Ralph Nader, who lost all credibility in my mind after he continued to claim there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans after seeing Bush in office, is threatening to run yet again. He also blasts Hillary Clinton and, while there is some truth to his charges, there is no benefit to be seen from him challenging her in the general election should she win the Democratic nomination. Reuters reports:
Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader on Sunday left the door open for another possible White House bid in 2008 and criticized Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton as “a panderer and a flatterer.”
Asked on CNN’s Late Edition news program if he would run in 2008, the lawyer and consumer activist said, “It’s really too early to say. … I’ll consider it later in the year.”
Nader, 72, said he did not plan to vote for Clinton, a Democratic senator from New York and former first lady.
“I don’t think she has the fortitude. Actually she’s really a panderer and a flatterer. As she goes around the country, you’ll see more of that,” Nader said.
On whether he would be encouraged to run if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, Nader said, “It would make it more important that that be the case.”
He added that Clinton may face a challenge in her own state from wealthy Republican New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
“I think her main problem may well be right in New York City, Michael Bloomberg. They’re talking in the Bloomberg camp of a possible run. I’m saying he’ll give more diversity, for sure, and he’ll focus on urban problems. But I might say, he’s got the money to do it,” Nader said.
Matthew Yglesias notes that some see some good in Nader’s previous campaigns as it moved the Democratic Party further to the left. I agree with Matthew in rejecting this argument: “Now, was that a price worth paying for the dead in Iraq, the torture, etc.? I don’t really think so.” Kevin Drum questions if the Democratic Party is even more liberal now than in 2000. The Plank argues that areas where Democrats have moved to the left happed despite Nader running due to changing events such as loss of manufacturing jobs and increased income inequality. Steve Benen is “terribly uncomfortable with the very idea of Nader having been right about any of the political choices he’s made over the last seven years” and also questions whether, even if Nader’s strategy was successful, is was “worth the incredibly high costs.”
Ah yes…time for the Nader bug.
Every four years, the Nader bug comes out of its cave, rubs its legs together which makes a very irritating noise; poops all over everyone proclaiming it is the only real bug; and then disappears for four years.
The best defense against Nader is for the Democrats to choose a Real Democrat, not a conservative Corpocrat like Ms. Clinton. If the Democrats nominate someone who voted for the Iraq war, supported increasing US troops in Iraq until she faced a Senate primary challenge, and was on Wal-Mart’s board of directors for six years, many on the left will vote elsewhere or stay home. If Nader doesn’t run, a corpocrat nominee will push away liberals from the Democratic Party to the Green Party candidate.
The Greens are likely to remain a problem as they fail to understand how their activities are counterproductive and help push the country towards the right. While I’d prefer that neither Ralph Nader or the Green Party run, an unknown from the Green Party would cause far less harm than someone with Ralph Nader’s name recognition. At least we saw in 2004 many had learned their lesson in 2000.