Edwards, Nader and Empire fighting:

I wrote this last month in CD about Edwards:

"The Edwards statement that ""These powerful corporate interests are not simply going to give away their power" comes close to Raul Julia's similar answer to Robert Redford in the film "Havana" about why they had to actually fight the corporatist Batista regime, when he replied:

"They will not leave, by asking NICELY".

The impression, of course, that Edwards wishes to make to the rapidly increasing number of economically oppressed voters in 2008 is the same that 'Rebel Al' Gore briefly mouthed in the summer of 2000, when he appeared to come out of the mountains in virtual fatigues and a Castro beard and talked about "fighting for you, against the big business interests."

The big question will be whether Edwards' campaign managers will talk him out of this populism (as Gore's did) — particularly with DNC/DLC pressure if Edwards were to actually win Iowa.

For me, the Edwards rhetoric will only ring true if he starts openly talking about the global corporatist Empire hiding behind the facade of 'Vichy America' — and identifying it as the common cause of foreign wars, domestic economic oppression, and extra-Constitutional tyranny."

Now that the news reports that Nader is backing Edwards, it strikes me as a probable sign that Nader believes that Edwards has the guts to actually take-on the corporatist empire (which Gore didn't stick with in 2000). [BTW, I think Gore now has the guts also].

The most important quality in taking on corporatist Empire is guts first.

Avid commitment and the guts to actually 'fight' for populism is (in my opinion, and I think Nader's) the best indicator of fighting our global corporatist Empire hiding behind this facade of 'Vichy America', since a fight for populism is the penultimate fight against Empire.

Nader's support of Edwards may well be intended to acknowledge, bolster, and encourage Edwards to stick with this fight more resolutely than Gore did when the DNC brass told him to 'lay off' in the fall of 2000.

If this hope of mine is half true it may possibly indicate that Edwards is real, that Nader is sensing a real opportunity and trying to stoke rather than dismiss a democratic fight against global corporatist Empire in 2008 (that didn't materialize in 2000), and that Nader and Gore may find themselves backing the same fighter.

Sure I acknowledge and love Kucinich for his obvious courage and unquestioned commitment to fight the same populist fight against the very same global corporatist Empire ---- which he began earlier, and is still fighting for. I would vote for Kucinich if I had that chance ---- but the dirty pool of old style DNC politics seems to be eliminating that chance.

If Edwards proves that he deserves Nader's support by really fighting for populist democracy and against this damn global corporate Empire called 'Vichy America', and if he can straight-arm the DNC (which Gore and Dean couldn't) and gets on the ballot, I will be able to vote Democratic again for the first time in decades!!! --- and I'll be one happy anti-empire, anti-corporatist, anti-fascist voter and citizen.

i sincerely want all of you nader raiders to be the folk that are right. i have stated i used to believe in ralph,but when i weigh all the evidence,it just doesn't jive.

Good Move Ralph!

Hah, Jim you really think you have a voice, and can influence the system?

They don't really care what you or I think, they simply use us to get elected, paying us lipservice.

Is that Edwards' death knell then? Nader's support? Just kidding...
Still irritates me that Kucinich is being treated as persona non grata. Could just be the reporting in this article, but it almost seems like Nader's fallen into the "electability" wormhole, or maybe he's just bedazzled by one issue that appeals to him: Edwards' purported stance towards big business and corporate power. In that area, Kucinich would certainly merit consideration by Nader, I would think. Hypnosis?

If it is to be Edwards, then let's hope that he chooses Dennis Kucinich as his VP.

What's that big sucking sound? Why it's Ralph Nader being sucked back into the Democratic Party! How sad...

About this article's penultimate paragraph:

"It's the only time I've heard a Democrat talk that way in a long time," Nader said, acknowledging what was, for him, a rare moment of praise for a Democratic leader.

Ralph Nader must know, as well as anyone with their ears open and the intellectual curiosity to inverstigate the matter, that there IS another Democrat who has been talking that way for a long, long time. In fact, he has consistently battled the corporate dragon through forty years of political life.
I'm referring of course, to Dennis Kucinich.
Dennis in '08!

A few things:

1. Once again a high-profile progressive refuses to endorse, or even mention, Dennis Kucinich, who is the real peace candidate.

2. At least he's not endorsing Hillary (what's with Robert Kennedy, Jr, anyway?), and Edwards probably is the best of the top three.

3. Maybe, just maybe, Edwards will turn out to be more progressive than his voting record indicates if and when he gets elected. I know this is a long shot, optimistic idea, but that's what happened to FDR: he started out kind of middle-of-the-road but got more liberal and progressive after getting elected, so at least there's a precedent for this.

Bottom line: maybe we need a new New Deal.

"He was booed at a national conference of progressives earlier this year."

Maybe that's the reason?

Paul Street, who often publishes articles at ZNet, did a good summary article, from Iowa, about Edwards. He did comment that Kucinich (a true progressive) hardly campaigned in Iowa.

Here is a summary article he wrote about why Edwards deserves support from progressives:

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/12/20/222052/20

I think Street makes a good case, while acknowledging that Edwards doesn't have anything like a progressive foreign policy, unlike Kucinich, who does.

"Iowa should decide which candidate stands for us," he added. "Edwards is at least highlighting day after day that the issue is who controls our country, big business or the people."

Maybe this says it all as far as Nader's decision.

Yaknow, when Nader was campaigning, he said more than once that he didn't use the phrase "When I'm president" because he knew he wouldn't be president. He ran an issues campaign and a third party campaign. He ran to build something. I think he supports Kucinich, but also realizes that DK will not be president. Of those with a snowball's chance in Hell, maybe Nader supports Edwards because he has the most chance of bringing a progressive voice to the White House.

I'm not sure I believe that any of the "front runners" will bring anything new to the White House, but I'm not Ralph Nader.

Ralph Nader - you sold out!! Say it ain't so!!!

Why don't I hear Mike Gravel's name mentioned here in this discussion? He, of all the Presidential candidates, is the strongest voice regarding corporate control. Talk about peace candidates, there is no one more adamant about bringing our troops home expediently.

Nader´s opinions are irrelevant.

It should be more than merely obvious why the man did not mention Kucinich.

I appreciate everything Kucinich says and I admire his track record both personally and professionally.

I am still waiting, unfortunately, for Mr. Kucinich to give a public, rational explanation as to why he is still a member of the other corporate (criminal) interest representative.

"What's that big sucking sound? Why it's Ralph Nader being sucked back into the Democratic Party! How sad…"

Sad ?? Hell no. Nader has a giant ego and he isnt the great leader the progressives have been harping about for so long. His vision has always been narrow and focussed on consumer rights etc. given half a chance he will jump right back into the democratic party.

Good choice, Mr. Nader!

Keep'm come'n.

Ralph Nader sold progressives a lemon in 2000, and now he's shilling for John Edwards's lame and phoney posturing as a populist crusader against corporate power. How can anyone trust Edwards's oily lawyer tactics, his cheesy smile and televangelist swagger? What did Edwards ever do as a Senator to earn anybody's trust? We're supposed to cheer just because he says corporations are too powerful and promises to stand up to them? How's he going to do that? It's pure demagoguery.

For those who think Nader is selling out to the Democrats, think again. What he's doing is just more of the same vandalism, this time throwing a monkey wrench into the strongest, most viable and astonishingly progressive candidacy in the race, that of the amazing Barack Obama, onetime campaigner for Nader's own NYPIRG.

Nader is trying to win the nomination for Hillary Clinton, so he can reprise his old soapbox act yet again. Edwards is way behind, but any gains he makes at this point will come mostly at the expense of Obama. Mark my words. Assuming Edwards doesn't win the nomination, and the odds are strongly against him, Nader will be back this year.

Meanwhile, in Obama we have the prospect of a genuine progressive, with a real flair for politics, actually winning the White House. It's almost too good to be true, and it has all the spiteful purveyors of left alienation running scared. What will they do, if the dark clouds actually break? Who will listen to Ralph Nader if Barack Obama is speaking from the bully pulpit? Who will be interested in a Green or Red party if a Democrat can be elected who will bring real change, something short of a revolution, but a genuine change in our politics and direction as a nation, something not seen since the Great Society at least (this time without Vietnam) and perhaps even since FDR (God help us, without a world war).

Folks, check out Obama. Check out his story, don't go on the basis of this right word and that wrong one. Call him the magic negro if you want, call him Oreo or whatever you like. The man has a dream and the man can deliver. The sane Left has the opportunity of a generation, and the mad among us are right to tremble.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPtg-gvgWhE&feature=PlayList&p=11D5123E4731FC63&index=4

Hmmm. Interesting. Not sure what to make of it. I love Nader and all, and am more inclined to take a deeper look at Edwards because of this I guess. If he's anti-corporate enough to get Nader's vote, he might be what this country needs.

gyptian, you sound confused. You don't know Ralph Nader well at all, which is obvious from your contradictory statements about him. If you had studied his work you would know his vision is not narrow. Yes, he is a consumer rights activist, but goes far beyond that.

And why wouldn't he come into the Democratic Party if it stopped being a corporate whore? I would. But I'm not holding my breath. And no matter how much we want Dennis, he has been sidelined. And unfortunately the American public is hooked on the word "electable". Well, Edwards came up on the corporate media like a sneaker wave so maybe we really can get a populist into the White House. And here's Ralph, trying to bring the left wing renegades who don't vote Democratic (like me) back to help, and here's people like Beowulf and gyptian so eager to dump on him that they don't evaluate what he says, they just shoot first.

I suspect the ego problem lies not with Nader, but his accusers.

New Iowa Poll: Obama widens lead over Clinton

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080101/NEWS09/301010015/0/LIFE

Obama was the choice of 32 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers, up from 28 percent in the Register's last poll in late November, while Clinton, a New York senator, held steady at 25 percent and Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, was virtually unchanged at 24 percent.

==> So why is Nader endorsing Edwards and blasting Clinton, while ignoring Obama? Because BHO is his real target.

"It was Nader who famously - or infamously to many Democrats - siphoned off enough liberal votes from Al Gore in 2000 to hand New Hampshire and Florida, and as a result, the presidency, to George W. Bush"

Maybe I'm mistaken, but haven't we pretty much established that that isn't true?
Don't I dimly remember some "irregularities" in voter registration, vote tabulation, exit poll discrepancies and --- oh, yes, something about the supreme court?
And didn't somebody do a too-belated re-count that indicated that Gore actually had won Florida?
Heck, where'd I get such a crazy idea??
The election was on the up-and-up.
The whole mess is RALPH'S fault??
Thanks for straightening me out on that.

Liberty & Justice,

SJ

www.spartacusjones.com

In months of Straw Polling Conducted by Air American Radio Host Thom Hartmann, John Edwards, won Every Single One,
That says it all.
Edwards is the only one who has shown he is up to fighting corporations, he's done that all his life. He's the only one that can successfully fight the Big Media, Death Grip on the FCC and our National News Outlets.
Edwards has my vote.

Ralph Nader is a beacon, a progressive leader more knowledgeable about government than anyone who unlike his critics, has saved countless lives. Some of his detractors here are thinly disguised shills seeking to divide progressives.

Nader is suggesting that progressives should UNITE around Edwards as a trust busting progressive populist candidate with the best chance of winning the nomination.

We would hope Edwards chooses Nader or Kucinich as his running mate.

Has Nader been fooling everyone this whole time or has he had his brain chipped? He thinks Edwards will fight the Corporations? The guy is pro war(I don't accept his convenient apology since he was still supporting war in Iran based on the same faulty 'evidence'), co-wrote the patriot act- pro fascism in my opinion but he will fight Corporations?

We need to ignore the media, ignore Ralph Nader and the corporate manufactured consent. All Common Dreams readers who support Kucinich- DON"T GIVE UP! That is exactly what they want. Only 10% show up to primaries, the people like US who care about the country, and know how bad things are. We must not give up before it begins. The Iowa caucuses are attended by very few people. Every person makes a difference. Bring a group of friends and you can swing the caucus. And don't forget to bring a camera!!
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/genera_bev_harr_071230_new_problems_identif.htm

And PLEASE consider running for office- it is time to throw out the enablers!!
www.peacecandidates.com

this is just the act of one species throwing support to another of his own kind=lawyers.no offense,there are a handful of honest lawyers,somewhere.everybody knows nader hates the democrats,worse than the republicans.talk about business,that is what nader does best.he is obsessed with accumulating money,he must dream of it at night.i agree with gyptian,nader has a huge ego and covets wealth like a good republican.the thing is i like edwards,also.in comparison to other candidates,he is the sane one.i suspect he knows all the right things to say,but would probably not deliver.it is in the dna.nancy pelosi is proof of the practice of right-word-deception and al gore is proof that even a liar can deliver a beautiful speech.

Beowulf January 1st, 2008 1:49 pm

"I am still waiting, unfortunately, for Mr. Kucinich to give a public, rational explanation as to why he is still a member of the other corporate (criminal) interest representative."

Beowulf,

One might also ask for a rational explanation from Libertarian Ron Paul why he is running as a Republican.

Perhaps they both realize that the majority in this country are still operating and casting votes within the "traditional" two-party system they can't seem to transcend at this stage of their evolution.

as far as i can tell,nader has no real stand on anything,anywhere.he seems content with getting paid to be a "spoiler">

"nayoibi January 1st, 2008 2:49 pm
everybody knows nader hates the democrats"

That might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard, even from a right winger like the idiot who wrote those words.

Ralph Nader is one of the last public figures who still embodies real Democratic Party values and principles, the core values and principles the Clinton whores traded away for empty victories, so that we could have 8 years of Republican politics under the "Democrat" label. NAFTA, GATT, 1996 Terrorism Act, Media Consolidation, Welfare Deform, the gap between rich and poor widening more in those 8 years than RayGuns 8 years, More blacks in prison than any time in our nation's history...... wonderful Republican projects carried out by the Clinton whores.

Hating the Clintons ? Any real Democrat should

Kucinich 2008

i feel badly saying all those negative things about ralph.when he was a young man(i was young,too)i loved him and believed in his many endeavors,i am wiser,now..he is still a fine looking man,with a charismatic demeanor and a beautiful smile.i am prejudiced when it comes to republicans and even more disappointed that he pretends to be something else.

Nader is a mere mortal, folks. He's been battling the corporate takeover of America, maybe longer than anyone else in public life. He took it on in 2000 because nobody else would. He can't be blamed for losing Al Gore an election that Gore won, then abdicated, in the midst of an electoral hijacking this country had never seen before.

Nader agrees fundamentally across the board with Dennis Kucinich. But he also sees corporations vs citizenry as the crux of the required transformation of this society. Short of achieving that shift, there is no possibility of transformative change.

John Edwards is an imperfect candidate, but has chosen to throw his entire weight behind the corporations vs citizenry crux issue. He therefore may be the only candidate who offers a shot at making the shift, being that he is also (unlike, alas, Kucinich at this point)a very strong contender against the corporatistas, Clinton and Obama.

I have no intention of abandoning Kucinich. He's my candidate. However, it's still early in the game, and Nader may just be correct. Edwards may end up being the lynchpin for the big shift. We all need to be mindful, stay open to new information, and keep our eyes on the prize (crux): not an individual, but an opportunity to transform this country.

No wonder the left is always sitting on the sidelines. At some point you have to wonder if those who advocate changes actually ever want change to occur. Sure they march around, yell at buildings, carry cute little placards, but when the chance presents itself to actually make a tactical decison about supporting someone who campaigns about most of their major issues they cry: sell out, traitor, only we the pure will get into the holy land!

This isn't about the lesser of two evils; it is about voting in the primaries about someone who has a the ability and capacity to make a real difference and has been advocating what Ralph Nader, the Green Party, and progressives have been doing and saying for the past decade: fight the corporatocracy, fight for the environment, fight for the middle class, and fight for the American dream.

If the only thing you truely want to do is portray yourself as a victim of circumstance and scream at the shallowness of most human institutions then I'm sure there are plenty of candidates you can support. On the other hand, Nader is right in saying that only Edwards (as a front runner) has been advocating a cogent populist platform and most importantly has the rare chance to actually advance and implement many of the policies that many progressives claim to care about.

BeForKids, thanks for raising a voice in support of Nader and his profound impact on the public discourse. I was beginning to think this was the Kucinich campaign blog! I'm glad to know what Nader thinks about all the candidates. I for one simply appreciate that Mr. Nader has been paying attention for all these years to what goes on in government and informing the rest of us about what he sees. When I had the good luck to meet him in person once, my impression was not one of an egocentric person.

T4 Phage January 1st, 2008 3:05 pm

> "Nader is right in saying that only Edwards (as a front runner) has been advocating a cogent populist platform and most importantly has the rare chance to actually advance and implement many of the policies that many progressives claim to care about."

Edwards has been hitting some of the notes progressives long to hear from a presidential candidate. Nader does the same thing in his soapbox campaigns, and I'm betting he plans to do it again later this year, assuming Edwards does not win the nomination. In Nader's case, I can believe the words are sincere, even if they are a pied piper's song. In Edwards's case, I see no evidence that it isn't pure snake oil. Certainly none in his record as a Senator or in the positions he took back in '04.

The real progressive messenger, the one who carries the message in his heart, speaks it to us in poetry and can carry it into the Oval Office, is Barack Hussein Obama. I think Nader knows this and doesn't like Obama precisely because Obama can win and bring real change. Ralph Nader can never be president, but he sure likes giving speeches and packing stadiums with cheering supporters ready to shower him with their ballots and leave them littering the floor.

My son heard John Edwards speak in Louisiana, and became a strong supporter. Although I was for Kucinich (and still am, and would like to see him as the VP candidate) and was very disappointed he was off the ballot because he did not have an office, Edwards has been my second choice. Obama is a very close third, and Hillary Clinton, doesn't even show in my electometer. Since the candidates have been campaigning in IOWA, my choice is Edwards because he has hit the nail on the head: this country belongs to its citizens and not to the corporate bigwigs!

I voted for Nader in 2000 - Why would I vote for Gore who at that time presented himself as more of the same. Clinton had already sold the Democrats to the DLC? Then Gore summed up his ambivalence by running on Clinton's record - kind of - or even fighting to defend his win in Florida.

Without Global Warming, Gore would be a has-been rather then a prophet for environmental change!

In 2004, I supported Edwards, but went with Kerry - What a disappointment when he too demonstrated a total lack of courage when it came to challanging the Ohio debacle.

So, now Edwards has honed his anti-corporate stance. Who wouldn't given the power corporations have accumulated in our government? And, he's got the skills to present the arguments in a passionate believable fashion. Perhaps some of the other 'True Progressives' in this campaign didn't awaken the voters to the real choices they have.

I think Edwards got the back-bone to challenge any attempt to steal the 2008 election.

Instead of worrying over petty stuff, that won't win for Progressives, we'd be better off figuring out how Edwards can survive the campaign. The world is a much more dangerous place then it was in 1968, and we couldn't protect Bobby then!

Go to hell, Nader.
Is this guilt?
Do you think we've forgotten your role in 2000?
Selfish Bastard!

Your support for Edwards has effectively precluded any chance of this (loyal) Democrat from ever supporting his run for the nomination.

peace candidate:

"Edwards . . . co-wrote the patriot act - pro fascism in my opinion . . ."

Nonsense. Edwards wrote the sunset clause of the Patriot Act -- a smart thing to do at a time when there was no chance of defeating the Act.

Here's what Edwards has said about it:

"I support dramatic revision of the PATRIOT Act. The last thing we should be doing is turning over our privacy, our liberties, our freedom, our constitutional rights to John Ashcroft. First, the very notion that this administration can arrest American citizens on American soil, label them an enemy combatant, put them in prison, keep them there indefinitely - this runs contrary to everything we believe in this country. The notion that they are going to libraries to find out what books people are checking out, going to book stores to find out what books are being purchased. What we have to remember - and I will when I am president - is what it is we are supposed to be fighting for, what it is we are supposed to be protecting. These very liberties, this privacy, these constitutional rights - that's what's at stake in this fight. And we cannot let people like John Ashcroft take them away in an effort to protect ourselves."

Source: Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate Sep 9, 2003

xntrk-
I'll hear your apology now.

Thank you ezeflyer. I would rather vote for someone who insists that we can't make nice with barracudas but must fight to regain our share of this country's wealth - which, after all, is created out of our labor. I don't trust Obama to go after breaking up corporate power.

Edwards isn't my first choice, Dennis Kucinich is. But Edwards, like Dennis, grew up poor, and like Dennis, hasn't forgotten what it is like. And although he became wealthy, he hasn't turned his back on working people. This time around, I want to vote for a president who knows how it FEELS to be insecure of food and shelter. I don't want a triangulator or a compromiser. We may be headed for hard times. I want a president who I feel is on our side. Obama is attractive and says the right things, but I don't think he knows what hard times feels like. My parents knew, they lived through the Great Depression. And they didn't grow up on a farm where there was food.

We do need to bring the races together; maybe Obama's the man to do that, and I would like to see more of him in public service. In eight years, I could know more about him than I do now, besides his charming rhetoric. There is a reason for an age minimum for president. We can gain wisdom with maturity. I think Obama is doing that, although I don't sense he is there yet. I'm not criticizing him, I just think he's young. He is only 45, 11 days older than my oldest son. But look at our current president. He's 61 years old and will never grow up. I think with the mess Bush has created, we need to choose very carefully, and we need someone who will firmly make the changes we need. I don't know if Obama is ready for that, and I'm sure Hillary has no intention of doing that. I could be wrong about Obama, but I feel more confident that Edwards will step up to the task.

To me the most important thing about Nader's endorsing Edwards is what it says very loudly/clearly about Hillary---a vote for her is a vote for more corporate kleptocracy. Cuts right through all the media's fake debates about experience. I too remain for Kucinich but am glad that Nader found a way to get involved on the early side of things....

Reading the comments, it has suddenly become clear to me: Politics isn't a science, it's a religion. Which politician/savior do you believe means it when s/he says what you want to hear? Which civic rituals do you have faith in? Which party shibboleths make you want to pull the lever and feel like you belong?

The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060124_political_decisions.html

My god, we're sleepwalking towards the cliffs...

Nader2000 brings to my mind the Emporor running around naked thinking he's clothed.

So it was Edwards who inserted the sunset clause into the Patriot Act. I didn't know that. A lawyerly act.

You Nader bashers need to grow up.

I like amacd's words: We need a president with guts. We also need a president who thinks with his mind and not his gut.

kathyodat

Obama a genuine progressive?

You mean the guy who failed to stand up to Bush during his 3 years as senator so far?

You mean the guy who will keep American troops in Iraq, and keep those permanent bases and airfields?

You mean the guy who wants to force the public to buy for profit private health insurance?

You mean the guy who won't do anything nor take a stand on the patriot act, H.R. 1955, bogus signing statements, executive orders & power, domestic spying, domestic harrassment, and torture?

You mean the guy who talks about expanding war against Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere as loudly as Bush?

Yeah, sounds like a real progressive, and a real democrat for that matter. Just keep on pretending he represents the people, and not the corperations. And keep on believing thet he's not stringin you along either, for some reason he's special. And keep on believing all the politician's excuses and diversions from their own mistakes, such as how they deflect attention to things like illegal immigration. That's right, let's forget their massive corruption and the foundation of the problems, and let's instead blame everything on the illegal immigrants.

'We've been talkin about this issue during every election year for 24 years. That's 12 congressional elections, and 5 presidential elections... but I swear this time we're going to take care of it."

To say that I am shocked and disappointed would be an understatement. I don't know what Ralph is thinking and I'm not going to try to rationalize or finesse his endorsement of "Corporate Shill Lite" Edwards.

Well, I might have to change my moniker to "McKinney08"

We're truly living in bizarro-world now. And I need to lay down.

One more time: Ralph Nader did not "siphon off" the plurality of votes that cost Al Gore the election in the year 2000. The numbers do not back up this stupid argument and I do not trust "democrats" who continue to repeat it, and yet can say nothing about the massive disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida- which actually did cost Gore the state of Florida. The press and "progressive" democrats continue to repeat this, and continue to ignore the role black disenfranchisement played in Florida. Almost ten fucking years later.

I'm not sure why Ralph Nader no longer feels like John Edwards is a "smiling dog"- the epithet he used to describe him in the election of 2004, but it just goes to show that the hammering he's taken from fair weather allies over the years breaks down some pretty stalwart dissidents. But just for the record, the sort of slander this man has put up with ranks right up there with the way oppositionists were talked about in the soviet press of the 1930s. It's been just that backwards and stupid. And some of us aren't going to forget it.

If, by some fluke, Edwards gets the nomination, we can all look forward to him caving, big-time, toward the middle. It's obvious that his "populist" approach is really just a way to differentiate himself from Hillary and Obama.
He's a skilled politician, I'll give him that. He would never in a million years pick Kucinich as his running mate and we'd end up with another president like Clinton, who grew up poor perhaps, but enjoys the hell out of being rich.
Kucinich in 2008.

Now I think Ralph Nader completely sucks... Ugh...

Is this like Bin Laden endorsing John Kerry in '04?

The voters Ralph Nader could influence are overwhelmingly Kucinich supporters, and they are not likely to change to Edwards because of Ralph Nader.