Sharpton Gets After Nader for Getting After Obama

Reverend Al Sharpton recently took the rare step of writing an open letter to independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader. He raked Nader over the coals for blasting Obama for speaking differently to blacks and whites; presumably that means Obama uses different cadences, word usage, and rhetoric when he speaks to each group. Whether Ralph really said or believes that Obama is a racial panderer is subject to debate especially since Obama from day one of his campaign has said and done everything possible to run a race neutral, all inclusive campaign, and to pose himself as the candidate who addresses the problems and needs of the broad spectrum of Americans. It could be no other way. Even the slightest hint from Obama that he played race and his candidacy would have sunk faster than an ocean liner's anchor.

While Sharpton's Nader indictment is harsh there is much more that Sharpton could have gotten after Nader about in his Obama bash than a tangential racial reference. Nader recently sent out an email touting novelist Russell Banks' slam of Obama. Banks branded Obama a centrist Democrat who feeds the dream that he can magically make change on the Iraq War, the economy, the racial divide and the class divide. Nader's main gripe about Obama is that he's a Beltway politician who talks a good game but as other Washington insiders shills for corporations and panders on foreign policy matters. Nader's list of Obama's alleged political sins includes backing the Patriot Act, watering down tough environmental legislation, failing to back the censure of Bush on illegal wiretapping, reauthorization of Iraq war funds, and surrounding himself with Cold War Warriors such as Zbigniew Brezhenski as foreign policy advisors and a legion of corporate flaks as key economic advisors. Nader was especially incensed that Obama pandered to AIPAC when he made a hardnosed, all out defense of Israel that ignored bipartisan peace proposals that insured Palestinian rights.

But these are mostly straw man arguments. None but the most rabid, blind eye Obama backers truly believe that he is the second coming of, well Ralph Nader when it comes to challenging corporate power and the political establishment. Obama is, as Nader charged, a consummate Democratic Party and Senate insider. If he wasn't he wouldn't have gotten as far as he has in the presidential derby. That's in sharp contrast to Nader who is the consummate party outsider who since his splash in 2000 has been tossed further to the political margins. To hold Obama to the standard of a fringe political maverick is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. Obama has to be judged by the political standards of a mainstream Democrat.

The type of change he advocates can only be made within the tight and narrow constraints of Washington politics. By necessity, this entails compromise, negotiation, stoking party and Capital Hill loyalties and staying in tune with the centrist voter mood. A Washington insider such as Obama can't be called a sell-out to principles when the principles that drive him and other Washington insiders are pragmatic, consensus politics. That's the only way that Obama or any other mainstream Democrat or Republican can win a major election. As the great foe of corporations and Beltway politicians, Nader has spent decades and three presidential campaigns railing against political cronyism, two party dominance, corporate greed and malfeasance, war mongering and profiteering.

That's why the prospect of an Obama victory scares him even more than that of a McCain victory. McCain makes no pretense of being the change agent who will buck the Washington establishment. Obama does make that superficial claim and therefore in Nader's eyes he will feed the dreams of millions who desperately yearn for a reversal of the economic devastation and political malaise of the Bush years. Nader is convinced that Obama will lull the millions who want a real shake up in Washington politics and look to him to be a real people's champion on the war and the economy into dangerous political drowsiness. They will stop fighting for genuine economic democracy and citizen participation. This was the rationale that propelled Nader to campaign as hard if not harder against Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore than against Bush in 2000. Many still bitterly charge that as spoiler Nader helped tip the White House to Bush.

Sharpton is deathly afraid that Nader will do the same again, thus his open letter. But the prospect of Nader as spoiler for Obama is unlikely to happen. Nader is a shell of what he was in 2000. But even if he wasn't and represented the same threat to Obama he represented to Gore in 2000; Nader didn't listen to advice then to temper his remarks about Obama. There's no reason to think that anything Sharpton can say to him will make him listen now.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).

Comments

[jdkjdk]

We've got to stop blaming Nader for Al Gore's loss. Gore lost because he couldn't win his home state of TN. Democrats must earn their votes. Obama can win this or he can lose this. It falls on him to make the case. I feel good about Obama but I would have certainly voted for Nader if Clinton or Edwards were the nominee.

I won't every vote for Republicans but I will not hold my nose and vote for a Democrat just because he or she isn't a Republican. I feel that I can vote for Obama without holding my nose. So I will.

There is nothing wrong with Nader telling it like he sees it.

[amacd]

Fat Joe ----- "capitulat­ion-addict­ed Dems"

Precious. Absolutely precious. And absofriggin accurate.

[Liberoservative]

a link to the actual letter would have been helpful rather than your biased opinion on it....
I'll google it and read it for myself and make my own opinion, thank you

[Georgiapundit]

During every profile of the paid campaign staff I have watched, I have not seen one minority, except for Obama.

[WilliamGossett]

Sharpton gets it, why not Nader?

[robbie]

"The type of change he advocates can only be made within the tight and narrow constraints of Washington politics. By necessity, this entails compromise, negotiation, stoking party and Capital Hill loyalties and staying in tune with the centrist voter mood."

Tell me, Earl, why was Obama's Father's Day speech berating blacks deserving of your criticism? The mood of the center is that blacks are bad fathers...some study notwithstanding. Should you amend your commentary to include Obama's need to appeal to certain people in order to win?

[jpaultel]

Well said. I have always wondered about this author, especially during the primaries when in his "Obama can't do anything right" bandwagon he constantly trashed Obama. For the author, nothing was nuanced. He even wrote and extensive blog condemning Obama for giving a finger salute to Clinton after the debate -- a finger that was never raised. All that was way of latch on to the lynch mob. By the way, Obama always, almost in every speech he gives raised his finger to rub his face. Guess who else does the same thing all the time?

[robbie]

>>>By necessity, this entails compromise, negotiation, stoking party and Capital Hill loyalties and staying in tune with the centrist voter mood.

[bgregs]

Wait, Obama is speaking to different groups of people, people who think and act and talk differently, and he is speaking to each in their own language, and this is a BAD thing??? Wasn't that the whole basis of the Pentacost??

[harriscrl3]

Obama does do that but the difference is that its Natural its not pandering he speaks to the young in language they understand. One of his talent is that he can talk to a diverse group of people and he is natural hs ie not fake he is not pandering. He can speak in street language but when he is speaking to a more educated crowd he sounds like an intelligent person. What is wrong with being able to speak with several different demographics. If you were speaking to a bunch of lawyers or professors do you speak the same way as if you were speaking to teenagers. WHat is wrong with that why is that not an asset to have in a President. Do you want a president who speak to teenagers the same way he speak to dignitaries. Its amazing to me how people can use something thats a strength thats a talent and make it seem like a curse. Its Jealousy. It takes someoen special to be able to speak to several different demographics in ways they understand. Peole like Nader cant do things like that they have a narrow base that they speak to and to the rest of Americans they are a joke or freak of some sort.

Carol

[FatJoe]

The list of Obama's failures in the second paragraph is ANYTHING but a list of "straw man arguments," as you so mendaciously allege. They are Obama's major failings as a candidate. Progs and libs may want to keep their collective head in the sand about them, but those are actual policy positions Obama has taken and stood by, not PR banners or stump speeches droning on meaninglessly about "change" and "hope." They reflect a dangerous tendency in Obama as an elected legislator and the anti-war and pro-Constitution movements of this country need to pressure him on them at every turn. A blind embrace of capitulati­on-addicte­d Dems will never, ever bring about the changes this country needs. Freddie Douglass said it best: Power concedes nothing without a demand, and we have to demand better from Obama and the Democratic Party, because they won't give it to us out of the goodness of their "centrist" (read, unprincipled) little hearts.

[malachhamovess]

Yo! FatJoe:

Obama has virtually a 100 percent Liberal voting record by ADA standards and lower than 10 percent record by the standards of any of the major conservative or reactionary groups. If you want ideological purity, you may have to spend some time in 1955 Czechoslovakia or with the Stalinist troops who lost the Spanish Civil War for the Republican side by destroying all of their allies.

As to Nader - why the hell should anyone think that his brand of potshotting and mouthing slogans will have any effect on a national debate; he peaked 20 years ago, and since then has done nothing but rant about his own perceived injustices.

Amazing how it takes the Obama candidacy and the Nader ranting to place rational Americans in the same corner as Al Sharpton.

[MarcosElMalo]

"Amazing how it takes the Obama candidacy and the Nader ranting to place rational Americans in the same corner as Al Sharpton."

I LOL'd. Hey, if we're going to excuse Nader for his racist comments because of his past legacy as a consumer advocate, shouldn't we also give Imus a pass for his comments? After all, Imus has done nice things for kids with cancer, and continues to do so. So, if we're going to give Ralph the benefit of the doubt, let's extend the same to Don.

Now, regarding what EOH was saying about Obama being a mainstream Dem motivated by principles of pragmatism, consensus, and compromise . . . . THAT IS CHANGE I CAN BELIEVE IN! The country has been suffering from a stubborn "idealism" since January of 2001 and I don't believe we can take much more idealism. Give me real solutions and not pie in the sky notions and ideological purity that goes nowhere or worse than nowhere.

Maybe Ralph Nader should go run for President in a workers' paradise like Venezuela.

[CokeOrPepsi2008]

"Obama has a 100 percent Liberal voting record by ADA"

That depends on when the votes were, and if Obama bothered voting.

Obama, on PeaceIssues: Bombing Iran and Pakistan unilaterally. He he swooned them at AIPAC - proposing that Jerusalem be Israel's undivided capital. He wowed the far-right Cubans in Miami. By election day, he'll be wanting to invade Venezuela.

Economic justice? He didn't bother to vote on a bill limiting payday interest rates to 30%. He's got scads of CEO and lobbyist money - because, as Nader pointed out - they love this guy! He's absolutely no threat to Wall Street, the Pentagon, the banks, the hedge funds, insurance companies, defense contractors and nuclear operators looking for government subsidies.

As Ralph has been saying, progressives just sigh and pull the lever - never demanding even the *slightest* concession from these corporate clowns.

He voted today to let telecom companies off the hook for illegal wiretapping - he said he'd fight it last year, through. When did ADA do their check again?

"As to Nader - why the hell should anyone think that his brand of potshotting and mouthing slogans will have any effect on a national debate; he peaked 20 years ago, and since then has done nothing but rant about his own perceived injustices."

Nader's doing what he's always done - fighting for social justice. Indeed, mouthing slogans on message boards AND VOTING FOR DLC DEMOCRATS HAS NO EFFECT ON A NATIONAL DEBATE..

That's why he's running, that's

[Drewkowski]

Nader calls it as it is, Obama calls it as most Americans want to see it.

Nader tells people what they need to hear, Obama tells them what they want to hear.

Nader fought for consumer protections, Obama fought for political standing.

Nader did not compromise his views on the Constitution, Obama Ok's domestic spying with telecom immunity.

Yes, Obama is the "lesser evil" of the D-R party split, but he will do what "needs" to be done in Iran, about healthcare, and about the economy - from an insider's viewpoint. But most people are not insiders, which is why they wopld benefit more from a Nader presidency than one with Obama. But the stupidity of the American people and their failure to do what is right has never been given it's full due.

If any nation is stupid enough to vote itself into oblivion, it is us. We are well on our way - why stop now?

[Siddha]

I agree with FatJoe.
And Earl you are sadly correct that Obama has to get elected first . But, to make the statements Earl makes is sad indeed. "Obama has to be judged by the political standards of a mainstream Democrat. " and "The type of change he advocates can only be made within the tight and narrow constraints of Washington politics." That is a BS argument. What ever happened to Right vs Wrong? And health debate, and an informed Citizenry? And in the words of the great George Carlin... Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?

YOU will vote for whom ever your corporate masters tell you to vote for. A better question is: Why ISN'T the corporate media more afraid of Obama? He inspires me. However, Nader is trustworthy. He informs me. I'm sorry to say I've never voted for him :(