// you're reading...


On election night, Ralph Nader predicts what an Obama presidency will look like

He’s already predicted the last 36 hours. From the Real News Network — some of the few left who know what’s up.

Part 1/3

Part 2/3

Part 3/3

Did you like this? Share it:
Filed Under  , , , ,


No Responses to “On election night, Ralph Nader predicts what an Obama presidency will look like”

  1. Nader “predicted” that Obama will pick advisers who know their way around Washington, and who aren’t Ralph Nader? Very impressive, really.

    Nader is past the point of making any meaningful contribution to American politics. His tiresome sniping at the two-party system is simply lame, a process-based set of excuses for his substantive failures. The biggest reason for Nader’s lack of success at the polls wasn’t that he was “boxed out by the big parties” – after all, he was on 45 ballots in 2000. The real problem was that Ralph Nader, like most fringe presidential candidates, has NEVER been able to build a coalition of supporters significant enough to give his candidacy any meaning.

    Meanwhile, in 2000, as Ralph Nader held his “super-rallies,” got plenty of media attention and yet still failed to get more than 3% of the national vote, an Illinois state senator named Barack Obama couldn’t even get a floor pass to the Democratic National Convention. But within seven years, he began building, from the ground up, the most impressive grassroots national political organization in American history. By doing so within the context of the party primary system, President-elect Obama has put himself in the position to bring about concrete improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans. By contrast, Nader spent those years vainly wagging his finger at the system and wasting time and money running doomed third-party presidential campaigns, just to prove a misguided point.

    If Nader wants to make a real difference in American politics, he should focus his efforts on building interest groups to lobby for the economic and political reforms he seeks. Otherwise, he should sign on as a candidate in the Democratic primaries and see how his views hold up in the spotlight, just like other fringe candidates have done (Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Mike Gravel, and so on). In 2008, the primary field was wide open, and even the whackjobs got hour after hour of free air time. They still lost, and not because of the “two party system” – all of them were on the ballot and had access to voters. They lost because, like Nader, their ideas were stale and appealed only to a narrow segment of our pluralistic society.

    Posted by publius | November 6, 2008, 10:38 pm
  2. Oh thanks Qui Qui.. Glad you enlightened us with Ralph “The Psychic” Nader. He hasn’t even been sworn in and people are already bitching. He just won the election 2 nights ago and people are already predicting the next 4 years. Ridiculous!

    Posted by Anonymous | November 6, 2008, 11:36 pm
  3. Nader is simply demonstrating just how obvious the obvious really is. Perhaps those too deluded with media-generated feel-good BS to vote for a genuine progressive candidate will be able to look back on Nader’s words and recognize the obvious has been staring them dead in the face all along and they chose not to see it. Maybe next time they’ll nut up, face reality and vote accordingly.

    If right-thinking progressive candidates like Nader have little chance in this country it’s because too many “liberals” allow the media to put the wrong kind of thinking in their heads. Don’t be shocked when the “lesser of two evils” turns out to be, uh, evil. When your messiah picks two low-life Zionist, neoliberal scumbags like Biden and Emmanuel to be part of his administration that tells you something about his agenda right there.

    Posted by Sean | November 7, 2008, 5:05 pm
  4. Nader mentioned some very good points in those segments although I don’t agree with much of his policies- except for some few-

    as far as Obama goes it isn’t just Biden and Emmanuel, his whole appointees are more of the same boring and recycled Washington insiders.

    So much for criticizing Hillary as part of the inside.

    Posted by Mo | November 8, 2008, 12:17 am
  5. Give me a break. If you want an example of how well a presidential administration works without a healthy compliment of “Washington insiders,” take a look at the Carter administration. Setting aside his admirable character and actions since his tenure, that presidency was an organizational disaster. The few major foreign policy successes they had were eclipsed by incompetence on almost every other level.

    Washington hands are necessary for success in the White House. Just because people have been around the block doesn’t mean they are out to screw the country. Indeed, it might be evidence that the actually care enough to sacrifice significant amounts of time and money to engage in years of public service.

    Posted by publius | November 8, 2008, 9:02 am

Post a comment

Connect With Us Ya Hmeer!

resume resume

Recent Posts

So, Who’s the Threat to America Again?
August 20, 2012
By Guest
Where Do We Keep Islamophobia?
August 15, 2012
By Shubnum
Lobbying Versus Advocacy
August 1, 2012
By Mehrunisa
On the destruction of Speaker’s Corner
July 17, 2012
By Abubakr
Stateless & Speechless, A Palestinian Regains Speech
July 12, 2012
By Hanitizer
White, Black American groups ‘swap’ summer interns
July 10, 2012
By Guest
The Costs of Stripping
June 25, 2012
By Mehrunisa
Be The Fundamental Pizza of a Man
June 25, 2012
By Guest
In US, They Want Fun, Fun Fun
June 23, 2012
By Sana
I Ain’t Afraid of No Regime
June 15, 2012
By Husam
ADC: Arab American Professionals’ Gateway to DC
June 12, 2012
By Hanitizer
Influence And Freedom
May 23, 2012
By Guest
Will Sacha Baron Cohen Bring His Muslim Bashing To An End?
May 22, 2012
By Hanitizer
On Chafed Oddballs, Siberian Socialites and Missed Opportunities
May 5, 2012
By Guest
A Single Roll of the Dice
April 23, 2012
By Guest