The (further) left starts picking sides

January 2, 2008

I’m a little skeptical that high-profile endorsements matter much to voters, but there were two pretty surprising announcements yesterday that certainly raised eyebrows.

Ralph Nader, for example, who is still pondering his 716th presidential bid as an independent, urged supporters to back John Edwards.

Ralph Nader unleashed on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday — criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business — and expressed his strong support for John Edwards. […]

On Monday, Nader also issued a public statement criticizing Clinton as a “corporate Democrat,” echoing the exact words Edwards uses to challenge Clinton. Nader said he has watched Edwards from afar and sees his more pugilistic brand of populism as an encouraging sign…. “Iowa should decide which candidate stands for us,” he added. “Edwards is at least highlighting day after day that the issue is who controls our country: big business or the people?”

I don’t imagine the Edwards campaign will distance itself from the endorsement, but it’ll be interesting to see how (or whether) this has any effect.

On the plus side, Nader’s backing reinforces Edwards’ claim as the true populist leader in the campaign. For that matter, the Edwards campaign could argue that the endorsement suggests that if the former senator wins the Democratic nomination, the party need not worry about a Green Party candidate running and splitting the progressive vote in November.

On the negative side, Nader isn’t a Democrat, and a whole lot of actual Dems hold Nader responsible for a certain Republican president taking office in January 2001. For these Democrats, taking Nader’s electoral advice seems unlikely. (It’s worth noting that the Edwards campaign has not acknowledged Nader’s support in any way, at least not yet.)

On a related note, Dennis Kucinich surprised a lot of people yesterday afternoon, when he urged his Iowa supporters to back Barack Obama in parts of the state where Kucinich won’t meet the 15% threshold.

From a Kucinich press release:

Democratic Presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich opened the New Year by publicly asking his Iowa supporters to vote for him in the caucuses this Thursday and suggesting that if he did not make the 15% threshold, their second ballot should be for Sen. Barack Obama. “This is obviously an ‘Iowa-only’ recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday, where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters.

“I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn’t reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: change.”

The Obama campaign, of course, was pleased to accept the support. The senator issued a statement reading, “I have a lot of respect for Congressman Kucinich, and I’m honored that he has done this because we both believe deeply in the need for fundamental change. He and I have been fighting for a number of the same priorities — including an end to the war in Iraq that we both opposed from the start, reforming Washington and creating a better life for America’s working families. I encourage all Iowans to take part in the caucuses this Thursday — not because it will be good for any one candidate, but because it will be good for our party and the future of our country.”

Kucinich partnered in a similar way with Edwards in 2004, which makes the whole dynamic rather quirky. In 2004, Edwards was running as a Southern moderate who had supported the war in Iraq. In 2008, Edwards is running as a liberal, populist champion. Kucinich partnered with the prior, but rejects the latter?

In any case, the next question, of course, is whether Kucinich’s backing will make a difference. In 2004, Kucinich was running slightly better in the polls, and some estimates suggest that Edwards was able to pick up a percentage point or two thanks to the Ohio congressman’s support.

Kucinich’s numbers appear to be far weaker this year, but given the margins between the top three, if Obama can pick up even one percentage point from this, it could make a difference.

Besides, I suspect Kucinich has far more supporters participating in the caucuses than Nader does. Stay tuned.

Nader/Clinton: Two piles of bovine excrement, lying next to each other in a pasture, and one calls the other “smelly.” Ralph must be practicing for a stint on the Jerry Springer show—or maybe he’s just polishing his job-qualifications for that opening at Ringling Brothers….

  • Whatever you think of the 2000 election results, no reasonable person could look at the results and not come to the conclusion that Gore would have won BOTH Florida and New Hampshire had Nader not run.

    Of course, does Nader still believe there isn’t a dimes worth of difference between the two parties?

  • You’d think Ralph would die of embarrassment before talking to a Democrat.

    It must be this modern age we live in.

  • edwards was interviewed by wolf blitzer on cnn yesterday regarding the endorsement, and edwards very cooly welcomed support ‘from everyone’ (or something to that effect). edwards was clear that he did hold nadar responsible for the loss in 2000, tho nadar has argued that he took as many republican votes as he did dem votes. it’s a hole he’ll likely never dig himself out of.

    i was extremely angry with nadar (and greenpeace who, of all organizations, went after gore on environmental issues in 2000) after the loss. i respect nadar for his idealism and his public service, but think he was extraordinarily politically naive in 2000, when he had a chance to broker something out of his efforts with gore and throw his support to him.

    a most unfortunate series of events have followed.

  • Yes it was Nader’s run that gave us the Bush cabal. But how can we, as patriotic Americans, say he shouldn’t have done it? Isn’t that what America is supposed to be about: REAL elections with people who choose to run?

    I don’t like Paul or Gravel but shouldn’t they get the same TV “face time” as others on the “news” shows? (And, although I do like Kucinich, he falls into this same category.) Our election process is screwed up when it’s money that drives who wins. Nader made his shot and granted, our country is seriously f()cked up because of it. But to say he shouldn’t have made that run is, in my opinion, the wrong way to look at it.

  • Any ‘analysis’ of the 2000 election that holds that Gore lost because of Nader is incorrect!

    GORE WON FLORIDA and had it stolen by the Bush Florida cabal in 2000. KERRY WON OHIO in 2004 and had it stolen by the repugnicans running the Ohio election system.

    Just because Gore & Kerry were too wimpy to fight the stolen elections & just because the Coporate News Media was party to the stolen elections DOES NOT MAKE THEM LEGITIMATE!

  • My wife has been an Edwards supporter from the beginning. When she heard that Nader had endorsed Edwards, she said she might have to rethink her support!

  • CB: Kucinich partnered with the prior, but rejects the latter?

    Kucinich was disappointed with Edwards not explaining his China trade vote in the proper terms – great rhetoric on contaminated toys, but real bumbling explanations on and why he doesn’t regret the 2000 vote [boo hoo China manipulates currency, Bush should have enforced WTO rules – yeah right, like China will listen to any American president…].

    With Obama, at least there is a better hope with foreign policy.

  • Edwards is running as a liberal, populist champion. Kucinich partnered with the prior, but rejects the latter?

    Maybe it’s not so much a rejection of Edwards as a commendation of Obama?

    As for Nader, do we blame this guy when Gore would have won by perhaps teh slimmest margin ever even though he had 8 years of economic prosperity behind him? Is it his fault Gore had 8 years of vice-bully pulpit to talk up global warming and instead sat back and watched Clinton pass NAFTA sans environmental tariffs that could have leveled the playing field AND encouraged responsible environmental practices in developing nations.

    Gore 2000 was not Gore 2008 and there may have been a dime’s difference between the parties in 2000, but it wasn’t a quarter, and for that, Democrats had little claim for more support than they eked out that year. It was a pathetic campaign run as a carbon copy of 1992 and 1996 but this time it lacked the empty charisma of Bill Clinton. Would we have the progressive movement we have today without Nader? Would I trade this avalanche of public support for justice and compassion for 8 years of wishy-washy Gore 2000?

    Well, yes. Bush is that bad.

    But let us not overlook the tremendous GOOD we got from Nader while accepting his small role in the current nightmare. Life feels pretty good after you wake up from one.

  • The conclusion that Nader gave us Bush in 2000 isn’t as solid as many people want to think. Florida, with or without Nader, would have gone to Bush by whatever means necessary. Jeb promised his brother, and he was going to deliver. That Gore wasn’t as able a fighter after the election as the Bush thugs is unfortunate, but the fix was in right up to the Supreme Court, so let’s not get hung up on Florida. Gore won Florida, of course, but Nader’s presence or lack of it wouldn’t have made any difference. They know how to steal elections in Florida because they’ve done it for so long.

    In New Hampshire the assumption for many is that had Nader not run all the votes he got would automatically have gone to Gore. Gore lost NH by about 7,000 votes, and as I recall Nader got about 20,000. It’s plausible that Gore could have gotten 7,000 out of the 20,000, but given how Gore was mistreated by the media, and never came through as a genuine person (too many handlers that he listened to) one can never really tell how many of the Nader voters would have stayed home, or registered a protest vote against Gore by voting for some real fringe candidate. Had Gore won in NH the course of the world over the past 7 years would have been far different because there is a difference between a Democratic president and the fascists who took over on Jan. 20, 2001.

  • Tooweary, I’m sure the families of all the soldiers and civilians killed in the occupation of Iraq will agree with you that the votes for Nader allowing Gore to lose were righteous and good because once Bush leaves office after pushing the country toward totalitarianism, we can celebrate a return to the normalcy we would have had if he had not been elected.

  • Jen, you assume that Bush is going to leave office without calling martial law for whatever happens between now and then. You also assume that the next person going in is going to be any better. And, to be honest, I think the former is going to be based upon who the later happens to be. Bush will quietly leave office if a suitable (to the PNACers of the world) replacement is “elected” but if not, an “event” is going to take place allowing Bush to use all those house directives and signing statements and finalize us as his fascist state, call martial law and stop the transition to a new government in Jan 2009..

    Am I jaded and cynical? Yup. I don’t think the person we need is going to win – no matter whether they get votes or not. If the corporatists don’t want it, it ain’t gonna happen.

  • As a Florida resident (who was purged from the voting polls by Kathryn Harris), I have to agree with Rich @ #9.
    The Republicans were poised to declare the Bush piece of shit as the winner, no matter what. The thieves were (and are) in control of the Florida legislature, and they had declared that they would send an alternate set of electors to Washington if Gore was delared the winner. The voter purge, the butterfly ballot, the faulty machines in mostly African-American counties, the voter intimidation in those same counties, and finally the MSM’s cooperation in this theft all were aimed at doing exactly what happened:
    Get Bush in, or get the vote close enough for them to steal it.
    Yeah, Nader helped, but not nearly as much as is said.

  • The Republican’ts had to steal the election in 2000. Bill Clinton had made fools of them by doing everything they claimed to want to do (Welfare Reform, Balanced (sort of) Budgets).

    And Gore, being DLC, would have been more of the same.

    Nope, sometimes things are too important to leave up to democracy.

    Read “Shock Doctrine, the Rise of Disaster Capitalism” by Naomi Klein.

  • Pingback: All Spin Zone » Iowa is Becoming a Left Wing Soap Opera

  • Yes it was Nader’s run that gave us the Bush cabal.

    Sigh.

    What a tired and easily disproved canard.

    I’d think the readers of this blog would know better.

    Maybe this time around, a few more registered Democrats in the key swing states will get off their lazy asses and vote for the Democratic candidate instead of staying home to eat potato chips and blaming Ralph Nader for the inauguration of The Worst President in History.

    Dems, you gots nobody to blame but yourselves, again and again.

  • i respect nadar for his idealism and his public service, but think he was extraordinarily politically naive in 2000

    This gives Nader far too much credit for good intentions. Nader knew precisely what he was doing in 2000, and tried as hard as he could to throw the election to Bush. It was some toxic combination of ego and Marxist desire to “heighten the contradictions,” I imagine. The naiveté was on the part of all the Nader voters he used while making it happen, and who, even today, reliably come out with blame-Gore rationalizations for the fact that at the one time Bush might have been stopped, he wasn’t, due to their own actions.

    Screw Nader and the horse’s asses he rode in on. (Voting Edwards in Iowa is the right choice, though. Broken clock right twice a day etc.)

  • Ralph Nader, for example, who is still pondering his 716th presidential bid as an independent, urged supporters to back John Edwards.

    I think Ralph Nader is really confused. Naturally he backs the third-place Democrat, in terms of the excitement Edwards is generating, when the two leading Democrats are both acceptable. This is totally in keeping with Nader’s recent character as a loser, and eccentric, and someone who steers us towards defeat. In case I need to remind anybody, during the Terri Schiavo affair, Nader was out courting conservative activists around the issue, switching sides by speaking the conservatives’ lines. That’s how desperate he was to put some life in his populist movement- that he thought he needed to do that on that issue. It shows how out of touch he is, and it shows that the man who pretends to be or thinks he is humble is actually absolutely desperate to be the populist hero in American history. I think he’s more wedded to dogma than to critical thinking. He probably thinks if only Edwards can win the nomination, he has the best chance of serenading Edwards into letting him be his running-mate.

    To all the people who keep bashing Hillary, you are just about as confused as Nader is. Bashing Hillary is not helping you or us in anyway. I think if you use a couple of brain cells, you will start to realize why Hillary may be the best choice and Barack only the second or third best.

  • He probably thinks if only Edwards can win the nomination, he has the best chance of serenading Edwards into letting him be his running-mate.

    Instead of spending the rest of his life pining, Ralph Nader should do something like write a really good book. His name will probably help sell a book if he can write it well, and reverse course on his recent unreliability.

  • This came as no surprise. I posted back in November on Kucinich’s realization that Edwards was the wrong guy:

    http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2416

    It is surprising that Kucinich supported Edwards in 2004, but after reading what he has said about Edwards more recently I expected him to support Obama and not Edwards this year.

  • Swan wrote: “In case I need to remind anybody, during the Terri Schiavo affair, Nader was out courting conservative activists around the issue, switching sides by speaking the conservatives’ lines.”

    Are you sure he doesn’t just believe that the Government has an unquestionable obligation to keep every person (or fraction thereof) alive for as long as possible, no matter the insult to human dignity (or cost)?

    That, I would not put past him.

  • #16, be that as it may, we can only address those who voted, not those who should have. I stand by what I said.

  • I would caution those who cast so much blame on Ralph Nader for the 2000 presidential election loss for Democrats. I am from Florida and like most of you, followed that election very closely. While Nader’s presence in the race certainly made things more difficult for Democrats, it is very important to remember that, in Florida, Bush got more votes from registered Democrats than Nader received in the entire state! Also, many of those in my part of the state who supported Nader would not have supported either Bush or Gore at that time. Given this, I find it difficult to label Nader as a “spoiler.” How about a positive recommendation–let’s turn around all our negative feelings toward the 2000 election and use our energy and collective voice to ensure that Florida actually gets a say in the primary process this time! (Disclaimer: I now live in California)

  • While Nader’s presence in the race certainly made things more difficult for Democrats, it is very important to remember that, in Florida, Bush got more votes from registered Democrats than Nader received in the entire state!

    Exactly my point, Sam. I think you stated it more clearly than I did above.

    There are many Dems who have been excuse-mongering since 2000. It’s A.) factually inaccurate, B.) not helpful to the greater cause of getting a progressive back in the White House, and C.) makes Dems sound like a snivelling bunch of pantywaists.

    The rest of the Left — and there are many of us — don’t appreciate it.

    Stay on message, stop running away from the base, and nominate a better, less corporate, less triagulated candidate than Hillary. Doesn’t seem to complicated to me …

  • Hold your hat.

    Next thing we’re going to see is Gore joining Nader in backing Edwards.

    The anti-corporatist, anti-war, anti-fascist, anti-empire movement is coming together — hang on, it’s going to be a hell of a ride back to a place called democracy — why, you could almost call it a ‘democracy movement’ if Bush hadn’t debased that term with his pap.

    Alan MacDonald

  • Lance, I don’t think you are right. I think during one of the long periods after Bush was elected when it seemed like we were going down an insurmountable downhill slide, Nader got desperate and thought he was employing a practical solution to a practical problem.

    I really think Nader is too smart to believe the conservatives were right about the Terri Schiavo thing.

    Mostly only conservatives are so scared of dying that they wish the government would struggle to keep them alive even if they only had a heart pumping left, and basically no capacity to have a functioning mind. Most other people consider wasting away like that a hell that is only perhaps ameliorated by the fact that they would never appreciate what was going on. The humiliation alone makes you wish you wouldn’t be kept alive if that was your fate.

  • Swan, I’m perfectly willing to believe you were right, having no faith in Nader’s intellectual honesty anymore.

    I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    • Comments are closed.