. You still won't be able to tell where the military industrial complex ends and the government (once by the people for the people) begins. Corporate money will continue to run policy. There will still be horse-shit health coverage for the people and the providers will still dry-hump us all. There will still be pork, pork, pork, and career politicians, an open border, and no immigration policy. But the people will actually believe there has been change and will continue to remain asleep to the facism spreading throuout BOTH political parties.