The Other N-Word

I get it. People are pissed at Ralph Nader. They blame him for "stealing" votes from Gore and consequentially Bush defeating Gore in the 2000 election. They hate Ralph, and his droopy little eye, even though Pat Buchanan also "stole" some votes from Bush in Florida (and Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin) and no one blames him for having the nerve to participate in our democracy.

Asking people to vote for Ralph Nader is sort of like asking them to perform self-flagellation. They want to bet on a horse that's going to win, and I have yet to form a compelling argument for how the good guys can win. So I've accepted that I'll just have to pay tribute to Nader, the great humanitarian and environmentalist, in some sort of last-ditch, meaningless gesture. I'll just request my headstone read: I didn't like any of you, respected few of you, and should have voted for Ralph Nader.... Or something ...

After Obama voted for telecom immunity, my inbox exploded with angry diatribes from my Progressives readers, all of who demanded explanations for the Senator's suspicious behavior. First, I explained that I have no access to Obama's thinking. Second, I explained that, while Obama has said some promising things in the past (something about having gay friends in red states,) he never claimed to be THE Progressive candidate. We assigned all our hopes and dreams to a man who seemed Progressive when contrasted against the fiery train wreck sitting in our White House. We all sort of hoped things would work themselves out.

They didn't. Obama has catered to the middle with gun control, telecom immunity, the death penalty, faith-based initiatives, and troop withdrawal landmarks. The only man who can save us now is Ralph Nader. Before you click that little, red "X" in the corner of your browser, let me explain myself. The Progressives should petition that Ralph Nader be allowed access to national, televised debates in a three-way discussion with John McCain and Barack Obama.

Having Ralph Nader participate in a debate is not only the democratically right thing to do, but it will force Obama to think more progressively in his policies. It's easy to look like a liberal standing next to John "I'm Crazy And Will Bring On The Apocalypse" McCain. All you really have to do is stand up straight, say something about Universal Healthcare, and not become giddy over Iranians developing lung cancer. Even if Obama backpedals on promises, like holding telecom companies accountable for spying on Americans, he STILL looks liberal standing next to McCain.

But if Nader is there, scowling at Obama's sweat-soaked profile, suddenly Americans will see their full spectrum of political choices. Obama and Nader don't get along. At all. Apparently, Obama's charm and pretty smile didn't woo battered hardass Nader, who I imagine nearly took off Obama's head the second Obama said something about wanting to compromise on certain Progressive issues. I guess it's hard to smooth-talk a man who was once tailed by a General Motors-hired private spy. If he could withstand attacks from one of the most powerful corporations in the world, Nader could handle Obama's charm. Obama seemed shocked that Nader didn't lap up his pretty promises like a trained dog.

"My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who if you're -- don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work," Obama remarked after meeting with Nader. I'm not sure what that means. Is it the fact that Nader is principled or the fact that he's proud and protective of his decades of work in consumer safety that bothers Obama the most?

Nader's presence would be a welcome change in this election. Millions of voters feel unrepresented by the Democratic and Republican parties. These people would find refuge in voting for Independent candidates. They just don't know it yet because they don't know they have choices. Every four years, they think they must vote for Tweedledee or Tweedledum, which is understandable considering networks refuse to even televise other candidates.

Early this year, Dennis Kucinich was shut out of a televised MSNBC debate, despite the fact that the network originally invited him to participate and America still claims to be a "free society," one with open, fair elections. The debate quickly became homogenized once Kucinich disappeared. Edwards said something...probably about his father working in a mill. Then Edwards fell out and Hillary and Obama became one, indistinguishable blob I call Hillbama as they bickered for months over the trivial differences between their campaigns. Hillary cried. Barack called a reporter "sweetie." Tim Russert died from the strain of it all. The end.

Now, we arrive at another critical juncture in the race toward the White House. Yet again, we find ourselves at the mercy of huge network conglomerates that decide what ideologies the American people will hear. Interestingly, six percent of people polled in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey said they are likely to vote for an alternative candidate. Who is going to represent their voices?

Anyone who shows a reasonable measure of competitiveness should be permitted to debate. And Ralph Nader is definitely competitive. Surely, no one who blames Nader for Gore's defeat in 2000 could argue differently. One can either admit Nader is incredibly influential and cajoled many Democrats to vote for him, or they can argue he's totally insignificant and had no influence in the 2000 election. If they agree that he was influential in 2000, then they must recognize that he's influential enough to participate in the debates.

Or we can be adults and stop casting blame for Gore's mishandled 2000 campaign. We can act like a civilized country and recognize that millions of voters are undecided, unrepresented, and would love to hear what Mr. Nader has to say. One needn't vote for Nader in order to recognize that he has the right to run for president, and as part of that right, he must be heard in debates.

At the moment, Nader needs to bump that 6% up to 10% in order to participate in national debates. Oh, he also needs to jump through thousands of hoops and cut through forests of red tape, and even then, all MSNBC needs to do is say "no," like they did to Dennis Kucinich, in order to silence Nader forever.

If Nader isn't permitted to debate, not only will our democracy suffer, but Obama supporters will suffer as well. Nader's presence will force the dialogue to expand past pointless bickering over lapel pins and ex-wives. Maybe his presence would even force us to examine the big issues differently. Maybe, for once, our nation will discuss issues of peace rather than how long the current war should last. Maybe we'll start to seriously discuss the environment, poverty, human rights...the possibilities are endless.

Only when a man like Ralph Nader can participate in our democracy can we call ourselves -- and our time -- Progressive.

Comments

[shutupnub]

I think I love you Allison

[ElliotJar]

Gore wasn't elected, Kerry wasn't elected, and so I presume that the general democratic consensus now would be that they were wasted votes. They weren't "electable" after all. And just to think...Kerry promised he would have fought the war better than Bush. Oh what could have been? Bush was elected lets say at least one of those times, so was Bush's "electability" worth a dime after he was elected?! At best "electability" I"m theorizing, is a fabricated rating that strongly suggests who I should waste my vote on. Especially when apparently voting is only important for picking a supposed "winner". Who cares about the best people"s steward right? I know my votes not wasted.

Nader didn't STEAL me from the Republicrats in 2000, or in 2004. I simply found the most suitable candidate representing my values. But try explaining this to someone who believes everything they see on TV. Good luck.

Democrats love to say Nader isn't significant. But where is their sensible logic?
His work as a consumer advocate has saved more lives than an army. Do you have to be a supreme corporate advocate to be significant to the Democrats? Maybe when Obama"s done with Exelon they"ll let Ralph interview. OK maybe that"s a bad idea

[several]

K, context: not significant in the 2004 election, not significant in the 2008 election.

This is not to say that all the great work he has done for consumers, or all he did to point out the sway of corporate power over elections and what he did for building the green party in 2000 was not significant. Nader has been very significant in these ways and many others.

But he wasn't significant in 2004, he won't be significant in 2008 and he is not a saint. He's a man and a politician.

[ElliotJar]

dirty NADER lover-

Thank you so much for this post! Nader is the only candidate that is truly a fighter of, by and for the people. Regardless of what big media suggests I should do, I can only vote for Nader. Hear that democrats!?! The others are simply the new and improved presidential corporate advocates. It"s unfortunate that so many people are drawn to Obama not by his stated positions, but for his image and vague rhetoric. Then again I suppose this is a country where more people probably voted for American Idol than during the last two presidential elections combined. It"s unfortunate but not shocking at all.

I find that today"s common democrats are painfully naïve in regards to what is gainful leadership. They want simple answers to complex questions. Sound familiar?! Bush policies are terrible, but if a democrat shares them¦he"s OK because he"s a Democrat. Do republicrats really think that by repackaging their centrist positions I'll buy the vague promises of "change"?! The glories and accomplishments of our country were not forged by choosing from the "lesser of two evils". This concept being used as a tool towards political evolution is completely ridiculous. And "Electability" is right up there with the lesser of two evils in that fantastical realm of democrat "strategery".

[several]

Um, stated positions, quite complex and clearly laid out actually. But you can't get that from cable news and skimming blogs, you'll have to actually put some time and effort into it.

PDFs of policy papers, position statements galore if you actually care to find out what it is about his positions and policies that so many people (yes even long time liberals and progressives) like:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

[ajgregoire]

Barack Obama (D)
Total Raised: $286,381,726
Bundlers: 552
Lobbyist Bundlers: 14
www.whitehouseforsale.org

$280+ million in bundled funds, some raised by lobbyists. So much for democracy and 90% funded by small donors right. Corporate democrats are smarter than the average American and they know this. If you listen to what comes out of a politician's mouth at face value, you're an idiot. Obama has flip-flopped, lied, and pandered. People need to fact check the things that they assume to be true even about their own candidate. Obama is a fantastic speaker and tells the people exactly what they want to hear. So what if he is a little short on facts or platform. At least he can make us feel like we aren't getting bent over, right. I would also like to add my appreciation for Obama voting for FISA, it took a lot of courage to dismantle our 4th amendment rights, but you got it done. Long live fascism.

"All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people"

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach"

[several]

None of the people that whitehouseforsale.org lists as lobbyist bundlers for obama are currently registered active lobbyists.

The 552 'bundlers' they list are individuals like you and me who have accounts at my.barackobama.com where they can set goals for themselves (almost always $1000) to convince people to donate to Obama and track their success on their site.

The $280+ million is not 'bundled funds' it is the total fund collected in this campaign, the vast majority of which is from individuals donating an average of $130.

You can verify everything I've just said by researching at http://www.fec.gov Perhaps you've heard of them?

Talk about propaganda. Sheesh.

[ajgregoire]

http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/candidate.cfm?CandidateID=C0009

First page lists 100 people bundling no less than $50,000.

Naomi, a homemaker from texas, bundled no less than $200,000 (she is just the first on a huge list).

[5dancingisraelis]

When Obama decided to give the telecoms a pass I was furious and began writing emails feverishly. I really believed that he was the one to have the "Kennedy" torch passed to and one we could ultimately trust to lead the nation in the right direction. Obviously I was wrong. So I went back to my unread emails from the Nader camp and found reference to Allison Kilkenny's piece. Thank God I found out others feel the same betrayal and are expressing it. I will be backing Nader from here on in.
OBTW....In Pennsylvania Comcast has bumped the sort-of-radical-left-wing-MSNBC from their lower tier channels. It moved it from 31 to 183 so now you have to pay a premium to watch it. CNN, Headline News and Fox still have their positions at 32,33, and 34 respectively.

[PeaceCzar]

I don't know if you're in PA, but that is one of the tougher states for ballot access.

So if you're in PA, contact the Nader campaign and see if they need help collecting signatures. Even a few dozen is a big help!

**Other interesting PA fact is how the PA Democratic House Leadership basically massively conspired to challenge Nader's right to be on the ballot.

NADER: the REAL progressive candidate

[kkvh4026]

As Dr. Martin Luther King said:

"Our lives begin to ewnd the day we remain silent about things that matter"



I'm proud to support Ralph Nader as voice representing a SILENT MAJORITY of progressives, conservatives, libertarians etc., united in support of:

1 cutting military spending causing deficit and currently taking > 50% of gov. spending
2 end war in Iraq AND end occupation in Iraq in a timetable
3 no threat of war with Iran
4 no wasting US taxpayers money funding Israel's military annually to pander to AIPAC voters
5 supports neutral peaceful 2 state solution between Israel & Palestine
6 against Patriot Act and torture
7 against telecom immunity of illegal wiretappung
8 for impeachment of Bush to hold accoutable for his crimes
9 single payer universal healthcare
10 investing in alternative renewable energy
11 supports Ni4D
12 reduce corporate power

Vote Independent. Vote Nader 2008.

[tbone99]

Ni4D- add another amendment to the Constitution, giving "the people" power to end-run Congress and create new legislation directly.

It's a Progressive dream platform.... only #2) out of Iraq . is on Obama's list and it's looking iffier by the day..

[several]

So you'd rather see someone elected who actively opposes the things you support and actively supports the things you oppose than someone who actively supports at least 50% of the things on your list?

You want 4 or 8 more years of neo-con constitution shredding, regulation demantling, corporate welfaring, fear mongering facism, torture and more just so you can feel holier-than-thou about voting for a man that is so interested in self-aggrandizement that he's not even using his candidacy to help strengthen a third party this time?

Do you realize that Nader has investments in his stock portfolio which actively participate in many of the very activities he has been (rightfully) railing against for years, right? (source: http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/28/stocks/index.html)

Obama clearly agrees with these items in your list and has written, spoken and/or voted as such: 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 12. That's 50%.

Which is 50% more than McCain agrees with (precisely zero of the items on your list.)

I live in a swing state and did a Nader-Trader vote swap with someone in a red state in 2000. But this is not the year for a protest vote of any kind. This election is too important (IMO.)

[PeaceCzar]

Don't play these zero-sum games. They get very old.

If you're really voting for integrity and principle, you're voting Nader.

plain and simple. Tit for tat.

Vote Corporate OR Vote People

Nader is for the people, McCain & Obama are NOT

[ajgregoire]

Thanks for using some twisted logic in your reasoning. People are supposed to vote for who best represents them, it's how a REPRESENTATIVE government works.

As for stock comment about Nader...the article is almost a decade old. Prove that since then Nader hasn't divested from a fund that owned questionable stock. Nader had shares in the fund, not the questionable stock. And, last time I checked I don't remember Nader ever "railing against" people owning investments...he's for REGULATION of investments not for their eradication. Most of Nader's money came from his won lawsuit against GM back in the day and he invested that money and used it to help start all of the great consumer protections agencies/policies we have today. Nader's investments have not been for personal gain rather to survive, start up groups/agencies, and draft policies to enact reform. He doesn't even own a house, don't try to paint him as another secret corporate insider at heart like Obama.

[jcmoore99]

Here here! Nader's platform is the only one that looks even remotely familiar to me in terms of a progressive stance.

As a friend of mine used to say: Strap on some balls and do something".

If progressives aren't supporting Nader, they don't understand the meaning of the word or the so-called movement. Wasn't the 2006 Pelosi disappointment enough?

I will no longer be a stooge for Machiavelli.
Why are you?

If we were so smart in 2006, we'd have two men under impeachment right now.

[several]

"I will no longer be a stooge for Machiavelli. Why are you?"

Machiavelli? As in "The ends justify the means" Machiavelli?

You mean like, the means being a protest vote against someone because you don't agree with them 100% on every issue and the ends being a McCain administration?

Physician, heal thyself.

[yomikey]

On 60 minutes a few weeks ago, Supreme Coourt Justice Scalia told us we should "get over it", the IT being the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore. Ms Kilkenny seems to be telling us to "get over" the fact that Gore lost, thanks to Ralph Nader taking away votes from Gore. Please, Allison, don't give us that Nader talking point about Buchanan taking votes from Bush. If you're a Nader supporter, then own up to the fact that without Nader in the mix, Gore would be in the oval office and we'd all be much better off. Vote for him again, if you must, but don't rationalize your decision.

[tbone99]

The point of the elction is to sell yourself to the voters.Obviously the Dems were not able to do that....thats their fault..Al Gore did not even vote on his own behalf when the black caucus tried to get the vote disenfranchised for rampant voter fraud.

The Dems don't even vote for their own policies-they think they;re Republicans. The more we give them our vote for their half assedness the more thy think that's acceptable.

[BlackJAC]

You're aware, Ms. Kilkenny, that laws can be repealed at any time for any reason? That just because telecom immunity went through now doesn't necessarily mean it'll still exist after January 20, 2009?

[nippersdad]

Better yet, why go to the trouble of passing unconstitutional laws in the first place? Oh, and, by the way, civil immunity is forever; remember that other silly constitutional ex-post facto thing? How many unconstitutional laws do dems want on their conscience (given they have one)?

[BlackJAC]

Not even the Constitution is forever, or did the whole "amendment" thing just slip your mind? Even Supreme Court decisions aren't permanent; one Justice retires, a new one is appointed to replace him, and then yesterday's 5-4 ruling on an issue becomes tomorrow's 4-5 ruling. Don't make me tell the whole Zen Master story again.

[LeftofTerry]

Nader is completely irrelevant.

I was a supporter of him in 2000, but just cause he's running, doesn't mean he has support. If I am able to get on some ballots, can I participate in the debates?

I'd say George McGovern is more relevant than Nader, at this point. Just because you once were relevant, doesn't mean you get to be forever.

[mrqapla]

I voted for Nader in 2004 and I plan on voting for him again. Obama is just as bad as McCain. Why is that so hard to understand? Obama isn't going to end the war. He isn't going to save the Constitution or America.

The Democratic Congress is just as bad as the Republican Congress.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES!

Nader is a man of principle. Obama is a corporate shill. I could never vote for him in good conscience.

Do the right thing, vote your conscience.

[SanityClaus]

How embarrassing for you. You sound like one of those people who proudly proclaim that they voted for W twice and would vote for him again in '08 if they could.

[jcmoore99]

I proudly proclaimed getting a Democratic majority in 2006 by doing MUCH grass-roots work to get people to vote. We achieved our goal, assuming it would get the war ended and POTUS and vPOTUS impeached. Neither has happened.

What new do you expect from Obama?

Show a little backbone and stand for something other than a charismatic speech delivery.

[several]

Your all caps sentence is just embarrassing in both content and presentation.

Obama is a corporate shill? Little fact check for you. Obama has taken no PAC money and no bundled lobbyist money this election.
See http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638&cycle=2008

Nader invests in the very corporations he rails against:
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/28/stocks/index.html

Nader is a flawed human being like all of us. Nader is also a politician. Nader isn't even trying to help build a viable third party any more.

Nader can't win. Obama can. And so can McCain.

Be careful what you ask for. You may get it.

[Powderhound522]

Or we could argue that although Nader was influential in 2000, he was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in 2004, getting 0.38% of the vote.

[PeaceCzar]

Whatever you like. As long as we're being objective about it all.

As long as you don't scapegoat him for 2000.

[jcmoore99]

He suffered a massive legal attack launched by Democrats in 2004. He spent almost all his financing defending his right to be on a ballot. I know... I saw it happen in New Mexico. Democrats haven't been doing "democracy" much of a favor of late.

Also note that he offered to work with Kerry on a stronger, more progressive platform. Kerry declined.

[research]

Give your money to Kucinich so that he can press the impeachment and afford publicizing it.

Maybe we can create a new power center.

http://kucinich.us/

Since Obama, Hillary and half the dems are either bought or blackmailed by surveillance, this is the only thing I can think of that can have a difference.

[fourex]

Obama has two more strikes after FISA, torture and preemptive wars. If he embraces these Bush crimes also then the convention must be thrown open.

[kkvh4026]

Dr. Martin Luther King said:

"Our lives begin to end the day we remain silent about things that matter"

[wiamerican]

Allison -

Explain this for me. If I have an opinion on an issue, say for example FISA. My position has many facets, along with a core uncompromisable position. Now lets say that a Bill comes along that addresses 75% (3 of 4) of the points of my position, including my "core" point. This is not the Bill I wanted. It does not address 25% of my issues, however it does address my "core". I vote for this Bill.

Have I "flip-flopped"? If yes, why?

[Minskyzelda]

Well said!! Much better than my rant!!

[blaqntelligence]

Excellent turnabout. As Minskyzelda stated "...much better than my [coming] rant"