Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
Muni Ticket Agent Arrested After Assaulting Juvenile
So Much For That Plastic Bag Ban
Verizon Droid: Big Deal? Or Just Another Late Arrival Rival?
Feinstein : Will She Or Won't She?
SF Weekly's Janine Kahn captured Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's talk at SFSU yesterday. And he comes down hard on Barack Obama, calling him, among other things, a "sniveling coward." Oh noes! Get the smelling salts!
Read John Geluardi's take on it here.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
WHY ARE WE STILL LISTENING TO THIS D-BAG? SHUT HIM UP SO THAT WE HAVE A CHANCE AT A BETTER ERA...
yes, I was yelling. no, i don't feel any better.
In fact, out of respect for the financial crisis, I propose that you take this video down and let me go home for the day. I wouldn't be so cranky if I were at home.
Um, Nader, STFU. Now. And, forever. Please.
Sorry--which part is it you guys are having offense with? His presentation may be off, but he's not making facts up.
This little prick has a lot of nerve. Doesn't he realize he's the reason Bush got in in the first place?
I disagree with his rational; democrats didn’t need to complain about Ross Perot in 1992 being a spoiler. We didn’t because he stole votes from G. Bush I and was helping our cause by not stealing votes from Clinton. But we do complain about you in 2000 and 2004 because you draw votes more from democrats then republicans. It’s your party politics that I disagree with. Unless he wants to say his politics are more closely inclined with republicans will I think his cause is perpetuating this conservative agenda. Stop getting on the ballot and instead become a lobbyist for the progressive. Get progressive people elected within the government instead of just being a third party candidate that makes little policy change. Garner out a deal in which your endorsement guarantees important progressive posts such as environmental committees, regulatory committees and other non elected positions that are usual appointments. Nader for someone who has worked in politics so long he needs to get over the fact that he doesn’t like the mechanisms that run it. This is a two party system and it can not be broken or changed without violent revolt and I doubt that’s what he is endorsing.
My day just got a whole lot poopier. Not only is he visually unappealing, his voice is like nails on the chalkboard.
I hope he does bad in the next presidential debate. Oh wait, they're not invited b/c know one cares what he has to say anymore. They only give people bad stomach aches.
Barack so bravely defended gutting the 2nd amendment when he voted to end debate and for warrentless wiretapping, (after vowing in the primary to support a filibuster), when he spoke up for the need to be able to execute rapists, and how Washington DC, and San Francisco gang bangers legally should be able to own guns. That was all in one week, brave indeed.
Um, Bush got in because his opponent ran a weak, pathetic joke of a campaign. He got in the second time for the same reason. If the democrats can't get enough votes to win in a landslide, particularly this year, it's because they are too weak and cowardly and beholden to corporate interests, and that is their fault, not any supposed third party.
And I didn't hear any liberals bitching when Perot supposedly threw the election to Clinton.
there's nothing wrong with mocking barack obama - he's a politician! that's what they're there for. i really don't feel Nader cost the Democrats ANY election. that's just an ignorant statement to make and demonstrates little understanding of the electoral college....if a constituency is progressive enough to cast votes for Nader in any significant amount, then that constituency probably went to the Democrats ANYWAY.....also, the green party and the democratic party are different when it comes to issues that a lot of people care about. if someone finds they identify more with the green party, they should vote for it! i'm tired of this two-party system.
Nader: fucktard or asshat?
Poor SOB - the only way he can get attention is by attacking the candidates actually under consideration by the majority of Americans. Oh well... it worked for Keith Olbermann, right? Throwing knives at the WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD (or whatever Keith's show does) Bill O'Reilley until O'Reilley started throwing knives back and helped to boost Keith Olbermann from sports douchebag to political punditry douche bag.
Attention whores ... they're all the same. Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Fire! Look at me! Look at me! Catastrophic! Look at me! Look at me! ad naseum.... so tiring.
Nader is right about the two-party system. He, however, will never be the alternative people are looking for. The sooner he comes to terms with his irrelevancy the better.
I mock Ralph Nader's sign which is masking-taped to his podium.
Well, at least someone's pointing a finger at the b.s.
Obama's totally been wimping out lately; he's not doing what he said he was going to do over two years ago when I went to my first Obama rally in Austin, which is to ignore special interests and "change" Washington. I love the guy, but he seems more and more typical all the time. Of couse I hope he wins, but not at the expense of the politics he espoused in order to secure the nomination. It's a disservice to folks like me who supported him because of those politics.
I could give a number of examples of this "wimpiness" but I'll just give one in particular: The Georgian-Russian Conflict. I understand that Obama wants to look like a tough guy because he's been attacked as weak on foreign policy or militarianism or whatever, but that doesn't negate the fact that his view of the situation is wrong and typical of our view that we somehow own the world.
It's always been Nader's strategy to point out how the Democrats don't live up to the ideals they pretend to portray. In the 2004 election he had a great video on his website of Kerry giving his famous anti-Vietnam speech with the word "Vietnam" changed to "Iraq." Nader said Kerry was going to lose because he wasn't making that speech and he was right.
As for whether or not Nader cost Al Gore the election. That's been proven rediculous countless times. Gore didn't even win his own state! It's no one's fault when someone else doesn't win; especially someone (Nader) who can't even manage to secure more than three percent of the vote; that's just nonsense.
Anyway, what's wrong with criticizing someone you want to win an election? Maybe it will help Obama remember what he set out to do in the first place.
hi my name is ralph nader...
blah blah blah blahblah blah...
run for mayor or governor or something...
you couldnt even win a dog-catcher race.
maybe a SF supervisor race, o' right you got that with ratt gonzales.
PO EGOIST
Bluecanary, Reynard (ridiculous not rediculous)
I do agree Obama has begun to play centrist to become the elected official, I will even go out on a limb that he will have to do this more so than ever before because of the racial politics and implications involved in this election.
Here is some tangible research done on the subject if some people think it’s ignorant to assume Nader voters wouldn’t have voted for gore.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W64-4CPDFW8-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ec6659d4ba2282c1cc16894fe38f3481
Nader isn’t infallible; Progressives, could it be that the candidate was doing this for future money by obtaining the mandated 5% of the vote in order to receive future campaign funds?
http://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/5/672
The reason why Nader did help bush win, is simply because of the fucked up Electoral College. If you want to get technical it was the Supreme Court and the State constitution which stated that “no new recount with uniform standards could be conducted within the time available”. So it would have actually been the constitution/supreme court interpretation that fucked us depending on your philosophy on the law. Either way the small margin that was needed to win key states as say "Florida" would have been covered if Nader voters wouldn’t have had their option on the ballot. This is true by most estimates.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf
But it wasn’t about Nader it’s about the rest of the parties as well the workers world party and the socialist party as well could have changed history. If they again would have come together and asked for positions within districts, within committees in order to elect a democrat. I guarantee their parties ideals would have been better served under a Gore election then our current presidents.
Conclusion:
1. YOU WILL NEVER RECEIVE 5% of the vote. I bet this year your percentage will be less then previous years running.
2. Third parties need to be involved; here is an idea, the other candidates that dropped out of the race need to be moderators or put on the presidential debate committee to in turn create better dialogue and tougher questions.
3. There are better ways to be progressive than to simply run for president. Matt, really you lost to Newsom in San Francisco. I believe there are two official green parties right now in the city. Who are bickering about some other local politics issues, how about you get some grass roots movement on this and get some greens on as senators, congressmen or representatives. But president come on I have a better chance of starting at quarterback this weekend for the niners.
hmmmm. if the best you could find was some college thesis suggesting that Nader could have made the difference, i think it's safe to say that he didn't ;)
i'm from florida, and i watched as many analysts studied the electoral districts in the state. if you sit down and look at how each district in Florida went, it's pretty clear that Nader was of little consequence. he received some votes in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade counties, but those all went Democrat (as they always do)
ah nevermind. it's not a college thesis. still, i don't buy it.
Thank you, I appreciate that you checked.
I was going to respond with this....
"Yet you didn’t bother to support your viewpoint with anything more than anecdotal statements that simply were "ridiculous and proven wrong”. What news media do you want it in? I was trying to produce academic articles that were read by the AAPS and cohorts within the field. They have gone through rigorous challenges in order to get published and for you to be so completely dismissive proves how ignorant you must be."
But you recanted, good man good man. You are not ignorant nor dismissive. I also take that back.
i meant apsa american political science association. (APSA)
oh, sorry, I misspelled a word. clearly I must be moron and everything I said is totally invalidated by that mistake.
when did anyone say Ralph Nader was infallible? I certainly didn't say that, nor would I. No one is infallible, not even Obama - and that's my point.
the idea that a third part will never receive 5% is preposterous. anyway, Nader hasn't been involved with a party since 2000 because they don't want anything to do with him, which is unfortunate because he has more name recognition than anyone else who might run as a Green.
of course nader isn't going to win, I wouldn't even want him to win, but that's not really what it's about. most people only pay attention to someone talking about politics when they're running for president. the idea, I think, is just to get the word out there that there are other options, and maybe someday those options can be achievable.
and yes, Florida itself could maybe have been won if Nader hadn't run. but who in the hell would ever have guessed that would've happened. no one in hell, that's who. it was a totally crazy phenomenon. regardless, Gore lost on his own. plenty of other states could have been won.
anyway, I'm just sick of these elements of liberal fascism I see beginning to surface - not from Obama, but from his supporters. the dangerous thing about a charismatic leader is the potential for fanaticism and the insidious blind eye syndrome that led to the rise of fascism in the first place.
I'm not saying that we're creating a dictator or anything, but, like the rise of neoconservativism and its unexpected effects for the conservatives who supported Bush without really knowing what they were getting themselves into, I think we're seeing the rise of a new sort of neoliberalism, and I don't think anyone really understands it yet. so it's important to recognize the policy changes as they come along - and believe me, they will and they are. no one becomes president alone, that's why nader could never win. but the voice of the dissident should be heard, regardless of whatever you think it might do to "cost" someone the election, which, it isn't.
What Mr. Nader is calling attention to (because some do not get it, or have a problem with being able to handle the truth) is basic and factual. We pay more in taxes for corporate welfare and allow the two "major" parties to be controlled by corporate interests. Neither one of these parties make "we the people" their priority. How many are without health care in 2008? Why did the democrats not impeach bush/cheney? Are you ok with nafta and wto, etc etc?
Just because "news" entertainers and political operatives use spin, costly negative sound bites and labels to blur the truth, it does not change what is real.
Corporate media does not want Mr. Nader on what use to be the 'publics' airwaves because he will expose their bias, half-truths and lack of fairness and balance. We have the two party controlled Presidential debate fiasco keeping opposing voices from being heard. It allowed Gore to make a deal with the soon to be appointed "marinated in oil" duo, to keep Mr. Nader out of the debates in 2000. The next election the democrats went on a suing binge, even after Mr. Nader followed the different rules each state has that only apply to candidates not selected by the two "major" parties. And who passed these laws?
Democrats still use Mr. Nader as a scapegoat. They won't accept the fact many of them voted for bush/cheney in Florida in 2000 or speak of how Gore lost his home state of Tennessee. Gore still received more votes than the other guy who was appointed king by "our" "supreme" court. Democrats can't handle these truths or face up to what Jeb and Ms. Harris did, or what happened with the hanging chads. Thus our electoral system got us a loser for president. But who are the real losers? It is bigotry if you blame Mr. Nader, and it shows willingness to diminish even further our republic and democracy.
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Closet case.
Wow, class act!
Obama supports the war in Iraq. Obama wants to significantly increase troops in Afghanistan. Obama has made threatening remarks about invading Pakistan and Iran. Obama voted for the Patriot Act. Obama voted for FISA. Obama does not support single payer healthcare. Obama voted for the bailout and is in bed with many of the corporate crooks responsible for the financial crisis.
What more evidence do you people need to know that Obama is the epitome of Democratic Party hypocrisy?
Thankfully, those of us who are aware of all of the issues (um, the fact that people at this point are neglecting clear facts in favor of fluffy words is pathetic) listed above do have another valid choice in this election.
Nader/Gonzalez '08
Obama is a hypocrite, I agree. But when it comes down to voting time, before you "vote your conscience" remember that the next president will be picking two, possibly three supreme court nominees. That is more important than any of the other issues mentioned.
Because who decides when the executive branch is overstepping its authority (re Guantanamo Bay detainees, re wiretapping, etc.)? Who decides what limits should be placed on a corporation's ability to put defective/harmful products into the marketplace and what remedies the consumer (us) should have when those products harm us? Who will ultimately decide whether gay people have a right to equal protection? That states should have the right to limit greenhouse emissions without interference by the Bush controlled EPA?
THE SUPREME COURT.
It's not just about abortion. The Supreme Court churns out numerous decisions every year that have grave effect on our lives, but we don't realize it because the main stream press just wants us to focus our energy on an issue that keeps everyone riled up, but in fact affects very few of us.
Do YOU want people in the mold of Clarence Thomas, Alito, and Roberts deciding what rights gays should have? What rights we should have when we are killed by a defective product (Ford Pinto, et al.)? What remedies you should have when you discover the guy next to you is paid more because he has a penis? What rights you should be afforded if you're arrested?
If you want your civil liberties trampled just so you can make a political statement, go ahead, but be aware of what you're sacrificing in the process. If making that statement is more important than reining in the mega-corporations that harm us to increase their profit margins, okay.B ut you can be damn sure that regardless of his many faults, Obama will not be appointing another Clarence Thomas to the bench. And for that reason alone, he gets my vote.
Ah yes the supreme court argument. Sorry if its that important then maybe someone should do something to earn my vote. Don't rely on some doomsday supreme court threat, that frankly as an affluent straight white male, won't change my life a bit (although this abomination of a FISA bill may have).
Nice attitude. No worries as long as you aren't affected personally. People like you are the reason I fled Oklahoma.
I'm sorry I have no interest in voting for someone who ALREADY trampled on my civil liberties with their FISA vote (BTW McCain didn't vote either way, kinda like voting "present").