Clinton, McCain, Obama — Go Home; Nader’s the Real Deal
by Clint 7 comments Leave a comment April 9th, 2008 
Barack Obama, 46, is an egomaniac.
Consider this: He’s already written two entire books about himself. And, after a long, distinguished career of two years in the US Senate, he decided that he should be the most powerful man in the world. Running on the theme of change, his Senate record is so astounding that his supporters often fail to name a single one of his legislative accomplishments. I have one for you: He voted repeatedly to fund the Iraq war (which he says must end).
But that’s not all.
He linked his vanity campaign with Abraham Lincoln’s. The audacity!
Barack Obama, do us all a favor. Stick to making speeches. Go home.
Hillary Clinton, 60, is a corporate Democrat, a triangulator and, like her Democratic opponent, an imperialist. Worst of all, she’s a spoiler.
The darling of the military industrial complex, Hillary will stop at nothing to guarantee her coronation as president. Right now, it seems clear that her insistence on sticking in the race is dividing the Democratic Party, perhaps paving the way for a McCain victory. But, Mrs. Clinton, don’t you know the odds are against you?
Hillary Clinton, do us all a favor. Stop being a spoiler. Go home.
Ralph Nader, 74, is the only legitimate candidate in the 2008 presidential election.
Clinton and Obama spew empty rhetoric about change, but Nader has decades of real experience changing this country for the better.
He’s made your cars safer. He’s made your water and your air cleaner. He’s made your job safer to work at. He’s made your government more transparent. He’s made the products you buy less dangerous. He’s made your food healthier. He was instrumental in the formation of more than 50 organizations that foster citizen power and protection, such as Congress Watch, the Clean Water Action Project and the Center for Auto Safety.
He opposed the Iraq war from the start. He’s always opposed the Patriot Act. He’s always supported the worker’s right to a living wage and to organize in unions. He supports single-payer universal healthcare. He opposes the War on Drugs. He opposes NAFTA. He supports a two-state solution – not AIPAC. He opposes the increasing control corporations have over our daily lives.
Unlike Clinton and Obama, he stands in line with the majority of US public opinion. Unlike the Democrats, he represents the best interests of the Peace movement, the labor movement, the gay rights movement and the environmental movement.
But, you know, if democracy means anything, it means choice. So I’ll take it back.
Clinton and Obama (and McCain for that matter), even though you don’t represent majority opinion or real change on healthcare, Iraq, the Patriot Act, the living wage, corporatism or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I think you should still be allowed to stay in the race. It’s true that you’ll be stealing votes from the only legitimate candidate, but he’s not entitled to those votes; he has to earn them.
And maybe if you say “please,” Nader will give you a good Cabinet position come January.
Best of luck.
You forgot to add: “He helped create our sue happy country which is partially responsible for increased health care costs and red tape that makes it nearly impossible to receive affordable quality medical care.”
And he’s an ego-maniac just the same.
But otherwise he’s great and oh-so-viable.
Lincoln actually had near the same level of experience as Obama before becoming president. He had 8 years in the Illinois State Legislature and 2 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. FDR had 4 years as Gov. and 2 in his state legislature.
And while I agree that it’s a bit silly to complain about the ego of Ralph Nader, there is some validity to the idea that each of his successive candidacies is less effective and maybe his energies could be better spent elsewhere. I don’t necessarily agree with that viewpoint, but I don’t think it’s a dubious concern.
“He helped create our sue happy country which is partially responsible for increased health care costs and red tape that makes it nearly impossible to receive affordable quality medical care.”
Sue-happy country? Are you reading from a neo-con handbook? You know, maybe the page that talks about how we need to limit a citizen’s ability to file a lawsuit, especially if it’s going to be directed at a defenseless multinational. The myth of the so-called frivolous lawsuit is easily debunked:
http://www.corpreform.com/2003/10/the_myth_of_the.html
Back in reality, 59% of doctors support the type of healthcare plan that Nader proposes: a single-payer, not-for-profit universal healthcare (like Canada’s). Distinct from Obama’s plan in that covers ALL Americans and distinct from both Hillary and Obama’s plans in that it’s not run by the health industry, but rather by the government.
Health care should be guaranteed by the government; it’s a human right.
“Lincoln actually had near the same level of experience as Obama before becoming president. He had 8 years in the Illinois State Legislature and 2 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. FDR had 4 years as Gov. and 2 in his state legislature.”
I’m sure he was an egomaniac too, though I do think he was a bit more accomplished than Mr. Hope (achievements anyone? ethics reform?).
“And while I agree that it’s a bit silly to complain about the ego of Ralph Nader, there is some validity to the idea that each of his successive candidacies is less effective and maybe his energies could be better spent elsewhere. I don’t necessarily agree with that viewpoint, but I don’t think it’s a dubious concern.”
How can you say each candidacy is less effective? His run in 2000 was better than his run in 1996. His run in 2004 was bogged down by lawsuits and harassment by the Democrats that knocked him off 16 states’ ballots. For his current run, he’s polling higher than his results in any previous election (5-6%) — despite minimal media coverage and constant demonization. And he’s currently well ahead of his 2004 pace in terms of getting on the ballot.
He’s constantly working and writing on these issues in between elections, and, according to him, it’s just not possible to do the kind of work that he did in the 60s and 70s given the state of D.C. right now. It’s overly dominated by corporate interests. Since he’s got 40 years of experience doing this type of work and getting real results, I’m inclined to believe him when he says lobbying is no longer an effective method for what he’s trying to achieve.
Yeah, I picked that right up from my Reagan Manifesto. I keep it right next to my Confederate Flag, my assault rifle, and of course, my Bible. You are all over the place assuming what I think and what I mean by what I said. You set up so many strawman arguments in your retort its ridiculous. Like here:
“Distinct from Obama’s plan in that covers ALL Americans and distinct from both Hillary and Obama’s plans in that it’s not run by the health industry, but rather by the government.”
Who cares and what does Obama and Hillary have to do with Nader? I never defended them. Be honest, you original post, in tone, is just flamebait anyways. Back in reality, Nader has absolutely no chance of winning the election and I feel silly for even saying this. I know you know this, because I am assuming you aren’t an idiot. Let’s be realistic about what Nader is actually trying to do with his candidacy: He is just trying to get his views heard and hopefully influence other candidates. I’m not one of those people who say he shouldn’t run (mainly because they are afraid he will steal votes from Democrats). I’m certainly not a person who supports the idea of a two-party-only system.
“Unlike Clinton and Obama, he stands in line with the majority of US public opinion.”
Really? Because I thought the majority of Americans were opposed to gay marriage? Why do you assume that because he represents your opinions that he represents those of the nation? Are the majority of Americans part of the peace, labor, and environmental movements? or are you?
And yes, sue happy country. Look at all the ads on TV for lawyers wanting to sue doctors. If it wasn’t profitable for those lawyers they wouldn’t do it. Doctors have to have insurance in case their patients sue them. How ridiculous is that? I’m not saying patients shouldn’t be able to take some sort of action against negligent or malicious doctors.
But why should it be like winning the lottery? The reason for rising doctors premiums is because they have to pay out the nose for malpractice insurance: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/06/01/rising_doctors_premiums_not_due_to_lawsuit_awards/
It isn’t the lawsuits directly, but the fact that doctors need this insurance in the first place. You can’t honestly think that the current system is ideal.
“how we need to limit a citizen’s ability to file a lawsuit, especially if it’s going to be directed at a defenseless multinational.”
I don’t think I ever said the lawsuits were “frivolous”. (Frivolous: characterized by lack of seriousness or sense) I don’t think these lawsuits are a joke or anything, but I just don’t understand why people should become millionaires because someone made an honest mistake. I don’t know how to solve the situation, but I think that doctors and patients should both be protected. In the end its everyone who suffers because of this animosity. Doctors and patients shouldn’t fear each other. Its part of the culture now.
“Health care should be guaranteed by the government; it’s a human right.”
Great, but who said it shouldn’t? You want to just stand around and preach or stay on topic?
Ian,
I’m not saying you are a neo-con, but rather that the issue of malpractice reform is a neo-con issue and its purpose is to benefit business at the expense of citizens. My apologies.
“Who cares and what does Obama and Hillary have to do with Nader?”
They are his primary competition, and they have attacked him already.
“Be honest, you original post, in tone, is just flamebait anyways.”
I’m trying to point out how hypocritical and ludicrous the attacks on Nader have been, whether from Obama, Clinton or the media in general. When attacks (e.g. egomaniac, spoiler) are reversed and applied equally they sound absurd and inflammatory because they are absurd and inflammatory.
“Back in reality, Nader has absolutely no chance of winning the election”
He has a chance — not a good one, but a chance nonetheless.
“Really? Because I thought the majority of Americans were opposed to gay marriage? Why do you assume that because he represents your opinions that he represents those of the nation? Are the majority of Americans part of the peace, labor, and environmental movements? or are you?”
I don’t assume that; it’s in the data. Click the links near the bottom of the article (and I can find you more if you want). He’s in the majority position on Iraq, health care, corporate power, nuclear weapons, Israel/Palestine, the Kyoto Protocol, the Patriot Act, living wage, how to deal with Iran, on abolishing the electoral college, on preventive war, on the role of the UN in the world etc. As for gay marriage, the public opinion polls I’ve seen show the country as basically split, with a small majority at least favoring civil unions and a small majority opposing recognition of equal marriage rights.
No, most Americans are not part of those movements, though I would argue they are represented by them. That particular point was meant more for people such as myself.
“I’m not saying patients shouldn’t be able to take some sort of action against negligent or malicious doctors.
But why should it be like winning the lottery?”
I don’t see how it’s ridiculous. And it’s not like winning the lottery. Read the link you posted.
It says jury awards “often are reduced after trial to comply with doctors’ insurance coverage maximums or because the plaintiff settles for less money to avoid an appeal.” And that these cases are NOT the reason for rising insurance premiums.
“I don’t think these lawsuits are a joke or anything, but I just don’t understand why people should become millionaires because someone made an honest mistake.”
You’re exaggerating the awards that are doled out again. But the reason they should get big settlements is because health care costs are exorbitant and the trauma/debilitation caused by a doctor sewing an arm onto a face is not easily overcome. If I’m earning a decent wage and malpractice causes me to miss work for a few years, we’re already in the hundreds of thousands - not counting the costs of the surgery itself.
“Great, but who said it shouldn’t? You want to just stand around and preach or stay on topic?”
We’re talking about health care, aren’t we? Nader’s plan would improve the quality of the system while simultaneously lowering the cost to get covered. And it would cover everyone. I think the acknowledgment that health care is a human right should be the foundation of any discussion about it.
“And that these cases are NOT the reason for rising insurance premiums.”
I think I acknowledged that they aren’t directly responsible for rising health care costs. The cause is the rising cost of malpractice insurance that doctors must have. You wouldn’t need malpractice insurance if there weren’t people who sue doctors. Again, I don’t think that people shouldn’t be able to seek some sort of recourse against malpractice, but I do think that patients and doctors should both be protected in the event malpractice occurs. Unless the doctor was malicious or grossly negligent, I don’t think they should have to be punished. Sometimes medical procedures just don’t go well, but there is always some sort of inherent risk you take when seeking treatment. Medicine certainly isn’t foolproof.
Maybe they help protect patients some, but you have to be naive to think that lawsuits haven’t had a negative effect on the medical industry. Hospitals go to great lengths to insulate themselves from litigation by making you sign lots of forms and making your doctors sign lots of forms. Someone has to process all that paperwork. Hospitals and doctors have to have insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits. Lawyers have to be hired to handle all this stuff. All of these things add up to more expensive, less efficient treatment for patients. My mom actually credentials doctors for a living so I regularly hear about the red tape, and my girlfriend is trying to get into medical school and her mother is a nurse. I’m not completely uninformed on this subject even though I will admit that I don’t know enough to effectively argue the point. The bureaucracy that surrounds medical treatment is its own industry in itself. It isn’t just go see the doctor and receive treatment.