Nader on Hillary 2008

[paineinthearse]

Don't shoot the messenger, this was received by email.

Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Ralph Nader" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hillary 2008
To: (me)

Dear Friend,

The Democrats in Congress have the power to block John Roberts from becoming the next Supreme Court justice.

Will they?

They will not.

The Democrats in Congress had the power to block Christopher Cox from becoming the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Did they?

They did not.

The Democrats in Congress had the power at least to block Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales.

Did they?

They did not.

The Democrats in Congress have the power to propose impeachment proceedings against George Bush for the fabricated, illegal boomeranging war in Iraq.

Will they?

They will not.

Almost every major progressive leader in America understands this.

They understand that the Democratic Party is gone.

But you know what?

If Hillary Clinton is nominated in 2008 by the Democrats to run for president, they will support her.

They will support her even though she is a corporate Democrat who opposes us on the war in Iraq, on real universal health insurance, on the swollen, wasteful military and corporate welfare budgets, on a national living wage – on all the issues we care about.

They will abandon their principles, their constituents, and the lessons of history – and support her.

As they supported John Kerry in 2004 even though he was a corporate Democrat in the Hillary mold – who stood four-square against us on the war, on the military budget, on national health insurance, on a national living wage.

Here’s the point:

We will not shake off this yoke by playing follow the “leader.”

This is going to take new energy.

Young and old alike.

But active.

Bottom up.

People who recognize first and foremost that the two corporate parties do not speak for the people.

They are history.

The new ones will connect – person to person – with their fellow citizens and fire up the country. They are the future.

We don’t know the names of the new energizers yet.

We will find out soon.

We do know the names of those who turned their backs on Nader/Camejo in 2004 and supported the corporate Democrat.

And these are people who I predict will likely “swallow hard” and unconditionally support the corporate Democrat in 2008.

So, what to do?

One person I greatly admired growing up was Saul Alinsky, the great community organizer from Chicago.

Unlike the Democratic Party, Alinsky knew organizing.

He knew that you need to organize people around issues they can understand.

Issues that hit home.

Issues that they can win.

Even if it meant issues as mundane as parking or potholes.

Alinsky wanted the people to organize – bottom up.

And win to gain confidence for the larger struggles.

Recently, I’ve been reading an amazing 558-page, largely ignored biography of Alinsky.

Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky, His Life and Legacy by Sanford Horwitt.

And it has brought back good memories.

“It becomes a contest of power – those who have money and those who have people,” Alinsky said. “We have nothing but people.”

Once, at a dinner party, the poet Carl Sandburg called labor leader John L. Lewis a "reptilian, treasonous rat" because Lewis refused to support Franklin Roosevelt's campaign for re-election.

Alinsky replied to Sandburg – “You say John L. Lewis is ruthless – maybe he is – but he has fought all of his life against the most ruthless and destructive forces known to our alleged civilization."

Over the past couple of months, we have been traveling the country, speaking out against “the most ruthless and destructive forces known to our alleged civilization,” as Alinsky put it.

And things are changing.

For example:

At my suggestion, the National Council of Churches is sending an urgent message to all of their members to ring their church bells – one ring for each U.S. soldier lost the previous day – one bell for each ultimate sacrifice.

And one long bell for the Iraqis who lost their lives that day.

On Sunday, the bells could be rung at the same time everywhere in the memory of the weeks' total casualties.

These bells of sorrow and reminder will result in millions of Americans thinking and talking with one another where it counts - in communities North, South, East and West.

If you click here now and contribute $100 to help reduce our campaign debt, I will send to you a signed copy of my column to “Make the Iraq War and Occupation Personal" and I'll put it in a copy of the 558-page biography of Alinsky - "Let Them Call Me a Rebel" by Sanford Horwitt.

Alinsky said – “We’ll see it when we believe it.”

I believe it.

We’ll see it together.

Thank you again for your ongoing support and bright horizons.

Click Here to Contribute Now


Sincerely yours,

Ralph Nader

Paid for by Nader for President 2004 General Election Committee
Contributions are not tax-deductible.

Proceeds from this event will go toward Nader-Camejo 2004 campaign expenses.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This email sent by:
Nader for President 2004
www.votenader.org
PO Box 18002
Washington, DC 20036
USA

[William769]

1. Please tell me where I can get a crystal ball to predict whats going to

happen. :sarcasm:

[calico1]

2. Thank you Ralph for helping

to get us in this mess we are in! :mad: He's got some nerve.

[RoBear]

3. Interesting, since he's the asshole

responsible for Dim Son being in the White House. loserloserloserloserloserloserloserloser etc.

[Arkana]

4. Hey Ralph!

Did you have the power to pull out of the race in 2000 and 2004 for the common good?

Yes, you did.

Did you?

No, you did not.

You think maybe your ego-driven campaigns are part of the REASON that Democrats aren't able to do those things now?

No, of course not.

Fuck off, Ralph.

[dmkinsey]

5. Yeah,

What Arkana said

[CrazyForKucinich]

6. Thanks Ralph for being an FDR Democrat.

A real Democrat and not these phonies we have in office now. Ralph and the ilk truly are the opposition party to the Repubemocrats

[txaslftist]

23. That's a pretty sad statement.

Since his party can't pull over 5% of the electorate.

Does that mean that's how many people actually oppose the president and that the rest of us 95% actually support him?

Shit, I'm movin' to Meyhico.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. FDR actually won elections

rather than becoming a footnote in history.

[against all enemies]

7. Ralph comes out from under his rock to trash Democrats!! Hey

Ralph, you asshole, I guess you like what the Pukes are doing seeing you aren't criticizing them. Go Away.

[G_j]

15. btw..

Nader has been calling for Impeachment.

[second edition]

8. Nader, needs to give it up and fade away!

He is one major reason we have Bush to contend with?

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. Ralph, please go away. You gave us Bush. We are all suffering now

Go. Please.

[dad]

32. All of you losers who want to hate on Nader need to please go away

Because he is 100% correct, as usual.

[dad]

33. All of you losers who want to hate on Nader need to please go away

Because he is 100% correct, as usual.

[Johonny]

10. The Democrats in Congress have the power

Where, but in Ralph's little mind? Last time I checked the Neocons are in the majority in Congress, Executive and Judicial branch of our government. You'd think Ralph would be a little angry at the people that ACTUALLY HAVE POWER AND ABUSE IT!!!!

[Brightmore]

11. Ralph helped put Bush in office in 2000. Did he run again in 2004?

Yes, he did.

Will he run again in 2008?

Yes, he will.

Is Ralph Nader insane or just an arrogant pick?

A little of both.

[theHandpuppet]

12. I don't even like Hillary...

...and I still say FUCK YOU RALPH!

[WI_DEM]

13. Nader can kiss my ass

He had a choice in 2000 and decided to help elect Bush. If he is so passionate about stopping the Bush agenda why doesn't he run for the house or senate where he could actively vote against it.

[oasis]

27. ditto (nt)

[Tinoire]

14. Thank you for posting. Interesting what happens when someone

speaks the truth...

Kind of like the idiotic mob stoning the prophets in the biblical days.

It's very sad to see supposedly intelligent people, the same who mock the stupidity of the freepers the loudest, act in the same juvenile way when they don't like the message. Is this what we've come to? We don't like the truth so we blame the messenger?

With this attitude, Democrats are going to be hurting badly in 2008 because of the folly of the blind partisans who think that somehow Nader stole something that never belonged to Democrats in the first place.

I'm telling you all now, right here and right now that neither Hillary nor any other politician tainted by DLC/corporate ties will have my vote in 2008 and Nader will have absolutely nothing to do with it.

[txaslftist]

20. Be sure and let us know how your candidate does in the election.

If you have time to come down from your ivory tower.

[Tinoire]

31. The only ones living in an ivory tower are delusional people

who think the Democrats' electoral losses can be blamed on Nader rather than shoddy representation on 'little' things like, you know, the war.

Babble, babble, flip, flip, FLOP :shrug:

Can't ride on your laurels forever.

Say, what did you think about Helen Thomas' new article? I've posted it below as methinks it may not have made its way to Lubbock yet. Does Helen Thomas live in an Ivory Tower too? Please note I put the important part in red for you so that you can take even more careful note of the message. I wouldn't want you or anyone else from the "things would be peachy keen if only Democrats were in office" wing to come crying in 3.5 years that it's boohoo Nasty Nader's fault again and that nobody warned the poor little pro-war, pro-corporate Democratic politicians or their status quo cheerleaders that we will not tolerate this disrespect to representation.

People have been warning the status quo crowd for years but you didn't like the message so you ignored it- preferring to blame it on something as silly as one man. You ignored the message but guess what, it's not going away, it's growing as more and more of us call BULL to this BULLSHIT. And everytime I catch people acting this stupid, I'll call BULL. With the deep thinking evidenced in this thread it's no wonder faithful Dems like Helen Thomas have to write it out in crayon.

Democrats Must Call For Pullout
Voters Will Punish Opposition For Not Opposing War

Helen Thomas, Hearst White House columnist

POSTED: 1:14 pm EDT August 29, 2005

It's time for the Democratic Party to take a courageous stand and call for the withdrawal of troops from the senseless war in Iraq.

(snip)

What is the logic of Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Joseph Biden, D-Del. and other so-called moderate Democrats still backing the unprovoked war in Iraq when they know they were sold a bill of goods?

Furthermore, they are urging that more troops be sent to Iraq. And they are doing so at a time when the generals in Iraq are giving mixed signals. Some are talking about a draw down of troops in a year, others in four years.

(snip)

Both Clinton and Biden are presumed presidential contenders in 2008. That leaves Democratic voters -- many of whom are anti-war -- with no choice if either wins the party nomination.

(snip)

Democrats have gone about their lives after giving the president a blank check to do anything he thought was necessary. They think they have absolved themselves of responsibility; It's somebody else's war. But they might find that if they don't get some backbone and take a stand soon, the voters might not be that forgiving.

http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/helenthomas/4910235/detail.html

[beetbox]

37. The charade of the "two-party" system

is vital to keeping a consumer populace believing that they have some say in their political and economic well being.

In this thread I find only attacks on Nader, as you pointed out, by those who oppose Nader. I see little in the way of cogent analysis of his statement.

Maybe someone could go over this rather straightforward statement of Naders point by point and pick it apart. discuss some of the statements and why you so vehemently disagree with them.

:hi:

Conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism... Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all others.

-- Emma Goldman

[Tinoire]

38. That would be nice wouldn't it? It would even elevate the tone

around this place and make it seem as if real political discussions were being had by thoughtful people as opposed to juvenile knee-jerk reactions...

I read Nader's statement and though I'm loyal to the traditional Democratic Party (iow non-DLC affiliated), I agreed with every single one of his points. Naderphobes should just pretend Harold Ford or Hillary wrote that statement.

When I see the type of crap I just saw posted in this thread, I despair for our future.

Paranoid Schizophrenia
--one of the most damaging of all mental disorders---causes its victims to lose touch with reality. They often begin to hear, see, or feel things that aren't really there (hallucinations) or become convinced of things that simply aren't true (delusions). In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur. The first signs of paranoid schizophrenia usually surface between the ages of 15 and 34. There is no cure, but the disorder can be controlled with medications. Severe attacks may require hospitalization.

[KG]

16. heh. i love nader threads.

brings out DUs intellectual elite. :eyes:

[BillZBubb]

17. Does anyone pay attention to that imbecile anymore?

After telling us there was no difference between Bush and Gore in 2000? Well here's a news flash Ralph, this country would have been doing very well under President Gore, instead we have a nitwit in the WH. And that is in no small way on your sorry ass.

Go to HELL, Ralphie.

[Goldeneye]

18. Thank you Ralph...

for helping to spread the idea that both parties are the same. It's really gonna help get us out of this hole were in.

[bullimiami]

19. odd, the virulent response to nader.

he is on OUR side and he is not saying anything that isnt true.
bush and jebbie rigged the 2000 election and had plans in place to send republican electors no matter what the vote count was but the scotus bailed them out.

its not naders fault. whos to say that without nader something else crooked wouldnt have still put florida in the w column.

I say point your anger where it truly belongs. At the corporate fascist crooks that have taken over our land and rigged our elections, started wars and destroyed our economy, lying about everything and caring for noone but the rich.
Dont shoot the messenger just because he doesnt compromise.

Sure, I wish he worked a little better with others. I wish Hillary was a real liberal democrat too. But neither of those facts makes me forget that Ralph is on MY side and Hillary is a billion times better than any of these republicans.

[txaslftist]

22. He's on OUR side? Are you friggin' nuts?

Ralph Nader is on Ralph Friggin' Nader's side.

You can say all the nice things you want to about his flowery positions and his being a "true progressive" and all that.

Bottom line is that in 2000 and in 2004 the American people and RALPH (I'm on my own side) NADER had a choice between living this shitty administration's neo-fascist dream or something different. If Nader, with a grain of reason, had said, "Okay. I can't get everything I want with Gore, but if I don't join with him we get Bush..." I can compromise and take half a mile over nothing....

Maybe then I could respect him.

But NOOOO. He's like a damn libertarian, chock full of great principles but unwilling to sully his hands in the actual bloody butchershop work that is politics. Preferring to sit in his intellectual hall of principles and talk about how the rest of us are beneath him because he "remains true".

We'd all like to live in Ralphie's delusional world where you can ding a damn bell and get millions of people to start thinking. But we don't. We live in a world where if you ding a damn bell people don't know what the hell it means.

Ralphie's been dingin' his bell inside a tin can, thinking that everyone is listening because it is so damn loud in there. The reality is no one except on the margin knows or cares what he is saying. He took that margin with him in 2000 and derailed the hopes of millions of people. He was an accomplice in the murder of nearly 2000 servicemen and countless thousands of Iraqis.

I think our despising him is both understandable and justified.

Is that intellectual enough for you?

[marcus_b]

24. There is more to that.

If you are reducing the problem to the 2000 election, then you should at least be so honest and consider all the facts, and look at the whole picture, and not just magnify a single aspect.

We know today, and we knew then, that Al Gore did win the election. The relevant information has been posted extensively to this very forum, and other places. If the Democrats can't even win when they have won, even Nader can't help them. It would have been very easy: Insist on a state-wide recount in Florida, which was the only sensible option anyway, and fight for that to the end.

They didn't do that. Why? It's interesting to think about that.

Furthermore, nobody forced anybody to vote for Ralph Nader. If they did, then they did it for a reason, presumably because they didn't feel represented by the Democratic party. Well, you can do the math, and argue that the Democrats would maybe have won clearly if Nader hadn't candidated (although I would say that the math is difficult to get right, and there are synergetic effects to take into account). If you have any believe in democracy at all, you are facing a very difficult question here: Why do you blame the candidate, and not the people who voted for him? And do you believe that voters should have a reasonably choice what to vote for? What is a vote worth if the option you want to vote for is simply not on the table? Is that democratic?

If the Democratic party would put the interests of the people at the very front of their programme, really listening to what people want, they could take the country in a sweep based on those people alone, who simply do not vote at all. Let me give you an example: The social-democratic party in Germany is down at 30%. Now a new left-wing party was founded, and that jumped from 0 to initally 12% and now 8% immediately, without making a dent in the social-democratic/green block.

There is a huge block of voters who are simply disenfranchised. Why? It's interesting to think about it.

It can hardly be denied that the leadership of both parties have a lot in common, in particular with regards to whose interests they serve if it comes hard on hard. Electing the current Democratic leadership will certainly improve things (they can hardly get worse, right?), but you may want to look at the rule of the social democratic party in Germany for the last few years to get an idea what havoc the "traditional workers party" and the green party can wrack to the social security system, peace movement etc. The above poll numbers should give you an idea.

There is a phrase for that, and although it is blunt, I think it is quite accurate. It goes like this: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

From my remote perspective, I think it is quite fair to say that there is a discrepancy between the base of the democratic party and the leadership. I see your point, and I have sympathy for it, but there is a basic flaw in your argument: A chain is not stronger than its weakest link, and you have focussed only on a single link, and did not look at the whole chain. Blaming Nader solely is disingenuous.

[txaslftist]

25. Read Nader's own crap.

He said at the time and during the 2004 election that he relished his role as a spoiler and that keeping the Dems from winning would force them to pay attention to their base.

You think we would be in Iraq if we'd elected Gore?

We wouldn't. Ergo, he's complicit. Not deliberately complicit, but complicit.

He can try to justify his position however he likes, but he ought to hang his head in shame whenever a coffin comes home from our little Mess-o-Potamia.

[marcus_b]

28. No need to.

He may or not have said that---you don't give a source. If he did, I would not agree with that, because I don't think that "making things worse" is a good strategy at all, because it creates suffering and doesn't address any of the problems. Did he really say "keep the Dems from winning"? Would like to read the statement you are referring to.

However, note that this is not quite relevant: Nothing I said in my previous post depended on anything that Nader said, nor on his intentions or motivations for what he did. You did not respond to anything I said in my posting, which I find sad, because I think I raised some important points, and I would have liked to hear your opinion on them.

The US was already in Iraq before Clinton was elected, and Clinton sustained the bombings of Iraq on a monthly basis as well as the brutal sanctions. However, I concur: I don't believe the US would have led a full scale attack on Iraq if Gore had been elected. I do believe though that the Democratic party will continue the empirial vision in Iraq and elsewhere, maybe less dumb, and less visible, but I think they will keep control over the Iraq oil if they can get it. We will see if I am right or not (and I would like to be wrong on this one!) However, what I believe or not is quite irrelevant, as my opinion is of little importance.

If Nader indeed did purposefully and effectively spoil the election of Gore (and please note that I am not convinced so far that both are true), then, yes, IMO there would be a weak moral obligation on Naders side, at least for all consequences that one could reasonably foresee. However, Iraq wouldn't be my first example, because foreign policy of both Democrat and Republican administrations have been quite murderous. It's far more compelling to make a case on the domestic side, for example in areas of health care, pension funds, ecological and citizen rights issues, military spending and the deficit. Here the Democratic policies are a clear win over the Republicans, and closer to the opinion of the general public. So, I can kinda follow your argument, but in a slightly different direction and with much more reservations than you.

[lateo]

35. Nader was right though...

sorry you don't agree with him but we can't keep electing DLC robots.

[lateo]

36. Watch this video...

Tell me you don't agree with what he is saying...

Then tell me if you have EVER heard similar utterance from the Democratic party.

http://gnn.tv/videos/4/Countdown

on edit

If the above link doesn't work try this one...

http://zed.cbc.ca/go?POS=6&CONTENT_ID=85380&c=contentPage&FILTER_KEY=_categoryContent__7869

[lateo]

34. Indeed...

Although I think "some" of it is justified...some people have this irrational hatred of him because they believe he helped defeat Gore in Florida...

Nader has been sounding the alarm about the Democratic shift to the right long before most lefties woke up to the fact.

[txaslftist]

21. Keep dingin' your bell, Ralph. Ya dingbell.

[sellitman]

29. Ralph: Kiss my left nut!!!!

You horrible bastard!!

[tjdee]

30. He makes debate tapes with puppets.

Is he at all relevant anymore?

Just because he says something many people think already?