Between Barack and a Hard Place

Just when it looked like things were finally starting to stabilize, and the Democrats were about to have a nominee, along comes Hurricane Ralph. To paraphrase the Stones' hit, with the news of yet another last minute Nader incarnation, we now find ourselves "between Barack and a hard place."

This isn't about whether one "likes" Ralph Nader or not, or even whether he has good intentions. The road to hell, after all, is paved with good intentions. And, frankly, Nader's motives for wanting a piece of the action are at least as suspect as any other of the contenders.

Make no mistake, this is about one thing and one thing only -- his inimitable timing. Like a shark in the water, Ralph Nader smells blood, and blood to him means victory. Lest you think this is about the issues, don't be duped.

Nader is concerned about issues, yes, but he is more concerned about upheaval than promoting change. If he were concerned about the issues he claims to be, he'd have entered the race from the beginning. What has he been doing for the past year -- playing Scrabble? Was he waiting for Kucinich to leave? We had a candidate with the same platform as Nader's -- Kucinich -- and I suspect that Nader will capture the same percentile of votes in November Kucinich would, and just enough to cause a Republican upset.

The naivete of the American electorate never ceases to amaze. To this day, no one mentions Iran-Contra when discussing Ronald Reagan, and he is venerated. No one mentions that George H.W. Bush lied to the American people about his knowledge of Iran-Contra, and no one seems to care. Instead, few will forget that William Jefferson Clinton lied to a federal grand jury about an extramarital affair.

Anyone not concerned about Ralph Nader's nascent interest in running is ingenuous to the point of absurdity.

Just when it looked like Obama was getting close to having the nomination locked up, when Edwards walked out for the sake of Party unity, and we're finally down to a two person race, along comes our Nader to virtually ensure that whatever momentum Obama picks up between now and November won't get in the way of a decisive McCain win.

The Democratic Party must do whatever it takes to keep Nader off the stump. Forget about Al Gore's role in brokering the convention. Instead, the former vice president's time may be put to far better use by paying a visit to the former consumer advocate, reminding him of his role in bringing eight years of warfare, and economic inequality to America, and urging him, in the interest of national security in the best possible sense of that phrase, to withdraw from this crucially important race.

Comments

[JohnFromCensornati]

Edwards & Kucinich are out (but not "for the sake of party unity").
Obama & Clinton COULD BE avocating a complete withdrawal from Iraq.
They're not.
If the Dims lose to McBomb, it will NOT be Nader's fault.
It will be their fault.

[nippersdad]

Ms Stahl:

The republican Party is presently undergoing a free fall in popularity because it has routinely promised elements of its' base that which its' leaders openly refuse to do. Their lack of honesty has served to emphasize to its' social conservatives that they are all talk and no action. As a result they are well on their way to forming a new alternative Party of their own.

The Progressive base of the Democratic Party is almost there right now, as a result of the new Dem Congresses signature failure to even try to deliver on their campaign promises. I have been saying for over a year now that if the Democratic Party continues to abjectly follow the lead of the DLC, they will lose a significant portion of their base. As George has learned, fear is not an emotion which rests well on American shoulders for long.

[pratliff94]

Jayne,

Another excellent article with astute insight. Thank you for your honest evalutation of this situation, but get ready for the "Nader Anti-Democrat Raiders" to hit you full force.

As far as I am concerned there is one reason George W. Bush is President and that reason is Ralph Nader: Take the money given to Nader and give it to Gore, take the energy of the Rader's follwers and give it to Gore, take the votes for Raider out of of Florida and Nevada and give them to Gore and Gore would be President.

Thanks Ralph for Iraq and ......

OBHG
Phil in Norman

[JohnFromCensornati]

If Gore had embraced Bill Clinton instead of shunning him (like a Republican), Gore would have been president.
Clinton could have delivered several small states any one of which would have been enough.

[Doofus]

As always in a general presidential election,

like it or not, candidates from both parties

move to the center. All Ralphie is trying to

do is change that dynamic, to see to it that

the Demos appreciate & respect the wishes of

folks to the left of center. At, perhaps, the

cost of a few million Demo votes. When it's

all said & done, Ralphie is still an idiot,

but his heart is still in the right place.

[zengirl]

"Ralphie" clearly doesn't have his heart in the right place. He played the role of covert Republican operative in the Bush/Gore election quite well. He can deny his role in the ensuing Iraq debacle all he wants. (Republicans generally live in denial.) I find him to be so completely out of touch with the American people that any progressive good deeds his resume claims are quickly becoming diminished by his egomaniacal ill-will for our country. "Ralphie's" dynamic is a "me" dynamic, a "My way is the only way" dynamic. Ralphie doesn't play well with others.

[Doofus]

Well, if 'the enemy of our enemy is our friend',

then Ralphie is our friend, I guess. He may insist

he knows 'what's best for US', but he ain't a Repo.

But no, he definitely does NOT play well with others.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Republican operative!
What horseshit.
Gore was the guy who treated Bill Clinton as if he was radioactive.
That's WAY more Republican than ANYTHING Nader has ever done.

[V4Vigilance]

Ralph who?

Seriously, the American electorate isn't quite as naive as the author portrays.

Personally, I like the trend:

2000 Nader 3%

2004 Nader .3%

2008 Nader .03%?

OBAMA '08

[JakeEasy]

2008 is not 2004. The Obama people have been pissing off the Clinton people and the Clinton folk have been driving the Obama supporters to rabidness. So now the Clinton voters who feel shunned by the faithful have a place to vent without voting repub. And both camps have scared the independents who hate bush but don't trust the camp meeting nature of an Obama rally.

Houston, we have a problem.

[kurdtdt]

You're right, 2008 is not 2004. Democrats are hugely excited about their candidate. And your statement about how all the Clinton people are going to run away is simply not borne out by the facts. Polls show very high levels of satisfaction with Obama among Clinton voters (although not so much the other way around).

In 2000, Nader had a solid argument that the Democratic and Republican parties had become too similar, that it didn't matter who you voted for. Four years of Bush proved that to be dangerously false, and all those people who in 2000 had logged a protest vote learned their lesson and placed a vote that mattered. There's no reason to believe they have become stupid in the intervening four years.

[Erroll]

Ms. Stahl's article is disingenuous, to say the least. She claims that it is not whether or not one likes Nader and then states that the Democrats must do their best to make sure that Nader's voice is not heard. Apparently Ms. Stahl wishes the Democrats to emulate what took place in 2000, when, to their everlasting shame, both parties conspired with the networks to make sure that Nader was shut out of the debates during the summer of that year. It appears that Ms. Stahl is terrified of the same thing that concerns Clinton and Obama, and that is that Nader would certainly expose these two corporate nominees, along with McCain, for the frauds that they really are. After all, Ms. Stahl certainly would not want to risk having Ralph Nader ask Obama and Clinton why they have not voted against the bloated military budget or championed the rights of the Palestinians against the oppressive might of the Israelis [AIPAC, Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton?]. Or perhaps Ms. Stahl is a tad worried that Nader might bring to light the many thousands of dollars that Clinton and Obama have accepted from Wall Street and the vested interests.

Ms. Stahl claims that the American electorate is naive while ignoring the fact that Nader and any other third party candidate actually have a right to run for office in this country while not belonging to the Democratic or Republican party. Ms. Stahl still believes that Nader somehow elected George W. Bush while never acknowledging that Gore failed to carry his and Clinton's home states and the role of the Supreme Court and Katherine Harris in getting Bush elected.

Ms. Stahl says that "... we're finally down to a two party race..." Just as Obama looked a little nervous and uncomfortable talking about Nader during the MTP interview, it would seem that Ms. Stahl is none too comfortable with Ralph Nadder daring to challenge the establishment. All this time, I was apparently naive enough to believe that I actually lived in a democracy. Like something out of the novel Animal Farm, it is a democracy as long as it composed of only Democrats and Republicans.

[sarge]

Well, Errol, I think I agree, you "said the least".

"Ms. Stahl" said nothing about making sure "Nader's voice is not heard", nor, trust me on this, does she fear the message. She pointed out, in fact, that Nader has silenced himself for the past year by not running for president in the Democratic primary. There are ample opportunites for Nader to get out his message without aiding and abetting the Republicans in the general election.

The fact that there were other reasons that Gore lost doesn't change the fact that Nader's candidacy tipped the scales, and our Democracy, and the welfare of the world, have paid a steep price.

This post is in no way disingenuous, it is in fact the product of a profound concern for Democracy, civil rights, human dignity, the environment, and our catastrophic foreign policy, to name just a few " all of which are shared concerns with Ralph Nader. If you want proof, spend a half hour reading other of Ms. Stahl's posts.

Nader's theory that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans has been tested, thanks to him, and tragically proven objectively false!

[nippersdad]

Gotta disagree with you.

As regards Nader's message: what do you think that Ms. Stahl meant when she said that the "Democratic Party must do whatever it takes to keep Nader off the stump"?

As regards her fear of his message: What do you think she meant by Nader "virtually assure(ing)" that McCain will gain a "decisive" victory in Nov.?

As regards the tragically, objectively false accusation of a lack of difference between Dem's and Rep's: wasn't Clinton for the AUMF before she was against it? For NAFTA before she was against it? Why is impeachment off the table, again? Who is consistently voting for funding of the Iraq war? Who let Alito and Mukasey out of his committee? Who is it that claims that "lobbysts are people too" and who is it that pushed the Senate Telecom amnesty bill off on us?

There are differences in quality between Dems and Nader has gone to great lengths to point this out. In 2000 he was refused the ability to run as a Dem for his pains. Stahls' post reads like a litany of DLC talking points aimed at distancing themselves from their own policies.

Oh! And there is an answer to why Nader did not run this year, he had endorsed a Democrat and didn't want to get in his way. Surely his endorsement of Edwards did not somehow slip Ms. Stahls' mind?

[raptor]

Was Michael Moore able to bring Ralph Nader to the Oscars instead of Fidel Castro?

[Countess]

This is foolishness! Nader poses no Threat to Obama at all and Clinton would have lost with or without Nader. Don't be so afraid.

[BillZBubb]

No, countless, once the Republicans start their smear campaign against the so-far untouched Obama, he'll need every vote he can get to squeak out a victory.

You Obamists whine about the pulled punches that Hillary Clinton has used, just wait until you see the barrage the Republicans throw at him. By November, Obama is going to be severely damaged and in a very tight race.

BTW, Clinton would win if it weren't for the Obamist fanatics who use every Republican talking point to demean the Clintons.

[JakeEasy]

The Countess, like the countless faithful, are counting on the goodness of man to save the world. Hubris goeth before a fall. It would be funny if not for the dire consequences for the country. The only hope is for Barack to quit making the Democratic party his enemy. Since he seems to be the one with the momentum, he needs to check his ego at the door and begin asking for some help. Michelle is going to have to make nice. If the Democratic ticket doesn't include all elements of the party including Clinton, Edwards, Gore, Kucinich, etc. (not just some polite support, mind you) then we're screwed. I'm thinking Clinton as VP or pledged first Supreme. Edwards as AG. Gore as secretary of newly created cabinet post with power to negotiate for environment. Can Obama make good on his words about uniting? Looks like we'll get to see before he even gets to be pres.