Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
No Debate
It was billed as the great debate that, in the words of moderator Wolf Blitzer, "could change the course of this presidential race and the nation." Situated at the packed historic Kodak Theatre-site of the Hollywood Oscar awards, thousands of people, including anti-war protestors, were outside, where tickets were being scalped for $1,000.
The burgeoning excitement swept up Mr. Blitzer into an introduction reminiscent of a heavyweight boxing title fight. Referring to the "glamour on this stage...one of the great stages of all time," he declared that "this will be the first time that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be debating face to face, just the two of them, one-on-one." The crowd ROARED!
When it was over two hours later, here is how the reporters, not the columnists, of the New York Times described the showdown: "Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama sat side by side here Thursday, sharing a night of smiles, friendly eye-catching and gentle banter...It was almost as if the battle was to see which of them could outnice the other."
Since neither scored a knockout, a knockdown, and neither stumbled, the audience left without many feeling the pain of their champion being bested. Even the Times' critic, Alessandra Stanley, she of the usual barbed pen, could only marvel at the smooth harmony ideology both candidates decided to adopt. She wrote: "They let their eyes make nice...As they stood in front of the audience before the debate, Mr. Obama leaned down to Mrs. Clinton and whispered a few words in her ear, as if continuing the fun chat they had just shared backstage."
The two candidates were unperturbed by any questions from the reporters that they had not answered before or they were soft balls they could hit out of the ball park.
As in all debates involving presidential candidates, the reporters were unwilling or incapable of asking the unconvential questions reflecting situations and conditions widely reported or investigated by their own colleagues.
This phenomenon of invincible reluctance should be studied by anthropologists or psychologists. Examples follow:
I called up Chris Hedges, former New York Times Middle East bureau chief and author for a question he would have asked. He offered this one. "The Israeli government is imposing severe and continual collective punishment on the 1.5 million people of tiny Gaza, which includes restricting or cutting off food, fuel, electricity, medicines and other necessities. Malnutrition rates among many children resemble the worst of sub-Saharan Africa. Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz, has reporters and columnists describing these horrific conditions and concluding that the ferocity of the blockade is detrimental to Israel as well as the Palestinians.
"Collective punishment is clearly a violation of established international law. Prominent, former military, security and political leaders in Israel are speaking out against this punishment and calling for negotiations with Hamas. Do you, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, agree with these Israelis or do you continue to support the policy of collective punishment against innocent men, women and children in Gaza?"
The Nation magazine's columnist, Alex Cockburn suggested this question:
"Senator Clinton, in all your previous debates, you have not criticized the bloated military budget so often documented by the media, Pentagon audits and GAO reports for Congress to be replete with waste fraud and abuse. The Soviet Union is gone. Yet military spending now consumes half of the federal government's operating expenditures.
"Specifically, what would you do to significantly reduce the tens of billions of wasted dollars and eliminate redundant weapons systems?
"And, further, would you abolish the missile defense project, deemed by the American Physical Society and other leading physicists to be technically unworkable? It costs about $10 billion a year with a total expenditure of over $150 billion since its inception under Ronald Reagan, without any indication that it can fulfill the function for which it was designed? Please be specific."
***
Here are a few questions of my own. "Senator Obama, you have taught Constitutional law. Has President Bush violated the Constitution, federal statutes and international treaties during his two terms of office? If so, please elaborate and tell the American people what you think should be done about holding the self-described "responsibility" President accountable under the impeachment authority of Congress and other laws of the land?"
"Senator Clinton, you represent New York, which includes the large banking, brokerage and investment firms colloquially called Wall Street. Eliot Spitzer, became Governor of your state largely on his widely reported reputation for prosecuting corporate crooks who fleeced investors, pensioners and workers of hundreds of billions of dollars. He often remarked that the federal criminal laws were too weak and the Securities and Exchange Commission was too lenient.
"As the Senator from New York, what specifically have you done to advance a strong crackdown on corporate crime with tougher laws and larger enforcement budgets? And, specifically, what do you intend to do as President?"
"Senator Obama, you have often spoken about your health insurance plan as a way to reduce costs. Yet you do not discuss three major cost reduction opportunities. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, estimates that ten percent of the entire health expenditures in this country go down the drain due to computerized billing fraud and abuse. This year, that amounts to $220 billion.
"Under a single payer plan, administrative expenses would be cut by about two-thirds. That would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a year in savings. And the Harvard School of Public Health study estimates about 80,000 people die every year from medical malpractice in hospitals, estimating costs years ago of $60 billion a year. These are large savings in a $2.2 trillion a year health care industry.
"Do you agree and, if so, why have you ignored proposing practical actions in these areas?"
"Senator Clinton, you have long urged more money for children's programs. One way to make this possible is to end or diminish the complex system of corporate welfare-subsidies, handouts, giveaways and bailouts of business corporations. These amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a year, directly and through tax loopholes. Why have you not moved against such spending so that some of the money may go to help needy children? And specifically, what would you do as President to develop standards curtailing runaway corporate welfare programs pushed by corporate lobbyists?"
Is reportorial self-censorship limiting the questions presented to the Presidential candidates? You decide.
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.
183 Comments so far
Show AllThe only thing about which there is "no debate" (at least, among sensible people) is that we do not need Ralph Nader to self-appoint himself to split off a few ultra-liberals at the polls so as to hand yet another election to Republicans. When is enough of this super-damage to our country finally enough?
In 2000 Al Gore did not win his own state.
He did not win Clinton's state. Either win would have been enough.
In Florida 200,000 Democrats voted for George W. Bush.
Yet Democratic apologistas still refuse to accept responsibility for their failures, preferring, like 8-year olds on the playground, to blame others.
The only certainty about the coming election is this:
If a Democrat wins then Progressives will get the cold shoulder.
If a Republican wins then Progressives will get the blame (again).
The Clinton and Obama show is yet another distraction.
What about ONE MILLION dead Iraqis ?
For those interested in hearing some truth alongside all the election year boilerplate, it would be nice to see Ralph's hat back in the ring. If this country has arrived at a place where the only people who can talk about reality are those who have nothing to lose then we are beyond redemption anyway.
http://www.naderexplore08.org/
The question that I submitted (not asked of course) for a debate which included Edwards as well as Clinton and Obama was: "Do you approve of the decision of MSNBC to exclude Dennis Kucinich from tonight's debate?" The failure of these three "leaders" or of the national Democratic Party to go to the aid of a colleague in defense of free speech and a meaningful debate on issues is one powerful argument in my mind for Americans who have been denied representation of their views by one who well represented them, to think very seriously about supporting a third party candidate in November, be it Nader or someone else.
Ralph,
Your tough, issue-based questions require the people to examine critically the effect of American policies on the rest of the world, as well as the effect on the domestic front.
Aaah, but we are American, we'd rather watch American Idol, and want anything on mainstream media to mimic it. We want the pithy one-liners, and the appeals to our subconcious that make us feel good. We want to be scared into not thinking. We also want to be lulled into not thinking about not shopping. Please, we do not want our journalists asking questions that require harsh realism and answers, especially those answers that cause us to critically examine anything. And, how dare you cast any aspersions on our beloved ally's Israel's policies? We are the good guys!
Yes Ralph, self-censorship is limiting the questions to the candidates for president. However, how much of that is due to "the desire of many," and how much of it is due to the coporate controlled media? These are the underlying questions
Daniel David,
which is worse, another obvious crazy in the WH, or a continuation of the Dem-Rep dog and pony show? hard to say from where i stand.
If Nadar runs, it'll be a reason to follow this farce. He needs to run because intelligent people everywhere need a voice and a choice.
Ralph, you might consider running again. Aside from the obvious progressives and greens, there are many people in this election cycle who just might want to park a protest vote against the establishment.
Unfortunately, the corporate media is afraid to ask the tough questions that Ralph Nader has posed. Think back when the League of Woman's Voters ran the debates. It was not like a rock concert, with a cheering crowd, the way it is now. The way we, the people, think is being framed by the corporate media. Ralph has the courage, and has dedicated his life to showing the world that, and his reward is to be frozen out by political dirty tricks when he ran for President and banned from the debates. The bozoz who published the above comments should be grateful for Ralph bringing real issues to the forefront such as the huge arms spending and the Nazi like collective punishment of the Palestinians (with US approval). In fact, it was reported today that military spending by the US is more than the rest of the world combined. Think about it.
Ralph, take a powder and chill. If all goes half right, we will have a President who is democratic and will within 2 years have us out of Iraq and on our way to a balanced budget. All this "debate" nonsense as per the pundits, just shows that we are on to the the peanut gallary and it hecklers and choose not to go along with the supposed impending fight. Senators Clinton and Obama showed enormous self-restraint and civility and gave every one in the audience an opportunity to see them in a civil light. This is an election with oponents, not a war with enemies. I think so many who write such nastiness about Hillary [on the website], need to calm down and be a bit more objective. You just might enjoy the show and the players.
nader in or out won't affect the race, those of us who already will not vote for clinton regardless, so we're already out of it either way.
nader out, no vote for clinton
nader in, no cote for clinton
either way is the same. the only way it might be relevent is if obama gets the nod, then he'll likely get the votes he needs.
Daniel David...How do you think Clinton or Obama would have answered those questions posed by Nader? How would you answer them?
I think I know how Nader would have answered them and it is the same way I, and many like me, would answer them.
Why shouldn't we vote for someone who represents our interests?
I know, I know...because he's a SPOILER. He might spoil the election of Hillary Clinton. Oh My God!
Perhaps those like you, who understand the process the best should organize to keep Ralph off the ballot, keep him tied up with frivolous access lawsuits, make sure he can't enter the debates, etc.
That way we can protect the "democracy" that is the envy of the world.
It's not a matter of being ungrateful to Ralph for his life's work. We should help him get a Nobel prize, or Pulitzers. His body of work is enormous and important.
It's that he cannot attain the presidency, HE KNOWS he cannot attain the presidency, and yet he presumes to trick his very supporters (such as the CD gang here) into lodging "protest votes" that have the effect of drawing votes off the most liberal candidate that we CAN elect. This is not patriotism and it's not admirable. Writing articles is admirable. Raising issues is admirable. Filing lawsuits is admirable.
Diluting by even one ounce the chances for us to avoid another Republican president is more like ego run amok.
I wouldn't rail on like this, but you all know his "exploratory committee" and website are already up.
And except his sympatizers finally wake up and say, NO, RALPH, WE WILL NOT BE DUMB ENOUGH TO WASTE OUR VOTES THIS TIME", he's getting ready to hurt you again--while asking you to thank him for doing so. It's a pinnacle of arrogance.
Hey Ralph, you STILL got stock in Raytheon and General Dynamics? (via your Fidelity portfolio as declared in your FEC filing)
Those are very PROFITABLE CORPORATIONS, and you have every right to invest as you see fit.
Please, we need your integrity in the '08 race. It won't be a complete cesspool without it.
And threaders, anyone wanna refute this allegation? His money was also helping kill people in Darfur via PetroChina in Khartoum where his money was also invested. Again, according to his own FEC filing.
We need this guy. Yeah. If you are okay w/ helping geonocide in Africa, he's cool.
But shrug it off, they did not have blue eyes and you like the guy.
Daniel David...The few progressives in the Democratic Party should join Ralph Nader, whether he runs as a Green or Independent. Plus, all Democrats who want to end our murderous occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, who want to rein in the insane spending on the Pentagon's death and destruction programs, and who want our tax dollars to be spent on healthcare rather than more military hardware, and want to return the 'Commons' to We The People, citizens of the United States, rather than the 'privatizers' and also support our public schools with better funding and teacher recognition, and repair the infrasture of the country, and...much more!
The non-progressive sommnabulists in the Democratic Party can maintain their zealous adoration for the politicians who scorn them anyway and do what THEY want, not what the majority of their constituents want.
I went from Kucinich, to Gravel, to Edwards, and now, hopefully Nader. If he doesn't run, maybe I'll give it a try. If GWB can do it, anybody can!
Notice Daniel David doesnt say that Republicans stole the election or wiped black voters off the rolls?
No--he blames Nader.
He likes Republicans better than Nader.
Now that's twisted.
Everyday Daniel David posts impassioned pleas for progressives to hold their nose and vote for the least evil Democrat. Is that sensible? On this site, DD, you don't get to do the mainstream media dissing by causal dismissal of values some people hold dear.
Clinton and Obama are both corporate shills and war mongers. I wouldn't vote for them unless they repealed the Patriot Act, the War Commissions Act, the Protect America Act and signaled that they would support the impeachment of Bush/Cheney.
If DD wants to live in a fantasy world where having Democrats in office makes everything alright, that's his prerogative, but you can't force the rest of us to believe that just by asserting it.
Mr. Daniel David: What we don't need is you or your hack-like brothers & sisters, telling real progressives whom to support vocally, financially, or, in the voting booth. Especially someone like Mr. Nader. You and your like will "lose" the next election (again) on your own, not by the likes of Mr. Nader or anyone else, but by ponying-up yet another spineless, corrupt and murderous democrat to represent your "party". White, black, penis or no-penis, doesn't matter. At this point in the game, its more than obvious that no matter the face or crotch of your party, the deeds are the same. Killing and looting other countries is now a national pastime of America's "2" parties made possible by the likes of you.
Clearly by seeing other posts around the net, you and others like you have not yet learned that, trying to bully, harass or intimidate others into not supporting Mr. Nader (or anyone else) will not work. You guys still don't get it. A murderer is a murderer, so, it appears that's what you are, Mr. Daniel David. Like supporter, like party.
Let me make one thing clear here, say what you like about Mr. Nader, but, if Mr. Nader does run, and if anyone, that's ANYONE, bothers him physically, there will be consequences. I hope you and others understand that. Keep that in mind, sir.
You want to continue supporting these murderous policies, go ahead. Vote "democratic or republican", fine. But don't expect the rest of us to do the same.
Its past time for people, whatever their race, gender -- or whatever -- to start fighting back. You can't turn your cheek forever. People are dying because of it. Its not an option anymore.
Personally, I don't vote for murderers anymore. I've had quite enough of it, thank you.
Clear the rabble rousers off the stage and let the exciting two finalists in the prestigous AMERICAN IDOL contest duke it out for the GREAT PRIZE.
They crash their heads against incandecent bulbs and trip their feet over cluster bombs, on the stage of dreams sponsored by Likud Apartheid, Ltd. while polar bears swim to their drowning deaths.
SHINE THE SPOTLIGHT BRIGHTER HOLLYWOOD
isn't it, Likud Apartheid, _Un_Ltd.
Before anyone here encourages Ralph to get back in the fray -- please think STRATEGICALLY! The differences on the issues between the GOP and Democratic hopefuls in this election are really enormous (even with the two compromised candidates we're left with since Edwards bowed out).
To name a few: the length of time it will take to get out of Iraq ... the possibility or impossibility of passing tax code changes to help restore the middle class and aid the poor, without worrying about vetos ... rigorous action on global warming ... ending huge borrow-and-spend programs to expand the military (including the GOP's beloved Star Wars) ... well, I could go on, but so can you, since you read Common Dreams! Voting for an "ideal" person who fits the progressive bill on every issue and simply draws votes away from the Democratic candidate without a hope of winning the Presidency is self-indulgence at best.
Our entire economy is teetering, our troops are still being maimed and killed in Iraq, the glaciers are falling into the sea, we are in a CRISIS wherever we look; if you're a purist, please, stay home and tranquilly contemplate your navel while the rest of us try to do at least SOMETHING to make things better!
so we shouuld elect hillary to continue the mealy mouth muddled middle policy so dems can take all the heat and responsibility? i say let the repubs keep it all for themselves, this coming crash and burn. by 2012 the whole flumping country will be ready to vote for ralph or any other real progressive.
greenerthanthou: I have to correct you on one point. Daniel David is not urging people to vote for the "least evil Democrat". He is urging people ot vote for the MOST evil Democrat.
For the logic of the Lesser of Two Evils strategy to work, you must find the candidate who is the most evil while still being less evil than the candidate from the other (presumably completely evil) party.
Two state this in less moralistic terms, we're supposed to find the Democrat who is most like the Republican.
If there are no other options, supposedly every voter who is ANYWHERE to the left of the Republican will agree that the Democrat is the only right choice.
So we can see why it is terribly terribly important for there to be no other options.
This is of course why Nader is not supposed to give us a choice. But it is also why Gravel, Kucinich, Richardson and Edwards all had to go.
Edwards is particularly interesting because polls show that he was the only D candidate who would beat ANY of the R candidates if the election were held today. So the logic of Most Electable pointed to Edwards, but the logic of the Lesser of Two Evils prevailed. Edwards was not enough like the Republicans, so he had to go.
If we accept that the Republicans don't just differ from us philosophically and are in fact evil, then I have to wonder at reasoning which says that we have to abandon good in order to defeat them.
And lo and behold, when we look at all the Lesser of Two Evil Dems in Congress, we see that my wondering is justified.
B-)
I didn't realize, while I was writing my 3:42 post here, that everybody was piling onto Daniel David in the meantime. In fact, you need to read the first part of his first post, which cannot be improved upon:
"It's not a matter of being ungrateful to Ralph for his life's work. We should help him get a Nobel prize, or Pulitzers. His body of work is enormous and important. (MY BELIEFS EXACTLY!) It's that he cannot attain the presidency, HE KNOWS he cannot attain the presidency, and yet he presumes to trick his very supporters (such as the CD gang here) into lodging "protest votes" that have the effect of drawing votes off the most liberal candidate that we CAN elect. This is not patriotism and it's not admirable. Writing articles is admirable. Raising issues is admirable. Filing lawsuits is admirable. Diluting by even one ounce the chances for us to avoid another Republican president is more like ego run amok."
Daniel, it is my hope that once most of these posters calm down they will read your words again. You've said it all. I love Ralph, but I hate what he's doing -- to himself, his cause, and to liberals -- with this quixotic quest, yet again.
maybe Ralph and the rest of us should all take Big Al's lead and just make a total end run on the whole system, then maybe we'ld havee something
I have voted exclusively for third party candidates since 1996 and I'll do the same in 08. Kucinich was my first choice, Nader would be great, Paul will do.
In 04, Nader was my first choice among names on the ballot. But my absentee ballot came with a flier informing that even though Nader is on the ballot votes for him don't count. So I voted for the Libertarian Badnarek.
I vote for the candidate who best represents me. It may take another 8 or even 20 years before third party candidates are allowed to be heard, and if the country collapses in the meantime so be it. Maybe things will have to get worse before they can get better, and if things must get much much worse before my candidate is heard then better still!
It's good to see so many people standing up for Ralph. I agree with you, 5280, I don't want to vote for murderers, who do so without conscience. Hillary has demonstrated that in spades. I still consider Obama an unknown, considering his background before entering the Senate, which clearly was a stepping stone to the Presidency. I don't think we know what he would do as President. I am hoping he will live up to his progressive roots. He might not. That would be my mistake. But the reality is that we know what everyone else would do, so I'm willing to take a chance. If Edwards was in the running, I would take a chance on him. His history doesn't impress me as much as Obama's but since 2004 he has worked to fight poverty and I give him credit for that. Aside from those two, I won't vote for any of the others. I will not use my vote to support murderous policies. So DD, choke on that.
I've read that people say one thing to get elected, and do another when in office. Certainly Hillary's doing that. She has no intention of helping the middle class or poor. She voted for every corporate giveaway that came her way. Her husband's policies threw the middle class to the wolves, and she has shown no inclination to do differently. Her behavior in South Carolina was reprehensible. To covertly play the race card was despicable and showed how low she will go to win. No tactic too dirty for her, and like GW Bush, no concern about furthering the divides in this country. She doesn't care about anything but herself. I'm out of here with her.
kathyodat
i agree (ghawar) ""Maybe things will have to get worse before they can get better, and if things must get much much worse before my candidate is heard then better still!""
if it's obama/mccain, i may support obama - i think there is a real difference here. but if it's clinton/mccain, i will vote green for sure
John Edwards was wrong: it's an auction, not an election. And most people are so blinded by cultural habits they can't see the inherently undemocratic process for choosing a president nor can they see how totally committed to the corporate elite Obama is.
New studies by psychologist Drew Westen show how voting behavior is mostly emotional which explains the behavior of primary voters in selecting Hillary and Barack over the better candidate, John Edwards.
You marry that to the elite vetting process and fund raising primaries that Barack and Hillary won before any candidate gave a speech or shook one hand and you've got a moral bankrupt system that guarantees status quo.
The election is already over: the corporations win again.
There isn't going to be true national health care
The military budget isn't going to be reduced
Schools aren't going to be fully funded and democratized
The U.S empire is going to be scaled back (725 military bases in 130 countries? What for?)
The racism and sexism in society that oppresses blacks and abuses women will hardly receive notice, let alone the massive attention needed.
I could go on. Get the picture?
Thanks, Ralph, for telling like it is.
ditto kathyodat, clintons history is bad enouugh, but she totally pushed me over the edge and out or reach these last six weeks, no support for her, no way
formernadervoter,
i dont disagree with youu re:obama and corp elite. however, i'll take some good old fashioned wall st over war mongers, though maybe hard to tell these days. but i believe there is a real shift happening in the neo-wall st toward an enlightened even wall st, ala the new bill gates types. i'm willing to give that a chance for a couple years over more of the same clintonbush.
Whether we agree with Nader's strategy, he is one of us and we need his voice on the national stage. But beyond this, what we need most is to GET ORGANIZED, state by state, CD by CD, neighborhood by neighborhood, in an ongoing way, so that we can build a movement for change at every level, can learn and teach through engagement in struggle, and can build communication channels to the people that are not controlled by the corporate elite. There are two serious onggoing efforts underway at this time: the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) within the Democratic Party and the Green Party outside it. Their positions on the issues are very similar, but they represent different strategies. Building either would be a contribution toward the transformation of American political life. I don't really know enough of the details to be able to say which I would most recommend right now, but I think we need both.
Joining the Obama campaign and jumping on board the bandwagon for a few weeks or a few months of campaigning for him, however "movdement-like" his campaign might seem, would make little difference in the long run, although it can be argued that the election of a McCain or a Romney could be so disastrous as to close off all possibility of progress.
I have little to add to 5280's reply except this.
As an "ultra liberal" what, in your arrogance, makes you think, Mr. David, that I would vote for your candidate if Ralph isn't on the ballot. Ever heard of a write-in?
locust,
thank you for pointing out the facts that prove that Ralph had nothing to do with Al Gore's loss.
These are basic elementary truths that would be widely known in a literate socieity.
Even Gore admitted this last year.
Of course it doesn't help that every time the mainstream media has reference on this they perpetuate the lie, thereby reinforcing the conventional wisdoms about politics.
When will all the disaffected Gorebots start facing historical truth instead of living in a fantasy world? They'd better. If you can't face the past, how will you deal with the future?
How are the four nominees going to sustain the public interest until November? The candidates will be determined in about a week or two, whenever "Super Tuesday" arrives, and we'll know who the nominees are early this year's election.
How dullards Hillary and McCain are going to entertain the public for the nine months from February to November? Will it really be possible to talk about family values and gay marriage for this long as a million people are evicted from their foreclosed homes, while the prices of gas and food skyrocket? Can these two deadbeats really keep the public distracted from their interests and go another nine months without acknowledging the country's problems?
The answer to this question, I think, is that the leading candidates dare not acknowledge the real issues and problems this country faces; for them to do so would be political suicide. If Kucinich and McKinney or Kucinich and Paul or Paul and Gravel were to announce their independent candidacy mid-summer -- well, it's nice to imagine that such a ticket might command a strong following, but then they would be wiped out, smeared, arrested, framed or killed.
Still, I just don't think that dopes like Hillary and McCain can keep people entertained for a whole nine months. Something lively, exciting and unwelcome to corporate candidates and a lot more exciting than a few more staged pseudo-debates is inevitable this summer. Maybe a nuclear war will give them a little more to talk about.
Ghawar,
So, you were registered in Pennsylvania in 2004! Talk about filthy Democrat attacks on Nader...
OK, since all of my democratic favorites have been eliminated, what is my option as a progressive? Ralph Nader. Wolf and the other MSM have all but decided who we should have as choices.
Any debate hosted by Wolf Blitzer is not a debate. Next time he hosts a debate, notice that HE actually get's more time than any of the candidates.
So DD, sorry, if you think Ralph is a spoiler, he's the only progressive candidate left. If you have issues with that, take on Wolf and Company for the way they've eliminated anyone that is non-Corporate, peace-loving, and progressive.
i would love to see obama, mccain, paul, and cynthia on cnn together for three hours with no moderator
What happened to pragmatism? So those who voted for Nader in 2000 (including me, in the primary) brought us Bush. Not really, it was a combination of Gore's poor performance and the republican vote-stealing schemes AND votes peeled by Nader.
I will vote for the lesser of two evils because the republicans have shown themselves to be CRIMINAL conspirators. The Democrats have not been much better, but I believe "our bastards" will be better than theirs, and it will be less of a challenge to move the party to a more progressive stance than attempting to work against those who would install a fascist regime. Democrats rolled everytime Bush farted, so if we make a stink we could change the world.
"In 2000 Al Gore did not win his own state.
He did not win Clinton's state. Either win would have been enough.
In Florida 200,000 Democrats voted for George W. Bush.
Yet Democratic apologistas still refuse to accept responsibility for their failures, preferring, like 8-year olds on the playground, to blame others."
Thank you locust, for helping cause this mess. Any leftist vote thrown away on an unelectable candidate is a vote for the Republicans, period, end of story. To paraphrase YOU, stop trying to blame others for what happened. And I bet you're going to do the same thing again if Nader runs.
AdeleTheCzech
That's not the first part of his first post. It's the first and second parts of his second post.
More importantly, it entirely misses the point of Nader's life work. He hasn't been trying to be admirable or important. He's been trying to continue to make a positive difference in the world.
Daniel David wants Nader to be an ineffectual symbol. What's the Douglas Admas quote? "...like a statue to some important but unpopular virtue in a formal garden."
What exactly is the point of admiring liberal icons, or even reading their books, if their words and their admirability have no impact on the policy directions of this country?
I guess it's like feeling like you're stopping global warming by shopping at Whole Foods, or planting a tree in California for peace in Palestine.
At some point, we on the left are going to have to figure out things that actually make a difference again; or at least stop doing things that make things worse (like chasing the Republicans to the right).
Barry
KEM, bite your tongue.
kathyodat
Daniel David - Is that you underneath that pile of mad dogs? Let me jump on.
Nobody is being tricked by Ralph Nader. Nobody would vote for him expecting him to win. And if a "protest vote" is nothing more than a way of registering my choice for "none of above," it is still a true and honest vote, and is so counted. The idea that a vote of conscience is a vote wasted, whereas a vote informed by the corporate hoodwink and an ambience of wall-to-wall fiction is how smart people make incremental progress has ceased to make sense to me. I went for it in 2004, but not today. It is a Kantian thing: Act in such a way that if your act were universal the world would be as you wish it to be. Everybody, in other words, should vote for exactly what they want. The minute we are seduced into strategies and lesser-of-evils scenarios we are in over our heads and the status quo wins. Campaign finance reform and instant runoff voting would solve these problems, allowing all candidates to get on the ballots and a give an accurate and public readout of what Americans want. But we don't have that.
I will never vote for Hillary Clinton, even if the GOP puts up Dracula. If Nader is on the ballot I won't have to sit out the election, and the public record will show that this voter demands corporate transparency, an end to global piracy, and dozens of other things that the candidates in the current charade won't even talk about. The people in power can not be responsive to public opinion if our opinions are not asserted forcefully and directly and without ambiguity. We can not tell them that their dialog is bogus if we buy into the bogus choices they give us. We need to think long term - 12 or 16 years out - and we need to stop accepting bullshit.
Re: Daniel david - "The only thing about which there is "no debate" (at least, among sensible people) is that we do not need Ralph Nader to self-appoint himself to split off a few ultra-liberals at the polls so as to hand yet another election to Republicans."
They're ALL republicans! John Kerry, Clinton(s) and Obama all represent the moneyed interests. Ralph Nader was the only Democrat to run in 2000 or 2004. Even Al Gore chose the ultra right wing Neo-Con Lieberman to be his VP. You are under the false impression that there is a major difference between the two parties. If Democrats really wanted to win in 2000 or 20004, they would have bowed out before the election and thrown all their support behind Nader.
jamaz: When you recognize that something isn't working, it is no longer pragmatic to keep doing it.
mairs: thank you for causing the end of habeus corpus, and the decriminalization of torture.
and saying "period, end of story" doesn't make it so.
Democrats could see their base breaking away, "throwing away their votes on unelectable candidates," and say to themselves, "oh no! what are we doing wrong? How do we win them back?" But that is not what you do, is it? Why do you suppose that is?
Barry
From my point of view, too many posters here are taking the conservative bait and responding to conservative talking points. AlterNet.org has a very nice policy in this regard. Here it is:
"We also ask our readers to refrain from responding to posts by people who only want to derail the conversation with conservative talking points. Please report these comments; do not respond."
This is the self-described home of the "progressive community." We have plenty of other things to do than to waste time encouraging conservative derailers.
Adele, you and DD are missing the point here. Ralph has been saying for years that the Democratic party is hopelessly corrupted by corporate money and needs to be abandoned by the progressive wing (on which it depends for survival - DLC notwithstanding) to learn that it needs to mend it's ways (as he put it, "needs a cold bath"). I've been doing my part so why can't you get up and do your part? Why haven't you noticed that doing it your way things have been going downhill? Or do you have this fantasy that Bill Clinton was a boon for the bottom half of the country? I'm taking a chance on Obama because I'm hoping he has put his progressivism under wraps to run for President. Not because the public doesn't want progressivism, polls show they support those policies, but because experience shows the corporatocracy will destroy any progressive candidate. My fear is that anyone who tries to straighten out this country will meet JFK's fate. And the American public is sleepwalking through life, ignoring the elephant in the living room. Maybe we need another corporate shill to continue the destruction to wake up the public so they pay attention instead of just voting for the lesser of two evils, so well defined by barryr.
kathyodat
voxsclamatis nails it:
"I will never vote for Hillary Clinton, even if the GOP puts up Dracula. If (Nader) is on the ballot I won't have to sit out the election,"
i dont care if rebulicrats win or not, i too will never votet for clinton, frankly i would vote for mccain first - at least i know what i'm getting and they wouldn't be able to hide all the shit in the dems closet. i thhink too, there are a lot of current obama supporters who will also not vote for billary. so nader or another may have a strong showing or the election itself will have a weak turnout. it may be likely that progressive and evangelicals all stay home (in the case of mccain/clinton - fronkly, they should share a ticket)
I have no problem with Nader running for President. The more voices we have out there the better. To say he spoiled the election for Gore is ridiculous. That being said, I'll vote for whomever the Dems nominate. The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.