Michael Albert on Nader

[eridani]

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-02/28albert.cfm

The first indicator regarding affectivity in building movement is that Nader ran a very impressive campaign in 2000, generating tremendous support…but he then largely disappeared from view squandering the momentum and resources unearthed, rather than aiding continued opposition. In 2004 my guess is that things will be worse. Nader will generate less support, less energy, and less momentum, and will also likely make an even quicker exit after the election.

Time will tell whose expectations are closer to reality. Meanwhile, let's not overly aggravate one another and the process itself, with endless vituperative debate that isn't going to raise consciousness, build movement organization, win any office, or propel a better electoral outcome. Present our views compellingly, and even passionately -- of course, especially when they have broader lessons, but let's not question the integrity and motives of those who see tactical matters differently.

[Arugula Latte]

1. I take issue: Nader was outfront but not covered much by the mainstream-c

He came out in January 2001 and voiced his opposition to the Bush selection. He said we should not have carpet-bombed Afghaistan. He vehemently opposed the Iraq war. He wrote every month -- sometimes more often -- about the GOP illusions under Bush and the Dems caving to the right-wing policies. I will vote for Kerry, I think, but am glad that Ralph is calling for impeachement of Bush and continues to raise progressive issues. I hope Kerry doesn't become Gore-esque and lean right. We'll see.

We need four parties -- the two we have, the one that Nader pushes and a far-right idiot party to balance out the neo-cons.

Don't villify Nader; he's done more for our country than Kerry, Gore and Clinton combined. May Kerry become more like Nader and Howard Dean.

[fujiyama]

2. Nader got more than enough

attention on the media. I remember them talking about him quite a bit on cable stations especially.

I also disagree with this idea that he's done more than Clinton, Gore, and Kerry combined. While he was active in several pieces of legislation in the 60s, he hasn't done much since.

That said, I'm not interested in starting a flame thread. I'm quite sick of the green-dem flamewars. I find them idiotic and unproductive. My own opinion is that Nader is an egomaniac and a spoiler (and I don't trust him), but he has as much a right to run as anyone else. I would urge every liberal/ progressive I know to not votre for him.