I've been an Obama supporter for a long time. As much as I admired Kucinich's courage and integrity, and Edwards' commitment to fighting poverty and taking on big business, Obama struck me as an important and inspirational figure, one that can unite this nation, and I believe that his presidency will move the country into a great new direction. His candidacy has fueled a grass-roots movement that is getting Americans from all walks of life involved in politics in a fundamental way, one that is necessary for a democracy to thrive.
However, despite all of his positives, I have had misgivings about Barack Obama that I was afraid would not be addressed. Ralph Nader's very presence in the debate, however, might just bring of few of these issues to the surface.
In this interview with Amy Goodman of NPR, Nader explains his reasons for entering the race, and the issues he would like to see addressed in the public forum.
The right wing is already trying to portray Barack Obama as a radical left-wing figure. If only that were so! Of all the prominent Democratic nominees this year, Obama may be the most center-leaning, except for Hillary.
For one thing, Obama is strongly against impeaching Bush and Cheney. Why?! Dennis Kucinich was able to come up with 35 reasons to impeach the president off the top of his head, each one legitimate enough to warrant impeachment in its own right. I'm furious that Pelosi has taken impeachment "off the table" simply for political reasons. It is the duty of every Congressman to hold the president accountable for any violations against the Constitution, and not doing so simply for political reasons is a breach of trust with the American people and contradicts the very notion of checks and balances.
Nader:
And speaking of the Constitution, we are strongly for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. It’s never too late for impeachment or demanding a resignation, the way Nixon and Agnew had to resign, or after they leave office as fugitives from justice on January 21st, to invoke appropriate law to prosecute Bush and Cheney for their recidivist, criminal and anti-constitutional behavior day after day, from the criminal war in Iraq to systemic torture, to imprisoning people without charges, to wiretapping them without judicial approval, and to have signing statements that the American Bar Association has condemned, where Bush says, "I’ll sign these laws, 800 of them, but I’ll decide whether I’m going to obey them or not."
While I doubt impeachment will actually take place, I hope this will encourage progressives to pressure a President Obama into at least pursuing an investigation of the Bush administration's crimes (under Attorney General John Edwards! :D).
Nader goes on:
He, in many ways, has disappointed people who had greater hopes for him. He’s voted for reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. He refuses to even discuss—he’s vigorously against impeachment of Bush and Cheney. He won’t even support his colleague Senator Russ Feingold motion to censure the Bush administration for systemic repeated illegal wiretaps. He—you know, he’s letting the corporate-dominated city of Washington, the corporations who actually rule us now in Washington, determine his agenda. And that does not augur well.
This hits home with me. Does this kind of talk turn me off of Obama? No. I think that he is a genuinely great person and has the potential to be one of America's greatest presidents. However, it is our job to be critical of our own candidate. Putting blind faith behind one man is how we got into this mess with Bush in the first place.
And as much as the left wing goes on and on about universal health care, neither Hillary nor Obama really had a "universal" plan. Both of their ideas struck me as just a way to subsidize health insurance companies at the expense of taxpayers. As someone who actually works FOR a health insurance company, I can tell you, this is not the way to go!
McCain and Obama have these cockamamie schemes that do not replace the health insurance companies. When Medicare came for the elderly in the mid-’60s, Medicare replaced the health insurance companies... We have single-payer health insurance, which replaces the health insurance moguls and their enormous administrative and bureaucratic waste and their denial of doctor discretion and their "pay or die" policies in America, unlike all Western democracies.
As long as health insurance companies exist, Americans will not receive the best healthcare possible, because their profits depend on denying people services - no matter what restrictions the government puts on them, they will always find ways to make a profit at the expense of your health; and Nader not only recognizes this, he has based his platform on it.
One last point:
Gore just endorsed Obama. Gore is vigorously for a carbon tax, against his cap and trade manipulation. Is he going the pull Obama toward a carbon tax, or is he going to say, "Oh, Obama is not as bad as McCain." We’ve got to support Obama critically. The corporations are pulling Obama every day, every day, twenty-four/seven, in their direction. If all these liberal groups with all their single issues are not pulling in the other direction, where do you think the Democratic Party and the nominee is going to go?
We must support Obama critically. Right now he's got the progressive support and he's going to be wandering back to the middle to draw in more independants and Republicans. This is not a good thing. If we want to see our agendas realized, Obama must be conscious of the fact that there is a left-wing alternative to himself and not simply be complacent in the fact that he is better than McCain; and Nader will be out there helping to pull Obama back to the left.
Please do not be confused by my message; I am not endorsing Ralph Nader, and I am not encouraging any of you to vote for him. However, I do think that we would be wise to listen to his message and encourage the future President Obama to not forget the left.