It's official. Ralph Nader is running for President.
For those who don't understand why, it's simple. He's not trying to win. He knows he can't, which is why he asserts that he won't spend a lot of money in his up-coming campaign.
What he is apparently trying to do is make the Democrats run against him to the left, as opposed to competing with the Republicans for the center. He is not impressed with Obama either, citing his lack of a comprehensive health care plan, and the fact that he, also, is beholden to "special interests". In his case, this seems to be insurance lobbyists, according to Nader.
I find it interesting that Nader waited until now to announce, when it seems Obama will be the likely nominee. His first campaign, as a Green Party candidate, was in 1996, when it was feared he could draw as much as six percent or more of the vote in California, a state Clinton had to win. If he had drawn this high a percentage, it conceivably would have thrown the state to Bob Dole, costing Clinton the presidency.
There were meetings between Naders' staff and Clinton's, and there were reports at the time that Clinton and Nader themselves might meet to hash out some differences. Nader was concerned about Clinton's lackluster record on environmental and consumer rights issues, and felt Clinton was also beholden to the corporate interests.
In that election, Nader drew 2.4 percent of the popular vote in California, though he only won 1 percent nationwide. Clinton went on the win California, and re-election. It was suggested that Nader held back in his campaign in California. Did Nader hold back? If so, why? Were promises made? If so, they seemingly were not kept. When running for the presidency again in 2000, Nader spoke bitterly about the former president.
I have always wondered if promises were made, and then broken. More to the point, did Clinton have anything on Nader?
Why did he wait until Hillary Clinton seems almost certain to lose the nomination before he announced his own run? He has obviously been mulling it over well before the time of his official announcement.
I will be watching to see what he does, particularly if Hillary Clinton does somehow exceed current expectations in the up-coming remaining primaries, and somehow pulls out the nomination. This is not at all impossible or even improbable. If she does so, and Nader then seems to disappear suddenly into the background, that would be noteworthy, and suspicious.
After all, the Clintons have the reputation of having a knack for digging up dirt. It would be worthwhile to see Ralph Nader scurry for the exit. His recent campaign announcement might have been premature. In his case, a run against the Clinton machine might well be-yeah, I have to say it-unsafe at any speed.
For those who don't understand why, it's simple. He's not trying to win. He knows he can't, which is why he asserts that he won't spend a lot of money in his up-coming campaign.
What he is apparently trying to do is make the Democrats run against him to the left, as opposed to competing with the Republicans for the center. He is not impressed with Obama either, citing his lack of a comprehensive health care plan, and the fact that he, also, is beholden to "special interests". In his case, this seems to be insurance lobbyists, according to Nader.
I find it interesting that Nader waited until now to announce, when it seems Obama will be the likely nominee. His first campaign, as a Green Party candidate, was in 1996, when it was feared he could draw as much as six percent or more of the vote in California, a state Clinton had to win. If he had drawn this high a percentage, it conceivably would have thrown the state to Bob Dole, costing Clinton the presidency.
There were meetings between Naders' staff and Clinton's, and there were reports at the time that Clinton and Nader themselves might meet to hash out some differences. Nader was concerned about Clinton's lackluster record on environmental and consumer rights issues, and felt Clinton was also beholden to the corporate interests.
In that election, Nader drew 2.4 percent of the popular vote in California, though he only won 1 percent nationwide. Clinton went on the win California, and re-election. It was suggested that Nader held back in his campaign in California. Did Nader hold back? If so, why? Were promises made? If so, they seemingly were not kept. When running for the presidency again in 2000, Nader spoke bitterly about the former president.
I have always wondered if promises were made, and then broken. More to the point, did Clinton have anything on Nader?
Why did he wait until Hillary Clinton seems almost certain to lose the nomination before he announced his own run? He has obviously been mulling it over well before the time of his official announcement.
I will be watching to see what he does, particularly if Hillary Clinton does somehow exceed current expectations in the up-coming remaining primaries, and somehow pulls out the nomination. This is not at all impossible or even improbable. If she does so, and Nader then seems to disappear suddenly into the background, that would be noteworthy, and suspicious.
After all, the Clintons have the reputation of having a knack for digging up dirt. It would be worthwhile to see Ralph Nader scurry for the exit. His recent campaign announcement might have been premature. In his case, a run against the Clinton machine might well be-yeah, I have to say it-unsafe at any speed.
2 comments:
Just like Ross Perot did everything to elect and re-elect Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Ralph Nader is doing everything to prevent Democrats like Gore, Kerry and now Obama from winning the White House.
Why ? Because Nader needs a GOP president to keep his movement together. It would be very hard to denounce US government as "racist" if Obama is president, as "sexist" if Hillary is president, or as "anti-environmental" if Gore is president, etc. etc.
Sonia-Yeah that makes sense. On the other hand, Nader can always find something to be a little bitch about. Sometimes his bitches are valid too, especially when he goes on about corporate influence. My main gripe with him is he expects too much. He actually seems to think Democrats lose elections because they aren't liberal enough. He is deluded.
Post a Comment