Hillary Clinton: Ralph Nader cost us 'greenest prez': The Swamp
 
The Swamp
-
Posted February 24, 2008 1:02 PM
The Swamp

by Rick Pearson

Sen. Hillary Clinton, suggesting that Ralph Nader's Green Party candidacy cost the nation the "greenest president'' it could have had with Al Gore in 2000, said today that Nader's new candidacy for the White House poses an unwelcome distraction.

“Obviously it’s not helpful to whoever our Democratic nominee is,'' said Clinton, coming back on her campaign plane to speak with reporters. "But it’s a free country.

"I don’t know what party he’ll run on,'' she said. "Where did he run on last time? Does anybody remember? ... Was it on the Green Party?''

He was Green in 2000, an independent in '04.

"Well, you know, his being on the Green Party (ticket) prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we could have had, and I think that’s really unfortunate,'' Clinton said. "I think we paid a big price for it.”

The impact of Nader's role in the 2000 election was not good for the country, said Clinton, who has spent considerable time campaigning against the policies of the Bush administration.

"This time I hope it doesn’t hurt anyone,'' she said, acknowledging that Democrats pay a higher price for Nader's candidacy than Republicans do. "I can’t think of anybody that would vote for Sen. McCain who would vote for Ralph Nader.''

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

Yet again, we see the vast difference between Hillary and Obama. Hillary whines like a baby that Nader will cost the Dems votes. Obama simply states, "It's my job to be such a compelling candidate that a few points here or there won't matter."


I would rather vote for him over No accomplishment Obama


Hillary doesn't deserve to be president, she's stuck on stupid like the rest of the kool-aid drinkers on the left , if Al Gore would of won his homestate, Fla. and the
courts would of been a moot point. Ditto with the ambulance chaser in "04. Is that so hard to understand ?


She's correct in her assessment. We need IRV Instant Runoff Voting/2nd choice ballots in place first (betterballot.org) and that's gotta be established at local level first. Nader was one of few 60's and 70's sources allowed to explain that since Eisenhower, corporations were shirking their financial and other responsibilities. GM and Ford intransigence, mismanagement and corruption hurt Michigan mightily. Farmers no longer had winter work and were more easily pressured into the ever more chemical farming push from the Ag extension agents--and it ended up bankrupting many of them. And then came Reagan and everyone pretended everything was fine. Nader is right that things are out of whack, but he stayed out of politics it would seem throughout most of the 80s and then came out of a time warp in the role of spoiler. Michael Moore can kiss my grits too for this. Al Gore would have been a great president and we could have made a lot of headway. Not to worry. Hilary or Obama will get in and then we'll make sure they stay focused on people issues--BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE THE IRV BALLOTS IN PLACE!


if al gore were prez, we would have avoided 9/11, the economy would be far better off and not diving into a recession, environmental policies would not have been gutted and decided by energy goons, thousands of lives would not be lost in two failed wars and our place in the world would be better off, not the embarrassment we have become under the worst prez in history.
it that so hard to understand?


Say what you will, you Nader backers. (I was one too), Ralph did cost Gore the election, and in one of the worst blunders of U.S. history, thousands of our best have been killed and maimed in a country that was supposed to welcome us. McCain is four more years of that. Is that what you want? My message to Raph: sir, have you no decency?


Say what you will, you Nader backers. (I was one too), Ralph did cost Gore the election, and in one of the worst blunders of U.S. history, thousands of our best have been killed and maimed in a country that was supposed to welcome us. McCain is four more years of that. Is that what you want? My message to Raph: sir, have you no decency?


Don B, I guess I am "stuck on stupid", though I am not sure about being a kool-aid drinker. But I do know that "should of" and "would of" have no meaning whatsoever. Learn to write if you want credibility.


she is right and its ironic to that rader a green party member at the time cost america the greenest candidate they could have gotten, Nader is a joke i don tink he'll be important at all the democratic base is very satisfied with its choice of candidates, i am a hillary fan she gets unfair critisism mostly becuase her strength frigtens people, experience especcially now with two wars a resession etc is important for me so much so that if obama was the nominee it would be the first time i would vote republican with john who is not half that bad. i onyl wish there is sum deal forced on the candidates that force them to be running mates.


Mia gets it. Perfect comment.


Nader's greatest contribution was putting Bush in the WH and the subsequent failures (Iraq, economy, environmental policies, etc.). Most voters now know what NOT to do.

Vic, he's all yours.


Clinton is correct. Nader is an unwanted distraction and anyone who votes for him is handing the presidency over to the Republicans and allowing them to keep our men and women in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years," which according to McCain is fine with him. It's not fine with me; come on Texas and Ohio, let Clinton bring them home!


Nader did cost Gore the Presidency. If he hadn't run, things would be a lot different. Has anyone noticed that Obama is winning in open primaries and caucuses? Republicans are crossing over to the Democratic side to vote for Obama, not because he’s the best candidate, but because they don’t want Hillary to get the Democratic nomination. They are setting up Obama for McCain because they know he will be easier to beat. National security will be Obama’s downfall.


In the last three elections including this one I have been willing to vote for the Democratic candidate because I am now and was not particularly impressed with the Republican candidate. Each time the dems have come up with a lulu of a candidate and I have voted and will vote again for the republican whilst holding my nose.

If Sen. Clinton wins one of the big reasons will probably be because she has the most superdelegates and they will help her, which brings to mind 'Animal Farm' by George Orwell, specifically the statement 'we're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others'.

But Obama will probably win the dem nomination and the Obama bubble will eventually burst, hopefully before the 4th of November.

With BO there is no 'there' there and if he debates with McCain that will become apparent.


Bring Nader into the mix. Another fruit to add to the Democrats fruit cake. The "shill" Clinton with the high pitched whine is slowly fading away. Next will be the Obama, "I am for hope, I am for good times, I have no details, I have no experience" which will once again doom the Dems. The only hope for the Dems is that they can gain enough of the under 30 vote. The under 30 generation otherwise known as the "it's all about me generation, the generation never to experience the Carter presidency".


If Mr. Nader truly is a patriot and cares about his issues, he needs to run an ad, go on a speaking tour, write letters to the editor, or make a damn movie. There is too much at stake. Has he not noticed that we've been through seven years of hell? Is he so delusional that he can't see his role in that?
Richard Green
San Clemente, Cal.


Al Gore would have made a good president; however, he ran a lousy campaign. Heck, he didn't even win his home state - that pretty much says it all right there.


Ralph Nader is an A-hole; Nader indeed cost us the "green" president in 2000 and helped bring on the Bush Disaster; Obama has all of Nader's naive, immature "change oriented" voters anyway. Could you imagine Nader in an international crisis? Go to hell Nader.

sincerely,
Gerald R. Clough (a former fan)


Obama's reaction is correct. It's also the reaction that, for example, a good sports coach should have to a blown call costing his team a game: something to the effect of "It's our responsibility to get far enough ahead that human error won't make the difference."

For the Democrats, riding Clinton's coattails, to have lost to Bush the first time should have been an embarrassment and a wake-up call. To lose again (by a larger margin) after four years of this morally bankrupt figurehead and his malevolent VP was unbelievable. Nader had nothing to do with that, nor did the well-documented Republican shenanigans; the Democratic party leadershp's colossal incompetence (and the voting public's colossal lack of interest in looking outside its personal immediate comfort zone) did.

And now, after _two_ terms of blatant war profiteering at the public's expense; illegal spying on citizens; the kind of brutality toward prisoners normally associated with backward Third World dictatorships (the leadership of the United States openly arguing in favor of torture? _This_ is America?); and a total disregard of Congress and the rule of law; what do we get? Blah, blah, economy, blah, blah, Iraq, etc. _Still_ nobody's openly calling out Bush & co. on the outright malignance and corruption they've shown since the Iraq war began.
With all these years' worth of ammo, how can this even be a race?

I'll even go out on a another limb. Since the Democrats want to blame Nader for taking votes away from them, what about the votes they're pushing away themselves this election? While it would be nice if the American people were progressive enough to give a woman or a member of a minority group an equal shot at the leadership of the country, the reelection of Bush and the mindless, ugly racism and xenophobia that the public has shown the past few years have made it clear that we're not there yet. Neither Hilary nor Barack has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the final election, for the simple, unfortunate reason that there are too many people who demand A) white skin and B) a Y chromosome. But the Democratic Party would rather pat themselves on the back for their forward thinking than listen to what the public is saying and put up someone who is willing to call the current Republican leadership on what they are and make real changes.

So I hope McCain wins the Republican side, because so many of his corrupt fellows don't like him. Though I can't vote for any current Republican in good conscience, when whichever Democratic candidate I'm given loses, at least we'll have a Republican who tries to go his own way.


Are you guys smoking crack?

When Al Gore ran he had Clinton not sign the Kyoto Treaty because he considered it a liability.

In 8 years of Clinton / Gore environmental regulations were put to the side.

In 2000 Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate. If Gore won in 2000, Lieberman would be running as Democrat in 2008.

Thank you Mr. Nader for saving us from 12 years of Lieberman, the other independent Democrats love to hate.

Nader spoiled the election in 2000 about as much as African Americans, Jews, women, Hispanics or any other demographic did. Did women spoil the election for Obama in NH, or African Americans for Hillary in SC? Most of us would take such talk as nonsense and it is.

As about as much nonsense as blaming Nader for participating in democracy with out Democratic Party approval. The Democrats have to come to terms that they are no longer the slavery party. They do not own the voters like slaves on a plantation, but have to earn their vote like in a democracy. At times it seems the Democratic Party should be sued for false advertising.


Mia -- the only reason Obama isn't saying the same thing is because he's now the frontrunner for Democractic nominee. He knows what Hillary's saying is true, and by pretending he doesn't care he's exploiting Hillary's risk and being something less than genuine himself. If Hillary were in the lead, Obama would be the one complaining about Nader.


Ralph Nader's candidacy only serves to undermine the chance we have for positive change in America, and begs the question of whether he truly bears the welfare of the American people in mind or his own interests. It's actually quite remarkable how he's managed, on his own, to diminish his legacy from a social advocate to a social joke.


"Naturally Republicans would welcome his entry into the race and hope that maybe a few more will join in," Huckabee said.

Listen up Nader - you never even had the balls to come out and say that Gore was better than Bush when it came to voting for the two candidaies that had a chance in hell in 2000. You are not the "Green" choice - you are a lunatic. Stay out of the race or at least say you are running mates with Huckabee. The Republicans are the only ones who will benefit.


Nader never cost Gore the election; Gore cost Gore the election. Had Gore been such a solid candidate, he would have knocked Nader out of the picture. Those who voted for Nader thought he was a stronger candidate. Whose fault is that? Al Gore, and it is his own fault for not showing those voters how much stronger he was as a candidate.


Don B - This is the point I've been trying to make to people since 2000; if you, as the sitting Vice-President of eight years can't win your home state, maybe you don't deserve the nomination. Of course he deserved it more than Dubya, but shame on the Democratic National Committee to not secure the man's home state. His Dad was a friggin' God-like figure there. Nader is just a moronic distraction and not any kind of threat to the Democrats. He might be more of a threat to Mc Cain; he allows the Ann Coulter's and Rush Limbaugh protesters to vote, without casting it for Hillary or Obama.


Hillary lies as usual. Gore didn't even win Tennessee, his own home state. Florida would not have mattered had he simply carried his own home state.

Clintons go home. Barack's the One.


I agree the kool-aid drinkers have take over this debate. It is just as hard to kick the kook-aid drinking habit as it is kicking the smoking habit.

Keep sipping.


What can Nader possibly be thinking? This is a case of a brilliant man who has a huge blind spot in his intellect.....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/24/ralph-nader-is-a-beetle/


Didn't Gore lose his own home state?


Sure Hillary is mad. She knows that her egomainical (sic) ambition to be the 1st dictator of a socialist USA is crumbling. Her "universal health care" has been exposed as the purist for of socialism (almost communism). It REQUIRES everyone to purchase health care for the same price or be fined. If you're 21 and in perfect health you pay the same price as someone who's smoked 40 years and has had quadruple bypass and is diabetic. The result will be more money for her health insurance company pals and more money for the Clintons in back door $$$. As crazy as Nader is, he'd sure be better than Hillary.


Almost everyone seems impervious to certain facts about the 2000 and 2004 elections. Many more Dems voted for Bush than ever did for Nader. Why aren't these turncoat Dems vilified for spoiling the election? Tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of voters (mostly minority and Democratic) were disenfranchised by outright roll purges, voting fraud, manipulation, and voting machine "irregularities" that overwhelmingly favored Republicans. Yet somehow critics focus on a few hundred votes in Fla, as if the overarching voting corruption, which was degrees of magnitude larger, were totally insignificant in creating a false dead-heat race. The national voting infrastructure itself is a disgraceful hodgepodge of non-standardized, obsolete, mediocre, unreliable, and unverifiable systems, managed by unprepared volunteers, amateurs, political operatives, and hackers. Gee, did that play maybe any role in "spoiling" the elections? No, it's all one man's fault. Let's all join in the official Two Minute Hate exercise against Nader, as required by our ThoughtPolice media and duopoly "leaders."

Documented fraud by Republican operatives vastly outweighs any comparable effect that legitimate Green votes might have had against Dems; yet the Republicans aren't called spoilers.

Gore and Kerry both conceded their elections prematurely when in retrospect they should not have. They spoiled their own candidacies. The flagrant illegality of the Supreme Court's blocking the Fla. recount is a nadir of a shamelessly politicized judiciary; yet no-one calls them "spoilers" of the democratic process. It's obvious that lots of status quo forces have a fundamental interest in demonizing and scapegoating Nader and the Green Party because Republicrats, and their media lapdogs, don't want any true competition of ideas. They want to maintain their profitable monopoly of manipulable mediocrity, funded by corporate landlords. The sure sign of political bankruptcy is to attack the man,so you don't have to address the facts or the principles that he brings to the discussion. If Demopublicans can successfully make the public hate an idea by deriding the idealist's wardrobe, then the status quo will be once again safe from substantive questioning, and therefore immune to the learning needed to recover from political disaster and plot a new, healthy course for the nation. The mixture if factual ignorance, outrage, and sarcasm being leveled at Nader and the Greens is a sad index of the nation's propensity for self-deception and self-destructive propaganda.


How can Ralph Nader live with himself? What an egomaniac! In the context of what's going on this primary season, his candidacy is really a non-event.


Hey Mia: Nader's votes will be coming from Hillary, not Obama. Hey Crud: Bin Laden was outraged that the U.S. ousted Iraq from Kuwait. How would have electing Gore stopped that? Imbicile!


In Obama we have another
Tony Blair...soo-soo ah sooo wonderful words - so
much change etc.etc What did Tony do to Great
Britain? It made this
previously strong and
civilized country into
a whimpering heap of non-
working, non-educated
people.


Is anyone even responding to the quote by Fred. He summed it up, even when he used way too much technical language to do so (and kind of went on too long). The Supreme Court decided to stop the vote counting and hand the election over George Bush. What did Nader have to do with this? Gore already won and Nader was never a spoiler.

Nader is doing what he's done in the last three elections: He's ensuring that that 'the people' have a voice, rather than corporations. Right now as the money race between candidates becomes so extreme, social justice is a thing of the past. Democrats are really not pushing Republicans as they are supposed to. Why did they concede to the war or the tax cuts or no child left behind or the millions of cuts to social programs and corporation deregulation in the last few years? I'm sad to say, if all I can get is a candidate who tells me to "hope" but does not tell me specifically what to "hope" for ... well, that's just not good enough.


Is it hard to imagine that Nader views both the Dems and Repubs as the SAME party and could care less who suffers due to his candidacy? It's pathetic to see everyone on this board arguing salient "what if" points. The fact is that in 00' and 04' Nader supporters actually voted "for" a candidate rather than "the lesser of two evils". I for one find that type of participation in our Republic quite refreshing...


Blair was Bush's closest ally.


So what are Senator Clinton accomplishments?

The only major operation that Clinton and Obama have run is their campaign. Without any partisan bias who do you think run a successfull, drama-free campaign operation?

Raising more money than Obama in 2007 and ending up broke (instead of apologizing for mismanaging campaign funds, she proudly states that she loaned 5 million to her campaign ) with 11 victories against 25;

By the way, contrary to Obama, she still has not released her income tax returns. Why?

Firing her campaign manager in the middle of the campaign;

The deputy manager resigned in the middle of the campaign;

Giving questions to people in the audience at rallyes?

Voting for the Iraq war without reading the National Intelligence Estimate;

Voting for giving Bush and Cheney more powers against Iran;

Suggesting that she will force everyone to buy health insurance and will seize your paycheck to pay for it?

being consistently beaten by Mc Cain in all match ups?

What achievements are we talking about?


Oh Waaaaa!
Please get over it. Nader did not cost Gore the election.
Gore and his crappy campaign cost Gore the election.


I voted for nader in 2000, kerry in 2004 and will vote Obama in 2008. Since we have good candidates and an important objective this year, I will not vote for Nader.

Nader did not lose the election for Democrats. take responsibility, Dem lost the election for Dem. If they cant make the case for themselves, then they deserve to lose. Its like complaining about Perot, they have the right to run. Al Gore was a loser and wasnt known as the greenest person at that time. He chose Lieberman as VP, a complete tool who is Republican in all but name. If Clinton got the primary and lost she will just use Nader as another excuse for losing. she is becoming a cry baby for everything.


Good to see Obama take it like a man. "I'm responsible for my own destiny."


Good leadership philosophy, Hillary: Assign blame in advance to avoid responsibility for oneself. Will this be your legacy if you become President? "I would have accomplished this and this and this, but my opponents ruined everything."


I can't be the only person to remember that if not for H. Ross Perot taking 18.9% of the vote as a third party candidate in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore would have been mere bystanders to George H.W. Bush's second term.

As for Bill Clinton's wife, it is not likely that anyone would even recall her name let alone be considering her as a candidate for President.

How ironic that she would criticize Nader's decision to run considering that if not for the little fella with big ears she and her husband would be living in a trailer park back in Arkansas.


As a Clinton Democrat I have been so turned off by Obama and the rude treatment of Hillary by his supporters that I will cast my vote in November for Ralph Nader if Obama wins the nomination. I think many others will as well. Shame on all of you for treating Hillary so poorly!


LOL, you dems are funny. Still running the 200 and 2004 election huh. well, GET OVER IT. As for the mental midget who said if Gore won 9/11 would not have happened, hey clueless one, the WTC was bombed before under your hero Clinton, so it is obvious the people who really want to kill us (please repeat after me sicne it probably takes several tries before you get it) vowed to try again. no matter who became prezident in 2000, they woudl have attempred and no amount of revisionism will change that fact. The date may have been different but they would have tried again. Understand? or is that too complicated for your peanut brain?


I love it how the wild Democrats blame Nader for 537 people in Florida when 49 percent of the entire population weren't motivated enough by either Bush or Gore in 2000 to vote.

Then again, these are the same people who blame Diebold for "stealing" the election in 2004. There's one sole good thing you can say about the Republicans -- they don't seem to have the massive sense of entitlement the Democrats do.


Anyone stupid enough to vote for Ralph after the last 7 years needs to have their head examined.

Goodbye Ralph. Don't let the door hit your butt (again) on the way out.


This is my take on Nader's last-minute run, coincidentally timed just before the critical Ohio/Texas vote: I think someone should be checking his communications with Hillary's camp lately. Sounds too much like someone (Hillary) wants to take the independent vote from Obama) because she knows he needs it in Ohio and Texas. Her caustic words toward Nader sound phoney: methinks she protests too much. I think she's tickled pink and may have played a role...


You have to be kidding.
Global warming is a farce.
I bet if you asked Gore a real scientific question about warming he probably could not answer it. Let alone prove it.

As for Hill and Obama they too could not answer a real question.

Remember when they tell you they want change, just check your pockets to see how much is there. (Close to nothing if they are in office)


"Crud" stated something so egregious, I couldn't let it slide.

Al Gore being elected would have prevented 9/11? Got proof of that? Osama, is that you?

Do you remember back to the Clinton and Gore years, when the WTC's were attacked initially?

Hmmm. Logic seems tough for many to follow. I guess many won't let the facts get in the way of their argument, which all seem to be stated as if they were facts!

In this election one can side with the educated, successful, achievers of this county, or the can side with those who want things given to them, have not been successful, not highly educated and who base their decisions by how they look on paper.

How you interpret the above says more about you as a voter, than the words themselves do.

Mike


vote ABC (Anybody But Clinton[s])

Now we have more options, that's what democracy is supposed to be about.


Mark S., an idiotic sycophant, whose spelling and grammar show just how intelligent he is, is a typical right-wing zealout as evidenced by the rant he left as his message. Yes, it is a rant Mark. It is a rant, because the message shows a lack of ability to control your emotions when expressing a point. There is no one more illogical than the effusive.


And Gary W is a whiner! "Oh, poor Hillary...if she doesn't win the nomination I'm going to pout!" It is because of spoiled brats such as yourself that the Democratic party is so fractitious it can't win a general election. Why have the Republicans won? Because they rally behind the party not just their favorite nominee. If you want more Republican control like we've had for 7 years, then go on and waste your vote on Nader, Gary, because Hillary is not going to win the nomination and the Democrats won't win the office of President because of shortsighted fools, i.e. yourself.


Admittedly, I have not read all the posts here but she is wrong. I do not believe she has a chance in Hades to win but should Obama win, God forbid, he will be the GREENEST we ever had. He barely served in the Senate and people want him in the White House? I can't believe it.


Ralph Nader won something like 97,000 votes in Florida. The difference between Bush and Gore in Florida was around 500 votes. It is highly likely that even if a lot of the Nader voters would have otherwise stayed home, that Gore would have netted over 500 more votes if Nader had stayed out of it.

Nader is being completely egotistical and self-absorbed by running yet again. Remember, he justified his run in 2000 by saying that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. He was tragically wrong then. Hopefully, Obama will be able to overcome Nader's presence, but it's unfortunate that Nader has chosen to complicate things in the first place.


Yet again, we see the vast difference between Hillary and Obama. Hillary whines like a baby that Nader will cost the Dems votes. Obama simply states, "It's my job to be such a compelling candidate that a few points here or there won't matter."

Posted by: Mia | February 24, 2008 1:22 PM

Mia that is a great point. Ralph brings up many facts about organizing etc...

Obama is correct in his approach. Ralph has a right to run and will bring up many issues that need addressing. A worthy candidate should be able to win regardless of the competition.

That said, I would never vote for Ralph. NEVER!!!


“This is my take on Nader's last-minute run, coincidentally timed just before the critical Ohio/Texas vote: I think someone should be checking his communications with Hillary's camp lately. Sounds too much like someone (Hillary) wants to take the independent vote from Obama) because she knows he needs it in Ohio and Texas. . . . .”

*****

Posted by: lori | February 24, 2008 5:56 PM

Whoa, stop!

Nader isn't running as a Democrat. He's running as an independent, meaning that he will not appear on any primary ballot. This being the case, it is not likely that his candidacy will have any measurable impact on the Democrat primaries.

The election isn't until November. That's when his name might appear on the ballot.


Nader made our cars safer, our businesses accountable, our eyeglasses better. His work is directly responsible creation of the existence of the National Highway Transporation Administration.

Obama? Well, he's written a couple of books that use the word "hope" a lot...


Pres. Buchanan served 10 years in the House, 10 in the Senate, was ambassador to Russia and great Britain. His sucessor, Lincoln, served one term in the House (2 years).


Nader is right when he said that if the Democrats can't win this year in a landslide, they should disband the party and come back as something else. His entry really shouldn't make a difference, and he has a lot of good questions that deserve answers. Did Nader cost Gore the election...yes, but he was only one of numerous factors that did it. Personally, I blame Bill Clinton for his tremendously poor personal judgement that put Gore in a hard position. Everyone had Clinton-fatigue at that point. Gore should have won huge. You can't blame Nader entirely.


alright baby! where's my nader '08 bumper sticker?


The Democrats think its easier to blame Nader for their failings because he's their scapegoat. When you lose its alot easier to blame someone else vs. admitting your own shortcomings.

They lost in 2000 because Gore couldn't win his own state. In 2004, Nader gave Kerry the road map on how to beat Bush, but he didn't listen and lost.

Nader said in 2004 after the election "If the Democrats do not stand for the issues that affect the daily lives of these people, many will vote on whatever issue of the day the Republicans can dream up to distract attention from their cruel corporate interests against the people. This year it was a vague hypocritical morality message, and a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; four years from now it will be something else but this only works if the Democrats continue to take off the table the mainstay economic, peace and justice issues." How true, how true.


This is the only way we are ever going to have more than one viable candidate for president. I for one want more than one choice. Of course it splits the votes, but that is good i wouldnt mind if the vote was split a hundred ways. This country is based on choices, its about time that we actually have more than two.


if Clinton can run, why not Nader? Isnt this the free country anymore? What gives Clinton the right to try putting down Nader. It's part of the reason Obama is so refreshingly different and preffered.


Global Warming is a myth created by the democratic party just to scare people, so that they'll vote for them. There is no such thing as global warming. Otherwise how to explain the colder winter this year? Today the world is much cleaner, less polluted, and more efficient, and Bush is right to relax the pressure on our corporations.


The 2008 election has been a great time for alternative voices to be heard. Ralph Nader's candidacy is more relevant now than ever before, because, thanks to Obama and Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, we have been able to hear alternatives to the Big Government-Socially Liberal Left and the Big Defense Budget-Socially Conservative Right. We have an opportunity in America to find answers to the burning questions of our time: 1) What should be the USA's role in a post-cold war world? 2) How much of our GDP should pass through the government tax-debt-spend cycle to burden future generations with debts? 3) Fundamentally, should government be limited in its efforts to "provide for the common welfare"? 4) Can we stop the federal government from back-door taxation through encouraging a current-account deficit then raising money through issuing debt to foreign countries? 5) Can we start to roll back the influence of special interests and the associated political pandering that has been growing since the days of FDR? 6) Can we start to tax corporate retained earnings to encourage distribution of dividends or investment in growth rather than spiraling capital gains growth for stock market speculators? 7) Can we seriously evaluate the US role in Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan and decide collectively if we want to continue to outspend the world 10:1 on military so we can play the role of moral policeman and the defenders of democracy amongst peoples who have little or no desire for democratic freedom?

There are dozens of other important political and economic questions that we should be trying to answer. Now is the time for us to choose a path that we collectively agree on. We need to fix our constitution to reflect our values, and then find some way to stick to it. As it is now, the abuses of power for the executive branch are bankrupting our country in the name of power, domination and profiteering for a few.

CW


I don't think anyone had mentioned the real reason why Ralph Nader COST Al Gore the 200 election. Of course there were the 95,000+ votes in Florida that went his way, of which approximately 535 (.5%) votes for Gore would have swung the vote count in Florida to Gore (we'll leave the Supreme Court out of this for the sake of argument).

But Mr. Nader's REAL impact was in convincing the electorate, and this was absolutely conventional wisdom at the time, that there was "no difference" between Al Gore and George W Bush in terms of how they would govern. He essentially called them both corporate whores with no redeeming value and no daylight between their positions.

WELL! Of course we'll never know, but it does strike me that a lifelong visionary and environmentalist might have a slightly different perspective on a whole host of issues than a failed Texas oilman with the intellectual curiosity of a carrot root.

This equation of the (D) and the (R) as being essentially the same, a ridiculous assertion that for some reason gained wholesale currency in the MSM, was Ralph Nader's most important and disastrous contribution to the race.

The problem with Nader running for President is that he will need to articulate the differences he sees between himself and the two candidates. Since he sees himself with rose-colored glasses and sees the major party candidates as unadulterated parasites with no difference between the two parties, his liberal prescriptions will likely pull (if any) voters from Democrats by a margin of at least 2:1 as he did in 2000.

Don't do it Ralph. I don't think even you could screw this thing up, but if anyone could help elect a geriatric Republican in a Democratic year when the country is clamoring for a serious break from the last 8 years, it would be you.


If Gore would've won his home state, he would've been President. God, forbid. Go Nader

Keystone Cops 9/11: The Pentagon Target Wall Demolition http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911PentagonDemolition1.htm


If you go to a restaurant and have to wait a long time for service, the restaurant is dirty, the food is not good, and you pay too much, you would never go back to that restaurant. Why don't all you stupid Democrats and Republicans apply a similar standard to something more important--our government? All you do is use that same old lines fed to you by your parties to exclude 3rd parties and hold on to power at all costs. The Democrats and Republicans have had decades to do things right, but they're only concerned about serving their own selfish interests. You never hold them accountable, because all you do is replace them with another automaton from their party. Wake up and try thinking independently, instead of blindly following empty promises from hollow politicians. None of the candidates the Republicans or Democrats offer have done anything near as much for the people of this country as Nader has done. Go Nader!


Nader's getting paid by the Republican Party. It's all a sham. Like he claimed the corporations were doing all to the consumer all those years. Now he's become one of them.

People need to get on his case to withdraw name before the election like he should've done in 2000, then we wouldn't had the 8 horrible years of Bush that have brought us to the brink of disaster.


I think the bigger issue is that if the US went to a popular vote to determine the winner rather than the outdated Electoral College method, Nader would have had no impact. Nader has every right to run.


Interesting variety of comments in this thread.

It's very difficult to convince people who have already made up their minds, even if they are wrong, about the truth of the matter.

Nader didn't cost anyone the race. If the race was close it's b/c there wasn't enough distinction to really make a difference, but that's besides the point, b/c we all know (at least I hope we do) that the race in 2000 and again in 2004 were stolen. Stolen in a Democracy.

Two parties run the show in a Democracy. It think that's more outrageous than anything. Where is the outrage to that?

Right now Nader is in Denver protesting the fact that he can't get into the debates. Imagine if he could? Imagine if we could get the candidates talk about what we really want to hear without them being able to script and control the agenda in the debates?

Well, there's going to be thousands protesting the debates. He city has prepared for thousands of detentions, bashed skulls and tasserings.

Nader is having one of his Super Rally's, at which Cindy Sheehan, Sean Penn, Val Kilmer, Jello Biafra and other very important people will be speaking to open the debates.

Google and Myspace both caved.. They were going to do something and even McCain agreed, but Obama said NO!

If you have a satellite dish, watch for freespeech programming. They will run the Nader Rally.

If we had more voices and more choices, like we should in a Democracy, there would be no such thing as "spoiling" and we would be able to hold our elected representatives feet to the fire.

Liz Arnone


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "l" in the field below: