you're kidding right? if you read the whole interview in the original article, it's fairly obvious nader was saying we should judge obama on his actions, and obama's actions do not indicate that he will do very much about a system of economic (and other forms of) exploitation that highly disproportionately affects minorities.
but if you're just looking for an excuse to get published slamming nader, i guess it doesn't really matter to you what he was actually saying.

The writer of this garbage is an idiot! flat out

Nader Isn't White. - While I agree that Nader put himself in dicey territory with his choice of words for this particular criticism of Obama; I feel obliged to point out that Ralph Nader is, in fact, not white. He is Lebanese American and his people have faced plenty of racial suffering of their own. So while he clearly should have picked better words for his critique, he's in a place to judge with some credibility.

I will proudly and happily be voting for Nader/Gonzalez in November and I have donated generously to their campaign.

Nader is the only one out there pressing Obama to make specific commitments on single payer health care, a deadline for getting out of Iraq, a cap on predatory loans,etc. Everyone else is buying into his "pragmatic" slips and slides on public funding funding, his romance with guns,with the death penalty, the ethanol industry and the financial industry.Thank God we have Ralph Nader, a single candidate capable of taking the heat and standing up to the likely next President who wants to dance to the white house on the basis of empty promises of change.Gonzalaz made the right choice.

All of you who want to apply progressive purity tests to Obama seem to forget what kind of country this has become. We need someone who can create a new consensus around a progressive agenda that will take a generation to accomplish, and that starts with being able to claim a big electoral mandate this year. And the reality is that pinning Obama down now on things like single payer health care and an aggressive redistribution of wealth -- given the corporate media climate and the fact that most Americans aren't quite there yet -- would hurt the prospects of actually achieving those things. Disagree with me if you'd like, but simply dismissing me as an "idiot" only shows the shallowness of your thinking about the path ahead.

As for judging Obama on his actions, that's a great idea. He was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review who chose to follow that up with street level organizing in Chicago rather than cashing out in Manhatten. That says something about the man, something that bodes well for how he might behave as president. Admittedly, it's a leap of faith, but it's the best option we have right now. And for progressives to vilify him now based simply on the simplistic, idealistic rhetoric of your St. Ralph is a huge mistake.

Progressives need to aggressively push a bold agenda from the bottom up, and we'll make progress only if the country's political leadership is open to our ideas, which clearly Obama would be, even if you have problems with some of his positions. Or you can support Nader's quixotic approach, which has proven itself ineffective and divisive every time he's done it, and alienate the best hope for progressive change that has come along in my lifetime.

Again, disagree with that approach if you'd like, but let's try to have a constructive debate about how to accomplish the end goals that I think we all share. Maybe someone out there can explain how they think a Nader campaign that is focused on bashing Obama (which it has been so far) is going to create a national consensus around a progressive agenda. Rather than just calling me an idiot, educate me and other Guardian readers.

Nader Criticism Crucial To Accountable Obama Presidency -

Steve, the analysis you just laid out simply doesn't jive with history at all.

If we look at the two most similar Democrat candidate presidential races in the 20th century as comparisons to our current time, they are FDR during the Depression, and Lyndon Johnson during both the Vietnam occupation and the civil rights struggles.

In both cases, there was a radicalised base of voters and organizers pushing -hard- on all candidates to move them to the left (in FDR's case a sizable faction was openly pushing for outright socialism and there was even talk of overturning the U.S. Government).

This climate of deep skepticism and hard accountability from the left forced both FDR and Johnson to adopt a vastly more progressive campaign platform and administrative agenda than they had originally intended. And once each was in office, huge populist left and civil rights movements pushed them -hard- to make good on their electoral promises. This resulted in the New Deal and the Civil Rights Act.

And most importantly, it laid the stage for hard core accountability from Johnson for his campaign commitments to end the Vietnam War. It was that accountability, which had been built up during the election which brought him to power, that resulted in Johnson not seeking a second term and by extension putting a serious black eye on the war; and which gave crucial leverage to the bitter campaign to end that war.

Because of these very dynamics, it is the most critical time of all to lean -hard- on Obama -during- his election bid, in order to get him to adopt the most progressive agenda possible, so that we can hold him to rock solid accountability for real change when he gets into office.

Nader's constant strong challenges are therefore vital to the future of this country, and furthermore should be echoed by all of us on the left, in order to push Obama to be the most progressive candidate and president possible.

As to Obama himself, the portrayal of him as some sort of progressive himself, is a ludicrous illusion. Just take a moment to go to http://counterpunch.org/ - click on 'Search' at the top right of the page and then enter the word 'Obama' into the search field.

The real Barack Obama is an appalling joke who has terrible positions on nearly every issue that needs critical progressive change, at this, the most dire moment in human history...

Eric, your historical examples are interesting, it's too bad they work against you. FDR and Johnson ran as moderates in 1932 and 1964 and didn't adopt more radical progressive agendas until after they were elected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDR#1932_presidential_election

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1964#The_campaign

And you're misrepresenting Obama's platform, which includes lots of progressive planks.

Johnson ran as an anti-war candidate. And in any case you are re-affirming my point. Those two candidates indeed -did- play to the center as much as they could, but a hard left pressure kept them in a pressure cooker in which they knew they were accountable to the left.

In just the same way, Obama is now radically shifting to the center (in some cases to the right) and we therefore need to place him squarely into that same pressure cooker.

Now is the time to hold Obama accountable, not after he is elected with an incredibly broad and watered down centrist mandate, from which he would not be nearly as accountable, because of having not been called to task for his bad positions -during- the election.

And I'm not talking about Obama's platform, I'm talking about his actual record. That's what you'll find to be appalling if you do a search on CounterPunch.

Eric B

Admitted problem with the Nader campaign: Nader consistently runs as himself and bashes Democrats without offering much in the way of establishing a perpetual solution to get out of this mess.

Good thing about the Nader campaign: He consistently raises expectations and highlights crucial reforms that most Americans have never even heard of -- perhaps including even you, Steve (i.e. ending corporate personhood, establishing a speculation tax on commodities (which, among other things, would significantly lower gas and food prices while putting tens of billions of dollars into government coffers), putting labor leaders and consumer advocates on the Board of Directors of corporations as a requirement (goodbye slave labor, Walmart exploitation and Free Trade Agreements, were that to happen), allowing third-party candidates and Independent candidates to participate in Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates (which, quite possibly, could upend your main bone of contention because it could lead to their 'improbable' election, as was the case with the plainspoken Jesse Ventura in his run for Governor against two hapless, pointless, bland and ungenuine career major-party politicians), allowing everyone earning $50,000 or less per year to not have to pay income taxes, repealing Taft-Hartley, reparations for slavery, establishing a national proposition system, etc.). Truly, if Nader had never run for President, I and many others would be ignorant to such necessities and, like you and Tim, would always gladly accept whatever bones were tossed to me by the national Democrats whenever they felt inspired to toss, instead of trying to find innovative ways of raising the bar.

Ying to Ralph's yang: While Ralph doesn't promote an exit strategy to the two-party system, Matt does, thus taking the legs out of your other argument. By running for vice-president, he is promoting the only practical short-term and long-term solutions that this country will ever know: electoral reform -- particularly proportional representation at local, statewide and national levels of government. This will be accomplished much sooner rather than later, thanks to people like Matt (who, I might remind you, pushed for IRV in San Francisco -- something Newsom -- a Democrat who blames third-parties for "spoiling" elections -- stridently opposed) and it is good that Gonzalez is trying to push such reforms to the fore on a platform where people can actually hear him on a wider scale.

Problem with Obama: This isn't just about Obama -- it is much deeper than that. If you take anything away from what I'm saying, take this: Even during one of the more progressive movements in American history, LBJ (a white, racist, Texan who was practically a socialist, domestically, compared to the black Obama), a Democrat, stubbornly refused to end the war in Vietnam, just as any Democratic and Republican Presidential candidate stubbornly refuses to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. What does this say about Democrats? So, the American empire remained intact (thus, paving the way for imperialism throughout Latin America the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan 30 years later) in spite of all the short-term goodies that Johnson provided to the American little people in order to keep them complacent. It worked swimmingly.

Why the hell can't Nader/Gonzalez express their 1st Amendment rights: Stop and reflect for a minute on what you are saying, Steve. By asking Nader/Gonzalez to not run, you are essentially saying that there should be a self-censoring, de facto law against anyone other than the Republicans and Democrats to run for elected office. Is that pragmatic? Should that be allowed? Is that democratic? If we were to accept your logic as gospel, then Lincoln and the formerly progressive Radical Republicans would never have been elected to office and we would still be stuck with slavery and the apologetic Whigs.

Also, this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with replacing one major party with another one. Keep in mind that in times of political crisis (like the present day), the ideas promoted by third-parties (Gonzalez's gay-marriage proposal during his mayoral campaign, anyone?), are consistently stolen by the Democrats in order to ensure that third-parties don't replace them. Franklin "Somoza may be a son of a bitch but he is our son of a bitch" Roosevelt did this with the communists in the 30's, while Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryan did this with the socialists in the early 1900's and late 1800's, respectively. It is a built-in self-defense mechanism for the Democrats and you are likely to see a whole hell of a lot more of this in the coming years, thanks to third-parties and Independent candidates who courageously push the envelope in spite of the ruthless opposition by, of all people, fellow progressives like yourself, first and foremost. So, having said all this, is what Nader/Gonzalez and their ilk doing truly "quixotic"?

Besides, Obama is going to win California anyway, so isn't it a wasted vote if you vote for him? You might as well keep his feet to the flames and not give him a blank check. Vote Nader/Gonzalez in November!

I think Nader has lots of good ideas, which is why I voted for him in 2000 and why the Guardian endorsed him that year. But good ideas aren't enough, and he has a demonstrated track record of failing to move the Democratic Party to the left through his presidential runs. If anything, he causes party leaders to dig their heels in all the more. I don't understand why this year, after he's evolved into a more polarizing figure than he's ever been, y'all think he's the best vehicle to bring about progressive change.
Sure, he and Matt have a right to run. And, yes, it would be great if the next president stole some of their ideas (ideas they could raise without personalizing their attacks on Obama) and if we could move toward electoral reform. But in your long post, ExPat, you didn't address my last question of how this campaign and its focus on demonizing Obama gets us any closer to creating a national consensus around progressive reform. Just based on the tenor of this online conversation, it seems like this campaign is only dividing us further, and I'm sure that will only get worse in the fall, particularly if they foolishly insist on dogging Obama more than McCain (who really would be a scary president).
I want a true multi-party presidential race as much as any of you, and I've been as critical of the Democratic Party as any of you (I wish people would do some basic research before posting inaccurate views of American history and my views and background). But it doesn't make me a moron or a sellout to see Obama as the best vehicle for moving forward at this unique point in history. Again, it's fine if you don't agree with that, but I and other good progressives who share my point-of-view have a valid perspective and good reasons for our beliefs. We can argue about it without degenerating into name-calling or ad hominem attacks -- or at least that's what we should do if we ever want to lead instead of just complaining.

Obama ran to left in the Democratic primary -because- Gore and Kerry's failures to do so caused them to lose.

We need to keep Obama looking back over his should with strong critiques and strong left candidates so that he doesn't repeat the Gore/Kerry mistakes.

this garbage writing, inaccurate, biased, and incomplete, just inspired me to donate more to the Nader campaign.

The grassroots helped Obama get where he is today, due to the fact that he pushed HOPE and CHANGE. Keep his feet to the fire, otherwise we will just end up with another politician.

By the way, for another example of how the Democrats actively work to co-opt third parties and independent movements before they become too big for their britches, take a look at the history of the Farm-Labor Party:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Farmer-Labor_Party

Just to be safe, the Democrats even co-opted the name.

Also, keep in mind that Progressive Party candidate Bob La Follette ran for President on his own Progressive Party (a political Party that had an enduring legacy in politics) platform in 1924 (though he expressed interest in running as a Farm-Laborer). Was he blamed for electing Calvin Coolidge after receiving 17% of the vote? No, he created a magazine called "The Progressive", which today is ironically a hindsight-bias loving, cruelly Nader-hating rag that is always on the verge of bankruptcy.

Bob also opposed the persecution of perennial Presidential candidate Eugene Debs, I might add. Tell me, Steve: do you look up to La Follette or does he make you as angry as Nader makes you?

Nader doesn't make me angry. The only anger expressed on this thread has been directed at me for questioning why Nader has chosen to focus on Obama and what the impact of that approach is likely to be. I care less about Obama or Nader than I do about how we get this country back on track. They're simply vehicles. But Obama is a vehicle that can take us somewhere, and Nader is now a marginalized figure who can't, despite all of your fondest or angriest hopes.

Scribe writes,*** "...Obama is a vehicle that can take us somewhere, and Nader is now a marginalized figure who can't..." ***

A vehicle - Is Obama Safe at Any Speed? Are you willing to get into this "vehicle" without seat belts or airbags or design correction...

If Obama is a "vehicle" then Nader is no more marginalized now than he was in 1965 when he wrote "Unsafe at Any Speed" and showed clearly how unsafe our autos were and that the corporate interests did NOT have your safety primary in their designs.

Nader came out of nowhere and became a national hero - because he was the only one willing to speak out on these issues that he saw clearly, but which were obfuscated under the American dream/love affair with its cars. General Motors and other carmakers came at him with both barrels... and lost. Americans suddenly could see clearly that Nader was on their side.

But in politics - there are no crash tests, there are no easily demonstrated scientific proofs that our democracy is flawed and hurting people. Yet if you just open your eyes and start thinking about what the man is saying, it becomes crystal clear.

If we are lucky, people will listen to Nader. If we are lucky, Obama will see the value of Nader's ideas and his active participation in a system that, LIKE IT OR NOT, is still open to anyone to run...

The fact that everyone is so afraid of Nader, only means that he speaks the truth.

The truth may hurt, but you ignore it at everyone's peril.

Let me just clarify - what become "crystal clear" is that Obama the "vehicle" is "Unsafe at any speed."

He is driven by the same corporate interests that have driven all the major party candidates for decades.

Just because he doesn't look like all the previous models on the surface, does not mean that the internal design is any different.

It is important that someone is pointing out the flaws in that internal design, that someone is pointing out places where this vehicle serves the corporate bottom line first, and the needs of the consumers/populace second.

That's what Nader/Gonzalez campaign is doing.

He's not just attacking Obama out of spite. He is showing where the flaws are, so that before you purchase the vehicle, you can get a re-design and get something that will actually get you to the "destination" you envision - a more healthy democracy where all of our citizen's interests are taken into account, and we are not inflicting injury onto other countries with our foreign policy.

The vehicle metaphor might drive this home.

Independent makes good points about IRV and election reform.

It all comes down to framing.

You'd think many of us here in Progressiveland would agree on the substance of the issues.

But we've been divided on approach because of the way the media and the candidates are framing the issues.

Please, examine these issues for yourself. Shake them loose from the frames that Big Media and Big Corporate Presidential Campaigns have built.

When you see the issues outside of the gilt-edged frames, you'll see that there was a lot of thing hidden behind those frames.

Blaming Nader for seeing the issues as they and holding the major candidates' feet to the fire, does not move your agenda forward.

Nader is your natural ally, even if you don't agre with all his tactics. Don't let Big Money and Corporate Interests drive a wedge where no real differences in goals actually exists. This is the way the REpublicans broke up the progressive alliances back in the 80s... dividing and conquering. Driving wedges between natural allies, over minor issues of tactics or minor differences on process.

Don't fall for it.

TEchnical question - Why does "independent's" comment timestamped today at 2:10 pm, when it is not even 1:00 pm yet? My posts have showed up with the correct time.

Now I'm wondering if he even posted this today at all...?

Babs: Here's the word from our tech people: "different people have different timestamps depending on their individual computers' settings"

As for the substance of your comments, I think that you make many great points. But on your final point about dividing progressives, go back and read the entire thread and tell me who you think was being divisive: me or those criticizing me, who have ascribed to me statements, motives and a background with no basis in fact, as 10 minutes on a search engine could have revealed.
People's anger and frustration with Democrats and the two-party system are understandable, and a perspective that I have long shared. But if Nader and supporters like you insist on focusing your fire on Obama -- who just doesn't fit your descriptions of a soulless shill hand-picked by corporate America (which is precisely why many good progressives are investing some hope in him) -- then dividing the left is the only thing that you're sure to accomplish.

It is too bad that "progressives" like the blog author do not recognize the inside/outside strategy and tactics being employed by voting and building a multi-party movement.

It's too bad he doesn't get on the Democrats for blocking IRV reform at the national level, so we can fix this lesser-evil voting problem. Does the writer not believe that once people are completely safe (with IRV or runoffs) to vote their desires this country wouldn't move more left. It is all too obvious people would want more vacation time, single-payer etc as pointed out above.

The Democrats are blocking it. The writer apparently loves the Democrats so much that he is willing to let them stand in the road and block our access to health care, decent pay, clean environment etc.
I don't; and I will never ever join the Democratic Party and I will never, never support any of their candidates, unless that one is very very progressive.

One final thing, on ABC News 6/29 Nader said, ""I think the two parties are hurting our country and they need more competition." He said this after Stephanopolos tried to say that Nader was always after Obama. Nader replied that, in effect if you ask me about McCaine I will tell you, and then did go on to talk about how bad McCaine is.

It is too bad that both the corporate-dominated media and the Obama fans want to talk about the horse race not the issues that need to be discussed.

Obama Is Indeed A Corporate Shill -

'Scribe' can we please get real here?

- Obama gets money from the coal industry and supports 'clean coal'.

- Obama gets money from the nuclear industry and says nuclear should be considered as part of the solution to global warming.

- Obama gets money from big agriculture and supports ethanol and other disastrous biofuels.

- Obama gets money from big Wall Street lending firms and voted against caps on credit card interest rates.

- The same -week- that he secured the Democratic party nomination Obama abandoned his commitment to public financing caps.

- Obama -claims- that he doesn't take money from lobbyists while, can you guess? he takes money from lobbyists. See http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html

So let me ask you; just what does Obama have to do to get you to call him a corporate shill?

Scribe you wrote,****** "As for the substance of your comments, I think that you make many great points. But on your final point about dividing progressives, go back and read the entire thread and tell me who you think was being divisive: me or those criticizing me, who have ascribed to me statements, motives and a background with no basis in fact*******

First off - are you the author, using a different handle for blogging? I'm not a regular reader so I didn't get that.

Second, I was neither specifically attacking nor defending you or your comments. I was making a broader commentary, except where I specifically addressed.

You wrote *****" But if Nader and supporters like you insist on focusing your fire on Obama -- who just doesn't fit your descriptions of a soulless shill hand-picked by corporate America (which is precisely why many good progressives are investing some hope in him) -- then dividing the left is the only thing that you're sure to accomplish."****

The point is, which has been made repeatedly, and which I cannot quite fathom why you refuse to pick up, is that we NEED choices, we NEED to have an open debate. Characterizing Nader as simply focusing fire on Obama is missing the point entirely..

In a free democratic society, people are not afraid of debate. And by opening up the debate, you give your Corporate candidate more leverage - because he can go back to his big money backers and negotiate - "Look, we're gonna lose if we don't include single payer, cuz look how many votes Nader will draw off on that issue alone..." THAT is how you use an ally.

And for the wedge - there is a difference between deliberately driving a wedge between allies, and acting as a conscience by pointing out things that are otherwise swept under the rug.

I"m losing patience and time with this... maybe more later.

As for timestamps - maybe i should set mine to Eastern time and keep that special "latest post" position for a few extra hours! Or, your tech people might consider having the timestamp set by the time the post is received, not the time the user's computer is set to. Just a thought

Not quite sure what happened I posted this today around 11 am. Somehow it's EDT.

In order for the inside outside strategy to work, the insiders need to participate as well. That is not happening here in San Francisco with the Democrat Party and it is not happening in Washington.

If there is anything more annoying than Nader's tin political ear, it is the rabid nature of his acolytes for whom politics is all about them servicing their needs rather than trying to find the political sweet spot where grand coalitions can be built.

Again, local lefties refuse to consider reconstructing the Moscone coalition of neighbors and progressives because neighbors are NIMBY white conservative homeowners, closing the door on any significant challenge to the neighbor/downtown coalition that is eating progressives' lunches.

Similarly, any project for change at the federal level requires the kind of organization that Nader is incapable of creating, that his largely leftist acolytes will ensure never happens because so many of us are politically impure. And we've not seen an positive impact from Nader's successive runs (yes, I voted for him in 96 and 00).

As for Gonzalez and electoral reform, how has IRV been of benefit to San Francisco, to progressives? And what is the plan to convince the 2/8+1 of states that enjoy electoral magnification due to their small populations having 3 electoral votes to give up their advantage to a bunch of coastal liberals?

I'm not planning on voting for Obama, but Obama has done the organizing work that Nader claims as his own but expects to be handed to him by others whom he treats like crap. Nader expects that simply speaking truth to power, truth they know full well, is going to change anything. If he can't learn from his previous runs that such a strategy fails, then why should anyone take him seriously this time?

-marc

Is Nader running? If it wasn't for the highly read Bay Guardian blog, you'ld never know. As is the case with the rest of US. So who cares.