Against: Fascism, Trump, Putin, Q, libertarianism, postmodernism, woke-ism and Identity politics. For: Democracy, equalism, art, science, Enlightenment values and common-sense liberalism.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
A reason to support Obama
Ralph Nader says that he'll enter the race if Obama is the nominee but not if Edwards is the nominee.
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I'm confused; why would that be a reason to support Obama? If anything, that's just more reason not to support him.
He's a corporate animal, just like Hillary is. The reason they're both receiving so much in-kind airtime coverage from the corporate media is because they're both MSM-approved.
In other words, they'll work to advance the corporatocracy at the expense of the citizenry.
"He's a corporate animal, just like Hillary is. The reason they're both receiving so much in-kind airtime coverage from the corporate media is because they're both MSM-approved."
Two words: President Gore.
Those words would have been a reality if people like YOU -- and Nader -- had not said shit like that about Gore then.
I will never forgive progressives for robbing us the best president in our history.
There was a documentary about Nader on PBS last night. One thing that stuck in my mind was footage of him arguing with a cop outside of a debate which a news organization had invited him to. After a bit of back and forth between Nader and the cop he named the news organization as Fox News. No surprise I guess, but is Nader oblivious to it or does he just not care?
What you said was neither fair nor accurate, Joe. I voted for Gore in 2000. The only reason Bush "won" is because the state of Florida (and probably several other Bush-friendly states) rigged the election.
Nader was a convenient scapegoat because it let the right kill two birds with one stone: It took the heat off of them for undermining democracy by stealing the election, and it gave people the false impression that having progressive beliefs was the reason Gore "lost".
Both reasons are total bullshit, but they're convenient. You can't compare Hillary Clinton to Gore in any way, shape, or form. How much did Bubba campaign for Gore in 2000?
If one assumes that Nader, rather than serving as the idealistic, uncompromising "Beautiful Loser" in the mold of Adali Stevenson, instead serves as the willing accomplice of the far right, posing as a liberal idealist, and positioning himself to do maximum damage to liberal causes, this would make perfect sense.
I would bet you that if the Republicans could choose their opponent it would be Edwards. I suspect they view him as "soft" and an easy target for rough politics as they approach the wire. Kind of a "Dukkakis" or "Mondale" lacking the forceful personality necessary to impress a broad swath of the electorate, and ill prepared for barefisted politics of a National Race in October and November.
Both Hillary and Obama have shown a willingness to fight, and both have broad enough appeal to draw "marginal voters" from the middle toward their side. The Republicans would much prefer to face a "Liberal Perfectionist" who excites the far left, but not so much the middle, and who holds almost no appeal to business.
If they can't get Edwards, they may feel they need a "splitter" to come in and siphon off some of the manpower, energy, and votes from the Democratic nominee to the disaffected left more interested in making a statement in defeat than compromising and working for a qualified win.
6 comments:
I'm confused; why would that be a reason to support Obama? If anything, that's just more reason not to support him.
He's a corporate animal, just like Hillary is. The reason they're both receiving so much in-kind airtime coverage from the corporate media is because they're both MSM-approved.
In other words, they'll work to advance the corporatocracy at the expense of the citizenry.
Jamie in Boston
"He's a corporate animal, just like Hillary is. The reason they're both receiving so much in-kind airtime coverage from the corporate media is because they're both MSM-approved."
Two words: President Gore.
Those words would have been a reality if people like YOU -- and Nader -- had not said shit like that about Gore then.
I will never forgive progressives for robbing us the best president in our history.
There was a documentary about Nader on PBS last night. One thing that stuck in my mind was footage of him arguing with a cop outside of a debate which a news organization had invited him to. After a bit of back and forth between Nader and the cop he named the news organization as Fox News. No surprise I guess, but is Nader oblivious to it or does he just not care?
What you said was neither fair nor accurate, Joe. I voted for Gore in 2000. The only reason Bush "won" is because the state of Florida (and probably several other Bush-friendly states) rigged the election.
Nader was a convenient scapegoat because it let the right kill two birds with one stone: It took the heat off of them for undermining democracy by stealing the election, and it gave people the false impression that having progressive beliefs was the reason Gore "lost".
Both reasons are total bullshit, but they're convenient. You can't compare Hillary Clinton to Gore in any way, shape, or form. How much did Bubba campaign for Gore in 2000?
Jamie in Boston
Interesting.
If one assumes that Nader, rather than serving as the idealistic, uncompromising "Beautiful Loser" in the mold of Adali Stevenson, instead serves as the willing accomplice of the far right, posing as a liberal idealist, and positioning himself to do maximum damage to liberal causes, this would make perfect sense.
I would bet you that if the Republicans could choose their opponent it would be Edwards. I suspect they view him as "soft" and an easy target for rough politics as they approach the wire. Kind of a "Dukkakis" or "Mondale" lacking the forceful personality necessary to impress a broad swath of the electorate, and ill prepared for barefisted politics of a National Race in October and November.
Both Hillary and Obama have shown a willingness to fight, and both have broad enough appeal to draw "marginal voters" from the middle toward their side. The Republicans would much prefer to face a "Liberal Perfectionist" who excites the far left, but not so much the middle, and who holds almost no appeal to business.
If they can't get Edwards, they may feel they need a "splitter" to come in and siphon off some of the manpower, energy, and votes from the Democratic nominee to the disaffected left more interested in making a statement in defeat than compromising and working for a qualified win.
Post a Comment