Another Run for Ralph Nader?

Ralph Nader seems poised to enter the 2008 Presidential race. He'll be on Meet the Press Sunday.

[2004 Nader spokesman Kevin]Zeese said he could only guess what Nader might do, but added:

"Obviously, I don't think ("Meet the Press" host) Tim Russert would have him on for no reason."

Nader formed an exploratory committee last month.

I can't imagine who he thinks would support him.

< OPR Opens Investigation Into 2002 DOJ Torture Memo | Breaking the Obama Fever >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Maybe some of the people saying (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by vj on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:24:21 PM EST
    they won't support the democratic nominee if their candidate is not selected?

    I wouldn't vote for Nader if (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by john5750 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:48:41 PM EST
    I wouldn't vote for Nader if Obama and Hillary were both caught high on heroin, naked mud-wrestling with Osama and Gingrich on Bush's ranch after kissing Karl Rove.

    Ewwwwwww (none / 0) (#46)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:49:15 PM EST
    I wasn't grossed out, really, until you got to kissing Karl Rove. . . .

    Now there's a useful idea (none / 0) (#7)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:31:43 PM EST
    But I have read comments saying (none / 0) (#10)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:33:49 PM EST
    that in all kinds of Blogs.

    I was serious, not putting it down. (none / 0) (#11)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:41:08 PM EST
    It's entirely possible he'd get more votes than 2000 this time around, due to anger.

    From bad to worse.... (none / 0) (#30)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:10:55 PM EST
    No, Ralph.  Just no.

    Talk about reinforcing and rewarding bad behavior!


    People should do whatever (none / 0) (#33)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:15:30 PM EST
    floats their own boat.

    Like in 2000? (none / 0) (#96)
    by BernieO on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:35:48 AM EST
    Voting for Nader may have floated their boats but it sure sunk ours.

    ugh (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:59:00 PM EST

    nader (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by demschmem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:33:07 PM EST
    won't be any more relevant than he was last time.

    as for all the anger within the dem party, the blog crowd, which is actually a pretty small group, greatly over perceives it.  most dems aren't that angry and will vote for either.

    Anger (none / 0) (#24)
    by americanincanada on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:36:31 PM EST
    I think you underestimate the amount of anger there is out there for the way this primary season has turned out and for Obama's politics of 'hope'.

    i don't think so. (none / 0) (#27)
    by demschmem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:52:17 PM EST
    i clearly see the anger in places like this, but the polls and anecdotal experiences suggest otherwise generally.  do you see the polls on what most dems think of both candidates?

    polls suck and will never catch (none / 0) (#28)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:00:20 PM EST
    this kind of discontent.

    thats silly (none / 0) (#42)
    by demschmem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:42:04 PM EST
    maybe, but I doubt it (none / 0) (#50)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:55:34 PM EST
    ultimate payback (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by lily15 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:14:56 PM EST
    How amusing to watch the progressive left whine when Ralph wants to hurt them too...problem is...Obama supporters would be more inclined to move over to Nader than any Hillary supporters...But us Hillary supporters won't be there to help when the intellectually dishonest progressives need to defend themselves against NAder's charges of being the same old Washington.  Nader can really hurt Obama if Obama moves to the center for the general...and some of his believers become disappointed...If he loses his aura...the Dems will collapse...Having Nader blast Obama for Obama's lobbyist ties will be sweet.  But they will be all alone to defend themselves.  

    And then the media will give Nader a lot of air time...and Obama will not look progressive enough.  But it will be too late.  Because the progressives just knew Obama was the second coming of JFK and RFK...and gee...this is so unfair...

    Now I see it.  The Right is going to play the Nader card again. They will finance him and promote him...and the media will give him lots of air time...so he can bash Democrats.

    Surely Nader won't run again? (none / 0) (#34)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:17:18 PM EST
    But if he did, the irony wouldn't be lost on me.

    I'm supporting Hillary 'til the end. And if at the (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by LatinoVoter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:33:50 PM EST
    end she is not standing there...well I would hope that I could be forgiven if I accidentally voted for Nader. You know, the way I've had to forgive my Senator for "accidental" pressing the wrong button while voting in the Illinois Senate.

    there would be no forgiveness (none / 0) (#44)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:44:52 PM EST
    8 years of Bush is not enough for you?

    Why? (none / 0) (#49)
    by obscure on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:52:30 PM EST
    Why should you be forgiven for helping to elect another Republican?

    Note LatinoVoter would have no effect (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:57:22 PM EST
    as Obama is his Senator, so it's Illinois, which will be as blue as Lake Michigan in summer.  It always is, even without one of its own in the race.  

    Worry more about what could happen in swing states . . . like mine to the north, the closest state last time.  Nader did well in Wisconsin.


    Born and raised (none / 0) (#55)
    by obscure on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:03:20 AM EST
    I was born and raised in Wisconsin with a period in Chicago. The last thing that I want to see is my home state be the tipping point for another Republican in the White House. I don't care if it's a bag of cheese curds on the ticket for the Democrats, I'm pulling the lever for em.

    Actually, a bag of cheese curds would be pretty cool.


    Well, I was being sarcastic. (none / 0) (#66)
    by LatinoVoter on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:39:12 AM EST
    I don't need or want your forgiveness-I'll vote how I want in the General Election. And the guilt trip about voting for a Republican doesn't really have any affect on me. If anything it makes me less inclined to vote for the candidate that talks about the "excesses of the 60s & 70" about SS being in "crisis", who courted Donnie McClurkin and the gay hater vote, who praises Reagan when he should be buried and who actively and shamelessly courts Republicans in a Democratic primary.  

    8 years of Bush is not enough for you?

    After the heartbreak of 2000 I made myself a promise never to vote for anyone who is part of the Bush family. Unfortunately for Barack he has the misfortune of being related to GWB and if that wasn't bad enough he's also related to Cheney.



    You Wouldn't Deserve Forgiveness (none / 0) (#94)
    by AdrianLesher on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:56:55 AM EST
    Especially since McCain would appoint his even more radically right Supreme Court choices. See here, and  here.

    One more thing (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by dmk47 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:10:25 AM EST
    Taylor Marsh's take on Bill O'Reilly's "lynching" remark: It's an awful thing to say on its own terms, but more importantly, because it distracts from the urgent task of impugning Michelle Obama's patriotism.

    That's just disgusting. Marsh saying it is disgusting. Her commenters nodding to it is disgusting.

    You don't know me at all Lily, so I'll take the ad hominems as expressions of partisanship in a tough campaign and nothing truly personal, but I don't despise Hillary Clinton. On the contrary, even though I prefer Obama, I respect Hillary Clinton a great deal and would have no problem at all voting for her in the GE.

    Moreover, if you'd like to make a case that Hillary Clinton is the better candidate, I'm willing to have that conversation.

    Why can't you extend the same charity to me and my candidate?

    Without his egotistical crusade (3.00 / 4) (#8)
    by kenosharick on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:32:23 PM EST
    Gore would be president, there would be no Iraq war, or Huge tax cuts for the uber-wealthy. He and those who voted for him are responsible (in partnership with the bush admin.)of tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and Americans.

    meh (none / 0) (#39)
    by Nasarius on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:38:30 PM EST
    That makes a number of enormous assumptions about Nader voters (if Nader hadn't run, are you sure they would have bothered to vote at all?), and absolves Gore of the blame for running a thoroughly mediocre campaign.

    Yes, Nader is an idiot for keeping his name on the ballot in swing states. But he's not the scapegoat you're looking for.

    the exit polls done in 2000 (none / 0) (#45)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:47:23 PM EST
    basically showed that half the Nadar voters would have voted for Gore, a quarter for Bush, a quarter would have stayed home.

    There were 90K Nadar votes in Florida.

    You do the math.


    that's what they say (none / 0) (#48)
    by Nasarius on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:51:48 PM EST
    I'm surprised as many as 25% admitted they would stay home. It's not something most people would be inclined to say when being interviewed in-person.

    Oh, and another problem: Gore won Florida. If he had pushed for a full recount, rather than the partial recount which lost him the SCOTUS case, he might have actually got it.

    Forget winning the SCOTUS case (none / 0) (#93)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:33:29 AM EST
    They had no business in the case it was a state matter.  The fact that they got involved shows that Gore had no chance of winning no matter what.

    There is no way to run (none / 0) (#97)
    by BernieO on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:40:54 AM EST
    a good campaign when the media despises you and your party lets it happen. When you are constantly on the defensive there is no good solution. Check out Thursday's dailyhowler.com post. Bob Somerby is all over what the NYTimes did to Gore and the fact that Dems let it happen.

    At least this year there has been some push back on their biased, sexist treatment of Clinton. Maybe we are starting to wise up?


    also (none / 0) (#40)
    by Nasarius on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:40:08 PM EST
    There are a ton of registered Dems who simply don't vote in any given election. Why not blame them? They're at least as blameworthy as Nader voters in Florida.

    if he works very hard (none / 0) (#1)
    by Turkana on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:15:34 PM EST
    and gets a few lucky breaks, he might get 1%.

    And if Bloomberg enters, too . . . (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:25:30 PM EST
    it could make the difference that it did in 2000.

    bloomberg could cause problems (none / 0) (#15)
    by Turkana on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:03:43 PM EST
    but he's hedged so much, i don't think he has the stomach for it.

    He might get the some of the people (none / 0) (#2)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:17:00 PM EST
    who say they want change in politics as usual.

    Just hope we don't have another (none / 0) (#5)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:26:59 PM EST
    Florida in 2008 after all the SCOTUS is even more stacked this year.

    He ran in 2004, too. (none / 0) (#6)
    by s5 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:30:27 PM EST
    But no one noticed. Nader is completely irrelevant, even as a potential spoiler.

    In 2004 most Democrats were mad about (none / 0) (#9)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:32:30 PM EST
    2000 this year a lot of Democrats may be mad at the DNC.  Let's hope your right.

    Back then, folks (none / 0) (#12)
    by hvs on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:44:09 PM EST
    needed to understand that whatever else your vote is, it is also a strategic exercise in power. It is naive to vote your ideals without also considering the fact that your idealistic vote might also deliver the country to the likes of GWB. It's sometimes the case that a vote for one person (you like) is, in practice, a vote for someone else (you don't like). If you make such an ill-considered vote, even for the most righteous of principles, you ARE responsible for realizing evil you didn't intend.


    There is alot (none / 0) (#22)
    by sas on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:33:38 PM EST
    of truth in what you write, hvs.

    I am in a position where I detest the probable nominees.  Voting FOR either one appalls me.

    So, I think I will go vote,and vote against John McCain.  It won;t be easy, but I think my state (PA) will be close.

    If I lived in the South,Kansas, or Utah, etc I would definitely stay home.  


    Isn't there some other way (none / 0) (#17)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:14:15 PM EST
    for Ralph to feel relevant?  I mean, it's not as if we hear anything about him, or from him, in between elections, so I fail to see why anyone should give this guy a platform or a microphone.

    Leave it to Russert to waste valuable air time on this blowhard - maybe we'll hear Russert say, "If it's Sunday, it's Bonfire of the Vanities."

    Don't be so sure... (none / 0) (#18)
    by americanincanada on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:15:27 PM EST
    Enough people voted for Nadar to cose us at least one election and perhaps two.

    Don't think for one second that he can't cost us this one as well.

    I would never vote for him but then again I am not sure I'll vote for Obama or McCain either.

    And there is no reason to say rude, hateful and uncalled for things about Taylor Marsh.

    the taylor comments (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:34:35 AM EST
    have been deleted. No personal attacks here please.

    The lovely thing about living in a blue state... (none / 0) (#19)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:26:42 PM EST
    I can usually vote third party without fear of handing a win to the republicans.  I'll be watching the polling, though, just to make sure it doesn't become a close one.

    I ain't votin for Nader though.

    Well I may consider Nader (none / 0) (#20)
    by facta non verba on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:27:31 PM EST
    More than likely I will write in Edwards here in California or I may vote my own narrow self-interest, something that I have never done, and vote for McCain. But I will not vote for Obama under any circumstances. I think him a Democratic combination of Reagan and Nixon. His politics may be different but his approach to politics is basically the same. From my perspective, Obama sells out the progressive agenda every chance he gets and I also think him naive on his bipartisanship approach to domestic politics and on international affairs, I think him plainly the deer in the headlights. I have already contributed to the Green Party and Cynthia McKinney. I could happily vote for Nader (I did not in 2000). And no, I don't care about the SCOTUS. Again, I think the system is broken and Obama ain't the cure. So the SCOTUS hardly matters as much anymore.

    I am relatively new to this site, having left the Huffington Post never to return. Am I embittered? Yes and I hold Lawrence O'Donnell largely responsible for it. I never cared for Obama, again the naivete, but O'Donnell made me come to really dislike Obama. I appreciate the fact that Big Tent Democrat is a sane Obama supporter, we can have honest differences of opinion on both style and substance but the level of insanity now prevalent on Huffington Post, TPM, Daily Kos, C&L and even the DU is beyond my tolerance for fair and honest debate. I'll note this the last time I didn't vote Democratic was 1980 when I voted for John Anderson. I am prepared to do so again.

    It's odd that "unity" candidate has me feeling so "disunified." What does that say?

    I'm not sure what it says... (none / 0) (#23)
    by americanincanada on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:35:32 PM EST
    but I'm right there with you. I am not sure how I will register my vote and feelings for priesident but I know that it will not be for Obama or McCain. (or even Nadar) Maybe I'll write in Clinton.

    Dear (none / 0) (#25)
    by sas on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:40:36 PM EST
    Facta non verba,  The Huffington post gets to me too.

    I am in a position where I detest the probable nominees.  Voting FOR either one appalls me.

    So, I think I will go vote,and vote against John McCain.  It won't be easy, but I think my state (PA) will be close.

    If I lived in the South,Kansas, or Utah, etc I would definitely stay home.

    If McCain gets in, all the Bushies will have been vindicated, and they'll be back in places.  That's enough to make me sick.

    Please reconsider.

    it's hard (none / 0) (#36)
    by facta non verba on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:22:19 PM EST
    McCain does one thing for me personally, he eliminates the AMT which has bitten me more than once. I don't mind paying taxes but I think it fair that one be able to plan and prepare for them and not be surprised. So that's my own narrow self-interest that I could in good conscience support. I have never done this.
    I think the system is broken and I think it naive to think that it can be fixed with band-aid approaches. I also don't buy Obama's now or neverism, the whole we are the people we have been waiting for rhetoric. Anyone who is asking to "seize moments" is in an Madisonian sense, someone to be avoided. The mass movement as someone on the outside looking in does scare me.
    I keep on mulling scenarios on what this election will look like. 1968, 1980, 2000 are the most recent ones that come to mind. 1824 and 1876 are the other ones. I think Obama would win the popular vote by a plurality but I doubt by a majority. He may however likely lose the Electoral College. The GOP is very good at running an Electoral College race. They figured out the model in 1968 and have been fine-tuning it ever since. In those 40 years the GOP has held Presidency 28 years and the Democrats but 12.  

    There are very specific reasons why I can't support Obama: charter schools, gay issues, the health care proposals (Edwards & Clinton get it right), energy (not green enough), his statements on Pakistan, Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, and the behaviour of his surrogates.

    There are things I like about him: closing Guatanamo and restoring the rule of law.

    The better question is which Presidency frightens me more a McCain one or an Obama one? The Obama one. I fear that it might be a train wreck and that would set back the Democratic Party another generation. It is going to be a hard four years, don't kid yourself. That's why competence really matters in my mind. And why I think Clinton a better choice.

    Still the one thing does keep me up at nights are those John McCain appointments to the Supreme Court.

    Thanks for your kind note.:-)

    Green seems a better fit for me.


    The Supreme Court (none / 0) (#98)
    by BernieO on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:44:00 AM EST
    would be a long term nightmare. And he is so wedded to that promise, since it was the big thing he could offer the far right wingnuts that there is no way he can break it.

    All you have to do is (none / 0) (#29)
    by john5750 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:01:17 PM EST
    All you have to do is ask yourself if this country and the world are better off after 7 years of Bush-Cheney, then curse the one who helped them ruin it all.

    We could have had another 8 years of Clinton's Peace and Prosperity with Gore if it wasn't for Nader.

    It's useful (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:11:40 PM EST
    for Nader to be involved to remind people what is at stake.

    Norman Mailer. (none / 0) (#35)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:17:32 PM EST
    He was a ruin but also a great American writer.

    Have you read "The Executioner's Song?"  Stunning.

    There you Obama folks go (none / 0) (#52)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:57:39 PM EST
    again on Krugman.  Kuttner is an Obama supporter.  Independent experts don't agree with you.

    is he? (none / 0) (#53)
    by rootlessx on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:01:26 AM EST
    And if so, so what?

    Kuttner is a much more recognized progressive expert on health care than is Krugman. In fact, he is much more of a progressive than Krugman. I doubt Krugman would argue either point.

    However, the main point is that it if you think Obama's health plan is so unspeakably bad that you are willing to vote republican, than you have no idea what you are talking about.


    Kuttner may have stars in his eyes (none / 0) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:04:56 AM EST
    He has apparently fallen in love...

    I have followed politics far too long to fall in love, but I have to say that Barack Obama is like nothing we have seen since Bobby Kennedy and maybe since FDR. If you haven't read his first book, Dreams From My Father, you owe it to yourself.

    Obama wrote the book when he was 33, having spent nearly three years as an organizer on Chicago's South Side, and then three years at Harvard Law School where he was elected president of the Law Review. From there he went to Kenya, to come to terms with the African side of his family.

    Reading this work, you think: no 33-year-old has the right to such uncommon wisdom and humanity. The comparisons that come to mind are the young Martin Luther King, or Vaclav Havel, or maybe Jefferson.


    This isn't how one acts about a POLITICIAN!...more like how you'd act toward a god. I'd say he isn't really an objective source of information on anything Obama.


    Why does the fact that he supports Obama (none / 0) (#57)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:09:32 AM EST
    invalidate his professional opinion?
    Did it ever occur to you that he may support Obama precisely because he thinks his policies wiser?

    Krugman has lost a lot of credibility with his nasty attack mode. He does not present some sort of an independent analysis to his readers - he states his opinion and then runs with it, with the tone of a blog commenter.

    Thats really unfortunate. He could be such a resource to all of the left in helping us all understand tne nuanced points of economics and policy. But that is not what he does. So he becomes nothing more than an (admittedly very smart) advocate for one position. There are very smart advocates for other positions as well. Read Krugman and you get the pro-mandate talking points, not any deeper, or more objective  understanding of all the factors at play.


    Indeed, (none / 0) (#95)
    by sef on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:58:19 AM EST
    this is the precise reason I am supporting him.  I look at what he did in Ill. to the Ryan Commission's work on wrongful convictions enacted in to law and embrace him whole heartedly for it.  If you have a professional passion (and one of mine is criminal justice reform so that we get the right guy, and not just the guy with the worst lawyer)it is hard not to support a candidate who has taken huge political risks in that area to make change happen.

    Yes, well said (none / 0) (#56)
    by dmk47 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:04:55 AM EST
    Barack Obama is my first choice for a variety of reasons, but I think Hillary Clinton is an intelligent and capable one, whom I agree with far more frequently than I don't, and I'd happily vote for her than do anything with my ballot to put Hundred Years-McCain in the White House.

    This Nader business gives pro-Clinton Democrats a good opportunity to set the record straight.

    T. Marsh supported Reagan (none / 0) (#59)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:14:31 AM EST
    in the eighties. At least she is up front about it, but it should give one pause in assessing her reliance as a judge of progressive values and candidates.

    It wasn't "once" meeting. Trust me, (none / 0) (#61)
    by LatinoVoter on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:17:11 AM EST
    instead of transferring your Hillary hate onto Taylor Marsh maybe you should do some research of your own.

    You're foolish if you think in Hyde Park the "celebrities" of Chicago only meet once.

    What Hillary hate? (none / 0) (#65)
    by dmk47 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:34:17 AM EST
    How much clearer could I be? I have nothing against Hillary Clinton and would vote for her if she were the nominee. I just prefer Obama. Let's get our terms clearly defined. Are you suggesting that merely supporting Barack Obama makes one a Hillary-hater? If not, where do you come off?

    On the other hand, scurrilous attacks on Michelle Obama's patriotism, trying to Horton-ize Obama based on a nonsense non-story Ben Smith wrote up because he had nothing better to do, etc., are just repugnant.

    No one does Hillary Clinton any favors by associating her with Taylor Marsh's disgraceful hate-site.


    I love (none / 0) (#90)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:22:23 AM EST
    Taylor Marsh's disgraceful "hate" site and visit often. It's one of the few places you can go to escape the Obama mania and it's messianic message. Love Larry Johnson's No Quarter for the same reason.

    I have always gotten in line, held my nose and voted for the Democratic candidate although I am an Independent. But not this time. Not if Obama is the candidate. I perceive him and many of his supporters as sexist and even holding my nose won't allow me to vote for him. Couldn't possibly vote for Nader and his never-ending ego either. I will simply write in Hillary Clinton if she is not the nominee.

    And please, please spare me the "Big Bad Republicans will get ya if you don't vote for the Democratic candidate." That got us Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Claire McKaskill and Mary Landrieu and Herb Kohl etc. etc. etc.


    Don't have to worry this time (none / 0) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:18:36 AM EST
    about any replay of Florida with Nader.  Florida won't be in play, anyway, thanks to the (not so) good judgment of Howard Dean  and crew...

    exactly (none / 0) (#70)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:49:25 AM EST
    McCain is locking up the Cuban vote as we speak.
    And that's just part of the story.

    We cannot risk having the Florida voters feel they were robbed once again.  I am in Florida right now and I can tell you that people will flee the Democratic party in droves if Florida ends up costing us the election because of this fiasco with the delegates.


    the Republicans always get the Cuban vote (none / 0) (#73)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:09:23 AM EST
    McCain might have the task, if anything, of trying to maintain it.

    Beleive it or not, but the Miami-Cuban community is far less monolithic on the embargo than the very loud and strident (and old) leadership of that community would like everyone to believe.

    The embargo has been a fiasco, as any rational person can see, and Cubans certainly are as rational as anyone else, except fot that leadership group. The embargo has wreaked havoc on separated families - three are many people who actually do want some movement on this issue.


    McCain's support there goes beyond embargo (none / 0) (#89)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:11:47 AM EST
    You'll see it when it happens.

    I know (none / 0) (#63)
    by facta non verba on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:23:06 AM EST
    Clinton supports charter schools as well. Not as much as Obama does but yes, I am aware of it. Clinton didn't go campaigning with Donnie McClurkin. The health care debate has been had and had. Either you think mandates are good or they are not. Social Security is a mandate.

    And your last comment is unacceptable. I've opened up my thinking to you and told you that I have never voted my own economic self-interest and yet you accuse me of being spiteful.

    See the problem I have with Obama supporters generally. It's is their way or the highway. It's Madison Ten. James Madison is why I won't vote for Obama.

    I don't have a big problem with charter schools (none / 0) (#99)
    by BernieO on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:49:02 AM EST
    as long as they are subject to good oversight and have to adhere to well designed ground rules. The original idea of allowing a few experimental schools to be set up with no restrictions on who can attend so that new models could be developed and tested is not a bad idea. What is problematic is that too many states let them operate with public money and little to no oversight.

    Who cares about Ralph Nader (none / 0) (#68)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:45:43 AM EST
    I think this time we will win in a landslide big enough to make any 3rd party idiot irrelevant.

    But I only see that landslide happening with an Obama/Clinton ticket or Clinton/Obama ticket.

    The reasons why that needs to happen are quite extensive and for another thread perhaps.

    I have no idea why (none / 0) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:57:05 AM EST
    Clinton would take a VP position.  By the time she could run for president herself, she would be nearly 70.

    I think she should run for Senate Leader.  We can let Obama find his own VP candidate.


    She would be 70 (none / 0) (#75)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:11:25 AM EST
    whether she takes the VP or not. She would have to decide whether she would be more fulfilled as a VP or a Senator. Her call.

    I said senate LEADER (none / 0) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:14:48 AM EST
    I don't WANT her to run for VP and train Obama in how to be president. For me, it'll be just another case where the more experienced woman took the lesser role.  I don't think it's going to work, for a lot of women.  It definitely doesn't work for me.

    she'd be a great senate leader = if (none / 0) (#80)
    by rootlessx on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:18:46 AM EST
    if she can dump Terry Mac, Mark Penn, and the other stupid old men she seems to want to rely on for political consulting.

    If she can rediscover her inner Alinsky-ite instead of imprisoning herself inside the DLC mindset, she has enormous talents and capabilities.


    its not up to you (none / 0) (#81)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:23:19 AM EST
    There is no guarantee she would be elected Senate Leader - although I am on record here as believing that she should be, and would be great at it.

    And you needn't worry about her "training" Obama. If he wraps this up, and if he defeats McCain, it will be because, sorry to say, he has proven himself to be a better politician than her. Obama will be his own president and will not be looking for training from Hillary. Having been in the WH herself, I imagine that she would not presume to offerit either. Somehow I suspect the Hillary has far more respect for Obama than some of her supporters do.

    Experience is not the determinative factor in being a good president. The best qualified president, in terms of relevant experince, we have ever had turned out to be probably the worst president we ever had (Buchannon).

    The proper role for any politician in a democracy is the role that the people decide to give them. Hillary may be the best possible president in your mind, but what counts is the collective mind of the nation. She does not "deserve" the presidency because she was First Lady for 8 years.


    Weak ending. (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:33:45 AM EST
    yeah, I actually agree (none / 0) (#87)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:00:04 AM EST
    its getting late...

    I think I just wanted to work in some objection to the equation of Hillary being one's favorite candidate with her necessarily being the best, the most deserving, in some objective manner - such that a charge would be warranted of this being a typical case of the better woman being denied by the less qualified man.

    Whoever wins this thing will have earned it by the only criterion relevant in a democracy - a majority of support from the voters.


    It sure wouldn't work for me (none / 0) (#91)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:25:41 AM EST
    Just one more instance of a woman walking those 2 paces behind. Just one more instance of the more experienced and competent woman being passed over for a man. Just one more instance of a woman getting the shaft.

    This is not about Clinton or Obama as VP (none / 0) (#88)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:11:01 AM EST
    It's not about them.  It's about getting our Democratic ticket elected.  Together we stand strong.  The electorate has spoken - a pretty damn close delegate split.  Let's run em both.

    By the way, if Hillary wins TX and OH she very well could go on to win Penn and might emerge on top of the ticket yet.  So would Obama accept VP might be your question then.


    Let's not forget (none / 0) (#69)
    by dmk47 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:48:51 AM EST
    that if Obama is the nominee, Hillary Clinton will endorse him and campaign for him. I guess she'll just be another cultist who can't tell that Obama is  closet-Reaganite, right?

    No (none / 0) (#92)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:31:24 AM EST
    She would be a member of the Democratic Party, trying to re-unite her party so as to help them win. That would be her choice and pretty much politics as usual.

    Fortunately I am and Independent and don't have to march in any party line and so will not have to be a good little Democrat and do what's best for the party. I don't give a rat's backside what's best for the party.


    What, for heaven's sake (none / 0) (#77)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:13:14 AM EST
    is a Democrat, these days?  I thought until this election, that I knew.  The distinctions have been fuzzed enough that I see no need to vote a straight Democratic ticket anymore.

    How can anyone identify with a party that really doesn't seem to exist?

    The more you people talk the more (none / 0) (#82)
    by LatinoVoter on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:25:24 AM EST
    appealing you make Nader to me. It's kind of ironic, when you think about it. You guys really should quit while you are ahead. But since you responded...

    You won't vote for the candidate endorsed by the SEIU and Teamsters

    Those endorsement mean little to me in light of what happened in IL and who the Maytag Union endorsed (Hillary, btw) and why. They mean even less to me when I remember he called unions "special interests" when they were backing Edwards.

    "Obama had a special connection to Maytag: Lester Crown, one of the company's directors and biggest investors whose family, records show, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for Obama's campaigns since 2003. But Crown says Obama never raised the fate of the Galesburg plant with him, and the billionaire industrialist insists any jawboning would have been futile."

    "Obama's fundraising collides with his rhetoric"

    Jesse Jackson Jr.,

    LOL, I mean really stop it. You're making him less appealing by the minute and reminding me that I will never vote for Jesse Jackson Jr for anything after his ridiculous race-baiting antics this primary. You see I remember JJ jr going on television after NH and saying Hillary cried about her hair but didn't cry about Hurricane Katrina victims. I know JJ jr has been playing the race card with black Superdelegates.

    "He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?"

    Black lawmakers rethink Clinton support.

    So not only has his campaign openly used race to divide voters in this primary but he was too cowardly to do it himself. He sent out the son of a man who many think is a race peddler and who people think negatively of. He did it because if the race card blew up in his face then he could always do away with JJ jr and remain blames less because we all know that the apples don't fall from the trees.

    But I also have a dog in this fight. In Nevada when Unite Here was running that Spanish ad against Hillary claiming she didn't respect Hispanics Obama said nothing. Even Edwards spoke up and asked for Obama to speak up and denounce the ad. But Obama remained silent and again let his supporters inject race and I find that cowardly and as a Latino unforgivable.

    I don't care if you find my rationalizations "pathetic" because I find your candidates behavior in this primary beyond contempt.

    Watch your language please (none / 0) (#83)
    by rebecca on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:26:06 AM EST
    Business filters are hard on blogs with language in them and Jeralyn wants to keep her blog available.  Check the comment policy.  

    One thing I've noticed is that the more pushy Obama supporters get in trying to get people to say they will vote for their candidate the more people feel disinclined to do so.  One of the more offensive things I saw were diaries on dkos about the time Edwards was going to quit telling Edwards supporters that now was the time to switch to Obama.  All those diaries did was to push people away.  Allow people time to make their own decision.  First of all the nomination isn't over with and demanding that people say they will support the nominee or they are no kind of Democrat is insulting and pushy.  How about first letting the voters make the decision if your guy is the nominee and then after allow people to come to terms with it?  I lived through Dean going down and eventually went out and worked for Kerry.  But it isn't a quick switch to change over to the nominee.  This aggressive behavior in calling on Hillary supporters to show their Democratic bone fides while your own candidate hasn't taken back his offensive statement that he could count on her supporters while she couldn't count on his is doubly offensive.  

    I've voted in every election of my adult life for Democrats.  Jimmy Carter was my first president to vote for.  I'll tell you though that even though I've determined to hold my nose and vote for your guy it there are time when I read Obama supporters making some statement like the above that I just want to chuck it all.  So please stop making it harder for us and give people a little time to come to terms.  After all there's still a chance that your guy won't win and you'll be in this position not too long from now.    

    RootlessX (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:42:22 AM EST
    violated multiple comment rules of the site -- profanity, insults to other commenters and shilling for his candidate. He's banned.  I've left up a few of his comments that did not violate the site policy.

    I hope Nader runs (none / 0) (#100)
    by fafnir on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:07:45 PM EST
    The hand wringing by Democrats over the possibility of another Nader presidential run is, frankly, undemocratic. Moreover, the fear that Nader will "take votes away" from the Democratic nominee is sheer lunacy. Why? Because getting votes is what political campaigns are about! Each candidate has an obligation to earn citizens' votes. The idea that a single candidate or party owns a citizen's vote further weakens this experiment in representative democracy.