Ralph "Thanks for 2000" Nader:Hillary Clinton needs challenger from the left

[Freddie Stubbs]

Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader said Monday progressives in the Democratic Party must challenge Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination in 2016, saying she’s lost her progressive cred.

“Somebody must challenge from the left, because, I mean, Hillary Clinton, who started out as a progressive out of Yale Law School and Wellesley, she’s become almost the poster child for the military-industrial complex,” Nader told Chuck Todd in an online interview for MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown” on Monday.

“She hugs Kissinger. She hobnobs with Bob Rubin and the Wall Street crowd. I mean it’s almost a caricature. But you know on social issues, like pro-choice, children’s issues, you know she keeps that liberal sheen.”

Nader said the challenge could from a few “marginalized” members of the party, but he worries they won’t step up to the plate.

more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/ralph-nader-hillary-clinton-2016-94871.html

[ramparta]

1. Nader has accomplished more for progressive causes than anyone I can name

He is right about Ms Rodham.

Why do you think she lost the primaries in 2008?

[Xipe Totec]

13. Really? nt

[Coyotl]

47. Nader has accomplished more to destroy progressive causes than anyone I can name

Thanks Ralph, you egotistical maniac.

[Rowdyboy]

63. +1000.....Everything positive he accomplished has long been overwhelmed by the evil he has allowed

in his name.

[eqfan592]

94. I find it so amazing the arrogance displayed by some democrats...

See, Nader didn't cause that evil, people such as YOURSELF did. You sit there and think you are somehow entitled to the votes of all progressives, and anybody that dares question that is somehow helping the cause of evil, and then you wonder why so many progressives what nothing at all to do with the democratic party.

Want to know whats wrong with the party? Take a look in the mirror.

[Rowdyboy]

97. He'll get no quarter here...I'll despise his raunchy ass until he draws his final useless breath.

I realized reasoning with "progressives" on DU was a waste of time early on around 2002 and nothing has changed.

[hfojvt]

100. I am so sick of the word entitled

Only Nader deniers seem to want to cling to that word.

"You think Democrats are entitled to my vote".

I would never say that, and never imply that.

But the very simple electoral reality is this - if the Democrat does not get more votes than the Republican, then the Republican wins.

Even a Nader voter should be able to figure that out.

I mean crikey what is with all the fucking denial. Myself, I voted 3rd party twice - in 1992 and 1996, but at least I did it with my eyes open. I KNEW that what I was doing in 1992 might help George Bush get re-elected. At the time though, I did not care, since I did not see all that much difference between Clinton and Bush anyway. They both seemed like moderate Republicans to me.

No, nobody is saying somebody is entitled to your vote. You vote whatever way you want to. Just do NOT DELUDE yourself into thinking that your decision does not have any consequences.

[MineralMan]

51. Really? Let's see your list.

I'll wait here.

[Coyotl]

87. Sure, here is my short list for starters

1.) George W. Bush
2.) George W. Bush
3.) George W. Bush
4.) George W. Bush
5.) George W. Bush
6.) George W. Bush
7.) George W. Bush

[MineralMan]

88. Hey! I recognize that list.

Still, I'm not sure how that helped progressivism. Maybe the other poster can elucidate.

[eqfan592]

95. A response.

1.) Look in the mirror
2.) Look in the mirror
3.) Look in the mirror
4.) Look in the mirror
5.) Look in the mirror
6.) Look in the mirror
7.) Look in the mirror

Democrats need to think they are entitled to the votes of all progressives.

[HereSince1628]

2. IMO, primaries should provide choice among ideas and people, so of course,

the party needs a handful of challengers some of them with ideas that come from the left of the 3rd Way.

[Scuba]

3. He's right. We don't need two Republicans running against each other.

[forestpath]

6. +1

[Broward]

14. Yep, with Hillary as the nominee our corpoate overlords can't lose.

[antigop]

65. you are sooo right. See link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67554

[a kennedy]

27. D*mn right, I was NEVER a Bill Clinton voter....why would I EVER vote for Hillary.....

unless she's the best "democrat" we have. We NEED a liberal, progressive candidate.....like say....Bernie Sanders, and of course he'd never run.

[RC]

37. +10

We also need truth in campaigning. Why is there such a disconnect between Obama's campaigning and his governing?

[stevenleser]

4. Well of course he does. Thanks for the input Ralph "Rand/Rubio" Nader. nt

[BlueToTheBone]

5. F*ck Nadir. nt

[BeyondGeography]

7. Ralph "No Difference Between Bush and Gore" is a political genius

[stevenleser]

10. Yeah, if Nader ever did anything good, that more than tarnished it. No diff between Bush and Gore

That should follow him wherever he goes. It should be written on his tombstone.

That's probably dumber and more ridiculous propaganda than anything idiot boy 'W' ever said.

[mikeysnot]

12. good luck with that

[stevenleser]

15. No luck needed. It's his permanent legacy. nt

[mikeysnot]

58. yes, it is

for people that think simple.

[BeyondGeography]

22. My balls still hurt from that

[Vogon_Glory]

30. Agreed. Nader's 2000 Ego Trip Gave Us Eight Years Of Dubya

Agreed. Ralph's ego trip gave us eight years of Shrub.

No difference between the two parties, Ralph? That sort of thinking is every bit as psychotic as what comes out of the Tea Party wanna-be rip-off artists, mint juleps-chugging theoreticians, and would-be suckers on the Right. The 2000 election and your followers' votes giving the Bushies the White House are a permanent part of your political legacy, Ralph. Get used to it.

[HardTimes99]

44. WRONG! The SCOTUS gave us Dubya in a bloodless coup that eviscerated the

principle of 'one man, one vote.'

Stop blaming Nader for what SCOTUS did, since every post-inauguration count by the media showed Gore winning Florida, no matter what form of ballot counting was used.

I'm not going to link to the stories that came out, weirdly enough, on 9-10-2001 and were promptly forgotten. Those stories have been linked to ad nauseum here

[raouldukelives]

50. Some people think 2000 was a corporate coup.

A far reaching and well orchestrated overthrow of our democracy. Complete with backdoor birbes all the way to the top. Bought & paid for by Wall St investors.
Others think it was Nader.
The two shall not meet.

[Hekate]

92. SCOTUS wouldn't have been able to do it without Nader drawing so many votes away in FLA

Yes, it was a coup d'etat. I've said so all along. And for a long time I didn't blame Nader for his part in it... but ultimately it turned out that he pulled a bunch of votes after all. He helped Bush by putting his thumb on the scale.

That and that utter head-up-his-ass nonsense about there being no difference between Bush and Gore, no difference between the GOP and the Dems.

I do not forgive Nader for his part in giving us Bush Junior, just as I do not forgive the RW part of the Court for what they did.

[hfojvt]

99. without Nader though, SCOTUS becomes irrelevant

stop blaming SCOTUS for what Nader did. He cost Gore a win in New Hampshire. He also almost cost Gore a win in Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Oregon. Not for lack of trying.

Gore wins New Hampshire and he becomes President and we all live happily ever after. SCOTUS didn't cost him New Hampshire, Nader did.

[Vogon_Glory]

108. I Will Continue to Blame Ralph For 2000

I will continue to blame Ralph Nader and his ego-tripping for the results of the 2000 election. Ralph's ego-trip made it much easier for the Boosh brothers and the Supreme Court to hand over the White House to the GOP.

Not that I blame Ralph alone. Other villains in the docket include Katherine Harris (for the voter roll purges), the right-wing Cuban emigrés who voted against Al Gore out of spite, the little punks from congressional Republican offices rioting outside where the ballots were being counted, and the opportunistic Miami mayor who should have sent in the riot cops with orders to crack heads and restore order.

Nor have I forgotten about Ralph taking money from thinly-disguised Republican and Conservative front groups to fund his 2004 race.

[HardTimes99]

109. I blame Gore for 2000. He violated the first precept of American politics which is that

you lock down your base BEFORE moving to the center. Instead, Gore took his base for granted (at his peril) and moved immediately to the center. That's called leaving an exposed flank and is so elementary that it boggles the mind that a shrewd operator like Gore was left scrambling as election day neared to shore up support from his base.

Gore's concession demonstrates that he values the institutional legitimacy of the SCOTUS more than the principle of one man, one vote. That's his prerogative, of course, but I blame him for conceding, rather than refusing to concede.

[Marr]

103. At the time, it was a relatively unknown GW Bush vs. Gore and his sidekick, Lieberman.

Bush was trying to seem moderate, and Gore was trying to seem like a conservative Democrat.

The statement may seem ridiculous now, after the psychotic Cheney presidency, but at the time... not so much.

[BeyondGeography]

105. I was there...it was nightmarishly stupid at the time

If you had any people smarts whatsoever, you could see GW for who he was. Compassionate conservatism didn't mask the strutting, entitled, intellectually insecure and emotionally half-formed asshole that was George W. Bush.

[Marr]

106. It didn't fool me either, but it wasn't as laughable as it seems today.

I honestly thought Bush would be demolished in the election for that patently transparent "compassionate conservatism" line. I was also blown away during the debates, when all the post-debate analysis that kept claiming the two had done equally well, or even that Bush had won (?).

[BeyondGeography]

107. And there was the death-by-a-thousand-cuts MSM coverage of Gore

Led by Maureen Dowd and the NYT. Of course, Sigh-Gate, after Gore demolished Bush in the 1st debate. And on and on. To me, Nader is a smart man who took advantage of the situation in order to make himself relevant. Primary blame goes to him for the exorbitant cost of his nihilism and purposeless vanity, but also a big share to those on the left who threw their votes away. We'd be living in a much different country today (those tax cuts would never have happened, for starters) if they had exercised a little more intelligence and self-restraint.

And it could happen again. Obama = Bush, ya know...

[onehandle]

8. The Republican Party's best friend says something. nt

[KharmaTrain]

9. The More The Merrier...

...I remember the summer of '07...many of my friends were all but certain that Hillary was going to be the nominee. Actually it was gonna be Hillary vs. Rudeeee...the ultimate match of the titans. Then came the primaries. I'm all for an open and large primary field again in 2016....

[riqster]

31. Damn straight.

A huge and diverse slate of primary candidates.

[klook]

11. "Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush"

- San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

"According to the official 2001 Statistics of the Presidential and Congressional Election of November 7, 2000, George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by 543 votes. It is noteworthy that every third-party candidate received enough votes in Florida to have cost Al Gore the election." (cagreens.org - see link below)

That's an inconvenient truth.

"34% of union members voted for Bush, but only 3% for Nader, per the exit polls." (Firedoglake - see link below)

"16% of those who supported Clinton in 1996 supported Bush. Only 1% of those who supported Clinton in 1996 supported Nader in 2000." (Firedoglake - see link below)

http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

http://my.firedoglake.com/jest/2012/08/27/debunking-pathological-myths-of-the-2000-election-part-2-democrat-defections-to-bush-blue-dogs-bush-democrats-caused-gore-to-lose-fl/

[stevenleser]

16. Which might matter if one could control how everyone registered. You can register GOP if you want

If you register GOP and then vote for the Socialist candidate, does that mean "Some Republicans prefer the Socialist candidate?"

Context matters. There are a lot of registered Democrats in the northern part of Florida who outside of Florida, Mississippi and Alabama would probably be Republicans. But in the north of Florida, they are considered more left than right.

[klook]

28. My point is, continuing to focus on Nader as the sole reason we lost the 2000 election is inaccurate

and a waste of energy.

If all we had to do to win was to keep Nader off the ballot, life would be so much easier.

[riqster]

33. Two points:

1- Gore won that election. The fact that it was stolen via the SC doesn't change that.

2- Nader was not the sole cause of the election being close enough to steal. But he was one of the causes. Not being solely responsible does not = no responsibility.

[stevenleser]

39. My point is that Nader deserves some of the blame and the exculpatory reasoning you provided doesnt

work.

Gore was not the same as Bush and any suggestion of that is ridiculous.

[dionysus]

52. he's not the sole reason, obviously (ie SCOTUS), but to say he wasn't a factor is silly.

[JI7]

93. yup, George Zimmerman was registered as a Democrat

so why is it shocking someone like that would vote for a republican.

[Gman]

21. Nader's crime against humanity was being on the ballot in the first place

[HardTimes99]

45. If Nader committed a 'crime against humanity,' then why did Gore concede? No one

held a gun to Gore's head that I can recall. Who said the Supreme Court is superior to the principle of 'one man, one vote'?

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Because he was not ready for a hot civil war

That is why, so yes there was a gun pointed, the threat of civil war.

Yes, armed insurrection was the natural next step to fight a very real coup.

[Gman]

90. The blood of many thousands is on Nader's hands

No one can argue otherwise. Without Nader on the ballot Gore would have won FL. Nader is directly responsible for all things bad that happened since Bush was inaugurated. He must live with that until he dies. It is his legacy.

[HardTimes99]

102. Oh, puh-leeze. Without Hillary's and Kerry's assent (and the assent of many other prominent Dems),

many of those thousands of deaths might have been avoided. Each Dem went along with the imperial agenda to advance his or her own particular political ambitions, so don't try to pin the blood of "many thousands" on Nader, unless you want to grant him a precognition unavailable to mere mortals.

[Gman]

111. What you say would be irrelevant had Nader nor run

The IWR should have never been an issue. Except Nader ran and it cost Gore FL and now thousand are dead and the economy is trash. To deny this is to deny history.

[davidpdx]

17. I agree with him on competition within the party

But in terms of our party's choices he's entitled to his opinion, but not in selecting who we want to run.

[WinkyDink]

18. Not that he's necessarily wrong here, but why does Nader never attack the Republicans this same way?

[riqster]

29. Because they financed his run in 2000?

That could be part of it.

[WinkyDink]

56. ;-)

[MrSlayer]

36. Because they don't claim to be on the side of the People.

They make no bones about where they stand. The Democrats claim to be on our side and then do much of the same shit Republicans do. He holds out hope that the Democrats can be what they once were. I think he's delusional on that account.

[WinkyDink]

55. Ah, so it's only perceived hypocrisy, not policies, he is against. Okay, then.

[99Forever]

19. If the Democratic Party wants my vote...

... they had best take Mr Nader's advice. I'll never vote for another DINO again.

[JoePhilly]

25. You better get busy ... or you'll be whining about President Hillary

Clinton for 4 to 8 years after Obama leaves office.

[Gman]

20. Coming from the guy that gave us Bush

This means so much. Nader is a sorry, no good piece of shit.

[Capt. Obvious]

23. She does

[JoePhilly]

24. Better get busy Ralph, time is running out.

[Sheldon Cooper]

26. Ralph, you irrelevant old fool.

Go away.

[MrSlayer]

32. Hate him all you want, he's right.

Hillary Clinton is no friend of ours.

[cali]

34. And where in that analysis is he off base?

[antigop]

64. do you really expect a reply, cali? Just expect more name-calling. nt

[trumad]

35. Hey Ralphie...

Go to hell.

[DinahMoeHum]

38. Re Nader: "I don't think I've ever met a bigger asshole"

Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2013, 03:33 PM - Edit history (3)

- Bob Weir/Grateful Dead

http://artists.refuseandresist.org/news14/news679.html


(snip)
Ralph Nader is the most arrogant and narcissistic guy I've ever met. I had a meeting with him in the early Nineties. I was jazzed going into the meeting, and I was disgusted leaving. I don't think I've ever met a bigger asshole. If he hadn't run in the last election (2000), we wouldn't be in Iraq and thousands of people wouldn't have died needlessly.
(snip)

[mick063]

40. I will vote for 3rd party if Hillary is the nominee

And whoever that is, I hope DU "has a cow", and blames missed opportunity on that candidate.

Then I can marvel at the displeasure of the party as it continuously attempts to impose crap candidates on me and wonders aloud why they have lost a close one.

[Sheepshank]

41. Then you are likely in line to vote for Palin

who has clearly floated the balloon of starting a new party.

have fun with that one.

[mick063]

48. Cripes

I'm tempted to get personal, but I'll just let your post speak for itself. It really is that bad.

[Sheepshank]

49. hey, you're the one on a Dem Site

indicating you would not be supporting a Dem candidate. I do believe there are terms of use that describe what you are doing is not in line with DU....look it up.

[mick063]

53. So alert it.

Do what you have to do to maintain your cozy place.

[Sheepshank]

67. Why should I alert your post?

your statement is chocked full of assumptions of my motives. you are fucking wrong...yet again. Put on your big boy undies and realize all I did was point out your ridiculous statement.

[mick063]

74. Help

I'm getting gobsmacked by an intellectual giant.

[Sheepshank]

76. actually my 5 year old could have gobsmacked you. n/t

[mick063]

79. Well played

I stand by my "ridiculous" post.

[frylock]

62. go run tell mommy

[frylock]

70. my condolences

[frylock]

61. because those are the only choices available

[Sheepshank]

69. poster said he would not support the Dem nomination if it were HRC

all the other choices are non dems...I don't understand why it's wrong to point out a possible choice. And when did the TOS for DU change, to the support of non-dem presidential candidates?

you've been here a long time...care to point it out?

[frylock]

73. you can put me on that list as well..

in 2008, Obama and Clinton were literally at the bottom of my list of preferred candidates, just above LaRouche. no way in hell am I voting for Clinton in 2016.

[Sheepshank]

75. So...apparently you can't point out the change in TOS

I thought so.

Your little diversion doesn't change anything.

[frylock]

78. what's stopping you from alerting on my posts?

knock yourself out.

[cthulu2016]

43. Would you vote for Obama a 3rd time, if that were possible?

[mick063]

46. Are you kidding me?

Without question......the $500.00 I donated to OFA was the worst money I have ever spent.

Not a single phone call for Hillary from me. Not an ounce of effort in the general election if she is the nominee.

Third way equal plutocracy. A common argument is "Why do Republicans vote against their own interests?"

See the irony?

[truebrit71]

86. No.

Unless he was the only choice (like 2012) and then the answer is 'yes'.

And that is what TPTB count on every four-year cycle..

[Scurrilous]

66. I'll alert the media.

[mick063]

71. You have that much clout?

The most successful people are not necessarily the most qualified people. Sometimes it is simply a matter of not knowing when to give up that creates success.

I will never give up.

[Le Taz Hot]

42. Dog Whistle!

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. George Orwell called

He'd like to remind you, the two minutes of hate were a fictional piece set in a dystopia he wrote to critique Soviet Russia. He is sorry it increasingly applies to dumb Americans who no longer realize how manipulated they are by the party.

[CanSocDem]

60. Ha! Good one. (eom)

[geek tragedy]

59. He's right, but he's not the one to provide it nt

[Arkana]

77. While I think Nader is being his usual bombastic, hyperbolic self,

he's not wrong.

Hillary needs a challenger, even if it's just to keep her honest.

[JHB]

80. Go away Ralph...

...and I say that as someone who takes issue with Nader-blaming for 2000. Hell, I take issue with Kennedy-blaming for 1980. In both cases other things were going on that were a much bigger reason for the Republican win (or steal, in the 2000 case).

"Someone" who, Ralph? Are you working to build a coalition behind any of the marginalized members, or are you just making speeches? Do you expect anyone to step up to the plate without a team behind them?

Or should they just pop up for a grandstanding attempt, like you did? (where were you in between runs?)

[Tarheel_Dem]

81. If I had reservations about Hillary, and I do, Nader's opposition to her only increases the.....

likelihood that I'll work extremely hard to get her elected. Nader is a dry rotting piece of shit! No difference, eh? Fuck Him!



'Hi, I'm Ralph Nader, I'm a fake ass liberal who works for the Republican Party, please pay me no mind'!

[Orsino]

82. She sure as hell does. n/t

[olddots]

83. Ralph is mad at the world

for everyone using "Ralph " as slang for puking .

[AtomicKitten]

84. Nader Schmader, but I agree.

[truebrit71]

85. On this point he isn't wrong...

..or does anyone seriously think Hillary isn't EXACTLY the same centrist that Obama is...

[okieinpain]

89. lol, nader is a fool. why is anyone even listening

To him. Anyone that goes against the dem nom just because its hrc is just wasting vote. Because any dem nom in 2016 is going to be a center left candidate. Anyone that runs as a so called true progressive will not get any where close to picking up the nom.

[Hekate]

91. Ralphie, go home. Your mother is calling you.

And you may not be tired, but we are.

[eridani]

96. She does. Asl long as it's from a Democrat

Nader and most 3rd party people just don't give a shit about the work necessary to actually win elections.

[Hekate]

98. Who in their right mind thinks HRC will be the only person running?And what is this Ms. Rodham crap?

For Gods' sake, a primary election is a free-for-all.

What you DON'T want to do is (a) bloody everybody so much that people will stay home in disgust in the general election, and (b) start a 3rd party offshoot from the Dems.

That, as anybody with any brains knows, is how you guarantee another GOP presidency. The GOP cheats. They lie, cheat, and steal elections by every means possible.

The Democrats simply do not have enough margin of error by the time the GOP finishes gerrymandering districts and suppressing as many votes as possible.

In my 44 years of voting, almost none of my preferred candidates has made it out of the primary and into the general. I have never had to "hold my nose" for the finalist; all I have to do is read the Democratic Party Platform and compare it to the Republican Party Platform.

I don't have patience for idiots or Fifth Columnists any more, and Nader has sunk so low in my estimation that I now think he is both.

[bbgrunt]

101. enjoy your daily hour of hate and rage. nt

[sofa king]

104. Ralph needs to retire to some beachfront property...

... So that I can watch all of his hopes and dreams subside underneath the rising seas, thanks to the policies of the Republicans he got elected.

[G_j]

110. there is a first time for everything

I have never tried it before, but I am going to see how the "trash" function works on this thread.