Who has done more for the American People? Ralph Nader or Hillary Clinton?

[genie_weenie]

Who's actions have hurt the Democratic Party more?

[BzaDem]

1. Don't even get me started.

We would not be in Iraq if Nader could have kept his ego in check. There is a HUGE difference between authorizing a war along with a majority of your party, and allowing a president to come to power to actually take us to war.

[genie_weenie]

3. Let's take it back further

Hillary's Co-Presidency with Bill was a contributing factor in the impeachment. If she disavowed Bill and allowed him to be impeached Gore would have been the incumbent President (stopping Nader's run), therefore, Hillary is at fault.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Wow! Now If That's Not The Most Stupid Fuckin Thing I've Ever Heard! You Should Get A Prize!

[genie_weenie]

6. What did I win? Will you tell me?

[BzaDem]

5. I can't believe you are actually defending Nader.

If Nader took his name off the ballot, I don't think any normal person actually believes that Bush still would have won. You can change the subject till the cows come home but the facts don't change.

[katandmoon]

15. Oh, I can! The purpose of this thread is to bash Hillary, not Ralphie.

Therefore, you are upsetting the little Hillary-hatin' apple cart here by pointing out a VERY inconvenient truth about Nader, i.e. his massive ego cost Al Gore the 2000 election. But thanks to Ralphie, Bush was elected, and the rest is history. Anything else good that Nader has done is completely outweighed by the irrevocable, tragic damage that Ralph Nader wrought.

[genie_weenie]

18. Yeah, that's it the universe came into existence

minutes before the Gore/Bush election and then evil (Ralph Nader) entered the universe and spoiled everything!!!

Ralph Nader did not cost Gore the election. The preceding 8 years, the rigged counting and the electoral process itself cost Gore the election.

[Eric Condon]

24. Doesn't this kind of ignore the fact that Gore WON even with Nader in the race?

Don't get me wrong - I'm NOT defending Nader. I think he's an egomaniac, a union-buster, and a total hypocrite. But I DON'T blame him for 2000. And while yes, people can quibble that "so many votes here or there would've made the difference," I don't think so. Gore could've beat Bu$h 2 to 1 in the popular AND electoral votes and the Rethugs would've found some way to steal it.

Presuming Nader cost Gore the election is like presuming that voters actually had anything with the 2000 outcome in the first place.

[katandmoon]

28. The hell you aren't defending Ralphie! LOL!

[Eric Condon]

32. No, if anything I'm defending Gore.

You clearly didn't read what I said. I plainly stated my feelings about Nader. As far as I'm concerned, he bought himself a one-way ticket to hell when he fired the employees of the Multinational Monitor when they tried to form a union. He can absolutely go fuck himself.

Moreover, I think that his continued attempts to run for president in the name of "stopping the two-party hegemony" - ignoring the fact that there already are multiple, multiple other parties with presidential candidates (including Cynthia McKinney and the Greens) who are working to do just that - proves that he clearly views himself as some messianic figure who is the "only one" who can bring down the two-party system, etc, when in reality no one is buying into his shit anymore. (As the Onion pointed out in 2004, "Nader Polling At 3 Percent Among Former Nader Supporters.")

My post was an indictment of electoral fraud, not a defense of Nader. I was just bringing up the point that even if every Nader voter had voted for Gore in 2000, it wouldn't have made any difference. The GOP scumbags knew exactly how the race was going to end up, and it didn't have a damn thing to do with any of those pesky "voters."

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

45. or the question could be - who has done more damage?

depends on which thing they did that you are talking about.

Nader f'd up the 2000 contest by campaigning against Gore, instead of campaigning
against Bush.

Clinton voted for Bush's war.

Both are about equal.

[Johnny__Motown]

11. Well, there are clear problems with those arguments....

If Hillary had spoken out against the war (in a manner similar to Barrack) she may have been able to persuade others to also vote against the war. It is George Bush's war but she does hold some responsibility for her vote as well as what she said on the floor of the senate.




It is also very easy to draw parallels between Nader's 2000 candidacy and Hillary's refusal to admit defeat in this primary. Both had/have the right to try and win, regardless the harm done to all of us.


Also it is easily argued that it was Bill Clinton's "indiscretions" that impacted Al Gore's chances to win in 2000 far more than anything Ralph Nader could ever hope to. We can argue Hillary's shared responsibility for the problems in the Clinton household but I am not going to go there.



Also Ralph Nader got us seat belts and killed the Corvair....

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

2. Well Obviously Hillary's Better, DUH! How Stupid And Brain Dead Would Someone Have To Be To Say

otherwise? I mean, they'd have to be like the dumbest fucks goin to actually pick that Nader fucker lol.

Of course Hillary has been more beneficial to America. Why even ask when you know the answer's so obvious?

[SKKY]

7. Nader, through his consumer protection efforts has done more than HRC...

....but be being a megalomaniac, he's also put this country in great peril. But, on the whole, I think he's done more good than HRC, but also done way, way more bad as well. How that balances out depends on what is important to you.

[genie_weenie]

10. Well, in terms of bad 1 million+ dead in Iraq can be laid partially

at Hillary's feet. Because I don't recall Ralph voting for war or being 1st Lady when Operation Northern and Southern Watch and Bills' presidency were starving thosaunds of Iraqi children

[SKKY]

34. And that's a good point. But I can see the argument going either way...

...again, depending on your point of view.

[damndude]

8. does it matter?

when all is said and done , they'll have both fucked up an election so they'll be even. kick.

[Emillereid]

9. Almost every consumer safety protection we have is due to Nader - read your history.

Hillary doesn't come close.

And get over the 2000 election - Nader didn't steal Florida - the repukes did. And I don't think he took that many democratic votes - the people I know who voted Nader in 2000 would never vote for a democrat.

[genie_weenie]

13. pssst I think Ralph Nader

is a great american and the way he is constantly pilloried he at DU galls me, while we have Hillary's actions, which are demonstrably tearing apart the party and leading me to believe She is purposefully tearing down Barack so McCain wins.

[Emillereid]

25. That does appear to be her strategy - sickening isn't it. At a time when we desperately

need a democrat in the WH to change the direction of this country she decides to follow scorched earth tactics. I'm sure she's thinking that if Barack wins she might not be able to run for 8 years, but given McLame's age, he probably wouldn't serve more than one term and she could run again in 4 years. I think her strategy will backfire -- millions of us will never forgive her and will do anything to nominate another candidate. It's all about her -- it always has been.

[Blue Diadem]

29. I agree.

Nader has done a tremendous amount for this country and the only people I know who have ever voted Nader would not have voted at all if he wasn't on the ballot.

[Johnny__Motown]

12. Why does Hillary have the right to continue to fight on but Ralph should not have run in 2000?

I don't understand the double standard here

[karynnj]

21. He didn't run in the Primary, he pulled votes from Gore in the general

[Johnny__Motown]

23. I am aware of that, thank you... but the question stands. Why can Hillary fight on but Nader can't?

I don't see the distinction between primary and general in this case (since he is not a dem).

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. If I responded honestly, my post would likely get disappeared

At the very least, I would become the target of many fanatically ignorant partisans. :eyes:

[genie_weenie]

16. Come on that's a tease! Tell the truth!

[WinkyDink]

17. The OP question is not the same as the internal OP question.

[genie_weenie]

19. It's a two parter, I have modified the internal OP question

to do more to court people's R-complex reactions. Grrrrr. Naader Baaaaad! Yay Hillary Gooooood!

DU use your higher brain functions!

[karynnj]

20. All the good Nader ever did has to be balanced by 2000

Therefore, his net good is extremely negative - so I have to go with HRC as the better of the two.

[genie_weenie]

22. What about her Warmongering?

As 1st Lady (the foreign experience she touts) and the 2002 vote for Authorization for War?

[karynnj]

30. If Gore was President, there would have been no IWR vote

ie if Nader would have run in the primary only. There was no chance for a Nader win. A run in the primary would have done the same for demonstrating that there were peoplr against the rightward movement of the party, without running the risk of being a spoiler. (He would have been like Kuchinich in 2004.)

Also, her foreign policy experience was over - blown, not warmongering.

[genie_weenie]

31. So, if Nader hadn't run Gore would have won Illinois?

It's the process and the ability to cheat/corrupt the process that is at fault not 1 MAN who has done a great deal to fight corporate predation of the American people.

[karynnj]

33. He won Illinois as it was speaking of

[genie_weenie]

37. Impossible! I live in Illinois and in 2000 voted for Nader and

Nader is responsible for Gore's defeat, therefore Nader cost Gore Illinois...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

26. Nadar saved America from the Covair

unsafe at any speed

[ElsewheresDaughter]

27. how childish

[ORDem]

35. The question is a non-sequitur in and of itself. n/t

[AllentownJake]

36. Well

Till 3 months ago Nader got negative points for all the damage he did in 2000 which made his lifetime of crusading for the regular American people tarnished alot.

With Hillary's behavior the past month their negatives are even. With the negatives even.

Ralph wins by a landslide.

[iiibbb]

38. At this point, Ralph

If McCain wins when you guys had the best chance you'd ever had.

Tie.

[MyNameGoesHere]

39. Let's see.... Ralph HELPED shrub win

(NOTICE I SAID HELPED! Before you start with your indignant flames) So i guess he has done more?

[genie_weenie]

40. Bill Clinton helped Shrub win as well.

Because he couldn't keep his pecker in his pants, which allowed the repukes to browbeat the Americans with hypocritical indignation as Bill's devaluation of the presidency into voting for the values guys Shrub. (who's values are stealing trillions for the MIC and torturing people)

Hillary helped Bill resist impeachment by standing by her man.

Therefore Hillary helped Shrub win in 2000. (Notice I said helped).

[MyNameGoesHere]

41. BUT BUT DU'ers didn't care about peckers until Obama came along.

Now they can't seem to get enough of them.

[mdmc]

42. One is the bomb, the other a Goldwater supporter

:shrug:

[genie_weenie]

43. ~Goldwater/Miller '08~

[mdmc]

44. kick