If Hillary's the nominee, how does Nader fare?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

I've made my position clear. But will the antiwar movement back her?
From the discussions I've had with people who were comitted Kerry backers, I have the suspicion that Ralph will get a higher percentage than he did in '04

[TSIAS]

1. More than he got against Kerry

But not against a supposedly wrecked Republican Party following 8 disastrous years of GWB.

[still_one]

11. There is no guarentee that he will even run, but if he did, those that would support him

most wouldn't vote for any of the current Democrats anyway, so they are irrelevent, at least as far as 2008 is concerned. After 2008, it is an open issue.

[bluestateguy]

2. Not if he doesn't get on the state ballots

A lot more states in the 2008 election cycle have Democratic secretaries of state compared to 2004. They will use every legal, and possibly illegal, tactic that they can to prevent him from getting his name on their state's ballots.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

3. you have a point there

regardless of whether one back a third party or not, I think the ballot access rules are bullshit

[Rick Myers]

5. I agree, but Nader is not the answer.

A 3rd party will need 12 years to get into the position to field a Presidential candidate.

We don't have that time...

BushCo is in charge. Why worry about an election?

Too little, way too late...

[PhD]

9. Where do you get "12 years" from?

Sounds like a major WAG.

[pnwmom]

22. The ballot access rules are designed to ensure that

people who are elected have at least a large plurality of the vote, if not an actual majority.

With no access rules, we could have a dozen people vying for the same position, and someone winning with 20% of the vote.

[NavyDavy]

32. ok...so your saying every state that has a Dem SOS will break

the law just to keep nada off the ballot.....thats a big charge....

[BenDavid]

4. I doubt that. Serious, am I and I say

that because those that supported Nadar in 2000 have seen exactly what they got by not supporting Gore....Hell, if Gore would have received only a 2000 Nafar votes in Fla. he would be in his second term..

If you recall Nadar got about 97,000 votes in Florida.....WOW....and the vote that still makes my heart ache is Pat Buchanan received 3,000 votes in Palm Beach county....

BD

[jobycom]

6. Ralph is as responsible for the Iraq invasion as Bush.

His followers may have been idiots, but Nader knew, as did everyone paying attention, that Bush was planning to go to war with Iraq before he was elected. Nader ran anyway, doing his best to defeat Gore and put Bush in office. Anyone who votes for Nader now is voting for the war, and their hands are dripping with the blood of Iraqi children.

And ANYONE who buys the lies enough to claim that Clinton supported the war or that Nader would be preferable to Clinton is despicable beyond words. At least Republicans are honest about being bloodthirsty murderers. Naderites murder by proxie, and pretend innocence afterwards. I can understand being fooled in 2000--the media was not being very accurate. But anyone who is fooled this time is an active, evil, supporter of the slaughter of innocents. Period.

And you bloody Naderites can spin the lies about Clinton and the Democrats supporting the war and refusing to end it and all of that nonsense all you want, it won't wash that blood off your hands.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

7. Clinton did support the war

and don't give me that "The IWR wasn't for the war" spiel
Those of us marching in the streets knew damn well it was a green light for Bush. And so did she.

[Kelly Rupert]

10. Yes, because one is responsible for the obvious consequences of their actions.

Clinton knew that voting for the IWR would lead to an invasion of Iraq. She shares responsibility for that war.

Similarly, each and every blockhead who pulled the lever for Nader knew that would lead to a Bush presidency. They share responsibility for absolutely everything he has done.

(note: I've never seen a Naderite successfully attempt to refute this argument.)

[Buzz Clik]

39. Damn! The truth is liberating, isn't it?

[still_one]

14. You are absolutely right, but everyone of the LEADING Democrats are not calling

for withdrawal either.

For me the point is the Supreme Court and civil rights. At this time Iraq is a lost cause for either party, but I have no doubt that the chances for us getting out of Iraq are much better with the Democrats than with the republicans

That doesn't mean they will do it.

One thing I am certain of though, the Democrats will insure that civil rights and a woman's right to choose are preseverd when they appoint new Supreme Court justices, which WILL happen. If the Democrats lose, you can kiss this country goodbye for the next 20 to 30 years, because the republicans will OWN the justice system.

[jobycom]

17. I marched, too.

And unlike you, I read, and I tried hard to understand what was going on, rather than just waving a bumper sticker around. Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and many others all said the only way to stop Bush's rush to war was to force Hussein to comply. Clark advised voting for the IWR the night before they voted on it (even if some have gone through a massive effort to twist his words to make it seem otherwise), and he was against the invasion. That's not a spiel, that's the simple truth.

You misunderstood what was going on. You still do, or want to. I guess there's no cure for that. But find me a statement where Clinton praised the war, or Bush's handling of it. I've asked that before, and heard crickets only. She supported the troops, that's it. I'm angered by her silence on the war, but at least she wasn't going around like Edwards and telling every open mike how great a thing the invasion was.

I'm sick of these assholes. They empower Bush, they empower the invasion movement. I had this same argument about Gore in 2000, with all the Naderites claiming he was no different than Bush, that he was just a Republican and we might as well vote for Nader. They voted for Nader, Bush won, and he started a war that Gore never would have. Same shit as now. The idiots who claim to be liberal are listening to the same broken records, the same lying sources, and are saying the same idiotic crap against Clinton. History constantly repeated by idiots who don't bother learning it.

I don't give a rat's ass who you support in the primaries. I might vote Clinton, Richardson, or Obama--I've got issues with all of them. But when someone starts implying that they should vote for Nader over Clinton in the general election, I'm going to call that person a baby killer. That's what started this war, and that's the only chance the Republicans have to keep it going. Face it, the odds are better than average that Clinton will win the nomination. It may not happen, but it's more likely than not. Anyone poisoning the well at this point is weakening the Democratic chances in 08. You need to learn where your ideas came from, get over your fantasies, and figure out which side you are on. Because the only chance we have of ending this occupation in the next ten years is to win in 08. Hillary Clinton gives us that. A vote for Nader is a vote for war. As it was in 2000. I'm sorry so many Naderites learned that the hard way. I hope they learn it in time this time.

And fuck you for thinking you were more of a war opponent than I was. No way, pal. Not then, not now.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

19. OK, let's not get personal - I din't mean it that way

and apologize if you took it that way. I'm sure you sincere in your opposition and do not question it.

My point is that I just don't belive her. When you throw in all of the other times she's caved to the right (bankruptcy, free trade, etc) I think we have a track record.

Some Dems may have voted IWR and honestly thought it was a way to stop the war. But I think theyshould have seen through it, known Bush had made up his mind and thathe was going to war regardless of whether or not Hussein complied (which he did)

The Dems should have known better to trust Bush. I remember being on DU that night and we were all pisseed and knew it was a vote for war.

[still_one]

8. if people are stupid enough , then they will get the supreme court they deserve

doesn't mean I am thrilled with the Democrats, I am not, but I can tell you without a doubt everyone of the current Democratic candidates will choose a Supreme Court justice that will preserve a woman's right to choose, and honors civil rights.

everyone of the republican candidates won't

The Supreme Court is hanging on by a thread. Stevens may not even make it , he has hung on for this reason

Believe me, I detest what the Democratic party and leadership has done, but I am not a complete fool, and realize that there are more issues than just Iraq

If the Democrats are luckey enough to win in 2008, and the court becomes balanced again, that is when I will start looking at third party candidates IF THE DEMOCRATS DON'T TOW THE LINE

Unfortunately, they can count on my vote in 2008, because this is the last chance

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

12. the simple solution is to not nominate Clinton

I just don't get why she's leading. I'm baffled, really I am.

[Kelly Rupert]

15. Because she's not considerably different from Obama and Edwards

(check the ontheissues pages before disagreeing kthx), and has run a tighter campaign.

[sandnsea]

18. Chung, Huang, Trie, Chatwal, vin Gupta, Hsu

She's considerably different than Edwards or Obama. By the time Democrats remember why they didn't want to deal with Bill in 2000, it'll likely be too late to do anything about it.

[Kelly Rupert]

20. Do you have actual policy differences,

or just right-wing-smear talking points?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

21. I think the crooked fundraisers are fair game

or hillary wouldn't have felt the need to return his money

this is the curse of the Clintons.
The Dems spend all their time defending ethical lapses in return for lip service on progressive issues

[Kelly Rupert]

23. So you're complaining that Hillary returned money

from fundraisers when they found out the money was dirty? Or are you complaining that crooked fundraisers gave money to the presumptive nominee from a major political party? Because neither are exactly "Clinton ethical lapses."

Perhaps you're complaining that Hillary Clinton does not order full background checks on every name on every donation that crosses her office.

Or perhaps you have no policy-based reasons to say Hillary Clinton is quantitatively worse than Obama or Edwards, so you're resorting to parroting the latest right-wing FUD about her. Sounds like a few too many Rushworms got into your brain.

[sandnsea]

28. That is a mouthful

"The Dems spend all their time defending ethical lapses in return for lip service on progressive issues."

Exactly. We don't even get anything in return for putting up with their crap.

[sandnsea]

27. These are facts

That these people are also wealthy businessmen who are outsourcing our jobs is just another reason to not support her. You show me where she pressured any of them to clean up their environmental or labor regulations. She will be such a worthless President. She'll stop the bleeding, same as Bill did, and that's about it.

[Kelly Rupert]

40. Nice vitriol. Now can you show me the policy differences between her and Obama or Edwards?

[still_one]

16. I think you know. Money and corporate interests. That needs to be changed

but time is short, and the Supreme Court which will mold the next 30 years are at stake, and for that alone we must vote Democratic

However, I do not plan to vote for her in the primaries, and at this time I will go with Edwards.

In the general election it will be straight Democratic though

[Kelly Rupert]

13. Hopefully as well as a rear-ended Pinto. n/t

[AndyTiedye]

24. Nader Would Take a Lot of Votes from Clinton Where He is On the Ballot

Even a few percent in one or two pivotal states could cause a repeat of 2000, where he threw the election to the Repiglickins.

[Richard Steele]

25. The MACHINES will declare that Nader did JUUUUST well enough to give Guliani a 1% margin of victory.

Just like Nader's 70thousand "Florida 2000" votes
provided a distraction from the ONE MILLION disenfranchised
Florida Dem-supporters.

Nader has been "NADER" for so long, he can't see the forest
for the logging industry. 90% of his donations come from Repubs,
and he doesn't seem able to understand why that's happening,
let alone -WHY- that's happening.

Nader is become Vader, and there is no Luke.

[splat]

26. After 2000, people know a vote for Nader elects the Repub

[NavyDavy]

29. lets hope the idiots leaned from it

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Who's Nader

eom

[Buzz Clik]

38. exactly.

[NNN0LHI]

31. Depends how much money the freepers send to Ralph this time n/t

[mmonk]

33. I doubt the antiwar movement will back Clinton.

[leftchick]

34. forget Nader

I predict there will be millions of write in candidates.

[porphyrian]

35. No one is the nominee until we elect them.

And, despite the attempts of the corporate media and the republicans to frame Senator Clinton as our nominee already, I doubt that she actually will win the nomination. She really isn't that many peoples' first choice.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. He'd Still Be An Egotistical, Arrogant, Deceitful, Ignorant, Narrow Minded, Narcissistic And

complicit piece of fucking filthy shit.

[Buzz Clik]

37. It's Wednesday! The best day of the week to blame Nader for Gore's failings.