I have no idea whether Hillary Clinton should stay in the primary race or not. People who've done the math say there's just about no chance she can squeak past Obama, which would make it kind of pointless to keep going. But of all the people who could conceivably advise her to campaign till the bitter end, I'll bet the last person she'd like to hear from is Ralph Nader. I translate his letter, which John Nichols quotes approvingly in The Notion, as follows:

Dear Hillary,

I didn't care about the consequences of my 2000 run (not that I ever admit that there were any! Florida? Not my fault! ) and neither should you care about the consequences of staying in the primaries. Consequences is for sissies and people who don't care about the First Amendment and other high-minded stuff. Besides, the Democratic party is evil! If dragging out the primaries till June or July hurts it in November, so much the better -- you might do for the Dems in 2008 what didn't do (did not! did not!) in 2000. I understand exactly how painful it must be to have everyone crushing so hard on Obama-- he's bewitched a lot of my former supporters too, which I just don't get, since he is, after all, a Democrat, like, um, Al Gore. It's like they've forgotten that the parties are basically the same and that the most important thing is to just express yourself no matter what. In fact, if you lose the nomination, why not run on your own? that's what I'm doing -- it's fun!

Sincerely,

Your new best friend,

Ralph

Comments (61)

1. Oh, poor Katha. People just keep ruining her shabby and well funded candidates' pathetic runs at office. Waaah. A shoestring operation like Nader took down the Democratic Party with millions and millions of corporate money. Oh, I know, Katha, it's just horrible. Anything we can do to make it all better for you and your corporate party? Really, we know how hard you have it, you poor things.

   Posted by geezjan at 03/30/2008 @ 3:00pm

2. In Florida in 2000, more than 200,000 registered democrats voted for Bush. How come they are not credited with being the prime party-poopers? I agree that Nader should disappear himself from the 2008 race, but this idiotic whining about his having somehow lost the White House for the dems in 2000 should really disappear as well.

   Posted by bookmanjb at 03/30/2008 @ 4:05pm

3. There's something unseemly about conflating Nader, an honorable citizen and principled public advocate, with Hillary Clinton, a selfish Machiavellian opportunist.

   Nader has run as an independent to give voice to all those who do not feel represented by the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton is continuing her candidacy not because she stands for some noble ideal or even because she thinks she has a realistic chance of winning the nomination; she's pressing on to weaken Obama in the general election. Her concern first and foremost is herself, and her prospects at another run in 2012.

   Posted by Adscititious at 03/30/2008 @ 4:36pm

4. Gee, Ms Pollit....that "letter" sure sounds familiar?!?!?

   "Dear Hillary.....ruin Obama's chances, letting McCain win an election he should surely lose, and become a pariah among both your friends and the nation at large....Then, keep claiming it's 'not your fault' and when you run next time, you might get 1/10th the support you got this time....believe me, I know.

   Signed, Ralph Nader""----Posted by MASK 03/29/2008 @ 7:56pm

   Posted by Mask at 03/30/2008 @ 4:55pm

5. There is something that both Hillary R. Clinton and Ralph Nader have in common.

   They believe in giving the US-American electorate options and in trusting them to make the right choice when they vote.

   Or at least, they are able professionally to smile and to refrain from commenting when the US-American electorate chooses a candidate whom neither Clinton nor Nader can really admire - as they did in the year 2000 and again in the year 2004.

   Perhaps smiling and refraining from comment is all any one of us can do in light of the very bad choices that the US-American electorate has recently made. Privately, we need to admit to ourselves that it's really not the candidates' fault that US-American voters were so foolish. It's the voters' fault.

   Of course, when we speak to the general public, it may be convenient - and even politically prudent, nay politically NECESSARY - to blame anyone BUT the voters. So we lament unceasingly that the politicians lied, and that many media outlets uncritically spread the lies, and that Ralph Nader drew a few critical votes away from Al Gore. As for the US-American public - well, what could they do, poor dears, but vote according to their unrealistic hopes and fears?

   Alas, we dare not place the blame where most of it really belongs - with the voters - since we cannot do this without alienating the very people whom we are trying to win over. People say they don't want to be patronized, but just try to exercise a little criticism, and you'll see how they reward you.

   No, the "blame Nader" game will probably continue, since it is an important part of the game called "blame anybody but the voters," which every politician, and most political pundits, MUST play or be shooed out of the game.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2008 @ 4:57pm

6. Ms. Pollitt, your shallow attitude and dishonest blame against Ralph Nader for 2000 is but the latest demonstration of your rank incompetence as a political analyst. Perhaps you should consider another line of work. Stand-up comedy, maybe. Oh, wait, that requires that you be funny, and you have no discernible sense of humor with which to make it in the business. I guess you'll just have to settle for retirement.

   Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/30/2008 @ 6:55pm

7. Wow..... I'm kind of disgusted by this. As a longtime Nation subscriber, and Nader supporter (yes in 2008 as well!), it seems to me that nobody has the gall to blame AL GORE for running a most incompetent campaign, then not having the balls to fight against it being stolen from him.

   Not to mention, who wanted Gore anyway? He had no spine......Lieberman helped author the bill to go to war...... this is who "we" wanted? Give me a break.

   I'm just stunned that at this critical juncture in American history, when we have the opportunity to build a serious, legitimate progressive movement, we instead close our eyes, and band behind a centrist who is a free trade apologist, a supporter of private security in Iraq, an opponent of single payer, truly universal health care, etc..... the list goes on. How has Obama managed to circumvent our real beliefs, while building a huge base of support?

   Ralph Nader is THE ONLY CANDIDATE who has spent a lifetime trying to better the lives of Americans, with great success and acclaim. He is the only candidate who fully supports the pillars of liberalism. I propose that we show him at least the respect he deserves, if not a large base of support wherein he can take his case into the national debates, so we can open up a real dialogue with these corporate party types.

   Posted by DJGoody at 03/30/2008 @ 7:46pm

8. First, my apologies. In my previous posting, I said that the US-American electorate made bad choices both in the year 2000 and in the year 2004. I should have conceded that although voters chose poorly in 2004, a bare majority did choose Al Gore in 2000, as we all ought to know. Gore did not fight for his right to claim victory, and so I suppose he bears some blame. However, this does not exonerate the millions of voters who chose George W. Bush.

   Secondly, regarding "FrankGrits's" race-card allegations: There are two kinds of race cards. One kind is the appeal to the carefully concealed but still strong racism of many white voters. The other kind is the appeal to Blacks who still know racism as a day-to-day reality and to Whites who are able to see this reality too, even though they do not suffer it directly.

   It makes little difference to me which "race card" a politician chooses to play. What matters is how the voters respond. Here, again, alas, I have to say that I am disappointed with voter behavior. Perhaps this is because nowadays it is only disgruntled Whites who vote in proportion to their number - partly because the media pander nearly exclusively to them, and partly because so many Blacks have been disenfranchised.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 03/30/2008 @ 9:51pm

9. Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 03/30/2008 @ 9:51pm

   For some reason the Nader promotion of Hillary has brought FRANK out of his bunker. But remember, this is a guy who told us MONTHS ago...if Hillary doesn't get the nomination...he's voting for McCain!

   Posted by Mask at 03/30/2008 @ 10:09pm

10. Well said, Frankgritts. I've been trying to tell them. I was even accused of being you and just pretending.

    Posted by nursevic at 03/30/2008 @ 10:26pm

11. Barack Obama doesn't know shit about the plight of blacks in this country who were decendents of slaves but the Clintons do

    can anyone find a more outrageous statement in all of the Web today?

    frank, you're just upset that you're candidate lost. get over it. have a valium, and take a nap.

    you used to be interesting, until you let your political affiliations known to the world.

    hint: NEVER, EVER endorse a political candidate.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/31/2008 @ 01:07am

12. Darn that Hillary!!!

    In 2000 the Clintons asked Ralph Nader to get out of the race. NOW she is saying this:

    "I didn't think we believed that in America. I thought we of all people knew how important it was to give everyone a chance to have their voices heard and their votes counted."

    Posted by eyecolor at 03/31/2008 @ 02:03am

13. Ralph Nader's presence highlights a flaw in team Clinton's "win at all costs" approach -- whether it be gaming the primaries afterall, or otherwise so badly flay Obama that the "vetted" McCain wins'08 and Hillary wins '12:

    There is no surer way to vaporize goodwill, and thus one's lifetime of political capital, than to mess up the presidential election for the "good guys".

    Good luck with that, Hillary.

    Posted by eyecolor at 03/31/2008 @ 02:09am

14. If Ms. Clinton doesn't win, I am voting for Ralph.

    Democrats bashing the Clintons is unconscionable, and it helps the opposition. You are doing great harm to our chances in Nov. by bashing Ms. Clinton and ignoring Obama's negatives. It's a de ja vu event all over again, are you blind Obama fans, trying to torpedo democratic chances? Wake up to reality, Obama is tied to Wright as if they were Siamese twins. The hate speech from Wright's pulpit is not unique in the African American culture. One can hear the same hateful political rhetoric in America's prisons, spoken by the most radical hard core racist killers our society has ever seen. You type as though the swift-boaters went away, we haven't seen anything yet. The fantasy Obama paints with his mouth doesn't line up with his actions. Skip "Chainsaw" Roth.

    Posted by Skip Roth at 03/31/2008 @ 07:56am

15. Posted by SKIP ROTH 03/31/2008 @ 07:56am

    So Obama would appoint the same or worse Supreme Court Justices as McCain?

    Posted by Mask at 03/31/2008 @ 10:40am

16. We have a choice between two candidates, one of whom seems blacker than he is, and the other of whom seems to stand farther to the left than she does.

    These two candidates will fling all the mud at each other that they can until one of them wins. Both, as we have seen, have played some kind of "race card" or other. I have already expressed my opinion of this tactic in a previous posting: There are two kinds of race cards, one that appeals to Whites, and another that appeals to Blacks. The card that appeals to Blacks is closer to the truth, but may appeal to a smaller segment of the population. The card that appeals to Whites is farther from the truth (read Gary Younge's excellent commentary on Geraldine Ferraro's gaffe), but may appeal to a larger segment of the population.

    None of this card-playing actually reveals much about what a candidate will do in office. However, to the degree that Hillary R. Clinton can be credited with experience in governing, she also must be charged with complicity in the following dubious accomplishments of Bill Clinton:

    (1) NAFTA,

    (2) welfare "reform,"

    (3) the Telecommunications bill of 1996, and

    (4) the pardoning of Marc Rich rather than either Leonard Peltier or Mumia Abu-Jamal.

    You are welcome to vote for and to speak for the Democratic candidate who you believe is more likely to win. (This goes for "NurseVic" and "Frankgrits" too.) As disappointing as Clintonism was and promises to be again, it will not likely be as bad as McCain's proposed extension of Napoleonic war over the next century. Please keep in mind that the phrase "I'd rather vote for McCain," expressed in opposition to EITHER Democratic candidate, is not only hyperbolic, but also helpful to McCain. (At least the phrase "I'd rather vote for Ralph" doesn't directly help McCain, though voting for Nader might.)

    One element of "Frankgrits's" claims that I have yet to verify is Obama's electoral success compared to Jesse Jackson's in 1988. However, as we all know, electoral success is only part of the game of winning in this plutocratic society. The other part of the game is fundraising. This gives me some hope, because I strongly suspect that Obama's fundraising success has by now greatly exceeded Jackson's. By this date, his electoral success probably has, too.

    Incidentally, why compare Obama only to Jesse Jackson? Why not compare him to LBJ, to Carter, or to Bill Clinton himself?

    Posted by JakobFabian at 03/31/2008 @ 11:36am

17. http://www.smirkingchimp.com/news/13769 Margaret Kimberley -- 29 March, 2008 - 10:38pm

    Source: http:// ap.google.com/article/ ALeqM5ggw1eZa-rfbs8Eq4wiNE0JV0eAYgD8VMRMA80

    29 March 2008 (AP): 'Sen. Barack Obama said Friday he would return the country to the more "traditional" foreign policy efforts of past presidents, such as George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

    At a town hall event at a local high school gymnasium, Obama praised George H.W. Bush -- father of the president -- for the way he handled the Persian Gulf War: with a large coalition and carefully defined objectives...."The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan..."...'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 03/31/2008 @ 11:47am

18. Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 03/31/2008 @ 11:36am

    JAKOB, FRANK claimed that Obama said "he thinks republicans had good ideas the last ten or fifteen years. ..."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/24/2008 @ 5:41pm.

    Which is a distortion (though not an actually lie like Hillary's "sniper fire" tale).

    What makes you think FG is going to be honest about Obama's "electoral success"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/31/2008 @ 12:23pm

19. None of this card-playing actually reveals much about what a candidate will do in office. However, to the degree that Hillary R. Clinton can be credited with experience in governing, she also must be charged with complicity in the following dubious accomplishments of Bill Clinton:

    (1) NAFTA,

    (2) welfare "reform,"

    (3) the Telecommunications bill of 1996, and

    (4) the pardoning of Marc Rich rather than either Leonard Peltier or Mumia Abu-Jamal.

    Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 03/31/2008 @ 11:36am

    you forgot repeal glass-steagall. that's a doozy.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/31/2008 @ 1:58pm

20. Furthermore, take away thew 95% of the black vote that B.O. is getting and by now he's history. The SD's will consider that as well.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/31/2008 @ 1:53pm

    better yet, repeal the 15th amendment.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/31/2008 @ 2:00pm

21. Actually, djgoody, Gore himself finally got around to admitting, if not succintly, that he had more to do with his loss to Bush than Nader ever could. But we both know this wouldn't satisfy the likes of Pollitt or Eric Alterman or most of the scribes at the Nation, who come to think of it, didn't want Nader in the race either. And why would it be satisfactory? C'mon, folks. Ever since the man called "G." left Katha Pollitt for a woman young enough to be his daughter, leftism and leftists have had a steadily worsening smell for her. This is the second piece she's written recently about Ralph Nader, whom she can't possibly believe will have much effect this year. It's obviously a sideline in doing the sort of things that will get Alexander Cockburn's goat. Here's hoping Cockburn will use that rapier wit against ol' Katha soon and here's hoping Hillary stays in and slows down Barack Obama's hologram of a candidacy. Or not; there really is no difference between the two major parties.

    Posted by DP in TC at 03/31/2008 @ 2:05pm

22. When The Nation arrives at my house, the first thing I like to do is read Katha Pollitt's commentaries. She almost always has something worthwhile to say, and she says it well. Fortunately, I don't have to agree with everything one writer believes.

    One of my most avid disagreements with Ms. Pollitt is her stance on Ralph Nader. There were so many factors working against the Gore candidacy, to blame Nader for it is rather shallow and narrow. I voted for Nader because I did not find Gore's rhetoric, political views, or his wooden personality to be compelling. Just for starters, he did not win his own state of Tennessee! As a candidate, he did not show the integrity or passion he now does as an advocate for peace and saving the planet.

    I did not vote for Nader in 2004, and his running for office has not been blamed for Kerry's defeat. This is because it wasn't at fault, just as it was not in 2000. To harp on this erroneous argument is ridiculous. The Republicans had an agenda, and nothing was going to stop them from committing voter fraud to get what they wanted. I feel that my vote for Kerry was as much of a wasted vote as anyone's was for Nader in 2000. I should have voted my conscience as I also did in 1996 (and, gee! Clinton was voted back into office in spite of Nader's run - could be that Clinton was actually a viable candidate, unlike Gore or Kerry) because Clinton had turned into Republican lite.

    I'm not saying there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats. That seems rather obvious given the past 7 years. However, the Democrats are not far enough removed from the Republicans to make me truly comfortable with their agenda. So, as much as I like and admire Katha Pollitt, I wish she'd get off her Nader bashing and find a better target for her inestimable wit and intellect.

    And, finally, Frankgrits ramble about Obama was bad enough, but his comment about someone's not having "the balls" to do what he thought was right was the last straw to put him on my ignore list along with all the freepers and trolls. Enough is enough for me.

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 03/31/2008 @ 2:47pm

23. Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/31/2008 @ 1:53pm

    You know, if you eliminate the Obama vote....Hillary's winning by a landslide!!!!!!!

    heheh....remember?--

    "If Obama weren't in the race this would have been a foregone conclusion."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/07/2008 @ 3:02pm

    BLOG | Posted 02/06/2008 @ 2:46pm Comments for "Avoiding a Convention Train Wreck" by Katrina vanden Heuvel

    Posted by Mask at 03/31/2008 @ 3:19pm

24. Posted by LEEANNG 03/31/2008 @ 2:47pm

    Don't Ignore FRANK, LEE. First, he keeps claiming he's leaving but returns, but only for a day or so.

    Second, it's remarkable to witness the TOTAL "projection" (in a psychological sense) of folks like FRANK who calle Obama supporters "cultists"....and then basically says 'Hillary must have the nomination or I'm going to vote for McCain out of spite!' and calls OTHERS "cultists".

    Posted by Mask at 03/31/2008 @ 3:21pm

25. "But for the potential Gore scenario to snowball into reality several things probably have to happen. First, Gore needs to step up his public appearances on issues that seem unrelated to a bid for the Presidency. Speaking out on "global warming" on 60 Minutes certainly fits the bill. Weighing in on the need for Democrats to find a way to let the voters in Michigan and Florida have their "votes count" might be another. He doesn't need to engage in a full-fledged public relations blitz, he merely needs to step it up a notch with a few carefully planned appearances on the major Sunday morning talk shows in the weeks ahead.

    Second, he needs some leading Democrats -- who have no direct or even apparent connection to him -- to increase the drumbeat of speculation about Gore being a compromise candidate for the Democrats. They must be careful, however, as premature talk of a Gore-Obama ticket might antagonize some of Obama's supporters. Concern over slighting Hillary is not as important, since many of her delegates lack deep devotion to her and many likely signed on because she appeared certain to win the nomination.

    Gore's advocates also need to downplay the need for a quick resolution of the impasse between Clinton and Obama. The longer this plays out, the better things look for Gore. Finally, Gore needs one or two national polls to include him in the mix as a potential rival to John McCain. Several national polls have recently shown McCain beating either Clinton or Obama in November, which has caused Democrats to worry about not only their chances of taking the White House but whether or not they might lose their momentum in retaining or expanding their majorities in the U.S. House and Senate. A national poll, or two, showing Gore faring well or even beating McCain in a head-to-head matchup would be just the prescription for a Gore campaign to start snowballing -- unless "global warming" causes it to melt prematurely."

    Steve Gill is a statewide Tennessee radio talk host and political analyst. His website is http://www.gillreport.com/.

    HMMMMmmm... the last old one:

    Pollster_____Dates_______Clinton____Edwards___Gore___Obama__Undecided

    Gallup____11/11-14/07_____42_________9_______17______16________8

    And the newest:

    Al Gore vs. John McCain Head to Head Matchup Polls

    Last Updated: 2/24/08

    Number of electoral votes based on the latest polls for each state:

    Al Gore - 233

    John McCain - 201

    http://tinyurl.com/358gdz

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/31/2008 @ 4:05pm

26. I'm not voting for McCain out of spite. I'm voting for him as a reward for his service.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/31/2008 @ 4:01pm

    And voting for Billary for their dodging sniper fire...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/31/2008 @ 4:07pm

27. Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/30/2008 @ 6:08pm | ignore this person

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/30/2008 @ 6:10pm

    ?????????????????????????????????????????????

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/31/2008 @ 4:13pm

28. Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/31/2008 @ 4:10pm

    "Second, he needs some leading Democrats -- who have no direct or even apparent connection to him -- to increase the drumbeat of speculation about Gore being a compromise candidate for the Democrats. They must be careful, however, as premature talk of a Gore-Obama ticket might antagonize some of Obama's supporters. Concern over slighting Hillary is not as important, since many of her delegates lack deep devotion to her and many likely signed on because she appeared certain to win the nomination."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/31/2008 @ 4:15pm

29. Al Gore beats McCave like a drum. Thanks to Billary staying in the race...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/31/2008 @ 4:17pm

30. It was just as true then as it was now. You know Mask you really are weird but I' think I'm starting to catch on. Your handle 'Mask' is revealing. Are you in the employ of The Nation? Who else would save posts from everyone like you do. I'm on to you and as I suspected, you are also a fraud. Your cover is blown.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/31/2008 @ 3:58pm

    good work, sherlock. but too late, i'm way ahead of you.

    look at this picture of mr. and mrs. mask:

    http://tx.mb21.co.uk/images/dalek.jpg

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/31/2008 @ 4:36pm

31. Gee, once more just don't get the the attitude. Something is wrong here and do think only reinforces the monopoly of the two neoliberal national parties who have contributed to where we are now, and are all about controlling political opinion and choice.

    On the ballot in 2000 was Pat Buchanan, which I suppose took votes from Bush and also David McReynolds, who suppose took votes from Gore. Or again maybe not. Voters do not belong to candidates. Nader was no more responsible for the election of Bush than any other small party candidate. Gore lost because of Gore and the gutlessness of the Democratic Party which did put up much of stink in Florida, while the Republicans were far more effective. Maybe because Democrats gained congressional seats and did not want to rock any boat with congressional takeover just an election away. Democrats were were about Bush and were wrong about their chances in 2002.

    All that is not the responsibility of Nader. Whatever his motivation.

    By the way nothing in this post should be taken to say what I will do on election day.

    Charlie M.

    Posted by cmsandia at 03/31/2008 @ 7:40pm

32. I'm voting for him as a reward for his service.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/31/2008 @ 4:01pm |

    And the rest of us get stuck with his picks for the Supreme Court and the other courts?!??!? Which YOU believe would be BETTER than who Obama would pick?

    Posted by Mask at 03/31/2008 @ 8:13pm

33. You know, I almost bought the argument that one shouldn't support Ralph Nader because he is not running a "serious" campaign. But then I figured that buys into the whole corporatist election strategy of requiring loads of money to be a serious contender. Ralph Nader supports abortion rights, is the only candidate left that would definitely pull us out of Iraq immediately, and would champion a progressive agenda. He would certainly never pick Joe Lieberman as a running mate. As someone who voted for Nader in 2000, I can say for certain that I would not have pulled the lever for Al Gore. I simply would not have voted. I might vote for a Democrat this time around in the vain hope that they will end this god forsaken war so we can get back to .... anything else. That the Nation has endorsed Obama is a travesty. They should have had the guts to endorse Kuchinich, but since he couldn't be bothered selling out to raise enough money to be a "serious" candidate either, the Nation didn't have the guts. Shame on all of you, including you Ms. Pollitt. I still love ya, but please stop picking on Ralph. He is a good guy, and didn't lose the Democrats anything they couldn't have won if they would just stand for SOMETHING.

    Posted by nodemsforme at 03/31/2008 @ 10:57pm

34. The same goes for all those who backed Obama in all the other big states that Hillary won.

    Except that two of those big states are New York and California. Anyone seriously believe that because Clinton beat Obama in the primaries there that he wouldn't take those reliably Democratic states in the general election?

    BTW Frank, this whole idea about MASK working for The Nation...you've officially gone off the paranoid end of the pool.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/01/2008 @ 04:46am

35. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/01/2008 @ 04:46am

    No, FRANK's right....I came clean to him on the other "Nader/Hillary" thread...

    I AM Katrina vanden Heuvel!

    Posted by Mask at 04/01/2008 @ 12:32pm

36. So when "you" wrote the note stating that Nation bloggers despair at seeing a MASK post, was the part of the act or a Sybil moment?

    Posted by brunowe at 04/01/2008 @ 1:27pm

37. Blaming Ralph Nader is not new. Why not blame the Supreme Court which truly appointed George Bush? Then, when it comes to options, John McCain is a nice older man who is pro-war, pro-Life and pro tax cuts. Thee Big No-No for me. Barack Obama is a nice black man who is filling lots of people, young and old, with hope. OK by me. Finally, we have Hillary Clinton. And, man, when that economy goes down, I want HER in the White House. That's about it.

    Posted by claraba at 04/01/2008 @ 1:28pm

38. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/01/2008 @ 1:27pm

    No, no...part of my fiendish plot to make everybody think I was some guy...when in fact, I'm wrestling with intellectual difficulties with my life-long ideology!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 04/01/2008 @ 2:22pm

39. Posted by CLARABA 04/01/2008 @ 1:28pm

    H.T.O.T.D.

    Posted by Mask at 04/01/2008 @ 2:22pm

40. when in fact, I'm wrestling with intellectual difficulties with my life-long ideology!

    Posted by MASK 04/01/2008 @ 2:22pm

    aren't we all?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/01/2008 @ 2:42pm

41. Too many ad-hominem attacks in the comments above!

    Anyone who is reduced to calling Obama supporters a "cult" or telling Katha Pollitt to retire is apparently incapable of serious thought.

    An ad-hominem attack is not an argument.

    Posted by redemma at 04/01/2008 @ 2:51pm

42. Posted by REDEMMA 04/01/2008 @ 2:51pm

    It's also projection. The real cultists are the Hillary folks...who have said in much larger numbers than the Obama folks..."my candidate or else".

    The "else" being ...not staying at home...but actually voting for McCain out of spite!

    Posted by Mask at 04/01/2008 @ 4:30pm

43. It used to amaze me how many times, on every site I have visited where Nader's name has come up, the "Nader gave us 8 years of Bush" with additional insults, condemnation, etc. arises, especially in light of how thoroughly this idea has been debunked; in '04 he wasn't even arguably a factor.

    But when you realize whose purpose this claim serves, it is not so surprising. Nader, and Kucinich before him, are the biggest potential threats to the hegemony of the corporate stranglehold on more and more facets of our everyday lives. If one can, with ad hominem remarks, effectively poison an opponent in the sight of the average person, one doesn't even have to address that person's legitimate critiques or arguments. In this case Nader's critiques, charges, claims, etc. are so devastating, so well documented and so in sync with the average person's everyday observations that they would be quite damaging indeed to the political aspirations of both parties if actually allowed "time on the stage". Hence the "shoot the messenger" tactic employed to deny them a legitimate hearing and forstall a legitimate debate. By blaming Nader for Bush, one can so thoroughly arouse the ire of so many that their minds immediately close to anything he might say. And, as icing on the cake, critiques that they may have come to on their own are now discredited by being advanced by "such a terrible fellow"! Voila! Corporate America, Mission Accomplished!

    So now when I see those "Nader gave us Bush" rants I can only conclude that they are inspired by a desire to maintain the corporate status quo - by both the Rep.s AND the Dem.s as represented by the "major" candidates. The only thing the Rep.s and the Dem.s are really fighting about is who gets to collect all the percs that go with being "in charge".

    Posted by H2O at 04/01/2008 @ 4:48pm

44. Its clear from all of the above posts that we need to be more like Finland. KVH said so. And they have saunas.

    Posted by sntauri at 04/01/2008 @ 6:50pm

45. Vote for Lemminkäinen! He will build us a Sampo and end poverty!

    Posted by sntauri at 04/01/2008 @ 6:54pm

46. Read today an active effort has begun in my state of NM to place Nader on the ballot as the candidate of a newly formed Independent Party. Very glad.

    In 2004 Nader got 4000 votes here. If you assume all came from Kerry enough to give this state to Bush. Or you could hold Kerry responsible since he managed to win northern New Mexico by a small margin with a lower turnout than usual; a region overwhelmingly Democratic which turns out for Tom Udall in great numbers and before him, Bill Richardson. Kerry simply ran a lousy campaign here. And the only real affect of the efforts made to line up behind Kerry was to wipe out the Green Party here, which split on the issue and never recovered.

    In 2000, Nader got 4% as a Green and Gore did take the state anyway, if barely. If Nader ends up on the ballot have no idea how he will do this time around. But continue to believe it is undemocratic and depressingly to insist Nader or any other third party candidate not run for the benefit of either Democrats or Republicans, distrustful of voters ability to choose based on what is important to them. Would have thought this would be obvious to progressives

    Once more this post says nothing about what I will do in November.

    Charlie M.

    Posted by cmsandia at 04/01/2008 @ 7:51pm

47. Posted by SNTAURI 04/01/2008 @ 6:54pm

    "I think it's a strapless evening gown."

    Posted by Mask at 04/01/2008 @ 8:31pm

48. Why translate it? Nader wrote it in English, so quote down what he wrote, not what you think he said. As much as I want HRC to throw in the towel, I also have to accept that she can keep going as long as she wants to, because that's her right, and I have to acknowledge that, even if I don't like it.

    Again, it's a democracy, and even when the rules and principles work against you, you still have to observe and respect them; there's a reason some of us oppose fundamentalism in all its forms, torture from any quarter to any party, and tyranny, even when it's supposed to benefit us.

    It's the principle that matters, even beyond what people think is logical. If you deviate from those principles for a good reason (like you're unpopular), soon you'll find bad reasons acceptable, and later on, it might be any reason at all.

    Besides, in the end, while every candidate may have the right to run, this does not mean that they have the right to win. All Obama has to do is continue fighting the good fight, and the results will speak for itself.

    Posted by Kabbie at 04/01/2008 @ 8:45pm

49. I never thought that Pollitt would follow Hitchens and Cockburn into topic-specific senile dementia, but I've been wrong before and it appears I was wrong again. Her columns were nice for the couple of decades I read them, but I won't miss them. Michael Cerkowski

    Posted by mabel33 at 04/02/2008 @ 12:29am

50. Pollitt waxes indignant, without making an actual argument worth discussing, on one of her two favorite topics: Ralph Nader ruining the world. (Her other favorite topic is angling for a spot on the NYT op-ed page, then complaining about whomever gets hired for any opening.)

    Posted by enoughalready at 04/02/2008 @ 3:38pm

51. Sorry, but if you analyze those elections Nader wasn't at fault. This kind of reactionary crap just makes me angry.

    Posted by MetalPhil at 04/02/2008 @ 6:41pm

52. Perfect. I prostrate myself before you.

    Posted by MissLaura at 04/02/2008 @ 8:14pm

53. Frankgrits writes: "First of all Peter, I'm not the only one who recognizes the Obama backers as cultists. Google it. Secondly, I'm not voting for McCain out of spite. I'm voting for him as a reward for his service."

    Based on your condescencion towards blacks and constantly telling them how they should feel about issues. I would say quite abit of your distaste for Obama is due to your subconscious racism. I know you don't believe that you are a racist, but your attitudes reek of it. You really need to sit down and do some honest self evaluation about how you really feel about black people.

    Posted by Guiles at 04/03/2008 @ 3:01pm

54. Way to go,GUILES. This neo-con babble always masks something much more sinister. Reward for his Service? Sounds like right-wing talking points.

    Posted by jimijazz at 04/03/2008 @ 3:21pm

55. Actually, folks, I've been reading a book about vote-splitting like this, and when it examined the case with Nader, he deliberately strategized his campaign in order to focus on the states where he would hurt Gore the worst, the notion being that Gore and the Democrats would be punished for not listening to him.

    So is it fair to blame Nader for given the election to George Bush? Well, it is what he set out to do. Can the argument be made that Gore should have run a stronger campaign? Yes. But that's like arguing that it was okay for a runner to toss sand in another runner's eyes because the other guy was too slow to be out of its way.

    There were legitimate complaints with the Democratic Party of the 90's and the Clinton Administration that Nader appealed to, but it was ultimately one of histories most shortsighted and counterproductive settling of political grudges. There are well over 4000 Americans and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead because of the administration he helped get elected, on purpose. Inequality of income and taxation have reached record levels, because of an administration he helped get elected, on purpose. The cause of environmentalism has been set back a decade or more, and the civil service flooded with industry hacks because of an administration that he helped get elected, on purpose.

    Nader won his game, and every interest he held dear, or should have held dear was sacrificed on the altar of non-productive politics. This is the kind of shoot-yourself-in-the-foot politics that the left should have no part in. Our efforts should be focused on build up support for these things rather than trying to extort it by spoiling elections. And if the Greens honestly believe that their party and its principles are superior, they should get organized on a grassroots level, and start winning a critical mass of offices, so they can elevate their status from spoilers to officeholders. If they want to be a political force, they should be one by addition of viable choices, not subtraction of them.

    Posted by Lobanhaki at 04/03/2008 @ 3:58pm

56. SKIP ROTH, how do you know that Obama and Wright are tied together like Siamese twins?

    And provide one example of Wright being racist. Do it. Until then, quit your jibber jabber about racist killers and unrelated bullshit.

    Sounds more like conspiracy theory than fact to me. Unless you have something to support that you said, what you said about this sinister "Obama-Wright link" was complete bullshit.

    Posted by freeminded at 04/03/2008 @ 4:19pm

57. Foreign policy-wise not much will change with Obama or Hillary. We still have the axis-of-evil who run US foreign policy: Wall Street/Pentagon/Florida Cuban exiles--stick in AIPAC for a quartet-of-evil.

    Besides, Obama is a Lieberman Fan (campaigned for Lieberman NOT Lamont) and remember his Wright denunciation speech--Israel is good, Palestinians are bad) and Hillary, oh Hillary, she wants Greenspan and Rubin to right the economy--the very people, who with their Adam Smith/free market/Anti regulatory views, brought on the mortgage crisis. Amazes me that she didn't call for Larry Summers, the other Clintonite in charge of letting Walll Street do whatever they want. Oh yes, I forgot, Larry at Harvard didn't seem to favor women. Oh well.

    As I said at the beginning and it bears repeating;

    Foreign policy-wise not much will change with Obama or Hillary. We still have the axis-of-evil who run US foreign policy: Wall Street/Pentagon/Florida Cuban exiles--stick in AIPAC for a quartet-of-evil.

    Posted by hkaplan at 04/03/2008 @ 5:28pm

58. "In Florida in 2000, more than 200,000 registered democrats voted for Bush."

    Perhaps they didn't actually vote that way, but that's the way Ms Harris counted them.

    Posted by motamanx at 04/04/2008 @ 04:30am

59. Is it John Maynard Keynes who said "You can never underestimate the ignorance of people"?

    Posted by julien38 at 04/04/2008 @ 12:06pm

60. LOBANHAKI: Possible.

    However, all of those things you mentioned about the Bush Administration were a direct result of the reaction to 9/11.

    I doubt Nader saw that one coming; if 9/11 hadn't happened, Bush's Presidency would be unremarkable, uneventful, and thankfully short.

    Posted by Kabbie at 04/04/2008 @ 1:02pm

61. WHERE'S THE MEDIA ON THIS ONE?

    Blacks4Barack presents: Hillary's Religion (cult ?) 'THE FAMILY' Very Scary ! Prays To Jesus For The Elite To Rule The World

    The media has repeatedly aired the short clips of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's rhetoric in attempt to discredit and smear Barack Obama. But what's even more interesting is the fact that the media never discusses Hillary Clinton's religion, which is extremely telling and even frightening. A closer look into her 'religion' gives one a clearer picture of why she is the way she is.In a recent article by Steven Brandt many truths about Hillary's religion, called ' The Family' will make you shutter. The question is....where's the media on this one ?

    Brandt writes, "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend." said Hillary Clinton, to reporters and editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Tuesday the 25th. This is an interesting choice of words, since -- while we mostly hear about her Methodist upbringing -- Hillary Clinton has chosen to associate herself with The Family (also known as the Fellowship), a very conservative, fundamentalist organization started by Abraham Vereide... "...an immigrant preacher who in 1935 organized a small group of businessmen sympathetic to European fascism, fusing the Far Right with his own polite but authoritarian faith. From that core, Vereide built an international network of fundamentalists who spoke the language of establishment power, a "family" that thrives to this day. In public, they host prayer breakfasts; in private they preach a gospel of "biblical capitalism," military might, and American empire. Citing Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, Doug Coe, the Family's current leader, declares, "We work with power where we can, build new power where we can't." This quote is taken from the book on The Family by the same name which will be published in May... a book which claims to "...dramatically challenge conventional wisdom about American fundamentalism, revealing its crucial role in the unraveling of the New Deal, the waging of the Cold War, and the no-holds-barred economics of globalization. The question Sharlet believes we must ask is not "What do fundamentalists want?" but "What have they already done?" A long article was written about Hillary Clinton's participation in this organization last September in Mother Jones, and The Family, itself, was the subject of an extensive article in Harper's in March of 2003. And on March 21st, The Nation published an article on Hillary and The Family by Barbara Ehrenreich that was published on The Huffington Post and CBS News' web site. The Family avoids the word Christian but worships Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the "meek." They believe that, in mass societies, it's only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God's "dominion" on earth. Insofar as The Family has a consistent philosophy, it's all about power - cultivating it, building it and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or "cells." ...wrote Ms.Ehrenreich. Is it possible that Hillary's participation in this fundamentalist group -- which apparently preaches the "gospel of military might" -- would help explain her vote in favor of authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq? Is it possible her pro-NAFTA stance during her husband's administration comes from its embrace of "the no-holds-barred economics of globalization"? Is it possible that the sense some get that Hillary feels entitled to be president comes in part from this group's belief that "it's only the elites who matter"? I encourage any reporter covering Hillary's campaign to ask her about all this.

    At a time when so many people are wondering what sort of effect the Rev. Wright's sermons may have had on Barack Obama, I think it's only fair to ask what sort of effect The Family's fundamentalist mission has had - and continues to have - on Hillary Clinton. We know that George Bush engages in truly fundamentalist thinking. There is no person or new information capable of challenging his belief that what he already knows is right. Is Hillary Clinton like this in some way? I am not sure.

    But the opinion I have formed from this is that - while Hillary Clinton may be considered a Liberal by many - on the inside she is a deeply Conservative person... possibly as close to being a Republican today as she was when she was a young woman supporting Senator Goldwater. This helps explain, to me, why she and John McCain are such good friends. They are both drawn to the use of military power and free market capitalism... and to taking money from lobbyists. The other opinion I have formed is that those who say there are no policy differences between Hillary and Barack haven't taken into account how their religious differences might impact the policies they would actually seek to implement as president. (end of article)

    So now a few things make more sense about Hillary. In review, she's in a kinda power-hungry cult which is actually run by her fellow Republicans which she is secretly one of ! It also makes sense why she could care less about detroying the Democratic Party. Also, beware of her claim to work toward ending the Iraq war. That is another great lie that she is telling. If you listen to her claims she commonly repeats ' I will start getting troops out within my first 60 days '.....How many ? 3....1000...10,000 ? Don't be fooled. Hillary has no desire to end the war. She'll bring 5 troops home then say that she kept her word.

    The media should be called out for not exposing this cult. Problem is, they would also be revealing the truths about their fellow Republican's plan and prayers to 'rule the world' by any means. So it's up to us, regular Americans like you and I, to help spread the truth in spite of the media.....For The Re-Birth of America !

    Do The Research....GOOGLE: 'Hillarys Religion'...'The Family'...'Abraham Vereide'...'Doug Coe'....LEARN THE TRUTH......THEN SHARE IT...For the Re-Birth of America !

    Greg Jones Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org (A Multi-Racial Organization)

    Posted by gregjones at 04/05/2008 @ 10:03am