So I think it's been established that while I like Ralph Nader and respect what he has done in the past, I believe his time has passed. That has only been emphasized through his recent comments about Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for President.
Here's the gem he gave in an interview with Rocky Mountain News.
"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate: He's half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don't know.
I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson?"
I have a serious problem with what he says. Even putting behind me my other problems with the man, what makes him think that is an appropriate thing to say? Do I think Obama should be talking about those issues? Yes. Do I think he should feel obligated to because he is African American? No. No candidate should feel obligated to talk about any specific issue just because of something about themselves they cannot change.
But let's assume they are. McCain would be talking about incontinence, the decision of whether or not to go into rest homes and where the best places to retire might be.
Obama would be telling us about the student loans he had to use to go through school, the troubles of keeping a marriage together with two young children and a presidential campaign to win, and what it's like to finally start to feel your age.
And what would Nader have to tell us? Honestly, I just don't give a damn.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Really, Ralph? Really?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
As a Nader fan I feel compelled to reply. I'll keep it short and to the point though. 3rd parties are good, they push canidates to take stronger stances on issues that need to be on the table. Nader isn't telling Obama he should feel "obligated" to talk about poverty...he's saying no matter what democratic candidate we elect, white or black, should be confronting these issues. That's what 3rd parties are for, pushing Obama to take more progressive stances on stuff like poverty, and my personal favorite MILITARY SPENDING (which Obama wants to INCREASE!)
As Nader would probably tell you...Calm down, we need more voices and choices. Don't be afraid of "true" democracy.
Dude, the question here isn't so much about the validity or roles of 3rd parties, but of Nader saying stupid and offensive things about Obama.
I don't like people saying what Obama should be talking about and how he needs to be saying it based on what color he is. All of the issues that Nader mentioned are important, no doubt, but Ralph saying that he's trying to "talk white" is just stupid. Know what I think? I think he talks like a person educated at some of the best schools in the United States- Occidental, Columbia, Harvard.. not like he's tying to be white.
I'm not going on an anti-third party or anti-Ralph Nader rant, but come on. It was a dumb thing to say coming from a smart guy who should reconsider his statements.
I dunno, quite frankly I think Hillary Clinton said more hurtful and offensive things throughout the primaries, and she's within the same party! I honestly don't see what the big dealio is. We can't forget that this IS politics, and constructive criticism is a good thing. Nader is going to keep pushing for more progressive ideals, and he doesn't care if Obama gets in his way. He's extreme, for sure, but that's why people love him...and that's why I love him. He see's past most if not ALL of the bullshit, and understands Washington better than some who run it.
If you read the full transcript of the interview, Nader's main issue with Obama is that he censors himself, which is what lead to the questions about wanting to appeal to white voters and not as a black "radical" etc. Of course Obama censors himself, since that's just the way US politics works right? I'm still not satisfied with that answer though, and it's good that Ralph has the courage to point it out. What he's saying is, a white candidate could probably get away with talking about poverty a lot more than Obama can, simply because his campaign doesn't want to paint him that way. I believe it too, and think the GOP would NAIL Obama if he was more outspoken on poverty. Nader was showing how even Obama is susceptible to changing his stance and words if it will win him votes.
Personally, I don't really care if Obama censors himself. I realize that he's done the numbers and knows what issues he needs to push for in order to win, and which ones to stay away from. I do however, respect and admire Nader's choice to nail him on it. Obama is changing politics, but it's still politics, remember that.
Tao, as to your point on Nader understanding Washington, if he truly did, wouldn't he run a campaign that called for reform, rather than merely just blasting the big two parties? I think it's an old proverb that says insanity is doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results. As much as I'd love to vote for Brian Moore of the Socialist Party, I think we need to address the issues in a way America is ready for.
Yes, there are issues with Obama. He is mortal and thus susceptible to some degree of corruption. This includes increasing military spending (though to his defense, we do need to help the armed forces be safe abroad), faith-based programs (America, a nation where you must apparently believe in God to survive?), and of course the whitening of Obama's rhetoric. I know Obama doesn't go into addressing poverty but maybe that's just because that's not America's top voting concern. I hate to admit it, but this is politics and you need to play by the rules. People aren't going to vote in mass because Obama took a stance against poverty. You can look at how that worked in Edwards' campaign. So, as much as a great thing it is to bring up these issues, in the realm of politics, the key to gaining votes to validate authority is discuss relevant issues.
Post a Comment