Nader Runs, Obama Responds Wisely
Ralph Nader is running again for president.
After four previous bids, mounted in varying forums and with varying goals, Nader is used to the slings and arrows that will be tossed his way. He is conscious and committed. He will not back off.
He knows how to campaign in the face of a firestorm of criticism.
Above all, he knows how to make himself heard — even when almost everyone who guides the political processes of the nation wants to shut him up.
The latter knowledge will serve him well in a 2008 contest where the man who is either a national treasure or a national frustration, or perhaps both, may find himself more marginalized than ever before.
Nader is running for the same reason he has run in the past: Because the likely nominees of the two major parties do not begin to meet the standards that might reasonably be asked of progressive contenders in 21st-century America.
Fundamental issues — Wall Street-defined globalization, rampant and frequently deadly corporate crime, out-of-control military spending and an imperial foreign policy — are not going to be addressed in a realistic let alone definitional manner by the Democratic nominee (be he Barack Obama or be she Hillary Clinton) or by Republican John McCain. And that, says Nader, will leave millions of Americans feeling frustrated and disenfranchised.
“You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected,” he explained on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the same forum where he announced his 2004 presidential run. “You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts.”
Nader’s points are all well taken.
And they come from a man who is quite rational in his awareness that he will not be sworn in as president on January 20, 2009.
While Nader has yet to determine whether he will run as the Green Party candidate, a Green-backed independent or a genuinely unaffiliated independent, he is clear about his chances.
The arc of history bends toward Obama and the Democrats, not his candidacy, acknowledges Nader.
After eight years of George Bush and Dick Cheney, he said, “If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form. You think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war John McCain who almost gives an indication he’s the candidate for perpetual war?”
Presumably, the Democratic landslide that buries McCain will also sweep away various and sundry third-party and independent candidacies, including Nader’s.
If that is the case, it will not be a new phenomenon.
Nader has bid for the presidency in different ways in every election since 1992 — as a write-in candidate in the New Hampshire and Massachusetts primaries of that year, as a Green contender in 1996 and 2000 and as an independent with support from some of what remained of Ross Perot’s Reform Party in 2004. His most notable run, in 2000, won 2.7 percent of the national vote, along with anger from Democrats who thought he “spoiled” their chances by tipping Florida — and the presidency — from Al Gore to George Bush. In fact, Gore won Florida, only to have the results manipulated into Bush’s column by the Republican nominee’s many allies in state government, with an assist from the Supreme Court.
In the intense 2004 competition between Bush and Democratic John Kerry, Nader’s run won just 0.3 percent on 34 state ballot lines.
This year, Nader could have a harder time of it even than he did in 2000 or 2004.
Unlike Gore and Kerry, Obama — now the likely Democratic nominee — has taken savvier stands on a number of issues close to Nader’s heart, such as trade policy. This is not to say that Obama is as good as Nader on the issues. Far from it. But Obama’s more nuanced platform, as well as the movement character of the Illinois senator’s campaign, is likely to leave even less space for Nader to deliver a message.
That said, Nader is a determined, sometimes unrelenting, truth teller.
He notes that Obama is something less than a pristine progressive.
Obama may be “the first liberal evangelist in a long time,” says Nader, but the senator’s “better instincts and knowledge have been censored” since he hit the nation stage.
“(Obama’s) leaned, if anything, toward the pro-corporate side of policy-making,” Nader said of the senator from Illinois. The consumer activist also scored Obama on on foreign policy, noting that, “He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois… Now he’s supporting (right-wing Israeli policies that thwart progress toward peace in the Middle East).”
Such blunt statements may not win Nader many friends among Obama’s enthusiastic backers, and Obama did not exactly welcome his new rival to the race. “Ralph Nader deserves enormous credit for the work he did as a consumer advocate,” Mr. Obama said while campaigning in Ohio “But his function as a perennial candidate is not putting food on the table of workers.”
But Nader’s not looking for Valentines from the Democrats.
Frankly, he’s not even all that interested in popular approval.
The public-interest crusader worries far less about poll numbers and even vote totals than about saying what he feels needs to be said — and using the forum of the electoral process to say it. And he is certainly not the first progressive — inside the Democratic Party or out — to suggest that Obama needs to be prodded on issues ranging from labor law to corporate regulation to single-payer health care and Middle East policy.
Nader’s greatest value in any race is — like Socialist Norman Thomas in his races against Democratic Franklin Roosevelt — as a source of pressure on the Democratic nominee to address fundamental questions and perhaps to take more progressive stands on a few issues. As in 2000 and 2004, Nader’s appeal will be determined in large part by the extent to which the Democratic candidate is willing to be bold.
Obama seems to understands this. Unlike Gore or Kerry, who never quite “got” the point of Nader’s runs in 2000 and 2004, the Illinois senator appears to recognize that it is pointless to grumble about Ralph Nader as a “spoiler.” Rather, the point is to be more appealing to progressive voters who might consider voting Green or independent.
“I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference,” says Obama.
That is the bottom line with regard to Nader’s latest bid.
If Obama runs as a progressive, Nader will have little room to maneuver. If Obama runs to the center, Nader’s space will open up — a bit.
John Nichols’ new book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders’ Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson hails it as a “nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the ‘heroic medicine’ that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to ‘reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.’”
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
This is a solid article by John Nichols. Now let’s see how many posters want to say that having more choices for president is a bad thing.
Concur.
Nichols is basically on the mark. Now brace yourselves for the ritualistic orgasm of Nader-bashing.
Or perhaps it is that Nader is too decent for such a citizenry
It is refreshing that Obama isn’t pulling the head in the sand trick of Kerry and Gore. Let’s see how he continues to deal with the challenge.
We should be overwhelmed with gratitude that Ralph Nader is running! Who is going to speak out the bald truths that Americans need to hear and that we all know are the truths? Obama can at most allude to our dire plight and still have a hope of getting elected (see what happened to Michelle when she blurted out a truth that many of us know all too well.) As Howard Zinn recently said here on Common Dreams, voting is not the bulk of our burden. With Obama in the White House, light will not shine down from the skies, or whatever Hillary said. We must be out there working every day for the foreseeable future for the changes that Nader will present for all to see with his candidacy. How else are Americans going to hear that they are fools being conned? How many people don’t even know the names Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Chalmers Johnson? How many Americans don’t realize that Martin Luther King spoke for them back in 1968, and that things are even worse now?
Hail Code Pink, the brave Sophie Scholls of today! May they prevail and not suffer her fate, even though they do risk it.
Obama’s line about food is absurd … it reminds me of a John Lennon line, “how do you sleep?”
Yeah, Obama plans for a nominal withdrawal from and perpetual presence in Iraq
will surely put food on workers tables…
well, it’s guaranteed to kill workers, at least
i wont vote for nader, though i liike that he’s ini, simply for the expanded conversation. while i like obama’s subued tactics to encourage electability, he does need a fire under his feet on several (progressive) issues.
Nichols is mostly on the mark, but not in his characterization of Obama’s response so far. In comments that Nichols elided here, Obama said,
“My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies thinks you’re not substantive.”
If not grumbling, we can call it veiled grumbling, and not very wise. Obama, to get progressive votes, will have to much more openly acknowledge the wisdom of Nader’s positions on many issues, and thus making veiled attacks on Nader, at this early stage, for being principled and dogged should come back to bite him.
“Nader’s greatest value in any race is — like Socialist Norman Thomas in his races against Democratic Franklin Roosevelt — as a source of pressure on the Democratic nominee to address fundamental questions and perhaps to take more progressive stands on a few issues. As in 2000 and 2004, Nader’s appeal will be determined in large part by the extent to which the Democratic candidate is willing to be bold.”
Well said. Having an alternative gives us all leverage. I would like to think that Obama is being cagey to play the powers that be and the media and theat he will turn ot to be relatvely progressive. Chances are, however, it is us that are being played.
If we vote for Nader, who has spent his life battling the Republican agenda, we are supporting the republicans.
If we vote for the Democrats, who have spent the last 8 years enabling the Republican agenda, we are voting against the Republibcans.
???????????????????
Solid article by Nichols. I, for one, am currently supporting Obama. Mainly to remove the stench of the Clintons from public life and wreck the DLC.
In November? Well, Bombs Away McCain is genuinely scary, but, will Obama be an acceptable alternative then?
We’ll see. Nader’s presence may make it so. Gore and Kerry said essentially, “its my football and you can’t play.” If Obama says “you can play, but it really doesn’t matter” and acts accordingly Ralph will be irrelevant. Time will tell.
Obama will not appreciate the spotlight falling on his pro-corporate side. It’s time someone shone a light.
There’s only one dance at the Democratic Party.
Take a step to the right, take another step to the right.
Hold hands with the person on your right - let them lead.
Take another step to the right.
Nader is trying to bring new music to the Party. Progressive sounds.
Whether Nader runs or not, Obama will get the votes.
McCain will be the next President.
Why should 2008 be any different that the last 2 selections?
Obama has nothing to fear from Ralph Nader. He is a far superior candidate than Al Gore or John Kerry and especially Hillary Clinton.
Nader’s entry into the electoral fray will give the 2008 presidential election its’ jester.
Nader wont give the Presidency to John McBush…DIEBOLD will, as ususal
I’d like to see Nader and Gravel team up on the Independent ticket; give the progressive message a real boost. Americans need more exposure to these ideas.
I was at the Green Party convention in 2000 when Ralph was nominated. Following his acceptance speech he met with a group of Colorado Democrats, including me and a lifelong Nader friend who arranged the meeting.
Nader personally assured us that if the race was close in October he would withdraw his candidatcy and encourage his supporters to vote for Al Gore. He not only broke his word but he accepted thousands of dollars from Repugs to continue his campaign to get 5% of the vote. This act proves that Nader lacks the personal integrity to champion the progressive cause.
I think Obama is going to capture progressive voters in 2008 that voted Nader in 2000 and 2004. I think Nader 2008 is a non-story.
It is crazy to suggest that the Democratic Party somehow owns certain votes and how dare Nader poach them away. A supreme arrogance, and weakness of the Democratic Party.
If the Democratic Party were an honest progressive Party, it would lose no votes to Ralph Nader, and would have nothing to fear or complain about.
A lot of positive remarks about Nader’s joining the race. I believe we need Nader’s voice, but it seems to me that a warm welcoming of Nader to the race by progressives can only come about through a “hope” that he only siphons off a tiny sliver of the votes for a Democratic nominee. Although I think Nader would be a great president, the thought of Republicans running this country for another four years sickens me. More death and killing. We need to pull up out of this nosedive and Obama is our best chance.
I’m glad Nader is in the race.
He gives voice to issues that need to be discussed.
We need to make sure his voice is included in the debates.
It is fine for Nader to run, but the problem is that our voting system is not good for 3 parties. One of the voting reforms we need is for some kind of alternative voting system, like instant runoff voting or preferential voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting
Either Clinton, Obama, or McCain will be the next president. Nothing else will change. Sad, very sad.
John Nichols wrote: “While Nader has yet to determine whether he will run as the Green Party candidate, a Green-backed independent or a genuinely unaffiliated independent, he is clear about his chances.”
It is not up to Ralph Nader to “determine” whether he will be the Green Party nominee for President. It is up to the Green Party voters to determine. Nader is one of several people seeking the Green Party nomination, including former Democratic member of Congress Cynthia McKinney, and several long-time, hard-working Green Party organizers.
Ralph Nader is not, and has never been, a member of the Green Party. Since he ran for president as the Green Party nominee in 2000, Ralph Nader has done EXACTLY NOTHING to help build and organize the Green Party as a strong, effective political constituency. In 2004, Nader did not even seek the Green Party’s nomination, although he tried to pressure the Greens to not nominate anyone for president but to “endorse” his independent candidacy. The Greens wisely rejected Nader and instead nominated long-time Green Party activist David Cobb. Nader covets the Green Party’s permanent ballot access in a number of states — earned by the hard work of grassroots Green Party organizers over many years, NO thanks to Ralph Nader — and that’s why he wants the Green Party’s nomination or endorsement.
I am a registered Green Party voter in Maryland. I do NOT plan to vote for Ralph Nader in the Maryland Green Party’s presidential primary in March. I hope that my fellow Greens will be wise enough to nominate a true Green, someone dedicated to grassroots political organizing and building the Green Party on a local as well as national level. I plan to vote for the Green Party presidential nominee in November — unless it is Ralph Nader, in which case I will vote for the Democratic nominee.
And if the Green Party chooses to be nothing more than Ralph Nader’s toy to play with every four years, then I will have to reconsider whether the Greens are a serious political effort and whether I should change my voter registration to Democrat.
A lot less Nader bashing this discussion. Maybe everyone went to lunch.
I personally admire anyone who can speak the truth and get progressive ideas into the discussion. Obama, I’m looking in your direction!
Heres something that I noticed. The mantra here seems to be “finally a candidate that will speak the truth and say what needs to be heard”. Ummm, didnt Dennis Kucinich already do that? And in my mind Dennis Kucinich can do it far better than Ralph Nader. So ad another blow hard to the debates, so what.
It’s pretty rich for a Cobb supporter to complain that Nader has supposedly done nothing to build the Green Party. That being said, I could take Nader a bit more seriously, as well as the Green Party as a whole, if the candidacy had been announced 6 months ago, or even more. It was incredibly stupid to not have been done so.
The Green Party convention is not even being held until Summer! For that, I think we can hold the Cobb people as being responsible.
Simply put, these Cobb supporters are Democrats in sheep’s clothing and they have destroyed the Green Party’s ability to pose as being much independent of the corporatocracy in our country. They show no leadership abilities at all.
Nader himself is no great shakes. Where was he during all the off campaign time? Certainly not building any real anti-corporate political party.
Excellent piece from Nichols. You can count on the Nation to put out some clear thinking without descending to name calling and mud slinging.
I personally welcome Nader’s verbal priority setting without the tip toeing around constituencies and corporate sponsors. If nothing else, it will put the head liners on orange alert. And most everybody else for that matter.
It already has.
Democrats are not the progressives that they like to cast themselves as. Bunch of phonies.
From the editor of the Nation: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=289938
I like the idea of Another Choice in elections, but mabye there IS a better path for Citezen Number One.
And KvH does speak well to hatemongers thoughts of Spoilers and Egotists.
A recommended read.
Good solid piece. The few (real) progressives will have little impact on the real race and will give US someone we can vote for and feel good about. Its the best position for everyone.
As for SecularAnimist:
Good luck with all of THAT.
Democrats arent progressive. They dont want voters to have a choice. Its all about staying in power and $$$.
Again, if you’re against nuclear power, pro single-payer health care, think we need to cut the military budget in half (or more), clamp down on corporate crime and a culture of kickbacks, modernize/improve our voting system, etc. is Obama the messenger?
I (and apparently the Bilderbergs?) see Obama’s main job in terms of restoring hope around a failing politics of Empire (rather than fundamentally changing anything).
But Reagan coated it with teflon so long ago that nothing really stick any more — the good, bad or the ugly. We’ll need more than smiles, platitudes and vague hopes.
great article. pretty much spot on.
I’d LOVE to see a debate between Nader and Obama, Nader would destroy him in about 2 minutes. Obama knows that and that’s why he won’t hear of it.
For openers, I’d like to see Obama explain his short but corrupt voting record, including his votes that kept funding this immoral, illegal and murderous Iraq war.
I registered Pacific Green here in Eugene OR years ago, and joined the steering committee but became disillusioned because the central committee in Portland was siphoning off the money we raised for party building, leaving us impoverished. They even used our contributions lists to phone market for money. When I learned how the rules committee was essentially making us powerless, I quit working in the party. I’m still registered Green (about to become a temporary Democrat), but being inside the party structure felt like I was being smothered by egos, as if I was in a room being squashed by hot air balloons. I decided that any political party attracts people who are power hungry. I won’t say there weren’t people of good will in the Greens, there were, but they were being steamrollered by the egoists. I haven’t been inside the structure for years now, so maybe things have changed. I don’t know. But I’m not overly interested in finding out. Probably because I suspect people don’t change all that much. It would be nice to learn that altruists have taken over the party and that the rules have been rewritten to support party building instead of fiefdoms. I’m not suggesting that my experience is characteristic of Greens all over the country, I can’t answer to that. Haven’t been there. I did talk with David Cobb in Texas, I thought he was fantastic. But I was bitterly disappointed with the Greens in 2004 that they were going to pull back in competitive states to help Kerry. If I wanted to help Kerry I would have voted for him. I wanted an alternative.
kathyodat
We’ve only seen the ‘primary’ Obama so far. Its traditional in the Dem party for the candidates to have to run to the left to get the nomination. Any time its a contested nomination, the open ground for any candidate is to the left. And especially with the corporate-friendly Hillary taking up the center-right part of the political spectrum. The only room to run against Hillary was to her left, as there was no way to go to the right of her and stay anywhere near the Dem base.
This changes in the general election. So far, every Dem I can think of in my lifetime has swung hard to the right as soon as they get the nomination. The Dems always are as progressive as they have to be to get the nomination. Then they declare war on the progressives in the general election to try to prove that they are ‘independent’ of ’special interests’ and the like.
So we don’t know what an Obama campaign in the general election will look like.
And there’s nothing in his primary campaign that tells me there’s any committment to any values at all. His entire campaign up till now has been talling people what there is to here.
So, before deciding that Obama is the ideal progressive candidate in the general election, you’d better wait to hear what he’s really saying then. He might be hitting the notes he’s already hit about expanding the military, more military spending, expanding the war to Pakistan, supporting Israel against Iraq, health care plans that don’t cover every one, and dismantling social security.
He’s tried all of those in the primary, but generally dropped them as they weren’t working with the Dem base. Don’t be surprised if they all come back for the general election.
Meanwhile, Nader and Cynthia McKinney are both very clear on what they believe and where they stand. You don’t have to worry about the corporate money pulling them to the right. My guess is by the time Obama does turn hard right for the general election, a lot of progressives who are already sick of the Dem party will be looking at a Nader or McKinney campaign a lot more favorably.
the Nation became a wing of the Dem party years ago.
I used to be a subscriber back in the 80’s and early 90’s. They were always begging for money. You always got the feeling they were almost but not quite broke.
Then, in 2000 when Nader ran against Gore, several things seemed to happen.
– the Nation seemed to stop begging for money.
– the Nation became a reliable voice the Dems could count on to always tell progressives to vote Dem.
– people like Katherine van Hueval became media personalities and started showing up on CNN and the like.
Always seemed pretty obvious to me that that the Nation made a deal with the Dems around about them.
————–
Nowadays, I’d pay no attention at all to what the Nation recommends between now and the election. They are going to tell everyone to vote Dem. That’s $$ talking.
My morning paper says Obama said something more about Nader, that “Ralph Nader tried to tell us in 2000 that there was no important difference between Al Gore and George Bush, but now many Americans realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about.”
This is whole point. There WAS a difference between agendas. There is a difference this time as well. And Ralph tells a colossal fib when he says or implies there is not. This is the single reason for distrusting Ralph. He can not speak well of anybody or anything except his own ideas.
tatti -tatti, Nader would destroy anyone - except Dennis - in a debate in two minutes. And to the Nader critics, he said he would run as a Green in 2000, but that would not build a party, that was up to the people on the bottom. Well, they didn’t really take advantage of it.
Obama is downplaying his progressivism, which I’ve seen in the past, and taking corporate money. Get real. If he didn’t, we’d be looking at neocon Hillary against McCain. And McCain would probably win. All those people flocking to Obama wouldn’t be flocking to her. And even if she did manage to win, we’d just have another saber rattling neocon in office, who after all, didn’t have such a problem with NAFTA.
kathyodat
What a scam.
The media declares Nader “unelectable” so nobody votes for him so he’s unelectable.
Now the media declares Obama has a “movement” behind him so everybody who wants to “pick a winner” jumps on the bandwagon, and, presto! — Obama’s got a “movement” behind him.
Jesus, where are all these suckers on poker night?
Nader’s a man of proven integrity. Look at all he’s done from auto safety on up. He’s got a 40-year record of fighting — and often slaying — dragons on behalf of regular folks, and doesn’t appear to have taken a damn thing for himself.
Obama’s record proves what? He’s all vague promises, and you know what a politician’s promise is worth after the election — as wonderfully demonstrated by the democrats after the last interim election.
If we’d make our choice just once about being on the side that’s right, instead of on the side that wins, we might actually be able to clean up Tombstone a little.
Just my opinion.
Liberty & Justice,
SJ
www.spartacusjones.com
If you are already in the Green Party, but don’t want to support Nader, I’d strongly recommend checking out Cynthia McKinney.
www.runcynthiarun.org
www.allthingscynthiamckinney.org
One thing, don’t believe a word the corporate media says about her. Go listen to her speak in person. Go find an unedited audio or video of her speaking. I used to live in Atlanta and used to work on her campaigns. The difference between the lies the corporate media will tell you and what you’d hear if you go hear her speak in person is striking.
“It is fine for Nader to run, but the problem is that our voting system is not good for 3 parties. One of the voting reforms we need is for some kind of alternative voting system, like instant runoff voting or preferential voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting”
I agree, but how are you going to get it?
The Dems certainly won’t give it to you. They like the current system and their monopoly position just fine. And the states I grew up in with long-term Dem control of elections are some of the worst about blocking any other parties from even getting on the ballot (check out GA and NC petitioning rules and the 80,000 or so sigs you need).
So, how are we going to get it?
The one way I see is to start torpedoing Dem campaigns. Anywhere the race is close, run a strong Green party effort. Ie, do exactly the opposite of the ’safe-states’ strategy. Look for ‘vulnerable states’ and seats and attack there hard and swift.
Then, see if the Dems want to make a deal. When they start to agree to stuff like ….
1) Instant Runoff voting for executive positions.
2) Proportional voting for legislatures
3) Clean Election funding \ public financing.
then you make a deal with them. The deal is we’d back of targeting the Dem candidates IF AND ONLY IF they support strongly these sorts of election reforms.
Show political muscle first. Give the Dems a few bloody noses with independent and Green challenges. Then when they start to respect that political muscle, negotiate a deal with them. (Of course, then repeat loop after the Dems prove dishonest and untrustworthy and break the deal, but that’s in the future).
The advice to the left is always the opposite. The advice is always to surrender first. Abandon the campaigns, don’t run in tight elections. Surrender all power first. Then the Dems want us to negotiate with them. Of course, they give us nothing and call us ‘idiot liberals’ because we are not negotiating from any position of strength. That’s why they always want us to surrender first, then negotiate. Or basically, surrender first, then surrender later too.
Show political muscle. Start causing Dems to lose. If you want to be taken seriously, show political muscle first.
COMarc, I agree with you about Cynthia McKinney. She’s been assassinated by the corporate media.
Here’s a great story from the LA Times about Republicans for Obama. For once, we have something in common. They’re going for him for the same reason I was willing to consider voting for Ron Paul. That is, something other than policies. In the case of Paul, integrity. In the case of Obama, they feel he will listen to both sides and try to bring people together. People are sick of political warfare. Although Hillary obviously isn’t.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022508M.shtml
kathyodat
Welcoming the rationality of Nader in this 2008 contest (?). Truly a gadfly on the national conscience in addition to keeping the game fair and honest. The rash of Corporatistas that put in their entry fee for the Potomac quadrennial Derby is a testament to where industrialists put their money. For all the rant and bluster from these speakers we barely hear the words - NATION OF LAWS, not men/women. Here is a lawyer speaking truth to power and unabashedly confronts the eternal question — cui bono — who benefits from these promises of policy and change. Really do any of the candidates speak of how wealth will be redistributed? The matters of energy price, access to health care, growing an adequate and healthy food output.
For 12 % of this U.S. Senate virtually awol months and months, only dedicated to vaulting themselves and backers into executive fighting chairs, this can be seen as the usual free-for-nobody free-for-all. Already maybe a 1/2 Billion spent on tv ads! And March to Madness is still a week away.
It is gainsaid that Ralph will not win and has not the money to compete —- But are we at least worthy of hearing his clarity of thought on the great issues today and compare and contrast those thoughts with the party designees for the Presidency. But with the electorate more focused on the hype of the Movie Academy Awards than on the issues at stake for its future by politicos, maybe cynicism is easier to stomach?
Nader has turned into a silly-ass nuisance now. What kind of alternative choice is he giving when he knows damn well that he doesn’t have a chance in hell to make it to the White House?
A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. Sometimes I wonder if he’s a Republican mole in Nader clothing. Joe Leiberman the Democrat (sic) was another example.
I am a strong Ralph Nader supporter and I am shocked that there are still Democrats out there who don’t “get” his reasons or his place in this race. Obama, whom I like, has said he will talk to Iran, talk to Cuba and yet he has not spoken to Nader. Ralph tried to call him but no response. The truth, a word used frequently on these “Progressive” type blogs, is something you get from Ralph, but few are willing to accept from him. Maybe this time, given the Dems last couple of debacles, they will get smart and give him whatever it takes to get our support.
COMarc brings up a valuable history lesson- Democrats tun to the left in primaries, then back again in the general elections. (and viseversa for the GOP)
And thank you too COMarc for your thoughts on The Nation magazine. I do share your suspicions, and might even put the Nation in the same vein as MoveOn. I read many different websites every week, covering different ideologies. While I find the the writing to be comparativley acceptable, I do feel a strong bias from them. I have yet to make up my mind or even get many facts on the matter.
The question KvH posed though does I think deserve some consideration, IF there was some role that Nader could fill this election without being a candidate. As of now, I don’t think so, and I think running might be his only chance for a voice (and Nader is one of OUR- progressives- chance for a voice) but I am open to other opinions.
i erupted on “sam seder on sunday” for him trashing nader’s entry. his response: i agree nader brings a progressive perspective but he could cause mccain to get elected and that means a vote for nader would result in more people dying.
WTF!?
gee, i thought that was the republican line.
i ranted around the house afterwards, upsetting the cats, as subsequent callers complained about “progressive democrats” splitting the party. what part of this don’t they understand? i’m NOT a democrat! i’m a progressive! i don’t CARE about the (D) (aka R-lite) party. with dennis out of the race, i want the pelosis and reids and feinsteins to take notice that they CANNOT continue to ignore me, get cozy with their corporate and (R) masters, and still be able to count on my vote simply because they’ve conspired & colluded to banish any 3d, 4th, 5th etc. parties to the trash heap.
“Nader is running for the same reason he has run in the past: Because the likely nominees of the two major parties do not begin to meet the standards that might reasonably be asked of progressive contenders in 21st-century America.”
the idea that nader sets progressive standards bothers me. it is just what i need is someone else telling me what to and how i should be thinking. i have said it before, nader should not run. he has had his run, several of them. he needs to keep doing what he is good at, which is speaking out on issues and using his influence to make positive changes, not create more divisiveness.
DenverCurmudgeon wrote:
“Nader personally assured us that if the race was close in October he would withdraw his candidatcy and encourage his supporters to vote for Al Gore. He not only broke his word but he accepted thousands of dollars from Repugs to continue his campaign to get 5% of the vote. This act proves that Nader lacks the personal integrity to champion the progressive cause.”
Denver,
While at this personal meeting, did you or anyone else discuss with Mr. Nader the need to communicate this alleged “escape” strategy to his supporters/voters? Or was the 2000 plan supposed to be a secret until the last minute? Did you think it was wise and commendable to run a campaign with this exit strategy without telling his supporters/voters?
If there was a private promise to withdraw, then I find it troubling that you or anyone else would have supported it. “Misleading the electorate” would be a charitable description.
As with the claims made by Michael Moore, I am not convinced Mr. Nader made such promises. It’s ridiculous. Vote Nader — He’ll quit in October!
yohocoma -
Yes, that was my impression too. I was disappointed that Obama was so dismissive and surly in his response, and unwilling to go on record with his take on Nader’s talking points, which were concisely presented. It was pure ad hominum argument and an obvious avoidance of substantive position. I like Obama, but I just can not any longer empower people who can not speak their own truth. As long as Ralph is on the ballot I’ll have to be one of the progressive votes he “siphons off.” I leave it to middle America and moderate dems to create Obama’s landslide, and I will be glad to see him win.
Daniel David -
Please reference your quote from Nader, in which he says or implies that there is no difference between Bush’s agenda and that of the dems. I thought he trashed the Bush/McCain agenda rather thoroughly on Sunday. He has been quite specific in his critique of both parties, their similarities and differences. In fact he seems to be the only candidate willing to go beyond slogans and vagaries to the real issues. Those aren’t just “his own ideas.” They are mine. Which of those ideas, exactly, are not yours also?
yohocoma -
Yes, that was my impression too. I was disappointed that Obama was so dismissive and surly in his response, and unwilling to go on record with his take on Nader’s talking points, which were concisely presented. It was pure ad hominum argument and an obvious avoidance of substantive position. I like Obama, but I just can not any longer empower people who can not speak their own truth. As long as Ralph is on the ballot I’ll have to be one of the progressive votes he “siphons off.” I leave it to middle America and moderate dems to create Obama’s landslide, and I will be glad to see him win.
Daniel David -
Please reference your quote from Nader, in which he says or implies that there is no difference between Bush’s agenda and that of the dems. I thought he trashed the Bush/McCain agenda rather thoroughly on Sunday. He has been quite specific in his critique of both parties, their similarities and differences. In fact he seems to be the only candidate willing to go beyond slogans and vagaries to the real issues. Those aren’t just “his own ideas.” They are mine. Which of those ideas, exactly, are not yours also?
I hear Harold Stassen might run again, too.
Thanks, Ralph! Now I plan to vote. You won’t be taking my vote away from either the Democans or Republicrats, because I wasn’t going to vote at all before you announced.
But undoubtedly, many will see my vote among the 0.1% or 1% or 10% that Ralph gets as taken from someone who deserved it better. Those people deserve the choices they’re allowed by the corporatocracy that is in charge.
Run Nader Run.
The Democratic Party and Obama are pulling a classic Charlie Brown, telling you one thing and snatching it away at the last minute like Lucy did with the football, over and over again. When will the ‘progressive’ democrats ever learn?
Nader has been consistent in his message, excels in his knowledge and rational thought, and would be a great national spokesperson who actually can put together sentences that make sense.
This belief that Obama is really progressive but can’t say the words because of the backlash is part of the problem. I’m looking for someone who can say the words that need to be said, and take action in that direction.
While Obama is better than the other mainstream candidates (not better than Mike Gravel, still a democratic candidate), he still will fall short of the changes that will take us off this path of rampant corporate / miliary industrial theft that makes billions off our blood and our tax dollar.
Not only do I support Nader, I suppport his positions on most issues. There are many critical issues that I can’t support Obama on — the continued financing of the war, his promise to work with corporate interests to protect the general pubic (hahaha, that is a good one).
Discounting Nader will shut off all discussion on the very issues that most CD readers say they support. Who else has the guts to talk about it
nader is speaking this moment on talk of the nation (npr)
Perhaps the chief problem with Nader running is that he makes the corporate parties (or combined Republicratic Party) talk a tougher talk, but they revert to the same ol’ after getting elected. It makes salesmanship and showmanship more competitive, more crafty, but I’m unsure it changes substance. I’m going to predict an Obama victory in ‘08. But I’m also going to predict this:
* no change in the mideast.
* holding pattern until the invasion of Iran — either by Obama or his Republican sucessor. Or it’ll become evident that foreign policy isn’t driven by democracy at all. It has its own leaders, movers and shakers, well outside the reach of either applicable US or international laws.
* no single-payer health care.
* no clamp down on corporate crime. Nobody in the Bush administration will be pursued.
* no modernizations in our electoral system, democracy, etc.
* no cutback on military spending (on the contrary).
Perhaps at this point our elections are primarily about who’s got the best salespitch to wrap around the Bilderberg/CRR/Trilateral/AIPAC/MIC (or whoever they are) policies. But the policies are a foregone conclusion. We’re getting them regardless of who wins.
Whether it’s Kucinich, Gravel or Nader the message HAS to be there in order for the American people that pay little attention (if they do now) to begin to understand how politics effects their daily lives. Ralph is a hero, but Ralph has no chance other than to be a voice. I agree with his statement:
“If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form.”
It will be either a new beginning or the end of the Democratic Party.
This is more solid (and encouraging) analysis from John Nichols. Just wish The Genius of Impeachment was a high school textbook instead of the other stuff that kids have to sit through. No reason for anybody to panic over the Nader candidacy, but we’re going to hear hysterical calls for his head from democratic voters over the width and breadth of the land. Hillary Clinton was first out of the box with the canard about Nader costing Gore the election. Obama is staying cool and handling it just right. Thanks John!!
Beforkids: As a fellow Pacific Green Party Oregonian, I also feel that Obama is a lot more liberal
than he shows in public. Obama spent 3 months working as a community Organizer in New York city
with a Nader organization after graduating from college. Hopefully Obama and Nader will spend some
time on the phone once in awhile.
I’ll just take on jlocke’s comment at the top:
> Now let’s see how many posters want to say that having more choices for president is a bad thing.
How many “choices for president” is the optimal number, bro? How many voters we got? Hey, why don’t we all just run for president?
Come on, why should I settle for anything less than the best - ME!
ME FOR PRESIDENT!!! YAAAAY!!!
I’ll vote for me and you can vote for you.
Would that be a great way to do politics? Or what?
Hey, guess what, how many ACTUAL PRESIDENTS do we get?
I wish all the people who don’t think it matters who the ACTUAL PRESIDENT is would just stay out of it and keep quiet.
I read through this whole sympathetic John Nichols article, and I can’t figure out what it is Nader is trying to accomplish.
The great Nader Mystery!!! What is he up to???
Something about “Wall Street-defined globalization, rampant and frequently deadly corporate crime, out-of-control military spending and an imperial foreign policy” which according to Nichols “are not going to be addressed in a realistic let alone definitional manner by the Democratic nominee (be he Barack Obama or be she Hillary Clinton)…”
Hello? Earth to John… Those are THE ISSUES which are being discussed by Americans and by the candidates every day. Oh, but, not in “a realistic let alone definitional manner,” is that it? And what great words of realistic, definitional profundity does old Mr. Nader have in store for us? Hey, I’ve been reading Ralph’s scritches along with the rest of you. I haven’t been exactly blown away by their brilliance and depth.
Okay, so how about every blogging has-been left activist runs for president. The more “progressives” in the race, the better, right?
Riiiight.
mirf59:
“If the Democratic Party were an honest progressive Party, it would lose no votes to Ralph Nader, and would have nothing to fear or complain about.”
Solid observation!
Seems to me that Obama is the man-of-many-faces depending on the audience he’s addressing. Would the real Barak Obama please stand up! He says that corporate influence in Washington is a bad thing, then takes money from corporations. He says that the suffering of Palestinians is a bad thing, then pledges unending support for Israel to AIPAC. Now what I wonder about, is that all this crap Obama is doing is just to get elected or did he really leave his principals at the door when running for president?
COMarc, you recommend:
“The one way I see is to start torpedoing Dem campaigns. Anywhere the race is close, run a strong Green party effort. Ie, do exactly the opposite of the ’safe-states’ strategy. Look for ‘vulnerable states’ and seats and attack there hard and swift.
Then, see if the Dems want to make a deal. When they start to agree to stuff like ….
1) Instant Runoff voting for executive positions.
2) Proportional voting for legislatures
3) Clean Election funding \ public financing.
then you make a deal with them. The deal is we’d back of targeting the Dem candidates IF AND ONLY IF they support strongly these sorts of election reforms.”
But if the duopoly is so entrenched (as I agree it is), these tactics are far too feeble to work. They would demand a steady addition, with no attrition, of committed party builders content with minor arithmetical gains. The entrenched power will only entrench itself more & repeat its stale arguments that 3rd parties deliver the vote to the “real enemy”.
The point in an Obama campaign, and even a further effect in working for non-DLC-endorsed candidates, is that they de-stabilize a system which is incapable of abandoning its colonial DNA. A candidate or a party that directly challenges the structure on its own electoral field only reinforces the structures. Those who talk about ‘restoring the Constitution’ or ‘getting my country back’ fail to account for the historical impossibility of any such return to the past. The establishment has already gone into a panic at the prospect of an Obama nomination, because any departure from norms and protocols threatens them. They become even more hysterical over a Nader candidacy, even in a year when the Republican candidate will have difficulty reaching 40% of the popular vote.
The two strategies — take over the Democratic Party from within or abandon it and build a third party — can’t work the electoral reform you urge. The only thing that can is a revolution, which can only be conjured with the instruments that historical development places at our disposal.
The hyperreaction to Obama is a sign of a system splitting at the seams. While Hillary Clinton merely threatens to split the Democratic Party, an Obama nomination will overheat the system itself.
Obama voted for NAFTA-Peru, and Nichols claims Obama is “savvier” than Kerry and Gore.
Yeah, obviously whatever St. Barack does is wonderful, but let’s still remember…
Obama voted for NAFTA-Peru.
“If Obama runs as a progressive, Nader will have little room to maneuver. If Obama runs to the center, Nader’s space will open up — a bit.” So even at this point, people don’t know if Obama is a progressive or at the centre. That’s its own answer.
Ralph is the only one who can save us now. It’s Nader or nobody. No other candidate even compares to Nader on the issues.
I’m starting to really question the moral justification for supporting Nader. Pick any issue. Iraq, for instance. McCain says he’ll keep troops there 100 years. The Demoncrats (either Obama or Clinton) say they’ll do some kind of phased withdrawal (whether 60 days or 13 months or whatever). Well, that’s better than McCain. I suppose Nader would get inaugurated in the morning and pull the troops out in the afternoon — better yet, but then Nader is never going to be president. So if you vote for Nader so that you can keep a clear “progressive” conscience, well, you fail given the practical effect of your failure to vote for the Democrat.
I hope, after the election, Nader teams up with other true progressives to organize a real third party option for 2012, because there is going to be deep disillusion over the performance of Obama (or Hillary if she should come back from the dead).
Nader gave us Bush. Now he wants to give us McCain. If he had entered the Democratic primaries, he would’ve gotten into at least some of the candidate debates and could have been heard by millions. He chose not to. Why? Is he in the pay of the Republicans, or what?
Nichols has managed to quiet most Nader haters on this one.
Spiny Norman: … we need is for some kind of alternative voting system, like instant runoff voting or preferential voting
YES!
How many “choices for president” is the optimal number, bro? How many voters we got? Hey, why don’t we all just run for president?
Come on, why should I settle for anything less than the best - ME!
ME FOR PRESIDENT!!! YAAAAY!!!
I’ll vote for me and you can vote for you.
Would that be a great way to do politics? Or what?
Straw man, reductio ad absurdum, horse laugh
Nader gave us Bush.
Not according to Obama.
Jlocke123: You said, “Now let’s see how many posters want to say that having more choices for president is a bad thing.” First of all, Nader is in NO way a viable candidate! This is not parliamentary Britain, where a genuine 3rd party can make a difference.
Secondly, how do you respond to DenverCurmudgeon, who says: “I was at the Green Party convention in 2000 when Ralph was nominated. Following his … speech he met with a group of Colorado Democrats, including me and a lifelong Nader friend…Nader personally assured us that if the race was close in October he would WITHDRAW his candidacy and encourage his supporters to vote for Al Gore. He not only broke his word but he accepted thousands of dollars from REPUGS to continue his campaign to get 5% of the vote. This act proves that Nader lacks the personal integrity to champion the progressive cause.”
mirf59, Ray — great points. Furthermore, if Nader were needlessly redundant on the progressive landscape, Obama will make him VP (or vice-versa), crack a deal for a top cabinet position, etc.
Nader2000: Too bad we have this thing (mostly dead) called democracy and voting. If you don’t like Nader, don’t vote for him. If you want to run, are US-born, proper age and other requirements, you have every Constitutional right to run for office.
If still you’re wishing to blame Gore/Lie-bermann for losing in ‘00, try this:
* The FACT that only about 50-60% of eligible voters bothered voting in ‘00.
* The FACT that the apathetic therefore outnumbered Nader supporters by like 8-9:1.
* The evidence that Liebermann, even then, was a crypto-neocon.
* The FACT that Republicrats have had 150+ years of their men in the White House and we don’t have Range or IRV. Rather, we’re stuck with Electoral College, Diebold, gerrymandering, a run amok campaign finance system, etc. etc.
Bottom-line, neither Gore/Lie-bermann nor Bush/Cheney stood to get elected on a genuine majority of popular sentiment. Any race that’s almost split 50/50 with 40%+ of the electorate which doesn’t bother voting — mathematically — can only produce a minority government.
If the Dems feel that Nader cost them the election, then lets hear anti-nuke, single-payer, out of Iraq now, corporate responsibility, irv or range, cutbacks on military spending, etc. Since when are they entitled to votes of voters whose ideas they don’t even represent?
Sounds more like Republicans talking there than Democrats — those fierce advocates of peace, civil liberties, cleaning up corruption in government, and the other mythologies.
All I care about is a Dem win so Nader just disgusts me as usual.
I don’t want more choices this year. I want to make sure we don’t have war man McCain in there with his Bush agenda.
If you don’t get what I mean, you haven’t been paying attention.
pbdenison says “Nader gave us Bush. Now he wants to give us McCain. If he had entered the Democratic primaries, he would’ve gotten into at least some of the candidate debates and could have been heard by millions. He chose not to. Why? Is he in the pay of the Republicans, or what?”
No. The Supreme Court, Jeb Bush, Kathryn Harris, and the Republican machine which deleted thousands of voters from the voter lists and threw away thousands of votes because of “hanging chads” gave us George Bush. If it hadn’t been Florida, it would have been another state or another method, but a Republican WAS going to be president in 2000 no matter what the Republicans had to do to ensure it.
I like Al Gore now, but back in 2000, he couldn’t even carry his home state of Tennessee. Lots of people saw that as a Very Bad Thing. Had Gore won Tennessee or even Arkansas, he’d have been president. By caving in to the pressure to “move to the middle” and coming across as a wooden automaton, Gore failed to inspire in the way he does now.
Kerry was a dud who really did flip flop on his principles - how different from his integrity in speaking out against the Vietnam war! Again, the political powers-that-be short-changed both their candidate and the American people.
Blaming it on Nader is absurd. I’m glad he’s running. Of course, Kucinich was most progressives’ and liberals’ first choice and he is still a voice in the wilderness. I understand his decision to drop out of the race, but it helps that Nader has picked up where he left off.
Nader knows he will not be the next president, and he also knows that there are issues that must be addressed by someone. Obama is not doing it, and Clinton most certainly is not. Maybe Nader will be enough of a factor to push Obama to speak to the majority of Americans who want universal health care, an equitable economy, an end to the overwhelming corporate power in our government, and an exit from Iraq. I, for one, hope so.
Look at history, no third party canidate has ever won, including one of our greatest presidents Teddy Roosevelt. Who I wish the repubs would have followed. We can say that there are many reasons Gore did not get elected, had pompous old Ralph not thrown his weak hat into the ring we would be living in a much better America. Give it up Ralph I think he is getting senile
I have been saying for months that I would vote for the Democratic nominee unless it were Hillary Clinton, in which case I would vote Green. Thanks to COMarc for your comments on the “primary Obama” versus the one we’ll see in the general election. I think it’s time to rethink m position.
I supported Edwards and for now, I’m supporting Obama. Whoever gets the Democratic nomination, I’ll listen to what they have to say. Clinton or Obama, if I find them significantly better than the Republican nominee on the issues I find important (namely corporate power, climate change, and US foreign policy) then I will vote Democratic. Otherwise, I will vote Green even if it appears that in doing so, I will be helping the Republicans keep the White House.
In our two-party system, the only way the Green party or any other third party will become relevant is by getting more votes than one of the two now-dominant parties. Yes, it’s unlikely; but it’s happened before - and if it truly gets to the point where I can’t distinguish between the Democrats and the Republicans, I think it’s time for it to happen again. If it takes more short-term pain to move the Democrats left or leave them in the rear view mirror of history, I’m willing to pay that price.
We don’t need no stinking 3rd parties we just have to take over the Dems like the facists took over the repubs
Nader represents the only non corporate candidate in the pack: of course he should run. Nader has never taken votes from anyone. Had he not ran, I for one will not vote. Now I have a choice and a voice. For the rest of the sheeple like Nichols and his corporate handlers at the Nation, dupes to the very interests they pay lip service against every day. The hypocrisy is so frigging deep, it makes me want to puke.
Obama said this in response to Nader entering the race:
“My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies thinks you’re not substantive.”
That is false. A lie.
Nader was clear that he supported John Edwards, and would not run if Edwards was the candidate, not because he adopted “all” of his policies, but because he inched over on domestic and anti-corporate rhetoric. (Edwards was and is still militaristic and pro-empire on foreign policy.)
Obama’s response is not only a lie though, it is a taunt. And he taunts all true progressives, not just Nader.
Today on NPR Nader stated that he has been trying to get a meeting with Obama for months. But Obama won’t meet with him.
Nader also said, in response to a caller that running now, if people show interest in him via polls, that he will pull candidates in his progressive direction, to capture those in favor of Nader and his policies.
Of course we still have the US electoral dilemma: vote your conscience and help the candidate you most dislike (McCain) or vote tactically for the lesser evil and betray your conscience (pro-corporate Obama/Clinton).
So what could Nader to help the progressive cause?
I say:
- form a pre-election coalition of progressives including the Green Party and some progressive leaders
- openly propose a safe-states strategy with conditions
- reveal those conditions the Democratic Party candidate would have to meet for the safe states strategy to be inacted
- offer an unconditional, open invitation to have public and private talks about such concessions to a progressive platform for the safe-states strategy (policy commitments, cabinet appointments, electoral reform bills to be introduced for multi-party democracy, etc.)
- assemble a pre-election cabinet of progressive leaders (including Green Party people, and key progressive leaders)
- go on tour to publicize the effort, raise funds, raise awareness while getting on the ballot in all 50 states
- and finally, let the Dems decide if this “muscle” (reference COMarc’s fantastic analysis above at February 25th, 2008 2:05 pm) is sufficient to actually negotiate for support by progressives in safe states.
And if the corporate Democrats won’t play ball, and keep taunting and disrespecting progressives and the Green Party, then let what happens happen. Maybe they will learn a lesson. Or maybe they will play ball and give progressives enough of a program and a presidency to earn our and Ralph Nader’s respect.
Americans,
Ralph Nader said it loud and clear himself and you should all follow him in this, that is if you deep in your heart support his ideas more than those of the two main parties. His candidacy is about getting issues on the table. So if anyone asks you who you’re going to vote for, a pollster or a neighbour, answer Nader. Make it heard that everybody wants Nader. Scare the hell out of those weak kneed Democrats. Let Obama get serious on globalization, on environment, on health care, on the war against Islam. Let us see how many promises he is willing to make to convince you all your worries will be dealt with. Make him sweat! And when he’s real, then you can vote for him after all. When he’s just a liar like the rest of them, don’t feel ashamed having followed your heart by voting for Nader. Blaming Nader for messing up the Dems’ chances really is the most stupid thing I have heard in a long time.
Bottom line is that
NADER HAS THE RIGHT TO RUN. PERIOD. GO RALPH GO!
I just voted for Obama (early) in the Texas primary (though it was on an electronic machine with no paper trail, so who knows).
If Ralph and Cynthia McKinney, et al can push Obama far enough left to stomach, I may vote for him in the general election — w/o illusions.
I may vote for Nader or Rep. McKinney. Just too hard to figure yet. It’ll be a tactical maneuver and a lottery all-at-the-same time.
In any case, most real politics are happening outside of the electoral arena. Organize or die folks. Organize or die.
PS:
Whoever above (the string is too long and time too short to check back), commented that the (DLC-controlled) Dems seem to have bought out the Nation is spot on.
And when did the cruise w/ the Nation big-wigs gig start?
Thank you for this article!
For those of you who think Nader took the election from Gore: Don’t blame Nader, blame the people
who voted for him because they thought he represented their beliefs. If nobody voted for Nader, we
wouldn’t be going through this everytime Nader’s name is mentioned here.
Over a longer term Nader, like Norman Thomas, will help to move the center to the left, a healthy function.
Sometime in the Thirties, as I recall, Norman Thomas wrote a piece for The Saturday Evening Post (founded by Ben Franklin) entitled “They’ve Stolen My Platform.” In it he listed a goodly number of policy positions he had taken in the preceding decade or two, and it was a pretty impressive list, including something called Social Security. These postions had been adopted, eventually, by the Democratic Party.
There were similarities to the present; my father, fed up with both major parties, voted for Thomas at least twice although he always considered himself a Democrat. So did a significant number of others; I note that their votes didn’t cost FDR any elections.
AdeleTheCzech February 25th, 2008 4:39 pm:
“First of all, Nader is in NO way a viable candidate! This is not parliamentary Britain, where a genuine 3rd party can make a difference.”
“Secondly, how do you respond to DenverCurmudgeon, who says: “I was at the Green Party convention in 2000…Nader personally assured us that if the race was close in October he would WITHDRAW his candidacy…”
Hi there, Adele. I’m looking at it differently than you, I guess. If someone with a profile like Nader can’t be considered a viable candidate, then who can? Nader’s decades of service to the public speak for themselves. I look forward to Nader putting issues, we all see as important, on the discussion table. With regards to the Greens, I agree with one of the posters above (safiyyah) who asks why it seems that the Green party doesn’t put on a full court press and campaign all year, every year and not just shortly before an election. I suspect it is an issue of resources but of course, if like you say, the Green party cannot make a difference, then the Republicans and Democrats have nothing to worry about anyway.
How do I respond to DenverC? With all due respect, to our friend DenverC, I cannot vouch for what was or wasn’t said. Such allegations about a private understanding have been making the rounds. I tend to accept what Nader himself has said when asked about the idea of dropping out shortly before the vote. Nader said something, which an above poster (gimmeshelter) alluded to. Nader wasn’t prepared to let down his supporters, contributors and volunteers. He would be, in essence, telling them that all their work was for nothing, all their time, wasted. That would not be responsible or professional. On the contrary, I think Nader believes and has shown that one person can make a difference.
Nader brings a lot to the debate. I would say, if you don’t like him, don’t vote for him, but at least vote based on an informed opinion so that you know what you are buying. That’s Nader’s shtick after all isn’t it? He’s applying his consumer advocacy skills to the election and the only way he can get a hearing on “Meet the Press” is to run for office.
Thank you kindly for the inquiry Adele.
Rudyjo’s right. Never vote for someone you believe represents your beliefs.
djan has the right idea: Finally, WE HAVE SOME LEVERAGE! Scare the livin’ daylights out of the $Democratic Party$ Tell them you’ve had it with the betrayals!
If you voice your support for Obama early on, how is that going to push him into becoming a more progressive candidate? Remember, Obama voted several times to fund the illegal and murderous occupation of Iraq. He supports Israel over the beaten down, abused Palestinians, he won’t take nuclear war on Iran off the table” ….. he supports globalizaton, corporate controlled health care ….. and still, you’re inspired by him? Fair enough, BUT Please……
If you love Obama and can see something substantive in his vagaries, vote for him. But please, do something for the rest of us progressives who are “sick and tired of being sick and tired”(a Molly Ivins quote) of the corporations moving the Democrats to the right. Please, at least THREATEN not to vote for him unless he pledges to pull all troops out of Iraq within the first year of his presidency if not sooner. PRESSURE him to promise single payer health care, an end to NAFTA and predatory capitalism, an end to the brutalization of the Palestinians, PRESSURE him to debate Ralph Nader!
Why are some of you so quick to fall into line? Challenge, make threats. Obama is a corporate candidate, see if you can move him to become a people’s candidate. What do you have to lose? (unless you’re one of our many Democratic Party trolls) Don’t tell him everything is just fine by you. That’s a big mistake.
Very inspiring, all of these positive comments on the Nader candidacy!
We have some leverage, let’s use it. Nader is going to move the Democrats to the left whether they want him to or not, otherwise they’ll shrivel up and disappear. Are you going to help him or fall into line with the corporate Dems? They’ve stabbed you in the back on numerous occasions. You don’t think that’s the plan this time around?
really, do you want to put your faith in someone for four years if he’s only willing to put 8 months into the construction of platform construction? forty some odd men have been president of this country. it’s an ego trip for sure. and it’s quite obvious, just from reading the posts here, that we only thought the country was divided in 2000. as suggested previously, nader should provide his supporters space to fill with their rant-filled posts. call it “wet dreams.” or “pipe dreams.’ it says a lot about our society when some will, so rabidly, follow a person who has a snowball chance in hell of being a leader.
Hank Fur,
You nailed it. Thank you.
I have written to the Obama campaign telling him to be less equivocal about getting completely out of Iraq, no training, no Green Zone, no mercenaries, no enduring bases; and to get on board with single-payer - he’s already closer to it than Hillary if you listen carefully. Next time I will tell him I will not vote for him unless he comes out clearly on these issues. (Actually I don’t know who I will vote for, but for now that’s a good strategy.)
So the progressive purists have been posting ad naseum about Hillary and Obama and status quo, yada, yada, and how as long as folks keep voting Dem and Repub, nothing will ever change. Who can really disagree with that?
What I’m wondering is: when is one of these purists going to offer a FUCKIN SOLUTION! A bridge — that’s gets us from ‘here’ to ‘there.’ Like Obama said, good ideas aren’t the problem, creating the MOVEMENT is. I’m sorry for coming across as harsh but I’m starting to lose my mind reading all of these posts, as if they’re saying something every freakin’ CD reader doesn’t already know.
Unless one of you brilliant purists can offer the blueprint of how we get millions upon millions to organize and commit to things like direct action or revolutionary politics, then I’ve heard enough, for crissakes. We get it. The Dems are the ‘liberal’ wing of the Business Party. Yeah, and global warming is a problem. No shit. These purists think they’re the only ones smart enought to see it all. Grow up.
Let’s take it one step further: do any of the purists in here have any real experience in organizing or movement building? If not, STFU!!! If you do, then why not share your insights, instead of reminding us how sheeplish we all are and what not. Jesus Christ.
Any takers?
One thing is for damn sure, speaking as a late 30something, you progressive boomers have done a embarrasingly terrible, disgustingly horrible job of teaching your kids how to “keep the movement” alive.
PS Hank: Molly, as much as I love her, didn’t coin “sick and tired of being sick and tired.” That was coined by Fannie Lou Hamer, years before Molly penned those words. In fact, the saying is a common African-American witticism.
Lets just watch where Nader’s money comes from and hold him accountable for that.
John was big time for Ralph in 2000. What happened, John?
Remember Madison, WI in 2000?
Nothing’s changed. Obama isn’t going to do anything.
Ralph is right to run.
Whoever is elected, the bottom line will be how we organize and pressure the party/people in power to represent the needs of the common person, instead of corporations.
Regarding post #1:
“Now let’s see how many posters want to say that having more choices for president is a bad thing.”
It depends on who those choices are, doesn’t it? I couldn’t care less that Nader’s entry into the race in 2000 spoiled things for the Democratic nominee. The point is that it also spoiled things for those of us seeking systemic change in America. The Bush revolution really happened.
America needs adequate campaign spending limits and other systemic changes to our political system, not progressive presidential candidacies that are marginal at best and dangerous at worst given the system as it’s presently constituted.
Nader - I am with you. Run and expose the Dems.
citizen1
What good is running and exposing the Dems if you are so puny that you’ll only end up preaching to the choir at best and spoiling things at worst? Think systemic change, not little cults of personality.
To all you Nader haters: Florida was a done deal with or without Nader. Didn’t you see the smug smirks on the row of Bush family faces lined up on their couch even when Gore was supposedly ahead on election night? It wasn’t over until the counting was done and they had that in the bag. It’s more comfortable to blame Ralph than the complicity of the Democrats for our corrupt electoral process. And what have they done to fix it in the last two years? Allowed Bush’s politicized Justice Department to strip “questionable” voters from voting rolls and make it expensive and difficult to register unless you are reasonably affluent.
The only rational explanation for the behavior of people like Gore and Pelosi is that they’ve been bought or received death threats.
kathyodat
To those pathetic souls who presist in thinking that things would have been better in 00 if Ralph hadn’t been in the race I have two words for you JOE LIEBERMAN !!!that leopard hasn’t changed his spots he is still the same repugnant zionist gangster that he is today now he is
supporting McCain so I guess you would have the same outcome as you fear today.
It must be said that the Republicans stand up for their core constituents as repugnant as they are, the socipathic greedocrats and the utterly brain dead, that is more than the Democrats do, they show utter contempt for their core constituents and only bow down to their corporate sponcers, I guess money talks!
With all the trouble that McCain is having I hope that the candicy of Ron Paul will have a jolt, as his followers are hard core,I am only hoping that between Ron Paul and the Green party or Ralph they will form a vice that would be able to lance the toxic puss pocket of the
DLC zionis gangsters that controle what is now known as the Democratic party.
Oh yes I saw this campaign for Oboma
HOPE
CHANGE
YES
WE CAN
translation
if you find an old CAN you HOPE that you
you will be offered some CHANGE for it.
Ralph Nader is a national treasure. His work as a consumer advocate probably saved as many lives as the Bush administration has destroyed. And John Nichols’s analysis is spot on. Americans need Ralph Nader to remind them what integrity looks like.
I hope Obama will always speak of Nader with respect for Nader’s long and effective history of advocacy and accomplishments on the public’s behalf. Don’t laugh at Nader. Don’t ever mock him. His record of public service prior to his presidential runs is too long, real, and genuine. This should never be disparaged, never be forgotten. I hope Obama takes the high road with Nader, never refuses to take a phone call from him, always treats him publicly and privately with respect and dignity. If Nader delivers some body blows, think of it like the court jester of a medieval court criticizing the king, or like a biblical prophet of old walking into the king’s court, speaking truths that no one else could or dared. Answer him respectfully or don’t answer him, but don’t answer with ridicule. There are millions of Americans of all stripes, both Democrats and grassroots Republicans, perhaps older with memories of the earlier Nader, who don’t vote for Nader but who respect Nader. Not for his presidential runs, but for his long list of real, substantive accomplishments apart from that, for his truth-telling about corporate power. (For those who don’t know Nader’s truly breathtaking honorable track record, do some research before mocking this American hero, this modern Thomas Paine.) Democrats, mock Nader and it will boomerang and lessen Democrat standing among grassroots America.
I doubt Nader will draw much more this time than in 2004, for the simple reason that people motivated to vote this year are for the most part (CD posters being unrepresentative on this point) not going to go outside the two major party choices. It is just too damn scary for a huge part of America to risk a continuation of the nightmare Bush-Cheney era (which is what a McCain presidency will mean).
And there is speculation–at least according to what I heard on POTUS radio today–that Ron Paul could run after all in the general election–on the Libertarian ticket. Paul has deep pockets of money and has proven vote-pulling power. If Ron Paul runs as Libertarian, he will peel substantial votes from McCain. Nader will be a minor effect on Obama’s votes, but Ron Paul would be a major effect on McCain’s votes. Although Ron Paul and Libertarians are traditionally a wing of the Republicans in terms of core sympathies (pro-civil liberties Old Right) and disagree with Democrats on domestic issues, it would not surprise me in the least if Ron Paul personally, as well as at least half of thinking libertarians in 2008, considers a McCain victory more threatening than an Obama victory–in spite of McCain being the Republican and Obama being the Democrat. Ron Paul would be doing a public service in a big, big way if he runs as Libertarian and in so doing helps ensure an historic, overwhelming Obama victory.
Earthbound, 9:48 pm: I think you’ve SAID IT ALL, in one sentence:
“Whoever is elected, the bottom line will be how we organize and pressure the party/people in power to represent the needs of the common person, instead of corporations.”
Let’s not waste our votes on Ralph. Let’s do just what Earthbound urges us to do!
An even wiser response by Obama would be to ask John Edwards to be his VP. Edwards is close enough to the Nadar message that those who are tempted by the VERY REAL AND COMPELLING ISSUES that Nadar represents might continue to back Obama. For some of us that originally endorsed Edwards, it is still a little hard to get excited about Obama. I know from history that a Nadar ticket would divide the wrong people. If I were to vote for him, it would actually benefit Clinton, HOWEVER, it is hard not to vote for someone who GETS THE BIG ISSUES! PLEASE OBAMA…GET EDWARDS ON THE TICKET…IT COULD ONLY BE GOOD FOR YOUR CAMPAIGN AND THE COUNTRY! THANK YOU!
The present electoral system in the US is corrupt from top to bottom. You name it, electoral college (should be called ‘electoral retard school’), corporate money, special interests, etc., how could the voice of the common man ever expected to be heard? And the sheeple keep voting for essentially the same idiots. Let’s face it, they’re/we’re terrified to go outside the box for ‘real’ solutions. Though we feel trapped and exploited, we are afraid to make the leap away from the status quo, especially when it’s packaged in such a ‘feel good’ candidate as Obama, who really only apologetically promises more of the same. Obama, like almost all the Dems, only want to ‘tweak the pig,’ not abolish the corruption of which they are part. Perhaps Nader deserves a second look. If there were a Nader/Edwards ticket, would that even be enough to break the spell? Fun to think about anyway
Edwards On the Obama ticket just might get Nader to drop out….Good point disenchanted!
Let’s remember that even if Obama were to become president. without a majority of democrats in
congress, he won’t get much done.
Many have mentioned it’s great to have another voice in the debates, but Unfortunately Ralph doesn’t get the media attention he deserves (with his points as the issue, instead of “being the spoiler” etc). Will he be allowed in future debates? If he isn’t will he be threatened with arrest again if he comes on the campus property where the debates are being held just to view the debates or do an interview? Anything and everything is done to keep his voice from the people.
How can we get him into the televised debates for the public to see and hear? Mass protests outside where the debates are to be?
may find himself more marginalized than ever before.
Get lost, John Nichols. This is the day of the progressive.
if democratic participation is the goal and our goal is to influence the contest, we should all contact bloomberg and encourage him to run to broaden the political discourse, even if we planned on voting for nader or obama. paul, mckinney, nader, bloomberg (anyone like r perot who can afford millions of dollars to exercise their first amendment rights) all should be included in the political race (speeches, debates, fund raisers) in the next 8 months.
if clinton uses political influence to steal the election (via super delegates), i see the potential death of the democratic party. at that moment all the third party candidates mentioned above plus obama if he runs as an independent (change we can believe in, a chance to alter history - renunciation of the dlc) would have a legitimate chance to win (or anyone with oodles of money, like spielberg).
vote your conscience,help build a real coalition.
please donate to kucinich and sheehan………………….
there was a good discussion of third party politics today on washington journal (CSPAN)(2/25/08 minutes 1.00-1.30)with Douglas Schoen author of Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System……..
SG,
Nothing like complaining about the people complaining!
If you know anything about movements, you’d recognize that movements that don’t “grow up” into *responsible political parties* will always fracture into insignificance and/or have their messages co-opted by one of the existing parties. The Left doesn’t need another movement. It needs a real political party that at least *resembles* the opinions of its members. It’s been 30 years of the art of “compromise” within the DNC. Time to try compromise inside another party.
Nichols lacks the courage to urge voters to vote for Nader. He seems to recognize Nader’s postions are better. What is stopping him from a clear celebration of a person entering the race who has the best positions on the issues?
Mr. Nichols you nailed it with this excellent analysis! Yea buddy!
“This is not to say that Obama is as good as Nader on the issues.”
Wow, lots of good progressive bloggers out there tonight. Yesterday the Dims were breathing fire in there rage against Ralph.
I was having dinner with my apolitical girlfriend tonight and I pointed out that when a Republican walks into a room where a Democrat is seated the Democrat quickly stands up, bends over and wraps his thumbs around his ankles. When Raplh Nader walks into a room with a Democrat the Dim erupts in a lather of vitriol, hatred and hostility worthy of weaponized anthax spores. I said, “I wonder why that is?”
My girlfriend responded, “It’s because he tells them the truth!” I high-fived her and complimented her on her insightful comment. I get it now. Nader will expose and rip the “progressive” mask off Obama and the Democrats. That’s why they hate him. That’s the truth.
The Democrats have gotten along so mightily with their erstwhile enemies the Repugs because they thrive in a symbiotic relationship. The Republicans provide cover for the Dims by making them seem progressive by contrast even as they both lurch more and more to the right, election after election. The Democrats pretend to oppose them with token votes against measures when they know it’s going to pass anyway. If there any chance the measure can’t pass if they vote against it Obama and Clinton simply don’t vote. Check their records if you don’t believe me.
In all the really important matters like Supreme Court Judge appointments, important posts, war, torture, spying on Americans and just generally craping all over the constitution the Dims have done nothing but deliver.
I am so glad Ralph is running because now those of us fed up with the two party duopoly finally get a voice after having to listen to all this crap like “Hope”, “Yes we can!” and yes we will continue the war by keeping 1,000s of troops in Iraq to fight and die for empire and Big Oil. Raplh is the perenial truth-teller. Run Democrats, RUN!
Thanks Ralph Nader, GIVE THEM HELL! GIVE THEM F^&KING HELL!
I have a lot of respect for Nader, but I don’t understand his obsession with the presidency to the exclusion of any other elected office. Why doesn’t he run for a congressional seat?
I’m glad Nader is running. I may vote for him if I don’t like the two big party candidates.
Quoting Spiny Norman, COMarc writes:
“‘It is fine for Nader to run, but the problem is that our voting system is not good for 3 parties. One of the voting reforms we need is for some kind of alternative voting system, like instant runoff voting or preferential voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting‘
I agree, but how are you going to get it?
The Dems certainly won’t give it to you. They like the current system and their monopoly position just fine.”
Maybe the Dems do like it, COMarc - I wouldn’t contest that. But I’m not sure exactly why. If there had been preferential voting in Florida in 2000, most of Nader’s votes would have “flowed” (as the Australians, who use preferential voting, say) to Gore, and there would have been no Bush-calamity - neither for the Democrats, nor for the nation.