Nader

I don't think it matters that Ralph Nader's running. It didn't matter in 2004. How many people even remember he ran in 2004? So it's silly to make a big issue of it. At this point, Ralph's just in it for the chicks... or the dudes... always hard to tell with him. But, there can be no doubt, he's got a point about how narrow our presidential debates have become. He's the wrong messenger, because even most of the people who used to like him now hate him, but no candidate is talking about single payer health care, which 59 percent of doctors support. No candidate dares talk about cutting the bloated military budget. Gun control. A carbon tax. Gay marriage. Cloning supermodels. We won't have a debate about any of these things. That's bad for the country, isn't it? In fact, isn't Ralph Nader's platform still the best one? Couldn't Barack Obama, with all his political gifts, be borrowing more from Nader's platform? That would be real change.

Comments

[ricardus]

if obama was smart... he appoint nader to a post of some sort, ,thats what he "should" do if he had half a brain... if he wants to make nader go away, but somehow i doubt thatll happen

[SolarPowerGuy]

Sigh. I'm going to post the same stuff, over and over again.

Obama WON'T TALK to Nader. Nader was on the NPR program "Talk of the Nation" on Monday. Someone asked him the perennial question about why he doesn't "just work with the Democrats.­" He replied that he has been trying to get meetings with Clinton, Edwards, and Obama for several months. Thus, he has been trying to put out feelers to the Democrats long BEFORE he declared this most recent Presidential run.

Nader said that NONE of these candidates would meet with him. So much for Obama's high-minded talk about talking to your "enemies" without pre-conditions!

And if you think that shunning Nader in 2008 is his earned payback for 2000 -- think again, because 2000 was just as nasty. Remember how Gore wouldn't lift a finger to bring Nader into the debates?

In spite of that snub, in October 2000 rumors were circulating among people inside the Green Party -- that Nader and Gore were having private discussions, which might result in Nader dropping out of the race in exchange for some unspecified promises. We Greens weren't too sure how we felt about that. Ultimately nothing came of that rumor, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Nader had put out feelers to the Dems back then as well.

Nader and the Greens are far more amenable to compromise than the corporate media and Democratic Party leaders would have you believe. Although, after sixteen straight years of getting the shaft, we DO expect those compromises to be binding on Democrats. Promising to work with us AFTER the election is going to be far less appealing than starting to work with us RIGHT NOW.

[dwt]

Me too. I tried to arrange meetings with Obama, Clinton, and Edwards inumerable times over the past six months, and they all just blew me off as though I were some insignificant, irrelevant, egomaniacal whack-job.

Coincidence? I think not.

[ParacleteofKavorka]

"if Obama was smart..." I love it. Isn't it a given? I guess not.

[fullkelly]

It certainly does matter that Nader is running for prez. Simply because if Clinton is not the nominee then the democrats have someone else to vote for. However if Clinton is the nominee then the Obama cult will have someone to vote for.

[mambomary]

Yes, Nader remains the only clear voice for fundamental change in the Democratic race for president, especially in the wake of Edwards' withdrawing his candidacy. Gore in 2000 ran a bad campaign, losing even his home state of Tennessee. Had he won there, Gore and his censorious wife Tipper wouldn't have needed Florida to win their way into the White House and so Nader gets a bad rap from so-called Liberals for being a spiler. Hey, this is still a free country, sort of, and this writer is tired of having a genuine American hero trashed by his inferiors . Mahr isn't one of them.

[PauCK]

I think it was you Bill, who said that while running for office a candidate cannot tell the truth. This pretty much precludes learning much of value by discussing important issues at this time. They are only jocking for position as the "Candidate" for the party. Let them do the least damage they can to each other or the party until the primaries produce their final result. When the real candidate does stand up, perhaps we can coax a few grains of truth at that time.

I say let them engage in meaningless chatter and save the meat for the final course.

Paul Kruger

[Boadicea]

Bill, Dennis Kucinich has the best platform, and while I don't know what Ralph's platform is, I'm guessing it's similar.

The problem is, they never get any traction because too many Americans are still thinking in terms of "us vs them" and the notion of the common good has been destroyed by right wing fearmongering.

Obama's goal is to change the way we think about the American community. That will take time, but it's a necessary first step. Once we've got a majority of people really listening to each other from both sides (as you do, and I admire that a lot) we will make progress.

[AlienDemokrazy]

The reason that Nader running bothers us so much, is b/c in order to win we have to silence a true hero of many causes that we feel strong for. The enviroment, same sex marriage, a more fair dialogue regarding our middle east policy, the FDA, single payer health care. . . oh Jesus fu#$ing Christ, Nader is really the guy that we all like but can't vote for!!!

The elephant in the room is that we all love Nader, but only a nominee of one of the two parties can win. . . even if the correct messages are coming from the guy that can't win.

[SolarPowerGuy]

"The elephant in the room is that we all love Nader, but only a nominee of one of the two parties can win... even if the correct messages are coming from the guy that can't win."

Let me modify that a bit: only a nominee of one of the two parties can win -- even when the correct messages are ONLY coming from the guy who can't win.

America is as good as dead.

[WorkingClass]

Allien: I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. The only reason he cant win is YOU wont vote for him.

[danceswithyids]

Bill, how did you miss it? In the last debate Hillary began to speak about the important matter of cloning supermodels, when one of the moderators scolded her and yipped, "Don't speak unless spoken to!" I mean that is basically what I am basing my vote on and since the media has done such a poor job, I don't know any of the candidates stances in regards to our next great technological leap forward...­Cloning the Babes.
We need the info on the issues!

[vsign]

I am voting for Nader. Once a loyal Democrat - since 1972. My vote means more to me than to give it to Obama. Nader at least stands for something.

Obama has not let the voters decide this election.
After his win in Iowa, he did not let any hard questions be asked and instead played the race card or in otherwards, displayed a terrible lack of courage.

Voters have been "gamed" by Obama. He is not the "anti-war" candidate. He is just the less courageous and less patriotic candidate who is careful to do whatever to win and deceive about who he really is. He has done nothing to impress me. He "gamed" my caucus state and as a voter, I will likely not forgive him for it.

He does not have evidence of representing real democratic voters. He is buying this election and it will come back to haunt all of us democrats because he cannot win the general this way.

So he is a good poker player. A good president - NOT

[PauCK]

I also like Nader's message, however it will never be delivered to Capitol Hill...at least not by Nader. A vote for Nader now, as in 2000, is a vote for the Republicans. If I really thought Ralph had a chance I might vote for him.

Realistically he can't win. He has no "machine" and shallow pockets.

I would never say you would be throwing your vote away, you would be giving it to McCain.

I'm sure he will appreciate it.

[Brettster]

Your points make absolutely no sense, no true democratic voter, especially a Nader supporter would ever do the whole "he's not patriotic because he's anti-war!" thing either. I'm forced to suspect concern trolling.

[ParacleteofKavorka]

vsign, you don't understand. Only OMAMA is allowed to 'hope' to be president and to 'change' anything or whatever. Only HE can say 'Yes we can', no body else. You must vote for him. His peoples will hate you if you don't.

[surfergirl]

Bravo vsign you are right on the money

[fantagor]

Obama is taking a page from the Bush playbook. Hear me out.

Bush played to the center to get elected then enacted a crazy right wing agenda. Obama is playing to the center to get elected then enact a liberal agenda.

Just as Bush looked to PNAC for inspiration, I think Obama will look to Nader for inspiration.

Randy

[talibanana]

That's what all candidates do . . . and must do. I mean to win. This is why a Dennis Kucinich or a Ralph Nader is not a contender and Obama is.

People need to wake up and smell the coffee. I love it when people bitch about a candidate not being liberal or conservative enough.

Presidential campaigns are like a poker game; it doesn't matter what you have in your hand, people will gamble based on what they THINK you have in your hand. When the chips are all in it's too late.

[Dylan99]

I hope you are right - However, I doubt with all the money he is receiving from the Health Care industry he will do much more then put a band aid on the system - But again, I hope you are right..

[mamacat]

All of the Democrats have been pushing Liberal ideas. That is why the American people are so hyped upabout the Democrats this time, they are tired of so-called Conservatives messing up our country.

[bluestatelib]

Shh...Be careful fantagor, I don't know if Americans can handle so much truth.

[jstock]

I don't really think Nader will make much of a dent this time, either. But I resent his even THINKING about running. His stated "rationale" for running is classic Nader: find some areas of agreement between the 2 major party candidates, and from this we get to "they are both the same." For instance, did you know they are both heterosexuals who like to eat and sleep? Did you know they each had mothers? Never mind that one wants to close Gitmo and restore Habeas Corpus, while the other has crawled so far up the GOP's collective arse that he's no longer recognizable. One wants to end tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, the other wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. One will appoint NORMAL and QUALIFIED justices to the Supreme Court, the other cites Scalia and Alito as examples of the kinds of judges he would appoint. One wants us out of Iraq ASAP, the other not only thinks it was a good idea that we went there in the first place, but wants to keep us there for the forseeable future. Nader is seriously demented. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he REALLY needs to STFU and move along.

[Dylan99]

All of you Nader Haters deserve the two party system that currently controls our lives. "Evil often comes in Pairs"

[fantagor]

"Evil often comes in pairs."

Bush and Cheney, and the Smothers Brothers come to mind.

Randy

[Beachrunner]

Nadar sucked off enough votes in 2004 to cost Gore the election.

He could do the same thing again.

So, yes, it does matter that he's running.

[fantagor]

Gore ran in 2000, not 2004.

Say this with me: Wikipedia is your friend.

Randy

[Passenger57]

That was the Supreme Court that handed Bush the keys, ruling that a recount would harm Bush. If we had done away with the stupid roadblocks that voters must overcome (Electoral College), Gore would have won. It still twists my brain that ANY candidate could be MORE POPULAR and STILL LOSE.

[stupidme]

Remember everyone that BIll not only enabled President Numb-nuts (number don't lie, only those who count the numbers do) but he recently opined that he isn't that sure that it's such a bad idea to have the government listening in on our phone conversations, etc. because he has nothing to hide. Well, I don't wear a US flag lapel pin, so what happens to me when a govcam isolates me and doesn't detect a pin? Jack Kingston, McCain's new Secretary of Patriotism will probably swoop down on me like and American Eagle and take me to Cuba, as I suspect that Guantanamo will be expanded for purposes of detaining US citizens who violate FILPA (Flag in Lapel Act).

[talibanana]

FILPA - HA! That's funny! Or not . . . I mean maybe they need to fold that in with the Flag Burning amendment.

Y'know, Conservatives bitch about having to be "politically correct" yet they have no problem trying to enforce everyone else to be "Patrotically Corrent".

"Oh look! Obama doesn't have his hand on his heart! Oh look! Obama forgot to wear his FLAG LAPEL PIN!" Sadly, you know damn well that being "unpatriotic" is going to be THE theme that conservatives are going to hammer home on him.

[SouthpawSass]

Guess what? The nomination for President should not be locked with any one party. We only have a choice of two, that's only one more than they had in the USSR in the good old commie days.

In the US anyone should be able to run without having to raise and spend millions to do so. And all those whining about who should or shouldn't run, Nader is doing exactly what is his right to do. Drives me nuts those screaming "Freedom and Democracy!" from the highest mountain tops are the very people boo-hooing about too many choices for President.

Anyway, do you think it really matters who wins the popular vote? We allowed the election to be stolen once, so why wouldn't we allow it to be stolen again?

We live with the illusion of freedom my friends, and if you think I'm wrong, check your phone and internet lines, Google a Farsi website, wave at those camera's on your highways, carry toothpaste on an airplane or call a Muslim.

[SouthpawSass]

Humph, Damn I'm in a pissy mood. I was feeling pretty positive until I heard Hillary say that the heavens weren't going to open up and bring sunshine down on us... Blame her.

[RadicalRuss]

Want third, fourth, even fifth parties? We're never going to get it in a winner-take-all Electoral-­College-ru­n election. Any third party merely siphons votes from the most similar candidate and allows the less-liked candidate win (see Gore-Nader-Bush or Clinton-Perot-Bush I).

The only way you'll get a multi-party system here is by instituting range voting (see http://rangevoting.org). You put up multiple candidates, the voter votes (or not) for all of the candidates, giving them a score from 0 to 9 (or 0 to 5 or 0 to 99, whatever) and the highest point total wins. Thus, in the 2000 election, a progressive with a conscience could've voted:

Nader = 9
Gore = 8
Bush = 0

...and the 9 vote for Nader, should Nader finish third, in no way hurts the 8 vote for Gore.

Range voting. Mathematics shows it to pick the candidate liked the most by the most voters over 98% of the time. It thwarts any attempt to play "spoiler" by a candidate or to play "sabotage the vote" by the voters. Range voting is also used in nature, by honeybees to select a new hive location and ants to choose a new anthill location, and if nature evolved this as the best selection method when survival of a species is at stake, shouldn't we adopt it when the right choice in a democracy is at stake?

[SouthpawSass]

Wow RR, I never heard of range voting, but what a concept! And it's simple too.

Thanks for the link!

[racom]

Hell, I'd settle for a second party to compete against our one party political system.

[Rockwell]

If you paid attention, between the two-parties, we had 20+ very viable candidates to choose from. That's hardly a USSR monopoly. People voted with their primary ballots and their campaign checks and that narrowed the field. Neither party has gotten the candidate they expected. The Republican operatives wanted Romney. The Democratic power players were counting on Clinton.

Instead the people have pretty much narrowed it down to Obama and McCain.

So for all the bitching about the two party system, it's serving up quite a bit of variety. We don't need numb-nuts-nader flashing himself onto the stage. We had Kusinich. Nobody wanted him. Nader is just out to stroke his ego.

And if you love the chaos of dozens of little parties running at once, you can move to Italy and enjoy the collapse of their 60th government since WWII.

[SouthpawSass]

Democrats and Republicans are really just links on the same chain... They are different aspects of the same party. They're both bought and paid for by the lobbyists and corporations they've sold out to.

Why do politicians talk about about issues that actually can change American lives only during an election season, but while they were able to make real changes, they didn't? Americans have forgotten what it's like to have representative government. And if Americans voted in their own self interests, we truly would be a Democracy.­.. Like Tony Benn put it, people who are uneducated and in poor health are easier to control.

I'm glad you're happy with the one choice, but I think we can and should do better.

[ssg13565]

Remember that Nader was the brilliant political analyst who told us that there was no difference

between Al Gore and George Bush on the environment.

I now listen to Ralph Nader almost exclusively when I want to find out what is the real story

about other politicians' positions.

[Phaedrusnyc]

If you can find one legitimate quote from Ralph Nader where he said that there was "no difference between Al Gore and George Bush on the environment," I'll give you five dollars. He didn't say it- in fact, he's quoted as saying that Al Gore's stances on the environment were the right stances, but that Gore became a shrinking violet when he was actually in a position to do something about them. And he was right.

Really, i dare you to actually make an argument based on fact next time.