The case for Hillary

Barack Obama makes a good case for why Hillary Clinton would be a better president:

Obama said he less inclined to give in to partisanship.

“Her natural inclination is to draw a picture of Republicans as people who need to be crushed and defeated,” the U.S. senator from Illinois said in a separate telephone interview with the newspaper.

“It’s not entirely her fault. She’s been the target of some unfair attacks in the past.”

See, that’s part of the reason why I think a Hillary presidency would, at the very least, provide us with years of comedy. For if she ever got elected to the White House, the Republicans would suddenly realize that they’d spent the past eight years endowing the executive branch with the power to conduct warrantless wiretapping on Americans, to override laws against torture and prisoner abuse and to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge. And at that point, they will rightly begin to freak the hell out.

As the Editors noted recently:

I’m not Hillary’s number one fan, but I’m sure she’d be a perfectly adequate President. Secretly, I’ve always believed – and I have absolutely zero evidence to back this up, of course – that deep down Hillary has a strategic reserve of white-hot hatred for Republicans and all their works and pomps, and once elected, she would finally be free to shed the go-along-get-along act and take hilarious, schadenfreudious revenge, which would be horrible and undemocratic and everything, but also be just desserts, and so kind of awesome.

Alas, because I have motives other than single-minded bloodthirsty revenge, I voted for Obama. I guess I’m just not fascist enough to be a true liberal.


William F. Buckley adds:

tombstone6.jpg


UPDATE: This is what I imagine Hillary would sing upon first setting foot in the Oval Office:

 

Comments: 160

 
 
 

Awww, c’mon, give him a little credit. That’s rhetoric for the general election, not a failure to recognize the cancer that is modern conservativism. Plus he can’t purge each and every one, or get that much done by focusing on warring against em. He can just wait for his Attorney General to give him a case to prosecute GW and Cheney and do other important stuff in the meantime.

 
 

I dunno, man.

Hillary had to put up with that Whitewater/secret-lesbianism/Vince-Foster-was-murdered garbage for years and years. Obama? He’s only recently been accused of being a stealth Muslim. He hasn’t had to endure this nonsense for as long as Hillary has. If you ask me who the best “There Will Be Blood” candidate would be for the Dems, it’s Hillary.

 
 

That’s one reason why I think it’d be fun to have Hillary as AG. Right wing. Pants. Poopies.

 
 

I remember this from a few years ago…

Idiot conservative: Executive powers are need in a time of war blah blah blah.
Me: I’m sure you’ll say that if HRC gets elected president.
Idiot conservative: Well, no, because we’ll fight her! People power! The Constitution! Liberty! Freedom!

Teh funnay. And yeah, part of me really wanted to see that go down…but that part isn’t 50%+ of me, so that’s that.

 
 

You say this now, and for a brief moment – when the knives came out and the streets were soaked in the blood of the wicked – we’d all point and laugh over our Starbucks Frappachinnos. And then Hillary would be undisputed Empress, Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity would both develop raging hard-ons of fear for her, and we’d be on the short bus to another 8 years in Iraq because now Clinton has a taste for blood.

Seriously, while watching every red-headed stepchild of a GOoPer city council member get dragged out into the street and beaten would be amusing at first, it wouldn’t make the country much of a nice place to live in the long run. I’d rather have my Obamarama with a bipartisan end to the war, a bipartisan reworking of the tax code, a bipartisan investigation of the Bush Admin, and a bipartisan health care system. Because the best revenge is living well.

 
 

I’ve always believed…that deep down Hillary has a strategic reserve of white-hot hatred for Republicans and all their works and pomps

By the time Obama makes it thru the general election, he’ll have as many reasons to be filled with a seething-hot hatred of Republicans as Hillary does.

 
 

But his whole… brand in the coming general election is the appeal to our better selves. That’s what links him with Kennedy n MLK n all the fan boy whispered names. That doesn’t mean he’s blind to what everyone else sees.
Hillary is so experienced she voted to illegally pre-authorize GW to declare war, because it was the politically expedient thing to do at the time. I know I’m pretty much echoing Obama, but it’s a good point.
Her “experience” has been to talk tough to the home crowd and play the same defense oriented game as the rest of the folk Gary would call the Defeatocrats.
Fuck that experience.

 
 

As a calcified old limey of the left persuasion, I’m in a quandry. On the one hand the thought of a Clinton-McCain showdown is so wrist-slashingly depressing that I’d almost prefer an advanced state of Obamamania to descend on us all. But on the other it would be amusing (in a twisted kind of way) to watch the bigger liberal bloggerheads – Kos, Firedoglake et al – attempting to make a positive case which didn’t include the lines ‘first woman president’ or ‘well, at least she’s not a Republican’.

In the end I suspect I’ll find myself agreeing with dear old Howard Zinn, at least on this one.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022108B.shtml

 
 

If she starts out with a campaign to burn (ok compost) every copy of Liberal Fascism and place both Goldbergs in whatever Gitmo-esque facility she keeps, she has my vote.

 
 

As a long-time lurker here I know more about minor American loons than is good for my sanity. Still, I have to ask, how well is the Goldmeister’s tome selling?

 
 

In the end I suspect I’ll find myself agreeing with dear old Howard Zinn, at least on this one.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022108B.shtml

Yeah. Seems to me the differences between Obama and Clinton are greatly exaggerated. On the foreign policy issues that I follow, Obama might be marginally better, but that’s about it. Fights between Obama & Clinton supporters are stupid.

 
 

I don’t know for certain that Hillary would use that song.

For some reason, this comes to mind:

I’m back on track
And I’m beating the flak
Nobody’s gonna get me
on another rap
Well just look at me now
I’m just making my play
Don’t try to push your luck
Just get out of my way

Cuz I’m back 😉

 
 

Part of me really wants blood vengence, a bigger part of me then I’d like to admit. On the otherhand Obama’s coat tails could do good things that would still piss the wingers off in Hilarious ways: Senator Al Franken! ( BIll O might just lose his shit in a firable way about that), SC Justice John Edwards (longshot, but the thought of a CEO seeing that is fucking funny) AG Spitzer ( and Bush was already–selectively– giving crooked corp. officers hard time.

OT: Have you seen Hill’s new TX ad: Search for “Children” on Youtube, its like the single most pandering ad, I’ve seen a Dem run this year, (Most fearmongering Dem Ad Ever: Countdown by LBJ, but that was justifiable as Goldwater was a fricking nutball).

 
 

How about just a simple old Soft Boys song?

A pox upon the media
And everything you read
They tell you your opinions
And they’re very good indeed

I wanna destroy you

And when I have destroyed you
I’ll come pickin’ at your bones
And you won’t have a single item
Left to call your own

I wanna destroy you
I wanna destroy you
Wanna destroy you
Wanna destroy you
Wanna destroy you

 
 

Almost all political ads are awful, though in the UK they tend to induce boredom rather than diabetes. Watching ‘Message: I Care’ commercials always reminds me of Jello Biafra’s anecdote about supporters at the Democratic convention chanting “Tipper rocks”. Barf-tastic, as someone might have put it.

 
 

Ah yes, Howard Zinn’s still patting himself on the back.

The very people who should know better, having criticized the hold of the media on the national mind, find themselves transfixed by the press, glued to the television set, as the candidates preen and smile and bring forth a shower of clichés with a solemnity appropriate for epic poetry.

Says the man who voted for Halliburton stockholder, Bush-enabler, and Republican moneybuddy Ralph Nader in two thousand and FOUR.

Vote your hopes, not your fears. Turn onto politics before they turn on you. Yes, no cliches there, Howie. None at all. At least “I’d vote for Bush” and “the only difference between Bush and Gore would be on the Supreme Court” aren’t necessarily slogans, as completely wrong and sinister as they are.

Anyone who voted for Ralph Nader 2000-present is unworthy of even my contempt.

 
 

Hell, if Edwards doesn’t end up in the VEEP slot, then he’d be a natural for AG. Think of the shit he’d stir. Spitzer would be fun, too, but I fear then Andrew Cuomo would end up Gov, and he’s not even in the same ballpark as his father.

 
 

Billy Pilgrim, I’d be lots more impressed if they went with “I’ve Got The Hots For You”.

“She laughed a laugh that echoed round the fortress.
Just wait until you see the statues in my bathroom…”

 
 

And just so we’re clear, I’m saying this again:

Anyone who voted for Ralph Nader 2000-present is unworthy of even my contempt.

But your apologies would be a good start. To me, to the American people, to the millions of Iraqis who have been displaced/harmed/killed by Nader’s dear Halliburton and dearer Bush.

 
 

“Her natural inclination is to draw a picture of Republicans as people who need to be crushed and defeated,”

My problem with Obama is that he doesn’t seem to realize that the Republicans’ mission for at least the past 28 years has been to crush and defeat the Democrats. They ain’t gonna give that up just because a nice friendly new Democrat gets the nomination.

 
 

If only Pelosi and Reid had that same festering anger.

Oh, forgot teh funney.

 
 

You know. If the Democrats want those Ralph Nader votes, they should do a little more to attract Ralph Nader voters.

I have no anger for people who can’t quite bring themselves to vote Repug Lite. I was one of them in 2000. I had great sympathy for them in 2004. I undertstand them today.

For many people, rationalizing a vote for Obama or Hillary is just putting lipstick on a pig.

(For Republican voters, there is no lipstick. They just trot out the pig and say it’s Marilyn Monroe and the Repug voters say “Hey, baby. What are you doing tonight?”)

Attacking and insulting Nader voters … How’s that working for ya? Is that strategy puttin’ Democrats in the White House?

 
 

That anger you have toward Nader voters? Why don’t you save a little of that for the Democrats who enabled Bush all those years.

Like … uh … Hillary Clinton.

 
 

As a non-US citizen I didn’t have the chance to vote for Ralphie boy, in 2000 or any other year. Nonetheless it’s been a source of endless fascination to me (and apparently to Hoosier X) that a party which regards the left (and even its own left flank) as a source of votes and not much else somehow feels entitled to those votes come election time.

I take the ‘best of a bad lot’ view when it comes to Obama but I simply can’t imagine anyone of a lefty (not liberal) bent voting for Clinton with anything other than a sense of very grim duty.

 
 

But your apologies would be a good start. To me, to the American people, to the millions of Iraqis who have been displaced/harmed/killed by Nader’s dear Halliburton and dearer Bush.

Nader’s candidacy in 2004 did not assist Bush’s reelection whatsoever. As regards 2000, perhaps you should save that ire for the 50,460,110 Americans who voted for George Bush, as opposed to the 2,883,105 who voted for Nader. This idea that people who cast a vote for Nader in a state which went for Gore — or inexorably went to Bush — should apologize or feel shame is ludicrous scapegoating. It’s the same kind of deranged purge-lust that resulted in this lunacy.

And I’m not even going to comment on your cherished conspiracy theories.

 
 

If you ask me who the best “There Will Be Blood” candidate would be for the Dems, it’s Hillary.

Damn!! Hillary in a wool cardigan going after Gary Bauer with a bowling pin! I love it!

 
 

…and to those who think I’m butting in on foreign affairs I’d say that febrile ravings on the perfidy of the left are quite familiar on this side of the pond. You have ‘Sensible Liberals’, we have the ‘Decent Left’, a useful guide to which can be seen below.

http://decentpedia.blogspot.com/

 
 

“And at that point, they will rightly begin to freak the hell out.”

Wait till they figure out that they gave these powers to a black man.

 
 

At the inauguration Obama should swear on some slavery-era artifact, like a bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass. Or the jailhouse Bible of abolitionist John Brown, which is in the Chicago Historical Society.

 
 

Have either of the two Dem. candidates actually come out and said that they would stop the wiretapping or release the detainees?

 
 

Anyone who voted for Ralph Nader 2000-present is unworthy of even my contempt.
But your apologies would be a good start. To me, to the American people, to the millions of Iraqis who have been displaced/harmed/killed by Nader’s dear Halliburton and dearer Bush.

I dunno, you seem pretty contemptuous.

 
 

I think Obama is well aware of the evil mission and tactics of the GOP over the past 30 years. What he is betting on is that (a) the Dems will increase their majority in both Houses of Congress, thereby decreasing the actual importance of actually having to rely on good faith from those incapable of it, and (b) there will be maybe 5 GOP senators in the Congress from Blue states, or states who are leaning Blue, who will be forced to play nice.

It won’t really take that much “reaching out” to conservatives to get things done if things work out. Having the likes of Richardson, Edwards, and maybe Biden, Clinton, and Dodd in high executive offices will help him push his agenda.

Hillary would be a great AG, and Edwards a masteful Solicitor General. Both are natural advocates and tenacious arguers.

 
 

different brad sez:

‘Her “experience” has been to talk tough to the home crowd and play the same defense oriented game as the rest of the folk Gary would call the Defeatocrats.
Fuck that experience.’

Right on, man. I think that while Hillary might be more able to anticipate angles of attack, she might also come to be boxed by her own past. I can easily see her becoming tied to the need to be so much ‘Caesar’s Wife’ (i.e., so above public reproach) that her entire administration would be marked, not by investigations and beatings, but by elaborate caution and Mandarin utterences, with little done on the active policy front.

I think Obama’s a more ‘chips fall where they may’ fellow.

We’ll see.

 
 

I can easily see her becoming tied to the need to be so much ‘Caesar’s Wife’ (i.e., so above public reproach) that her entire administration would be marked, not by investigations and beatings, but by elaborate caution and Mandarin utterences, with little done on the active policy front.

You mean, like the first Clinton administration, where thankfully health care was NOT given to the 5 largest HMO’s and insurers but we did get NAFTA and an end to welfare as we know it, and then also we got 12 friggin’ years of a Democratic minority in Congress leading straight to the Bush Jr. triumvirate?

That kind of administration?

 
 

Quouth Jon H:

“Wait till they figure out that they gave these powers to a black man.”

Cue Eddie Murphy in 48 Hours: “I’m your worst nightmare. I’m a nigger with a badge.”

 
 

I can go either way. The one thing I will insist on is that Cheney get the Duce treatment. No one has ever been more deserving.

 
 

Well this is nice. Repetition of Nader Excuse #1. Please sit back and enjoy how weak of an excuse it is, as evidenced by the five words it takes to dismiss it:

You know. If the Democrats want those Ralph Nader votes, they should do a little more to attract Ralph Nader voters.

I am not a Democrat.

I have no anger for people who can’t quite bring themselves to vote Repug Lite. I was one of them in 2000. I had great sympathy for them in 2004. I undertstand them today.

Hillary and Obama = Repug Lite.
Halliburton stockholder and Republican moneybuddy Ralph Nader = Repug Double Bock High Gravity With A Shot Of Jager In It

For many people, rationalizing a vote for Obama or Hillary is just putting lipstick on a pig.

Sure. Great. That’s fine. But Ralph Nader post-1998 (watch me here, watch what I’m doing, watch what the actual point is)

IS
NOT
A
PROGRESSIVE

Attacking and insulting Nader voters … How’s that working for ya? Is that strategy puttin’ Democrats in the White House?

Five words is all it takes. I am not a Democrat.

That anger you have toward Nader voters? Why don’t you save a little of that for the Democrats who enabled Bush all those years.

Like … uh … Hillary Clinton.

Who’s to say I haven’t? Additionally, I am not a Democrat.

Nonetheless it’s been a source of endless fascination to me (and apparently to Hoosier X) that a party which regards the left (and even its own left flank) as a source of votes and not much else somehow feels entitled to those votes come election time.

You know what’s also fascinating? I! Am! Not! A! Democrat!

As regards 2000, perhaps you should save that ire for the 50,460,110 Americans who voted for George Bush, as opposed to the 2,883,105 who voted for Nader.

“Between Gore and Bush, I’d vote for Bush.” – Ralph Nader, 2000.

Now what were you saying?

And I’m not even going to comment on your cherished conspiracy theories.

Ha! I love this from Nadroids. Just lovely. Halliburton? GOP money? Whatever! Doop-de-doo! You’re a dumb Democrat, despite me having no evidence of your political affiliation!

If you believe this, then you should also believe that Bill Kristol never ever ever wanted to attack Iraq pre-2002. Never ever.

Ralph Nader supporters are as incurious as ID believers. It’s a crying shame the way he’s used you, but it’s your own fault.

Just as feminists can’t continue an intra-feminist debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge the patriarchy, I can’t really roll with liberals who refuse to see what Nader became 1998-current. So keep flinging the excuse poo, I’ll get out of dodge.

 
 

I’m with El Cid. The Bill Clinton administration was not a golden age.

 
 

I am far more progressive and democratic (small “d”) than Ralph Nader could ever hope to be.

So, why should I vote for his weak, compromising *ss when I can just write myself in, and with as much effect?

 
 

Well -f or all you furriners – we have a really stupid political framework which allows us to only have two viable political parties. In Germany or somewhere sensible Ralph Nader would be a member of the parliament or congress or what-have-you as a member of a Green Party that would probably get around 5-10% of the votes here if we had multiparty politics.

But we don’t do proportional representation – so our political system is “first past the post” and “lowest common denominator.” Hell, I’m happy to just have a candidate that I WANT to vote for rather than the usual “lesser of two evils” logic that usually prevails.

 
 

Well, the good part here is that a lot of you guys are SO jaded and cynical you make me look positively pollyannish by comparison. Kind of refreshing.

I’m looking forward to an Obama Presidency. When he speaks of bipartisanship, I don’t hear “capitulation” as apparently so many of y’all do. I hear a firm leadership, where compromise is possible, but unyielding on core values. A more balanced approach than either the bush my way or the highway or the pelosi impeachment is off the table.

For the first time since ’92, I’ll be voting FOR someone, not AGAINST someone. And I’m convinced that this election is nothing less than a referendum on the bush/cheney policies, and as such will result in a massive repudiation. You’ll have the 20 percenters and some warmongers and theocrats, but the vast majority of americans, who’s every waking thought is NOT dominated by politics, who is fearful and disenchanted with what they see and hear around them, will consider “many more wars” McCain and “yes we can” Obama and it will be an easy decision.

Obama with 62% of the popular vote. And I think you doubters will be pretty surprised by how powerfully, forcefully and quickly he acts. As I said, I am quite looking forward to it…

mikey

 
 

In the end I suspect I’ll find myself agreeing with dear old Howard Zinn, at least on this one.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022108B.shtml

At the risk of fanning Obamamania (disclosure: I voted for Clinton in the primary) I saw Obama on the stump (I was working there, running the audio), and something he said in his speech stuck with me. The story was about the meeting of early civil rights activists with FDR. According to Obama, they convinced the president that federal voting rights protection and anti-lynching laws were the morally right things to do. “Now,” he told them, “make me do it.” Roosevelt’s response, and Obama’s point, was exactly the point Zinn was making. NO president can make such profound changes in the social contract without a powerful vox populi literally screaming for it, driving it from the genuine grass roots level. In Obama’s example, civil rights in the 1960s happened because We the People demanded it, agitated for it, screamed for it, and made Kennedy, LBJ and even Nixon do it. Nixon created the EPA because we made him do it.

 
 

I don’t get the feeling from Obama that he’d fight as viciously against progressive initiatives as we experienced from the Clinton / DLC wing of the party, which came into existence under the logic that the party needed to kill off its liberal / labor wing in order to more successfully sell itself to the big business donors on whom they intended to rely.

Hillary’s got a better health plan now, accurately copied from John Edwards, but with John Edwards or Barack Obama, I not only see a chance for them winning, but that they’d actually fight for their proposals and not drop their core policies the moment it becomes inconvenient.

That’s what I see from a Hillary Clinton nomination: first, a very thin chance of winning; a thin Democratic turnout; and the maintenance of a razor-thin Democratic lead in Congress.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of Democratic leaders like HRC wouldn’t prefer to maintain the Republican minority – dominated Congress, since that gives them an easier excuse to avoid the progressive / liberal agenda.

 
 

Jeebus fucking Keerist on a fucking crutch already!

Repeat after me: You have to get elected first.

There were plenty of people who foresaw what the W administration would be like. I will admit that I didn’t think it would be so utterly disastrous; we were expecting more of a brief stretch of rough road, not going over the cliff. The point of which is that what they do when they get in does not necessarily follow from their “get elected” persona.

Neither Obama nor Hillary are as transparent to me. Hell, they’re just not that transparent period.

 
 

Dude.

Anyone who voted for Ralph Nader 2000-present is unworthy of even my contempt.

My response.

That statement you made firmly plants you in the old-guard Dem camp.

You must looooove Hillary.

I like to think of Progressives as Democrats without all the whining.

 
 

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 because the other two choices, relativetoo who I was and where I was at the time, seemed unconscionable.

So I guess I am unworthy of your greatness.

I bow to your awesomeness, DN Nation.

At least you are not a smug, condescending ass-clown.

 
 

The problem with all the hatred of 2000 Nader voters is that it’s always put in the context of hindsight, which is meaningless. The only meaningful context, of course, is the context of the “choices” voters were facing in 2000.

Here’s a bit of context for you, as a start:

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html

MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?

GORE: I haven’t heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.

I urge you to read the entire debate transcript, and once you’ve done that ask yourself: what are the differences between these two candidates? Not what happened later, since that’s meaningless in this context.

 
 

Nice to see that Jenny Holzer has now joined your blog. I’ve always appreciated her work but haven’t seen it yet on a headstone. But it is the perfect place for her to use “Cheeto” for the first time.

 
 

And now my response: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/02/29/mccain_nader/

But the evidence suggests another possible motive for Nader to run this year — namely, that he hopes to help his longtime ally John McCain, to whom he owes at least one big favor. Nader is already focusing his fire on the Democrats, with his Web site featuring dozens of press releases attacking Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while none voice the slightest criticism of McCain. In his latest round of television appearances, Nader trained his fire directly on Obama.

and

Actually, Republicans have learned to do more than merely “welcome” Nader. Four years ago, Republican officials and activists in certain swing states helped gather signatures to gain ballot access for Nader, while several major Republican donors sent generous checks to his campaign. And no Republican spoke out more forthrightly on his behalf than McCain, who in 2004 urged the authorities in Florida to put Nader on the ballot there despite his failure to qualify — and who sent his own lawyer down to the Sunshine State to fight for Nader in court.

McCain launched that intervention from his perch as chairman of the Reform Institute, a Washington think tank funded by corporate soft money and liberal foundations and staffed by McCain staffers and partisans. On the surface, at least, the Arizona senator was pursuing a principled defense of open ballot access, and he recalled how establishment Republicans had used legal technicalities to block him from the New York primary ballot in 2000. He sent Trevor Potter, a prominent attorney and former Federal Election Commission member who has long represented him, to assist the Nader forces in Tallahassee. It was an inspiring story of shared democratic values that crossed the ideological spectrum.

But as the New York Times reported on Sept. 17, 2004, there was a political back story behind McCain’s assistance to Nader. According to the Times, “Mr. Potter said that the Nader campaign first sought Mr. McCain’s backing in the case last week and that subsequently the Bush campaign also asked him to get involved.”</b (Candidate Nader and his running mate, Peter Camejo, issued a statement thanking McCain and the Reform Institute that is for some reason no longer available on the Nader campaign Web site.)

Beneath my contempt.

 
 

Please. Love Nader or hate him, but if in a blue moon he could possibly win an election, he would accomplish ZERO in the office. There’s not a piece of legislation he could pass. There’s not a coalition he could build. The man has no alliances, no true political party support, no viable cabinet appointees, and ZERO capability to be a national leader.

 
 

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 because the other two choices, relativetoo who I was and where I was at the time, seemed unconscionable.

That’s your fault, my friend. Not teh politics. Ralph Nader’s Halliburton ties were on the public record in 2000; I can’t be bothered to feel sorry for you if you never noticed.

 
 

El Cid sez:

“You mean, like the first Clinton administration, where thankfully health care was NOT given to the 5 largest HMO’s and insurers but we did get NAFTA and an end to welfare as we know it, and then also we got 12 friggin’ years of a Democratic minority in Congress leading straight to the Bush Jr. triumvirate?

That kind of administration?”

Yeah, only with less Whitewater and more misogyny from the Right.

 
 

Nader is to Democrats as bad breath is to:

A. Butterflies
B. Kissing
C. Fascism
D. Big bag of dicks.

 
 

The problem with all the hatred of 2000 Nader voters is that it’s always put in the context of hindsight, which is meaningless.

I guess we couldn’t have been able to see Nader -> Halliburton -> PNAC -> Kristol -> Cheney -> Bush -> Iraq -> from the trees in 2000, so I’ll give you that. But again, the seeds were there in plain view, and if you couldn’t see them, that’s your fault.

 
 

Last thing about Nader-

I am not and was never a supporter of Nader. I am against the two party system, and I thought he had enough momentum to possibly give the Green Party matching funds status.

So you’re not a Democrat by name, but you talk like Mark Penn. Does that make you from Inside the Beltway? Randroid?

 
 

Again, I post this link to the ultimate Obama campaign song.

Or perhaps it would be best to wait and play it at the inauguration…

As for Nader, he’s a goat-blowing assclown.

And as for those who voted for him in 2000, the hindsight excuse doesn’t cut it, because anyone paying attention could see how manifestly unfit Bush was for office, and how corporate America was no longer bothering to hide their attempts to buy the presidency and install a dunce. That was job 1 – to make sure they didn’t succeed. Anyone who failed to pitch in to block them is IMO culpable.

 
 

I voted for the Green Party, who happened to have Nader at its helm.

 
 

But again, the seeds were there in plain view, and if you couldn’t see them, that’s your fault.

You really ought to read that transcript. The bits on nation-building are especially enlightening.

 
 

Damn, man you are a nasty variety of troll. Instead of actually talking about the points we bring up, you go directly to the name calling.

Classy. Go back under your bridge.

 
 

My bridge isn’t part of the road to Iraq.

 
 

So you’re better than me. I already conceded that. You knowledge and experience make you a smarter, faster, shinier person.

You are so great that you shit delicious cupcakes and you piss martinelli’s apple juice.

You’re so politically astute that you might as well run for the office of President. But idiots like me would never have the foresight or wisdom to vote for you, so I guess that’d be futile.

 
 

The only meaningful context, of course, is the context of the “choices” voters were facing in 2000.

On a semi-related note, I think a lot of us forget what things were like in 2000. There were not many blogs, certainly none that got a ton of hits. There was no one to counter the media’s spin — Bush good, Gore evil. People who got their information from the media were lied to horribly, but they had very few resources to show them the truth.

I don’t blame anyone for their vote in 2000. The people I do blame are the media, for pushing lies and spin on the American people — and for continuing to do so.

 
 

I basically voted for Nader because Bush was contemptible, and Tipper Gore is a condescending shit (PMRC, anyone?)

I admit I did not foresee the complete stealing of the election as enabled by the Supreme Court.

 
 

Well, although it’s only a first step, I didn’t see this coming:

Cuba signs human rights treaties

Radio Netherlands World Service

An important symbolic step: Cuba has decided to sign the two most important United Nations human rights treaties. Dating from 1966, the treaties are the legal “translation” of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set down in 1948. All UN member states by definition are obliged to respect the rights included in the declaration. But it isn’t legally binding. And in practice there are plenty of states that flout the Universal Declaration. This is not such an easy matter when it comes to the two treaties.

 
 

You know. If the Democrats want those Ralph Nader votes, they should do a little more to attract Ralph Nader voters.

See, I think of this the other way:

If Ralph Nader wants to attract Democratic (or any other) voters, he should do something beside just run for president every four years.

Where does Nader go and what does he do in between? Why isn’t there a Nader party machine working to elect congressmen or governers? Why isn’t he out stumping for any candidate at any level who deserves his support? Why isn’t there a Nader-driven movement to reform election contributions or reduce media consolidation or decrease corporate tax break or seriously enforce existing federal regulations that have been dangerously ignored in the past 8 years?

If Nader were out there, day after day, denouncing the policies and decisions that drove him to run in 2000, there would probably be a lot of progressives right there with him. This country desperately needs a powerful movement to the left of the Democratic party to pull “center” back somewhere close to the middle. Back in 2000, I had hoped Nader might provide that, and I was disappointed when he didn’t.

Does Nader honestly believe that he can change anything in Washington all by himself, just by running for president? If he thinks he can run a complete dictatorship from the White House without the support of Congress or the media, he’s either horribly naive or intellectually dishonest.

 
 

I didn’t know until yesterday that Nader owed Johnny Mac a favor. Or three. Good information to have.

I give no credit to Nader, in any form or context. He’s an intelligent man; he knew that any significant turnout for his candidacy in 2000 in a race that close would take votes from Al and hand the win to W.

And Ralphie didn’t care about that. He doesn’t care about it now.

The dirty tricks are coming out already, and it’s only February. The neo-cons are like cornered animals after the congressional election of 2006. They’ll pull out all the stops to steal one for McCain. It’ll be worse than 2004 was for Kerry.

Vote for Ralphie, if you are so disenchanted with Obama and Clinton. Make Rove, Ed Gillespie and Haley Barbour happy. I hope some of these Nader fans live in or near New Orleans. Maybe a Katrina survivor will catch up to them, and knock their rose colored glasses off.

 
 

Wouldn’t do it again, won’t apologize for it then.

 
 

I’m against the two-party system as well. I’m also against Democrat leaders who enjoy the receiving end of a Dubya Cleveland Steamer.

Perhaps I would be happier if I followed Gary’s lead and erased all things from my head that don’t please me.

Go Tory Party!

 
 

Just remember, though, all, that this thing isn’t in any way wrapped up for Obama, and Hillary may still be the candidate. Yes, I think it will make the general election season suck, but, so be it. I’ll still choose the same old DLC crap over the insane Republicans any day.

 
 

Wouldn’t do it again, won’t apologize for it then.

I wish I could be cool with this answer. I really do. And yet- the information was there, man. Right there in the open. And you decided to just stick one in the craw of the DNC rather than think of the consequences.

I really haven’t enjoyed these past 7 years. I hope you haven’t, either.

 
 

Here’s the thing, Naderites…

In parliamentary systems, parties sometimes (often?) have to form coaltions to wield a majority and get anything done. If Nader had truly been a) an advocate for the Green Party platform and b) really cared about establishing the Greens as a “major minority” party by getting a significant piece of the national vote, he would have parlayed his millions of votes into forcing Gore and the Dems to adopt planks of the Green Party platform and bargained himself a cabinet position, like Sec of Labor or Interior. In return, he’d call for his followers to vote for Gore. That’s how multi-party politics is played. At the very least he would have agreed to the gambit of vote swapping between states – a Dem voter in “safe state” like California or New York agrees to vote for Nader in exchange for a Green voter in a swing state like Ohio or Florida voting for Gore. This would result int he same national percentage of the vote going Green (which is what so many Green supporters in 2000 said was the real point – that is, party building) without throwing the goddamn election to Bush on electoral points.

But nooooo… Nader shot down the vote swapping movement, famously proclaiming there was NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL between Gore and Bush. Oh please! Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Would Gore have put anyone like Roberts and Scalito on the SCOTUS? Would Gore have plunged the nation into a tax-cuts-for-the-rich-driven generation-long insolvency? Would Gore have thoroughly corrupted the EPA, the DoE, the CDC and the DoJ, gutting whatever environmental protections we did have?

No, he wouldn’t have.

Can you now imagine a “greener” politician than Al Gore? I thought environmentalism was what the Green Party was built upon.

So yes, I do put a load of blame on Nader and his massive ego for what has happened to this country for the last eight years. And on the people who suspended their disbelief and foolishly pulled the lever for him.

The road paved with good intentions leads… where?

 
 

Personally, I don’t particularly feel any hatred towards a lot of people who voted for Republicans in 2004, especially not the ones who say they’d like to vote Democrat now. And that was after 4 years of teh Horror.

So why should I hate pre-Bush Jr. Nader voters?

 
 

And you decided to just stick one in the craw of the DNC rather than think of the consequences.

I dunno where Toby voted from but assuming that he did something that made a difference might be a little harsh.

 
 

Seriously, we don’t want Clinton in the White House just to give her family the revenge it justly deserves. Think of it this way – Obama can still spy on his enemies. We just need to pressure him to do it. Lay off the olive branches and become a bad MF…

 
 

I really haven’t enjoyed these past 7 years. I hope you haven’t, either.

Say, is it Ralph Nader’s fault the Democratic Party sat with their thumbs up their asses during the past seven years? Did he make them support the Iraq War -despite the information being “right there in the open” – and the bankruptancy bill and the whole FISA mess and the gutless backing down on Roberts and Alito? I bet it is. The guy’s like the Clenis, for cryin’ out loud.

Darn you Ralph Nader! *shakes fist at uncaring sky*

 
 

D.N. Nation said,

February 29, 2008 at 21:22

Wouldn’t do it again, won’t apologize for it then.

I wish I could be cool with this answer. I really do.

That just makes you look like an obsessive dick.

And yet- the information was there, man. Right there in the open. And you decided to just stick one in the craw of the DNC rather than think of the consequences.

As was the appearance of Holy Joe Lieberman on my TeeVee, sucking Cheney’s fat cock. That was a mistake Gore made so huge that it alone might have cost him the electoral college.

I really haven’t enjoyed these past 7 years. I hope you haven’t, either.

What t4toby said. You’re a foul kind of troll. You’re worse that Hypocritical Left and those Ruppert fakers. In fact, you’re not even worth attempting teh funney because you’re just an ass clown.

 
 

The information wasn’t “right there in the open.” You had to know specifically where to go looking, and even then, you had to go digging. If you, like most people, had no idea that the media was lying their asses off, didn’t know where the info was hidden, you were stuck with a bunch of bad information in your head.

Don’t go condemning people for not being aware they’re being lied to.

 
 

Has anybody made the argument yet that the Democratic party deserved votes in 2000? That they earned them? Because, you know, I’m not making it.

 
 

I don’t make an argument about the Democratic Party “deserving” votes in 2000. I deserve a whole hell of a lot, but I certainly did NOT deserve to have the whole country completely f***ed over more than even Reaganites were hoping by handing power to the Bush Jr. mafia.

This isn’t about what the parties want. It’s about what ordinary people like us deserve, and making whatever rational choices are actually available to us.

 
 

Ha! I love this from Nadroids.

I am not a Nadroid.

And I never said you were a Democrat. Not once.

When I said:

If the Democrats want those Ralph Nader votes, they should do a little more to attract Ralph Nader voters

I was refering to people who are trying to attract votes. Like Hillary and Barack.

Last I looked, they are Democrats.

If you were here to have a discussion in good faith, you wouldn’t have felt it necessary to engage in straw man arguments.

 
 

You’re a foul kind of troll.

I’ve never voted for someone who profited off of the Iraq war.

I can live with being “foul.”

The information wasn’t “right there in the open.”

Then how did I find it?

Again. Nadroids are a painfully incurious lot.

 
 

pitchfork ow! ow!

classic.

 
 

I was refering to people who are trying to attract votes. Like Hillary and Barack.

Given that Nadroids are more than willing to overlook his financial connections to the Iraq saber-rattlers, I don’t think they’re worth courting.

 
 

I’m loving the William Buckley headstone thing.

 
 

I’ve never voted for someone who profited off of the Iraq war.

Which means you’ve never voted. Period.

Unless it was for some Natural Law party dude.

Good to know you understand your own shallow soul.

 
 

Am I understanding your definition of “Nadroid” correctly?

It seems to mean anyone who holds Democrats who voted for the Iraq War more responsible for the Iraq War than Ralph Nader.

You don’t have to answer me directly. Just say anything that shows you have a lick of sense.

 
 

Ralph Nader made Hillary Clinton vote to give Bush authority to go to war in Iraq. Ralph Nader forced Nancy Pelosi to take impeachment off the table. Ralph Nader sweet-talked the Congressional Democrats into completely surrendering on the appointments of Alito, Roberts, Bolton, etc. and so forth. Ralph Nader held Joe Lieberman down and forced him to run against Ned Lamont, wrecking the chance for a truly progressive Democrat in Congress rather than Lieberman’s wierd idea that he deserves shit. Ralph Nader asked nicely and the Democrats saw the wisdom of never challenging the president in any substantial manner on things like FISA and the bankruptancy bill and that recent health care mess.

Ralph Nader is like friggin’ Lex Luthor, man. I wonder if he’s why mainstream country music sucks so badly, too. I bet he is. Curse you, Ralph Nader!

 
 

The history of the world, my love
Is those below serving those up above

How gratifying for once to know
That those above will serve those down below

 
 

Ralph Nader is like friggin’ Lex Luthor, man. I wonder if he’s why mainstream country music sucks so badly, too. I bet he is. Curse you, Ralph Nader!

Ralph Nader is the Artic Monkeys of Liberal Fascism!

Matt, you have explained it all to me!

42! 42!

 
 

This isn’t about what the parties want. It’s about what ordinary people like us deserve, and making whatever rational choices are actually available to us.

Yeah. Note that I’m complaining about Democrats not deserving the vote when, you know, Gore won.

 
 

Ah, the love.

For the record (and in the unlikely event that anyone gives a damn) I wouldn’t class myself as a Nadroid. Rather, I’m interested in the idea that the left might end up being asked to vote for Clinton (another bloody Clinton.) I’m far from convinced that liberal outrage is limited to Nader, voters for any left-of-the-Dems third party candidate are almost certain to end up on the receiving end of abuse.

 
 

Darn you Ralph Nader! *shakes fist at uncaring sky*

Heh, indeed.

DN – I am no Naderite, but I think you missed the point.

Voting for the lesser of two evils, which Gore did everything to appear as, did not seem like the right thing to do.

I also live in Washington State, so I was very secure in the knowledge that my vote would be recorded for someone other than the two bullshit parties, but my electoral vote was in the bag.

And don’t count out Tipper Gore’s affect on us Generation Xers. She hauled my childhood heroes in front of a bunch of stuffed suits to explain why music that was so important to me was vulgar and obscene.

I’ll bet a significant amount of Nader votes in 2000 were payback to Tipper’s Puritanism.

And Joe Liberman as VP? You have got to be kidding me.

 
 

Well no one can fault you for contributing to the ginormous disaster that is the last seven years just because you didn’t like the candidates wife. I mean really, on what better basis to cast ones vote could there be?

 
 

Voting for the lesser of two evils, which Gore did everything to appear as, did not seem like the right thing to do.

So you voted for the Halliburton shill.

Brilliant.

 
 

By the way, I’m not in love with either Obama or HRC, so I’m just voting for a third term for Bush. Acutally, no, I’m voting for Blackwater to install a military theocracy. That’ll work. Because gosh golly, at least they aren’t appeasing cowards like the Democrats.

(Your Nader excuses would actually work if he wasn’t a corporate/Halliburton/Bush/McCain tool. Which he is. And you voted for him. Go you!)

 
 

If you’re so pathetic you could not tell
A: George Bush was a decitful though empty suit while Gore was a sane, talented administrator
B: Nader was(is) a messiah complex ridden whack job because he claimed the opposite of A

then I’m rather worried that you voted at all and are preparing to vote again.

 
 

Ya know what I think?

I used to think the folks that are still screaming death and banishment for those who dared, dared not vote for Gore – for whatever reason, but it was really, really because they wanted Bush to invade Iraq on trumped up charges three years later, obviously, and you know it, darn ya – seven fucking years ago was because of cognitive dissonance over the basic gutlessness of the Democratic Party in the face of the Bush malAdministration. ‘Cause let’s face it, the Democrats have been fucking spineless since before the Towers fell and they’ve been more than happy to ignore not only their base, but also people fucking dying in the streets just so’s they won’t piss a group of knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping, hate-mongering ASSHOLES who’ll never, ever, ever love Hillary Clinton any friggin’ way. And you know this is true, otherwise, you wouldn’t have bitched as much about the goddamn Democrats as you have the past seven years. You know I’m right.

So, yeah, bitching about Nader in this, the two-thousand and eighth year of Our Lord, is a bit like the political version of Portnoy’s Complaint. Gotta scream at someone, the media and your elected officials could give a fuck, so why not scream at the dirty fucking hippies for being such dirty fucking hippies, the dirty fucking hippies.

But I got a new theory. Certain people – and I’m not gonna mention names, because this is common, especially since fucking Nader still thinks anyone gives a fuck – aren’t Democrats blinded with fury over an absolute nothing like an seven-year-old vote in an election that was friggin’ stolen anyway. No. They’re infiltrators trying to make people, out of sheer frustration and irritation at hearing this silly horseshit year again, not vote Democrat. Sort of reverse rat-fucking, you know, piss ’em off so badly they say, “Well, if you’re the example of the party I’ll be damned if I vote Democrat.” Can’t figure out if they work for Nader or the Rove Machine yet, but the intended result is the same.

Well, let me tell ya, friends and neighbors. It won’t work on me. Scream at me all you want for a vote I made seven years ago, but I’m still gonna vote for the Democratic candidate come Novemeber. I don’t care if it’s Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama, I’m voting Democrat and encouraging everyone I know to do the same.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Lex Nader!

 
 

FUCK!

Have you guys read anything I have written? Anything at all?

Or are you so smug that nothing penetrates you thick skulls?

I live in Fucking Seattle! My vote did nothing! I knew that going in!

FUUUUCCCCKKKK!!!11!!Eleventy!!!

So DN, I apologize that I do not have your superior intellect. there, are you happy?

PeeJ – You too? I wouldn’t have put you in the troll category, but there you go. Obviously the Dead Kennedys were not the seminal group to you that they were to me.

Wanders of to luch wondering WTF is wrong with these people…

 
 

Matt T.-

Nope, no use whining about Nader. And in that regard, no use whining about Kristol, Pantload, K-Lo, or anyone, because at least they’re not those appeasing Democrats.

So when does Sadly, No! officially close for business? Because that’s only where your line of reasoning takes us.

 
 

The information wasn’t “right there in the open.”

Then how did I find it?

I don’t know. How did you find it?

 
 

Okay, I *did* miss the part about your vote not meaning diddly squat. You are forgiven.

Circa 1977 I had hair down to my shoulders and even owned a jump suit. I wasn’t all that into disco but I was a gay boy in college and that’s all there was so what was I to do?

One night a friend came over and said “You HAVE to hear this.” Yeah, a bootleg of God Save the Queen.

Next day I had a buzz cut and a tasteful gold safety pin pierced through my forehead. So yeah, I can understand what the DK’s meant to you. What I don’t understand (not attacking here, I just don’t get it) is why anyone would even consider making your vote based on Tipper’s absurd histrionics. (Which pandering and censorshipporrificness and etc. I never understood either)

 
 

Nope, no use whining about Nader. And in that regard, no use whining about Kristol, Pantload, K-Lo, or anyone, because at least they’re not those appeasing Democrats.

So when does Sadly, No! officially close for business? Because that’s only where your line of reasoning takes us.

Did you run this through Bablefish into, like, Egyptian and then into Swahili and then back into English, because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Is the answer “mu”? Do I need to buy that Bible Code book to get the secret message? Hold it up to a mirror? Help a brother out.

Or…wait. This is your tricky, underhanded juju trying to make me not vote for the Democratic Party in November because you, yourself, are such a caustic, obnoxious, spittle-covered douchebag. I’m on to you, pal, and you can’t fool me. I’m voting Democrat and I’m proud of it! You run on back to Lex Nader and/or Karl Rove and tell ’em ol’ Matt T.’s just too darn smart for their shennanigans.

Whoever Wins The Democratic Nomination/Their To-Be-Chosen Running Mate ’08, Bitches!

 
 

And on a serious note, how friggin’ stupid has the world gotten when the likes Kathryn Lopez and Jonah friggin’ Goldberg are in a position to have massively more impact on the upcoming election than Ralph Nader? I mean, yeah, Nader’s gone slap off his nut if he thinks he has any business even opening his fool mouth after, ya know, being invisible unless there’s an election about, but is reality in that much better shape?

They must be beaming brain-rotting rays through the teevee during “American Idol” or pumping lead into the bottled water supply or something. We’re a terribly dumbass culture, y’all.

 
 

Wouldn’t do it again, won’t apologize for it then.

What t4toby said. Same goes for me.

Put it this way: imagine that Obama and McCain were debating foreign policy and there were no differences between them. And then the moderator asked Obama if there were any differences between him and McCain, and Obama replied, ” I haven’t heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.”

Would you:
a) feel so disheartened and dejected that you sat out the election entirely;
b) be so pissed off and disgusted that you vowed to lodge a protest vote, no matter who it was for;
c) gaze into your magic crystal ball which sees 8 years into the future, ala the guy in Stephen King’s The Dead Zone, and say “OMG! I’ve seen all possible futures! I know now what I must do!”

All of this keeping in mind that you’ve been voting for close to twenty years and have been served up a giant shit sandwich of “choices” for that entire time and you’re fucking well sick of it.

 
 

Voting for the lesser of two evils, which Gore did everything to appear as,

Oh, no. That’s just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 
 

What I don’t understand (not attacking here, I just don’t get it) is why anyone would even consider making your vote based on Tipper’s absurd histrionics.

So you’re saying that someone’s judgment vis a vis their mate has nothing to do with their judgment?

I hated that woman. I grew up in Kansas and she stood for all the bullshit I encountered in my Heartland upbringing. Only time has healed that slight.

I didn’t mean to say that I knew my vote wouldn’t count, I was secure in the fact that Washington State would go Dem, so my vote was a protest vote. And for that I’m “beneath contempt”.

 
 

Let’s see: Bush promised to cut taxes, mostly for rich people, then lied that this tax cuts would benefit mostly rich people, LIED RIGHT TO YOUR FACE, PEOPLE! and virtually assured that he would undo any environmental advances that happened during the Clinton administration, and talked about “compassionate conservatism,” which if you were paying any damn attention at all you’d know really meant “Good luck with all that!”, etc, etc, etc, and some people even NOW knowing what you know are STILL saying, “Gee, Gore was really just the lesser of two evils, so I couldn’t bring myself to vote for him?”

Those people should just apologize. Just like Hillary C needs to be a man and apologize for her wrong-ass Iraq now. Apologize right now, or get used to being pelted with virtual rotten tomatoes.

 
 

“wrong-ass Iraq VOTE”, I meant to say. Damn it.

 
 

Oh, no. That’s just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

How different is Lieberman from Bush?

Or McCain?

And he was first in line for succession?

And that’s Al Gore’s judgment on display?

Right.

 
 

Al Gore needs to apologize for not pursing all possible venues in order to make the votes that were cast count. Washington State went to the Democrats. So what did I do to piss you off so bad?

Again, my homework.

 
 

I didn’t think there were many differences between Gore and Bush, and that Gore had left his environmental activism in the dust.

Know what I didn’t do? Vote for a Halliburton stockholder and Bush moneybuddy. Because that would have been just stupid.

 
 

I was secure in the fact that Washington State would go Dem, so my vote was a protest vote. And for that I’m “beneath contempt”..

Well, you know how displays of passion and whatnot make white people uncomfortable. Next thing you know, you’ll be smashing Starbucks windows and dancing to jazz.

Just like Hillary C needs to be a man

Jesus, I thought she was supposed to be a lesbian who nevertheless had an affair with Vince Foster and then bit his head off. Does Obama need to be white about something, too?

 
 

Just like Hillary C needs to be a man

Jesus, I thought she was supposed to be a lesbian

[sigh] Sorry, that was sexist. I’ll just leave it at “she should apologize for her vote.”

 
 

Oh, don’t worry, Matt, I was at the WTO riots.

 
 

But probably about 90% of us voted for Nader that next year, so we were totally for Bush.

 
 

I’ve got to let this go, but may I remind people that was 2000, not 2008?

Hindsight is 20/20.

 
 

D.N. Nation,
So what time this morning did you start drinking, anyway? And what are you drinking? I got a buddy who’s sweet as you’d like unless he drinks cheap wine. He’s all of 5’3″ and shaped like one of them bop ’em blow-up dolls. You know, those things with the round bottoms that kids can smack and they’ll pop back up, that’s what my friend looks like. Anyhow, he spent one Saturday watching Chuck Norris movies and drinking an entire bottle of Crystal, and I had to spend the rest of the evening talking an interesting mixture of frat boys, punk rockers and a group of lesbians from kicking the shit out of him.

To be fair to my friend, though, the last ass-kicking I got cumulated an evening that did include copious amounts of Night Train consumed by your’s truly. Anyhow, my point’s the same. Go take a nap, dude, you’re gonna give yourself a stroke.

 
 

I voted for Nader in 96. I worked for NYPIRG one summer. Pre-Bush II, Nader was not quite a hero but something of an inspiration for me.
Then he showed that it’s all about him.
Bush is not Nader’s fault, but Ralph undeniably contributed, and, alone among the major figures of that race, he was the one I expected better from.
That Ralph was hurting Gore and helping Bush was apparent months before election day, and this whole “find a difference between the two” meme is below the standards of S,N!. If you can’t or couldn’t see the difference, you’re a zealot and an idiot. Yeah, it sucks that the range of debate about Israel is so limited, but that doesn’t make Bush and Gore equivalent. Don’t be fucking stupid.
A vote for Nader was a vote against everything he claimed to stand for, and you didn’t need to know Florida was going to be razor close to see that. George Bush was clearly a historic level mistake. No one could have known it’d be this bad, but you did not need special foresight or knowledge of Ralph’s investments in Halliburton to understand the electoral calculus in an election that everyone in the world knew would be incredibly close.
I look at voting for Nader in the exact same light as supporting the Iraq War before it became unpopular. It’s an understandable mistake, but an obvious mistake. And if a Nader voter can’t admit their mistake, we’re gonna have issues. Saying “Bush n Gore were the same” is the equivalent of Yglesias or some other liberal hawk saying they were wrong for the right reasons and at least they weren’t a dirty hippie. Reality is not partisan, it forces ALL of us to sacrifice ideals for expediency sometimes. It may have been holier to vote for Ralph, but it was not wise.

 
 

Oh, don’t worry, Matt, I was at the WTO riots.

And then you voted for a Halliburton puppet.

You would have been better off sitting at home.

Well, you know how displays of passion and whatnot make white people uncomfortable. Next thing you know, you’ll be smashing Starbucks windows and dancing to jazz.

This assumes Nader was an actual progressive candidate, which he was not. If he was, then I’d be on your side. But he wasn’t. And so I’m not.

 
 

Oh, don’t worry, Matt, I was at the WTO riots.

Ah-ha! I knew it. Next thing you know, you’ll be smoking that devil marijuana, growing your sideburns longish and listening to rock and/or roll music! Hence thee to an Abercrombie & Fitch and get a medicinal dose of khaki without delay! Turn on NPR! Pretend to enjoy old country music! Make a really big deal about reading the Harry Potter books! It’s not too late!

 
 

Wait — how does it matter electorally if someone voted for Nader in an either overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican state?

 
 

Ah-ha! I knew it. Next thing you know, you’ll be smoking that devil marijuana, growing your sideburns longish and listening to rock and/or roll music! Hence thee to an Abercrombie & Fitch and get a medicinal dose of khaki without delay! Turn on NPR! Pretend to enjoy old country music! Make a really big deal about reading the Harry Potter books! It’s not too late!

Halliburton stockholder = Not cutting edge.

 
 

Wait — how does it matter electorally if someone voted for Nader in an either overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican state?

You found a way to say in one comment what it has taken me this whole thread to get through these guys’ damn heads.

 
 

Hindsight, my ass, Toby, the differences between Gore and Bush were as clear as day, out there for anyone to see.

However. In the interests of promoting healing, I will confess this much: Although back in 1999 I became, after due research, convinced that a Bush presidency would be really very very bad for the U.S., I never dreamed that it would be the massive nightmarish clusterfuck it has turned out to be.

 
 

Lame Troll = Not holier than thou.

 
 

El Cid,
See, that’s the funny thing. Back then, the idea was that if the turnout was large enough – 5% I think was the number – then come the 2004 election cycle, the Greens would get all the nifty gee-gaws that the Democrats and Republicans get for being “real parties”, and thus, we’d have something other than a two-party system. This was, of course, put in the light of four years, maybe eight, of Al Gore as president and, thus, plans for the future. ‘Course, it didn’t work out that way. Oh, Gore won, but as we all know, Ralph Nader single-handedly and with a sneer on his lips forced the Supreme Court to pull their bullshit. He’s also head of all media and that Bob Somersby is just whistlin’ dixie.

Now, here’s the funny part, ready? First, your original question:

Wait — how does it matter electorally if someone voted for Nader in an either overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican state?

In 2008? Fuck all. Seriously, how someone voted in 2000 really only matters to people who are tying to slick you into voting not-Democrat come November. Don’t listen to them! They are bad people and drink your last beer.

 
 

Hindsight, my ass, Toby, the differences between Gore and Bush were as clear as day, out there for anyone to see.

What is it with the righteous indignation? Is it possible I saw things different? Is it possible that people’s lives and experiences prepare them to see the world in different ways?

Could Al Gore 2000 been any lamer as a presidential candidate?

Joe Lieberman? Explain that away, Mr Hindsight, my ass.

 
 

They are bad people and drink your last beer.

And they will drink your last beer, I meant. They will, too. They’ll lie about having weed to throw in, too, when you fuckin’ know they got some, the dirty bastards.

 
 

t4toby, just keep pasting this link until they have the guts to read it:

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html

That’s the entire transcript of the Gore/Bush foreign policy “debate”. Warning: boring as hell, since they do nothing but agree with each other on everything. Actually, Gore comes across as slightly more hawkish than Bush.

Frankly, I think all of this “I saw the differences clearly because I cared to look!” is so much self-serving horseshit and I have trouble believing a word of it. I know I cared to look–I watched the debate, which is supposed to be where the candidates display their differences, and I saw no differences. Because I was looking, and there weren’t any. Simple, really.

I won’t inflict a link to the Cheney/Lieberman debates on you, since they’re even worse. Oh, and speaking of magical foresight, it just so happens I saw Lieberman for the worthless DINO he was back then, and I’ve been fully vindicated. How ’bout the folks who voted for him? What did you see?

 
 

To say again, it wasn’t Nader’s fault, but he bears a portion of the blame. If you found a protest vote to be more important than not supporting a hypocritical, counterproductive endeavor, then okee.
I should have made clear I’m not demonizing Ralph voters, I’m just not drinking their koolaid.
And yes, it is/was koolaid. The guy was wrong, obviously so. He did not deserve your support.

 
 

Me, that’s fucking stupid.

And yeah, Lieberman sucked, he’d still have been better than Cheney. Nixon would have been better than Cheney.

 
 

Well no one can fault you for contributing to the ginormous disaster that is the last seven years just because you didn’t like the candidates wife.

Yes, because First Ladies never, ever use their bully pulpit to get publicity for government programs people might not agree with:

 
 

(Interesting; the picture showed up in preview but is not in the final post. It was Nancy Reagan, for the record.)

 
 

Me, that’s fucking stupid.

Go ahead, Google the Cheney/Lieberman “debate” (read: love-in).

And yeah, Lieberman sucked, he’d still have been better than Cheney

More magical hindsight. Frankly, I’m not at all convinced of that, given that the man is campaigning for the Republican nominee purely out of personal spite. Character counts, as they so often say.

Look, perhaps I haven’t been clear enough that I’m no Nader Kool-Aid drinker, never have been. He was a protest vote (in a state far from Florida, btw) who just so happened, by a wild convergence of circumstances, to play a small role in the most bullshit stolen election in history. And I emphasize small role. In my book, he’s far down a rather lengthy list of reasons for that debacle.

All that said, screw Ralph Nader. He’s an egomaniac, and I have no further use for him. There, will that make everyone happy?

 
 

There, will that make everyone happy?

‘Course it won’t. Apparently, it pisses ’em off even more. “You made a mistake!” “Yeah, I know.” “Fucking asshole, Iraq’s your fault, Bush is your fault, you killed Bambi, I hope someone blarg beeble gargle…” and then they roll around the floor, frothing at the mouth.

Sad, really. No, wait, that’s not the right word. Funny. That’s the frog. By God, next time some right-wing dickhead claims that liberals and leftists and other assorted America Haters all march in lockstep and groupthink, show the deluded bastard this thread. I do believe knives would’ve been pulled at some point.

 
 

Sweet Jesus, I wish this election were over.

I say we put them all in a ring and let the last person standing rule the country. Obama’s kind of skinny, but I have a feeling he’s sinewy. Clinton probably has a right hook that could put someone out for the count. McCain has the training, but might be easily distracted if someone made bombing noises. Nader looks like he has a glass jaw.

 
 

Look, perhaps I haven’t been clear enough that I’m no Nader Kool-Aid drinker, never have been. He was a protest vote (in a state far from Florida, btw) who just so happened, by a wild convergence of circumstances, to play a small role in the most bullshit stolen election in history. And I emphasize small role. In my book, he’s far down a rather lengthy list of reasons for that debacle.

All that said, screw Ralph Nader. He’s an egomaniac, and I have no further use for him. There, will that make everyone happy?

Word.

Different brad – How was a protest vote (against the two party system, not for Nader) in a Solidly Dem state ‘drinking the Kool-aid’?

“All Nader Voters are Teh St00pid, forEvAr!!!” is an intellectually vapid statement, but I’ve read about 30 different variations of it in this thread.

How do you appreciate flowers when all you can see is black and white?

 
 

“You made a mistake!” “Yeah, I know.”

Well, at the risk of prolonging this even further, I absolutely dispute that I “made a mistake”. I made a choice based on the available evidence at the time, and I stand by it. Really, the record is very clear, as can be seen by following the links I’ve provided. It’s little wonder that the country split almost exactly 50/50. The choices as presented were identical. That’s objective fact.

 
 

Me,
Doesn’t matter. I made a mistake, you made an informed, logical choice, and millions of other people decided they’d try something different. We’re all, each one of us, more responsible for every single death in Iraq than George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rummsfeld, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Thomas Friedman, the New York Times, CNN, the Democrats who voted for war (which was most of ’em), etc. and so forth COMBINED TIMES INFINITY. Furthermore, this is the single most important thing ever and so totally revelent to the election going on now because it just is.

We are horrible, horrible human beings. We shouldn’t be allowed to vote, probably.

 
 

I’m thinking Hari Kari is the only way out with my dignity intact.

 
 

t4t, you could, y’know, let it drop. I’m just sayin’. Everybody knows where everybody stands.

Internet arguments, meet special olympics.

That said (and this will be my one and only post on the subject):

Back in 2000, we were coming out of 8 years of the (first?) Clinton Administration. America was ungodly weary of Clinton and, as much as he tried to distance himself from the President, Gore.

The unreflective among us (that’s somewhere north of 80% of the voters) were as interested in change for change’s sake as anything. The Greens, as has been pointed out could see no difference between the candidates and from their perspective that’s probably true.

Think of sitting in the audience in a theater. When you’re in the center of the theater, things onstage just look different than if you’re out to the sides.

So, yeah…I could totally see a Green or Green-party-sympathetic voter going for Nader. I, personally, didn’t but I’m probably much more centrist than most of y’all.

Nader’s run this time? All about Nader and I wish he’d STFU.

 
 

I will admit this: I have trouble letting go when I am challenged.

Where’s the line to become a pundit? I could do this all day with Hannity, Rush, BillO, etc.

 
 

I want someone who fucking hates the Republicans. They *are* people who need to be crushed and defeated. The US is about three steps from being Chile. You don’t want that and niceing up to the people who are bringing you that is not a plus in a president.

 
 

Von Pseud, didn’t you learn a thing from the Blair experience? You have to go beyond the rhetoric. We believed the hype in 1997 innit.

 
 

t4toby said,

I will admit this: I have trouble letting go when I am challenged.

Where’s the line to become a pundit? I could do this all day with Hannity, Rush, BillO, etc.

But you certainly wouldn’t get an argument from them about your vote for Nader. They’d be happy you went for it.

 
 

But you certainly wouldn’t get an argument from them about your vote for Nader. They’d be happy you went for it.

Since when do we care what the likes of Hannity, Rush and BillO think?

 
 

There’s no magical hindsight required to recognize Lieberman was (and even now, still is) “better” than Cheney, just as there was and is no rational, informed, way to argue Gore and Bush were equivalent.
If you had the vaguest clue, you understood the stark and fundamental differences between them. Debate transcripts do not a political awareness make, and Bush’s whole stance was bullshit compared to the longstanding, and clear, ideologies of every single person he surrounded himself with. I’m not defending Gore or trying to blame Nader voters for the Bush years, (tho that’s a nice cross, Matt T. You’re usually a lot smarter than hyperbole like that) people can make mistakes with good intentions, just like many of the average americans who were fooled on Iraq. But it was a mistake. How much of a protest is a vote for a candidate whose presence in the race helps the people he should be most opposed to?
I’m as opposed to DLC/Clintonite Dems as anyone, but their flaws are not such that it was worth the Bush Admin to get them out of the White House, and there’s no hindsight involved in asserting that. Gore’s very real flaws do not excuse Nader making it about his ego.

 
 

Since when do we care what the likes of Hannity, Rush and BillO think?

Just my response to T4Toby wanting to be on their shows.

 
 

[…] GOP; any other read of it is naive and partisan in the extreme.  Even leaning towards Obama, one hopes all this is true, even if one is an Barack leaner.  It will/would be hilarious to listen/watch/puke over GOP […]

 
 

“Von Pseud, didn’t you learn a thing from the Blair experience?”

Good gods man, of course I did? No one realised quite how bad the sleazy Islingtonian little bastard was going to be but the signs were certainly there – ‘New Labour’, cuddling up to the Iron Lady (a procedure repeated by our new saviour Comrade Brown recently), and a host of awfulness besides.

 
 

At the inauguration Obama should swear on some slavery-era artifact, like a bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass. Or the jailhouse Bible of abolitionist John Brown, which is in the Chicago Historical Society.

I’m guessing the Mendi Bible would be available:

The Mendi Bible is a Bible presented to former President of the United States and then-current United States Representative John Quincy Adams in 1841 by a group of freed African slaves who had mutinied on the schooner La Amistad. It was presented to Quincy Adams as a gift in thanks for his representation of them before the US Supreme Court, which resulted in their freedom. The freed slaves were Mende people; this Bible derives its name from their tribal name…

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, the state’s first African-American governor, took his oath of office on the Mendi Bible on January 4, 2007.

 
 

I say we put them all in a ring and let the last person standing rule the country. Obama’s kind of skinny, but I have a feeling he’s sinewy. Clinton probably has a right hook that could put someone out for the count. McCain has the training, but might be easily distracted if someone made bombing noises. Nader looks like he has a glass jaw.

Susan, my dear ol’ dad preferred the Arena Option:

All the candidates, thrown into one arena, naked and armed only with forks. Final survivor gets to be President.

At the end of his or her six-year term, the President is ritually crucified to signal the start of the new race.

Profits from tickets and/or pay-per-view will be used to pay down the national debt.

 
 

All the candidates, thrown into one arena, naked and armed only with forks. Final survivor gets to be President.

Jesus Christ, you WANT Chuck Norris in there, dontcha?

 
 

Jesus Christ, you WANT Chuck Norris in there, dontcha?

Speaking of people it would be soul-satisfying to see upon a crucifix…

 
Qetesh the Qaveat Qat
 

Anne Laurie, once again I’m with you. And for added fun, government could be conducted by dudes wearing clown pants and carrying The Bladder On A Stick Of Rectitude and The Air Horn Of Respect; the pants for holding whitewash which is bound to get tipped down them, the bladder for hitting other pollies who get out of hand, and the air horn for signalling their intent to speak. I have a sweet visual image of a room full of orange-haired buffoons whacking each other on the noggin instead of snarling insults, and sounding like Harpo Marx when they’re agitated.

That might deter some of the buggers from trying to rule the world.

Oh, and vis a vis the Ralph Nader 2000 debate: it’s past and done and can’t be changed. Why not think about this coming election instead?

 
 

Hell, I’ll defend Gore. The media HATED him and did everything in their collective power to torpedo his candidacy (see Daily Howler for details). He was a far more qualified candidate (duh) with intelligence and real vision.

And Tipper Gore played drums for Frank Zappa.

 
 

How do you appreciate flowers when all you can see is black and white?

you smell them?

and why is DN Nation so indignant? Im pissed about a shitload of things in the US but I wouldnt take it out on the DFHs at SadlyNo. Go yell at Grampaw or something…

 
 

[…] I’ve said before, there are more important issues facing this country than my bloody-minded quest for revenge. But […]

 
 

[…] I’ve said before, there are more important issues facing this country than my bloody-minded quest for revenge. But […]

 
 

(comments are closed)