Get over it.

If progressives ever hope to win over working class communities of color -- which we haven't done yet (Prop. 8 being only the most recent of many examples of that), even though we believe ourselves to be their natural partners because we try to act in their interests -- it behooves us to be sensitive to powerful racial symbols and not flippantly appropriate them to make an attention-getting point on a night of historic importance. Or on a more basic level, we'll never achieve the change we want if we act like arrogant assholes. And personally, I'd rather we try to work with Obama than trying to taunt and shame him. There's plenty of time for that later if we need to eventually go there.

I am struggling to find where Nader goofed. He made a very apt observation using a term that, if understood literally, fit the situation perfectly. Uncle Tom is a pejorative for a black person who is perceived by others as behaving in a subservient manner to White American authority figures, or as seeking ingratiation with them by way of unnecessary accommodation. The term Uncle Tom comes from the title character of Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin, although there is debate over whether the character himself is deserving of the pejorative attributed to him. Stowe never meant Uncle Tom to be a degrading character, but the term as a pejorative has developed based on how later versions of the character, stripped of his strength, were depicted on stage.

The outrage over Naders comment just goes to show how uneducated people are becoming, and how quickly they jump to freak out without investigating what they are actually hearing.

Quit being such a jerk. Ralph didn't do a damn thing wrong. If I'd known he was going to do that, I would've voted for him instead of Cynthia. Barack's an Uncle Tom. Come after me White boy Steven T. Jones, I'm an African-American so just try to call me racist you little s**t stirrer. Ralph spoke the truth, get over your media love for Barack.

This is baloney. Nader said something ungraceful about hoping Obama wouldn't be an "Uncle Tom" for giant corporations. So the f what? In point of fact, Democrats have been Uncle Toms for giant corporations for decades. And the reason this gets picked up on Fox is there is nobody they'd rather discredit than Nader. I didn't vote for the guy, but I certainly don't begrudge him running and trying to get the real issues discussed. Meanwhile, Obama is running around talking about "clean coal." Am I the only person around here who was alive in 1992? I know plenty of people who were made so cynical by the Man from Hope that they had to vote for Bush just to retain their sanity.

Nader received a pittance of the vote again and his utterances should be taken accordingly.

That said, Nader has this annoying habit of inflicting the unintended consequences of his actions upon others whether we want it or not.

Nader embodies leadership absent responsibility and accountability, and there is nothing progressive about that.

-marc

Dan - Oh, come on, don't be pedantic. A term can take on connotations which newly define the phrase, and words change their meaning constantly, as has happened with most of our English idioms. Whether or not you think the literary phrase Uncle Tom was pejorative, it is now, nd languge can't be seen free of context. Whether or not Nader meant to say such a racist thing, the point is that he's so mule-headed that he no longer cares. It's annoying and offensive for Nader not to be aware of what his remarks imply about his assumptions and awareness, and further evidence that he has lost his point while struggling to keep his political self in a changing world. He could just have well been served by "sellout."

Luckily, Nader is just as irrelevant now as the network he appeared on. Cheers!

Dan, got it. Phrases should be taken out of their current, and the speakers, context. Very pure, very comforting. Don't you have a freshman seminar to study for?

Alright, sorry, couldn't resist. How about we agree to disagree.

A friend of mine called me to express his disbelief at the "nerve" Nader had to make such a comment. I smiled and told my friend that I knew what Nader meant and that I did not have a problem with it nor thought it was racist. I found it rather apt.

Love how Obama is showing change by hiring the usual suspects/cronies. Looking forward to saying "I told you so" to all the defenders and apologists of the Democratic Party.

Steven T. Jones wrote: "And personally, I'd rather we try to work with Obama than trying to taunt and shame him."

How did things go trying to work with Clinton? I would not give the editors of The Guardian such a hard time if they would stop apologizing for and defending the Democrats. I knew that you were going to endorse Fiona Ma and you did not disappoint me in your lack of backbone. As for your exaggerated and hyped claims for Obama, I find them ridiculous. You can't honestly believe them? But I have learned a long time ago that if you challenge the editors here, they just ignore you.

I wonder how many people would be defending this if it came from the mouth of George W. Bush or John McCain. I'd wager that if McCain called Obama an "Uncle Tom", it would have been the end of his campaign. And rightly so. It's an offensive term. Who is this white man to tell a black man he's being an Uncle Tom?
But because you agree with him politically, you try to defend it with these ridiculous arguments. This just reminds me of how racially insensitive many supposed progressives can be when it suits them.

I wonder how many people would be defending this if it came from the mouth of George W. Bush or John McCain. I'd wager that if McCain called Obama an "Uncle Tom", it would have been the end of his campaign. And rightly so. It's an offensive term. Who is this white man to tell a black man he's being an Uncle Tom?
But because you agree with him politically, you try to defend it with these ridiculous arguments. This just reminds me of how racially insensitive many supposed progressives can be when it suits them.

Estrelita: Not trying to start a war here but I strongly disagree that just because phrases or words may evolve over time that that erases the original meaning/s. I agree that Nader is socially out of touch, but to imply that he said something racist when he did not just because the accuser/s are too arrogant or ignorant to check facts and take into account someones age and education is ridiculous.

"How about we agree to disagree. "

Of course.

And implying I am young is actually a compliment :)

Rob - perhaps he would have posed the same question if it had been Clinton.

But you know, it wasn't Clinton he posed it of, and that makes a difference. The cultural and historical meaning of his phrases and the hugely momentous symbolism of Obama (even if you hate dems an think he'll suck, blah blah) as our first black president have to be looked at by anyone hoping for a nuanced, progressive view of hitory and politics. Maybe the man's just un-careful of his language. I think his head's been up his ass for a couple of years now. Either way, he's acting the part of a stubborn nut-case on Faux News. Do yu feel empowered?

Why don't the greens find someone new, brilliant, and adaptable? Make the country take notice, and try not to be irrelevant? There's a change to believe in.

"he equated Barack Obama with Uncle Tom", if that is your logic then he also equated Barack Obama with Uncle Sam, but in reality he didn't do either, he just made the valid point that Obama can either govern for the people or he can govern for the corporations. I think too many people over-reacted, paraphrased, and oversimplified his comments. Instead of getting in a fit you can calm down and think about what he said, was it offensive? No, it was merely a question Ralph Nader put out there and I think he would have asked the same thing in the same way of Hillary Clinton had she been the Democratic nominee and winner of the election.

Here is the actual FULL transcript, where you'll clearly see it was not racist, so get a clue before you write your biased garbage.

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/26453/26/

For those who want to read about Nader - things you won't read in the corporate media, or the Guardian - there's a great new biography, "What Was Ralph Nader Thinking?" available at http://thewomandirector.com

steven t. jones taking a stance against "arrogant assholes"? a bit rich, don't you think.

Eric, what has Ralph Nader accomplished over the past decade other than teaming up with Peter Camejo to destroy the Green Party?

I admit that I am feeling a bit cross with the Guardian these days, but the ditto heads here are Nader's acolytes.

The difference between Daly and Nader is that Daly is governing, and from a position of power participating in shaping political outcomes, while Nader is braying uselessly from the sidelines telling everyone how wrong they are for not doing what he wants them to do.

-marc

Any thinking person can see that Ralph Nader is the Chris Daly of national politics. -

What do I mean by that? What I mean is that both Daly and Nader are hated by by the corporate establishment because they get real things done to limit corporate power and make people's lives much better. A -lot- of things.

What's the corporate response? No surprise. Corporations and their puppets in the press launch massive waves of ridicule toward these two champions of justice in the United States and San Francisco; ridicule which has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever and which, unfortunately, works all too well on a reality TV trained public.

But what is truly disheartening is to watch SF Bay Guardian reporters repeatedly parroting this nonsense (in the case of Nader).

When you do this you look alarmingly, very much like neo-liberal dark mirror versions of Rush Limbaugh's freak-a-zoid right wing ditto heads.

You do a major disservice to our country and democracy when you take part in this extremely harmful DLC style tarring.

Please think about the parallels between the demonization of Daly and the demonization of Ralph Nader, and what your participation really means, before you write another anti-Nader rant.

Steven, I know maybe you're too busy at your job to read/watch everything you post, I understand, so I just wanted to give you some advice. Go back, watch the interview, write and think a little more deeply about it, and then re-think the title of your blog post, okay? I have one suggstion: "Irresponcable Bloggers sully Nader's reputation". Just because it is a blog doesn't mean it doesn't count. Best of luck.

I was asked what Nader has accomplished recently.

The answer is plenty. His most recent accomplishment being a strong public critique of Barack Obama's numerous appalling betrayals of the progressive agenda, which no one else wants to let themselves think about lest they be forced to realise that the world is not much better at all after Nov 4th, and they've still got to work their asses off to save the planet; and still got to wake up each morning feeling anxious about it.

Obama's totally illusory promise of 'change' is like bloody religion's ludicrous promise of 'heaven' as a cheap chintzy way to not feel fear about death (when in actuality the best way to not feel bad about death is to face it). The best way to not feel bad about Obama is to admit that he's more of the same mess and that we'd better role up our sleeves and do something about it.

Getting back to Nader. If you want a more recent -concrete- accomplishment, he and his campaign prosecuted the Dems for a huge number of cases of illegally interfering with his getting on the ballot in various states in 2004, putting an end to some very serious abuses of electoral process and also forcing the Dems to not pull that stupid bullshit this round, and to instead actually pay attention to running a good campaign. Which they did - resulting in a more progressive Democrat run congress (whatever that might be worth - it'll probably improve things some). Obama certainly won't. Obama will have to forced to make change by a real opposition movement. An opposition movement that -we- have to build, now.

Can anyone doubt this after Obama's having made Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff? How much of this stuff does he have to pull before you people wake the hell up?

As I said previously. Time to stop drinking the Obama cool aid y'all, and get to work.

Eric, if you actually understood what a chief of staff does, you'd know that it's a position with _zero_ powers under the constitution, and one that has no effect on policy whatsoever. None. Emanuel will be taking orders from Obama, not the other way around. He indisputably will have far less power to craft and move legislation in this new position than as DCCC chairman. For the next 8 years, and likely after that, Emanuel now cannot become Majority Whip or Speaker of the House, two positions he was widely rumored to be gunning for, and the fact you want to play a guilt-by-association game with Obama indicates how divorced you are from the reality of how DC politics actually works.

The easiest way to answer you is not bother to debate and simply point out to you that you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about, however, let's humor you for a moment.

Let's assume Emanuel will have no influence. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that he is a purely symbolic pick.

Answer me this. What does he symbolize?

Hmm?

Eric, any of us can criticize the Democrats. That's the easy part. There is nothing accomplished about it. Waa waa waa, Democrats bad woo hoo. There, am I accomplished now?

Speaking the truth to power? newsflash, power already knows the truth because power dictates the truth and power could care less that we know the truth and are now swayed by us telling them what they already know.

Identifying ways to challenge and beat corporate dominance is all that counts. The what Nader does is just palliative and narcissistic, a simulation of resistance rather than the real thing.

The Chief of Staff is a very powerful position, as it is the gatekeeper to the President. Yes, the President still runs the show, and it appears that the President-elect is no shrinking violet. Often times what and whom the President sees is filtered by the Chief of Staff operating of their own volition.

-marc

The victory of Nader against Democrat ballot blocking was not simply a victory against the Democratic Party. It was a real and profound legal gain that will improve third party access to the ballot all over the country.

And Nader's open challenging of the public's unbelievably irrational exuberance about Obama, while rhetorical, is incredibly important. My only criticism of Nader's most recent critique of Obama, was that he naively chose a term that would immediately be used to jump all over him and marginalize him. However that same critique, simply with some better wording, is still spot on and vital, and Nader remains a good vehicle for that critique.

As always, Nader is doing his job, and he is succeeding at it.

And this is not just about the Democrats in any case. Just look at how many of our SF Greens and our supposed core progressives are following Obama around like brainwashed children following the Pied Piper.

This stuff is utterly ridiculous and dangerous and needs to be strongly challenged in order to keep Obama from being allowed to continue leading us to ruin just as Bill Clinton did when -he- got elected to bring 'Change!'...

Eric, in case you haven't noticed, we ARE in ruin.

Clinton came from the DLC wing of the Democrat Party while Obama does not.

I ended up voting for the black former community organizer who said that he wanted to spread the wealth around, my first vote for a Democrat for President since 1992.

Until Greens or progressives can mount a serious campaign, and neither McKinney nor Nader were serious campaigns, this is all academic and largely irrelevant.

-marc

Wrong. Obama was in the DLC before he made the cynical decision to leave it so he would be electable as a 'change' candidate.

Let's analyze the wisdom of your choice with a small list shall we?

- Rahm Emanuel
- Robert Rubin
- Colin Powell
- Joe Biden
- Larry Summers
- Paul Volcker
- 'Clean' Coal
- Corn Ethanol
- Carbon Trading Schemes
- Nuclear Power - On The Table
- Pull out of Iraq - NO (But We'll Pretend To)
- Attack Afghanistan - Yes
- Attack Iran - If Necessary
- Attack Pakistan - Maybe
- Believes There Is A 'War On Terror' - YES
- Increase Size and Cost of Military - YES
- EVERY Iraq War Appropriation - YES
- Single Payer Health Care - NO
- Bail Out - YES
- Vote To Bar Poor From Filing Bankruptcy - YEP
- More Donations From Lobbyists Than McCain - YEP
- Patriot Act - YOU BETCHA!
- Retroactive Immunity For Telecom Spying - SURE!
- "But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a -Jewish- state, secure in its borders, and Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, secure and undivided."(In a speech to AIPAC.)

Or to some it all up in one simple phrase..

Give me a break.

There are no breaks. We learned that in 1992.

Any of us could pick at Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez platform and identify positions that are either politically unsustainable or similarly erratic.

The truth is that most of the country disagrees with us. Most of CALIFORNIA disagrees with us on same sex marriage.

We can either disengage, which is what supporting Nader or McKinney essentially was, or we can try to engage to persuade people to move in our direction.

-marc

Eric, so much of what we assume as given economically, politically and militarily is all up for grabs now. It is difficult to believe that economic and political actors who had run the show but which are injured, anemic and on the ropes now are going to be able to exercise power over what new structures emerge on the other end.

This is not 1992, as the corporations which controlled Clinton are unable to control themselves and their operations now. The Europeans are consolidating to dictate economic terms to the US, terms which will result in less powerful corporations globally which will be less powerful domestically as well.

To my mind, it is more like 1989, but this time WE are the Soviet Union.

-marc

Barack Obama also opposes us on same sex marriage.

And, supports the death penalty.

We gain nothing by pretending that Obama is anything other than a corporate controlled wolf in sheep's clothing.

We gain a -lot- by admitting it now and getting to work building a movement to force Obama to truly change things. Progressives before us did it with F.D.R. and we can do it with Obama.

All of those Obama grassroots networks need to immediately be shifted to organizing for real change on the environment, jobs, economic redistribution, health care, world trade and immigration reform, etc.

Yes, we really can...

The reality is that it's not about empires anymore. This world is run by a global class of super-elites who care very little whether the U.S. collapses or not as long as they retain their power and wealth.

The Iraq war, far from a failure, is accomplishing precisely what it was meant to, to consolidate global corporate control of the world's energy supply so that those elites can easily manipulate -all- governments on the planet, U.S., China or otherwise.

All of this talk of capitalist collapse is nothing but premature wishful thinking. Capitalism has a -very- long life left, one which will keep us battling to free ourselves from its grip for the rest of our natural lives.

If we want anti-capitalist democracy, we need to keep building it from the ground up the hard way. Marx was wrong about one thing. This stuff doesn't happen by natural economic evolution - we need to -make- it happen.

And with Obama as the new head cop (this time 'good' cop instead of 'bad' cop) for those corporate elites, we'd best roll up our sleeves and get to work.

peace

Eric, I was undecided until the last few weeks of the campaign. Once Obama took a stand for "spreading the wealth around," and, most importantly, the "pie" speech in Miami, that tilted me in his direction. After McCain attacked him for wanting to spread the wealth around and Obama maintain and barely expanded his lead, that was enough for me, especially with the faux campaigns of Nader and McKinney.

Capitalism is bad, just like Prop 8 is bad. The question is what are people prepared to do about it? And the answer is "nothing much right now."

Did I mention capitalist collapse? No, but capitalism will look very different in 2 years time than it does right now, especially as finance, insurance and real estate go, because the FIRE sector is what exploded and created this mess.

That said, Europe has adopted a more sustainable flavor of capitalism. Odds are that is what we will get, given that the Euros, Chinese and Russians are in no mood for Wall Street to play casino with their economies. As the dollar is replaced by the Euro, Renminbi or Ruble as the world reserve currency, the US will lose the last trappings of empire, and instead of printing money and going into megadebt, the US will need to adapt to act like other nations.

For the first time in 28 years, there is no taste for lassiez-faire capitalism, what with people realizing that their life savings and homes were part of a kitty which was gambled away by fools with no concept of risk aversion. That swing of the pendulum portends significant structural changes, if for no other reason than to accommodate new externalities.

-marc

I guess I'm complaining less about your measured decision to vote for Obama because of an emphasis in his last speeches, than I am outraged at the huge mass of fools who are dancing in the streets singing and chanting that we have reached nirvana and the mountain top, and praising Obama's arrival as akin to the second coming of Christ.

As to the U.S. empire and capitalism, I have studied geopolitics and geo-economics pretty closely, and I simply do not see this magical collapse of the U.S. empire that so many are predicting for the near future. The U.S. empire is simply too useful to the elites right now to toss aside. It is the U.S. empire and its massive military that is enabling them to control the world and they are not going to give that up.

The bases and military threat that the U.S. wields worldwide (especially in relation to controlling global resources) are truly astounding in number and power. Why throw that all capital and capacity for mobilization away? It wouldn't make sense. Just as it didn't make sense for those elites to bail out on the Third Reich until the U.S. rose to replace it.

I also see the dollar as much more intrinsic to the current global economy than most grasp, and if we do transition away from it, that transition will be very slow and careful, not an economic revolution.

Unfortunately what is most likely to happen now is a repeat of the FDR New Deal which will throw just enough of a bone to the oppressed to get most of them to shut up and grumble under their breaths while going along to get along. Meanwhile the elites will begin yet another and progressively larger pyramid scheme cycle on top of the last one, just like all the other exponential expansions we have just suffered through, but this time with much more serious environmental consequences.

I don't see the current global dynamic changing from the top at all.

Instead, it is up to us to start building local direct democracy and sustainability in our own communities along the same lines of the Zapatistas, and of the neighborhood councils and worker movements in Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, and other centers of the new Bolivarian revolution.

If we want to change the world economy we need to do it ourselves from the ground up, and not wait for the U.S. to fall apart.