Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Eight More Years?
For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the ultimate American dream is eight more years. Yet how do you think they would react to having dozens of partisans at their rallies sporting large signs calling for EIGHT MORE YEARS, EIGHT MORE YEARS?
Don't you have the feeling that they would cringe at such public displays of their fervent ambition which the New York Times described as a "truly two-for-the-price-of-one" presidential race? It might remind voters to remember or examine the real Clinton record in that peaceful decade of missed opportunities and not be swayed by the sugarcoating version that the glib former president emits at many campaign stops.
The 1990's were the first decade without the spectre of the Soviet Union. There was supposed to be a "peace dividend" that would reduce the vast, bloated military budget and redirect public funds to repair or expand our public works or infrastructure.
Inaugurated in January 1993, with a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton sent a small job-creating proposal to upgrade public facilities. He also made some motions for campaign finance reform which he promised during his campaign when running against incumbent George H.W. Bush and candidate Ross Perot.
A double withdrawal followed when the Congressional Republicans started roaring about big spending Democrats and after House Speaker Tom Foley and Senate Majority Leader, George Mitchell, told Clinton at a White House meeting to forget about legislation to diminish the power of organized money in elections.
That set the stage for how Washington politicians sized up Clinton. He was seen as devoid of modest political courage, a blurrer of differences with the Republican opposition party and anything but the decisive transforming leader he promised to be was he to win the election. He proceeded, instead, to take credit for developments with which he had very little to do with such as the economic growth propelled by the huge technology dot.com boom.
Bragging about millions of jobs his Administration created, he neglected to note that incomes stagnated for 80% of the workers in the country and ended in 2000, under the level of 1973, adjusted for inflation.
A brainy White House assistant to Mr. Clinton told me in 1997 that the only real achievement his boss could take credit for was passage of legislation allowing 12 weeks family leave, without pay.
There are changes both the Clinton Administration actively championed that further entrenched corporate power over our economy and government during the decade. He pushed through Congress the NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that represented the greatest surrender in our history of local, state and national sovereignty to an autocratic, secretive system of transnational governance. This system subordinated workers, consumers and the environment to the supremacy of globalized commerce.
That was just for starters. Between 1996 and 2000, he drove legislation through Congress that concentrated more power in the hands of giant agribusiness, large telecommunications companies and the biggest jackpot-opening the doors to gigantic mergers in the financial industry. The latter so-called "financial modernization law" sowed the permissive seeds for taking vast financial risks with other peoples' money (ie. pensioners and investors) that is now shaking the economy to recession.
The man who pulled off this demolition of regulatory experience from the lessons of the Great Depression was Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who went to work for Citigroup-the main pusher of this oligopolistic coup-just before the bill passed and made himself $40 million for a few months of consulting in that same year.
Bill Clinton's presidential resume was full of favors for the rich and powerful. Corporate welfare subsidies, handouts and giveaways flourished, including subsidizing the Big Three Auto companies for a phony research partnership while indicating there would be no new fuel efficiency regulations while he was President.
His regulatory agencies were anesthetized. The veteran watchdog for Public Citizen of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Sidney Wolfe, said that safety was the worst under Clinton in his twenty nine years of oversight.
The auto safety agency (NHTSA) abandoned its regulatory oath of office and became a consulting firm to the auto industry. Other agencies were similarly asleep-in job safety (OSHA) railroads, household product safety, antitrust, and corporate crime law enforcement.
By reappointing avid Republican Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Clinton assured no attention would be paid to the visible precursors of what is now the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Mr. Greenspan, declined to use his regulatory authority and repeatedly showed that he almost never saw a risky financial instrument he couldn't justify.
Mr. Clinton was so fearful of taking on Orrin Hatch, the Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that he cleared most judicial appointments with the Utah Senator. He even failed to put forth the nomination of sub-cabinet level official, Peter Edelman, whose credentials were superb to the federal appeals court.
Mr. Edelman resigned on September 12th, 1996. In a memo to his staff, he said, "I have devoted the last 30-plus years to doing whatever I could to help in reducing poverty in America. I believe the recently enacted welfare bill goes in the opposite direction."
Excoriated by the noted author and columnist, Anthony Lewis, for his dismal record on civil liberties, the man from Hope set the stage for the Bush demolition of this pillar of our democracy.
To justify his invasion of Iraq, Bush regularly referred in 2002-2003 to Clinton's bombing of Iraq and making "regime change" explicit U.S. policy.
But it was Clinton's insistence on UN-backed economic sanctions in contrast to just military embargos, against Iraq, during his term in office. These sanctions on civilians, a task force of leading American physicians estimated, took half a million Iraqi children's lives.
Who can forget CBS's Sixty Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl's tour through Baghdad's denuded hospitals filled with crying, dying children? She then interviewed Mr. Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeline Albright and asked whether these sanctions were worth it. Secretary Albright answered in the affirmative.
Bill Clinton is generally viewed as one smart politician, having been twice elected the President, helped by lackluster Robert Dole, having survived the Lewinsky sex scandal, lying under oath about sex, and impeachment. When is it all about himself, he is cunningly smart.
But during his two-term triangulating Presidency, he wasn't smart enough to avoid losing his Party's control over Congress, or many state legislatures and Governorships.
It has always been all about him, Now he sees another admission ticket to the White House through his wife, Hillary Clinton. EIGHT MORE YEARS without a mobilized, demanding participating citizenry is just that-EIGHT MORE YEARS. It's small wonder that the editors of Fortune Magazine headlined an article last June with the title, "Who Business is Betting On?" Their answer, of course, was Hillary Clinton.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
177 Comments so far
Show AllThe Nader bashers are an amusing lot. The fail to recall that the people who didn't bother voting in '00 outnumbered the Nader supporters by like 3, 4 or 5:1. They also forget that voting is about voting "for", not against. The only thrown away vote is one in which you fail to vote FOR your conscience.
If the Vichy DLC Democrats were genuinely worried about Nader, progressives, liberals, centrists, populists, etc. they'd have put through Range or IRV when they had a chance under Clinton. Maybe they'd win third or fourth place.
Dear Mr. Nader,
Please run. There are no decent candidates to vote for. If the right wingers give you money in hopes that you'll divide the democrats, then let them do it. All the talk of Ralph Nader stealing the election from Gore is mere hogwash. It's based on the assumption that if Ralph doesn't run, then all the people who voted for him will vote for whatever stooge the democrats come up with. The fact of the matter is, that the low percentage of people who vote in this country (relative to a number of others) is no accident. This is because many voters feel there is no meaningful choice between the candidates offered for public consumption. The Democrats since Reagan have been following a strategy to move to the center to attract some of the conservative voters. In doing so, they have alienated many of the traditionally left-wing voters who haven't any reason to turn up to the polls, to legitimize a system of voting in which they had no meaningful choice. If one wants to merely rubber-stamp the choice of the ruling class, by all means degrade yourself. I for one don't want to be a party to the charade.
The powers that be seem to believe that people who don't vote are ignorant or complacent and put their efforts into "get out the vote" campaign with a ragtag army of voter registration volunteers. Just fielding a few decent candidates like Ralph, who is saying something different than CorporateMan (or woman as the case may be) brings a lot of people out of the woodwork who'd have likely sat it out on the sidelines.
Please Run Ralph. People are counting on you to be the change. We need a third party candidate that can break the two-party power monopoly so society will have a wider spectrum of political choices. This is a much more worthy cause than Bush or Gore.
Varadarajan Mudaliar
Yeah Ralph run, and make damn sure the Republics win again.
ralph nader,
thank you for words of wisdom, all of your points are heart wrenchingly valid. especially the comments about US sanctions against iraq i remember sitting in a church in the 1990's with other concerned citizens, listening to reports from voices in the wilderness, looking at photographs of emaciated children dying from disease that could have easily been prevented with medicine and proper medical staff. the clintons (i guess they're one person at this point) easily could have negotiated with iraq and prevented this humanitarian nightmare.
i'm encouraged by the comment in the letter to the editor section of nyt's this morning where a reader questioned the times decision to endorse clinton, based on a simple observation that if clinton wins we'll experience 24 consecutive years of bush/clinton (i always extend this number an extra 8 years b/c i feel to some degree reagan on many levels was an incapacitated figurehead of the republican party and that most of the functional intelligence/military strategy - like iran contra - was orchestrated by bush the father - and his oilmen - hence 32 years). i was disturbed that the editorial board of the times just overlooked this glaring observation as they causally endorsed clinton (as they overlooked kerry and bush's fraternity: 300 million people in the US and the 2 candidates for president are from the same fraternity from the same elite university '66, '68, which only includes 12 people a year. therefore out of 36 people in 3 years at skull and bones, 2 of these people would pair off in the general election of 2004). the elites dominate this country as they have since the declaration. yet despite the corporate rule in america, the symbol of our country, although directly tied to the elites, has not been a symbol of tribal rule via dynastic bloodlines. this is the covenant that was shredded by bush2 and it's telling (but disturbing) that the american public would so willingly avoid this subject, especially when using 'experience' as a debating point when the editorial board endorses a president.
i've followed your career for 15 years. i voted for you and campaigned for you in 96, i voted for you in 00, i've seen you speak twice and i continue to follow your comments at your web sites and here at CD. i respect you as an intellect. why is a house seat or a senate run beneath you? and how would you interact with a bipolar congress (in other words how could you overcome raw political ambition dems/repubs) without a coalition in the congress -- are those dems? and how will this mighty transformation of consciousness sweep away 232 years of precedence ? candidly i don't think a 3rd party candidacy is an effective strategy. by voting green the best a person can hope for (unless they're oblivious to history) is federal matching funds next time around and perhaps more recognition of the party.(which is good vote your conscience) it won't necessarily effect the outcome of the election unless it hinders another (as many have noted above as a reason for you to run). also i never blamed you or the ideas of the left for the ascendancy of our leaders.
?? why would a run for a congressional seat be so ineffective ?? in other words why does it have to be the presidency (especially considering how ineffective this could portend without a sold base of support in congress, after slaying the dems i doubt they'll be willing to be nice).??
i am donating to the sheehan campaign to see a fresh voice in congress who's pro peace and i'm sending money to kucinich for his legitimate stands in the election and his voice in our congress. where is your voice Mr Nader? i can't imagine anyone who's steadfastly opposed evil who would not appreciate your voice in congress....
Great article Ralph, please say you'll run if the Hildabeast gets the nomination...Pretty please? The thought of not voting or voting for a Rep is nauseating...
Every two minutes (as long as the AFSC video)$619,000 is spent on the Iraq war. Thats a lot of solar panels (national security), health care, education, infrastructure...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnq6cD5jk1Q
send it to ten people to send it to ten people...?
There are so many myths about Clinton it is hard to know where to begin and Ralph Nader has done an excellent job here. He basically was extremely fortunate that the right wing opposition was split into two parties in 1992 or he would never had beaten Bush's father. Even as a sitting president he could not obtain 50 percent of the vote in 1996. He is directly responsible for Nafta and the loss of millions of jobs and most of all he is despicable as a person as the current campaign is proving once again.
I want all potential candidates to run and speak their minds.
However, the Presidential Debate Commission is owned and operated by the two major parties so none of them will be allowed into the debates unless we work to expose this fraud.
Clinton supposedly used his presidency to build a "Bridge to the 21st Century." Perhaps Bill was as dyslexic as Bush, which might explain how that bridge has been crossed, and we now find ourselves in the 12th century, at least in terms of our legal principles.
It's a sorry situation when our best hope is to get back to the good old days of Clinton. But with many troubles building, the chance for some major changes for the better are truly possible. By the by, Chomsky on Book TV tonight at 9 Central.
Nader is a real national treasure. Thanks for telling the truth Ralph.
And a big "boo!" to all you Nader nattering nabobs!
An A+ for Ralph Nader on this article. Clinton also gave China, 'Most Favored Nation' trading status.
As the "lesser of two evils", which is really a ridiculous saying, I voted for Clinton twice. After the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush nightmare, I thought we might actually get a real liberal in the Oval Office. By the time 2000 rolled around, I voted for Ralph Nader and encouraged other progressives to do so. (no regrets, whatsoever!)
I wish Ralph was running now, since Kucinich is out, but "the Fix is in."
Bill Clinton has more unkind words for Obama than he ever did for the Republicans who attacked EVERYTHING he said or did for eight years in the White House. Perhaps he really was a political 'Houdini' mesmerizing the audience with the 'illusion' of populist legislation while catering to the ruling elite.
Oh, and Clinton's passage of the 1996, 'Telecommunications Act' which gave the corporate media monopolists even more power to buy and control media outlets within the same city, etc. Any wonder why Dennis Kucinich was marginalized from the start?
Way to go Ralph. maybe citizens can stop the second Clinton juggernaught. The big problem this election is that we have three candidates that are virtually the same in their policies. No one is talking about "single payer" health insurance anymore (since Kucinich dropped out), or campaign finance reform, or major education reform, or IRS reform. So what we're left with again is "bush-lite".
There's only one thing worse that 8 more years of Bush: 8 years of Clinton (or another Republican)
Great piece Ralph.
Hopefully you'll run. We need SOMEONE to vote for!
Look pardner, hav`nt you lived long enough, and spoiled enough. You have contributed nothing to the betterment of the American people, however you continue to put your nose in to the ruination of everything you touch. Beginning with the Corvaire. You`ve been a spoiler all your sorry life, Will you please take a header off of something very tall. That surely will be something good you can finally do for your country.
The real people responsible for the Bush win in 2000 are the assholes who advised Gore to pick Joe Lieberman as his VP. Had the ticket been Gore/Nader they would have won hands down.
The debate with Cheney would have been a lot more interesting too.
"gerix January 26th, 2008 1:49 pm
Funny, I seem to remember Nader as the spoiler who helped get Bush elected."
You know, the more time I spend here, the worse I feel and more I realize that things will not change by the force of our better nature. They will change because we are too weak to open our eyes, screw our courage up and, fight hard for what we know is necessary. They will change against our will because we are too chickenshit.
I need a break.
Godspeed.
Nader's got it right.
I've long thought the Lewinsky "scandal" was Republican retaliation for Clinton's success passing NAFTA.
And I think that's the key to understanding Clinton's presidency. It was all about attracting BIG BUSINESS away from the Republicans & into the Democratic Party.
Hence sHillary, whose agenda differs only slightly from GW's.
Two parties, one playbook: who can pander most to corporate interests and sell it best to the taxpayers.
deTocqueVille warned that the American Democratic Experiment would succeed until the people figured out how to vote themselves money from the Treasury. Well, it wasn't the people who figured that out, it was the Robber Barons, and they've spent over a hundred years perfecting the RIPOFF.
People are just now starting to wake up to the legacy of Clinton and Bush. In another ten years they may start acting on it.
Great article. Clinton suck. The only Ralphs I'll vote for are Nader or Wiggum.
I think it is pretty obvious that Ralph Nader is quite an accomplished individual even outside of running for POTUS.
A Clinton presidency is nothing more than a back door surrender to corporate government and endless war.
Good on you, moonraven. And I'd like to know if a vote for Hillary means getting two for the price of one? Does that mean twice the disaster? I've never voted for a Clinton and never will.
Ralph, you really laid it out. Thank you. Are you still considering a run? I'm considering Edwards, but I would actually vote for Ron Paul over a Clinton. At least he's honest. One thing that does impress me about Obama is that he's keeping his cool with their racist attacks. I just wish he wasn't so stuck to the corporations. I've had enough of that.
kathyodat
Funny, I seem to remember Nader as the spoiler who helped get Bush elected.
The Democratic Leadership Council ( "DLC", so-called "New Democrats") has prioritized party interests to become compatible with Republican/business interests.
DLC controls the Democratic Party since Clinton I in 1992.
Both Clinton I and II are Founders of DLC (1985).
One reason for no "checks & balance" accountability upon this tyrannical Presidency is due to this incestuous relationship between DLC and Republicans.
"The Third Way" summarizes the philosophy of DLC.
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=205&contentID=895
" ... "New Democrats" in Congress have built a reputation as the "go-to" group in Congress on the critical issues of pro-growth, security, and personal responsibility."
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=103&subid=110&contentid=3869
"Chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative: U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)"
http://www.dlc.org/index.cfm
gerix,
I think it was the other way around. Gore/Lieberman took votes from Nader.
Please, Ralph..Give me a reason to vote.
gerix January 26th, 2008 1:49 pm...Please, that's an old dog that doesn't run any more. Harris, Jebb Bush, Gore and SCOTUS gave bush the election.
gerix, you remembered wrong. John Kerry cost John Kerry the election, along with a little assistance from vote tampering.
Cheers.
"gerix January 26th, 2008 1:49 pm
Funny, I seem to remember Nader as the spoiler who helped get Bush elected."
Even funnier, I remember a document called the Constitution that, until Republicans and Clintonites discarded it, made it a patriotic right to run for office to stand for the people....that is until the Republicans and Clintonites started using corporate polls to label all other candidates "spoilers"...except them.
Some people know what it means to be an American. Gerix, you are not one of them
What Clinton did was support and pass the major bills that couldn't get passed under Bush 1st: NAFTA, Welfare "deform", deregulation of financial industries, etc.
Bush 1st was too obviously a plutocrat to get the above right-wing agenda passed; his fellow plutocrats needed a "good-ol'boy" in the Democratic Party to pass these laws in order to demoralise, disenchant and disburse progressive groups.
Remember, Clinton watchers in Arkansas used to observe that he was great with his enemies and easily disposed and ignored his friends.
The guy wanted to be liked by the powerful and he was disinterested in the powerless.
In politics, the best thing to be was Clinton's powerful enemy.
Just look at Clinton and Bush 1st romping around together after they retired.
He was granted a Fulbright Scholarship because he knew how to suck up to,and charm the pants off of the powerful ex-Senator Fulbright.
He was always the putocrat's poodle.
Last, for some strange reason, Ralph didn't list Clinton's intervention in the Balkans.
Places like Kosovo, are run by mafiosi thugs he put into place. In addition, Kosovo possessed one of Europe's largest and oldest mining compounds which is now privatized.
So, the Clinton's intervention in the Balkans was somewhat about controlling mineral extraction complexes.
Instead of "Blood for Oil", Clinton orchestrated a NATO incursion into Serbia and Kosovo for minerals.
Though he was instrumental in getting the Serbian president tried for war crimes, he did it under the auspices of the Euro court.
Smooth.
And when Serbia's ex-president was able to put up a spirited defense implicating the US in war crimes, ethnic cleansing, supporting terrorist organizations (Albanian Liberation Front) and demonstrating that the US and European media were the lying lapdogs that they are, he quietly and conveniently passed away.
The cruder Bush adm., instead, had their Iraqi puppets sloppily judge and execute the ex-leader of Iraq.
I quess the difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton sucked/sucks up to the economically powerful and when he waged foreign wars, they were limited, efficiently murderous affairs that used a small amount of our military resources and personnel.
And he didn't saddle us with a huge Homeland Security bureaucracy.
I am proud to say that I never voted for Clinton, nor will I vote for that snake of his wife. Ralph did not spoiled the elections, the US citizens did.
Ralph Nader is too much a decent person to become a US president. I believed in Ralph and voted for him in 2000 and 2004; it is too bad that the ignorant USAns did not vote for him, that is why we are in this mess
today. Please, Ralph, go as an Independent and take Bill Moyers as your VP.
Tom Phagan: If you would quit watching Fox News, you would know what Nader has done for this
country.
DLC -- the Republican wing of the Democratic party --with more than 40 "blue dogs" who consult with the Bush and GOP leadership!!
If that isn't betrayal, I don't know what is???
Americans are beginning to wake up to this to some degree, but they have only EDWARDS to tell them right now.
We need a national movement to a third party ---
And we need leaders who will stop supporting the Democrats and move us there ---
Those leaders were also intimidated by the steal of 2000, but they may be waking up now?
And, btw, the computer steals didn't start in 2000, they go back to the mid-1960's. See: "Votescam - The Stealing of America" [website and book] by Jim & Ken Collier who began to investigate the computer election in the early 1970's.
Thank you Ralph Nader for keeping us all on track ---
if only we would wake up!!!
endCapitalism January 26th, 2008 2:21 pm ... Huh?
8 more years is a hopelessly inadequate response to the challenges we're facing in 2008.
I've hung up my Democrat dancing shoes, and will either write in Dennis Kucinich or back the Green Party candidate, whomever that is.
When W.J. Clinton was first elected president, it appeared he was moving the Democratic party to the right to keep it viable for the future when the political worm had turned in favor of progressives. That turned out to be wrong, wrong, wrong. H.R. Clinton is no different, and farther to the right, than her marriage-of-ambition husband. If she gets the nomination and is subsequently elected, the Democratic party, as we have known it from the time of FDR, will be truly finished. It will have permanently fallen into the hands of yuppies and soft-shoe, crypto Republicans. If the nation is going to drive over a cliff in a BMW, better let a Republican be at the wheel.
I agree with all of what you are saying about BILL Clinton. But of course, since Hillary Clinton is a woman, then it must be her husband who is running and of course He will call the shots when She gets elected, is that the point of this article? It seems like more sexism to me. I think that there is enough to criticise Hillary about other than her choice of husband.
The Clintons sole legacy in leadership is their willingness to administer the coup de grace to whatever was left of progressive politics inside the democratic party. For that, both of them- war criminals to the bone- deserve the contempt of history.
Mr. Nader,
Count me in as one of your votes in the 08 election.
Rudyjo is right.
Had Nader not prevailed in his early 1960's fight with the auto industry, you would not even be getting seat belts in your new car. His subsequent contributions to the working class exceed the combined contributions of all the past five presidents combined.
Unfortunately, Nader lost a few battles, the most critical being his push during the Reagan admininistration to get secure cockpit doors required on commercial aircraft. Ronny Raygun and Company determined that such a law would be too burdensome for business, thereby enabling the 9/11 hijackers to succeed.
Nice artical Nader.
moonraven how would you know, if you don't watch it yourself? I wouldn't know whats on fox.
By the time it comes to electing a Presedint it's too late. there should be more effort to get green party members into congress.
get with your local green party chapter and find out when your states next election is.
Ralph Nader is right all the way, except for the eight years thing. We will have eight more years of Republicans because Hillary can't win. The previous Clinton stories will resurface and the people will say we'd rather have the republicans than the Clinton duo. A true feminist will go it on her own instead of having her spouse do the dirty tricks. She has lost a rather large portion of independents who think they can stomach republicans over the Clinton duo.
That is quite a litany of bad government, and its the short list. I'll try to print the post or at least take notes. However, the Clinton Admin in cooperation with Gingrich did do a little good. Mostly compromises on redundant or no longer croitical military bases, and the welfare reform helped balance the budget and bring some sanity to federal finances. Like a corrupt city politician, occasionally Bill delievered the goods.
The Dubya/neocon scorecard is, however, all bad. We broke Iraq and are now paying for it, and a "stagflation" recession is about the best we can hope for at this point. Vote the Republicans out and THEN raise hell with the Democrats.
It would be great if Obama or Edwards got the nomination. Someone to vote FOR opposed to abstaining or voting for the lesser of two evils.
Nadar hogwash, meant to add nothing to the discourse. Ralph, if it weren't for your ego we probably wouldn't be in war now, New Orleans would be a long way to recovery, we wouldn't be spied on by our government, we would still have the respect of the rest of the world and there wouldn't be a database with over 900 documented lies of our current administration. How can anyone like you who is directly responsible for our dire situation think that you are in any position to lecture us about any of our candidates? Piss off, and let us sort this out for ourselves.
Ralph Nader, as usual, makes some excellent points. However, I can not erase from my memory the fact that he bears significant responsibility for the disaster of the last seven years (with an obvious assist from Republican voter suppression, vote stealing and that horrific supreme court decision awarding the election to W. In a democracy we are too often stuck with the bad choice between a greater and lesser evil. Nader's candidacy in 2000 made just enough of a difference to swing the election to Bush, thus ensuring that we got the greater evil. Nader used to say that there was not a dime's worth of difference between GW and Al Gore. At least he no longer repeats that particular mantra.
A Nader/Edwards, or Edwards/Nader ticket just might work in the present climate. If the republicans win again with McCain, we'll get more of the same with a good chance of another war with Iran (remember "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran?). Also tax giveaways to the rich are likely to be solidified, if not increased. Sooner or later, though, the majority of Americans will wake up to these failed policies and, unfortunately, it may take 4 years of McCain (or another similar repug). It is doubtful that any republican president will win the presidency after that but, sadly, we may become a third-world country before that happens.
The DLC influence on Congress is clear. It's a pansey congress.
While I appreciate the sentiments of peaceman, willybill and EndCapitalism regarding the roles Kathleen Harris, Jeb Bush and SCOTUS (and James Baker) in helping Bush steal elections... and Loserman and Kerry in helping the Dems lose it, the fact remains that Nader made their jobs SOOOO much easier. So if you've enjoyed the last seven years, you certainly owe a large part of your gratitude to Nader.
Here's more from Wikipedia...
2000
"...Nader's votes in New Hampshire and Florida exceeded the difference in votes between Gore and Bush.[28] Winning either state would have given Gore the presidency, and while critics claim this shows Nader tipped the election to Bush, Nader has called that claim "a mantra -- an assumption without data."[29] Michael Moore at first argued that Florida was so close that votes for any of seven other candidates could also have switched the results[30], but in 2004 joined the view that Nader had helped make Bush President."
2004
"...In this campaign Democrats accused Nader of having his bid funded by Republicans who wanted a repeat of his effect on the 2000 election."
I agree with Nader that "There's too much power and wealth in too few hands." but I'm too pragmatic to want the greater of two evils to win/steal an election because I cast my vote for the spoiler.
Here is a thought that would freak out Hillary/Bill ...Romney/Rice ticket.
I think only Obama/Edwards could have a chance to beat that.
Thanks for the history refresher, Ralph.