oh God, NO~!!

[inna]

is Ralph at it AGAIN??



ok guys - prepare to be shocked ~.


<<Nader says he may run in 2008, especially if Hillary gets the nomination>>

SAN FRANCISCO -- Former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader said he is considering a presidential run in 2008 and strongly suggested today he would enter the race if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the Democratic Party nomination.

"She's just another bad version of (former President) Bill Clinton,'' Nader told KGO radio host Ronn Owens in San Francisco.

Asked to describe Clinton, a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination a year in advance of the primaries, Nader said: "Flatters, panders, coasting, front-runner, looking for a coronation, not taking on the huge waste in the military budget as a member of the Armed Services commission, never going after the corporate crimes against pensions, against workers. ... She has no political fortitude.''

Asked specifically if he would run in 2008, Nader said it is "too early to say. ... (I'm) considering it. We're going to see what the Democrats come up with.''

read the article here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/15/BAGUCO5CPL10.DTL




::: :::


disclaimer #1: this is NOT meant to be a Nader-bashing post. i don't think it's fair to make him some sort of a scapegoat or to think of him as of the decisive factor that caused Bush's "victory" in 2000.

but in all honesty - what is he thinking?? i'm very curious if he's happy and pleased with the way his 'strategy' worked out in 2000??
and if he's not, why would he want to repeat all that NOW, 8 years later?? and not just 8 years - we're talking 8 disastrous and damaging years of the Bush administration ~!! i mean, hello, Ralph~!!


disclaimer #2: ok, the good news is that... this is hardly *breaking* news (although i was under the impression that it was when this article got posted this morning on another political forum that i moderate. ..... and then i realized that the article is almost one year old. that at least takes an element of *urgency* out of it...)


::: :::


and now, the ***KICKER***. this one actually IS breaking news.


- good news or bad news?? well, THAT depends on whom you ask - so.... judge for yourselves~!


*** Nader throws support to Edwards ***

Ralph Nader unleashed on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday — criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business — and expressed his strong support for John Edwards.

In an eleventh hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to "recognize" the former North Carolina senator by "giving him a victory," the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will "pander to corporate interest groups" if elected.

Nader specifically accused Clinton of failing to challenge military spending because "she is a woman who doesn't want to be labeled as soft on defense, and she doesn't want to be shown as taking on big business."

"The issue is corporate power and who controls our political system and it's not who has experience for six years or two years," he said, alluding to an ongoing debate over experience between Clinton and freshman Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

"She has experience in the Senate, and what that experience has meant is going soft on cracking down on corporate crime, fraud, and abuse, soft on cutting tens of millions in corporate subsidies," he continued.

Nader, a four-time presidential candidate, called Edwards a Democratic "glimmer of hope." He has long criticized Democrats as indistinguishable from Republicans, chiding both parties as slaves to corporate financing and interests.

On Monday, Nader also issued a public statement criticizing Clinton as a "corporate Democrat," echoing the exact words Edwards uses to challenge Clinton. Nader said he has watched Edwards from afar and sees his more pugilistic brand of populism as an encouraging sign.

"It's the only time I've heard a Democrat talk that way in a long time," Nader said, acknowledging what was, for him, a rare moment of praise for a Democratic leader.

more here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7647.html





so, what do you guys think? my personal take on this is that.... while Ralph's's comments and his praise made me (even more) proud of Edwards and enthusiastic about being his supporter..... Nader's endorsement may be considered a mixed blessing (to say the least) in the current political climate.


::: :::



and... most importantly.... GO JOHN~!! GO~!! PLEASE TAKE SOUTH CAROLINA, I KNOW that you - ***we*** - CAN do it ~!!

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. if Nader and Hillary are in the same election

I'd be pissed off, but not suprised if he gets at least 1% of the vote.

[Auntie Bush]

6. OK...If hillary runs so does Nader and Bloomberg. So they will

cancel each other out. No? :shrug: Also both will siphon off Indies and that will hurt McCain too as he's DEPENDING on their vote.

[AndyTiedye]

17. Both Nader and Bloomberg Would Hurt Us

Nader and Bloomberg both running 3rd-party candidacies hands the election to the Republicans.

With them in the race, the 29%ers could win it for the Repiggies all by themselves.

[THUNDER HANDS]

18. Bloomberg would get a hell of a lot more votes than Nader

Bloomberg could get 10% of the vote. If he's serious about running, he could blow Clinton and the GOP nominee out of the water in terms of ads. The media attention alone that he would get would be amazing.

I'm way more scared of a Bloomberg entering the race than I am of Nader.

[Jennifer C]

20. Yes, agreed.

Bloomberg is exactly the one to worry about, especially if Clinton is the nominee.

He will SATURATE the airways. Similar to what he did in NYC with his ads.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

2. Because last time he did that, it worked out so well for everyone.

Because Bush and Gore were so completely indistinguishable. Right.

Nader's a worthless, self-promoting piece of shit. Not to mince words.

[Armstead]

3. Most of the Nader Haters are already with Hillary

It would likely boost Edwards creds with some progressives.

Otherwise irrelevant.

Personally, I believe that despite his personal hubris and his wrongheaded tactics of running as a third party candidate, Nader is absolutely correct on the points he makes regarding the complicity between Clinton-style Democrats and the Corporate State.

[Rageneau]

4. Ralph Nadar has hurt American Democracy more than helped it.

AFAIAC, all of Nadar's accomplishments count for nothing. I remember him solely for stubbornly insisting that Smitk was exactly the same as Gore, so it didb't matter which was elected.

That's not just stupidity, it is ARROGANT stupidity that hurt his fellow Americans.

[jasmine621]

5. Funny he didn't same the same thing about Obama since Obama

and Clinton's record are about the same in Congress.
Ralph is just a mere Clinton-hater and Dem-hater. He did it once, he is fully capable of doing it again. He really elected GWB but then Perot really elected Bill Clinton.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Bloomberg sees an opening if a polarizing candidate - Hillary or Giuliani - gets the nod.

Apparently Nader sees an opening under those circumstances as well. It is clear a nod to Hillary means a loss in November. That's no good.

[Jennifer C]

21. Yes, sounds very bad to me:

Clinton vs. Nader vs. Bloomberg vs. McCain

= President McCain

:nuke:

[bobbolink]

8. "this is NOT meant to be a Nader-bashing post"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[patrice]

13. Cool photo! Where'd it come from? Cut from something else?

Studio work? What?

I really like the expression on his face.

[bobbolink]

14. I don't even remember where I found it.... I just liked it.

The other one I like is a black and white that I call his "Bobby Kennedy" shot... looks so much like him.

He amazes me with his easy smile, but I like his serious poses more.

[patrice]

15. He looks like he's listening to someone. nt

[bobbolink]

16. ^_^ I think he listens a lot. It's what makes him different.

Too bad it's not a trait that is contagious.

:hi:

[patrice]

19. Real listening is a powerful thing when you have the raw intelligence to apply what you learn

CREATIVELY.

His question in the last debate about Obama's 100 Present votes was a good example of what you can do with what you're listening to at the RIGHT moment. A skill Obama has not developed yet (hence that kind of slow thing he does that has been characterized as "thoughtful", which it IS I'm sure, just not that useful in the situation that faces us right now - TIMING is extremely important) and one that Hillary ignores because she isn't really listening in the first place (her own agenda is more important than whatever is being said to her).

I think he actually knew the answer to that question before he asked it and was trying to help Obama against HC with it by getting his answer out there in prime time.

:hi:

[Meshuga]

9. I will turn this into a Nader bashing thread

That asshat is one of the people who helped bring this current administration into power. Fuck that old piece of shit! He's an asshole.

[11 Bravo]

12. I will join you. Nader is a narcissistic asshole.

[Cleita]

10. All the more reason to cast your primary vote for Edwards to

keep him home. Although I know old Ralphy thinks Edwards doesn't have a chance, ergo his support. I don't think he will pull that many votes this time as a spoiler because most people now know that his actions don't match his words and he's probably a Republican shill anyway. Never mind if he gets on the ballot Randi Rhodes will do a number on him now that she's national, something she wasn't in 2000.

[sandrakae]

11. Nobody gives a rats ass about him anymore.

[inna]

22. about whom - Nader?... or Edwards?...

""Nobody gives a rats ass about him anymore.
Posted by sandrakae""


who - "him" ~?....