Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Morning News | Reading Today »

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Nader’s In

posted by on February 24 at 9:02 AM


Obama on Nader:

You know, he had called me and I think reached out to my campaign — my sense is is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you’re not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work. Now — and by the way, I have to say that, historically, he is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anybody on behalf of consumers. So in many ways he is a heroic figure and I don’t mean to diminish him. But I do think there is a sense now that if somebody is not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda, then you must be lacking in some way.

RSS icon Comments


President McCain.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 24, 2008 9:14 AM

Welcome to junior high, America.

Posted by Katelyn | February 24, 2008 9:21 AM

@1 Bullshit. I predict Nader will get fewer votes this year than in any of his previous races.

Posted by ghostlawns | February 24, 2008 9:21 AM

Whatever. Nader managed to get on, what, six states' ballots in 2004? I think the Libertarian candidate has more potential to spoil it for the GOP in 2008 than Nader does to spoil it for the Democrats.

Posted by tsm | February 24, 2008 9:21 AM

people who voted for Nader in 2000 need to be publicly humiliated and shamed. what kind of fucking moron votes for Nader when it was obvious he was going to take votes away from the Democrat candidate? if you voted Nader in 2000, you are partially responsible for the evils done by the Bush administration. YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

Posted by pablo | February 24, 2008 9:27 AM

Way to tell it like it is, Barack Obama. At this point in history, Ralph Nader makes Ron Paul look like the paragon of sanity.

Posted by cressona | February 24, 2008 9:28 AM

What's the big deal? Like he said in his interview, if the Democrats can't win this election, they need to do some serious re-evaluation/reorganization.

It seems to me that those most afraid of Nader's canidacy are the ones most keenly aware of the weakness of the Democratic party.

I have to admit, I'd like to see a debate between Nader and Ron Paul, though - as dull as it would likely be.

Posted by In MN | February 24, 2008 9:29 AM

@5, well if you live in Florida. Otherwise not so much.

@6, Thats not really fair. Nader at least has some decent ideas though his tactics are moronic. Paul is just a moron.

Posted by Giffy | February 24, 2008 9:33 AM

That debate would be a hoot. But you'd have to inuite Kucinich to liven things up.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 24, 2008 9:33 AM

The debate would also need to feature ridiculous questions such as, "Diamonds or pearls?" and "Would Ronald Reagan have supported your candidacy?"

Posted by Katelyn | February 24, 2008 9:35 AM

@9, at that point might as well put on Springer's Aliens stole my gold and all I got to be was a lousy spoiler.

Posted by Giffy | February 24, 2008 9:36 AM

At least Ron Paul had the decency to try and change the Republican Party from the inside.

Nader should have run for Senate as a Democrat a long time ago.

Posted by ghostlawns | February 24, 2008 9:37 AM

I'll grant Nader one thing: he must have an incredibly thick skin to want to go through this again. I'm talking rhinoceros hide. The Democrats and most independents hate his guts for making the 2000 election close enough for Bush to steal. The Republicans and their cronies despise him as, at best, a useful idiot for the same reason. None of them will by shy about speaking up.

Posted by Steve T. | February 24, 2008 9:38 AM

@5, um, I voted for Nader in 2000, but I live in Illinois and there was 0% chance that IL was going to go for Bush. Therefore, it was "safe" for me to vote for a third party. The only guilt I feel is that my vote may have encouraged him to run again (and again).

I truly wonder why Nader is running again. There is no chance he could win, so, what is he trying to accomplish? What other explanation could there be other than he's a megalomaniacal asswipe (as Dominic said)?

Posted by Julie | February 24, 2008 9:38 AM

Hee hee hee @giffy.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 24, 2008 9:39 AM

It's not a big deal. It's just kind of pathetic that Nader has made himself the Lyndon LaRouche/Pat Paulsen of modern politics and also that he's too self important to understand that. His thoughts that he has something to offer to the presidential debate is absurd.

By the way, this poll came out today in Iowa, a state where the presidential campaign lasted a year, and voters were fully informed of the intracacies of each of the candidates policies and had the most face time with them. Kind of shoots down Hillary's theory that Obama won because it was a caucus rather than a primary. The polling outfit that did this poll was the only one to accurately forecast the Iowa caucuses.

"A new Des Moines Register poll in Iowa shows Sen. Barack Obama would beat Sen. John McCain in the general election, 53% to 36%.

However, McCain would beat Sen. Hillary Clinton, 49% to 40%.

Iowa is expected to be a competitive swing state this fall."

Posted by Mike in Iowa | February 24, 2008 9:45 AM

@7 Exactly
Compromising principles and your ideas on policies to be part of a "winning team" or the "cool kid" clique is bullshit.

It is YOUR vote.

Posted by Bald Face Lie | February 24, 2008 9:47 AM

Nader-Paul 2008!

I'm just hoping Mike Bloomberg is feeling just a tinge of shame right about now.

Posted by cressona | February 24, 2008 10:04 AM

Pablo @ 5 is right, and I was one of those people who voted for Nader in 2000 (in safe-D Washington). I even gave him money. In 2004 when he wrote me I sent him back letters full of four-letter words unsubtly questioning his sanity. Hindsight is 20/20, and mea culpa, mea culpa. But Gore ran a terrible campaign - and let´s remember, his running mate was a man the Republicans would like to have on their ticket this year - and, did any of us have any idea how awful the Bush years would be, that Osama Bin Laden would hand the guy a golden ticket for him to misuse so badly? What people who voted for Nader in 2000 need to do is not be horsewhipped, though, Pablo, but to make sure that absolutely NOBODY they know is considering voting for Nader this time. If anyone knows anybody that stupid, call them RIGHT NOW.

Posted by Grant Cogswell | February 24, 2008 10:06 AM

What an asswipe. At least voters in 2004 knew better than to let him spoil another election, and I hope the same is true this year.

Nader is even older than McCain. Maybe he's getting senile.

Posted by RainMan | February 24, 2008 10:09 AM

On "Meet the Press" today, Ralph Nader just called Katherine Harris Katherine Bush. Russert had to correct him.

Here's my prediction:
2011: Ralph Nader dies.
2012: Ralph Nader announces he is running for president yet again.

Posted by cressona | February 24, 2008 10:10 AM

@7 & 17 - I don't think any Democrats are seriously afraid of Nader hurting their chances this year. Obama mops the floor with McCain, we even bring a few red states into the fold this year. Not a problem. What's troubling is seeing Nader get more quixotic as he ages; at this point, what's his beef exactly? And who does he think is listening? We can't hear his platform for the deafening sounds of his senility, and it's just sad.

Posted by David | February 24, 2008 10:13 AM

You A$$hats here putting an responsibility on Nader for causing a Democratic defeat in the 2000 election, are friggin morons.

Nader received almost 3,000,000 votes in 2000!

You guys really need to get a clue.

Just like Nader said, they should ask Al Gore his opinion of why he lost the election. Would he say it was due to Nader? Hardly...

If you don't like ANY of the candidates whole heartedly.. (WHICH MANY PEOPLE CURRENTLY DO), Nader actually represents the opinion I have.

A progressive platform that is more than just the environment. I like having a viable third party choice that doesn't assume that everyone only has 1 of 2 choices.

It is ridiculous for Democratic whiners out there who feel Nader is "stealing" any election. Get over yourselves!

America should push for a Presidential election reform change to require more than 2 choices on EVERY ballot going forward.

Excluding the libertarian or green party from election debates, excluding them from the mainstream press, all the things that are done to supress any kind of independent movement is a classless unpatriotic, UNDEMOCRATIC farce.

I support Nader because of what he represents for the common man. I support Nader because he actually HAS ideas that are independent.

The press is no better. Even on "Meet the Press" today, he was grilled on who he supported: Obama, Clinton, or McCain? He incredulously replied why would I answer that I'M running against them! Jesus Christ what kind of question was that? What DID it imply? Would he have dared ask Obama that? Why not?

As was mentioned by @7
Like Nader said today, If the Democrats can't win, they should just wrap up and surrender. If they CAN'T win with the current political environment over the war, they don't DESERVE to win ANYTHING!

This whole American election process is fucked up. I'm glad someone like Ralph came along to stand up for the average American.

Put Americans first and foremost. Quit pandering to corporate special intests, Political Action comittees, and lobbyists that have bought and paid for Congress.

It's time for America to take a stand with Congress watchdogs, to scrutinize every single dollar and every single vote cast.

We have been taken over by corporations.

It is time for this to END.

Posted by We need more Ralph Naders | February 24, 2008 10:18 AM

23 - save it for burning man, hippy. nobody here gives a fuck.

nader may not have "stole" the 2000 election, but he's still a fucking douchebag, and no amount of self-righteous finger-wagging -- apparently a membership requirement to be one of his supporters -- will change anyone's opinion of him here.

Posted by brandon | February 24, 2008 10:33 AM

What makes you think "the corporations" couldn't continue to "take us over" if we had three choices for president?

Posted by six shooter | February 24, 2008 10:35 AM

Roosevelt (either one) is the candidate that best represents my values. Can I vote for one of them? That wouldn't be "compromising my principals"!

Posted by We need few Ralph Naders. | February 24, 2008 10:37 AM

Amen Brother! Tell it like it is!

Posted by KeeKee | February 24, 2008 10:40 AM

Screw the 2000 election. I'm still pissed about the Corvair.

Posted by six shooter | February 24, 2008 10:40 AM

@23 Nader didn't have and doesn't have the power to make the Democrats run better/strong campaigns. What he did have in 2000 was the power to tell his voters to vote strategically - vote for him in safe states (where Gore was definitely going to win) and vote for Gore in states where it was close (like, oh say, Florida).

He didn't. So he fucked us all. So we hate him.

It's really that simple.

All the great things he did as a consumer advocate pale against the magnitude of that single act. Because there's no guarantee that we'll ever really recover from it. Ever undo the damage of Iraq - anybody know out how to raise a million (or so) dead civilians? Ever catch up with the effects of no leadership on global warming for another eight years.

And the guy never apologized, never said "Ooops". Amazing.

Posted by bakfiets | February 24, 2008 10:52 AM

Why should Nader say oops?

He is paid for all this. Not just a media whore, just a whore.

R. money put him on the ballot in some states and the Greens paid him as a celebrity candidate, the best of several options.

German Greens called it right when they begged him to release his voters or be part of grave danger to the environment.

Not sad, he is an outrage. Clean snow, hardly.

AND A CLOSET CASE TOO BOOT. Good God Mary, what a mess you are in old age.

Posted by Adam | February 24, 2008 11:07 AM

Aside from the whole being-an-idiot thing, why can't guys like Nader start small? Run for school board, city council, whatever - ENTRY LEVEL POLITICS. Then state senate, congress - a few more years of that, THEN make a run for president. NOOOOOO, it's got to be PRESIDENT or NOTHING.

Posted by Missy Miss | February 24, 2008 11:07 AM


Bush would still have "won" even if Nader hadn't run.

Posted by KeeKee | February 24, 2008 11:09 AM


I'm glad you'll have a candidate that mirrors your opinions assuming that Nader qualifies for the ballot in WA. In fact I'm happy Nader will be there to split the "I want a decrepid old pale male" vote with McCain.

Posted by Mike in Iowa | February 24, 2008 11:20 AM

No doubt that Bush would still have won in 2000. But Nader running again - especially after his poor showing in 2004 - is just self-serving and selfish. Obama's quote hit the nail on the head.

Posted by Joey the Girl | February 24, 2008 11:22 AM

Why did Nader wait until now to get in? I believe that we need to have a more inclusive system, but if that were truly Nader's goals, where has he been?

Posted by ahava | February 24, 2008 11:35 AM

Fuck Nader. Just ignore the son of a bitch. We'll get 10 disaffected Republicans for every whiny self-righteous purist who votes for Nader.

Posted by ivan | February 24, 2008 11:35 AM

Whoa. Gore lost Florida in 2000 by 7,000 votes. Which was decisive. Nader got many times that number of votes. So shut the fuck up, Naderites - the blame for Bush lies squarely on your shoulders. Hope you're happy.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 24, 2008 11:36 AM

There's no fucktard like an old fucktard...

Posted by michael strangeways | February 24, 2008 11:42 AM

I for one am glad that Nader is back in. Those of you so excited about change, hope and transformation in the American political system should be pretty drawn to his candidacy as well (ok, not really). Nader actually does offer real political and policy differences from any

Remember that neither Obama or Hillary spent much time speaking about poverty or economic justice until Edwards forced their hands. Nader offers a similar chance to expand the political discourse and hopefully push some of the candidates in a progressive direction, especially around issues of corporate power (not just lobbying, but the laws and rights ascribed to corporations that allow them to attain ridiculous and unjustifiable political, economic and social sway), civil and consumer rights and environmental protection. Riling the feathers of some partisan hacks who can’t see beyond empty promises for hope or the two candidates presented to them on CNN – well, that’s just icing.

The Democrats aren’t entitled to my vote (they’ve actually never got it for President) nor to any liberal, progressive or leftist votes. To say that they are because the are the least rightwing of the conservative-right Democrat-Republican political system is to encourage the increasingly rightward swing in American politics that we’ve seen occur until the most recent election.

Posted by johnnie | February 24, 2008 11:45 AM

@ 6. The only reason Nader had appeal in 2000 was because of the shit worthlessness of the Democratic Party. I have to admit Obama “seems” like the first good Democratic candidate in a decade, and only because he is going to end the war the shittard Democrats voted for and supported. In his life Nader has done more for this country then the Democrates have done in the last decade. Pablo, you done not even deserve to carry Nader’s shit in your measly little mouth. Bush fixed the election, this is a fact.

Posted by Obamatron | February 24, 2008 11:56 AM

@40, to be fair the Democrats DID have the much better candidate but the consultants controlled that campaign in a way that defies logic.

Obama had damn well better tell the constultants what they can go do with themselves.

Posted by Andrew | February 24, 2008 12:00 PM

@39 - have you actually been paying attention this election cycle? Because those are the same tired arguments from 2000.

Posted by David | February 24, 2008 12:04 PM

I love Obama's response! Makes me like him even more.

Posted by Suz | February 24, 2008 12:09 PM

@42 - Unfortunately I have been paying attention, which is why I think a Nader candidacy could be helpful. There are few differences between Barack and Hillary. The product is the same; everyone is worked up about the packaging. Nader, though fairly reformist, offers some stark contrasts to both Hillary and Obama. If Democrats actually care enough to go after the voters who care about these differences (strong environmental protection, an end to corporate citizenship, strong government oversight of corporate deals, strong labor laws, international treaties that emphasise the rights of the environment, workers, women, and minorities), then they should. If they are not willing to, then the cannot be demanded. Votes need to be won; no voter owes their support to anyone but the candidate that best represents their politics.

Posted by johnnie | February 24, 2008 12:13 PM

@44 - 'cuz, you know, all those policy points you just brought up? Where are our candidates deficient on those points? Specifics please.

Posted by David | February 24, 2008 12:15 PM

David, a few of the highlights:
Along with nukes, Obama is a big supporter of ethonal, which is terrible for the environment and whose production releases more carbon than oil.
Hillary has a slightly better energy policy, but both candidates’ environmental plans essentially boil down to increased government funding of ‘clean and green’ alternatives, but in relatively paltry amounts. Neither have made the protection of remaining wilderness areas prominent points in their campaign whatsoever.

In terms of trade agreements; both are generally neo-liberals when it comes to international trade. They have both said they want to modify NAFTA (not that easy with an international treaty, as all countries would have to ratify changes), but none have said they would pull out of NAFTA if it wasn’t largely reworked. None have given any sign that the protections I listed above would be fundamental to their foreign economic or political agreements.

Neither have questioned the laws granting corporate personhood.

Neither of them have proposed a single-payer health care system, and Obama hasn’t even proposed universal coverage (just access).

I could go on, but the differences between the candidates are pretty apparent. If you think that middle of the road, middle class liberalism is all right, then the two candidates have earned your vote. If you have a more progressive agenda, then their policies don’t really match up. I see nothing wrong with Nader adding another voice and a little bit of leftward pressure into the larger discourse, and he certainly is more likely to do that than, say, Cynthia McKinney.

Posted by johnnie | February 24, 2008 12:33 PM

Before you start getting all wet and squirmy about what a great friend of the common man Ralph Nader is, go talk to the people who have worked in his offices. Pays crap, no health insurance, long, long hours, everyone required to bow down to King Ralph. Not such a great advocate for the downtrodden.

A man who once led -- indeed, probably invented -- the consumer movement has become a cartoon and a joke. If you look at it, there is absolutely nothing he will accomplish by his candidacy. Those who already swoon at the Mighty Leftness of King Ralph would probably be voting Green anyway. Anyone else dismissed him as a buffoon a long time ago. And sorry, Obama just isn't going to win it close enough for Ralph to fuck it up.

Ralph and his humongous ego -- just sad, sad, sad.

Posted by Wendy | February 24, 2008 12:37 PM

Wendy, I actually do know a fair amount of people who've worked 'for Ralph' - directly in his DC office and, I guess, by extention in PIRGs. They do get low pay and long hours and little benefits. They also sleep in his offices when he stays there for days at a time working and sit in the car with him when he circles towns over and over trying to find a place to eat that isn't a chain or fast food. Not the best places to work, but these generally aren't the downtrodden he is employing at this level - they're college students or recent college grads working because they believe in the issues, not the pension plan. Most people who work lowlevel jobs at nonprofits are in a similar situation. Unfortunately, but true.

Your comment about people voting Green is probably right, in states where there is a functioning Green party, and it's unfortunately that Ralph isn't pursuing partybuilding like he did in 2000, but Nader still carries a much stronger name and, even if it's just a few articles here and there and not the debates, does have a greater chance at getting a more progressive (certainly not leftwing) agenda heard. Wheither Dems are willing to fight for those votes or just spew vitrol about how terribly unfair and gauche a Nader candidacy is - well, that's up to them, isn't it?

Posted by johnnie | February 24, 2008 12:48 PM

Nader's been a joke for a lot longer than eight years. He flushed his reputation down the shitter in the seventies, when he deliberately fucked over Jimmy Carter, and cost the US a chance at having a Cabinet-level consumer-advocate position -- all because he wanted absolute unelected power. He's accomplished NOTHING since then; not one single bit of fuck-all. Ralph Nader is garbage, and you people voting for him are tools.

Posted by Fnarf | February 24, 2008 12:51 PM

Poor American Green Party. As long as this guy is in charge they are SCREWED.

Who told him the presidency is the place for a third party to start building its grass roots?

Posted by k | February 24, 2008 1:03 PM

Instant runoff voting.

Posted by Lauren | February 24, 2008 1:10 PM

All you emasculated Democrat nerds get to be big bullies and pile on whenever Nader's name is mentioned. You're pathetic.

If Al Gore hadn't stood for NOTHING and run a shit campaign, he would have beaten Bush who was a joke even then. Nader's sliver of votes wouldn't have mattered, and the Repubs wouldn't have been able to steal the election either.

And now you all fellate the old gasbag because he won a prize for his power point presentation about the environment.

p.s. brandon go fuck yourself.

Posted by Miles | February 24, 2008 1:21 PM

I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, and Nader was a minor hero of mine in my youth. I was a little bit tempted to vote for him in 2000, based on that alone. I didn't, but the temptation was there. Nader is partly right, in that Gore ran a shitty campaign. But it is nevertheless obvious that if Nader hadn't been on the ballot, Gore would have taken Florida, and hence be sitting in the White House right now. Watching that all go down was a real eye opener for me.

Those of you who say there's no difference between the two major parties are delusional. Can you really say it would be no different if Gore were president instead of Bush? That we'd still be in this war? That we'd still be ignoring global warming? That we'd still have 2 more right-wing Supreme Court Justices (for life)? Sure, the democrats are imperfect and Gore ran a crappy campaign, but this country wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now if he was president instead of Bush.

At this point Nader's just making a laughing stock of himself. After his pathetic showing in 2004, what makes him think he'll do any better this year?

I loved Obama's response. Nice way to both respect Nader's past accomplishments while at the same time dismissing his attempt to run for president again.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | February 24, 2008 1:22 PM

I have to admit I was tempted to vote for Nader in 2000. I heard him speak at Key Arena, was very impressed, and was undecided until the day before the election. The polls, despite the actual outcome, indicated that Washington was going to be close so I went for Gore since I thought ANYONE would be better than George W.

I found out too late about a movement to trade votes with people in other states. If I wanted Nader to get enough of the popular vote to have his ideas taken seriously and to get the Democratic party to notice its progressive wing, I would vote for Gore but ask friends or relatives in solidly Democratic states to vote for Nader. If I asked my sister in Boston, say, to vote for Nader while I voted for Gore, her vote wouldn't spoil the election since Mass was going to go Democratic no matter what. But Nader would have gotten one more of the popular vote. It's too bad the Nader campaign didn't promote this strategy.

It's all or nothing for Nader and his supporters. I WANT MY GOALS AND I WANT THEM NOW!!!!! I want the same goals, but I at least understand that progress has to come gradually. Too much change that the rest of the country isn't ready for will cause a backlash that results in us taking a giant step backwards, which is what we got for the last eight years.

Fifty-Two Eighty is right about Nader and the Florida vote. It's the math, stupid. If only a small percentage of Nader voters there had gone for Gore the twin towers would still be standing, we would not be stuck in a Vietnam-esque war in Iraq, we would not have our privacy invaded, we would not have a huge budget deficit, and we would be much closer to a cleaner environment, greater access to health care and a decent education, and that's just the beginning. Nader may not be to blame for 2004, but I will go to my grave holding him responsible for the disaster these last eight years have been.

Posted by RainMan | February 24, 2008 1:42 PM

@37, @53, and everyone else who thinks Nader cost Gore the election in Florida ... Are you all naive? That was a rigged election, overseen by Bush's fucking brother. Had this election occurred in any other country, we would have called bullshit and the UN would have sent in election monitors.

If Nader hadn't run in Florida, I'll bet that Gore would have lost it by the exact same margin.

Posted by Mahtli69 | February 24, 2008 1:57 PM

@53, Ditto. I voted for Nader in 2000. I was an "independent" (don't vote party lines) back then and was stunningly unimpressed with Gore and Bush. I didn't think my vote mattered (the election winner is usually announced before my state's votes are even counted) so I voted Green Party. I knew Nader had no hope of winning; I was just sick of the Democrat/Republican status quo.

Sorry, folks. I guess my vote did matter.

I certainly didn't vote for Nader in 2004, and I certainly won't vote for him in 2008.

In 2008 I will vote Democrat, I will vote against the Republicans for the rest of my natural life.

Posted by yucca flower | February 24, 2008 2:06 PM

@54 - Are you insane?? "If only a small percentage of Nader voters there had gone for Gore the twin towers would still be standing..." Unless you're implying that Sept 11th was organized by Bush or that Osama Binladen was as upset about Bush's win as you were and decided to take action into his own hands, or that Gore is a superhero... No, you'ld still be insane to believe that even if all the above were true.

Posted by johnnie | February 24, 2008 2:57 PM

Hahaha, my friend from college is Nader's archivist (and his father's worked for Nader for 35+ years). Three days ago I got an email from him asking me to match his donation to Obama.

I sent said friend a rather strongly-worded letter today regarding his boss' poor political choices.

Posted by Jessica | February 24, 2008 4:09 PM

@57: In your hysteria, you forgot the obvious explanation for 54's remarks: namely, a Gore administration would be competent. With competence comes the ability to competently manage the intelligence gathering and analysis arms of the government, and thereby notice the warning signs that were ALL OVER THE PLACE; acting on this information would have averted the 9/11 attacks, meaning the towers would still be standing.

I wish I could be surprised that an idiotic Nader supporter was acting idiotic, but really, the past eight years have demonstrated that anyone supporting Nader lacks the critical thinking skills normally present in your average elementary schoolchild.

Posted by AnonymousCoward | February 24, 2008 5:33 PM

@57: Actually what I was referring to was the intelligence memo that came out a month before the attacks saying Bin Laden and Al-Quaida were planning something big. Bush ignored it. Gore, or any other intelligent person, would not have.

Posted by RainMan | February 24, 2008 6:50 PM

We can all assume that a Gore adminstration would have been magnificent, governed by unicorns even, but it hardly seems rational, even sane, to blame Nader for what might or might not have happened in an alternative universe.

Posted by johnnie | February 24, 2008 9:23 PM

Nader's intent was to help put a Republican in office. He thought by making the country worse, we'd wake up and see he was right all along. So why not blame him for bringing about the very thing he intended?

Posted by elenchos | February 24, 2008 9:28 PM

Nader has outlived his usefulness as a "public servant". Now, he's just screwing his own cause. He needs to make like Perot and go the fuck away.

Posted by JAM in PGH | February 25, 2008 3:46 AM

Did anyone have any idea how bad the Bush years would be? Of course. He was obviouly pandering to the right-wing. He was obviously praising the worst Supreme Court justices. He was obviously against a woman's right to choose. I mean, come on! Can you really be so stupid as to say you had no idea how bad Bush would be?

Posted by Vince | February 25, 2008 8:36 AM


I'd say that wasn't so much a "senior moment" as it was a logical Freudian slip.

Personally, I've gone from blaming Nader in 2000 and 2004 to blaming the candy-ass risk-averseness of Democratic candidates who run not to lose rather than running to win.

That said, the Obama quote was right on the money.

Posted by Mr. X | February 25, 2008 10:32 AM

you mean obama right? right.

Posted by Emily | February 25, 2008 11:04 AM

Wow, what a bunch of liberal assholes you all are! So quick to compromise any values you have, and ready to attack the progressives in the room so much more readily than to hold the democrats to account for anything.

Of course, we all know how saintly the Democrats are, and what backbone they've shown!

You're all pathetic! Except the Greens: you seem to have integrity, a word the liberals aren't familiar with.

Posted by sanity | February 25, 2008 11:38 AM

A Nader/Kucinich ticket would give this race a huge shot of testosterone.

Posted by NaderMania | February 25, 2008 11:47 AM

Sanity, you seem to be proving Obama's point.

Here's a fun little game - Ask all of your friends in blue states who voted "strategically" for Nader in 2000 if they'll be doing it again this year.

Posted by Doug | February 25, 2008 12:00 PM

I have three words for Ralph Nader: The Supreme Court.

By enterting the race in 2000 and garnering a significant number of votes in Florida, he allowed a Republican President to pick two new supreme court justices who will be affecting all of our lives for the next 35 years. No one--not even the staunchest Naderite--can legitimately claim that Gore would have lost Florida if Nader had stayed at home.

His entering the race is predicated on the fallacy that there is little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. I blame Nader for Justices Roberts and Alito.

Posted by cmon_people | February 25, 2008 1:34 PM

What a bunch of fucking whiners! Blaming Nader for 2000 is the most retarded pussy copout I've ever heard. There are hundreds of reasons Gore lost, but every one of them is completely lost on you so long as you have a tangible target (a true american patriot who has spent his life working in YOUR interest) at which to lazily redirect your frothing Bush anger.

And I love this delusion that you own my vote. That I would EVER vote for your phony-ass, corporate-owned, stands-for-nothing excuse for a party! I would not, and therefore please disabuse yourself of the idea that my "true" vote for your inane BS "party" was somehow redirected or "spoiled" by another candidate. It was fucking EARNED by him. Did Gore earn your vote? Fuck no, he earned NOTHING. But hey, that makes sense, because he represents NOTHING. It is a whole party of NOTHING. It should be renamed the Nothingcrats for fuck sake!

You pussy Nothingcrats could care less that Obama is against gay marriage, that he's pro-Israel, that he is neutral on corporate personhood, etc. etc. Obama could be for or against ANYTHING and it wouldn't matter, you'd still vote for him because he's the cool guy in the name brand party that isn't Republican. That's why he doesn't even bother to tell you what he stands for, because you could give a fuck, might as well save his breath and just crank up the MLK-affected drone because you're voting brand name "D" no matter what. You'd vote for Reagan if he signed up Democrat, admit it! You fucking voted for Lieberman in 2000, which is basically the equivalent.

Posted by HYE | February 25, 2008 2:51 PM

All this profanity when the solution to our present problems was offered long ago by (I believe) Lincoln Steffens. He said" A politician is a salesman. He'll sell you anything you want including government. If you know how to ask for it." If the quote isin't exact it's close enough. How do you ask for it? Steffens supplied the answer: "Throw the rascals out." Though rascals is too tame a term for the Bush administration. In this lovely democracy of ours we do have the opportunity every four years to "Throw the rascals (there's an off-rhyme that would better describe Bush and Co -- but this is the year we can really resolve to ask for better government now for four more Republican years and 100 years or so of the war in Iraq. Or didn't McCain suggest that?

Posted by Martin Nabut | February 25, 2008 3:08 PM

Sorry I left our a vital word. The quote should read " he sell you anything you want including GOOD GOVERNMENT if you know how to ask for it

Posted by Martin Nabut | February 25, 2008 3:11 PM

Let me correct that- I would begrudgingly give your party a chance if by some miracle it grew some balls and nominated someone like Kucinich who actually stands for something.

Posted by HYE | February 25, 2008 3:15 PM

"I see nothing wrong with Nader adding another voice and a little bit of leftward pressure into the larger discourse, and he certainly is more likely to do that than, say, Cynthia McKinney."

I have to say, that if Nader wanted to add pressure or another voice to the discourse, he should have thrown his hat in the ring along with the many other Democratic candidates a year ago and PARTICIPATED IN THE DEBATES. It's too bad that Green Party and other candidates don't get to participate in the debates, and perhaps he should have been working harder to achieve that, but since it hadn't happened by the beginning of this election cycle, Nader should have swallowed the bitter Democratic pill and tried running with the pack if he wanted to influence the outcome.

I would love to see higher-level third-party participation in this country, but this is NOT the way to do it. It makes people see third-party candidates as cranks, which is unfair.

Posted by Laura in L.A. | February 25, 2008 11:55 PM

And see this commentary on the issue missing from Nader's "platform", if he's serious:

Posted by Laura in L.A. | February 25, 2008 11:57 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).