Will Clinton and Obama backers bash the Bloomburg campaign half as hard as they still bash Nader?

[Ken Burch]

Not holding my breath.

They think their DLC betters are entitled to desert the party and desert it to help Republicans any time they want.

In fact they'll blame the newly invented scapegoats "Democrat Hating Leftists" for Bloomburg having no alternative but to run.

And remember, the above is all true even though we all know that Bloomburg will do us a hell of a lot more harm than No Longer Relevant Ralph ever did.

[Mythsaje]

1. I suppose we shall see how it shakes out.

I hold out some hope that Ron Paul will desert to run on the Libertarian ticket once he fails to gain any traction in the Repug Party. It may be our only hope if Bloomie runs.

[MrSlayer]

2. Unless Ron Paul can neutralize him they'll be bashing him way harder.

Because, as you say, Bloomberg can do far more damage than Nader. In a way, I'd like to see a four way race with two semi-viable Independents running. I think it might be good for us.

[Sherman A1]

3. Don't know, but

if they were smart (and I believe they are), they would both talk to him about a high level spot in their administration to keep him from running. Deals can and will be made along the way and politics makes strange bedfellows as we all know. If Hillary gets the nod, you are looking at an open Senate seat (don't know about the process to fill it in NY, but help from a sitting President couldn't hurt). If Obama gets the nomination, there is a number #2 slot to consider and his campaign is at least in one part about unity, which is what the conference topic was in Oklahoma recently. There are also senior cabinet jobs (heck, the whole cabinet) available to be filled and Bloomberg might not be a bad choice for some of them, which sets him up for a possible run for NY Gov or other elected positions if he so chooses. There are lots of options and lots of time left for things to get very interesting.

[RuleOfNah]

4. What's with the Nader baiting?

:rant:

[Ken Burch]

5. Don't know, but they still haven't stopped even though the man hasn't mattered in eight years.

The bashers don't get it that what the party needs to do is reach out to the people who voted for the guy, acknowledge that progressives were treated badly by the party in the Nineties and even to a large degree in 2004, and change that.

The party needs to say "We're sorry we made you feel unwelcome, we're sorry we demonized you. We need you and we want to work with you".

But too many people would still rather just say to them "shut up and do what you're told, peasant scum. You never had a right to expect anything from us and now you're obligated to just obey".

[RuleOfNah]

6. It is tough enough getting a statement on corporate crime.

Why waste time Nader baiting?

Before next month I'll ask about education, or health care, or law enforcement, or Global Climate change, or Katrina, or Constitutional law, or foreign policy, or economics, or countrytapping, or war crime extradition policy, or corporate crime, or veterans affairs, or corporate citizenry, or unitary executives, or corporate crime...

[TheWebHead]

7. there's a big difference

bloomberg actually has a reasonable chance to win. Nader never had a chance, he knew he couldn't win as his support never got much beyond the margin of error and that by remaining in the race and taking campaign contributions from republicans served as a kingmaker for *

[Ken Burch]

8. So that justifies NOT bashing Bloomburg?

You can't really seriously argue that Nader was still worse than him even though Bloomburg will take more votes?

And I bet people like you will make sure that no DLC Senators or Congresscritters that campaign for Bloomie in the fall face any consequences. Just like the ones who betrayed the party by campaigning for Lieberman against Lamont in the fall of '06 were ALL let off the hook.

[terisan]

9. Ralph Nader (Supreme Court doesn't matter) the opening act for GW Bush?

Ralph Nader put no priority on reproductive rights. Said leave it to the states-in that he sided with a lot of conservative republicans.

Bloomber has fully backed choice for women. I do not think he would do Democrats more harm-only if his running mate is a right wing Republican

[Ken Burch]

11. If he's running as pro-choice, he'd automatically do Dems more harm

You're vindicating my arguement. The Nader-bashers will give Dems for Bloomburg a pass because they think it's ok for the DLC to be disloyal to the party ticket.

[deacon]

10. He will probably be taken as seriously as nader was in the last election. n/t

[dmallind]

12. So what about Edwards backers?

But I'll answer anyway. Yes. In some ways more so - because he will attract more voters away from viable candidates who can do some good than the fringe candidacy of Nader. In other ways less so - because he will attract some Republicans - but a far lesser number than Dems because the wingnuts generally lockstep in the end. Obviously Nader, knowingly and intentionally, siphoned off only Dems, and campaigned most stronglyt where he could do most harm.

So in the end yep about the same. Anybody who runs a hopeless campaign where all or most of the harm will go to the (very much) lesser of two evils who can possibly win deserves scorn and opprobrium. The only third way I would not heap this on is one that would siphon off mostly opr only the far right - a Roy Moore candidacy would be great. However I would fully expect, and empathize with, the Republican displeasure that would follow.

Small correction - an actual viable third way candidacy making a serious run for a feasible presidncy is simply democracy in action, and while I can't quite foresee one I would support personally, I would accept their right and bona fides in tryting to sell their message. But that's a long way off and won't come from some maverick cult of personality or media creation - but by the hard work of building a party from the ground up via local state and legislative elections. It's vanity candidates and spoilers I would "bash".

[JerseygirlCT]

13. I certainly hope so

His running hurts us, and therefore the country. End of story.

I think personally Bloomberg is a much better person; I've thought Nader's been an ass the last 10 years or so, an egomaniacal ass. But either of them hurts us. And hurting us could simply be deadly for this country.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. yes especially if he ruins it for the dems. also ideologically i have far more differences

w.bloomberg than with nader.

[jasmine621]

15. Or half as hard as they bash each other?

Still don't understand it.