Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Nader Predicts Hillary for V-P

Ralph Nader, who will live in infamy as the man solely responsble for Al Gore losing to Bush in '00 has a prediction to make.

Regarding Biden, Kaine or Bayh as potential running mates for Obama, Politico has a great quote with Nader proclaiming: "I don’t think he’s that dumb.”

“He just has to swallow hard and do what JFK did” in picking rival Lyndon Johnson in 1960, said the liberal activist and maverick presidential candidate.

According to Nader’s logic, Obama may dislike Hillary, but will conclude he has no choice but to get over it if he hopes to leave next week’s convention in Denver with a unified party and a decent shot against John McCain in the fall: “The polls show 25 percent of her supporters have not gotten on board.”

Anecdotically, the howler has a tale of warning to superdelegates that is simply amazing. The last few days, she's been spending some quality time with an ol' chum from her youth. The friend has voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election since she was 18 years old. But not this time, she told her. She'll either vote for McSame, Barr or stay home.

Now how pathetic is that...? All for the glory of his one man show!

If Obama does not choose Hillary, he will reveal to the world that notwithstanding Nader's confidence and his Ivy league past, he truly is very stupid.

BloggingStocks sums up the argument for Hillary rather nicely:
Adding Hillary Clinton, in most people's eyes, will slam dunk the presidential race and if Obama does not make this tough decision, putting success in front of politics and personalities, then I am afraid all his talk of being able to stand up to special interests and take the heat in the kitchen is just that.

Comments:
Ralph Nader excretes more intelligence each morning than you will acquire in your entire life.

During a recent campaign stop in Richmond, Mr. Nader pointed out that the oft told lie that he cost Mr. Gore Florida conveniently neglects to point out that most of the other "third party" candidates who were on the ballot in Florida that election, also got more than the margin required to have provided Gore with victory. So, ALL of the other candidates could be blamed for "costing" gore his victory, or Democrats could embrace reality and recognize that the one who cost Gore his victory was...Al Gore.
 
I would take issue with your comment that Nader was solely responsible for Gore losing in 2000. That's nonsense. Gore was a VP to a popular President - and he and his campaign manager, one Donna Brazile, decided that Bill Clinton had too much baggage after the impeachment and all those other horrible scandals, and distanced themselves from him. Bill was asked to stay out of Al's way - until Al and Donna realized they were tanking in the polls, and Bill wasn't, and finally asked Bill to campaign for them - but it was too late. And the media played a role in portraying GWB as likable, while Gore sighed and rolled his eyes. Blaming Nader to siphoning off a few votes in FL, when it shouldn't even have been a contest, is simply rewriting history.

Also, I seem to remember some people in FL being confused about the ballots and even Pat Buchanan acknowledged that some votes he got were probably meant for Gore - there goes Al's election. Donna's management of the campaign, the media liking Bush, and ballot confusion resulting in people voting for the wrong candidate - and you only have eyes for Nader?
 
There is statistics and there are damn statistics...

Sure you can cite other third party candidates that ran in '00, such as Pat Buchanan. But really, are you trying to say that Pat Buchanan took votes away from Gore????

Sure, Gore ran a lousy campaign with the same usual suspects that are now telling Obama he doesn't Hillary to win. We can only guess how well that's likely to turn out.

As to my intellect, I admit to being mentally challenged, especially when Nader supporters spout that old nonsense that Nader didn't cost Gore the election. From Jimmy Carter to even Bill Maher, the verdict is unanimous. Without Nader, no Iraq, no eavesdropping, no Alito and Roberts, no GITMO and the list goes on and on and on.
 
Singling out Nader as the cause of Gore's loss is absurd. He's a convenient scapegoat for Gore and friends' own incompetence, FL voters not knowing how to vote, Donna Brazile's leadership, the media wanting to have a beer and bbq with Bush, and how can we forget the US Supreme Court! And still - you only have memory for Nader! Laughable.

Buchanan siphoned votes from Bush, which should have balanced Nader. Buchanan did extremely well in some parts of FL, so well that Buchanan himself said that some of those votes were likely meant to be cast for Gore, but FL voters, rocket scientists that they are, accidentally punched the wrong chad. (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/palmbeach.recount/)

Hey, you can blame anyone you want for Gore's loss - but history remains what it is.
 
Ralph Nader is a fonkin' idiot. What kind of a fool would throw their vote away on him?
 
The only fools are those who go into the voting booths and vote for someone while "holding their noses." They don't like either of the two candidates, but will choose the "lesser of two evils." Still evil, though.

And you should do some research on Ralph Nader, who has dedicated decades to public service and is one of the most successful consumer advocates this country has ever had.
 
Thanks for answering my question, Grand Tier.
 
"Sen. Biden will be a purposeful and dynamic vice president who will help Sen. Obama both win the presidency and govern this great country."

- Hillary Clinton
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?