Yea, basically.

“Nader may also be trying to appeal to those voters who had a problem with Barack’s Father’s Day speech.”

Nope.

“If Nader type can insinuate that Barack is “selling out” to help fan the flames of some opinions among Black people that, in fact, Barack is, well, then….”

Not really because I wasn’t happy with that move by Barack but I don’t side with Nader on this. He probably wanted to say this for a while. I think that I know what he trying to get at then I do not. The wording was poor and the comment offensive overall.

It is one thing to say that Obama has’t address certain issues (some should got research before they make such comments) but its another so mention his race in that fashion and this idea of “talking white”. I guess that everyone’s true colors are showing.

in this thread, I just meant to say …

“pathetic, Ralph”.

sheepishly,

jon

“The wiki speaks truth, Bill. Read it and weep.”

Thank you for saying that better than I could have.

Nader may also be trying to appeal to those voters who had a problem with Barack’s Father’s Day speech.

Just a thought to add to the mix.

Could be a stretch, but desperate times….

Well, I wonder who else these good progressives are going vote for now?

Surface Nader. He is trying to exploit a very fragile moment in the democratic coalition and more shockingly, I think he’s attempting to tap into the unconscious racial distrust underlying some of the more rabid reactions to the FISA compromise.

“Progressives, we can’t trust this black man who doesn’t even care about his own people. You can vote for me and still be pure of heart!”

Hasn’t the country already been through enough of this divisive nonsense from the Clintons for the past several months, not to mention the last 8 years we’ve endured due to Ralph’s 2000 spoiler candidacy? We desparately need the democrats to win this election. Obama will be our nominee and he will win this unless we allow demagogues to fuck with our heads. My response to angry and bitter progressives is, are you willing to throw the only real chance we have to put this country on a better track because Obama is not a 100% PERFECT in your eyes? Ralph is more than willing to race bait and is actively working against Obama, knowing full well that siphoning democratic votes benefits McCain. In my opinion, that effectively makes him the enemy of progress, no matter what good things he’s done in the past.

they were both hilarious.

But, #2 is the true ‘nightmsre’ for some folks.

Hilarious, though.

It’s the second time I’ve seen Barack be so blunt about Nader. He respects the guy. He thinks he ought to take his narcissism elsewhere.

From where I sit, Nader is trying to capitalize on the criticism by Black people about Barack’s Father’s Day speech.

If Nader type can insinuate that Barack is “selling out” to help fan the flames of some opinions among Black people that, in fact, Barack is, well, then….

I see him.

I don’t agree with you.

And that’s that.

Given the lack of resources and attention, Nader should have begun his 2008 campaign in November of 2004. He doesn’t have the luxury to run an 8 month campaign like the two major parties. A serious Nader would plan ahead for success, not wait to play the spoiler. But he doesn’t do that. If he’s serious about the issues then he should take his candidacy just as seriously. This is his third time around and I’ve yet to see anything from him that makes me beleive he honestly thinks he can or even wants to win. If he wants to make an impact, why not have a backup plan? Why not run for Senate or the House? Why not run for mayor? Don’t speak about it, be about it.

He’s not stupid. He’s been through the process before. He’s doing the same thing he did in 2000 and 2004 and expecting a different result. Why would he expect a different outcome? What’s his deal?

He doesn’t like the Democrats? Fine by me. Why not organize a true threat to defeat the Dems at the local, state and national levels. That’s what a third party SHOULD do, not rest on moral victories that do little more than help sustain the greater of two evils.

If he cares about an issue then he should have a bottom line . . . he should be results-oriented. Where are his results? What’s more important . . . Nader’s issues or Nader’s vanity campaigns?

And people are right to note that his statement is nearly identical to that of Geraldine Ferraro’s. He said that the only thing that separates him is his skin color and implied that he’s gotten thus far through white guilt. Ain’t that something? Arguably the two most bigoted comments and they both came from “progressive” leaders (Nader and Ferraro).

He wanted attention. He’s foul.

I remember having conversations with a college buddy back in 2000. He was sure that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush. HE WAS DEAD WRONG!

I think Obama sized him up well earlier this year, “[M]y sense is is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you’re not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work.” This in the NYT Feb 24, 2008.

That is how I’ve always seen him. Why target Obama who has policies specifically for fighting poverty and dealing with issues that are important to blacks when McCain is no where near that? Why attack the candidate who is so close to your own stance? Because he wants the attention. This has little to do with the issues and everything to do with Nader’s self important gamesmanship.

Obama has a deadpan way of stating things that is just hilarious. I’m kinda surprised he was that candid about Nader.

I don’t exactly understand what you mean, Craig. Am I supposed to keep my opinions to myself on this issue or refrain from making any effort to change yours.

If it is the latter, then that is okay. If you mean the former, well, no, that is not that.

TOO.FUNNY.

So sad that it’s true!

Against Race Politics

She is certainly not the same Joan Walsh shilling for Hillary a month ago.

Is she?

Yes, but there is a big difference between Nader and what he represents and, say, the late Harold Stassen, the Republican once known as the “Boy Wonder.”

Norman Thomas was a perennial presidential candidate too and I did never saw any harm in him running. In a democracy it is always good to have more than two candidates running for public office. Thomas and Nader always spoke truth to power.

I understand why Obama cannot do the same but I wish that folks took a longer view about this process.

And that’s that.

::

truthseeker, that was funny wasn’t it?