Nader on Obama in 2008

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8H92fcSOdY&feature=fvsr[/youtube]

Nader had similar views to mine on this lacklustre, centre-right, DLCocrat. I predicted we'd get another Slick Willie type administration, and we have with the exception that Obama isn't as good at finding token issues and framing them as if he's fighting some real sort of political battle with the Republicans. He also isn't as good at explaining the micro-level details of his compromised legislation (i.e. he has a less "technocratic" style to him).

Now, can the Progressive Left primary him?

A better question would be "Can the progressive left primary him and then win a general election?" If the answer is no, then let BA run again in order to keep Palin or some other batshit lunatic out.

I guess once the novelty of "how rad" it was to have a black president passed after 72 hours, it was back to business as usual.

Obama's core constituencies reverted to their usual detachment, and the critical policy summits with Shakira failed to capture the attention-spans of the millenials in time for the midterms.

So I wonder what depths Obama will sink to to capture the magic in 2012? Camp David summits with Wyclef Jean, Kanye, and Snoop "Doggy" Dog?

I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama give a televised speech at an urban High School, all decked out in a full-on pimp suit.

He is the "Mac Daddy" after all. Mabye he'll put spinners on all of the motorcade vehicles?

They'll need to invest in some special microphones though that can cope with and filter down the stentorian shrieking and screaming, for the broadcast.

I would be a whole lot happier about the state of the continent if people were less polarized and media-ridden and if the parties of the first and second parts were not so dedicated to the principle of fielding the candidate most likely to garner votes however inadequate and [I will not further qualify] that person may be.

It is like the time I was asked to let my name be put forward for department head on the grounds that no one else remotely acceptable to the administration was willing to do it - I being the second least qualified head we ever had. Do not mock - I am quietly proud I was not the absolute worst - and the ones better than I were not that much better.

In that case, the department revolted and came up with an alternative candidate - we had the first ever contested headship. She got it - politically correct and a Clintonesque politician - though less personable. Thank God. Noli episcopari.

When are we going to rise up and call for someone at least as sincere as Carter and at least as competent as Clinton? I am tired of choosing the least jerky candidate.

Nader - not my type of guy, but at least he could see past "Yes We Can Make Me King".

The problem with electing a progressive president is that you need a progressive senate there to back him up. That means you need to remove big corporate money from the senate dems at least. You could elect Nader, Sanders or Kucinich president tommorow and they'd be completely hamstrung by any corporate controlled senate. Bascially its not about the president at all, it's about grass roots campaigning. That's why FDR was so liberal because there was huge left wing pressure on him from the populace of that time.

Last edited by jamieboy on 17 Dec 2010, 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

By "progressive" I assume you mean progressing toward a highly regulated Nanny State with redistribution of incomes via tax and control of the means of production in the hands of government technocrats.

I definitely see "progress" in the indicated direction.


ruveyn

Means what Big Brother says it means.

Etymology for Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, Progressive, Democratic, Republican is - sadly - irrelevant.

Not sure how much time Libertarian has to be etymologically transparent.

i'd settle for what you describe above as a better option than what we have now but ideally i'd like collectivism with power decentralised as much as possible. I use the word progressive so not to confuse some Americans who know little about democratic socialism.

It's interesting you would use that term to denounce me as it originates from Orwell -a Democratic Socialist himself. Are you really that stupid?

A. I did NOT denounce you. Was that stupid? I commented on ruveyn's statement

"By "progressive" I assume you mean progressing toward a highly regulated Nanny State with redistribution of incomes via tax and control of the means of production in the hands of government technocrats."

Was that a stupid thing to do?

B. George Orwell was a too perceptive for his own good prophet who saw with great clarity what lies at the foot of the slippery slopes on the right and left of the very narrow causeway. His politics - of which I know nothing and care less - do not obscure his vision. I - though apolitical and carefully ignoring what I can - see enough to recognize and respect the prophecy.

I am also a linguist who watches how words develope over time in the mouth of the people and in some cases in the twisting fingers of admen and "educators" and politicians.

Is that stupid enough?

C. I have no idea what point of yours you perceived me as opposing. Let me see:

"The probably with electing a progressive president is that you need a progressive senate there to back him up. "

Fine - though i could argue on the role of prexy as leader

"That means you need to remove big corporate money from the senate dems at least. You could elect Nader, Sanders or Kucinich president tommorow and they'd be completely hamstrung by any corporate controlled senate."

I don't know anything about this topic and would not say anything.

" Bascially its not about the president at all, it's about grass roots campaigning."

I totally agree with you.

" That's why FDR was so liberal because there was huge left wing pressure on him from the populace of that time."

While that is not the picture I have of Roosevelt I know little of the politics of the time and would not challenge the statement.

I hope agreeing on one point and not arguing on trhree is not too stupid and challenging.

haha yep. Reading back you werent denouncing me at all. Sorry about that.

I thought you were some teapartier who was using the words of Orwell to denounce progressives. my bad

That is the problem posting here - there is so much polarized polemic that it is VERY easy - I do it myself - to see snarling sneers on every side. Then you snap back and suddenly it is a dog fight. I am slowly compiling a list of people I will not respond to.

For the record, I am no teapartier - nor any kind of partier or partisan. I am the Universal Heretic - if what I think ever gets heard I am persona non grata with all political complexions, all religious variations, all kinds of science.

I never was properly socialized [though I fake some behaviors and lay low a lot of the time], I don't take even my own ideas unexamined, and I won't wear anybody's uniform.

Makes me a Green Monkey.

I knew he was a nogoodnik the moment he did that keynote address in 2004 with that nonsense about not being a red America... and that he was chosen to give this speech despite his name it's because of his devotion to corporate-friendly bipartisanship.

I always puzzles me - not only that he was so torchlight paraded into office, but that lots of people seem surprised at how he turned out. He never exactly hid what he is.

Denis Kucinich is the real deal as full as Dem candidates go. He never polls more than 2% of democrats. This is the power of public relations and the corporate media in full effect.

Or, it could be that he's unelectable because his policies are anathema to a large chunk of the population. It doesn't take a media conspiracy to marginalize Dennis Kucinich, he manages that just fine all by himself.