Ralph Nader will get more coverage from the MSM than John Edwards ever did?

[still_one]

[Buzz Clik]

1. Nader will get a blip every now and then. Nothing more.

Edwards was on the tube plenty.

[still_one]

3. I agree Nader is irrelevent, but I disagree, Edwards was essentially ignored during the campaign

especially at the beginning when it counted.

I wasn't even an Edwards supporter, and that is what I saw

[Buzz Clik]

13. His coverage was not as heavy as that of Obama and Hillary, but...

he certainly got press that Dodds, Kucinich and others did not get.

I never had a problem knowing where he was on the issues.

[still_one]

14. No question that more attention was given to him than Dodd, Kucinich or the others

and I have no doubt that you or most of the people on DU did know where he stood on the issues, but I am not sure if we represent a typical cross section of the country

[blondeatlast]

2. No book to sell, no policy influence--yet he announced on "MtP."

He's going to get plenty of publicicty. Edwards got noticed only after it was too late and then on precious few programs.

[Justyce]

4. The MSM's goal is to help the repubs/hurt the dems' chance, so yes,

Nader will get more airtime than Edwards.

[still_one]

6. I didn't think of it from that view, you have a good point /nt

[madokie]

5. that is pretty much a given isn't it.

[Swamp Rat]

7. "Nader" is going to dominate DU if something isn't done to nip it in the bud.

[still_one]

8. Maybe we can focus on our true enemies, the republicans, and the insignificant fools

like nader, who have made themselves irrelevent

It sure beats attacking each other

[Swamp Rat]

9. I suggest a 'Nader forum' so folks can discuss him without creating a distraction in GDP.

edit: See what I mean?

metisnation:
Nader 08 part duex

"I repeat I will now be voting for Nader."

"I repeat I will now be voting for Nader to put the issue back on the voter and not on appearances."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4741534&mesg_id=4741534

http://www.burningwell.org/gallery2/d/9824-2/Stinky+brown+mushrooms.jpg

[still_one]

10. Good point /nt

[onehandle]

11. Absolutely. Edwards was a threat to the MSM and their corporate masters.

Nader is a sideshow freak and gooooood teevee.

[devilindisguise]

12. Sure he will get more attention

I think he will get more attention than John Edwards, because the MSM didn't give Edwards any attention, except negative, idiotic stuff like how much he paid for a haircut. Hillary and Obama both stole his ideas and the MSM never mentions that. Nader will be mentioned a lot, and he will receive the disenchanted votes of those who are tired of the status quo. Nothing will ever change if we don't get someone who is honest and cares about Americans. The lobbyists rule, and will continue to rule. Sad to say.

[EstimatedProphet]

15. Of course

If he doesn't how could he pull enough votes away from the Dem candidate for McCain to win?

[cloudythescribbler]

16. One HUGE difference -- Edwards was in many debates (even Kucinich was) ...

But the FOCUS on Nader, to the extent there is any in the MSM, will be all but ENTIRELY on his role as a possible spoiler, giving the lie to how his candidacy is supposedly raising otherwise ignored issues. If Nader wants to do that, he'll have to bite the bullet and jump into the Democratic Primary' campaign, which he has sneered at (not entirely without merit) as basically a money contest. But if you want to be heard at ALL on the issues, that is the way to go when you don't have the money/media access of a Ross Perot.

That said -- here is my opinion of Nader (repost):

(I can't say that I have read a whole lot of material from the Obama campaign myself, but on the other hand, I don't put so much stock in all the specifics outlined by candidates in these documents). I have watched some 8 debates and several speeches by Obama during the campaign, and seen plenty of detail for my purposes there and in extensive social commentary.

Actually, the advantage of figures like Nader, to the extent that in an election where the ONLY significant impact they could possibly have is to be a spoiler helping the Repukes get power, is that they advocate positions, details or no details, like single payer health insurance ignored by the mainstream.

Nevertheless, as in the past, including Nader's MOST SUCCESSFUL (both in getting votes and in possibly tipping the election FROM the Democrats to the Repugs) in 2000, the MSM attention on Nader has been almost exclusively on his role as a spoiler, and he has done little to counteract that. In 2000 in particular, he spent LOTS of time campaigning in swing states like Penn, Ohio, and FL, and relatively little both in solid blue states (like MA, CT, and CA) AND IN SOLID RED STATES WHERE HE WOULDN'T ACT AS A SPOILER (such as TX, WY, and IN). Most states and jurisdictions fall into one of those two categories, even in widely contested races with many states "in play" such as in 2000.

What this and other factors show me is that Nader is more interested in drawing attention than in 'going hunting where the ducks are'. After all, the logic of the two MAIN candidates under the present system is to FOCUS on all the "purple" and 'purplish' states such as CO, MO, MN, OH, and FL, while the logic of someone running to get at least the minimum 5% threshold to qualify for federal financing (and possibly being included in the debates as well) is, as noted, exactly the opposite.
Nader, even in 2000, didn't even come CLOSE to getting 5% of the national vote.

As for building up a progressive movement (something I am very interested in, in its proper context, with groups like sds/mds -- the newly reconstituted students for a democratic society/movement for a democratic society) the fact that at Nader's main appearances in DC, his audience(s) were reportedly almost entirely white belies any notion that he is really effective in pursuit of that at least ostensible goal either

cloudy the scribbler