I Used To Like Ralph Nader

Now I think he’s a self-absorbed narcissist (and yes I know that’s redundant):

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, blamed by many Democrats for their loss of the White House in the 2000 election, said on Sunday he is launching another independent campaign for the White House.

Nader, who will turn 74 this week, announced his longshot presidential bid on NBC’s “Meet the Press” saying that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans were addressing problems facing Americans.

Nader called Washington “corporate occupied territory” that turns the government against the interests of the people. “In that context, I have decided to run for president,” he said.

Blahblahblah.

It’s not true that Democrats are not addressing problems facing Americans. Barack Obama certainly is. He is the most progressive mainstream Democrat to come along in a long time, and he actually has a chance of winning the election, if he’s nominated. He has a purpose that he can articulate; he has a vision; he’s inspiring millions of Americans.

It might be different if Hillary Clinton were the front-runner — if it was Obama’s campaign that was all but finished. I don’t hold out any hope that a Clinton presidency would be any different from the current one, except that Hillary would probably not say that God instructed her on how to wage the war on terror.

But as it is, Nader is harming the chances of a candidate in whom liberals can reasonably place their hopes. And all without the slightest possibility of being elected himself.

And yes — to stave off the inevitable retort — he has the right to run. That does not mean it’s the right thing to do.

Joe Gandelman writes that the political landscape has changed since Nader’s popularity was at its peak:

Some reasons why it has changed:

NADER HAS RUN IN TOO MANY ELECTIONS: American political history shows Americans aren’t receptive to the same faces constantly on the national political scene running for President. Voters seem to feel if you’ve had one or two shots at it and didn’t make it, it’s time to move on.

NADER HAS LOST A KEY CHUNK OF HIS ORIGINAL STUDENT CONSTITUENCY: Obama (if he gets the nomination) has some of his strongest support on college campuses — the hub where Nader used to draw much of his original support

NADER’S STYLE DOES NOT FIT INTO THE EMERGING EARLY 21st CENTURY STYLE OF POLITICS: Present politics seems increasingly influenced by the tone, images and packaging of entertainment and talk radio. Obama has sparked “Obamamania” due to his charisma. The deadpan Nader has always been charisma and even humor challenged. A comedian in the 1960s even used this line when a joke failed: “Who wrote these jokes? Ralph Nader?”

NADER LEFT MANY VOTERS FEELING BURNED: His big argument in 2000 was that there wasn’t much difference between the two political parties and that it wouldn’t really matter who won. Both Republicans and Democrats know that turned out to be wrong in in the areas of the Supreme Court, environment, foreign policy, the power relationship between the three branches of government, and other issues.

NADER’S IMAGE SUFFERED A HUGE BLOW IN 2004 WHEN HIS CAMPAIGN TOOK MONEY IN SOME STATES FROM REPUBLICANS who clearly were seeking to undermine Democrat John Kerry’s bid. Press reports documented some of these contributions. This shifted his imagery (except among his most loyal followers) to an idealistic third party candidate to one who was willing to be overtly used by members of a major party to help defeat another majority.

THERE WILL BE A CLEARER CHOICE THAN EVER THIS YEAR since the GOP’s likely candidate Senator John McCain will greatly differ on many issues from either Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton.

NADER WILL BE COMPETING MORE THAN EVER FOR INDEPENDENT VOTERS: McCain and Obama, in particular, have proven to have widespread appeal to independent voters who seem change.

NADER HAS NO CHANCE OF GETTING INTO THE NATIONAL DEBATES since his percentage of the vote from 2000 to 2004 decreased so much. His most likely opportunity: to become a punchline for late night comedians.

Posting at American Street, the talking dog muses about insect infestations:

Cicadas come to serenade us every seventeen years; gypsy moths seem to plague our trees on another regular interval as well. And so, every four years, like those other insects, Ralph Nader comes out of his cocoon to announce a run for President.

I’ve suggested that “the enemy of Ralph Nader is my friend“. Ralph it seems, never met a Republican candidate he hasn’t preferred to a Democrat, whether that Democrat is Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry… or at present, it seems, Barack Obama (or conceivably Hillary Clinton).

And so here we go again. This is mostly a free country, and certainly, any crackpot with money or the ability to get it can mount a run for President. And Ralph is no exception. The question, of course, is why trying to get a Republican elected is always the superior option, as far as Ralph is concerned.

The Politico’s headline says it all:

Obama’s public response was restrained classy, considering the provocation:

Asked Saturday about Nader’s bid, Sen. Barack Obama called him “heroic” but suggested that he’s a bit self-centered.

“He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work,” Obama said. “I have to say that, historically, he is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anybody on behalf of consumers. So in many ways he is a heroic figure, and I don’t mean to diminish him.”

Obama, who won his first race, for Illinois state Senate in 1996, by challenging his rival’s ballot petitions, also hinted that Nader won’t get a free pass on the technical requirements this year.

“I think anybody has the right to run for president if they file sufficient papers,” Obama said.

Ron Beasley is sanguine:

This above all is a sad day for Nader. Some on the right are cheering but more reasonable types like Captain Ed are more realistic.

How much impact will Nader have this time? Probably none at all. Unless Hillary Clinton pulls off a miracle, the Naderites of 2000 have aligned themselves enthusiastically with Barack Obama. Having Nader attack him from the Left won’t hurt Obama’s prospects in the middle, where he needs to draw more heavily than John McCain.

I see him having even less impact than candidates from the Libertarian and Constitution Parties on the right. That would become considerably less impact if Ron Paul were to change his mind and make a run.

Matt Stoller has pungent commentary (did you know that Nader supported the Bush administration’s position in the Terri Schiavo case?) and a fantastic video, which can also be viewed here, and below:

Explore posts in the same categories: Politics

Tags: Kathy

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.