« Obama Making Private Calls Appealing To Hillary's Top Fundraisers -- And Sometimes Hearing Criticism In Return | Home | Focus Group: Pennsylvania Voters Are Suspicious Of Obama -- But Support Him Anyway »
Nader To Obama: You Want To Talk White?
Oh, boy. Ralph Nader is at it again, accusing Barack Obama of being too weak a Democratic candidate on the grounds that he's ... acting white.
In an interview with the Rocky Mountain News, Nader lambasted Obama for not discussing poverty enough. "What's keeping him from doing that?" Nader asked. "Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson?"
Advertisement
Good Lord.
June 25, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nader's jealous...of Bob Barr, this year's more likely spoiler.
As such, plan on seeing more outrageous statements from Nader as he fights for attention.
June 25, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note to everybody downlist on comments:
Nader was NOT the Green Party nominee in 2004. He ran as an independent.
The Green Party convention for this year is in July, and it is likely that Nader will again NOT be the Green Party nominee.
God, I get tired of repeating that to allegedly politically informed Democrats.
June 25, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't the "Green Party" get most of its funding from Republican and right wing PACs?
June 26, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
O for the love of God - he has lost it totally - he's gone completely nuts.
He was always a megalomaniac - my second husband was a Nader's Rader and got his eyes opened big time - he ended up hating Ralph, where at one time he practically worshipped him.
That man is insane.
June 25, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, everybody who isn't a cultist freak like you is insane, corrupt, evil, stupid, and/or a liar. Or maybe you're all those things.
By the way, how long did that second marriage last? Two days?
June 25, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Yeah, everybody who isn't a cultist freak like you is insane, corrupt, evil, stupid, and/or a liar. Or maybe you're all those things."
The "cultist" talking point just makes the person saying it look like a petulant glass licker, being less about substance and more about being mad that you feel left out of something. Fucking cowards, I swear.
June 25, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
no. while the cultist accusation can be transparent well-poisoning, it does accurately describe something that frightens a lot of folks who might/will vote for obama but are not among his most strident supporters. personality cults in politics are not all that unusual. and obama has indeed created a sizable personality cult. just as nader did. of course, obama's personality cult is much bigger than nader's ever was. and obama has way more support among issues voters than nader ever could (being that obama isn't a charlatan).
June 25, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it racist to suggest that Obama has to "talk" or act a certain way because he's black?
June 25, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very much so Ohiomeister.
This is the catch-22 for Obama, if he comes out and advocates things based on race, he will be pigeonholed like Jesse and Al. If, he doesn't pander based on race, he is labelled 'not black enough'...is a no-win situation.
Obama has to focus on issues.
It was racist of Nader to suggest that poverty is a black issue when there are millions more non-blacks living in poverty than black.
The comment from Nader was racist all the way around.
As a democratic candidate it is acceptable for Obama to focus on poverty but not to focus on poverty because he is black or that there are blacks who are impoverished.
ugh...I detest racial politics.
June 25, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
People want to vote FOR someone and are happy to do so, finally for once. so somehow that makes them "cultists".
Says more about the despondency of the name-caller and their transparent lack of faith in the country to me, than it does about any "cultist".
June 25, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if crowd scenes and public frenzy turn you completely off, there's the little but not entirely insignificant fact that Obama... well, he's the most competent man in the field by a long shot. Objecting to the enthusiasm he generates is like being an electrician and refusing to work with any current larger than 12 volts because, er, you might get hurt from anything stronger.
June 25, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
no. it's a distinction between voters who get excited about political issues and voters who get excited about political personalities.
June 25, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think "cultist" is spot-on.
Nader has a very good point here, and as much as I like Barack, he's a backroom dealer just like the rest of em. And I'm not talking Rezko or other nonsense. But I am talking about same-sex marriage, NSA/FISA, and his other capitulations that have left a lot of us wanting.
Nader, for all his flaws, has just as much a right to run for POTUS as anyone else, and if you think he's the (boring and redundant) reason Gore didn't win, that's your problem.
btw: we're dealing with a 911-troof-mover here. This woman thinks the WTC7 was demolished from timed explosives. Nuff said.
June 25, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, if anybody has a cult following it's Nader, the Charles Manson of politics. I've never heard worse bullshit from a supposedly progressive candidate's mouth than from Nader, in 2000 and 2004. He's a humorless, self-important nihilist, who thinks if anybody but Ralph is the leader, it doesn't matter who it is.
well, it's obvious it DOES matter. And as for you, moron, of course Nader "has the right" to run for president, just as he has the right to voice his stupid racist opinions to reporters. Having the right to do something doesn't make it right to do it. Can you process that?
June 26, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, you filed a valid e mail address to be able to post vile personal slurs like that?
How would you like to gargle a bottle of that foul jeeter after shave you're named after?
Get off this board, you're not even a troll, just a fucking flamer.
June 25, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Nader is a bit peeved that his 2000 running-mate, Winona LaDuke, recently endorsed Barack Obama.
So, when will Ralph Nader stop running away from *his* background? He grew up speaking Arabic, just like his Lebanese parents, but you never hear him spreaking in Arabic in public.
Maybe he's not Arabic enough, and is just trying to "pass" as Anglo-Saxon?!
June 25, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, what an a-hole.
Second, Obama is part white and raised by a white mother and white grandparents from Kansas.
Third, has he ever heard Obama talk????
June 25, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nader's Raider.
!@#$$%%%^^^&&*&*&*(()()+_)(*(*&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 25, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is bashing Obama, Nader's nadir?
June 25, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nader just likes hearing himself talk, it is alllll about him, and he hates anyone who can do better (you know, like actually win an election). Personally I don't want to hear a goddamn thing from the person who gave us (or helped give us) 8 years of Bush.
My tribute to Ralph:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/02/i-dont-know-how-to-put-this-ralph-nader.html
June 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ralph needs a kick in the gonads.
June 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't do "gonadal politics," remember? You might want to aim elsewhere.
June 25, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure as hell this race stuff is going to be stirred up for all of us to ponder. Agitation ain't always such a bad thing... even if it's produced by such inanity as Nader's remark.
Ralph is such a self-righteous shit, he's going to wonder what all the claptrap is about. He'll be very white about all of this.
June 25, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we all ignore Ralphie, will he go away?
I'd rather talk Barack. I can't wait to read his interview with Rolling Stone out tomorrow! This preview from NYT sounds good:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/the-inner-obama/June 25, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that this morning at DailyKos. Don't you love that quote?
June 25, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
“Yeah, I don’t do cowering.”
Unless it's in the face of criticism and dropping poll numbers than he does...i.e. Rev. Wright under the bus.
June 25, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. Wright threw himself under the bus by spending 3 days mocking and attacking Obama and other Democrats like JFK and Johnson.
Not smart. At that point, even I was cringing, and I was somebody DEFENDING "goddamn America!"
In retrospect, the only mistake Obama made was not renouncing Wright and his church before he even announced he was running for President.
June 25, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In retrospect, the only mistake Obama made was not renouncing Wright and his church before he even announced he was running for President."
That would've been the smartest move, but stating he could no more disavow Wright than he could disavow the African American community, after the initial flare up wasn't a good move either.
June 25, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he didn't say this. He said that he could no more disavow Wright than he could his grandmother.
June 25, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother"
...he said both actually (disown not disavow and black not African American but I didn't use quotes so I think I'm good.).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html
June 25, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was before Wright went around trashing on Obama.
Obama also never disavowed his congregation, he had to leave because the media wouldn't leave the other members alone and they were being threatened.
June 25, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Unless it's in the face of criticism and dropping poll numbers than he does...i.e. Rev. Wright under the bus."
The mere fact that he wouldn't disavow Wright originally shows that the man doesn't do cowering. Nice try scooter.
June 25, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The mere fact that he wouldn't disavow Wright originally shows that the man doesn't do cowering." ...but when he repeated the same things he'd said originally he did disavow him. So Wright's opinions didn't change but Obama's of Wright did...did Obama's view of America change (cuz that would allow for the change of heart on Wright) or did he "cower" in the face of falling poll numbers?
June 25, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's opinion changed because Wright's public behavior changed, and he attacked Obama.
June 25, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
He called Barack a "typical politician" who didn't really believe in the denouncements he had made of Wright's more inflammatory comments.
That was a lie and a smear and clear sign that Barack no choice but to disown the man. If someone betrays a trust, stabs you in the back, you get them out of your life. That simple. Changing circumstances require a change in tactics.
You should know that given your background.
June 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, I am beginning to think Wright's statement re: "typical politician" is ringing more true with each passing day. I have been a strong supporter of Obama's throughout the primary giving far more money to his campaign than I could afford to, but my support was based on the fact that he did not act like a "typical politician." My support is waning.
June 25, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly why I am losing patience with people like you. Can you ever, just once, leave something in context. Can you ever, just once, not compare an apple to an orange when we are discussing bananas? A few more comments like this one and your inability to reason properly will confirmed.
June 25, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
One may not be able to question your logic, but your values in light of the fact that you support violations of the US constitution because most Americans do also are certainly up for debate.
June 25, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's called having a more complete and more pragmatic view of our history and our fellow citizens than you and your ilk.
Pretending that everyone interprets the constitution the same way as you is hubris of the highest order. Perhaps it is you who things too highly of his own opinions? The facts are that the Constitution was being violated before the Preamble was dry.
If you don't know American history well enough to have a intelligent discussion on how to fix our innumerable problems, I can only suggest a couple of good books.
June 25, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"..but when he repeated the same things he'd said originally he did disavow him."
It wasn't about Wright saying the same thing, it was about him suggesting that Obama wasn't authentic and that all of his moves up until that point were "political" in nature. Again, the man doesn't do "cowering", the same way you have yet to do "facts".
June 25, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is this troll still posting here?
June 25, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
because people continue to respond to her. That is the only thing a troll needs for life.
June 25, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The same reason you are...
June 25, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The same reason you are..."
Larry doesn't get routinely debunked like you do SFC, just saying..
June 25, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
his being frequently full of shit doesn't make him a troll anymore than being a republican makes him a troll.
June 25, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks...(I think).
June 25, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't really "debunk" a subjective opinion, you can disagree whole heartedly and that's another story. The objective statements I make are rarely proven wrong (ED Hill being on TV vs the Radio when she made an ass of herself was one example, stating "it'll take 10 years to get oil out of ANWR" does nothing to disprove the claim that lifting the ban on offshore drilling will immediately impact the price of oil).
June 25, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You can't really "debunk" a subjective opinion, you can disagree whole heartedly and that's another story."
Well, yesterday you claimed that McCain wasn't a flip-flopper - and I debunked that.
June 25, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did he change his views? Yes...did the facts surrounding the subject of his view change? Yes...much like Obama with Wright, you just spent 3 paragraphs expaining why Obama changed his opinion of Wright...why shouldn't McCain change his opinion on off shore drilling and illegal immigration. At least McCain honest enough to admit "it's what my constituents want from me."
June 25, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on. What were the facts surrounding his sudden reversal on the confederate flag? That excuse may work on a few issues, but when you factor in the plethora of McCain flip-flops - that excuse just seems like an extremely weak one to me.
"At least McCain honest enough to admit "it's what my constituents want from me.""
That's just lame.. Someone admitting that they are no longer speaking from their heart but just doing what is politically expedient isn't brave. Its admitting that you're a puppet.
June 25, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Confederate flag was probably the best one...he actually said he was against it all along but his stance before the SC primary in 2000 was a "pure act of political cowardice." At least he's honest about it, he was shilling for votes.
June 25, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"At least he's honest about it, he was shilling for votes."
Where did he admit that he was doing it for votes?
June 25, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I feared that if I answered honestly, I could not win the South Carolina primary. So I chose to compromise my principles."
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/04/19/mccain.sc/
June 25, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Confederate Flag is the best one: http://youtube.com/watch?v=WN8EMmML-es
..just shows what kind of phony he is, in my opinion.
June 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure he should have some core values and principals but alot of governing is adapting to the sittuations that present themselves. One of the factors he takes into consideration is the desires of the majority of his party...if you notice he's still opposed to drilling in ANWR, if he were strictly poll driven that would be in his energy plan too.
June 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah but..
Privatizing Social Security:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FyBwMy27Aoc
June 25, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gay Marriage:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NeBw28tX5Nw
June 25, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tax Cuts:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dYsKiA3Myyw
June 25, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Religious Right:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XbrejLsixwk
June 25, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talking To Hamas:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bQnQsdwa5EI
June 25, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
youtube's blocked by websense here...I'll have to view them sometime this evening...
June 25, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool. I'll give you credit though, at least you are willing to engage in a substantive debate.
June 25, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks...I try.
June 25, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The man's logo is perfect -- cavalry regiment -- back charging machine guns again. Determined and stupid in equal measure.
You do NOT want to do that. Bad for your health. My father saw the results in Northern France in 1918. After all those years, the dead horses were the only thing he was still upset about.
June 25, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
7th Cavalry on top of that...Custer's Regiment...Gary Owen!
June 25, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
but with 2 r's
June 25, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wright jumped under the bus on his own. No one was cowering here. Not Obama, certainly not the suicidal Wright. One, two, three strikes you're out.
Now let's talk about McCain. Everyone calls him an American hero. Maybe five years in the Hanoi Hilton deserves some commiseration. But ...
Crashing three planes before he got to Vietnam?
Getting shot down in Vietnam after only twenty combat hours? (Some of my helicopter pilot friends did that many combat hours in one day.) American hero by accident, not by accomplishment.
Commander-in-chief after finishing near the bottom at Annapolis?
Changing his long-held position on the moratorium on offshore drilling because of, duh, poll numbers?
Now let's talk about Senator Clinton. Voting for AUMF -- that's the definition of "in the face of criticism and dropping poll numbers," or more precisely, increasing poll numbers for Bush.
I mention both because I cannot tell who you favor, McCain or Clinton, though I suspect McCain. Wright pales (heh-heh) in comparison to McCain.
And in case you want to be trendy, Wright is sooo old. Try FISA. Or campaign financing. Or terrorist fist bumps.
Back to Nader, he clearly breathed too many of those Pinto gas fumes.
June 25, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Changing his long-held position on the moratorium on offshore drilling because of, duh, poll numbers?"
...or because the price of oil hit $140 a barrel...
June 25, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
That reminds me, you still haven't defended all the McCain flip flops that I posted yesterday. Whats up with that?
June 25, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
))))))))))))))))))-crickets-((((((((((((((((((
June 25, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed he did. He got mad and got his feelings hurt. He's not a young man and I've found that many older people can't rein in their emotions like they could when they were younger.
He obviously has a big ego, and it obviously got hurt. But Wright has only himself to blame.
June 25, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
...or they go to lunch...
June 25, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wright is and was a grandstanding poseur who should have sat down and shut up.
Trolls like you, asshole, don't understand that.
June 25, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or voting for warrantless surveillance and telecom immunity from a cower in front of the Republicans' unbeatable "Soft On Terror" ray.
June 25, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOLOL
I love this guy. He is so cool.
"I don't do cowering"
Except with FISA.
June 25, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You'll be back to apologize when Reid, with Obama's cooperation, loses the bill in a procedural muddle, depriving the Thugs of an issue and Bu$h of his bill at the same time. Won't you?
I do wonder.
June 25, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody who's taught constitutional law and can vote for that FISA bill does cowering.
I wouldn't want to invite Ralph to a party and you may not want him in your party, but he's not wrong. He's just telling the family secrets like your crazy old uncle.
June 25, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just what is Ralph right about in this interview, bluebell?
June 25, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's right that Obama doesn't talk about poverty. To be fair, that's been true of almost all Democrats since they surrendered to the Reagan revolution. It's the domestic equivalent of their appeasement on foreign policy. It's what makes the party coherently Republican-lite. When we starting campaigning on reforming WELFARE instead of ending POVERTY we'd conceded the argument. In losing the argument, we have no philosophical basis for arguing for universal health care, universal college education, etc. That's all well and good, we're not social welfare Europeans. If you want to live in the "happiest" country in world, you have to move to Denmark. Ralph is trying to push a mountain up a hill, but he's not wrong.
June 25, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not wrong that Obama doesn't talk about poverty, but to couch it in the context of Obama doesn't talk about the black folks living in the ghetto isn't, well, wrong, but deeply misguided.
This: I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos for instance, is perplexing. An African American running for President should talk about ghettos, but white candidates don't have to? And the only poverty of concern in the U.S. is that found in ghettos?
And this:
"I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor,
Really? That's the responsibility of black American politicians? But not white American politicians? (And what's with the inclusion of "American", anyway?)
And this:
And they love it. Whites just eat it up."
Yes, us "whites" eat it up, because, you know, we're all such a homogeneous bunch, and all feel the same way. SEems like there's a bit of projection going on on the part of Nader.
So yes, Obama doesn't talk about poverty. In this sense, Nader is very much like a stopped clock.
June 25, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent comment CT Voter..excellent.
June 25, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I strongly disagree with Nader casting it in racial terms, but he's not wrong on the Democratic Party's anemic efforts to fight poverty. We tell people we are pragmatic, bipartisan, progressive and we win when "none of the above" is the best choice, but we aren't winning the argument because we're afraid to argue.
June 25, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Ralph amy have missed the campaign of one John Edwards.
John Edwards made poverty the central issue of his life before this campaign began, and the central issue of his campaign in this cycle.
So two points about this. Maybe three.
First, John Edwards is pretty darned white. Where Ralph got his race-based notion about who's supposed to advocate for whom, I do not know. But he's demonstrably wrong in this case. John Edwards proves the counter point.
Second, John Edwards LOST. He came in a distant third. He got a fair amount of support, and he ran a good, clean campaign. Most Democrats respect the man and I don't think they rejected his policy proposals, per se. But they didn't vote for the guy who made poverty his #1 issue. So why on Earth would Barack Obama make that the central issue of his campaign?
And third, John Edwards -- Mr. Fight-Against-Poverty -- has endorsed Barack Obama. So maybe Obama is doing enough on the poverty front to satisfy Edwards, at least.
Does anybody else here remember John Edwards? (Sorry, I haven't read all the way through to the bottom of this thread yet.)
-- ARG
June 25, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
amy = may
(Sheesh; type much?)
-- ARG
June 25, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
One small error in an otherwise dead-on comment.
June 25, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but that only reinforces the point that the party does not make poverty a major issue. I'm increasingly at a loss figuring out what we are making a major issue. The party has very little room for people who make a strong social justice case. Ralph is a voice crying in the wilderness and he's been out there so long he is a bit nuts. Edwards used the issue for a few months and if people questioned if his heart was really in it for a long term commitment, well we'll see where he goes from here.
June 25, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did a piece of Ford Pinto shrapnel lodge in this man's brain?
June 25, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a nosebleed this guy has become.
June 25, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey everyone! For all you voters who said, in 2000, "No difference between Gore and Bush, so I'm voting for Nader", satisfied with your selfish decision?
June 25, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes...(sorry)
June 25, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah well, you would be, wouldn't you?
June 25, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, you voted for Nader?!?
Find that hard to believe.
Full disclosure: I was living in LA in 1996, and working for CALPIRG, so I voted for Nader. I knew Clinton would carry CA.
In 2000, back in Texas, I still voted for Gore even though I knew my vote wouldn't count.
I plan to vote Obama this year, hoping to turn Texas a little more purple.
June 25, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Color me stunned that you voted for Nader.
Here's thought: why don't you vote for him in this election? You've made it abundantly clear that McCain is a deeply flawed candidate for you.
So just vote for Nader. Your conscience will thank you.
June 25, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I was being facetious: Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush...is the official voting record.
June 25, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
0 for 6.
June 25, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You could have been a bit shorter and just written, "I'm with Stupid."
June 25, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was funny
June 25, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget we voted for Joe Lieberman.
June 25, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you mean "we," kimo sabe?
June 25, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, Ralph took me back to junior high with that clumsily misguided quip. See, as an African American male who once rode a skateboard and uses proper English, many of my black classmates accused me of "talking white".(..which was pretty ironic, since most of them couldn't answer a black history question if you pointed a nuclear missile at their collective heads) Besides, what in the fuck is "talking white" anyway? Not to over-analyze a statement that makes Mr. Nader look like a geriatric pair of boobs mind you, but he's implying that poverty is the only issue that we care about. Mr. Nader, I spend a great deal of my time making it known that Jesus pimps like Jesse and Al don't speak for me - what makes you think I'd welcome your piss poor representation?
June 25, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is an excelent reply. I am going to have to check out yout blog.
June 25, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Larry. Check it out sometime, I'd love to get your opinion on it.
June 25, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
wait, how does skateboarding make you "talk white"? as far as i can tell, the only effect skateboarding has on language skills is to cause people to use 'sick' in a positive sense.
June 25, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Skateboarding was perceived to be a white sport by a lot of the black kids at my school, hence fitting into the "trying to be white/talking white" argument.
June 25, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems then, that by comparing Nader's foolishness to your high school experiences, you're actually missing the point.
Nader opines that Senator Obama's supposed failure to discuss poverty "enough" is in fact an attempt to hide his "blackness." You see, following Nader's argument, the only "authentic" black experience is one rooted in poverty (and, I would suppose, victimhood), and African Americans have nothing valuable to say about anything else: energy policy, health care, national defense, etc.
It's part and parcel of the same supposed liberalism that seeks to limit African Americans to a minstrel show of "oh-woe-is-me-ism" and "we-shall-overcome-osity."
One that you (I hope, unwittingly) further when you refer to a Jesse Jackson as a pimp, or accept a narrative that African American vernacular English is, ipso facto, unproper and therefore "bad," or offer up your "you're acting white" experience thoroughly de-contextualized from the social criticism of 1970's African Americans who witnessed the first generation of "affirmative action babies" running as quickly as they could from their culture in an effort to gain the acceptance of recalcitrant white racists in the classroom and on the job.
June 25, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It seems then, that by comparing Nader's foolishness to your high school experiences, you're actually missing the point.
Nader opines that Senator Obama's supposed failure to discuss poverty "enough" is in fact an attempt to hide his "blackness.""
Actually, I hit the point dead on. Nader, claiming that Obama is trying to hide his blackness because of Nader's perception that he doesn't address poverty enough - generalizes all black people, suggesting that all of us are either poor or we all make poverty our number one issue. Which is hamfistedly clumsy. With my personal experience, being chided because of the way that I talked or the skateboard that I rode also suggested a generalization of black people and my supposed retreat from them. Which was just as clumsy.
"One that you (I hope, unwittingly) further when you refer to a Jesse Jackson as a pimp"
Religious charlatan, snake oil salesman.. I have a million and one descriptions that have nothing to do with race.
"or accept a narrative that African American vernacular English is, ipso facto, unproper and therefore "bad""
But that's the thing right there, I never said that "African American" english was "unproper" or "bad".. That reasoning is all you.. Bottom line: There is a correct way to speak and an incorrect way to speak, so to even characterize any way of speaking as "African American" just reinforces stereotypes.
June 25, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Humanity you are so right. I do not know what jabari is talking about..that last sentence in his/her post was just specious.
I bet jabari, never said one word about Hillary Clinton being the affirmation action candidate. The post shows some real cultural cluelessness if he thinks anyone was running from their culture seeking acceptance by 'recalitrant whites'...that is completely false.
Affirmative action was about access to opportunity not cultural shunning.
Some folks are just confused and all flummoxed when it comes to discussing race issues.
Which was very apparent when the post completely missed how 'skateboarding' was deemed a white sport for an african american kid.
June 25, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"since most of them couldn't answer a black history question if you pointed a nuclear missile at their collective heads"
Ha ha...sorry, that made a scene from "Malibu's Most Wanted" pop up in my head.
June 25, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think bizarrely enough he suffers from the same thing that Rev Wright and even Bill Clinton to some degree suffer from. A) They have giant egos. I mean giant egos. B) They have failed to change with the times - their whole reason for being is going away because of progress in the very thing they have been fighting for. It is like they are putting their own selves out of business.
But people evolve, and they too have evolved but sadly into a**holes.
June 25, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting demonstration that "evolution" does not necessarily mean "progress." Instead it can mean change into a dead end niche.
Of course, this is using the term "evolution" to mean personal development rather than in the scientific sense.
June 25, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the only poor people are black and live in ghettos.
June 25, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly CT..
June 25, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! God I love your way with words.
June 25, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL Thanks Tena.
June 25, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah i think we have moved beyond race once nader starts becoming the goto guy on racial issues
http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/gop-senator-uses-obama-in-new-tv-ad/
June 25, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to Ralph, John Edwards's campaign must have failed because he was acting too black. Or something.
June 25, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ralph Nader is becoming the Pat Buchanan of the Left.
June 25, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you owe Pat Buchanan an apology.
June 25, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
June 25, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
O I like it.
In fact, Nader is probably less relevant than Buchanan.
June 25, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pat could never pull 2.75% of the vote.
June 25, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but Buchanan gets more airtime.
June 25, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
A quick call to Nader's campaign HQ--(202) 471-5833--reveals that no one in his office can confirm or deny whether these were the comments that Nader actually made. According to two reps in his office, "The only two people who know what was said were the two people in the interview." I encourage others to call Mr. Nader's HQ and ask if this was indeed the quote that he made, what Mr. Nader meant by these comments, and whether he will apologize.
Perhaps Nader will begin to realize what a mockery he has become to serious folks on the left if progressive-minded folks who used to respect him call his office and gently remind him of the credibility he has lost in the eight years of his cartoon runs for the presidency.
June 25, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dissent is American. Question and criticize every aspect of this government for the truth will be told.
June 25, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nader's charge of appealing to "white guilt" during his run for the White House is spot on. We'll see how the Obama race-baiting plays out over the next few months.
June 25, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Nader, shut the fuck up.
June 25, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And this guy invented "seat belts"?
Obviously, not before his big head went through a few windshields! What a brain damaged dickhead!
June 25, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nader is as imporatnt this time around as Pat Paulson would be if he was running for president again and Pat has past away many years ago. Screw Nader!
June 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The colonies are falling behind. I mean, England at least has the Monster Raving Looney Party. And the best the USA can do is Nader??
June 25, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And in this race, we have an independent Very Silly candidate..."
June 25, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ralph Nader = Today's Dinosaur
Once relevant, now totally irrelevant.
Doesn't know his time has passed many moons ago.
June 25, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Nader thinks W. "talks white"?
And can anyone cash in on "white guilt"? I'm black, rent is due next week and money is tight right now. Any white folks out there needing to unburden and redeem themselves please let me know ASAP.
June 25, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know honey - you need to post a picture with that plea.
It's not about whether or not you're black, I just want to know if you're cute. I base my decisions to hand money out on how cute the recipient is.
LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!
June 25, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, sookey, sookey now! Hold on, I have to dig out the picture a friend took of me at the beach several years back when I used to wear skimpy bikinis. ;-)
June 25, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't Nader have a dangerously positioned gas tank or something? Jeez, this guy is a pain in the ass.
June 25, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn.
Having gone through this my entire life, I can only say this with authority: I've never heard a White person accuse a Black person of "talking White". I saw this over an hour, and I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that. It's beyond offensive, because it only tells us what Nader thinks "talking Black" is, and how limited his understanding of African-Americans truly is.
And can someone guide me to all these supposed instances in which Obama has appealed to "white guilt"? I follow this election as closely as anyone, and I have some issues with Obama (plan for addressing crime, disappointed but not apoplectic re: FISA). If I felt he was appealing to "white guilt", I'd have a real problem with that because it contradicts the idea that we as African-Americans can in fact achieve on our own merits once the playing field is leveled. Obama earned everything he has, and it seems that there are only too many people like Nader to remind us how far he still has to go to prove that he - and the millions of other Blacks like him - deserves what he has. That is truly sad.
June 25, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scientific, outstanding post.
June 25, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
About the same as Faulkner. Original sin of slavery. Don't worry about it.
June 25, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Obamanoids are supposed to soooo smart.
If you read what Nader had to say, he was damn near right on everything. What he basically said is that Obama could give a shit about
black people. It's easy, for those who occasionally come up for air, to see what he meant by "talking white". He didn't mean "talking white" as in the sound of his voice, like the mindfucking media wants you to believe. Nader meant talking white on PRINCIPLE...
Obama has put black people down and feeds them just as much bullshit as the average white candidate that comes along. As Nader said, he isn't going after the economic forces that are pariahs in the black community: check cashing
places, liquor stores on every corner, etc.
Instead, Obama is soothing "whitey" with talk
of deadbeat dads, and an attempt to suck a dead Raygun dick...
Nader was on the money if you actually read the article. If you just read the headline and figured like most that it meant that Obama is
just trying to sound like a white person, you took the bait...
But then again, if Dr. Pavlov had Obamanoids around, he wouldn't have had to use dogs.
June 25, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it racist to suggest that Obama has to "talk" or act a certain way because he's black?
June 25, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is.
June 25, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I admit I only skimmed the Nader article but I tend to agree that what he INTENDED to say was different than the impression people will undoubtedly get from the sound bites. Ralph has his problems but I don't think overt racism is among them. He ventured onto extremely thin ice by using the phrase "talk white." To people old enough to remember, it is reminiscent of the witness in the O.J. Simpson murder trial who claimed he didn't see O.J. but the guy who yelled at him "sounded black."
June 25, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to add that I don't think Nader was referring to Obama's manner of speaking but rather that the issues he addresses target white voters. I don't agree, I think Obama speaks to all Americans. My point is that I think it is a mistake to equate Nader with individuals like Don Imus.
June 25, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are misunderstanding me. I didn't think Nader meant the sound of Obama's voice either. I was wondering whether Obama should really be expected to have to talk about certain issues because he's black.
June 26, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Nader,
shut up. please shut up. thanks for the seatbelts and all, but just shut up. you are not helping.
June 25, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a great DK diary responding to Nader:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/9353/55952/443/541628
June 25, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great diary...
Maybe if Nader would get off his high chair (with seatbelts?), he would realize Obama is for almost EXACTLY the same consumer protections Nader is for.
June 25, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironic. I know someone who left Nader's campaign after the 2000 election because (this person said) Nader had made no attempt to reach out to poor people, or to try to end sweatshops and child labor. According to my friend, Nader's outreach was all to the well-heeled, intellectual, self-described iconoclasts. So Nader's criticism of Obama is pathetic.
June 25, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's too bad anyone is paying attention to this nitwit.
June 25, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had to check and make sure I was not reading The Onion.
June 25, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
A once meaningful man has reduced himself to an irrelevant sideshow. Sad.
June 25, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much better than being an always meaningless man reduced to a pathetic ass Obamanoid.
June 25, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some really serious envy showing here.
Just try to get used to the fact that Obama's better than you and your candidate, 'k? And have a nice day.
June 25, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Just, wow.
June 25, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...he ended up hating Ralph, where at one time he practically worshipped him."
I wonder how many people may end up saying this about Obama if he doesn't fulfill what everyone expects of him?
June 25, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I wonder how many people may end up saying this about Obama if he doesn't fulfill what everyone expects of him?"
Mike, that depends on how many of the 40 million Obamanoids actually get a life between now and 2012.
In other words -- NOT HAPPENIN'!
June 25, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In other words -- NOT HAPPENIN'!"
In other words, you are deathly allergic to substantive debate.
June 25, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see several comments in this thread using ageism. My geriatric boobs aren't thrilled about being talked about with derision. They are what they are. You boys out there will also find that your nether parts will begin to sag towards the dirt as you age too. As nurse, I have seen the evidence.
We all are going to age if we are lucky, so let's not think that ageism doesn't belong with sexism and racism as a really toxic and silly way to organize our minds and use our mouths and hands.
June 25, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second this notion. I think it'd be nice to see some of the age-related attacks and comments on mccain stopped as well. he's easy enough to beat on the merits (or lack thereof) of his arguments about the main issues. Besides, being older doesn't mean the brain can't function at a very high level and remain sharp. one of the most incisive minds I've ever encountered was a 92 year old man who could argue and bring up accurate facts to back those arguments with the best. and he was a viciously sharp chess player as well!
June 25, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
People are always itching to smear Ralph no matter what he says or does. All because they still cling to the false notion that Nader got Bush elected.
First, your flat f**king wrong. Second, you are projecting your hatred and ignorance.
If you took even one moment to understand what Nader was talking about, is that he is pushing Barack to be more forceful. More in your face about reality. Less "old white politician". And Ralph hit the nail on the head.
Barack has been too ready to throw gays "under the bus" because of what? His religion!
He does play things safe, and by the old-school white guy playbook, when he thinks he needs to, as to not alienate blocks of voters. But the thing we all love about him is when he *doesnt* play by the old-white guy rules and shoves reality in your face.
This is what Nader is trying to get out of Barack. But you people would rather tear him to shreds than listen to what he's trying to say.
Oh well, your loss. Nader's been a champion for you whether you want it or not.
June 25, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Nader is trying to dictate the old school ideiological positions that Obama is desperate to get past. Obama is saying, let's think about problems in a new way, beyond the ideological battles of the past. Nader comes along and says, you're too friendly with the Man, you gotta fight the power with me. Exactly the divisions Obama is against. Senseless.
I would just call it a stupid attack from someone who isn't paying much attention.
"If you took even one moment to understand what Nader was talking about, is that he is pushing Barack to be more forceful. More in your face about reality. Less "old white politician". And Ralph hit the nail on the head."
If Nader took a moment to actually listen to Barack ... but he'd never do that, since Nader probably reads his own books every night.
"Barack has been too ready to throw gays "under the bus" because of what? His religion!"
Weird comment. Obama, unlike many other pols, actually mentions gays in speeches to non-gays. And his speech on MLK day at MLK's church referred to the black church being more tolerant towards gays:
June 25, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
what hole did nader decide to surface from? whereever it is, he needs to crawl back underneath it. sounds like the green-eyed monster to me
June 25, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets just say Ralph Nader is a scrub.
June 25, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
When one looks at ACTUAL change that has occurred in this country, Nader 'wins' over Obama easily.
Secondly, Nader was NOT responsible for Dem Presidential losses in EITHER 2000 or 2004 and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to start educating themselves.(See Greg Palast for 2000 and multiple sources for Ohio in 2004).
Third,personally, I'm tired of Obama being referred to as 'black'; he's not, he's 'mixed race'(and if we can have such distinction in our census polls, why can't we have it in the media?).
Fourth, Obama is not a 'saviour' but a politician; I don't want a king whether it is Bush OR Obama. If there was a 'real' opposition party in the U.S. and a non-corporate controlled media(thank you Bill Clinton for the 1996 Telecom Act)we wouldn't be in the shape we're in.
Fifth, Obama made a pledge to Edwards to be discussing poverty and so far has said basically nothing; and 'whites' are just as mired in poverty as 'blacks'(see Appalachia, in particular the coal mining communities).
Sixth, when are people going to wakeup to the fact that the two party system is a system designed to thwart real democracy and stop acting like Steve King (R-Iowa) who 'prays' that this country never becomes a democracy?
Ok, off my soapbox.
June 25, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 25, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're condemning those who vote for who they think will be the better President?? And I was not 'apologizing' for Nader, just pointing out FACTS.
I think you need a history lesson of what third party candidates have done for this country.
June 25, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nader, not content to be the biggest ghoul in presidential campaign history, now is the biggest RACIST ghoul in campaign history. Why this creep still gets press coverage is beyond understanding.
June 25, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another term for "creating a sizeable personality cult" is "popularity." Not a bad thing to have if you're running for office, since the most likeable candidate almost always wins.
You're a chump.
June 25, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly why I am losing patience with people like you. Can you ever, just once, leave something in context. Can you ever, just once, not compare an apple to an orange when we are discussing bananas? A few more comments like this one and your inability to reason properly will confirmed.
June 25, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well. I just hope Nader keeps up his black talk. All this racial talk will make him more attractive to racially motivated McCain supporters. Barr + Nader = Red state wins for President Obama
June 25, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Touche...
June 25, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nader's problem with Obama is that he doesn't hear him frame his proposals in the familiar "black" language used by Jesse Jackson.
Obama has spoken of the need to address problems affecting black--and white--Americans: ameliorating the negative economic effects of a globalizing economy, cracking down on predatory lending, working on universal affordable healthcare, improving education, attending to crumbling infrastructure, etc.
If Nader hasn't heard Obama address these issues, he hasn't been listening.
Nader shows no understanding of how his words and behavior negatively affect the efforts of those who are working toward the same goals Nader claims to have. He seems to believe that only he has an understanding of the problems and how to go about solving them. His careless criticism of other progressives has proven worthless in helping achieve any real progress toward progressive goals.
His behavior is truly narcissistic. Sad.
June 25, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ralph Nader is an asshole. If he weren't an asshole the country would likely not have the clean air act, the clean water act, Freedom of Information Act, Consumer Protection Agency or, egad, seat belts. Not to mention a zoo's worth of watchdog groups, including one in harlem for which mr obama worked (citizen action, I believe). He's not pretending to be anyone's friend. He's a salty fucker and I'm ok with that. Salty fuckers get things done. His race baiting in this was totally disgusting, weak and sorta sad but he's an asshole, always has been, and he never said he wasn't.
PS. Dems lost 2000. Get over it.
June 25, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we wouldn't have EPA and OSHA without Nixon, either. To hell with you and Ralph and his 35 year-old lobbying efforts. He's a liar, a cheat, and a thief. "Dems lost in 2000. Get over it."? I guess you don't know anybody whose kid was killed or maimed in Iraq. Tell them to "get over it."
June 26, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
just to be clear, my point is that the dems lost 2000 on their own accord, not due to human scapegoat #1. It's too easy (and not very helpful to anyone looking to win elections) to continue with the drivel of the "nader was a spoiler" narrative.
That a (I'm guessing here) democrat would compare nader to nixon is to me perfectly indicative of how off course the nader story has steered.
June 26, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I propose a headline to accompany every story about Nader: "Professional Narcissist Ralph Nader Continues Career of Self-Parody."
June 25, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone actually watch the video they posted on that site? I just did and it's painfully apparent what he meant by "talk white". He meant "play it safe" and "not scare white people". There's plenty of other stuff in that video for people to disagree with but that line was taken fairly out of context.
The truth is predatory lending and other economic abuses in the ghetto are racially tinged issues for a candidate. If Clinton or McCain talked about the plight of the ghetto, they'd be seen as champions. If Barack addresses it he'll be seen (not by the enlightened readers of TPM, of course) as "the black candidate".
Have a look. The last 20 seconds are pretty spot on (just after the "talk white" comment) and something that his supporters should be aware of and not afraid to talk about.
The video
June 27, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink