Edwards = Nader?

There was a time when Ralph Nader made sense. He was once a strong voice crying out against corporations and their detrimental, dehumanizing effects on the American body politic, but, somewhere he lost his way. In 2000, though, Nader had only his anger left. He seemed not so much to be fighting for the presidency--which he could not win--but simply to be heard.

I'm all for that. I support those who speak up on behalf of progressive causes and I believe in fighting for differing voices to be heard--that's why sites like DailyKos are so important. Ultimately, however, Nader's candidacy was just enough to sink the chances of Al Gore in 2000.

Certainly there was blame enough to go around. Gore ran something of a limp campaign and was loathed by the press, while Bush's constant stumbling and dissembling were portrayed as the simple, likeable traits of a regular guy. Regardless, the fact remains: If there were no Nader campaign in 2000, it's unlikely we'd have had seven years of George W. Bush.

Don't tell Ralph Nader that, though. After helping to install Dubya in the White House in 2000, he ran again in 2004 and talked about running again this year. "Some men," the boss said in Cool Hand Luke, "you just can't reach."

Today, we are faced with a similar problem. John Edwards--an unquestionably great man and fighter for good things--cannot win the Democratic nomination, but will not leave the campaign, siphoning votes from Barack Obama and, therefore, helping Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination.

Don't get me wrong: Clinton is no Bush. I would work for her election were she to win the nomination. She is, however, the most hawkish, corporation-friendly Democratic candidate. Clinton is also the most beatable of the Democratic candidates because she is a uniter. Of Republicans. And independents.

I'm not just making this up. According to current polling, Clinton fairs the worst against Republicans in head-to-head match-ups. Edwards, oddly enough, does the best, but he will not win the nomination. I truly don't know why he hasn't caught fire, but he simply hasn't. He is right about one thing, though. Americans do want change and Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton probably won't be enough.

So it's time for Edwards to go.

Obama is not only a better choice than Clinton, he's also the best chance we have of putting a Democrat back in the White House. If Edwards truly believes that's important, he will step back and endorse Barack Obama for president. If he stays and damages Obama's chances enough, we may remember him as the Nader of 2008--the man who let Republicans keep the White House.

•  Ugh, no. Edwards is a loyal Democrat who

  is running on what is a progressive platform.

  When he drops out--whether it's January 27 or February 6, he'll stick by the party's nominee.

  He will NOT help turn the White House over to a Republican.

  by Geekesque on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:49:15 AM PDT

  •  Agreed.

    I think it is sick that we see otherwise sensible people tearing each other apart over primaries when the enemy is a throughly corrupt and ignomious Republican party that squandered its mandate and has caused profound harm for the nation and our public.

    Edwards equals Nader?

    When Pigs fly and cows hop like kangaroos!

    by boilerman10 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:55:28 AM PDT

•  What a load of shit!

  Nader was running a a third-party candidate in a general.
  Edwards is running as a would-be Democratic nominee in the Democratic primaries.
  And as the one most in line with Democratic (= progressive and populist) values I hope he'll go on running till the very end.

  by Lepanto on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:52:04 AM PDT

  •  and continue with

    making his voice an influence heard in the dem party.

    by jimraff on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:38:48 AM PDT

•  Thanks for your concern.

  When you run for office, I'll be sure to send you this diary, edited appropriately.

  by Fabian on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:00:51 AM PDT

•  STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT

  Jesus Fucking Christ ...

  i am supporting Obama ... but i am begging ALL idiots begging JRE to drop out to shut the fuck up -- and either Fight for Your candidate or let JRE play out his campaign how he will

  His voice is valuable -- his contributions are smart ... and he is a very smart and tactful politician ...

  that said ... Ralph Nader wasn't "Ralph Nader" -- this whole schtick about Nader 'losing the whitehouse' for the Democrats ... You are out and out wrong ... i think the "nader gambit" of running for POTUS on a Green party ticket is demeaning to the idea of building a party from the ground up -- Nader pisses me off -- but it is because he made a mockery of the Green Party by trying to build a movement and party from the top down -- as far as i know, he has done NOTHING to get local Green Party candidates elected at any level -- yet the idea that he would jump in at the top and declare a candidacy for a party that effectively DOES NOT EXIST pisses me off ...

  But -- he DIDN'T LOSE the ELECTION for ANYONE but himself and the Green Party ...

  by josephk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:06:44 AM PDT

  •  Agreed.

    I'm sick of the "Edwards=Nader" meme. It's bordering on troll-dom.  For starters, Nader would not have been a good President.

    If we accept that all three candidates would be good Presidents, then a healthy (and positive) campaign process with three very viable candidates would be the best thing for the nomination process.

    May the best person win.

    by sawgrass727 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:24:01 AM PDT

    •  Not borderline.

      It's pure trolldom. And pure bullshit.

      Diarist--DELETE THIS PIECE-OF-SHIT DIARY!!!

      by homogenius on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:34:06 AM PDT

  •  Agreed in part

    For telling off the diaaarist and everyone else trying to push Edwards off the stage. It's not even clear that he will pull more votes away from Obama than Clinton, especially in SC. After that vote, if he loses badly, I'm sure Edwards will revisit the question. It's far too early in the process to suggest he's throwing the election one way or the other. Suppose he actually siphons off from Clinton all those votes that won't go to a black man? If you had a poll that showed me who is the second choice of Edwards' supporters, then I'd be more inclined to listen -- but, I think we'd do OK with Obama or CLinton.

    As for the remarks about Nader -- I don't agree. His vanity run cost the country dearly. Frankly, the costs were borne all across the world, by millions of people that have never even heard of Ralph Nader. I guess he is at peace with it, but most of us are not.

    Even if one thought that Edwards might be skewing the race toward Clinton, it is quite different than the 2000 general election campaign, because the difference between the top two choices then was very pronounced and the consequences were dire. The differences between Clinton and Obama are so small that it hardly justifies the hysterical pleas to Edwards. Diffferenes in personality and style? Sure. Policies? Not in a broad sense, and it's even hard to find differences in the details.

    by FischFry on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:43:24 AM PDT

•  Why in the hell do you.....

  keep repeating the same old worn out line about Nader taking Gore's votes?  The problem with you and other Dems who think that was true, is that they were not Gore's votes.  Gore should have fucking earned them instead of having his people cry about all the votes he was loosing to Nader.  Here is a new idea for ya, GO EARN THE FUCKING VOTES!!  Gore didn't, he lost.  Kerry wouldn't, he lost.  Edwards at least is not affraid to try to earn votes.  I am sick and tired of Dem candidates who are so affraid of loosing a voter that they never take any positions.  ( Hillary )  Stop crying about 2000 and get your ass to work for November.  John Edwards needs to be in this race, Democrats still worried about Nader in 2000 do not.

  by rogereaton on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:23:41 AM PDT

  •  Bullshit.

    Gore is responsible for his mistakes. Nader is responsible for his. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    Fuck Nader.

    by homogenius on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:34:58 AM PDT

•  Every time...

  An Obama supporter posts a diary or comment like this, an Edwards supporter elevates Hillary to 2nd choice over Obama.

  Keep up the good work.
  You guys are pissing the Edwards folks off in droves.

  by Niniane on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:29:43 AM PDT

  •  Amen to that.

    I didn't think there was a force in the universe that could make me raise HRC over Obama.

    Until now.

    by Cthulhu on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:32:08 AM PDT

    •  Wait just a God Damned Minute

      i am an Obama supporter -- and i wish these stupid fucking comments and diaries NEED to stop -- it pisses me off to no end for so many reasons ...

      whoever is posting this shit -- has nothing but shit between their ears -- and should NOT be a reflection of any candidate ...

      Thank You for Your attention ... now You can go back to shit flinging ...

      by josephk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:35:20 AM PDT

      •  Tell your Obama friends then.

        They tend to be conspicuously absent in these diaries.

        And there is absolutely NO shortage of Obama supporters on this blog.

        by Fabian on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:23:31 PM PDT

  •  You got that right!

    Barack Obama has been my second choice behind Edwards all along, and a strong second choice at that. Not anymore. Hillary Clinton has now moved into that position for me. Obama is a distant third choice, and about to drop off my radar completely. The only people that I have encountered that even come close to the behavior of his supporters are the people who were all gung ho for Bush/Cheney in 2004.

    by cackyp on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:03:12 AM PDT

•  Look everyone! A troll!

  OK:  we did this yesterday.  We killed this meme.

  I find it extremely interesting the the Obama supporters keep having to revive this idiocy to build up their candidate.

  Tell me, oh great nitpicker -- if Obama has such a good chance of winning the White House, why does he need you to spread this garbage?

  If your candidate feeling a little ... weak?  Unsure?  Needs to keep trumpeting this line so that he has a prayer?

  Or is it deeper than that?  Is it that he can't handle real competition, so he needs to try to equate a loyal and strong democrat running in the PRIMARIES with Ralph Nader, who RAN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION?

  As I said yesterday, grow up.  If Obama is the "best chance" to win the White House then Obama should be able to beal HRC and John Edwards handily.  The fact that he hasn't -- and that his followers continue to spew this horseshit -- suggests that maybe he isn't so unbeatable after all.

  Good jumping jeebus, when will anyone learn that the "my candidate is inevitable if only your candidate drops out of the race" meme is silly?

  by Cthulhu on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:30:13 AM PDT

  •  Best Reply To This Bullshit I've Seen So Far

    If Obama is all the things that his supporters claim he is, he should be able to win the nomination on his own merits.

    This kind of crap just makes Obama look like a weak candidate that can't stand up to the primary process..

    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:39:39 AM PDT

  •  Whoa on the "He" stuff

    Do you really think Barack Obama has anything to do with the diaries posted here urging Edwards to drop out, or urging Edwards' supporters to switch? I mean, do you really think Obama, or anyone on his staff is directing DKos diarists?

    This diary is way out of line, but so are you to write this:

    "so he needs to try to equate a loyal and strong democrat running in the PRIMARIES with Ralph Nader...??

    I'm pretty sure that I've never heard Obama equate Edwards to Nader, and I'm willing to bet neither have you. You need to be more careful, in your writing, and your thinking. If Obama has nothing to do with this diary, is it reasonable of you to hold it against him?

    by FischFry on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:48:40 AM PDT

•  Where's your tip jar? n/t.

  by MichiganGirl on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:33:14 AM PDT

  •  lol

    by shpilk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:35:51 AM PDT

•  Where's your tip jar?

  I wanna see how many donuts you can eat.

  More curiosity than anything else.

  by shpilk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:34:51 AM PDT

  •  They're nice and hot.

    Mmmmm, they smell so good!

    Here trollee, trollee, trollee.

    by homogenius on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:37:41 AM PDT

•  I support Obama. I like Edwards, as well,

  but I hope he'll be convinced it's in the best interests of the progressive change he promotes for him to step aside, in favor of the other major candidate whom Edwards himself sees as the change-agent in the race.  And I hope Edwards does it sooner, rather than later.  That being said, I'm a little dismayed at the tone of diaries and comments prodding Edwards supporters to abandon their candidate ASAP (though I have recc'd some because I agreed in part).  Suppose Obama had been second in Iowa, third in NH, and still showed more than marginal support in the polls in upcoming races:  how would Obama supporters react to this insistence that we defect, right now?

  This has to be a very hard, very painful time for many Edwards supporters, who are nothing if not passionate about their candidate and the progressive agenda he espouses.  A miracle could still happen; Edwards could ignite somewhere; Obama could stumble badly; any number of things might occur.  Obama supporters, almost by definition, believe that hope is essential (though not sufficient).  We are hardly in a position to insist that Edwards supporters give up hope when only two contests are done.

  Some Edwards supporters on DKos have already made this hard decision on their own; others will surely follow; but progressives can't expect other progressives to blindly follow anyone, in any direction.  I think that's what goes in in that other party.  IMO, we have a better chance of winning over more Edwards supporters, more rapidly, by responding to their concerns in well-reasoned, well-supported diaries and comments, rather than  comparing him to Nader, or insisting their horse (Edwards said he's the Seabiscuit in this campaign) can't win the race.

  by trivium on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:35:16 AM PDT

•  Here's what I said yesterday

  Its still true:

  OK.  Its on.  If Obama is so much for change, why wasn't he front-and-center on stopping FISA?  Why hasn't Obama used his power as a Senator to block various nominations?  When has Obama ever threatened a filibuster?  Why hasn't Obama called for the prosecution of Alberto Gonzales who frigging lied to Congress?  Why has Obama adopted right-wing talking points on issues like the need to "fix" social security?

  Answer:  Obama is triangulating.

  Given that Obama has decided to triangualte, why should progressives -- such as myself -- try to encourage Edwards to quit?  If anything, I want Edwards to stay in because he is likely to play kingmaker, and he has a shot -- an outside shot, sure, but a shot -- at actually winning the candidacy.

  Doubt that?  OK, here's a scenario:  Obama and HRC engage in trench warfare over the next four weeks, each sniping at one another and pulling one another down.  Edwards continues to run and comes in second in most of Super Tuesday's races, as well as the run-up races.  Obama finishes first in a majority of the ST races, but finishes Third in those states where HRC finishes first, and vice versa.  Edwards ends up with a plurality of delegates by being everyones second-choice candidate, and voila -- he's our next President.

  One final thing:  I am fucking sick to death of both HRC and Obama thinking that everyone should drop out so they be the candidate.  Obama's team is complaining that Edwards got 17% of the vote in NH -- but if those votes had been his, he'd have won.  HRC's team is saying that if only Edwards would get out of the way, she'd have a clear shot at Obama in the debates.

  Grow up.  If your candidate is going to win, they need to win, not whine about how if the world was different, they'd already have the nomination sewed up.

  So, to answer the diarist, no, Edwards isn't fucking ralph nader.  Nader ran as an independent in the general election -- a competitior to the Democrats.  Nader said that there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans.  Nader was also against flouridation and made that a major campaign issue (and yes, I was there, I heard that as part of his speech in San Antonio).  Nader was a distraction funded by the right to weaken the progressive movement -- not a full-feldged candidate who actually had a shot of winning the White House.

  Get. Over. Yourselves.

  by Cthulhu on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:35:24 AM PDT

  •  Too bad I can't hotlist comments.

    Yours are so much more coherent than mine.  With every iteration of this meme, I get more tempted to go straight to attack rhetoric instead of attempting reason.

    by Fabian on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:26:09 PM PDT

•  It's a false analogy.

  Edwards isn't the spoiler, he's staying in the race, because about one percent of Dems have voted. The 99 percent that haven't (in case you need a little help with the math), and he's pushng O and C to adhere and progress the progressive agenda.  I have faith that John knows what's he's doing. He's been the most creative, hard-working, on message candidate we've seen in a long time, and I for one, want to see him stay in as long as he's sees fit.

  by santamonicadem on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:40:16 AM PDT

•  OMG! Just stop it, stop it, stop it!

  I wrote a diary on this yesterday and tried to be polite and respectful to all, but ENOUGH.

  John Edwards is running in a primary election.

  If your guy is so fantabulous and so very, very electable, he can get votes without his followers constantly pushing for people to abandon their favorite candidate to push him toward his coronation.

  If Obama wants to be my first choice, he can quit taking PAC contributions and give some indication he's going to do something other than nice the GOP to its demise.

  by Magenta on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:46:40 AM PDT

•  Stop it, stop it, stop it.

  In my diary on this yesterday, I tried to be nice and respectful to everyone, but this is seriously starting to piss me off.

  If you candidate is so fantabulous and electable, then he can get the damned nomination without his followers urging everyone to abandon their favorite candidate.

  If Obama wants to be my first choice than he can stop taking frakking money from PACs and lobbyists and indicate he has some plan to change things other than niceing the GOP into demise.

  by Magenta on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:49:30 AM PDT

•  Sorry about the double post.

  Computer is weird today, and I thought the first was eaten.

  by Magenta on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:50:18 AM PDT

•  You = redundant and obnoxious?

  by Junior Bug on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:02:46 AM PDT

•  Already diaried

  about five thousand fucking times.

  Please don't anyone mistake these kinds of posts as coming from any particular candidate's supporters, or attempt to associate them with one group or another.

  These are pure trolls, clueless passers-by, or inveterate idiots, and unworthy of anyone's serious attention.

  by BobzCat on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:08:53 AM PDT

•  I agree that the drop out comments

  have made it difficult for me to support Obama. Pieces in the HuPo add to that momentum.

  My immediate family is in good shape. Our family income is in the top 10%, we all hold at least a 4 year degree, my current job has gotten quite secure, the house is almost paid off, no college loans, one car almost paid for, no credit card debt, retirement on track financially even though I will probably not retire as long as my healt holds up, and we're saving more than ever. BUT, I have family and know a ton of people who are not in a position anywhere near mine. People who are suffering. People who did not catch the breaks I was lucky enough to catch. Income wise, education wise, "liberal" (sort of) leaning-wise .... we fall into one of the groups that, among Dems anyway, supports Obama. Have to say however that when we gather for Sunday dinner and discuss politics, he has not sealed the deal. We could quite logically support McCain ..... experience, not a hard liners party wise, personal history, good record versus spending, tax cuts (would help us), etc.

  I say all of this because the assumption that Edwards supporters would all move to Obama or would break heavily for Obama .... well, maybe. But it could be that many would just drop out and not support a candidate or that they might find someone on the other side that offers a package that is the "better deal". It is not as easy a call as one might think.

  by Savid on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:10:46 AM PDT

•  Nader = GOP whore

  by Finck II on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:14:44 AM PDT

•  ENOUGH with this HORSESHIT!

  Concern troll.

  Edwards is running in the primaries; Nader ran against our candidate in a General Election.

  Quit pretending that you're too stupid to understand the difference.

  by John Poet on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:46:57 AM PDT