The responses of HRC and Obama were predictable and can be reviewed in the New York Times article here. In a nutshell, Obama made the always popular "he's not putting food on the voters' tables" argument while Clinton found the decision "really unfortunate." Back in 2004, then-DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe termed that year's Nader announcement, "very unfortunate," so it's good to see that Hillary is still taking her cues from the democratic party's (and Clinton machine's) biggest rainmaker.
If I'm Senator Clinton, Nader's announcement isn't, "really unfortunate." Maybe it's "interesting." At worst, "curious." What's "really unfortunate" is that her campaign, helmed by the evidently distracted Patty Solis Doyle, squandered a twenty-plus point lead and burned through more than $105 million by Super Tuesday with little to show for it beyond access to the VIP lounge at the local Dunkin' Donuts. She's never going to see her name across from Nader's on a ballot. Obama's getting ready to drop the hammer in Texas and I wouldn't bet against him in Ohio. At which point it's, as they say on The West Wing, "Game over."
But the national teeth-gnashing that the Dems engage in each time Ralph Nader sits down with Tim Russert has grown tiresome. Yes, his previous campaigns hurt the Democratic nominee more than the Republican candidate. Obviously, he attracted potential Democratic votes in Florida and Ohio, votes that would no doubt have gone to Gore and Kerry and perhaps have wrested the final decisions away from Jeb Bush and Rehnquist and Diebold and Triad Systems. If the complaint is voiced as a statement, I respond, "So what?" If it is framed as a question, I answer, "Too bad."
If you truly believe that the system in its present construct is broken, and that we need new, outside-Washington blood to effect real change from top to bottom, then there is no rational argument you can make that Ralph shouldn't be allowed to run.
Both Obama and HRC stump passionately against the influence of corporate lobbyists and the need for campaign finance reform. But you could add together their respective years spent actually combating big money interests and then cube that number and you wouldn't equal the years Nader has spent fighting and winning against corporate fat cats.
The mainstream candidates are happy to talk about environmental problems and solutions but neither has the nature-friendly bona fides of Nader, who ran in 2000 and 2004 as the candidate of the Green Party. His career has been built upon the fight for clean air, clean water, safe food and environmental standards.
Ralph Nader is not going to play spoiler in the general election. The 2.7% he won in '04 was down from the 3.0% he garnered in '00. He will do worse in '08. But his is a voice that it does us good to hear every four years. Because deep down, buried under the cynicism and hypocrisy of our two party system, we know he's right. And if all we have to do is listen to him make a couple of speeches, maybe read an op-ed or two in the Times, well, that's a small price to pay for acknowledging what we're doing to our consciences when we step into the voting booth.
Worst case scenario, Nader's candidacy drops Obama's margin of victory over McCain in November back down to single digits.
1 comment:
test
Post a Comment