Nader says Edwards is the most progressive.

[Hieronymus]

He just said this on Hardball.

[Auggie]

1. Just about to post this. Thanks.

[surfermaw]

2. And he is right... Edwards is going to win Iowa.

[Deja Q]

3. Uh-oh...

NADER SUX!

:popcorn:

[ihavenobias]

43. Why the attacks on Nader?!

I get it that everyone is pissed that he may (or may not) have cost Gore the election but that doesn't change the fact that guy stands up to special interests to protect America and our democracy.

And no, I never voted for him.

At any rate, within that context, him saying that a particular candidate is the most progressive grabs my attention. What does he stand to gain? What vested interest would he have in supporting Edwards, and for that matter, when has he ever bowed to special interests?

If anything he's clearly someone who stands by what he believes IN SPITE of the fact that he often won't succeed and or will piss people off (as evidenced by some of the responses I see here).

[pnwmom]

47. Not only did he, without a doubt, cost Gore the election

(attracting more than 97,000 Floridian votes in a race that was determined by fewer than 600), but he has lately been threatening to run again in 2008. Saying that he likes Edwards could just be a prelude to jumping into the race if Edwards is not the nominee.

[ihavenobias]

51. That's fine

I understand a general resentment about screwing up election results (because he's overly principled), I really do. I do NOT want him to run again!

With that said, it doesn't change the fact that if *he* (the guy that is NOT and never has been for special interests) is saying that someone is the most progressive, it's worth considering. Nothing more, nothing less.

[stimbox]

75. Election fraud cost Gore the election. n/t

[pberq]

85. The Rpublicans stole Florida in 2000 - Nader just gave them cover

[mzmolly]

79. Nader IS a special interest.

He is especially interested in himself. ;)

[ellisonz]

106. He's the Alan Keyes of the Left.

[mzmolly]

80. Heh, that's great!

:hi:

[Zynx]

4. I don't mind Edwards, but I don't give a damn what Nader says.

[Botany]

5. I loves me some Edwards but ....

.... STF up Nader.

[penguin7]

6. As if I needed more reasons to dislike Edwards

[Hieronymus]

8. What reasons DO you have for disliking Edwards?

[AndyA]

16. Pay no mind to those dissing Edwards.

They don't really want change. They like things the way they are.

Because if they really wanted change, they'd support a candidate who has had the courage to go on record stating he will not go forward with business as usual in Washington, D.C., and the only candidate to take campaign money out of the equation.

Now that's SERIOUS CHANGE - that's what our country desperately needs.

But they really kinda like it the way it is. (Ignore the man behind the curtain...)

[cali]

28. I really, really hope you're more intelligent than that post would indicate

Some of us simply don't find him sincere. It's absurd to claim that people that don't support *your* candidate don't want change. I like his rhetoric just fine. I want a sea change. But I have a hard time seeing Edwards as the agent of change he purports to be. You should simply recognize that not everyone sees Edwards as you don.

[surfermaw]

36. Is that because you support another candidate.....

My second choice is Hillary, however I don't find any of the democrats candidates of being not being sincere, better stick together after the primary, or we are going to wind up with 8 ore years of republican rule, maybe you are from a different area that Edwards and that is why you can't see the true Edwards. We need every one of them if we win, most of all if we need Biden. But I am starting to think the ticket may be Edwards & Hillary, if that is what it take to win in 2008 then so be it. I wasn't that fond of John Kerry, however I didn't let it be known to any one else. I just worked as hard as I could to win, if it hadn't been for Clark, Edwards would have beaten Kerry in Iowa, and if Joe Liberman hadn't been chosen as VP, I think Gore and Edwards would have gotten so many votes that the republicans couldn't have stolen the election.. I could have cried when Gore announced Liberman as VP...his looks along with his mealy mouth was enough to defeat the ticket.

[cali]

105. No. I don't support another candidate

if you can't see what was wrong with the post I responded to, well, OK. And my being from Vermont has nothing to do with why I don't support Edwards, just as it has nothing to do with why I don't support Clinton.

[Inspired]

58. Edwards is the change candidate. n/t

[Hieronymus]

64. Absolutely, he is the change candidate.

[Beaverhausen]

7. I agree- but I wish Nader would just shut up already

[Auggie]

9. Nader said some good things.

[Beaverhausen]

11. Well, Nader caused enough damage to the party back in 2000

and even though it wasn't his fault Bush was installed in the WH- he had something to do with it.

Even though I might agree with some of what he said, he just seems to cause trouble and I wish he would go away.

[Mojambo]

15. Nader and the DLC share equally in the debacle of that election, IMO.

[polichick]

23. I blame the Republicans and their criminal machine. nt

[pnwmom]

48. Nader got 97,000 Florida votes, more than 100 times what was needed for

him to swing the national election to Bush.

[Mojambo]

72. And the DLC running their candidate away from winning Democratic policies lost millions of votes

Look, I'm not taking Nader off the hook, but he wasn't the only problem.

[pberq]

86. That's assuming that those voters would have voted for

Gore if Nader hadn't run - a BIG assumption.

And besides - Gore WON Florida in 2000!

[struggle4progress]

101. Florida By The Numbers: Al Gore Won Florida in 2000 by 77,000 Votes

Published February 12th, 2007
by Greg Palast

You like numbers?

Here’s how to estimate the effect of spoilage on the election outcome. For fun, let’s take Florida 2000. We know from comparison of census tracts to precincts that 54% of the 179,855 ballots “spoiled” were cast by African-American voters, that is, 97,000 of the total.

Every poll put the Black vote in Florida for Al Gore at over 90%. Reasonably assuming “spoiled” ballots matched the typical racial preferences, Gore lost more than 87,000 votes in the spoilage pile. Less than 10% of the African-American population voted for Mr. Bush, i.e. Bush lost no more than 10,000 votes to spoilage. The net effect: Gore had a plurality of at least 77,000 within the uncounted ballots cast by Black citizens.

OK, then, what about “Non-Black” voters, whose votes made up the remaining 46% of the spoilage pile? Well, frankly, you can ignore these, as these voters split their vote somewhat evenly between Gore and Bush. Sticklers wanting a closer exam would note that Gore probably won a majority of these votes as well. Moreover, the only large group of spoiled votes in a wealthy white county occurred in Palm Beach (due to “butterfly” ballots), a rare, rich white group of strongly Democratic voters ... http://www.gregpalast.com/florida-by-the-numbersal-gore-won-florida-in-2000-by-77000-votes/

Republican thugs went to Florida and slowed the count while their men in suits asked SCOTUS to shut the whole thing down. Nader had nothing to do with our "loss"

[Auggie]

19. He's supporting Edwards campaign strategy. That's not trouble --

that's going to make corporate corruption a campaign issue.

[BigDDem]

10. Nader is now pro hedge fund

[Auggie]

21. I didn't hear that...

[Mojambo]

24. Tune your receiver to the smear channel. It's playing 24 hours a day. n/t

[Auggie]

26. Huh?

[Mojambo]

12. Correctamundo. n/t

[polichick]

13. I saw it too - very interesting conversation...

Just wish Chris would shut-up and let his guests speak ~ Nader almost said he'd support Edwards next summer "if he wins the nomination and doesn't back off" but Chris interrupted him.

Nader is right that Dems should've long ago adopted the progressive issues listed on his site.

[K Gardner]

14. He said Obama had "excluded himself by his statements" from

being listed as Progressive. Wish he'd expound on that. Missed all but that, but will catch it on the rerun tonight. Given our Senator's absence from the Senate floor today, Edwards looks good to me right now.

[polichick]

17. He said Obama was too "conciliatory" toward entrenched power...

That's how I see Obama too.

[readmoreoften]

104. "Obama is conciliatory towards entrenched power." Great way to put it. /nt

[emmadoggy]

111. Me too.

[pnorman]

18. Presumably, he meant the most "electable" progressive.

Otherwise, it would have been Kucinich, and by a very wide margin. But DON'T write Dennis off until the Convention is over. What he stands for, offers the BEST hope this nation and this world so desperately longs for --- perhaps the ONLY hope!

pnorman

[polichick]

20. He mentioned that he agrees with Kucinich on a lot...

...but Chris wanted to talk about the top tier.

[proudmoddemo]

22. The kiss of death n/t

[polichick]

25. I think Nader has been the conscience of the Democratic Party in some ways...

As he said tonight, Gore leaned left (rather than going Lieberman's way) because Nader was in the race. That's an important point, and Gore probably owes a lot of votes to that move to the left.

We should put the blame for the last two elections squarely where it belongs ~ on the shoulders of the criminal Republican party.

[pnwmom]

53. Nader only appears to have a conscience.

It's all about image for Nader, just as it is with any narcissist.

No progressive with a conscience would have deliberately thrown the 2000 election to Bush.

[polichick]

55. Or, as he points out, his getting into the race forced Gore to move to the left...

...resulting in a whole lot more votes than he would've had if he'd listened to Lieberman.

Remember, Gore won.

[pnwmom]

59. Nader has contradicted himself then, because he also claimed many times

that there was no difference between them, that Bush and Gore were just Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

But that's not surprising. Narcissists love to take credit for everything, even if they have to contradict themselves in order to do so.

[polichick]

60. I don't see Nader that way...

Gore won because he was forced to move to the left ~ it's a tragedy that Democrats didn't hold Republicans responsible for the votes they stole.

[pnwmom]

67. I hold the Republicans responsible for what they did, and Nader for what he did.

Together, they swung the election to Bush.

(And the Rethugs couldn't have done it without Nader's 97,000 Florida votes.)

[polichick]

71. But you're not figuring in the votes Gore got BECAUSE Nader forced him to the left...

And what about putting some blame on Dems for not fighting for justice when we knew we'd won??

[pnwmom]

97. Those votes are a fantasy of Nader's, and that fantasy conflicts

with Nader's other claim that Gore's politics were virtually the same as Bush's.

[polichick]

108. I'ld like to hear Gore's take on it now...

Bet he wishes he hadn't listened to DLC folks at all ~ hadn't saddled himself with Lieberman. Maybe he'll talk about it someday.

(Nader was talking about both parties being owned by corporate America, not their policies being the same.)

[bvar22]

120. Gore agrees that Nader did NOT cost him the election.

In a recent (last 6 months) interview with Jon Stewart, Gore said that Nader didn't cause him to lose.
Gore took responsibility for the loss.

Gore said he lost the election because he didn't spend more time convincing the Left to vote for him.

WORD!

Blaming Nader is convenient. It allows the blamers to avoid looking at what needs to be fixed in the Democratic Party.

Close to 25 Million registered Democrats didn't believe that it was worth their time to vote in 2000.
The felt the Democratic Party was no longer worth their time or support.
THAT is the REAL reason why Gore didn't stomp bush* into the ground.

The Democratic Party NEEDS to give Americans who Work for a Living something to get excited about so they will take the time to vote.
More of the same ain't gonna ring that bell.

Oh Yeah. Almost forgot.

FUCK DLC CENTRISM!!!
Thats how we got IN this mess!

[polichick]

121. Thank you! :)

[DURHAM D]

99. There is no evidence that Nader forced Gore to the left -

Nader made up that shit and you are repeating it.

[polichick]

107. To me it sounds like you and others have bought the DLC story...

...and are repeating it over and over. imo Nader is much more of a Democrat than DLC members.

[LoZoccolo]

113. Our story is not the DLC story, but the default story...

...because you have not established yours.

[polichick]

117. Nice try...

But I've seen too many of your threads not to know where you're coming from.

[pnwmom]

115. Nader isn't a Democrat AT ALL. He's an opponent of the Democratic party,

and he makes that absolutely clear. His stated goal in 2000 was to defeat Gore, and he succeeded.

[polichick]

118. Like I said, I'd love to hear Gore's take on it all now...

Nader is an easy scapegoat ~ too easy.

[comradebillyboy]

27. Nader's endorsement is almost as valuable

as Lieberman's to all but the most progressive democrats.

[BigDDem]

29. I definitely think Edwards should take Nader on the road!

The Edwards/Nader show, Iowas loves 'em!

[cascadiance]

30. Interesting, does that mean that Nader won't run if Edwards is nominated?...

... and that he might if either Obama or Hillary get nominated? If so, another reason to nominate Edwards. Less likely to have a candidate like Nader that might split away some of the progressive votes!

[polichick]

31. That's where he was going when Chris interrupted. nt

[FlyingSquirrel]

32. Edwards - Nader? ;-)

Never happen, I know. Although think of the possibilities - you guarantee that there will be no possibility of a spoiler campaign from Nader?

[polichick]

34. I think Nader was trying to say that "if Edwards gets the nomination and doesn't back off"

...he won't run.

[Vickers]

33. C'mon Edwards, don't get the stink of Ralph on ya!

:P

[cascadiance]

41. I think Edwards shows that if you DO run as a true progressive Democrat...

... and Nader looks to follow through what appears to be as an announcement that he won't run if Edwards wins, that then you'll have less of a chance of losing votes from your party's core to a candidate like Ralph Nader.

The DLC might have dismissed that in the past as not being a real possibility and that progressives don't have any choice other than what they want to put forward, but if Ralph truly only runs if a progressive like Edwards (or Kucinich if he were ever to get high enough in the standings) doesn't get nominated. It illustrates the added risk of straying away from the party's principles too much!

[polichick]

50. That's how I see it. nt

[cascadiance]

62. If Nader plays his cards right this time, he can be an asset rather than a penalty...

If he succeeds in helping push us to nominate Edwards and stands back while we get a progressive elected, he will be a good guy again in my book. If he gets an ego and says he will run anyway, even if Edwards wins (and sticks with his populist stances), then I think you can level criticism at him again like many did after 2000.

[polichick]

65. I was so frustrated when Chris interrupted him because...

...it seemed as if Nader was telling Edwards that he needs to get the nomination and then NOT BACK DOWN ~ which is exactly what we all know he needs to do. It was almost a challenge: SHOW US YOU MEAN WHAT YOU SAY!

[Catchawave]

35. I'll catch the re-run at 7pm EST, but did they bring up

that Nader was one of Edwards' early heroes? That is, aspired to be the kind of lawyer that Nader was taking on corporations and WINNING :)

More in this article from Oct 2001:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html

<snip>

Edwards explained that his proclivity for talking to constituents stems naturally from his childhood dream of becoming a lawyer. He came of age at a time when many lawyers were rightly viewed as heroes. They included people like Thurgood Marshall, who used the law to bring down the system of legal segregation in the South, and Ralph Nader, whose lawsuits forced an arrogant auto industry to install seatbelts and airbags, thereby saving thousands of lives. "My idealistic view of lawyers was that they could help people who couldn't help themselves, and couldn't fight for themselves," Edwards says. "Since childhood, I thought that's what being a lawyer was all about. I still think that, by the way. In that sense, the transition to the Senate was a very natural one."

<snip>

[polichick]

37. Nader was one of my early heroes too...

Spoke at my college when I was a kid ~ he was a great speaker who spoke the truth!

[Auggie]

69. Spoke at my college too

I think the criticism he gets here is unwarranted.

[slick8790]

38. Yikes. He's right, but I don't want Edwards to get associated with that asshole. n/t.

[pnwmom]

116. Exactly. Nader would only drag him down. n/t

[noiretextatique]

39. nader is right about many things

aside from the usual crap about nader, his prediction that america would have to get worse before americans would want a change in a better direction has proven to be very accurate.
just as some democrats were seduced into voting for the second worst president in us history, ronald reagan, some also voted for the worse president in history, george bush.
bush's biggest success, imho, is that he has turned many republicans against him. and it only took two stolen elections, a MIHOP terrorist attack, an illegal war, etc, etc, etc. yeah, nader is such an asshole :sarcasm:

[polichick]

40. I have to believe that those who trash him at DU...

...must be too young or uninformed to know the whole story.

[noiretextatique]

42. you are kind

i think it's all a part of a long-standing american tradition: denial. blaming nader is a lot easier than accepting the truth, i.e., SCOTUS intervened to appoint bush president, and we (including the democratic party) allowed it to happen.

[stimbox]

77. Maybe too brainwashed too...

heh :)

[polichick]

81. Ohhhh, I didn't get that at first...

Who is doing the brainwashing when it comes to Nader? The DLC?

[annie1]

44. Awesome. He seems it. Cool.

[maximusveritas]

45. Edwards has adopted Nader's rhetoric

so this is not surprising.
I'm not sure if this will help in the primaries, but it won't help in the general.

[Hieronymus]

46. It will make a difference to progressives .. unfortunately, many Democrats

are not progressive.

[maximusveritas]

84. I think it has more to do with dislike for Nader

because of what happened with Gore.

[Hieronymus]

49. Charlie Cook says that Edwards is giving the most populist message.

[Kucinich4America]

52. Does this mean we'll see "FUCK EDWARDS" avatars now?

:shrug:

[polichick]

54. Only if DUers are dumbies! nt

[Hieronymus]

56. Seems that DUers have drifted to the center.

[polichick]

57. FOOLS! :)

[Xipe Totec]

63. No, you'll see FUCK NADER avatars

Nader should make himself useful, like Lieberman, and endorse a Republican candidate.



Maybe Guliani, or Romney.



But don't besmirch a decent man like Edwards by endorsing him.

[Freddie Stubbs]

93. Only if Edwards runs as a 3rd party candidate after he loses the nomination

[Occam Bandage]

61. Fuck Nader. He's right, though; Edwards is a good candidate.

[Xipe Totec]

66. There you go!

My sentiments exactly!

:thumbsup:

[polichick]

68. He's been right many times...

Dems should be saying "FUCK US" for not listening.

[Xipe Totec]

73. Was he right when he said there's no difference

between Democrats and Republicans?

I'd be really interested to know.

[polichick]

74. He was telling us to embrace our progressive values...

...and run on them ~ which is exactly what we STILL need to do. He was exaggerating to make a point ~ same thing Edwards is saying when he talks about trading a corporate Republican for a corporate Democrat.

[Xipe Totec]

76. Leave Edwards out; this is about Nader

Please explain to me how we would be just as screwed today if Gore or Kerry had been elected President?

[polichick]

78. They WERE elected...

And Gore probably would not have been if he HADN'T been forced to the left and did it the DLC way. (THAT'S the point.)

I mentioned Edwards because he too exaggerates to make a point ~ of course he doesn't think Obama or Clinton would be as bad as Bush.

[Xipe Totec]

82. I'm still trying to understand how Nader was right

when he said there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, So it didn't mater whether he stepped down from the race or not.

He may not be the only reason Bush is in the White House, but he certainly was a contributing factor.

The moment he started receiving funding from the GOP, he knew, or should have known he was being used as a tool.

Forgive me, because I certainly won't forgive Nader for his arrogant selfish narcissistic stance.

[polichick]

83. He's right when he reminds us to vote our progressive values...

We wouldn't be in this mess if not for the fact that Dems DON'T FIGHT for what they believe in ~ even when an election (or two) is stolen.

Nader has been warning us since the early 1970s about corporate America having too much power. Instead of listening, Dems jumped on the bandwagon with the DLC.

Anyway, think about it ~ maybe you'll see how right he's been.

[Xipe Totec]

88. All I see is thousands of dead American soldiers

and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.

I hope the loss of life was worth whatever point Nader was trying to make.

[polichick]

89. Oh well...

It's all here on this thread so I won't repeat it. :)

[Xipe Totec]

91. As I said already, forgive me,

because I will never forgive Nader.

[polichick]

95. Nader's an easy scapegoat...

But please do read the whole thread.

[Auggie]

87. Nader's reference was to the influence corporate America had over politicians and parties.

That was my take.

[Xipe Totec]

90. And to make his point, he enabled Bush

Nader knew what he was doing. Gore was not progressive enough for Nader's taste.

Nader saw no difference between Gore and Bush. He said as much.


Nader poured the bitter cup of poison from which we have drank for seven long years.


And he dared call it medicine.

[noiretextatique]

125. nonsense...gore won the election

even with nader in the race, and SCOTUS appointed bush. in this supposed democracy, it doesn't make much sense to continue to harbor anger and bitterness towards nader who did not disenfranchise voters, stop recounts, or create a new, one-time only law specifically for bush. nader simple participated in the process, which in a supposed democracy is not a crime.
the republican criminals are the ones who deserve all the blame for stealing the first election and putting a bunch of lunatics in power.

[TransitJohn]

70. Well, not really.

As I recall it, he said Kucinich, but Tweety said to pick one out of the "Top Three", and he said, Edwards, of course.

[Franc_Lee]

92. Obama must really be a threat, even Nader is trying to divert interest to Edwards

[robbedvoter]

94. And Ralphie never stirred us wrong, did he?

But if I am going to trust a war sponsor who reinvented himself - why not trust Nader?
I mean why would the guy who stopped the draft or the guy who introduced an impeachment resolution count for shit?

[Cronus Protagonist]

96. He must be blind

Dennis Kucinich is the most progressive candidate by FAR.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

98. Wish he'd cursed Obama with his endorsement n/t

[kurth]

100. No shit, Sherlock

[sjdnb]

102. My thoughts on Nader from early am November 8th, 2000

Hey, if any of you are looking for any last-minute gift ideas for me, I have one. I'd like Ralph Nader, right here tonight. I want him brought from his happy holiday slumber over there on Itsallaboutme Lane with all the other rich people and I want him brought right here, with a big ribbon on his head, and I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, ****less, hopeless, heartless, fat-***, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey **** he is. Hallelujah. Holy shit. Where's the Tylenol?

OK, not original, but it's what comes to mind whenever I here Ralph Nader is interjecting his irrelevant ego into anything.

[eridani]

103. He's wrong. Kucinich is the most progressive

Edwards is the most progressive of the current frontrunners.

[polichick]

109. That's actually what Nader said...

But Chris didn't want to talk about Kucinich.

[Freddie Stubbs]

110. Does Nader have a history wacko political analysis?

Wasn't he the guy who insisted that there wasn't "a dime's worth of difference" between Gore and Bush in 2000?

[dionysus]

112. he endorses a dem, and somewhere Loz's head has just exploded...

[polichick]

119. No endorsement, as of yet anyway...

He agrees with Kucinich more than he does Edwards ~ too bad Chris didn't let him talk about Dennis.

[hunter]

114. Coming from a right wing tool like Nader, that's not saying much.

Nader doesn't know what "progressive" is. He is the ultimate 21st century PBS liberal -- a chewy little nugget of right wing corporate crap in a sugar-free artificially flavored and colored candy coating. On the surface it looks like progressive activism, but bite into it and you know it's not. It's saccharine and red dye made from coal tar.

Nader's core values are corporate. He sincerely believes that the worst sorts of corporate maleficence are bad for business, and that's true, they are. But it never occurs to him that the very engines of business -- capitalism and consumerism -- are the underlying cause of every problem he addresses.

He consistently promotes patchwork solutions that leave the offending industries or corrupt political systems intact, and undercuts anyone who threatens business as usual. In Nader's world leftist progressives and aggressive environmentalists threaten this established order just as much as large corporations committing obvious crimes against the environment and humanity.

Furthermore, Nader's behavior during the Presidential elections and the recall of Gray Davis was reprehensible. I have no use for him.

[mtnsnake]

122. Edwards might SOUND progressive, but it still remains to be seen that he's progressive.

I only say this because history shows that his record while in the Senate was far from progressive.

The candidate whose record shows he's the most progressive is Dennis Kucinich

[polichick]

123. Lol - this has come up over and over here...

Yes, Nader did choose Kucinich first but Chris was only interested in talking about the top tier.

(Wise edit!)

[teacher gal]

124. Edwards is the first candidate

to come right out and admit that the No Child Left Behind Act is a privatization scheme. For this reason, I'm leaning toward Edwards.