In the current electoral environment, where Obama and McCain garner 99.9% of the media attention, it should be nothing short of amazing that, as the latest CNN poll shows, Ralph Nader is polling at 6%. [CNN]
Mark this as testament to the fact that a substantial number of everyday people are still in touch with reality -- a reality the people with the mikes keep wishing every day they weren't living in; those so-called "progressive" "radical" "activists" on the left who have uncritically and unconditionally made a Barack Obama win their pet cause since day one.
Ralph Nader needs to poll at at least 10% to be able to participate in the presidential debates. Here's hoping this happens (I'd actually watch), and that the likes of Obama and his blinded supporters learn something.
That same CNN poll shows Obama and McCain in a dead heat.
As the failed campaigns of Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton learned the hard way, genuine leftist movements cannot be taken for granted.
[RELATED: "Obama is Making Me a Naderite"]
[Tarboush Tip: hbb]
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Ralph Nader polling at 6%
Obama is Making Me a Naderite
Yesterday QuiQui reported how mega-bloggers who backed Obama are responding to his electoral move to centrism. A piece in the USA Today on the same subject offers this insightful advice from Senator Bernie Sanders:
"They should be organizing a grassroots movement," he said, "so it will be easier for Obama to stand up to the wealthy and powerful special interests who are going to be pushing him the other way."A recent CNN poll showed a near deadlock between McCain and Obama, with Nader polling 6%. By throwing our weight behind Nader, we can remind Obama and his Democratic consultants that centrism is not the answer. It has been part of the Democratic number-crunching moderation since Al Gore ran in 2000 (which he either actually lost or won barely. The Supreme Court denied us the chance to find out) and Kerry lost an election that was his to lose.
While aiming to get swing voters, they fail to turn out core supporters. Obama ran an inspiring campaign, but is now giving up on his principles to win an imagined community of swing voters. The assumption is that the progressives will stay on board. This is not merited. I would rather vote for Nader and end up with McCain, then throw my weight behind a weak-kneed semi-liberal who will turn and piss on Arabs to raise his own boat, or unify Jerusalem under Israeli rule.
After all, Clinton was the precursor to Bush's worst policies. Who oversaw the murder of Iraq through sanctions? Who solidified the Israeli occupation and put into place the corrupt PA? NAFTA, welfare reform, the first anti-terrorism law (which the PATRIOT Act expanded), and missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan? Obama is bringing all this to mind. And is does not help he has old Clinton hands on board, either.
Instead of leaving campaigns to marketers, brand managers, and consultants, he should construct a mandate-seeking campaign, one that forwards the ideals to drive his Presidency. Wishy washy moderation will not only give his Presidency an empty start, but will decrease the chances he wins. Let McCain get the middle and alienate his base. Obama has to get out the vote through inspiration -- that is if he really believes in progressive politics.
They may tell me a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. I'm fine with that if a vote for Obama is a vote for Bill Clinton.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Nader, Obama, and... Can I get a "Palestine" up in here?!
Think what you will of Ralph Nader (here's the Lebanese-American in his good-looking days) ... I think we can all agree that what he had to say on Meet the Press about Obama's flip-flopping on the Palestine issue is spot-on:
"But Senator Obama is a person of substance. He's also the first liberal evangelist in a long time. He's run a brilliant tactical campaign. But his better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself. And I give you the example, the Palestinian-Israeli issue, which is a real off the table issue for the candidates. So don't touch that, even though it's central to our security and to, to the situation in the Middle East. He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate, during he ran--during the state Senate. Now he's, he's supporting the Israeli destruction of the tiny section called Gaza with a million and a half people. He doesn't have any sympathy for a civilian death ratio of about 300-to-1; 300 Palestinians to one Israeli. He's not taking a leadership position in supporting the Israeli peace movement, which represents former Cabinet ministers, people in the Knesset, former generals, former security officials, in addition to mayors and leading intellectuals. One would think he would at least say, "Let's have a hearing for the Israeli peace movement in the Congress," so we don't just have a monotone support of the Israeli government's attitude toward the Palestinians and their illegal occupation of Palestine."
Compare this to Obama's policy papers on the Mid-East conflict, which conspicuously make no mention of the word "Palestine", or even "Palestinian Territories". The section is merely called "On Israel", as if that was the be-all-and-end-all of the electorate's interest in the Middle East.
This morning, I was excited to see that the news-program Democracy Now! interviewed professor Samantha Power of Harvard University (who has a good chance of being appointed Secretary of State in the event of an Obama presidency). I was looking forward to a more substantive discussion of Obama's Mid-East positions. But again, the word "Palestine" was conspicuously absent. I really think it's odd that a journalist of Amy Goodman's caliber and aggression would not seize this opportunity to nail the Obama campaign on one of its most glaring about-faces.
See here, for the transcript and video.
