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.
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. 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.
Though picking on Daniel David (1:54 pm) is really too easy, like shooting fish in a barrel, let’s observe that this blind Dem Party zealot uses language & logic similar to that used by rightwingers, when they’re busy red-baiting liberals. He writes,
“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…”
- So according to DD, everyone who’s to the left of the Dem Party is an “ultra-liberal,” while the only “sensible people” are Dem Party loyalists. Characteristically, DD makes no attempt whatever to deal with the substantive points (the excellent & relevant questions) that Nader raised. There’s simply a braindead insistence that “Democrats = Good,” while “Left of Democrats = Bad.”
FOX News uses logic & language the same way. The only difference is that they insist that only conservatives are “sensible,” while Democrats & liberals are “The Far Left.”
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
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.
Yes, Jerry D. Rose - I ask the same critical question: why did the great female champion Clinton, the great populist Edwards, and even the hero of hope Obama consent in the conspiracy to silence Kucinich?
Please read the passionate piece below, a cry of anguish at what they did to Dennis. It’s called “The Tragedy of Dennis Kucinich.”
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?id=36328
Yes, Jerry D. Rose - I ask the same critical question: why did the great female champion Clinton, the great populist Edwards, and even the hero of hope Obama all consent in the conspiracy to silence Kucinich?
Please read the passionate piece below, a cry of anguish at what they did to Dennis. It’s called “The Tragedy of Dennis Kucinich.”
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?id=36328
Thank you Ralph Nader for laying bare the hypocrisy represented by the two candidates chosen and anointed by the corporatocracy.
Now is the time for liberals to swallow whatever the DLC tosses their way and to vilify those who won’t.
Now is the time for progressives to work on running alternative candidates that represent not another narrow party but a movement for real change.
“The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.”
So Clinton was really better that Nixon?
I read that Hillary’s negatives are so high, that while many Clinton voters would vote for Obama, the same cannot be said for Obama supporters. That is, some will, but many won’t. But since for her, this is all about her, it won’t stop her from taking the Democratic party down with her.
kathyodat
Jaded Prole:
>>“The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.”
>So Clinton was really better that Nixon?
That’s a very good question, especially since the Clintons are somewhere to the right of Nixon, policy-wise.
Barry
What are you saying, Jaded Prole, that it’s better to be starved to death than tortured to death? Why should we have to live with choices like that?
kathyodat
Everyone here agrees that Republicans are terrible. What is it that fundamentally separates those who are willing to swallow the slop served up the Dem Party, and those who refuse to do it any longer?
No doubt the thought process is a bit different for different individuals. But I’d guess that on the average, the difference has a lot to do with fear. The same way that Bush exploited fear of “terrorists” to get votes in 2002 & 2004, Dem Party loyalists base their (increasingly shrill & hysterical) pleas for votes for their awful candidates, on the idea that the Republican boogey-man is even worse.
But fear motivates the Dem Party loyalists in a deeper way, as well. They rightly recognize that while it’s an old American tradition to hate one party or the other, it’s something quite different to hate BOTH parties. They recognize that this position implies that one is starting to think about the inevitability of conflict with the established order — and this thought terrifies them.
Ultimately, it’s a question of whether you believe the established political structures can adequately solve our problems, or you’ve come to recognize that they can’t. If you truly believe those structures are capable of solving our main problems, you might be wrong (and certainly are, in my opinion) — but no one is going to be able to talk you out of your position. In that case, at least your politics would be guided by your (incorrect) understanding of the world.
On the other hand, if you do perceive that the established political structures are no longer adequate, you owe it to yourself to not vote for Evilcrats who are merely Republicans in sheep’s clothing. It is dishonest, and puts you on the wrong side of history. The US political system is now beyond the point of putrefaction. It can’t be maintained in its present form, & you do a disservice to history by propping this corrupt structure up — which is precisely what “lesser evil”-style voting amounts to.
“The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.”
So Clinton was really better that Nixon?
I’m talking about today numbnuts. If you want to talk historically, Eisenhower was much better than most of the contemporary Dems.
Thank you, Shakes (5:09 PM Feb 2) for the incredible post on what “they” did to Kucinich. My own take on this situation is a tad less passionate but with maybe a little more analysis in terms of cosmic significance, relating the downing of DK to the coming of fascism.
“In America, First They Came for Dennis Kucinich” http://www.countercurrents.org/rose270108.htm
Allow me to paraphrase the typical Nader supporter here:
“I am a true progressive and I have total wisdom about what is good for the country. When voting, it is essential that I maintain my purity by voting for someone like Nader. I must not dirty my hands by voting for a “corporate” Democrat. If I can’t have 100% of what I want RIGHT NOW, then I don’t care what happens to this stupid country. Let the Republicans get in. If we don’t get out of Iraq TOMORROW, then I don’t care whether it takes 1 year (Obama) or 50 years (McCain) to get out. If we don’t eliminate global warming IMMEDIATELY, then it doesn’t matter who’s in office. (Obviously there was no difference between Gore and Bush.)
It’s dumb to vote for someone who will move us only partially in the direction of our goals. I’d rather vote for Nader, who says all the right things, because that makes me feel pure. Of course, he has no chance of being elected, and even if he did, would have no clue how to get anything done, but it still makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to vote for him.”
Karr88: Your paraphraser must be from Microsoft’s Speech Recognition department.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2Y_Jp6PxsSQ
Barry
Karr88, your thinking is totally out of line. You don’t know what Nader voters are thinking. I will tell you - again - what I think as a Nader voter. If a Democrat actually wanted to change direction I would give them a chance and work with them. But they don’t. They want their slice of corporate money and every four years they make meaningless promises they have no intention of keeping. The corporations don’t mind, they know the game. But if someone comes along and means it, they will tear that one to pieces. I’m not asking for 100%, but look what we got under Clinton. The race to the bottom didn’t slow down with him in the driver’s seat, it accelerated. They’re not moving us partially in the direction of our goals, they’re are moving us in the direction of corporate goals. Yeah, Clinton gave us a few judges, the ones the Republicans didn’t block, and they blocked plenty. He gave us a functional FEMA, and how long did that last? Did we get a minimum wage increase? A rebuilding of our infrastructure (remember that promise?). A return of manufacturing jobs (no, an acceleration of departures - remember NAFTA?). And all the other deregulation bills he signed with their chickens that came home to roost. So don’t give me that crap about us wanting 100%. Where are you coming from anyway?
kathyodat
riverbird February 2nd, 2008 4:34 pm:
“I would love to see Obama, McCain, Paul, and Cynthia on CNN together for three hours with no moderator.”
Me too. Plus Ralph Nader. Maybe throw in Bill Moyers to keep things moving along. Perhaps PBS would be a better venue, that way “everybody” could watch.
Prediction: McCain probably would not show up. If he did, he’d get mad and leave. The rest of the time Paul, McKinney and Nader would put Obama to shame. He’d be finished. In the very end I think some kind of working consensus could be achieved between the others and it would be decided that Dr. Paul could be trusted to carry on with the Nader and McKinney’s blessing. Actually, a Paul/McKinney ticket would be very inspiring with Nader set for Attorney General. Now there is something to get really excited about!!
Power to the people!
“Since wars of aggression constitute the ultimate war crime, when an airplane from an aggressor nation drops a bomb on another country and a child is killed that constitutes murder. Senators Clinton and Obama, would you strictly enforce the murder statutes?”
I have a solution to the concern that Nader will make a Democrat unelectable. It would have worked in 2000 too. Nominate Nader as the VP and incorporate his intelligent, well thought out solutions to our nation’s problems in the party platform.
Obama-Nader would be a shoe-in, especially if they run on eliminating waste fraud and abuse in the military, ending corporate welfare, transforming our transportation and economy to a green sustainable future, thereby creating millions of high paying domestic jobs and providing universal, single payer Medicare for all.
If Obama runs on Republican light and Nader runs on the above platform, the real Republicans will win again, most likely. Why vote for Republican light when you can have the real thing?
That youtube was funny, barryr. Ambient noise explains it all.
kathyodat
Allow me to paraphrase Karr88 (5:29 pm):
“I am a realistic progressive who has more wisdom about what’s good for the country than the idiots who refuse to swallow whatever slop the Dem Party serves up. In my profound analysis of society, I recognize that the highest vision one can aspire to in politics is simply to keep Republicans from getting in. While it may be true that Democrats are complicit with Republicans in every one of their joint crimes, I will ignore this, as the fact is annoying & inconvenient. I know that McCain says it will take 100 years to get out of Iraq, so I prefer to be told by Democrats that it might possibly take less — even though the track record shows that they don’t really mean it.
“It makes me feel superior to everyone who’s to the Left of the Democratic Party, to ignore the accuracy of their political & historical analysis, and to merely impute to them the very same childish & middle-class motivations (such as a personal desire for “purity” or the need for instant gratification) that actually motivate the politics of people like me.”
It’s dumb to vote for a corporatist-militarist (and in Hillary’s case, a pathological liar) who doesn’t represent a single thing one believes in, while being the epitome of most of what one despises in American politics.
USAn February 2nd, 2008 4:25 pm
Pennsylvania too, eh, USAn? I was in Ohio. Really dirty.
The Democratic Party has become a right wing party exactly because of decades of voting for the lesser evil. In each such election, whether the Democrat wins or loses, the party is moved incrementally to the right by voters for the lesser of two evils. Inch by inch we moved from Eisenhower to Nixon to Reagan to Bush to Bush, and the Democratic party has similarly degenerated.
But I have no hope really of seeing any reform that allows debate of the issues that are of true concern to most people. The entire election process is today nothing more than camouflage for a long established dictatorship. I sometimes think that if I vote at all then I’m aiding and abetting the enemy. Better, maybe, to let things just degenerate until the world is finally angry enough to conquer us. I think Americans are too far gone to help themselves or even to apprehend the nature of their problems. Change must be imposed from without.
Yay, Ralph. In lots of countries, political parties actually come and go. They rise, and they fall. The US political system was not founded on a two party model. Clearly, the entrenchment of the two-party race causes much frustration and hostility.
There’s a fair chance that in the not-to-distant future, there will be an economic “hard landing” that can’t be papered over like today’s madness can. Wouldn’t it just spare the now-in-decline party the final nail in their coffin, if there were a President from the other team in the office when it did happen? Which is to say, from a long-term standpoint, the R party could benefit by not having their man in power when the **** really goes down.
While parties decline, they also grow. Without a movement for something new, something better, something different, nothing can grow into the vacuums created by the decline of parties that have outlived their usefulness, taken the money, and run.
The only reason the two-party system exists is because people adhere to it. There’s aaaallllllll those people who don’t vote. There’s no sense to discouraging a movement that could in practice, if not in theory, someday take the place of the status quo, when there’s aaaaalllllll those people out there who could make it happen.
Of course, one thing that almost everyone is free to do is to have their head stuck in the mud.
And excuse me, but does anyone believe that the two royal families, Bush and Clinton, want to give this country anything different. Does anyone in America (not you fine CD folks) believe that it is EVEN RIGHT to think we should establish a set of Royal Families? If Hillary gets in, then the next election will be Jeb. Give her 8 years, Jeb 8 years and we can get Chelsey. And everyone will justify her elections because she would be the most pragmatic one. Wolf will love it another 24 years of pro-Isreal, pro-Corporate, pro-Blitzer presidents. Sorry but if the democrats could actually present something I could vote for, then I would do it. So as it is, I’ll have to decide (pragmatically) is Nader a better choice then McCain? Hmmmm…at least I know what I’m getting with both. Unfortunately, the people here that are reading this are actually thinking about the election and our future a whole lot more than most that show up at the polls. Advertising works, thinking just frustrates everyone.
Karr88
So what’s so wrong about “warm and fuzzy”?
Daniel David writes “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.”
you are still spouting off your lies. YOU personally handed the elections to BUSH and the republicans by NOT voting for Nader. oh well, i guess you will never wake up. go crawl back under your “democrats are the answer” moss-covered rock.
Rich M - You da man.
Ghawar, I’ve thought about that. I think this country ceased being a democracy with the Kennedy assassination. Six weeks after he decided to start withdrawing troops from Vietnam, he was dead. “The Men Who Killed JFK” completely debunks the single shooter story, and was shown on the History Channel. But that puts people outside their comfort zone. Although how an entire country could watch the Zapruder film and swallow the story he was hit in the head from behind leaves me floored. Or 42 witnesses and journalists dying from various accidents over the next two years. How many adults die falling out of windows? I don’t need to go on, ther’s a ton of evidence in that documentary, and as I’ve seen on CD, people cling to their beliefs out of fear, whether it is that this time the Democrats won’t betray us, or Oswald killed Kennedy, or whatever belief reassures them and soothes their fears. No fear! Face the reality. We can’t change anything if we don’t face reality.
kathyodat
Good questions Ralph. If Blitzer had asked any of them he’d be out of a job.
Hillary will be our next president. She’s been selected by the ones who count the votes.
KEM, bite your tongue.
kathyodat
I would be happy to vote for a Democrat if the Democrats only would nominate someone for whom I could vote. Hillary clearly isn’t such a person for whom I could vote. Barrack supports too many things also that I cannot support, e.g., the death penalty, an aggressive foreign policy based on war, etc. Will I vote for Nader if he runs? I don’t know, but I do know I cannot vote for Hillary whether Nader runs or not.
What a shame that the opening comment is the usual stale lies from a wilfully blind partisan.
The Democratic Party does not enjoy a proprietary claim on my vote.
And Mr. David, “sensible people” apply reason and truth to political analysis, not dogma and forced choices. I will not vote for a pro-war, corporate thrall. Shrill indignation from similarly enthralled partisans does not move me. Ideas do.
The questions that Nader brings up in his article are timely and speak to ideas that deserve urgent attention. No wonder they are impermissible in the mainstream media and for visitors here who seek to hector progressives into voting without conscience.
Bravo to all here who have defended Ralph Nader, his ideals and agenda, and his right to run for President. Your comments have been right on the mark.
I also respect Adelle and some others, who say there are some significant differences (perhaps more than a “dime’s worth”?) between the corporate Dems and the corporate Repubs this year.
This is an important debate, and CommonDreams is a great place to have it.
I would respectfully like to suggest, however, that we spend less time cutting each other off at the knees and more time researching and contributing specific information to the conversation.
Share what you know. Provide the evidence, and the links to your sources. Teach more, rant less.
During the WTO demonstrations in Seattle, Ralph Nader, Vandana Shiva amd someone I do not recall debated two major corporate CEO’s and a neo-liberal economist.
It was like seeing two Jesuits debating a grade- school class.
Ralph and Vanadana destroyed the two CEO’s and the economist because their kind had never thought outside their tiny box.
So it is with the Republican and DLC Democratic Party. As Nader calls them, Tweedledee and tweedledumb.
America now desperately needs a third party that can demonstrate to all Americans how to think outside the box. When the collapse of Western Industrial Capitalism occurs, there will then be an existing party for the awakened citizens to turn to.
FWIW, regarding the story linked above, entitled The Tragedy of Dennis Kucinich, I’d clarify one thing about the silence of the CEO’s (Clinton, Edwards and Obama) regarding Dennis’ exclusion. For the most part, that’s true. However, prior to the N.H. debate, when ABC barred Dennis from participating, Clinton and Obama did issue statements that all of the candidates should be allowed in the debate. (I read it in the news.)
Then, when Dennis was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now after his Las Vegas debate exclusion, he was asked about the other candidates’ reaction to his exclusion. He said that it was a funny thing: Obama did issue a statement that Dennis should have been included, but Clinton and Edwards were silent. (Those were essentially Dennis’ words, not verbatim.) Now, I searched high and low for a single news source reporting that Obama had spoken up for Dennis’ inclusion, and I couldn’t find it. (Maybe the MSM chose not to report it. Wouldn’t be surprised.) Nevertheless, that’s what Dennis said.
Of course, we also know that Edwards and Clinton had originally discussed plans to try to exclude the “second tier” candidates from the debates. So Clinton’s later statement about Dennis’ exclusion from the N.H. debate is amusing, to say the least. But it appears that while Obama didn’t refuse to participate in the debates in protest of Dennis’ exclusion (let’s be real, now), he did at least say that Dennis should be included, twice.
Just for the record, Daniel David, I will not vote for a Democrat in the general election if Ralph runs or not.
As for Kar88, who RichM has already translated quite well, I would like to remind that the Democrats are not moving in a progressive direction, but a regressive one. I do not vote for people who have 100 percent of my values. The Greens are moving in the progressive direction, with a broad but direct enough platform to invite both democratic socialists and progressive democrats.
Why don’t these vote waster crowd type Democrats push for Instant Runoff Voting? Stop blaming me for “wasting” my vote, stop suing 3rd party’s on their ballot access and join a pro-democracy movement. Like Ralph says, was a vote for the anti-slavery party a wasted vote? Hell yea I feel warm and fuzzy voting my conscience. I could not live with a pro-war, pro-WTO vote.
Can any of these people who tell me I am a vote waster please explain why the WTO is not front and center on the “liberal” agenda? Maybe because they advanced and supported and continue to support its existence as an undemocratic elitist institution?
My apologies for not supporting your favorite corporate tool.
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.”
___________________________________________________________
Since RichM and others have already done the heavy lifting, I’ll offer a parenthetical comment: I don’t, or at least haven’t, checked out AlterNet.org.
But I’m appalled by the blogosphere’s devolving ethos of “self-policing” and other superficially common-sensical posting etiquette. Those of us who are rogues, contrarians, curmudgeons and iconoclasts– but not vandals, miscreants, or sociopaths– are canaries in the coal mine, wheezing and gasping from an invisible toxin emitted by eminent and reasonable policies like the one cited above.
Sure, anyone who’s visited Internet sites this century is familiar with the concept of trolling, and sure, there are malicious or socially deranged persons and principalities who seek to illicitly disrupt social discourse.
OTOH, another tiresome characteristic of the blogosphere is the tendency of popular website/blog comment communities to develop an insular groupthink and discourage and chill whatever’s perceived by the in-group as “trolling”, instead promoting a support-group mentality of mutual reinforcement and cheerleading. Certain regulars assume the role of nanny or cossack, declaring this or that stranger to be a “troll”, etc. There’s more than a whiff of “Lord of the Flies” in this.
This “nice” policy is a slippery slope in which disagreeable, troublesome, unduly “negative”, and perhaps provocative dissenters are stigmatized as “trolls”, and even banned, according to the wits, or lack thereof, of the skeptical citizen-blogger. And there’s the truly hysterical canard of being “outed” as a paid Republic agent. I’ve been hit with that one myself; it’s ludicrously irrational. And I’ve witnessed many an Ox-Bow Incident, in which some hapless first-timer clumsily criticizes the blog itself, or blurts out some “tinfoil-hat” idea, and is literally set upon by antibody-like regulars.
I recognize that blogs are complex entities, and that there is a problematic tension between the top-down administration of a blog and the bottom-up visitors who are, as they say, “guests”. But adopting a defensive, rule-crazy approach is a recipe for a conformist, humorless echo chamber. No thanks!
Theres 2 conversations occurring here.
1 . theoretical, musing on the structural flaws in our electoral process, specifically measures that impede 3rd party participation. I agree with most analysis presented here (bottom to top organization, 1st amendment right of expression, 3rd parties increase discourse, 3rd parties apply pressure to the 2 primary parties…………..but……….there are practical considerations
2. reality. no 3rd party candidate has historically contested the presidential race. Never….
(this isn’t nay saying, please vote, but don’t imagine this vote is honestly a vote for the most probable president of the country). and in some instances the lesser of 2 evils is lesser. Bush/gore epitomizes this concept. no doubt, gore would not have behaved the way bush behaved after 911. the domestic agenda/ foreign policy. it isn’t humorous watching people suffer in the US/world hoping thing disintegrate to a point of 3rd party victory or revolution. also… traditionally intellectuals are the first offed by both revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries (and i crave change as all, who’ve expressed their opinions here).
it appears to me that the greens (esp. nader) get big breaks here while others complain about MSM and pop culture, and uneducated masses. ya know, how arrogant and factually incorrect for you to assume that the other 93% of voters (125 million people voted last time 2004) are idiots. i mean there’s an implication here of superior (i.e. proper) reasoning that is insulting, especially if you are an activist (anti war, legal, literacy, soup kitchen, financial literacy, free schools, etc..) or a worker who works with those who simply are oblivious to truthdig, common dreams democracy now, the writings of n chomsky). it’s your job (not necessarily your criticism of structural flaws in the status quo- look i love political theory and philosophy as much as many of the posters here, at CD) to convince these people that our ideas (socialist, feminist, gay/lesbian rights, economic rights, universal health care, pro peace etc..) are meaningful and real.
you are high, overly inspired by emotion if you believe the greens will actually win this election. The time to create the foundation for a successful campaign for the presidency does not begin 9 months before the election with musings of a presidential exploratory committee. listen to nader at democracynow.org 1/31/08 and you'll understand why nader will not win. he's unorganized, overly idealistic and ignoring the reality of america, the ugliness of what we actually represent. obama, clinton, romney, mccain also are just different manifestations of us -- Americans. But nader has this megalomania trip (and i voted him '96 and '00). why exactly is he the only person who can get it straight ( go chomsky/zinn '08) ? he has no experience representing people not dog catcher, county commissioner, state rep, mayor—nothing.
how will he participate (caucus/talk to what ever) with every other person in congress ? oh right this coalition (that doesn't exit) will also win %50 of the congress giving the greens the mandate for social justice ?
right, and i'm hero worshiping by hoping a politician who served most of his time in a state legislature where he was beholden to local (the people, maybe?) interests would be beneficial for America (think lincoln here)
i'm not going to get into the constitutional issues (actually kristoff's piece in nyt's was enlightening but not thorough) basically the 12th amendment doesn't state whether a former pres could be VP. the point wasn't clarified in 22nd amendment. so hillary could run with somone who could say, ahhh i want to retire for family reasons, maybe after like 4 weeks in office, then ahhhh, hillary could suggest bill could be VP (it's her party remember) and then woo….. hill/bill the real deal, constitutionally legit and all. last act of mcbeth 2008.
back to the hero worship while criticizing MSM – seems very hypocritical considering there are other political figures capable of running for president, who haven’t run 3 times before. what's up with this hero worship of mr nader ?, especially considering he considers himself above a congressional seat (he just couldn't enlighten the rest of congress with his consciousness-raising ideas that will transform America ?) no he can't. because his ideas are only legitimate if the politicians listen (or are informed by) to the masses, the idiots the other 93% of americans. You’re wading into bizarre elitist dogma if you can’t listen to the others.
From his own words yesterday…………………..
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/31/ralph_nader_launches_presidential_exploratory_committee
“Congress really is the pivot institution that is most susceptible to change by popular forces, and, of course, it’s the most powerful branch of our government, if they care to use that power, like the impeachment power or the war declaration power under our Constitution.”
Exactly, run for congress mr nader, and I’ll give you money for your campaign and your ideas could have a platform if you win…….
“He believes he won—I agree he won—in Florida, but it was stolen from him before, during, and after the election by the Secretary of State and Jeb Bush, all the way from Tallahassee to that atrocious political decision by the Supreme Court. There are a lot of “what if’s,” Amy. What if he got Tennessee? What if he got Arkansas? What if the mayor of Florida didn’t go to Madrid and not bring out thousands of his votes?”
I agree, gore and Clinton gave the office to the repubs, your reasoning as always is excellent.
“So I think ballot access is a major civil liberties issue, and people in this country, whether they like it or not, must recognize how discriminatory that word is and must try to adhere to what the polls tell us, that they really want more voices and choices and that about 60 percent of the people of this country want a viable third party, even though they may not vote for that party.”
I agree mr nader, that’s why I most enthusiastically supported you in 1996, when your emerging political party had the greatest chance to gain matching funds for 2000. this is when you were running against a popular democratic president (who I demonstrated against in the streets, as I will demonstrate in the streets if obama’s foreign policy objectives are against my beliefs). Not during the most contested political campaign in 50 years. clinton can be defeated, mccain can be defeated, obama is what we want him to be, and to those who cry corporate whore. be specific what is your fear? match a corporate sponsor with your fear of his vote.
vote your conscience, if you voted for edwards encourage him to pledge his delegates to obama before 2/5. if your concerned about obama do your homework and compare his record against mccains, for this is the more relevant discussion (obama/mccain – linton/mccain). please send money to cindy sheehan and dennis kucinich.
see you on the streets of denver, peace……………………………
Lots of passion on these posts, maybe now is not the time for a group hug! Whether we like, hate, applaud, resent Nader, lets give him credit for stirring more thought and excitement on this page than Obama and Hillary did in two hours of TV exclusive. Nader has worked harder, longer and accomplished more than both candidates. He said it best, the votes do not belong to the candidate, the votes belong to the voter to spend as they choose. If Gore deserved the votes he would have gotten them. We all know GWB did NOT win the election so how is that Naders fault? Our wrath should be vented on the conservative thugs, cheap politicians, crooked lawyers,like Baker and a corrupted, ‘less than’ Supreme Court. The unasked questions by Nader should be asked and answered but they will not be, this is America.
Daniel David
The election where Nader ran as a third party candidate was stolen by the Republicans and their friends in the big-money Democratic establishment. Didn’t you hear the one about Gore not wanting an investigation into allegations of election fraud?
Nader has every right to run, even if just to give reality an actual platform in the election. Anyone who says he hasn’t doesn’t put democracy first.
(just trying to stop the HTML linking…)
I apologize for having such a whiny first post to this lovely site, but is there any way we could at least convince those of you who are professional party operatives to at least disclose this in your comments? (that would be you, Daniel David). I don’t think even the DLC should be prohibited from making their points in here–lord knows they’re not very good–but I think if you’re posting disingenuous bullshit for a living you should at least have the courtesy to let others know that this is what you’re doing. I don’t like it when the right punts basic ethics, and I like it even less when the slightly less right does it.
Thank you. Best to all of you.
Hi drone, thanks & welcome to CD.
“In America They Came First For Dennis Kucinich.” Yes, Jerry D. Rose - your analogy is an apt one: the coming of fascism in Germany.
That’s a good-looking website on which you write, Countercurrents.org, and with many more excellent articles than CommonDreams, AlterNet, CounterPunch, and Daily Kos put together.
I’m getting more and more into Black Agenda Report. Their articles on Obama are fascinating.
Regards to you,
GG
The idea that you should only vote for someone with a chance to win or to vote strategically is what the two party system counts on to prevent third parties. Vote for the best. The best left , for me, are Nader ,Gravel, and Paul, in that order of preference.
(I think you can stop the linking by typing in
open bracket - slash - a - close bracket)
(/a)
What the F%*^! Everything people blog is now a link!
Ralph, this article kinda sucked, buddy. You are capable of much better stuff. What I really wanted to hear is that you are running so that perhaps some important issues can be raised. What do you say Ralph?
Cool. It all goes to Democracy Now and a story about Ralph Nader launching an exploratory committee to run. Two fine places to go to.
And any mouse click in this part of the page takes a Democrat there. Hah! Since they hate the truth and those that speak the truth, they won’t like it there.
/a>
Remember, the Democrats hate Democracy. And they certainly hate anyone who might actually think this is a democracy and challenge their number 2 position in the realm of corporate power.
They hate the idea of people talking in their own debates. Note how they’ve spent the last four years trying to keep you from hearing people like Sharpton, Kucinich and any others who don’t support corporate power.
The Democrats hate primaries in their races. In Senate and Congressional districts you’ll always here them scream that any challenge to their supporters of corporate power is divisive and should not occur.
The Democrats rig their own convention such that 20% of the delegates are unelected ’super-delegates’ to block any democratic efforts inside their party to challenge the supporters of corporate power.
I’ve lived in states where the Democrats control the political machinery, and they’ll do any think to block other parties from the ballot and prevent free and fair elections that challenge corporate power.
And of course, they hate the Greens and Ralph Nader. All you have to do is mention Ralph Nader’s name and the hatred comes spewing out. Its a magic spell that reveals the dark and twisted internals of what has become a disgusting political party.
Please stop supporting these foul and hateful people who hate our democracy and who are working to support corporate rule in what used to be the land of the free. DON’T VOTE DEMOCRAT!
www.runcynthiarun.org
iowablackbird
It’s funny how easily so many people can partition the structural problems of US politics away from “practical considerations.” “Yes, yes, the two party system is a problem, but first we have to beat the other party.” “Yes, yes, we’ll end the war on terror just as soon as we defeat the extremists.”
Isn’t it possible that running for office can make a difference even if there is little chance that one will win? No, I’m not talking about Nader supposedly getting Bush elected. I’m talking about the impact of populist insurgencies on US policy in the past. I recommend Secrets of the Temple by Greider.
The whole “it’s insulting to disagree with the majority” argument is exceedingly weak. Logically and historically. What if an oncologist said you had cancer, but 93% of your friends and family said you were fine? And why did the Founding Fathers go on so about the tyranny of the majority? And since Bush was elected, isn’t it pretentious of us to say that’s a bad thing?
And who’s to say that a debate like this isn’t educating people about important issues, and helping them hone their critical thinking? So don’t tell me I’m not doing my job to educate people.
Then you just sort of settle into some very tired straw-man lynching. Yes, Nader is egotistical enough to believe he can make a difference. Clinton and Obama are egotistical enough to believe that they can be the first female/black president. I’m egotistical enough to believe I can get people to abandon failed anti-Nader arguments and try out some new ones. Nader has spent his entire adult live representing the people. Oh, I bet you meant he doesn’t have experience holding an elected office. That may be true, but it isn’t a fact that has any weight in MY voting decisions.
The hero-worship attack is weak too. I don’t worship Nader. I believe in the importance of voting for candidates who I believe would best represent my interests. AND I believe in not voting for people who flatly refuse to represent my interests.
Barry
What really bothers me is that both Obama and Clinton are to the right of most conservative parties in Europe.
They both put their tails between their leg whenever any program is labeled the slightist bit socialist. And the MSM calls “Socialist” any program that doesn’t let our darling billionaires pillage our society (and anything with progressive financing).
Have some balls and vote green, vote socialist, vote libertarian, vote Nader - voting republicrat signifies you are fine with being abused.
JConrad - bravo. For years I have thought that the only questions to lead the ‘news’ is ‘How many dead in Iraq today?’ and ‘What are their names, who are they?’. (Now include Afghanistan, Gaza.) It is never asked of Bush. It is rarely uttered. (Rachel Maddow does ask, thank you Rachel).
I don’t want Mr. Nader to run. But we all know that he was, he is, right.
Our democracy is over. I wish the ‘hope’ would be for re-doing it from the beginning.
Good question’s Ralph. Even those questions are a little more tame than should be asked. It’s obvious the governement had involvement in 9/11 how about throwing some of them in?
The whole thing is just a farce. The elite have their ducks lined up. They have the candidates they want. Now the artistry of trying to make it look compelling come to hand. Voter fraud machines primed and ready.
It’s now a contest of which candidate can now form their mouths into the most seductive sucking shape that will asure the blessing of the oligarchy.
Please, Common Dreams, stop giving Nader a forum for his twisted evil. He gets paid by Republicans to write this stuff and he hates Democrats because they won’t recognize his sick agenda. Nader now wants to make his name as political spoiler. Only you can prevent another electoral disaster caused by Nader’s egomania.
It is the Bend-over-crats that are stealing votes away from progressives like Kucinich, and Nader etc. The Bend-over-crats need to be honest with themselves for a change and admit that they are really in agreement with Repugs in 99.5% of the issues. The rest is just window dressing.
They belong in the same party, together, birds of a feather. They are just the left and the right wing of the same pro-war, pro-big business, pro-status quo party. They only differ in whether we need 130,000 troops in Iraq or 70,000 in Iraq and move 60,000 to Afghanistan.
It’s the perennial Dweedle-Dee-istic debate. We need to dump the Dims and go Green or 3rd party.
Bend-over-crats: stop stealing votes from progressives!
Milagro!
It seems to me that CD has become more about Democrats and Republicans than about progressives and their ideas.
I think that it’s about time that the people here look at the reality of what the two parties are about.
Republicans stand by their two core constituents, the ultra rich greedocrats and the terminal brain dead ( like Terry Schrivo ) and those who want not to know or think about anything.
Democrats on the other hand have demonstrated nothing but the utmost contempt for their core supporters, you know the people who put them in controle of both houses of congress so as to end the criminal ,moraly repugnent war that is draining all our finances for the social agenda that they pretend to espouse !
As to the two front Dem runners Hillory ( pillory ) and Obama ( O-BOMB-EM ) have shown us that no matter what they say will do whatever their corporate sponcers tell them to do . Both of them are in the senate and what sort of leadership have they shown? Did they lead the fught against Maurkasy- NO, Did they fillerbuster Alito- NO,did they even strongly support Fiengold in his modest attempt to sensure Bush for his abuse of power-NO Have they ever strongly defended the constitution or used their leadership powers to push Polosi to begin an impeachment investigation of GW-NO NO NO NO !!!!!!
Teses two have the power and are in the leadership but it seems they refused to use their power,what does that tell you of what they will do if elected President?
Talking about perfect candidates these two don’t even begin to represent anything that a progressive could support.If you want a candidate that is not perfect but at least has a human side,and can be counted on to at least respond to Ralph questions in a way that would more to the liking of most progressives
you would have to vote for Ron Paul !!!!!!!!
RichM — thank you, sorry about that didn’t mean to send everyone to DN
barryr February 2nd, 2008 9:32 pm
Barry - i’m whole heartedly suggesting you should vote your conscience. i don’t know what i’ll do if clinton wins the democratic nomination, i’ll probably puke, then spend the next few days on a bender. however that day isn’t here for me yet.
is it fair to characterize all democrats as the same? there are compassionate dems whose views are often published here at CD (fiengold, leahy, kucinich etc..) their views are backed with meaning b/c they represent people (not just rhetorical ideas), that’s why they have more legitimacy.
why the presidency?, when he CAN WIN in a congressional seat and WOULD RECIEVE more attention (in congress) the the scanty attention he recieves (outside of progressive circles) every 4 years during a presidential election.
if an oncologist said i had cancer i would seek other opinions before i agreed to be treated.
about the masses — maybe i phrased it poorly, it’s ok to disagree with the public (in fact i think i mentioned the importance of 1st amendment)but if you speak to them in a foreign language (3rd party candidates they’re unfamiliar with) they will not get it. It will not seep in to the brain cases.
i read the greider book about the federal reserve (monetary policy), i think it reinforces the notion outside parties influence the discussion of the 2 primary
parties in the US, not that 3rd parties have a chance of running the country(i actually conceded the point above, 3rd parties influence primary parties)
if jesus christ dropped from the sky, i doubt i would vote for him/her if he didn’t effectively demonstrate an ability to lead and represent people (these skills are crucial especially when the congress will continue to be fragmented as the social system continues to disintegrate).
i do see hero-worshiping here, and do you want a clone of yourself to run the government, no viable candidate for president will represent all of our interests,
if our candidate wanted to use ‘our’ political clout he/she would push the mainstream parties to the left by participating in the process.
also i love discussion and it is educational, good luck, trying to win me back.
again vote your conscience….
please donate to sheehan and kucinich…..
I think that everyone should vote for who they believe in, whether or not that candidate has a chance of winning. The reason why I think this is because both the republicans and democrats, and their owners, the Big Corporations, know full well that what they’re doing is going to be the ruination of us all, including themselves, so they will eventually do something to stop what’s going on, not because they’re good guys but because they want to save their own skins. And when they do something about it, it will change the political climate, making it more and more possible to elect someone who really is a good guy.
So we keep on voting for the good guy until the good guy finally wins. If we do anything else, we’re destined to do that forever.
Maybe it’s better to vote for what you want, instead of voting for what you think you can get, because if you keep on doing that, someday maybe you will get what you want. But if you never vote for what you want, you’ll never get it. And you’ll always feel bad about yourself for not having the courage of your convictions.
Thank you very much, CD’ers, for helping me out here. I was thinking of voting for Barack Obama, as the lesser of two evils, but thanks to you I’ve changed my mind.
Wow, I skip out of CD for a mere 8 hours or so, and there’s 100+ responses.
The situation is even worse than the dynamic Ralph presents here. Half the equation is the softball questions, the framing and filtering, etc. the corporate media performs on behalf of the candidates.
If our problems stopped there, we’d see Barak or Hillary bring up the issues mentioned here, on their own during the Q&A sessions.