Hillary's Nightmare: Ralph Nader

[LoZoccolo]

It looks like Toe Morris, who is obviously not a Hillary fan, has found allegiance against Hillary amongst some of the same people you see around here spamming for third-party candidates. He wrote an article that appears on the Fox News site which expounds on Nader's spoiler role to a right-wing audience who seem to understand it much more than a lot of left wingers.

Nader must not be allowed to spoil the 2008 election no matter who wins the Democratic nomination. Make sure of it.

I will vote for any of our candidates who are up for the nomination. Be sure you do as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251132,00.html

[Deep13]

1. America's nightmare: Nader and WW III. nt

[LoZoccolo]

2. Right on. Nader is at the end of his life.

Therefore his interests might not be the same as those with most of their lives still ahead of them.

[ronnykmarshall]

3. Nader is not just Hillary's nightmare ....

Randi Rhodes nailed it last week. Nader is about NADER.

My best friend used to be a big fan of La Ralph and now she can't stand him.

[LoZoccolo]

5. Thank you for reminding me that Randi spoke on this.

I might have to download what she had to say.

[wyldwolf]

4. Edward's/ Obama's/Richardson's/Visack's/ etc. nightmare

[Tellurian]

26. The Nader solution...

please view to the end...hilarious!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDIZv1UsPeo

[fuzzyball]

102. You beat me to it....

Yap, Nader is the reason Bush occupies the White House.

[buff2]

6. That loser doesn't WANT a Democrat to win

I think he will do anything to prevent it too. He's fooled a lot of people into believing he is to the left,when he bends over backwards to help the GOPerverts. I wish he would take his buddy bu$h and go away.

[wyldwolf]

7. can we go ahead and vote Nader supporters off the Island?

[LoZoccolo]

8. I had started a campaign of doing that...

...but then they took the block feature away! Oh well.

[martymar64]

18. Calling for a purge? How Stalinist of you

Why don't you just get all their names and have them shot?

[wyldwolf]

20. No. "voting" is a democratic process

[Dr Fate]

31. Didnt stop DU's DLC fan club from saying that the primary votes for Lamont were a "purge."

I recall that all the DLC sympathizers were accusing loyal Democrats of a "purge" even though the CT primaires were a Democratic process too- so i see a double standard.

Double standards everywhere- many of these DLC sympathizers supported and endorsed Joe's conservative 3rd party, but want to purge everyone elses 3rd parties.

As a Democrat who votes for and supports capital "D" DEMS, I dont care much for either camp. Peas in a pod- they both keep DEMS from being elected.

[wyldwolf]

65. I'm sorry. Is Nader running as a Democrat?

[Dr Fate]

66. Not to my knowledge. 3rd party, like Joe. Apology accepted. n/t

n/t

[wyldwolf]

67. right. So how can he be "purged" if he wasn't in the party to begin with?

During the primary in CT., Lieberman WAS a Democrat. Nader never was. And no one to my knowledge ever used "purge" after the primary in CT.

[Dr Fate]

70. I thought you said it was a question of voting in a democratic process, not purging.

All semantics aside, I was just reminding other readers of how DLCers accused Lamont supporters of a "purge"- even though it was vote in a Democratic process.

[wyldwolf]

73. right. Voting against a non-democrat is no way a purge.

...and had the Lieberman race been an isolated event, the purge charge would not have stuck. But with "the netroots" threatening to make any number of centrist Dems "next," and Moveon targeting centrist Dems - smells like a purge.

[Dr Fate]

110. Makes sense: Lieberman was not a Purge since he was never a real Democrat to begin with.

If he had been a real, honest-to-goodness, loyal Democrat, he would have committed to supporting the Democratic winner from the very begining, no matter who won. He never did that.

All he ever committed to was himself, Bush's top policy issues, and then to his own Anti-DEM primary 3rd party.

I never thought of it that way- but good point- how could it be a purge from the DEM party since Joe (I) proved he was never committed to the party to begin with?

You are right- the DLC was factually incorrect when they claimed that getting rid of Lieberman, (so obviously a non-Democrat by his own actions)was a "purge."

[Dr Fate]

30. And those disloyal Joe Fucking Lieberman traitors as well. n/t

n/t

[LoZoccolo]

54. Do you think you should maybe go to some other board where you'll find these people?

I know of not one single person who supported Joe Lieberman after Lamont was named the Democratic nominee, who is on this board. Not one.

[Dr Fate]

56. Goody for you. If the shoe dont fit, then dont wear it.

I know of plenty of folks who supported Lieberman after Lamont won-several of them were elected Democrats and members of the DLC- others were known "moderate" (AKA conservative) elected Democrats.

Bullmoose, a DLC blogger & policy advisor also supported him- and even now works for him.

And yes, even some DUers were known to have supported Lieberman over Lamont and continued to do so.

Some even crafted the excuse that Liberman is not like Nader becuase Joe was not a "spoiler" -in that he could actually beat the Democrat.

Does that one ring a bell at all?

If you were never a Lieberman supporter and you fully repudiate the actions of him and his DLC supporters now, then good for you-if the shoe dont fit, no one said you had to wear it.

Having said that, there will never be another Nader thread where I dont compare what he does to what Lieberman and his DLC supporters did-so get used to it.

[LoZoccolo]

61. Perfect case for super-duper ignore. n/t

[Dr Fate]

63. I would ignore me too if I were you- those who cant debate, ignore.

Ignore away- my arguments and points were not for your benefit anyway- but for other readers. I can easily find another method to make my points.

If you could have refuted my points, you would have- but you & I know you cant.

Too bad the DLC, Hillary and the other war-supporters wont have an "ignore" button, huh?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

68. My factual statements stand- many in the DLC supported and still support Joe, a 3rd party candidate.

Nothing desparate or even debatable about that factual statement- which is why you choose to pretend to ignore it.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

71. I hope Hillary doesnt resort to cussing out people she cant debate.

That wouldnt play well with those ever elusive "swing-voters" and "moderates"- now would it?

Spaming you? I dont even know what that means- I was just responding to your thread and comments with known facts.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clinton_Co_Regulator]

92. Are we reduced to threatening people with leg breaking now?

Sad, very sad.

[LoZoccolo]

97. I did not do that. n/t

[Bonobo]

80. He can ignore you, but can he ignore everyone that remembers?

I REMEMBER. You nailed it. He wants to forget.

[LoZoccolo]

86. My posts are still there; go get them and show me.

I'll be right here. You can link to any of them that you'd like. Show me one single post where I endorse Lieberman after the primary.

Meanwhile, here are two where I endorse Lamont; I'm sure there's more but I really don't anything I need to prove to begin with so I'll leave it at that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2780942#2783242
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2867398#2869814

Evidently my position on that election is too complicated for some people to remember it correctly. To which I say: maybe they should put me on ignore, to prevent from getting confused and embarrassing themselves.

[marlakay]

9. Did you see him on Daily show the other night?

You could tell Jon had to force himself to be nice. The guy started out doing some great things for america and now just to be pissy he is screwing them up. Yes, it would be great for 3rd party to get in, but get real that would take a miracle and I wouldn't want it to be him!!

[Double T]

10. Could Nader be that self serving and plain old stupid?????

Hope not!

[ronnykmarshall]

11. The answer is YES!

[SunDrop23]

52. In a word: Absolutely.

[JerseygirlCT]

55. Yes! That and more. He's a giant walking ego. nt

[fuzzyball]

103. Who would be talking about Nader if he did not run for President?

NOBODY!!!

So it is all about cheap publicity to sell more books.
Nader is a multi millinaire for nothing.

[frylock]

12. ralph nader: DU's clenis

[oasis]

13. Ralph is in part responsible for 9/11 and the war with Iraq. President Gore would have avoided both.

Nader should crawl back under his rock and await the effects of global warming to do a number on his sorry ass.:puke:

[frylock]

16. you're fucking shitting me with this, right?!!

Nader's now responsible for 911. Wow... just WOW!!!

[martymar64]

19. Now you're being silly

You Hillary supporters have really gone off the deep end! :silly:

[fuzzyball]

108. While you are hallucinating, how about bird flu, nora virus, reduced sperm

count in American men, breast cancer in women, and the
next comet striking earth head on? It's all Nader's fault!!

on edit, not sure the spelling of the virus that causes gastro-
intestinal problems on cruise ships. I am leaving on a cruise on
April fool's day and I don't want to run into Ralph on the ship!

[ronnykmarshall]

15. Well he IS a prick ...

so you're right about that.

[Forkboy]

17. Bingo

One minute they're mad that we have so much death going on,the next they want someone dead themselves.

Go figure :shrug:

[Dr Fate]

33. Forkboy- I have not seen you in quite some time.

Where have ya been hiding?

Good to see some of the recognizable names from when I first started posting years ago.

[Forkboy]

94. I've been hiding in my cave

where the sun can't reach me.Goddamn sun.

Good to see you still haunting the old joint!

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. It's not unreasonable for us to assume that a man as smart as Ralph Nader

Should know that the Republican Party is so dangerous that siphoning off possible Gore voters is not a good idea.

[Strawman]

14. I doubt he will matter

But if he matters for anyone it will be Hillary because the tenor of the anti-Hillary talk will make voting against her a matter of saving lefty face for some.

They way I see it she's not much more of a panderer than Edwards, Obama, or any of them besides Kucinich. Her candidacy doesn't seem like a unique reason to vote Third Party. There's not much difference between any of the Democratic candidates who are likely to win, substantively. But there's a big ass difference between them and any Republican. See the last 6 years. Whatever criticisms one might have of Clinton, the last 6 years have been uniquely awful and that just seems to me like it ought to be undeniable to any progressive.

One of the things I don't liek about Ralph Nader is for a supposed populist, he sure seems to hate the actual people. When building consensus within the Greens proved to much of a pain in the ass for him, he bolted on them. As someone said up thread Nader is for Nader. Does he have some good ideas? Yeah. But he's a poor choice, and thankfully, I think an irrelevant one. He seems to think he can build a progressive social movement on the sheer moral force of his personality, and he is wrong about that. Either that or he is being dishonest and running a pure vanity campaign. He's a victim of his own huge ego.

[AtomicKitten]

21. If a nightmare, his candidacy would be

... the nightmare of the Democratic Party en masse. Conventional wisdom would say his candidacy won't make a difference; that is true with the caveat that the 97,000 votes he got in Florida would have made a difference in 2000.

[hijinx87]

28. indeed.

the only person Nader ever defeated was a Democrat.

[pberq]

88. that's going on the assumption that those who

voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if Nader wasn't on the ballot. Which is a big assumption.

Why not go after the real enemy? In 2000, it was Katherine Harris and the voter roll purges, the "spoiled votes", etc., all of which would have given Gore the victory, Nader or no Nader. And don't forget the recount done by the news organizations in November of 2001, which showed that Gore won outright.

Also, if the Supreme court had not stopped the recount, Gore would have won. So the fix was on, they had to get Junior in the White House in order to pursure the PNAC agenda.

[AtomicKitten]

93. Hey, if a fraction of the 97,000 voted for Gore

it would have made the difference.

I was commenting specifically on 2000, not exactly "going after" anyone. However, if you're still itching for a confrontation, you could throw a rock in any direction here at DU and I'm sure you could find someone who would be glad to go at it with you on your point.

And indeed it was the judicial coup d'etat that is responsible for Gore not taking the office he rightfully won in 2000.

[zulchzulu]

22. If Mrs. Clinton is such a good candidate, there is no need to worry about Nader

Blaming Nader already proves something to me...it should be pretty obvious why...

[Dr Fate]

36. Exactly. That is why the Obama & Edward's camp are not as concerned about him.

They know that most of the "far left" types will vote DEM if it is anyone but Hillary.

If she is nominated, God forbid, I would hope they would forgive her for supporting the war and Bush and vote DEM anyway, but after they saw how conservative DEMS REALLY feel about party Loyalty(their Lieberman suppport), it's hard to convince them to play that way.

[Dean Martin]

39. I agree, and HRC is really going to have to earn my vote

I'll just stay home this election if HRC wins the Dem. nomination, or vote for whoever runs for the Greens. I don't think Nader will be on the GP ticket this time.

[Dr Fate]

41. Fair enough, but I'll support the DEM nominee over the GOP or 3rd party.

I will not vote against the DEM nominee, but it's a free country- people can support whoever no matter what party they identify with- just ask Joe Lieberman supporters.

[Dean Martin]

42. I actually like the principles of the GP better anyway

I may be jumping to the GP anyway. I've studied and read their principles and I like theirs better than any other party right now.

[Dr Fate]

44. I'd rather vote for someone who can enact at least some of those priciples into law.

Someone like Obama or Edwards- or even Hillary if she somehow manages to hit up the right focus group on the right day. I know- that is a big if. ;)

The problem with Greens, other than taking votes away from DEMS and causing them to lose like Lieberman did-is that they cant win any states- not even the most Liberal ones like CA or Mass.

I would vote for Hillary (If, god forbid, she wins the nod) simply because she would nominate better judges than whoever the GOP winning candidate would be.

[Dean Martin]

48. I'd settle for Edwards if Obama didn't make it

But HRC is really going to have to work to earn a vote from me. Right now she's not even remotely close.

I guess I cannot flat out say I will never ever vote for her, but right now I cannot see myself doing that.

[Dr Fate]

50. Fair enough- you take care. n/t

n/t

[LoZoccolo]

53. And if Nader was such a good candidate, he'd get more than 3%.

And if Nader voters were smart, they'd do something that furthers their agenda rather than sets it back 100 years.

[Dr Fate]

57. 3% is all Nader needs to do what Lieberman did-cause the DEM to lose.

I'm not following you-If 3% is so inconsequntial and of no concern, then why is it such a "nightmare?"

[LoZoccolo]

96. I didn't say that it was inconsequential.

He's assailing the popularity of Hillary. Well, Nader is very much not as popular.

[against all enemies]

23. Amazing, Fox News pushing a Nader story. Ralph, the GOP's puppet

[Cameron27]

27. Yessiree bob.

I share Howard Dean's opinion of the man.

"In his rapid-fire delivery, the onetime Democratic presidential front-runner rattled off all the ways he saw Nader as a hypocrite: Nearly half the signatures Nader gathered in a failed attempt to get on the Arizona ballot were from Republicans. A significant amount of his campaign kitty comes from Bush-Cheney donors. And, said Dean, "you accepted the support of a right-wing, fanatic Republican group that is antigay in order to help you get on the ballot in Oregon" -- a reference to the Oregon Family Council, which produces a "Christian Voter Guide" and campaigns against gay marriage."

"This is not going to help the progressive cause in America," Dean continued. "The thing that upsets me so much about this is, you have the right to ... get in bed with whoever you want to, but don't call the Democratic Party full of corporate interests. They have their problems, we all have ours, none of us are pure. And this campaign of yours is far from pure."

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/07/10/debate/index.html

Nothing new with that hypocrite, except that now he's older. It's not only Clinton who will be hurt by him.

[Dr Fate]

32. Exactly what FOX did with Joe Fucking Lieberman too. Nader & Joe= peas in a pod.

And that goes for all of their respective supporters as well- both keep our nominated Democrats from getting elected.

[Clark2008]

24. But I absolutely don't trust one of our candidates.

Of course, I don't trust any of the Republicans either and I wouldn't vote Nader.

I'm not "pimping" for any third party, but I'll have to write in someone if this particular person gets the Dem nomination.

[Bonobo]

25. I promise not to vote for Nader in the GE if...

You acknowledge the fact that you just might have been wrong in pushing Joe Lieberman as hard as you did.

ON EDIT: You will never see a less snarkier response from me, so let's play nice cause I am TRYING. Still, I expect a response.

You and Nader have one thing in common. You both have some 'splainin' to do.

[Dr Fate]

29. In other words, Nader is acting just like Joe Fucking Lieberman.

I sure wish some of the conservative Democrats-elected ones and otherwise, who supported Lieberman over the DEM nominee had thought this way when it came to Lamont.

I wish that the conservative Democrats who supported Joe followed this party loyalty standard as well as they order others to.

Oh well- at least some of us are always loyal to the party when it comes to support and votes- while others (Lieberman traitors) only value party loyalty when things go their way.

[Bonobo]

37. Glad you didn't name any names!

[Dr Fate]

43. No need to- everyone knows that many DLC types were traitors for Lieberman.

When I say DLC I mean elected and otherwise- including DLC bloggers like Bullmoose, who now works for Lieberman's 3rd party.

If my characterization of Lieberman supporters as traitors to party loyalty offends anyone here, all I can say is that if the shoe dont fit, then dont wear it.

[Bonobo]

45. I hear you. At least Nader had the good grace to join a 3rd party!

Lieberman is a sickening disgrace and a traitor in every sense of the word.

He literally nauseates me and I am at least as infuriated at him and his supporters as these Nader bashers are with Nader.

Im a 51-49 Senate, Lieberman's noxious influence cannot be overestimated, nor can the damage done by his supporters be stated enough.

[Dr Fate]

46. Lieberman did join a 3rd party-his own! Otherwise I mostly agree with you.

The traitors are the ones who claim to be party loyalists, and order everyone else to be loyal, but support 3rd party candidates like Joe Fucking Lieberman over DEMS when they dont get their way.

It's their "my way or the highway" mentality. "Screw the unwashed, unlearned masses who vote in DEM primaries- we will support & endorse any Pro-Bush conservative that we want." The result was just like Nader spoiler-runs- the DEM lost.

I'll say this- at least Greens and unafilated "far left" types never claimed to be loyal Democrats to begin with- so in that sense, I guess they are a little more honest than Lieberman's traitors.

[Bonobo]

49. Ooops, forgot that. But that itself was a massive betrayal.

A betrayal not only of the democratic party, but of the principles of the Democratic System!

He subverted the entire system of primaries with his back-stabbing behavior.

He betrayed the democratic voters of Connecticut who voted him into office and kept him there for decades.

He is a weasel who got elected in the most cynical way by Republican voters who simply wanted to prevent a real democrat from getting in.

Now THAT, my friends, is a betrayal that should shame anyone who supported him into silence.

[fujiyama]

34. I despise Nader as much as anyone here

but why should he be a nightmare to anyone at this point?

He's irrelevant and got less than 1% of the vote last time.

If Hillary is such a great candidate, shouldn't she be able to win with or without him? I think Fox is exaggerating his influence...

[Dr Fate]

35. He is only a "nightmare" to conservative, Pro-War DEMS like Hillary.

An Obama or Edwards nomination will neutralize Nader.

Nader's "they are all the same" line is not convincing enough anymore unless it is Hillary or some other DLCer who supported Bush.

[Clark2008]

38. Um, Edwards co-sponsored the war...

Just saying...

:shrug:

[Dr Fate]

40. True- but has fully repudiated Bush and his wrong-headed vote.

His honest and humble admission has gone a long way with many anti-war progressives & moderates.

I could be wrong, but I dont think an Edwards candidacy, heavy on economic populism would have the same affect as to Nader voters as a "centrist" (AKA focus-tested/conservative)Hillary candidacy would.

Nader, like his 3rd party mirror image, Joe Lieberman, does not help any nominated Democrat, but I think Hillary would bring out the worst in them.

I imagine the OP agrees, or he would not have made the post specific to Hillary.

[alarimer]

47. How many votes would he actually get this time around?

he dropped significantly in 2004 as I recall. Although Hillary wasn't in that race. She will likely garner a lot more negativity (form the usually right-wing suspects who will trot out Vince Foster, Travelgate and all the other bullshit non-stories) so maybe more people would vote for him this time around if he runs. I hope he doesn't in any case.

[Dr Fate]

58. Perhaps just enough to do what Lieberman did- cause the DEM to lose.

If you fragment or split likely Democratic voters, the more conservative candidate wins- especially with today's cigarette-paper thin margins.

[alarimer]

59. That's what I am afraid of

Much simpler if there are no third party candidates, especially since another Republican administration will destroy this country. It will be hard to enough to recover if the Democrat wins.

[Dr Fate]

60. Me too- 3rd parties- be they DLC endorsed or "far-left" creations are dangerous to Democrats.

At least at this point in history- when the Republicans start fragmenting then I might be okay with them- until then, tolerating 3rd parties that split DEMS is not an option.

[LittleClarkie]

62. Pffft.

In his dreams, maybe, he still has that kind of relevance.

[Moloch]

74. Nader got about 0.6 percent of the vote in 2004...

he is irrelevant..

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

75. If Hillary gets to nod, I can see a anti-war liberal getting a large chunk of the vote

[ShortnFiery]

76. Hey, if it's HRC or Nader

I'll do what I didn't do in 1996 and vote for Nader instead of Clinton.

I'm sick of all this bullying of those of us left of center politically - Liberal bashing is a past time with some of you folks. Intimidation and bullying is no way to treat a fellow democratic colleague.

Why should I, a liberal democrat, vote for a gentler, but still CORPORATIONS FIRST type candidate? Either way, the average American wage slave gets screwed. :(

Nader will AGAIN prove to be a spoiler if you don't show some respect and compromise with your democratic base, i.e., us LIBERALS. :shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

78. Because the GOP is DANGEROUS in power

The Supreme Court appointments alone that a GOP President might make could set the country back 50 years not to mention the next war we might find ourselves in.

I don't particularly care for Senator Clinton but the thought of President McCain or President Romney scares me enough to vote for her.

[ShortnFiery]

81. I can't conceive of anything more hopeless than ...

being broke, homeless and without a job to care for one's family. HRC is part of the political elite who will continue to gut our government and give our tax dollars away to the mega corporations that serve only the few billionaire and hundreds of millionaire families in the USA. IMO, the rest of us will continue the downward spiral into abject poverty, with or without some smatterings of health care insurance. :shrug:

[Bonobo]

79. Goddamit, you go girl!

THAT is what democracy is about.

You get what you deserve. You lower your standards for pure pragmatism and you get beige govt. by committee, govt. by polling, govt. by political expediency.

What we want is protection from the robber barons of today!

We want common sense. We DO NOT want any more goddamn politicians willing to sacrfice what they think is right to get elected or to stay in power. We have had our fill of that to the point of puking.

It was her sense of political expediency that made her vote for the IWR resolution and you KNOW it!

Let the Democrats hear us scream it. We want the party to move back to the left where it belongs!

Gore blew it. He blew it! He picked the worst possible running mate! He didn't say what he really believed and as a result he came off as a wooden phony.

Now, now he says what he believes and guess what? He is believable, he is passionate, he is human. Hillary has yet to learn this. She is either a phony or a liar. I don't know which and I don't care.

I do not support her.

Give me Wes Clark. There is a man who is salivating at the thought of becoming POTUS. That is a man who would do it for his nation along. As a service.

[Greyhound]

82. I rarely go here, but a few of you will recognize it.

"Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."

Nader Schmader. The idea that so many here advocate trying to dictate what an American citizen do with their sacred vote, is frankly appalling.

If we do our job right, he is completely irrelevant. Instead of a scapegoat, let's try searching for our own potential weakness and inadequacies.

[MadHound]

83. Wow, you're taking your cue on this issue from Faux News?

Sorry, but that just forces me to take everything you say with a huuuuge grain of salt. Look at the facts. Nader did not cost Gore the election in '00. I'm posted this so many times here that I'm tired of doing so. It is early in the morning and I really don't want to have to dig up all that again, but if somebody still hasn't seen it, let me know and I'll do the digging later on. But Nader did not cost Gore a damn thing in '00.

Nader fared even worse in '04, pulling in what, .4% of the vote:eyes: No big threat there.

No, somehow I get the impression that you are simply wanting to stifle dissent and stifle the all to valid criticism of Clinton and her past record by playing that tired old Nader card one more time. Wake the fuck up, it's ancient history pal, and this is the here and now where Hillary has absolutely got to answer for her votes on the IWR and other issues where she showed a distinct tendency to favor corporate America over the rest of America.

So if you want to keep going over ancient Nadre history fine. Know that such discussion is irrelevent and we're all more focused on Hillary's abysmal record rather than on Nader.

[LoZoccolo]

84. Uuuuuuuuh, noooooooo...

My point was that it is the Naderites whose arguments echo those of none other than Dick Morris, publishing an editorial on the Fox News site. It is the third-party people whose views are showing up there. Please read my post before you reply; this stuff is in the original post.

If I wanted to promote his point of view, why would I refer to him as "Toe Morris"?

[MadHound]

87. Still and all, you are getting your POV from Dick Morris and Faux News

Never a very reliable source for honest, intellectual thinking. Morris is first of all, pretty much assuming that Hillary is going to get the nod. That isn't a given, because she is going to be sailing directly into a strong anti-war headwind during the primaries. Hillary's first worry is just that, and how to outmaneuver and win out over Obama, her closest rival who brings no war baggage with him.

Secondly, Morris is assuming that if(again, big if) Hillary gets the nod, the anti-war people are going to be left with one and only one option, to jump on the Nader bandwagon. This simply isn't true, for Nader will not be the only anti-war candidate out there, and will probably be the least appealing of the anti-war candidates. The Green party has also been steadfastly against this war from the beginning, and they have a much better on the ground, ready made organization than Nader ever has. This is why Nader grafted himself onto the Greens back in '00. However the Greens have rejected Nader and he didn't run on the Green ticket in '04, nor will he run on it in '08. My prediction is that most of the anti-war folks, who are as pragmatic as any others, will go Green in '08 if Hillary gets the nod, leaving Nader to come in, once again, with under 1% of the vote.

There is also another option that many anti-war people will take, and that is the route of despair. Looking at the specter of two pro-war candidates running in '08, and realizing that, given how our electoral system is rigged, third party candidates have no chance of winning, they will simply stay at home on election day out of protest for how corrupt our electoral system has become. This is probably the greatest danger that a Hillary candidacy faces, for with millions of people staying home, the election would be thrown to the 'Pugs.

This is why Hillary is unfit for the Democratic nomination. The people spoke loudly against the war back in November, and they are screaming even louder now. They want an end to this war, and they want a candidate who is, was, and will unequivocally be against the war. This is what will hold Hillary back in the primaries, despite all of the corporate money that she throws out there. She simply cannot run away from her support of the war, nor double talk it away.

Please, don't refer to Faux news for your talking points. They are stupid, unreliable and foolish, and your use of them only paints you with the same brush.

[LoZoccolo]

89. No I'm not; are you even paying attention?

What Dick Morris is saying, and what these obnoxious people are saying, are two peas in a pod. I'm saying, congratulations, Dick Morris agrees with people like you, not me.

I don't disagree with the points you made (Hillary won't necessarily win, Nader won't be the only anti-war candidate). But those are irrelevant details! My whole point is what will happen if Hillary gets it, and as far as other third-party candidates: it doesn't matter, they're all Republicans anyways. The most prominent one will almost be certainly heavily funded by Republicans.

[MadHound]

91. What I'm saying is that you are allowing Dick Morris and Faux to shape your world view

Why? Why do you even care what these people think, for it has been shown time and again that they are full of it. Sure, they can sway the brain dead ditto heads, but do you really care to lumped into that category? Do you really wish to have your world view and politics shaped by the propaganda arm of Bushco and the neo-cons?

And please, stop generalizing about third party candidates. Yes, Nader took 'Pug money back in '04. However the Greens don't take such money and will not. They have a bit more moral integrity than that. I realize that you have an unreasonable hatred of third party candidates, except when they help out the Dems ala Perot and the Clinton election, but don't let your hatred blind you to the reality of matters. I would suspect that if you went over to the Green party web site and read their platform you would find that they have more in common with the Democratic party than not, so characterizing them as "all Republicans" is simply showing your ignorance. Think before you speak friend, it saves you a lot of embarrassment down the road.

[Le Taz Hot]

85. Hillary's nightmare are

the activists and independent thinking people everywhere.

[rhett o rick]

104. Here, here. nm

[Selatius]

90. Hillary's nightmare is her own position on the war, and possibly Al Gore.

If she won't commit to a timetable for withdrawal, Nader will hurt her. She will have herself to blame for alienating the anti-war contingent. As for Nader, he should study the two-party nature of the US gov't if he thinks his run will do any good. There's a whole lot of variables that can't be accounted for in the present equation. The biggest is probably Al Gore.

[SOS]

95. Nader got 0.3% in 2004

He's irrelevant.

The McCain/Lieberman 3rd party run will be much more consequential.
Hopefully they'll split the right and hand us the White House.
Third parties on the right are good, correct?

[Madspirit]

98. Blech

Voting for a third party candidate is a luxury only the NON-needy can afford to do. The armchair philosophers who's real lives are never really affected by who wins.

This isn't a game. Nader has blood on his hands because of this war. If Gore had won, we would not be in Iraq. ...and our own homeless and poor suffer terribly under Republicans. Nader can fuck himself.
Lee

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

99. A Hillary win puts carville and DLC in charge of the party

for that reason alone, Nader gets my vote.

[LoZoccolo]

100. And for that reason alone...

[Madspirit]

101. ...and we poor poor uninsured people

...will once again suffer under a Republican. Thank-you very much. Not.
Lee

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

107. I heard Ralph on the radio this morning

Unlike Hillary (whose egregious pandering to bush's nuke Iran ideas could be heard on the floor of the Senate this morning), Ralph is entirely sane and completely right...

In this context I submit what he said about 2004. He laid out an agenda, a platform and if Kerry had used any of it, he would have made it impossible for the pukes to steal the white house again.

Nader stands for:

* universal health care
* a $10/hour living wage
* the abolition of the death penalty
* equal rights for gays and lesbians
* for a woman's right to choose
* an end to corporate hegemony in politics
* the repeal of Taft Hartley (anti-union law)
* getting rid of the WTO, the World Bank and the Imperialist Monetary Front (IMF)
* making it easier to organize unions


What part of this don't you agree with???

How much of this agenda do you think the Dems will pass???

[Madspirit]

109. ...and we poor poor uninsured people

I believe in the things Nader stands for. I also believe in Peter Pan and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I believe Nader has blood on his hands from this war. I also believe anyone who stands for everything Nader claims to stand for doesn't have a chance in hell, if they say it all out loud. I also believe only people with food in their bellies wouldn't realize THE most important thing is getting the Republicans out of office.

...and more homeless will die, more families will be pushed into poverty and more on the edge will be dumped into the streets, if Nader helps another Republican get elected and we will be at war until the end of time. I spit on Nader. So what if he has a bunch of pie in the sky beliefs. This is the real world.
Lee