Perhaps Ralph Nader hated having his character so accurately characterized by Obama:

“[M]y sense is is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you’re not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work.”

Barack Obama, quoted in the New York Times, February 24, 2008.

I must confess that Nader’s particular brand of rumpled-shirt rampant egotism is getting harder and harder to bear as he ages and my patience for publicity-hungry wankers with absolutely no self-awareness diminishes.

I can’t decide if the “white guilt” bit means he’s been hanging around wingnuts picking up lines of attack on Obama (their whole “Obama is popular because white people feel guilty about slavery” is one of the more bizarre ideas I’ve ever heard, even from that quarter), or if it’s just of a piece with the rest of the fossilized “anyone who doesn’t talk like Jesse Jackson is faking it” statement.

Either way, he seems to have reached the point where he’s saying outrageous but implausible things just to get attention, and hasn’t yet realized that’s the last stage of being doomed to irrelevance.

I heard that Nader and McCain both kick puppies.

Damn, I missed you, Jesse.

C’mon. Everyone knows white guys in their seventies like McCain and Nader are far more threatening to the white power structure than a black man with a horde of multi-cultural young supporters.

What Dweeze said.

I heard that Nader and McCain both kick puppies.

Not quite.  Nader bores puppies to death, and McCain bombs them.  Important differences, I’m sure that you’ll agree.

Since Nader came to my campus to defend the local PIRG’s right to automatically stick a PIRG fee on our tuition bill unless we went to the trouble of opting out, I’ve had no respect for him.  In the meeting, he came across as an overentitled telemarketer who feels entitled to student money without even bothering to ask for their support.  No…he assumes it.

The fact he was later supported by GOP members in his presidential runs only confirms my suspicions of him as an self-aggrandizing telemarketing GOP-funded tool who cares more for stroking his ego rather than help further progressive causes.

Well, if ANYBODY knows the difference between talking white or talking black, it’s Ralph Nader. I’m guessing that since Obama doesn’t finish every sentence with “yo”, that means he’s talking white? Because if that’s what he means, he’s wrong. White people do that all the time too.

“Other things that are nonthreatening to white people: puppies.”

Not true: I am threatened by puppies.

This statement reminds me of a lot of white people I knew in college—talking authoratively about people of color without working a hell of a lot in their communities or their issues.

That’s the mark of an idiot, and it pissed me off a whollllllllllle lot.

Maybe Nader can get a <a > few pointers from Mitt Romney…</a>

Don’t ya love the instant classics we’re getting this political season? Better than CBS’ lineup.

dammit.

Anyways, here’s the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/22/mitt-romney-who-let-the_n_82486.html

Bleah. Long time no linky…

Dear Mr. Nader,

Since, as you helpfully pointed out, I am only half African-American, would it be okay with you if I talk white only half of the time?

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

“Other things that are nonthreatening to white people: puppies.”

Not true: I am threatened by puppies.

Depends on the breed really, don’t you think?

“Depends on the breed really, don’t you think?”

Not so much, really. I generally don’t like them. But I guess if they are especially whiny or howling breeds, that is worse.

Shorter Nader: “Obama is like the guy at the country club that… What? That one’s been done before?”

Is there any way we can convert an internal combustion engine or even an electric motor to burn stupid?

It seems to be cheap and plentiful this year.

“The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.”
  — Harlan Ellison

Redshift,

In fact, “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”  —-Albert Einstein.

Noted black man Ralph Nader

I howled.

Though I’m not happy to find myself in the position of hanging with Nader, he voiced what has been my opinion since December. There is white guilt at play here, and his success does stem from the fact that he is perceived to be a non-threatening black. This week the LA Times had a piece about Obama’s courting the black vote without appearing to try to hard to court it. The “blackest” thing about Obama was his church, and that damaged him more than anything else. As for the white guilt part, I think there is a sense of “if we can elect Obama, that means that we have moved beyond the racism of America’s past.” I think many of the people who enjoy the privilege that stems from our country’s racist past would like nothing more than to be free of the vestigal responsibility for that racism. I don’t mean to take anything away from Obama, but I do think those factors are part of the context here.

I would amend my thoughts, by saying that I don’t think Obama is cynically trying to appeal to white guilt; I think it just happens that he is.

Sarcasm noted, but I just want to say that the “We have a black president!” is certain to become the new “some of my best friends are black!”

Ralph Nader has a screw loose (but I think most of us already knew the consumer advocate’s credibility is questionable these days).  This “acting white” BS was hurled at Obama early on in the campaign, first by blacks who felt that because the Illinois senator wasn’t a product of the civil rights movement, that he didn’t have “race cred.” I wrote this back when Obama officially declared his candidacy:

I think there is a discomfort with Obama by these naysayers of color that is questioning something else—Obama’s fealty to those in the black community who have made a career out of a particular framing of cultural and political “blackness.”
Apparently, to some black folks, you aren’t “kin” if you don’t:
* have at least one biological parent who is black (and now the new caveat, a parent who is a descendant of slaves)
* act culturally black enough (the definition of which is ludicrously subjective)
* you don’t have direct ties to the civil rights movement hierarchy that is entrenched in the Democratic Party.

Obviously a lot of black leaders got over their reticence to support Obama, so it’s pretty mind-boggling to read Ralph Nader’s diatribe - one that assumes there is a monolithic black community that apparently only speaks in Ebonics.

It’s really ironic, since Nader is Lebanese-American, making him the first Arab American presidential candidate in our country’s history. By his logic, is he trying to skate by and coddle white America by not embracing the ethnic and religious “identity” (he’s Maronite Catholic) that makes him groundbreaking? It’s absurd.
It’s time for hypocrite Nader to hang it up.

Ralph Nader is stuck in the ‘60s. Thats all there really is to this.

Nader is definitely wrong to think that Obama is acting white. There’s a huge difference between acting white and not appearing too black. Obama has his tightrope cut out for him.

Hell, bring on the white guilt. It’s not like whites don’t have anything to feel guilty about.

Ralph, on behalf of everyone who’s had to suffer these past seven and a half years because of your ego, I urge you to shut your miserable, egotistical, race-baiting piehole.

I still have my “Certificate of Absolution from White Guilt” from Ken Hamblin aka the Black Avenger.  I wonder if he is still on the air.

Wow. Not a single post, as far as I can see, standing up for Ralph.

Obama is a company man. He just came out shilling for the FISA bill’s evisceration of the Constitution and the rule of law. Nader is dead-on in calling Obama out on his lack of principle in the interest of coming off as “moderate”. Obama is a scumbag. I’m honestly shocked at the naivete I’m seeing in this thread.

Dweeze: I hate to break it to you, but having “young, multi-cultural supporters” is not a threat to the status quo. Do you honestly want to stack up the concessions Ralph Nader has wrung out of the powers structures that rule this country to those Obama has? Please.

The fact that Obama is a better choice than the two maniacal warhawks he was running against shouldn’t blind anyone to the fact that he’s a puppet of big business. I honestly expected Pandagon readers to have some vague awareness of this fact, but it seems to be just another pocket of Obama hero-worship.

Wow. Not a single post, as far as I can see, standing up for Ralph.

Given that his last campaign was financed by Republicans, why would we see him as anything other than a partisan hack trying to pretend he’s a liberal?  The poor Green Party probably kicks themselves every day for not seeing what he was really trying to do in 2000.

why would we see him as anything other than a partisan hack trying to pretend he’s a liberal?

This is incoherent. Ralph Nader has a proven track record as a liberal, and he has produced impressive results.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and most of the Democrats in Congress have little to no credibility as liberals.

So who’s the hack pretending to be a liberal? The guy who’s been fighting and winning important battles for citizens and consumers for 40 years, or the scumbags who got voted into Congress in 2006 on a platform of reversing Republican excess, but have instead demolished the 4th Amendment and habeas corpus and given the President the power to order private companies to violate the rights of citizens?

It’s called projection, Mnemosyne. I’m sorry your party is sleeping with the enemy and that you’re taking out your frustration on the guy who’s trying to tell you what’s going on. But you really need to grow up and wise up to what’s going on.

Picador,

You wanna talk projection?  Let’s talk about you calling everyone but Ego-Boy and yourself “OMG CONSURVTIV”.

This is incoherent. Ralph Nader has a proven track record as a liberal, and he has produced impressive results.

He had a track record 30 years ago.  Now he’s helping his good friend John McCain get elected.

How is it “incoherent” to point out that Nader has been accepting Republican money and Republican assistance for years now?  I’m sorry it hurts your feelings to find out that your hero has changed and is now a Republican hack, but the truth hurts sometimes.

I’m sorry it hurts your feelings to find out that your hero has changed and is now a Republican hack, but the truth hurts sometimes.

The Republicans aren’t the ones who just passed the FISA amendments. The Republicans aren’t the ones who revoked the right to habeas corpus. The Republicans aren’t the ones who passed welfare reform, banking reform, and “don’t ask don’t tell”. The Republicans aren’t the ones who keep voting to keep funding the war in Iraq and to keep extending the USA PATRIOT Act.

I think we can all agree that the Republicans are not representing the interests of American citizens. But to pretend that, ergo, the Democrats must be doing so is ridiculous. The USA is a one-party country today. Greenwald nails them pretty well here, I think:

Throughout the Bush era, the Democratic Party has been dominated by The New Republic Syndrome—Democrats who are either petrified of meaningfully opposing the right-wing agenda that has dominated our country or who support virtually all of it, while eagerly volunteering to serve as the most vocal demonizers of those who want our country to have a real opposition party.

He also points out that the Democratic Congress is more popular with Republicans than with Democrats. So, again: who’s the actual Republican stooge here?

Look, you can keep on singing the praises of the party of Joe Lieberman, Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi all you want. They’re traitors to their country and to the Constitution. You are correct that this does not distinguish them from the Republicans, but frankly, that’s not enough to get me to support them.

I’d also like to point out that I’m not supporting Nader. In fact, I happily support liberal Democrats on the rare occasion that one pops up. All I’m saying is that Nader’s criticism of Obama is correct. If you can’t see that, you really have been drinking the Kool-Aid.

You wanna talk projection?  Let’s talk about you calling everyone but Ego-Boy and yourself “OMG CONSURVTIV”.

You may be confused about what projection is. It’s a term from Freudian psychoanalytic theory, describing the process by which someone attributes his own repressed, shameful characteristics to someone else.

Or are you actually suggesting that Ralph Nader and I are both conservatives in denial? Because that really is a novel criticism.

I really like the basic civil liberties embodied in the US Constitution. The Democrats and Republicans, not so much. Obama just came out in support of the FISA “compromise” bill, which is one of the most reprehensible pieces of legislation we’ve seen in a long time, and which his Democratic allies in the House voted for. Please explain why this makes me a conservative, and Obama a liberal.

How is it “incoherent” to point out that Nader has been accepting Republican money and Republican assistance for years now?  I’m sorry it hurts your feelings to find out that your hero has changed and is now a Republican hack, but the truth hurts sometimes.

Also, let me just see if I follow your logic here: you want me to believe that, to the extent one receives funding from a group, one can be assumed to represent said group’s interests, right?

The article you cite list a grant total of $3500 in donations to Nader by private individuals who also contributed to Republican candidates.

Want to count up the donations to the Obama and Hillary campaigns made by corporations who also contribute to Republican candidates? Or corporations who have lobbied for legislation contrary to the public interest, that has been supported by Hillary and Obama? Want to make a bet as to whether those contributions are roughly four orders of magnitude higher than the ones in the article you cite?

The Center for Responsive Politics has all the data, if you’re at all interested. Both Obama and Clinton are millions in hock to their corporate sponsors. This does not make them bad people in itself, perhaps; this is how electoral politics works in America. But if your thesis is that one represents the interests of one’s donors, then I’m afraid Nader still smells like a rose next to these stinkers.

Nader is right. Swing voters (i.e. ignorant and white voters) aren’t going to vote for someone who talks like Malcolm X. Shit, he talks like freakin’ Bryant Gumbel and they still think he’s an Islamofacist A-rab who eats babies or something. And, thanks to the genius of the electoral college, that’s who Obama has to appeal to in order to get elected. It’s not his fault! Nader should be aiming his attacks at the racist, xenophobic backwardness that still runs so deep in this country and not at our only hope of defeating McCain.

Nader should be aiming his attacks at the racist, xenophobic backwardness that still runs so deep in this country and not at our only hope of defeating McCain.

Nader plays a very specific role in American political discourse. There are plenty of people crusading against racism and conservatism generally; Nader is one of the watchdogs who tries to make sure that, in fighting against the Republicans, the Democrats don’t become something just as bad.

He has, of course, failed spectacularly at this job, largely due to the concerted campaign of character assassination the Democrats have subjected him to.

The Democrats have proved themselves to be no better than the Republicans. There is no opposition party. Nader is stating this fact—surely an uncontroversial one to anyone who’s been following the Dems’ voting record in Congress—and is being attacked by the Dems for it, predictably.

One of his points is that the attitude you’ve displayed above (“no criticism of Democrats allowed, because it only provides comfort to the Evil Republican Enemy”) has gotten us into the mess we’re in today. The Democrats need to be held responsible by the liberal base; otherwise, we’re stuck with two parties accountable only to the conservatives.

All I’m saying is that Nader’s criticism of Obama is correct. If you can’t see that, you really have been drinking the Kool-Aid.

Nader says that Obama’s problem is that he “talks white” and I’m the kool-aid drinker?  Seriously, dude, get off the Nader pony for a minute and listen to yourself.  You’re arguing that Ralph Nader is correct that Barack Obama is not black enough and therefore we shouldn’t vote for him.

As far as his Republican leanings, here’s a link to an article that Ralph Nader wrote explaining why he hopes that McCain wins.  Are St. Ralph’s own words enough to convince you?  Nader’s on their side, not our side.

Nader should be aiming his attacks at the racist, xenophobic backwardness that still runs so deep in this country

In other words, he needs to talk to that fellow in the mirror.

Oh, and Picador, if the shoe fits…

Nader’s on their side, not our side.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that there is no “our side” here.

I’m on whatever side wants to get out of Iraq and put the Constitution back in place as the nation’s governing document. Barack Obama is on some other side, as are Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Apparently, so are you. That’s fine; you stand by your man and his FISA bill, I’ll go my own way. But there’s no “we” here.

I just ran across this piece on antiwar.com by Uri Avnery, who makes almost identical statements about Obama to those made by Nader. Perhaps you’ll be able to assess it more coolly if your perceptions aren’t clouded by your knee-jerk hatred of Ralph Nader.

How is it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100 percent with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.

Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: “Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself.”

I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.

Of one thing I am certain: Obama’s declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world, and bad for the Palestinian people.

Picador, go vote for Nader or Ron Paul, or whatever pie-in-the-sky liar you want to.  Us?  We’re going to vote for the person who’s not going to continue a failed illegal occupation, not going to continue slashing taxes for the rich, not going to continue annihilating the economy, not going to roll back every civil right we have, and not going to start more needless bloodshed, thank you very fucking much.

Some of us want a chance to see tomorrow and will put our lives over our massive egos.