Skip to main content

This is a devastating blow. I can't think of another endorsement of Hillary continuing her campaign that would give dedicated Democrats who support her more reason to pause.

I am speaking, of course, about the man who knows more than anyone in America about hurting Democrats by refusing to quit an election that you won't win.

The one and only Ralph Nader, in a message posted on his website, urges Hillary to carry on the struggle. Excerpt below the fold.

Senator Clinton:

Just read where Senator Patrick Leahy is calling on you to drop out of the Presidential race.

Believe me.

I know something about this.

Here's my advice:

Don't listen to people when they tell you not to run anymore.


Just like every other citizen, you have a right to run.

Whenever you like.

For as long as you like.

It's up to you, Hillary.

Just tell them -

It's democracy.

Get used to it.

Yours truly,

Ralph Nader

(edited: I didn't want to say that Hillary can't win. She could.)

Originally posted to neil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:40 PM PDT.


Is Nader trying to make Clinton look bad?

88%449 votes
11%58 votes

| 508 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Nader hates the democratic party (15+ / 0-)

      and would love nothing better than to see it destroy itself.

      I lost respect for him a long time ago. He still does not admit that he was part of the cause that Gore lost.

      •  In that case he'd want the race to continue (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama, otheruser

        but wouldn't he realize that with his reputation, saying he wants it to continue is counterproductive?

        •  yes it would be counter-productive if (0+ / 0-)

          he is saying it out of hatred for the Democratic Party.  If he is saying it simply because he believes it, considerations of productivity and counter-productivity are simply irrelevant.

          BTW, he never says that he wants her to continue, only that she has the right.  In the fall he will be reminding her disaffected supporters that he supported her right to continue when he asks for their support for his campaign.

      •  In Spanish (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chicago Lulu, murasaki, limpidglass, SciVo

        there's a word that means to feel embarrassed for someone else. This word applies to Nader.

        He's done so many great things in his career. OSHA, "Unsafe at any Speed," air bags, FOIA, etc. Why, in his self absorption, does he now destroy his reputation?

      •  I've been fooled by Ralph for a long time (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grrr, Mia Dolan, Tamar, allep10, Munchkn, ETF

        by giving him the benefit of doubt for over 35 years. Now I realize that many of us - former Nader raiders, PIRGers - who idealistically joined his crusade many years did all the hard grass-roots work, all the canvassing and community organizing, while RN flew around the country giving speeches, holding press conferences and getting most of the headlines. All the day to day grunt work were done by others while he reaped the greatest benefit. No wonder he would call people in the middle of the night (say around 3am) to see if they were sleeping, to ask why they were not working on his personally-funded projects. Turns out he was one hell of tyrant to work for. But we forgave him because of what we all truly believed in...

        It finally dawned on me just a few months ago that RN is, in fact, a self-absorbed egotist, who still craves attention desperately (most of my friends and acquaintances were right about him after all). No longer considered a well-regarded consumer advocate anymore, he seems to surface every 4 years to run for high office, to hog all the news for a few days and then disappear into the woodwork. What a pill he's become.  

        Maybe I'm being too harsh on RN, but I do feel somewhat betrayed and awfully disillusioned by his attack on the Democratic party, tarring all leading candidates with the same tar brush. For instance, he's never had a kind word to say about Al Gore, John Kerry or Barack Obama. He couldn't care less if the Democratic nominee lost the general election. According to him they are nothing more than a  corporately-controlled Republican-lite candidate. Only RN is the 'true' candidate on the progressive side. Hogwash, I say!

        No more, no more!  

        "The blackbird whirled in the autumn winds. It was a small part of the pantomime." Wallace Stevens

        by mobiusein on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:39:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One of those comments that deserves rec*10 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          But Sidney Wolfe did good work (though I heard he was awful to work for also).

          If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

          by Tamar on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:35:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, Sid Wolfe did good work (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            and still continues to do so. He remains fiercely loyal to Ralph - I'm not sure how much of his funding still comes from a patronage relationship with RN. But, you are right, he is still doing stellar work...

            It still does not negate what I'm saying - who is doing the actual work and who is riding on others achievements. That is what I have finally come to realize, somewhat belatedly, I'm afraid...

            "The blackbird whirled in the autumn winds. It was a small part of the pantomime." Wallace Stevens

            by mobiusein on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:11:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I thought this was snark at first (17+ / 0-)

      but there it was on his web site.  
      Unbelievable.  The guy is a satire of himself.  
      Recommended because I want lots of people to see this!

      If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

      by Tamar on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:45:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your poll reminds me (7+ / 0-)

      of a rightwing push poll. I am so sick of reading crap from people who have abandoned any adherence to objectivity.

      The far more likely reason is he believes what he's saying. As he should. He's absolutely right.

      Nader's a pain in the ass. But I respect his principle, if perhaps misguided, stand. And, as a Democrat and a democrat, I certainly respect his right to run for elected office.

      I also think Democrats who blame Nader for George Bush are delusional.

      As for his "self-absorption", got any evidence of that Dr. Freud. Why can't some people disagree with people on the merits of their arguments without resorting to ad hominem attacks? Because some people's arguments have little merit.

      •  You're right (0+ / 0-)

        But I can't edit the poll. Really, all I wanted to put was 'yes' or 'no'. The bad ones, I'm sure you'll agree, are the ones which add 10 extra synonyms for "Nader suxxx, dood!"

        I even voted for him in 2000. But you couldn't get me to admit that on DailyKos -- they'd tear me to ribbons, man.

  •  You forgot the third poll option... (11+ / 0-)

    Babble, Babble, Babble.

    If you want to vote for somebody with whom you are in perfect agreement, be prepared to put your name on the ballot : Tom Schaller

    by captainlaser on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:42:15 PM PDT

  •  Say, isn't that the same Nader... (0+ / 0-)

    ...that many Obama supporters threaten to vote for if Clinton is the nominee?  

    -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

    by Rich in PA on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:43:04 PM PDT

  •  I smell subterfuge. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Perhaps he's telling her to continue because he knows people would hear that message from him and vomit.

    An agnostic not because I don't know if there's a God, but because I don't care.

    by filmgeek83 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:43:51 PM PDT

  •  Dear Hill, You are just like me. (15+ / 0-)

    So stuck on my righteousness that I would rather have the country go down in flames than to admit somebody else could do as good or better job than me. Bestest regards, Ralphie N.

    Obama: Pro-Defense. McCain: Pro-War

    by OHdog on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:45:33 PM PDT

  •  Nader knows losing. He should be Hillary's (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FenderT206, oscarsmom, DaNorr, Fawkes

    campaign adviser.

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:45:54 PM PDT

  •  Replace her campaign bus with a Pinto (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tamar, oscarsmom

    See if he still supports her then.

    •  good to know there are still people who remember (7+ / 0-)

      the good old days when Nader was actually a champion of the people.  

      If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

      by Tamar on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:50:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think he still is, he's just unable to accept (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        naltikriti, eddie233

        the reality that politicians have to get elected.

        •  No he isn't (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2, limpidglass, Fawkes

          Nader sold out long before even the 2000 election.  He is as corrupt as they come.

          •  I don't know about corrupt (0+ / 0-)

            don't think I'd ever accuse him of that.  But he obviously cares more about his own trajectory (which is mainly down, thank god) than about the people of this country and the world.

            If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

            by Tamar on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:03:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Completely corrupt (7+ / 0-)

              Ralph Nader's 2000 endorsement:

              When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush."

              Ralph Nader the right-wing liar

              Ralph Nader’s intervention in the Terri Schiavo case was significant for what it revealed about the former Green Party and independent presidential candidate’s political trajectory. In a series of public statements concerning the tragic episode, Nader expressed his agreement with the anti-scientific and anti-democratic positions taken by the extreme right, effectively solidarizing himself with this social layer.

              * * *

              Throughout his intervention in the Schiavo case, Nader based himself on many of the same irrationalist claims that were being made by various Christian fundamentalist groups. On March 24, at the height of the turmoil surrounding the misguided efforts of Schiavo’s parents to prevent the court-ordered removal of the feeding tube that had been sustaining their daughter’s life for the previous 15 years, Nader published a statement asserting that Schiavo’s persistent vegetative state was merely a form of physical disability. Charging the courts with imposing "death by dehydration," he insisted that the rights of the unconscious woman were being abrogated by the judicial process.

              * * *

              Nader wrote: "Michael Schiavo has decided, somewhat after the medical malpractice case was settled, that Terri would not want to live under such conditions. So he has made the decision to let her expire and the circuit courts and appellate courts have approved. He has been for nearly ten years in a common law marriage with a woman who has given birth to their two children. He wants to get on with his life, after years of pressure and anguish."
              While using language meant to indicate a degree of sympathy for Michael Schiavo’s position, Nader’s statement completely distorted the truth. What the legal process established, on the basis of the testimony of several witnesses, was that Terri Schiavo herself had said, prior to the seizure that left her in a vegetative state, that she would not want to be artificially kept alive if she ever ended up in such a condition. Nader’s insinuation that Michael Schiavo came to this conclusion on his own, and that he did so only after concluding that the extension of his wife’s life was personally inconvenient, was not only false, it dovetailed with the slanderous attacks on Michael Schiavo’s character issued by far-right groups and their Republican allies.  Furthermore, as the results of an investigation by the Florida Department of Children and Families demonstrated (See: "State investigation clears Michael Schiavo of all abuse charges," April 20, 2005), Michael Schiavo conducted himself with the utmost compassion towards his wife over the last 15 years.

              Nader the union buster

              Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.
              Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."
              When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.
              According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like can’t have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events.

              Nader the corporate stockholder and insider trader

              Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times, buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years, PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF) -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was also fined by the IRS and paid without contest.
              Several of these trades were poised to take advantage of Nader's activities, by selling short the stock of companies Nader's groups attacked, or buying stock of their competitors. In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical, the primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced they would offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit in 3 and a half months. In 1976, PSRI and the SSF bought stock in Goodyear just as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- then run by former top Nader aide Joan Claybrook -- announced an investigation of the Firestone 500 series of steel-belted radials. The 2 organizations held onto the stock for 2 years until there was a recall, and Firestone -- Goodyear's major competitor -- suffered.

              Nader funded by Republicans

              Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader -- still not on the ballot in a single state -- has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party, an analysis of federal records show.

              Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1, 000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign, the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have "bundled" contributions -- gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, who has criticized the practice in the past.

              * * *
              Nader, who has decried the influence of corporations in the political arena, also has received more than $20,000 in "bundled'' contributions since March from GOP fund-raisers, according to the Federal Elections Commission documents that tally donations through May 31.

        •  But his refrain in 2000, that (4+ / 0-)

          the parties were exactly the same was idiotic.  Imagine Gore having been president:  
          A good energy policy, no invasion of Iraq, social programs still intact, DOJ still a functioning entity, Alito & Roberts not on the Supreme Court, no massive wiretapping of Americans' phones, I could go on and on.

          Nader has lost is way in the forest of his fictional world in which he is the only pure person and everyone else is scum.

          A cousin of ours worked on his first campaign and got really disillusioned.  Said Nader made no attempt to reach out to the poor and disenfranchised.  This guy went on to union organizing and fighting sweatshops, and now works on the campaigns of real progressives.  And I'm speaking to him again.

          If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

          by Tamar on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:01:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bush and Gore (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tamar, Munchkn

            Right, Nader thought there was no difference. I hate seeing this guy on TV, even sometimes complaining about Bush. I don't see how anyone can help screaming, "You of all people have no right to complain!"

          •  President Gore (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ybruti, Tamar, Munchkn

            wouldn't have ignored the PDB from 8/6/01 and because of that 9/11 may have been prevented.

          •  It's less idiotic when you think... (0+ / 0-)

            ...that after two terms of Gore, we might be seeing VP Joe Lieberman coast to the Democratic nomination.

            •  But Lieberman would have either (0+ / 0-)

              shown his hand and been made irrelevant, or maybe been moved in a different direction.  It's hard to know.  Still would have been better to have 8 years of Gore/Lieberman than 8 years of Bush/Cheney.  Like the difference between a decent but not spectacular meal and poison.

              If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

              by Tamar on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:02:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I disagree (a counterfactual reverie) (0+ / 0-)

                Al Gore himself (still version 1.0) was running only slightly left of the DLC line in 2000. I don't think there's any reason to believe that Lieberman would depart from the centrist formula that Gore's election would have confirmed.

                Although the Executive would have been more sane, without the Bush presidency, Congress would probably still be in the hands of the Republicans. Democrats retook Congress in 2006 in no small part thanks to the damage that the Bush administration has done to the Republican Party.

                McCain would have run in 2004. Had McCain won or lost, I don't think there's any reason to believe Lieberman would have moved an inch. He also wouldn't be as exposed as he is today: He wouldn't have had to run for the Democratic nomination -- and lost. And he certainly wouldn't be endorsing the Republican candidate -- whether that was McCain running for a second term, or someone else. Instead, he'd be in the a privileged position to run for President, himself -- especially as an incumbent or a former Vice President. (Think Mondale in 1984.)

                With another presidential notch in its belt, the DLC would continue to represent the premier faction of the Democratic party -- rather unlike its present, rather pathetic state of pretension.

                In short, the country would be better off if the Democrats had won in 2000. We would likely not be at war, or as diplomatically damaged and deeply in debt. But Congress would still be in the hands of the Republicans. And the leadership of the Democratic Party would have continued the trajectory towards the least-common-denominator between our party and the Republicans which marked the 90s.

                And Lieberman would be a man of the times, the probable nominee, promising a new era of "bipartisan cooperation".

                •  You might be right (0+ / 0-)

                  Maybe things would have swung to the left anyway, but I agree it's less likely.
                  but we'll never know.  

                  If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

                  by Tamar on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:48:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Did his letter have a snark tag? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oscarsmom, lisastar, George Hier

    That would help us figure out what the hell he is thinking.

    "His mind is as sharp as anybody's I've ever met," Feingold said of Obama.

    by Joes username on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:50:07 PM PDT

  •  Ralph hates the Democrats, period. (6+ / 0-)

    He knows Hillary is hurting the Democrats' cause.  He wants McCain to win.

  •  Ralph Nader... (7+ / 0-)

    ...unsafe at any election!

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight.

    by JeffW on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:51:27 PM PDT

  •  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This is friggin' hilarious.  

  •  I actually think (4+ / 0-)

    this is pretty astute.  i mean, what if people really listened to that line of commentary, and good people who seek progressive change en masse began running for public office.  really, think about that for a moment...

    i still wish hillary would drop out, because i think there are far more direct and meaningful ways to bring about the future posited above.  but i think the concept raised in nader's letter is one that deserves some thought, beyond the context the letter is referring to.  

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There's a knee-jerk negative reaction here to Nader because of his perceived "spoiler" presence in federal elections. It's surprising, because i'd figure this site—though it is committed to getting Democrats elected—would have plenty of members who appreciated the fact that any citizen can run for public office.¹

      Let's look at the facts: the United States of America is stuck in a tired, two-party system that doesn't measure up against any of the great democracies on this planet. For all the ballyhoo about "America, Champion of Democracy" it's interesting that 3rd party candidates are seen as nobodies, cranks, or spoilers.²

      I'm going to bring up something now that i thought i'd leave until—IF—Obama somehow does not get the nod to run as the Democrat's candidate. I think that he has enough backing to make a serious run as a 3rd party candidate. I'd be interested to see, if this came to pass, how many here who otherwise bash Nader at all opportunities, would get behind Obama in such an effort.

      Remember: i'm only saying if he doesn't take the Primary.

      ¹ Well, almost any citizen.

      ² OK, many of them are, but still …

      "People who say I'm dystopian are middle class pussies!" – William Gibson

      by subtropolis on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:05:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Imagine (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, Fawkes

      What if we went into the ballot booth and we had reams of paper, since there was 35 or 40 million people running for president?

      It'd be ludicrous.

      I agree that Nader can run for president all he wants, but he should get no more attention and no more publicity for it than every other crank out there. And there are many various people running for president that we never hear anything of.

      •  the whole system would change (0+ / 0-)

        if that were to happen.  because you're right, given how things currently function, that is unfathomable and not very appealing. but it wouldn't happen that way, i don't think.   something would be fundamentally different.  and i'm not talking about gary coleman campaigns.  i'm talking about what would happen if people who really understand what's at stake were to heed that call and pursue careers in making meaningful change through the electoral process.  and i'm furious with nader for taking his ''there's no difference between gore and bush"  rhetoric to the level he did.  it's just wrong.  and if he were committed to the values he supposedly cares about so much, i think he would have been unafraid to take a step back in ample time before the GE in 2000 in order to clarify that, indeed, there are major differences and that it DOES matter whether it's gore or bush in the white house. and for a LONG time, i had a hard time engaging with friends who had latched onto him and who logged time supporting his campaign until the bitter end.    but I do NOT believe that Nader should get no more attention and no more publicity for it than every other crank out there.   there is much to be learned even from zeroing in on where he's gone/he goes astray.  and over his career there is a lot that he has NOT gone astray about.  a lot of very, very important things that I consider some of the bread and butter of this community.   he's got something to say, and this comment of his was, again, surprisingly astute and resonant and representative of a line of thinking that is quite far afield from what we've become accustomed to, concerning the race, and concerning politics in general.  

  •  They can start (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oscarsmom, Fawkes

    the "DINO Democrats who never got to be Presidents" club

    So much time and so little to do...wait, stop, reverse that.---Willy Wonka

    by bluestateonian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:51:35 PM PDT

  •  Where's the poll option that says (3+ / 0-)

    We big ego people don't have to care about the consequences of our actions so go for it, even if it destroys everything we say we believe in.

  •  Actually, I agree with Ralph. (5+ / 0-)

    People want to run, they should be able to run.  Even him.  Even Hillary.

    Of course, they are also always welcome to take a gander around at the terrain and the realistic set of possibilities, and decide running is not a good idea. I no longer get the Nader candidacy.  

    But he's got every right and so does she.

  •  Nader endorsed Hillary -- AWESOME!!! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lauramp, smari006, oscarsmom, beltane
    Can Gore endorsing Obama be far behind?
  •  And what were you doing lurking over... (0+ / 0-)

    at the Ralphie site???  Tisk...Tisk

    Obama/Richardson '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:58:09 PM PDT

  •  Rationale: More candidates allow for better (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ybruti, subtropolis, lams712

    discourse of policies they are going to support. It is concievable that Hillary has forced Obama to become specific with healthcare and to define his foreign policy.

    His strong stand about talking to friends and enemies is an improvement.

    It has also forced Obama to move from hope (always good but non specific) to a vision of the future, which made him stronger.

    For that I can thank Hillary.

    This actually forced her to lie about NAFTA, and that would not have come to light if the race was over earlier.

    So in short, when you exclude race baiting and lies, the campaign has improved the democratic party message. This is Ralph's rationale. I buy it in principle.

    And do not forget, Hillary's divisive tactics are actually sinking her campaign.

  •  Will Hillary denounce and reject Ralph Nader's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oscarsmom, Fawkes


  •  I agree with Al Gore. Let the voters vote. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We will unite at the convention.

  •  Nader knows what he is doing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    subtropolis, lams712

    Nader understands what Hillary is doing because he has done the same thing himself. He caught a lot of flak for insisting on his own candidacy at the expense of the Democrat's chances and for suggesting that it might be preferable for Democrats to lose the election than to elect that ticket.

    This is precisely what Hillary is doing this year, albeit less explicitly, and despite her recent statements to the contrary. Nader is calling her on it, and I commend him for doing so.

    You can certainly question Nader's tactics vis-a-vis the Democratic Party -- and I think you should. But I don't think there are grounds to question the sincerity of his opposition to what the Clintons and the DLC have done to the party.

  •  So... we hate, mock and ignore Nader... (0+ / 0-)

    Until he says something that could be construed as looking bad for Clinton?

    I'll continue ignoring him, thanks!

    A panda eats shoots and leaves. Michael Corleone eats, shoots and leaves.

    by droogie6655321 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:08:35 PM PDT

    •  Doesn't this count as mockery? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      droogie6655321, Fawkes

      That was kind of what I was going for.

      •  Heh (0+ / 0-)

        Yeah, it counts.

        I guess I'm just tired of hearing about the guy. He only matters when people treat him like he matters.

        But the truth is, people are only interested in third party bids during years when there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the candidates. This year, record numbers are turning out to vote. There is excitement about these candidates.

        That alone makes Nader as useful as an asshole on an elbow.

        A panda eats shoots and leaves. Michael Corleone eats, shoots and leaves.

        by droogie6655321 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:15:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mia Dolan, Fawkes

    It's official.  Hillary = Nader.

    Ortiz/Ramírez '08

    by theran on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:10:58 PM PDT

  •  she's been naderized (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smari006, Mia Dolan, Fawkes

    What's madness but nobility of the soul at odds with circumstance?

    by slinkerwink on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:12:12 PM PDT

  •  Obama, Clinton — and Echoes of Nader? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lams712, baudelairien

    Did everybody see Nick Christof's column in the NYT yesterday"  

    Do the Clintons really want to risk becoming the Naders of 2008?


    Good one Ralphie.Run til it hurts, run till the wheels come off, run like the wind, run Forrest run!

  •  Nadar almost has it right (0+ / 0-)

    I agree with his sentiment, but it's a rather specious argument when the political stakes are this high.  The sentiment becomes insincere and self-serving.  And he should know something about that, too.

  •  What Nader is right about... (0+ / 0-) that the parties in the end are not that different.  The Republican Party are social conservatives who do Wall Street's bidding, and the Democratic Party are social liberals who do Wall Street's bidding.  If you are a progressive populist, who strongly believes in an economic policy that helps working and middle class people, neither party is for you.  I think that is where Nader is coming from.

    There are individuals in both parties who I think have the best interests of the people in mind, they just do not hold the power.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site