Matthew Yglesias » Nader Calls Obama an Uncle Tom

Nov 5th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Nader Calls Obama an Uncle Tom

I, for one, am completely indifferent to the fact that George W. Bush rather than Al Gore has been president for the past eight years — they’re just tweedledee and tweedledum:

Too tired to laugh, too tired to be angry.

Comments
141

141 Responses to “Nader Calls Obama an Uncle Tom”

JH Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
If you took a sour old dildo, soaked it in a special concoction of smelly chemicals, then strapped it down and administered electrical shock throughout it in a specific, precisely timed sequence, it would eventually become sentient, become Ralph Nader, break the straps loose and go out and wreck our political system.

wtf did I just type? Fuck it, I’m posting.

Also, petey is an idiot.
Wells Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Am I alone in not giving a shit about who said what about who? We’ve been around this media-scandal carousel a million times.

What matters is what Obama will do, not what some irrelevant hater has to say about him.
Dan Kervick Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
What a self-absorbed jackass Nader has become. I used to respect the man quite a bit, and still do respect many of his ideas. But he seems so sadly erratic, vindictive and obsessed these days.

By the way, I was always inclined to think that no white guy ever has any business saying which black men are or are not “Uncle Toms”. That’s a subject for black people to throw around and debate. White guys don’t walk in black guys’ shoes, and are ill-positioned to judge the compromises they do or do not choose to make.
Tinare Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
The past eight years are largely the fault of this idiot. Of course he would say something like that and not care.
Mixner Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
The true voice of “progressive” politics is heard. I wonder what Cynthia McKinney will say?
Don Williams Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Ralph Nader is like Joe Lieberman: he exists solely to feed his ego by being a pain in the ass to the rest of the world. He serves no purpose — he has no devotion to any principles.

A recent occurrance illustrates how Nader is Missing in Action unless the TV crews are around.

If Nader had wanted to accomplish something, he could have held the Democratic Congress’s feet to the fire over the Wall Street Bailout. He could have pushed for an Income Surtax on the Superrich to pay for the Bailout. Instead he did nothing.

Nader’s worthless. At least Pat Buchanan, Bob Barr, and Ron Paul had a clear set of principles they were loyal too. Nader has nothing.
Cabalamat Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Nader’s nadir.
Indecisive Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Damn those guys at Fox News are assholes, but it’s nice to see them attack a target worthy of being attacked for once.
Mixner Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Ralph Nader is like Joe Lieberman: he exists solely to feed his ego by being a pain in the ass to the rest of the world.

Apart from the Uncle Tom thing, Nader’s rhetoric is barely distinguishable from yours. All that guff about evil corporations and evil American foreign policy. You could be twins.
Duncan Watson Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Wow, that was amazing. Fox’s Shepard Smith was amazingly calm and rational during that interview. I hope this is the end for Ralph Nader, the man has been a cancer for the progressive movement for a long time.
nolaboyd Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I’m with Indecisive that harnessing the assholery of Fox is occasionally a beautiful thing. And Shep is indeed an asshole.

Mixner, when you call Nader — the voice that progressives hate with a deep and abiding hate — the true voice of progressives, you reveal once again a festering assholery that is so impotent that it could never be harnessed.
mort Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I wish MattY would clarify that Bush is the tweedledum….

Uncle Ralph is ready for the home.
Don Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Who cares what Ralph Nader thinks? When you quote him, you make the irrelevant appear relevant. Nader has become a sideshow and FOX News stooge. Ignore him and maybe he will soon go away.
Pithlord Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
From Nader’s perspective, Obama is an Uncle Tom for corporations. From my perspective, he is a relatively sensible pro-market liberal. But a man’s entitled to his opinion.

It seems anyone who criticizes the President for the next four years — from left or right — is going to be a racist.
SLC Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Re Mixner

Mr. Don Williams is just playing out his role as the blogs resident Bolshevik.

Re Don Williams

Mr. Don Williams being critical of a two-fisted Israel basher like Ralph Nader? Will wonders never cease! Although to be fair about it, the latter is somewhat of a late comer to the Israel bashing brigade, having said virtually nothing about the Middle East prior to the 2000 election! And even in 2000, his criticisms of the Government of Israel were pretty lame. Since then, however, he’s cranked it up pretty good.
SLC Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Actually, relative to the Arab/Israeli dispute, it would be fair to say that Mr. Nadar was an uncle tom for most of his life.
Gus Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
“It seems anyone who criticizes the President for the next four years — from left or right — is going to be a racist.”

He called him an Uncle Tom… youre trying to say that race doesnt have anything to do with that attack? He could have just said he’s a corporate sell out, but then he has to bring race into, so yes, in this case, Ralph’s bein’ a little racist.
Mixner Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Mixner, when you call Nader — the voice that progressives hate with a deep and abiding hate — the true voice of progressives, you reveal once again a festering assholery that is so impotent that it could never be harnessed.

Gee, that’s a stunningly powerful argument you’ve got there.

Since you claim Nader is not the true voice of progressives, perhaps you could list the major points of disagreement between Nader and progressives.
MAX HATS Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
There’s something about Obama that makes white people think they can judge his blackness. It’s weird.
MAX HATS Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
perhaps you could list the major points of disagreement between Nader and progressives

1) racism
Mixner Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
1) racism

If calling a black man an “Uncle Tom” is racist, then racism is very common among progressives. Just ask Clarence Thomas, or any other black conservative.

Anything else?
Neuroskeptic Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
“perhaps you could list the major points of disagreement between Nader and progressives”

Did you watch the video? Obama is a progressive, and Nader found plenty to disagree with.
MAX HATS Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
If calling a black man an “Uncle Tom” is racist, then racism is very common among progressives. Just ask Clarence Thomas, or any other black conservative.

Racism common amongst sheltered self-righteous white kids? Simply unheard of.

Anything else?

Taking republican money and accepting republican assistance to further republican electoral victories.

But hey, he did something or other to GM fifty years ago. And he started the PIRGs! Those are awesome. Awesome guy. High fives all around.
Mixner Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
neuro,

Did you watch the video?

Yes. Did you? Here is a list Nader’s positions as stated in the video:

- wants single-payer health care
- wants a “living wage”
- wants more respect for the poor
- opposes expanding military budget
- wants to reduce corporate power
- wants more progressive tax code
- opposes outsourcing of American jobs by global corporations

Progressives rejects these positions, do they?
Mixner Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Racism common amongst sheltered self-righteous white kids?

So “progressives” = “sheltered self-righteous white kids?” Is that what “progressives” are now?

Taking republican money and accepting republican assistance to further republican electoral victories.

Obama took lots of Republican money and accepted lots of Republican assistance. He explicitly asked Republicans to send money to his campaign and vote for him. So by your novel definition, Obama isn’t a progressive either.
Jim Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
1) racism

If calling a black man an “Uncle Tom” is racist, then racism is very common among progressives. Just ask Clarence Thomas, or any other black conservative.

Anything else?

Let’s be clear here, Nader used a specific race-based slur against Obama. White guys aren’t called “Uncle Tom.” When Fox asked him if he was willing to retract the statement, he said no. Not good. In fact, its downright Rush-esque. Very classy move on the day after Obama gets elected to bring out the racial slur.

Plus, since when is Nader concerned about civil rights? Did he march in Selma? Was he a Freedom Rider? Um, no. Nader is a consumer protection guy. That’s not a bad thing, but its not like he’s an authority on civil rights.
Hector Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
If Nader thinks Obama is an Uncle Tom, then he should say so. I don’t think Obama is an Uncle Tom, but neither do I think a dark skin should lend one immunity from criticism. It’s true that Obama is generally for corporations, free trade and liberal capitalism, and should rightly be criticized from the left in those regards.

I voted for Nader on Tuesday, mostly because he was less pro-choice than Obama, and further to the left on economic and environmental issues. I would have voted for Obama if my state was a swing state, which it usually is, but it was safely Blue this year.
Mixner Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Let’s be clear here, Nader used a specific race-based slur against Obama. White guys aren’t called “Uncle Tom.”

Progressives frequently call black people they deem to be insufficiently liberal “Uncle Tom.” Clarence Thomas is a prime example. He was relentlessly attacked by progressives as an “Uncle Tom” during and since his confirmation hearings. Spike Lee even called Thomas a “chicken-and-biscuit eating Uncle Tom.”
Linus Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
The irony of dissing the most accomplished consumer advocate of the last half century in this country on behalf of two men in part responsible for two of the most anti-consumer bills in the last half century is rich.

I’m proud of my vote for Ralph Nader in 2008.
Jake Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
The last three posts prove that if you go far enough in either direction, you end up in the same shithole.
DRR Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Mixner has become little more than a troll with wife beating questions. You should seriously consider banning him.
MAX HATS Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
So “progressives” = “sheltered self-righteous white kids?” Is that what “progressives” are now?

Shock! Anger! By the guy who defends the practice of white people calling black guys “Uncle Tom” because it is, no joke, common practice. I guess if enough people make enough of a habit of using a racial slur against a certain race then it becomes okay. Amazing logic.

buh-buh-buh SPIKE LEE said it too!!

Whatever man. You’re a lost cause. If you can’t read what you just wrote and see the many, big, obvious problems with it, then you obviously don’t care much about racial equality and your way past fixing. Good night.
Don Williams Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Re Mixner’s comment that I and Ralph Nader could be twins.
————
Do you REALLY think that I would have helped elect an asshole like George W Bush, Mixner?

Because that’s what Spoiler Ralph did –with malice aforethought. How did that SERVE the Progressive Agenda?

Anybody can shoot off their mouth and give lip service to some policies. But What do they DO ?– that’s what’s important.

How did ensuring the election of a man who stole $3 Trillion from Social Security/Medicare Trusts and who gave $2 Trillion to the richest fuckers in the country SERVE the Progressive Cause?

How did electing a man who started an unnecessary war to seize oil deposits — at the cost of 4500 American dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, tens of thousands of US soldiers crippled for life, and the waste of $1 Trillion SERVE the Progressive Cause , Mixner?

How did the $1.5 Trillion Wall Street Bailout SERVE the Progressive Cause, Mixner? When millions are without healthcare and millions of children are doomed to spend their lives in prison because they won’t receive the minimum education they need to make a living.

If I had the GUILT on my hands for what Ralph Nader has Done, I would blow my fucking brains out. Ralph , in contrast, lets it roll over him like a summer breeze.

That’s another difference between he and I.
Stephen Daugherty Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Ralph, you f***ing moron. What was the point of that? You got to recognize that to draw people over to progressive politics, you can’t simply rely on antagonism to finally snap people the other way. At some point, there has to be a path of conduction for that bolt of lightning. Like McCain, you’re jealous it’s not you bringing people over to your side.

But Obama trusted in people and what they want. He understood that there were plenty of people pissed off to begin with, that people didn’t need extra encouragement, just the hope that something could be done.

You look at somebody who has fundamentally changed his party and think that he can’t stand up to the special interests. If a Clinton or a McCain gets butt-kicked, do you think everybody else is up to it? He is formidable in a way the rest of them are not.
duBois Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Obama isn’t a progressive. He’s a conventional liberal with a world class temperament and a genius for rhetoric.

There were any number of ways that Nader could have phrased his charges that had nothing to do with race, but Nader’s talent is for self-promotion. Nader’s virulence comes from the fact that he’s willing to completely do without if he can’t get exactly what he wants. McCain and Nader both fouled themselves in the campaign. Apparently Obama does that kind of thing to a certain kind of vain politician.
Mixner Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Shock! Anger! By the guy who defends the practice of white people calling black guys “Uncle Tom” because it is,

I didn’t say one word in defense of it. I noted that the individual engaging in that behavior here, Ralph Nader, is a progressive, and that calling black people “Uncle Tom” is common behavior among progressives.
cmholm Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Mixner: feels Nader is [a] true voice of progressives.

He is a voice of progressives, much as – say – David Duke is a voice of conservatives. I wouldn’t claim that either is the voice of their political tendencies.

I’d argue that the vast majority of progressives were done with Ralph once they realized that he was seriously mistaken: there is a discernable and useful difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party and their 2000 nominees.

That’s not to say that there aren’t still a few people who approve of and (as we saw in a previous post) act on Ralph’s old guerrilla tactic to so screw up the status quo as to radicalize a majority of the voters. But, I think I can safely say they’ve been marginallized.
Linus Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I’ll say too that you can’t help but be moved by the election of the first African-American president; look at some of these states he won.

But there comes a point for some people that the capitulation of Democrats over the past eight years on certain key issues – including civil liberties and bankruptcy protection – is just too much to take.

Obama voted for the FISA bill. He made a man who took close to 200k from credit card companies and who is arguably more responsible for the bankruptcy bill than anyone save George W bush at the time of the worst credit crisis since the Great Depression his running mate; these things matter to me. They matter to me more than the symbolism of an African-American president. They matter more to me than rousing speeches. They may even matter more to me than winning (not least because neither the bankruptcy bill nor the Patriot Act is likely to be fully repealed [and the latter probably not even partially repealed] over the next four years no matter who was elected president.)

I object to the characterization of Ralph Nader as a crank or an extremist. He is a true progressive – you can probably call him a leftist – but he is a big part of the reason many thousands of people all over the world survive serious automobile crashes every year. That’s more than I’ve ever done or am ever likely to do. And if the temptation of leftists is to indulge in anti-American slurs and paranoid conspiracy theories (I won’t mention any names here) Nader is as classy as they come. Ralph Nader is a decent man.
JonF Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Re: Ralph Nader is a decent man.

Yes, with the blood of 100,000+ Iraqis on his hands. But for his self-aggrandizing ego-trip in 2000 (and his supporters’ leftier-than-thou self-righteousness) Al Gore would have been president and…
Mixner Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
cmholm,

[Ralph Nader] is a voice of progressives, much as – say – David Duke is a voice of conservatives.

I gave a list of Nader’s political positions as stated in the video above. Which of these positions do you consider strongly outside the mainstream of progressive politics? Single-payer health care? A more progressive tax code? Reducing military spending? An increase in the minimum wage? Reducing corporate power? All of those positions are frequently and strongly advocated by self-identified progressives on this blog.

Nader isn’t merely “a” progressive. He practically wrote the book on modern American progressive politics. The attempt of self-identified progressives here to dissociate themselves from Nader despite spouting a virtually identical set of political positions is just laughable.
Jiek Liken Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Wow, Nader responsible for deaths in Iraq, JonF? Forgetting Madeleine “worth it” Albright, the sanctions? Forgetting that Joe Lieberman, the renowned peacenik was the veep choice for Al Gore?
What do you liberals truly believe in, other than that Democrats should win elections?
Ed Marshall Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Mixner, when you call Nader — the voice that progressives hate with a deep and abiding hate

No, and fuck you. I didn’t vote for Ralph, I worked for Obama. He’s a voice Democrats hate. There is a difference. Anyone getting pissy about an old man running for President and people *gasp* voting for him is an asshole.
Ed Marshall Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
and what he said was stupid, and I think he’s getting senile, but I’m not going to hate him over it.

The people that hate him are really, nasty, little, commisars who need to get a life more than the couple hundred thousand people who voted for him to try and feel above it all.
Crusty Dem Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Ok, Mixner, I’ll feed the troll. I agree with:

- wants single-payer health care
- wants a “living wage”
- wants more respect for the poor
- opposes expanding military budget
- wants to reduce corporate power
- wants more progressive tax code
- opposes outsourcing of American jobs by global corporations

You know where I’m not like Nader? I’m not an egomaniacal racist who helped elect George W Bush in 2000. If I had, I’d sure as fuck apologize for it. Profusely. I’m not a liar like Nader, claiming there’s no difference between Bush and Gore, Bush and Kerry, or McCain and Obama. I’m not a hypocrite like Nader, making a fortune off the corporations I vociferously oppose.

I could go on, but you can agree with someone on some issues and still deem them a worthless asshole.
Ed Marshall Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Yes, with the blood of 100,000+ Iraqis on his hands. But for his self-aggrandizing ego-trip in 2000 (and his supporters’ leftier-than-thou self-righteousness) Al Gore would have been president and…

If that was true he’d be 900,000 short of what Clinton/Gore managed to kill and that’s why Nader ran in the first place. I know in play pretend land, Al Gore is really the guy he is today if he didn’t lose, but just take a step back here.

If Al Gore had won, he’d have won by outflanking the GOP candidate on hawkishness (remember the more humble foreign policy) and neoliberal dogma while running against the social conservatives. He’s Tony Blair basically. That’s where the wreckage of Gore would have wound up, and half of you “liberals” would have cheered the Iraq War on if Al Gore had launched it and you would sound like the idiot Blairites did back in the day.

Bush pretty much saved the Democratic party from itself.
Crusty Dem Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Come on Ed, are you claiming Gore would’ve started a ground war in Iraq? That’s pure ignorant flatulence.
Ed Marshall Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Come on Ed, are you claiming Gore would’ve started a ground war in Iraq?

Did you read The Gathering Storm? Do you know where half of the Iraq Is Going To Kill Us Any Second experts came from? That’s who would have been sitting in the Gore White House. Counter-factuals are impossible to prove, but how in the hell couldn’t he invade Iraq with that team?
Crusty Dem Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
So Gore opposed the war in Iraq out of spite? Nice try. I just can’t believe that Gore could’ve been 1/100th as obtuse as Bush and Cheney. Obviously counter-factuals are impossible to prove, but they’re particularly difficult when they’re not supported by any actual facts.
tg Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
“Come on Ed, are you claiming Gore would’ve started a ground war in Iraq? That’s pure ignorant flatulence.”

Why wouldn’t he? He had Lieberman as his VP pick and he was a hawk went it came to the first gulf war, maintaining and expanding sanctions, and the air strike campaign in 1999.

The Gore of 2000 and the one we see now are different in many ways. I’d like to think that not seeking political office has given Gore a new sense of freedom he previously didn’t enjoy.
Ed Marshall Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
The Threatening Storm I forgot Pollack changed the name a bit to avoid strict “it’s Hitler all over again” plagarism.
Crusty Dem Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Tg and Ed – you’re arguing that the Gore of 2000 was completely different from the Gore of 2002, you know, the one who OPPOSED THE WAR IN IRAQ BEFORE IT HAPPENED!!

Better trolls, please.
Mixner Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I agree with: [all of Nader's listed positions]

I thought so. In fact, every item on Nader’s list is a thoroughly progressive position. Nader far more qualifies as a progressive than Obama does. Nader is the true voice of the progressive movement, and Obama is the voice of Clintonian, triangulating Democratic centrism. The fact that you have petty personal issues with Nader is completely irrelevant to the question of his politics.
Jiek Liken Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Remember Gore laughing when he was asked the sanctions on Iraq?
Ed Marshall Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I’m arguing that citizen Gore is a different animal than VP Gore or President Gore.

I don’t think you are remembering even Citizen Gore as a fierce anti-war advocate in 2002 the right way. We just needed to be better Atlanticists and get Europe on board.
Mike Hussein Cohen Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Ralph Nader has always been a real douchebag.
Mixner Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Come on Ed, are you claiming Gore would’ve started a ground war in Iraq?

We’ll never know. Maybe Gore would instead have continued the Clinton Administration’s genocidal sanctions policies that had already killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
Keith M Ellis Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
“Why wouldn’t he? He had Lieberman as his VP pick and he was a hawk went it came to the first gulf war, maintaining and expanding sanctions, and the air strike campaign in 1999.”

There’s a big difference between those and a full-scale invasion and occupation of Iraq. It’s absurd to equate all these things.

I supported the first Gulf War and I’d support it again. Besides the fact that, at that time, Hussein really was a threat to the entire region and was, you know, actually doing something about it and invading his neighbors and such; there’s also the simple truth that without the Coalition, Israel would have been drawn into a war and all hell would have broken loose. It was the right decision to invade, and it was the right decision to not take Baghdad or attempt an occupation. And it was right to have economic sanctions, though maybe not exactly as they were; and it was right to bomb targets in Iraq that involved Hussein attempting to rebuild his warmaking capability. It was right, and it was also legal by international law via the UN Resolution.

And all the rationales for those things don’t suffice to a rationale for Bush’s invasion. Hussein was contained. He didn’t have WMDs and basically no one really thought he did. He wasn’t a threat to Israel or even Iran or Kuwait—in other words, he wasn’t a threat to regional stability anymore. There was simply no good reason to invade him again. I firmly believe that Bush wanted that invasion for Oedipal reasons and the neocons wanted it as a test-bed for their dreams of delivering democracy to the rest of the world by the barrel of a gun. In other words, these are all crazy people and I’m sorry, I don’t think Gore is crazy, nor would his advisors have been crazy.

But if you can’t see the difference between Bush and his neocons and centrists and liberals who are willing to wage war for good reasons, then you’re about as discerning on these sorts of things as Nader is. Which is to say, not very.
Dave Weigel Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Nader is the true voice of the progressive movement

Nope. Nader is a cranky racist who spent the eight years of the Bush presidency doing nothing for three and a half years, running for president for six months, doing nothing for three and a half more years, and running for president for six more months. You don’t get to be the voice of a movement simply by saying you are. The average union organizer has worked harder for the progressive movement, however defined, than racist Ralph Nader has these past eight years.

Seriously, can any Nader defender point to something the man’s accomplished since The Sonny and Cher Show went off the air? You can’t. He hasn’t done shit. He’s just a whiny old man who hates blacks.
MAX HATS Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Nader far more qualifies as a progressive than Obama does. Nader is the true voice of the progressive movement, and Obama is the voice of Clintonian, triangulating Democratic centrism.

So says Mixner.

Let it be written, so let it be done.

I, like most progressives, don’t recall voting for Ralph Nader. I don’t recall giving him any of my money. I don’t recall campaigning for him. The same cannot be said of my activities on behalf of Obama. So too could the same be said of most progressives. By what standard, other than your decree, is Ralph Nader the voice of progressives? Don’t progressives have some choice in the matter?

Pretty sure no representative of mine calls anyone an Uncle Tom. Pretty sure I’d be embarrassed and ashamed if someone I thought to represent me started using patronizing, racist language against popularly elected African-American politicians.
Erik Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
To be fair, Nader had this choice: he could use the tasteless Uncle Sam/Uncle Tom wordplay to frame his anti-corporate power argument, or say the same thing more tastefully.

In the first case, he gets two minutes of time on TV to talk about the phrasing rather than the idea. In the second case, he gets completely ignored.

(And these days, he has to look for tasteless ways to say things even to get on Red State Update.)
Terry Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I, for one, am not too tired to be angry with Nader… NOT.EVEN.CLOSE

He is a race-baiting, dishonest, delusional narcissist. The fact that he is on the left, rather than the right, does not make him any less dangerous. He has become the caricature that allows American moderates to mock all sorts of progressive policies.
Ed Marshall Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
He didn’t have WMDs and basically no one really thought he did.

Goddamnit, Al Gore did.

In a way, who gives a shit, it’s history.

In another way, this is a total whitewash. If you don’t believe me that Al Gore thought Hussein was building a nuke and that it was unacceptable and he would need to be routed from power, go back and read his 2002 speech.

The Clinton years did awful shit to the foreign policy consensus of this country, and they did it because we hadn’t had a Vietnam in along time and cheerleading hawkishness against whoever was the safe bet.
tg Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
“But if you can’t see the difference between Bush and his neocons and centrists and liberals who are willing to wage war for good reasons, then you’re about as discerning on these sorts of things as Nader is. Which is to say, not very.”

That’s why Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Joe Liberman all supported the Iraq war?

Are we to believe that the Gore in 2000 was to the left of these people?

The majority of the country was for the Iraq war, I have little confidence to believe that so called “centrist” democrats would have joined the anti-war crowd. I think Obama is different, but we’ll soon find out.
Jim Says:
November 5th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
I thought so. In fact, every item on Nader’s list is a thoroughly progressive position. Nader far more qualifies as a progressive than Obama does. Nader is the true voice of the progressive movement, and Obama is the voice of Clintonian, triangulating Democratic centrism.

And yet, Obama, not Nader, leads progressives. Obama, not Nader, built a progressive, grassroots organization that took on the special interests and ended eight years of despicable Republican rule. Obama, no Nader, encouraged the highest turnout of young voters in a hundred years. Obama, not Nader, now leads a nation. He is the President-elect, and now, without question, he is MY President.

If Nader wants to attack Obama for being a sell-out, then he should’ve used the word “sell-out.” He’d be wrong (as he almost always is lately), but it would convey his idea far more effectively. Instead he chose a smear specifically directed at Obama’s race. When Faux News thinks that’s a low blow, its a low blow.

Look, Mixner, you don’t have to join the Democratic Party, or agree with me, but seriously, drop Nader. He’s not the man he once was. Find a new alternative progressive leader. Preferably one who doesn’t race-bait.
dragnet Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Words fail. Nader has now become completely undone. It’s sad to watch a once great man come to this.

And kudos to Shep Smith. He’s the only half-decent man at Fox. Which isn’t saying much really, but it’s something.
brenna Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Jumped the shark a long time ago.
emily Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 12:26 am
nader is irrelevant.
Crusty Dem Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Mixner, you tremendous douchebag, read the rest of my post and don’t quote a single line out of context. I agree with Nader on some issues. I disagree on some issues. But most importantly, he’s a tremendous, self-serving, racist asshole. He’s not the core of ANY movement, except the Nader movement.
b9n10t Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 12:44 am
It was small of Nader to say what he did. However, he is barely worthy of condemnation, so weak is his electoral base and his Washington influence.

I believe that more registered Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader. Blaming Nader for Bush2000 would thus be irrational seeing as it was such a minor cause of Gore’s “defeat”. He didn’t steal as many Dems from Gore as Bush did. And he’d need to move farther back in line behind Florida ballots, political machinations, the Supremos, and Gore’s campaign itself before getting his share of blame for the 2000 defeat.

Gore was a cold war hawk and supported murderous sanctions against Iraq. The Dems of 2008 are clearly not “Demicans” and the Republicans are clearly not “Republicrats” anymore. But this is much clearer in 2008, not in 2000.

The Republican Party spent 8 years moving the country rightward. That has exposed the difference b/t the two parties, not any Democratic accomplishment…until this election.

I guess that’s why I am so hopeful and excited. Obama’s made me believe in the relevancy of the Democratic Party to progressive change.

California’s a safe vote, so if it’d been a pro-war Dem, I’d have voted socialist or somesuch.
Joe Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 12:47 am
What a self-absorbed jackass Nader has become.

Nader isn’t one to be taken seriously. After all these years he continues to run for the Presidency knowing full well he’ll never get elected. Knowing full well that if it a miracle happened and he did become President, he wouldn’t be King and he’d have to work, cooperatively, with the other members of Congress to achieve what he says he desires. He knows none of that has a chance in Hell of happening but he insists on serving his ego and being a wedge to the only real chance for Progressive policy that might happen.

I’d be far more impressed if he worked within the system and ran for Congress (House or Senate) to give his ideas REAL chance to be heard and executed. It might be an uphill battle against the establishment but at least there’d be a chance if he used the power of persuasion. The road he’s taken so far is futile and he knows it.
Stephen Daugherty Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 12:52 am
What folks like Mixner miss is the treachery of word. Sure you might get some fellowe who talks the talk, but what about the guy who can do that AND lead people skillfully as well? Give me that fellow, even if he isn’t as progressive as the other guy.

Words fail people otherwise, like honeydew on a venus flytrap.

Nader unapologetically handed this country to the Republicans because he didn’t get his desired response out of Gore when he was VP. He put his politics ahead of many of the practical manifestations of it, and as a result brought about setbacks on nearly every level he was meaning to improve things.

So who do we want? The guy who says all the right things, but hamstrings the applications of the principles he supports?

Or do we want the guy who tkkes the initiative and actually gets things done?
Department Of Troll Cleanup Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Ralph Nader is a tiresome fucker who adds nothing to the discourse.

He’s clearly Mixner’s mentor.
Not as stupid as Mixner Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Mixner you genocidal fucking maniac – Bush’s assault on the innocent people of Iraq made the sanctions regime look like welfare handouts. Name a single statistic that improved for Iraqi children over the entirety of Bush’s misrule. You can’t do it you deeply dishonest fucking apologist for mass murder.

There are fewer hospitals than there were under sanctions. There are fewer doctors. There is less electricity. There are fewer schools.

Mixner’s implied argument is that there is no difference between the sanctions and the massive violence unleashed by Bush. It is not just a lie, it is as offensive a lie as has ever been told.

The violent death rate shot up in Iraq and the non-violent death rate hasn’t improved. There is, quite simply, no comparison between Clinton’s Iraq policy and Bush’s pogrom.
b9n10t Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:02 am
“Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush”
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

The Florida Vote:

Republican

2,912,790

Democratic

2,912,253

Green

97,488

Natural Law

2,281

Reform

17,484

Libertarian

16,415

Workers World

1,804

Constitution

1,371

Socialist

622

Socialist Workers

562

Write-in

40
Whispers Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:05 am
I gave a list of Nader’s political positions as stated in the video above. Which of these positions do you consider strongly outside the mainstream of progressive politics? Single-payer health care? A more progressive tax code? Reducing military spending? An increase in the minimum wage? Reducing corporate power? All of those positions are frequently and strongly advocated by self-identified progressives on this blog.

The problem is that Nader’s actions fly directly against what his stated goals are. Nader cannot tell the difference between corporate-friendly DLC centrists and predator state, regulation-gutting, thoroughly corrupt Bushites.

The “Uncle Tom” incident illustrates beautifully how Nader is an anti-politicians. Politicians try to build coalitions to achieve goals, and are willing to accept incremental change. Nader is a loose cannon on deck, whose asinine behavior hurts the causes he purports to want to help.

Nader’s approach to politics is to stomp his feet and wonder why everybody doesn’t do everything exactly the perfect way, right now. And, bizarrely, he thinks brinksmanship is a viable political strategy for reaching his goals.

In short, he’s an idiot.

Or he’s a fraud.

Take your pick.
Kenneth Almquist Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Al Gore opposed the Second Gulf War. The notion that if he had been President, Gore would have reached the opposite conclusion because Kenneth Pollack might have been in a position to send Gore a memo strikes me as a bit far fetched.

As for tg’s point that Al Gore supported the First Gulf War as well as subsequent sanctions and air strikes against Iraq, Al Gore is old enough to remember the Vietnam war, and nothing in tg’s post suggests that Al Gore has forgotten the lessons of that war.

If Gore had been President, I believe that after the 9/11 attacks, defeating al Qaeda would have been the nation’s top priority. In fact, I would say defeating al Qaeda would have been the nation’s top priority under virtually any president other than George Bush. So a President Gore wouldn’t have invaded Iraq in 2003 because the United States didn’t have the resources to do so without short changing the Afghan effort.
Ed Marshall Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Name a single statistic that improved for Iraqi children over the entirety of Bush’s misrule. You can’t do it you deeply dishonest fucking apologist for mass murder.

I voted Obama, I voted Kerry, okay?

The Clinton era sanctions forbid Chlorine going to Iraq. It created an epidemic of dysentery, up to a million people died this way. Shat themselves to death, mostly children. This wasn’t a bug, it was a feature. They thought if they created enough misery someone in Iraq would rise up and get rid of him.

It was sheer evil, and fuck Bill Clinton and Al Gore. You don’t have to stick up for them anymore. It probably would have been nice if you had noticed this when it was going on and yelled at them, but water under the bridge and all that. Maybe you want to give someone else a bit of breathing room.
Mixner Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Jim,

And yet, Obama, not Nader, leads progressives.

No, if Obama “leads” any political group, it’s Democrats. “Progressives” are found among Democrats, Greens, independents, and others. To the extent that progressives have a leader, Ralph Nader is the obvious candidate.
b9n10t Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:20 am
“[the sanctions] were sheer evil”

and many of us refuse to forget. Thanks Ed.
not-as-stupid is insane Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:20 am
“not as stupid” is a genocidal maniac.
Mixner Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Mixner, you tremendous douchebag, read the rest of my post and don’t quote a single line out of context. I agree with Nader on some issues. I disagree on some issues. But most importantly, he’s a tremendous, self-serving, racist asshole. He’s not the core of ANY movement, except the Nader movement.

crusty, you pompous moron, I read the whole post. Your personal issues with Nader are utterly irrelevant to the fact that his political positions are overwhelmingly more “progressive” than Obama’s. Obama’s politics are for the most part establishment, centrist Democrat, in the tradition of Bill Clinton and the DLC.

Even John Edwards (remember him?) is more of a “progressive” than Obama. Most “progressives” aligned themselves with Edwards, not Obama, until they realized Edwards was toast, at which point they ran away from him like rats deserting a sinking ship.
Ed Marshall Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Yeah, Mixner, you voted for something that controls exactly no levers of power in this country. You may as well have voted for Ralph. It would have done about as much good.
Not as stupid as Mixner Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Look, Clinton’s policy towards Iraq was appalling. But he inherited the sanctions regime and worked to make it better. Was he perfect? Fuck no. And the deaths of the Iraqis is unforgivable.

That being said, nothing Bush did made Iraq better. And the challenge still stands for anyone suggesting that there was little difference in the mortality rate under Clinton and Bush to provide a single statistic that demonstrates otherwise.

That Clinton’s policies were bad isn’t in dispute. Don’t mistake the recognition that Bush took a bad situation and made it a living hell for a “defense” of Clinton. But while you are pointing out how bad Clinton was, don’t forget that the Oil for Food program was Clinton’s easing of the sanctions – all the overheated .

Really, compare Oil for Food (Clinton) with Butchering Iraqis for Fun and Profit (Bush/Mixner) and tell me that genocidal racist Mixner has a point.
pork Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:44 am
Didn’t he say the same line 2 weeks ago on Real Time? Nobody freaked the frick out then. Why now? You may think it crosses a line, but the analogy rings true in relation to his political points(be them what they may). When you have the level of sanctimony that surrounds O’s run, and the sometimes mistaken expectations about his policies, there needs to be a voice, just like there is on the RIGHT, nudging the policies of the progressive left.
Ed Marshall Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:45 am
I’m not here to hold a brief for George Bush. I’m not going to argue that GWB made life better for anyone anywhere. My thesis is that American foreign policy on a sort of beligerent, Israeli-centric cruise control under the democrats was a disaster waiting to happen. GWB got to enact the whole thing, and the DNC should thank god for it. What has happened is dynamite blasts to the whole rotten foreign policy establishment but it hasn’t really shaken out the three degrees of Kissinger there. Without GWB, it would have been worse.
Mixner Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Yeah, Mixner, you voted for something that controls exactly no levers of power in this country.

You have no idea who or what I voted for, if anything, so please stop pretending that you do. You should also ignore all assertions about my beliefs and actions made by others, which are almost always products of the fevered imaginations of their authors. The only reliable source of information about my beliefs and actions is my own posts.
not-as-stupid is insane Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Look, Clinton’s policy towards Iraq was appalling

Clinton’s policy wasn’t merely “appalling.” It was genocide.

Clinton apologist “not as stupid” is a genocidal racist maniac.
guy in brown face w/ jazz hands Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Obama being an uncle tom is a super progressive position. Just ask that stubborn/racist Nader voter upthread.
Ed Marshall Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:51 am
I can tell from your petulant bitchiness, you didn’t vote for anything that actually wields power.
jack Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Mixner’s right about John Edwards. The progressives were all over him until they realized he couldn’t win. Because he was, you know, for the little guy. John Edwards with the $400 haircuts. John Edwards the environmentalist who lives in a huge mansion and has a carbon footprint the size of Alaska. John Edwards, whose heart bleeds for the poor even as he’s screwing around on his dying wife.

John Edwards epitomizes the depraved, self-righteous hypocrisy of “progressives.”
DRR Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 2:30 am
My thesis is that American foreign policy on a sort of beligerent, Israeli-centric cruise control under the democrats was a disaster waiting to happen. GWB got to enact the whole thing, and the DNC should thank god for it.

What could the U.S. do to improve on this if anything and what do you expect of Obama?

I think once imperial powers become big & strong enough, you really can’t help but be anything but the bad guy abroad and the most that can be hopes for is a turn toward a more isolationist direction.
jack lecou Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 2:39 am
Lots of mindreaders out here tonight. As a progressive myself, I can assure all you “concerned” folks out there that Nader isn’t my fucking voice. I’d say it looks like every single other progressive on the thread agrees.

Incidentally, Mixner’s original statement was:

‘The true voice of “progressive” politics is heard. I wonder what Cynthia McKinney will say?’

Everyone notice how he’s now rolled the goal posts back so far that we’re not allowed to distinguish between a “true voice of progressive politics” and an “asshole C-list politician who pays lip service to a few nominally progressive positions”?

This is, as is usual for Mixner, further evidence of either chronic mendacity or genuine cognitive malfunction. Take your pick.
Tim Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 2:48 am
In fact, every item on Nader’s list is a thoroughly progressive position. Nader far more qualifies as a progressive than Obama does. Nader is the true voice of the progressive movement, and Obama is the voice of Clintonian, triangulating Democratic centrism. The fact that you have petty personal issues with Nader is completely irrelevant to the question of his politics.

I don’t see the point in being a TRUE PROGRESSIVE VOICE when you are not electable and can’t actually get anything done. Seriously, who still votes for this guy? Nader’s whole thing is about accentuating the difference by making sure Republicans got elected. His logic is, when people see how bad that turns out, they will all flock to the other radical option, i.e. him, the true progressive voice. Well, the last 8 years couldn’t have been worse, but I don’t see people flocking to him this time around.
Snowden Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 3:12 am
Well, the last 8 years couldn’t have been worse, but I don’t see people flocking to him this time around.

I don’t agree with Nader’s politics, but I don’t necessarily disagree with his logic either. While we can’t know how Obama will govern starting next year, if he somehow fails in spectacular fashion while the Republican brand remains tarnished and devoid of plausible national-level candidates, it could pave the way for the mainstreaming of a third party. (Realistically, I don’t envision this happening until the GOP crumbles due to tension between its social conservative and pro-business wings–which itself may never happen.)

My own feeling about Obama is that he’s an opportunist in the Clinton mold who will govern from the center, who is likely to upset a lot of people who bought into that substance-free change rhetoric.
jack lecou Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 3:31 am
likely to upset a lot of people who bought into that substance-free change rhetoric.

That’s a pretty tired talking point.

If by ’substance’ you mean something like ‘detailed plans’, then the ‘rhetoric’ is only substance-free if you’ve deliberately ignored the substance behind the rhetoric.

Alternatively, if ’substance’ means something like ‘real accomplishments’, than you are likewise ignoring: a) a number of genuinely impressive (and progressive) accomplishments in Obama’s career, pre- and post-entry into politics, b) the accomplishments of an incredibly impressive, well-led and well-organized political campaign, c) that Obama is, by definition, not in a position to somehow ‘pre-accomplish’ most of the things he is campaigning to be in a position to accomplish, and d) Wednesday morning’s newspapers.

Of course we shall have to wait and see to see what an Obama administration actually accomplishes, but talking about “substance-free change rhetoric” was and is pretty dumb.
Ojore Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 4:11 am
Frankly, Matt – if you’re too tired to be angry about this, then you needed to take a nap before posting it. I come to this site for your incisive commentary, not to see you lazily throw something up and then color it only with the language of apathy.
Ojore Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 4:13 am
And this stung me, as a Black man, more than anything the McCain campaign said or did. I know that the McCain code words were what they were, but this was nakedly racist. And it wasn’t the first time he’s pulled this shit.
Big Sneezy Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 4:46 am
Does anyone see a problem here? Not with the video. The comments. There’s like four or five people duking it out over who’s the A-1 top progressive. Ridiculous.

So, of course, I have to leave my two cents. Or three. If you still allow pennies around here.

Ralph Nader is an activist. He comes from an era of activism. He’s like the white Jesse Jackson. Umm, I mean, the light-skinned assimilated Lebanese-American Jesse Jackson. This is what he does. He makes bold proclamations, issues challenges, gets his name in the limelight, gets his cause some attention. This is what he does. This is who he is. He’s done it for the last fifty years. He’ll do it until he dies.

The statement was dumb. Silly. Unnecessary. Nader has a knack for saying dumb things. He’s an activist. He’s not a politician. He’s not a coalition-builder. He has a strategy but no tactics. He does not play well with others. He’s not a wordsmith. He’s not even sensitive. He’s not even nice. He’s downright cranky. I don’t recommend him as a Cabinet choice.

Nader’s core message does have some meaning. His catchphrase needs some work. I tend to think Obama is more progressive than he puts on. But how will he govern? Valid question. Was he was a better choice than McCain for progressives? No question. Is he a Progressive, proper? No. Is he a secret Marxist? No, and I know how that breaks your heart. Is he the most progressive major-party presidential candidate of the last twenty years? Oh yeah. Of the last fifty years? Probably. Of the last century? He’s no Eugene Debs, but he’s in the conversation. Is he Progressive Super Guy? No. But you already know that. The voters know that. And he knows that. And Rachel Maddow knows that. So there’s no disagreement.

What is a Progressive, anyway? Why am I capitalizing? Is there a secret handshake? Strategy and tactics. Activism plays a part. Elections play a part. Governance plays a part. Do we really expect all of those elements and more in one man or woman? I mean, Martin Luther King was not exactly a Congressman.

I hold these truths to be self-evident:
-Nader would not make a good President.
-Nader would make a downright bad President.
-Nader is a patriot and a hero.
-Nader is not responsible for Bush’s war or Gore’s campaign.
-Nader is an increasingly ineffective activist whose best days are behind him.
-Comments such as “Uncle Tom”, valid in content though they may be, are immediately rendered invalid when phrased in such a poor, divisive, and ill-timed manner. I mean, was he even watching the election? “Bitter”, anyone?
-Just because Progressives sometimes use those phrases on their enemies doesn’t make them okay. No double standards.
-America is not, itself, Progressive.
-Don’t kid yourself.
-America is way MORE Progressive than the mainstream media allows.
-But don’t kid yourself.
-If we wuz really progressive, we wouldn’t be in this mess (I slap my forehead in realization).
-Obama understands this situation. Obama does not kid himself.
-America is MORE progressive than widely held, but America is not as currently configured, Progressive proper.
-Uncle Tom’s Cabin was a book.
-Written by a white lady.
-Who had good intentions.
-and got a lot of attention.
-but she fundamentally misunderstood the black experience.
-And Nader is a Lebanese dude.
-And he has good intentions.
-And he gets some attention. In blogs. After the election.
-but he fundamentally misunderstands the black experience.
JonF Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Re: Forgetting Madeleine “worth it” Albright, the sanctions?

Sanctions are not bombs and are in fact a better alternative to changing the behavior of an odious regime than outright war and invasion. See: South Africa under apatheid. I alawys find it weird thata certaib soecies of far left radical whines about the sanctions on Iraq when the same people were foot-stomping in favor of sanctions on South Africa despite the fact that it was the poor and disenfranchised, not the rich, white overclass, that were hurt most there too.
And yes, I stand by my opinion: America and the world would be a much better place if Al Gore had taken office in 2001 not George Bush. I blame Nader and his gropuies for that awful flub in our history, for which we and the whole planet will be paying dearly for years to come. Nader and Co should be standing barefoot in the snow, in sackcloth and ashes, before the White House come Januay begging absolution.
cemmcs Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Obama, not Nader, built a progressive, grassroots organization that took on the special interests and ended eight years of despicable Republican rule.

And if Obama replaces it with eight years of despicable Democratic rule, is that okay? And what “special interests” has this organization taken on?

America and the world would be a much better place if Al Gore had taken office in 2001 not George Bush. I blame Nader and his gropuies for that awful flub in our history, for which we and the whole planet will be paying dearly for years to come.

You blame Nader? It’s his fault? Really? That’s who you blame?

Nader and Co should be standing barefoot in the snow, in sackcloth and ashes, before the White House come Januay begging absolution.

Wow!
tj. Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 7:33 am
1. Nader’s not white. Nader is Arab-American.
2. I’m black and I agree with Nader here. That’s one of a lot of reasons I didn’t vote for Obama; I voted further left of his liberal, not progressive, rhetoric. At the same time, I generally only discuss the idea of an “Uncle Tom” with other black people. I don’t really feel that the national news media is the forum for that internal conversation.
3. As for all of the “spoiler” talk about Nader in 2000, stop it. Nader winning votes then isn’t your real problem. George W. Bush winning votes is your real problem. You should be angrier at the people who voted for him, especially since there are a whole lot more of them.
novakant Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Your personal issues with Nader are utterly irrelevant to the fact that his political positions are overwhelmingly more “progressive” than Obama’s.

There are, surprise surprise, disagreements and divisions within the progressive movement, just as in any other broad base political movement – big fucking whoop.

But what exactly makes you think that we need you to pontificate about those?

You’ve been wrong on just about anything. You’re not particularly smart. You’ve just been left in the dust of history.

All of this might take a while to sink in, I know, but in the meantime why don’t you get a job, or a girlfriend, or a hobby, read a book, plant a tree, build a house, and STFU for a while. We don’t need you.
DJ Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 7:54 am
What’s with the whole “Nader is white” thing? Arabs are white now? Whatever happened to Iraq as the “war against brown people”?

Not that its fine for a non-black to be throwing around Uncle Tom allegations but I’d assume its slightly less offensive if its not coming from the White Man.
Don Williams Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Re JonF’s comment “Sanctions are not bombs and are in fact a better alternative to changing the behavior of an odious regime than outright war and invasion.”
———–
It depends upon the sanctions. In the case of Iraq during the Clinton Administration, We’re not talking about keeping people from buying DVDs or color TVs.

We’re talking about killing 600,000 children — one of the three reasons Bin Laden gave for declaring war on the USA.

Basically, the US Government bombed the water plants of IRaq and then blocked the import of water purification chemicals under the sanctions. Forcing people in desert-like Iraq to drink polluted water and killing many via pandemics of water-borne disease (cholera,dysentery,etc.) A rather nasty way of trying to stir up an insurrection.

The estimate of 600,000 children was not made by Al Qaeda — it was predicted by a US physicians aid group and later the spike in infant mortality was confirmed by the International Red Cross. I can supply conplete references on request.

Circa 1995, Leslie Stahl asked Madelaine Albright about the deaths of half a million children and Madalaine said she thought putting pressure on Saddam made it worth it. Saddam, of course, had no problems getting pure water.

The New York Times and Fox News agreed not to discuss this after Sept 11. Bush said Sept 11 happened because “they hate our freedoms” and both sides of the News Media supported the Big Lie. Because neither Clintonian Democrats nor Saudi-loving Oil Republicans wanted to start pointing fingers at who provoked Sept 11.
DJ Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 8:06 am
A shout-out to Big Sneezy’s rant…strangely readable.

Yes, its annoying Nader keeps insisting there’s no difference between Gore and Bush but, as Big Sneezy says, he’s an activist, not a politician. This is another media soundbite scandal which would have received no attention by liberals if it wasn’t for Nader’s role in the 2000 election. Then again, he’s an activist and not even a Democratic activist, at that.

Nader voters, however, ARE voters and they deserve all they get. Some of them, like Michael Moore, understood it well and tried their best to make amends.
Don Williams Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Re Not as Stupid as Mixner’s comment “And the challenge still stands for anyone suggesting that there was little difference in the mortality rate under Clinton and Bush to provide a single statistic that demonstrates otherwise.”
——————
How about this?

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unicef0202.pdf
See Executive Summary — then body of text for details.
Don Williams Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 8:52 am
International Red Cross, 1999 re impact of Clintonian Sanctions on Iraq:

“It is the weakest and most vulnerable who suffer from sanctions — young children, pregnant women, the elderly, and people with chronic diseases.
According to a UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) survey published in August 1999 (Reference number CF/DOC/PR/1999/29),infant mortality in most of Iraq has more than doubled in the nine years since UN sanctions were imposed. In central and southern Iraq, home to 85 percent of the population, the death rate for children under five rose from 56 per 1,000 live births in the period 1984-9 to 131 per 1,000 in 1994-9.

The survey, which was prepared with the Iraqi government and the World Health Organization, did not specifically blame trade sanctions for the crisis which has seen some 500,000 Iraqi children die since the Gulf war. As for the autonomous Kurdish territory of northern Iraq, the survey found that deaths among children under five had dropped from 80 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1984-9 to 72 deaths per 1,000 live births between 1994 and 1999 (after having risen to 90 per 1,000 in 1990-4)(The UNICEF executive director who wrote the report attributed this discrepany to the large amount of international aid pumped into northern Iraq at the end of the war; in contrast humanitarian assistance began to reach central and southern Iraq only after April 1996, when Iraq agreed to the terms of the UN oil-for-food programme.).

For the first time in decades, diarrhoea has reappeared as the major killer of children. The highly specialized Iraqi doctors are now faced with third-world health problems — malnutrition, diphtheria, cholera — which they were not trained to handle.

According to UNICEF statistics from November 1997, a third of all children under five are chronically malnourished (UNICEF statistics (Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) carried out by Iraq’s Central Statistical Organization) from November 1997 showed that 32% of Iraqi children under the age of five were chronically malnourished.). This represents a 72% rise since 1991. Results from a nutritional survey of 15,000 children of the age of five, conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Health together with UNHCR and WFP in May 1998, show that the level of malnutrition has stabilized since 1997, but that the situation is unlikely to improve substantially unless water and sanitation and other sectors receive larger financial input.
Given the gravity of the nutritional situation, in February 1999 the World Food Programme (WFP) launched a US$21 million appeal to help more than one million people in Iraq suffering from the effects of food shortages and poor water supply, including 200,000 acutely malnourished children (in particular the under-fives). These children have not had proper drinking water or sanitation since they were born.”

Ref: http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/4BBFCEC7FF4B7A3CC1256B66005E0FB6#a1
b9n10t Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 9:32 am
JonF

Can’t compare S. African and Iraqi sanctions w/r/t moral considerations:

-S. Africa is NOT dependent on oil income for food. It has rain-fed agriculture.

-massive mortality and impoverishment did NOT result from S. African sanctions. If they had and sanctions advocates did nothing, then we’d have a situation comparable to Iraq.

-Black S. Africa supported sanctions. Thus sanctions advocates were supporting and empowering black S. Africans. Not so in Iraq.
Peter K Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I voted for Nader in 2000, the Republicans kept moving right, and the Democrats were taking over the center-right. He’s declined since 2000 obviously but to blame Nader for eight years of Bush is stupid.

It’s just centrist-liberals bullying left-liberals.
Persia Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 10:30 am
there needs to be a voice, just like there is on the RIGHT, nudging the policies of the progressive left.

That’s why I vote for Bernard Sanders.

Guess what? There are plenty of voices on the left, even the far left, that aren’t those of racist douchebags.
Tom S Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I call bullshit on the “sanctions as genocide” trope.

Saddam Hussein could have decided at any time to take the steps necessary to end the sanctions regime. He delayed accepting the oil for food program for years, because his regime would not have been able to control the distribution of food. Had his regime cared to resist the sanctions, without giving in, they could have instituted other steps to ensure sanitation, such as boiling water before using it. Inconvenient, yes, but it is not like Iraq lacked the fuel to do so. Because Saddam did not care for the welfare of anyone in Iraq except his immediate followers, the Iraqi people suffered.
frazelt Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Tom S

If you lock children in a house with a known child abuser you are to blame for the ensuing harm.
DJ Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Tom S,

What frazelt said. You might also remember Janet Reno and Waco. Whatever her defense was, it certainly wasn’t along the lines that David Koresh could have surrendered anytime he wanted. It was mostly that they didn’t anticipate the fire.
Unlike the sanctions, which were continued even after the consequences were quite apparent. They may be defensible but you’d have to do much better than “Its all Saddam’s fault”.
Peter H Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Yeah, Mixner, you voted for something that controls exactly no levers of power in this country. You may as well have voted for Ralph. It would have done about as much good.

Mixner is a right-winger, Ed. It’s not difficult to figure out why he would want lefties to vote for Nader instead of Obama.
John Caruso Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Too tired to laugh, too tired to be angry.

And apparently too tired to be rational either, since Nader did not call Obama an Uncle Tom. The statement was a conditional: “But his choice, basically, is whether he’s going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.” It’s up to Obama to determine which one it’s going to be. And it clearly has not a thing to do with race, but with which constituency Obama is going to serve.

But thanks for flushing out all the petulant, vindictive, spiteful liberals on your site. It’s like watching the Two-Minutes Hate, as you viciously attack “the lonely, derided heretic on the screen, sole guardian of truth and sanity in a world of lies.”

I wonder if any of you will ever develop enough character and self-reflection to be ashamed of yourselves.
cemmcs Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Ah yes, two minute hate… I too was reminded of Orwell as I looked over these comments but it was mostly because of the quality of the writing and the ability of the writers to face unpleasant facts.
Mixner Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Peter H is a marxist, Ed. It’s not difficult to figure out why he would want anyone to vote for Obama instead of McCain.
DivGuy Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Mixner’s sleight-of-hand is to take a fact

-I, a leftist, agree with Ralph Nader on many issues

and extrapolate it into a slur

-Ralph Nader is the true voice of progressive politics

I don’t know what Mixner’s precise politics are, but I bet he agrees with David Duke on quite a few key issues – from deregulation to tax cuts to social issues. This does not make David Duke the true voice of Mixner Conservatism. It just means they agree on some important issues.

This is basically a slightly more literate version of “Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian”. The fact that a distasteful person held certain views or engaged in certain practices that we would agree with does not make that person the face of the movement. To say so is simply a slur.
Dustin Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
It really is a shame that the 2000 election made Nader such a Pariah. He really does have alot to contribute.

Nader makes a completely valid point by the way, it’s up to us to push Obama toward a progressive agenda.

Jesus, you would think he called him a nigger or something.
Lets leave the intellectually devoid reactionary commentary to the cons shall we.
Mark Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
It’s perfectly possible to 1) hold correct political positions and 2) be an asshole. So I don’t know what everyone’s going on about.
Donald Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I’m not familiar with mixner’s views, not being a regular here lately, but I’d probably disagree with him on nearly everything if he is a conservative. But he’s entirely right about Nader’s views–they are the very definition of progressive political thought. Nader’s sin is that he ran for President in 2000 and that fact has apparently made many in this thread incapable of holding two thoughts in their heads at the same time–A) that they don’t like Nader for running and B) but his views on virtually every issue are progressive.

As for racism, Nader has a tin ear when he uses a phrase like “Uncle Tom”, but it’s perfectly clear what he means–if Obama sells out to corporate interests he will be betraying poor people.

And I don’t think Obama supporters ought to go there anyway–Obama was appealing to bigotry and fear when he supported the bombing of Lebanese civilians by Israel in 2006, a fact that Nader undoubtedly knows.

And it’s kind of funny seeing someone like Don WIlliams quite properly very upset over the Clinton/Gore policy of killing Iraqi children also being furious with the one political figure who agrees with him. If someone with a crystal ball knew that Bush would increase the Iraqi death toll, they might have spoken up then, rather than excusing Clinton/Gore’s genocidal sanctions policy. And of course the Democrats who were in Congress could have spoken out against the war in a way that might have made a difference. But yeah, go ahead and pretend to yourself that the death of the Iraqis is all the fault of one of the few American public figures who has actually been honest about our murderous policies there.

We get exactly the politicians we deserve–smooth-talking hypocrites on human rights like Obama. And if so-called progressives embrace them, they deserve the contempt with which they are treated. Unfortunately it’s other people who pay the price.
benniefly2 Says:
November 6th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
I don’t care what someone’s political bonafides are if they use the term ‘Uncle Tom’. Just as I don’t care what political bonafides someone would have if they used the term ’spic’ or ’shylock’… Anybody who uses those terms or phrases automatically disqualify themselves from me ever taking them seriously ever again. But that is me… You folks can do what you want.

By the way, speaking of David Duke, does this sound remotely familiar to anyone?

“Yet, far from railing at Obama’s rise, Duke seems almost nonchalant about it. Self-described white nationalists like himself, he explained cordially, “don’t see much difference in Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton–or, for that matter, John McCain.” Sure, Duke considers Obama “a racist individual,” citing his Afrocentric Chicago church. But soon the founder of the National Association for the Advancement of White People was critiquing Obama as overhyped and insubstantial in terms you might hear from, say, Clinton strategist Mark Penn. “They say he’s for change. What change? He’s become almost a cult figure. I don’t see any shining light around Obama’s head. I don’t see any halos,” Duke said.”
Malik Juweid Says:
November 7th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Harry Belafonte used the term “White House niggers”. Was he a racist? Those upset are part of the elite Uncle Sam people who just want to see Uncle Tom do what Uncle Sam wants (Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, and the like)
John Caruso Says:
November 7th, 2008 at 12:56 am
benniefly2: The fact that you think “Uncle Tom” is analogous to “spic” or “shylock” just shows that you don’t understand what it means (here’s a hint: if it meant what you thought it did, the Village Voice wouldn’t have used it in the title of this article). It’s arguably a race-specific term (though Nader wasn’t using it that way), but it’s not a racist epithet.

Donald has it exactly right: Nader’s “sin” is just that he ran for president against the candidate most liberals preferred, and they’re incapable of criticizing him for that decision without heaping asinine aspersions on him (David Duke? hilarious!). It’s perfectly possible to disagree with Nader’s decision to run against the Democrats (and even to be angry about it) without the kinds of vile, ludicrous attacks that soil this thread and shame those who write them—but I say that mainly in a theoretical sense, since I’ve met only a handful of people who were capable of doing it.
sexshop Says:
November 7th, 2008 at 7:47 am
hope that you keep reporting and following up on this issue. I signed the petition because I can’t think of anything that is more important to the long-term health of our country, our environment, and our economy than a smart transportation policy, and especially
cemmcs Says:
November 7th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Malik Juweid,

Where did you get that quotation?

According to Wikipedia, Belafonte said:

There is an old saying, in the days of slavery. There were those slaves who lived on the plantation, and there were those slaves who lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master, do exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. That gave you privilege. Colin Powell is committed to come into the house of the master, as long as he would serve the master, according to the master’s purpose. And when Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture. And you don’t hear much from those who live in the pasture.
John Caruso Says:
November 7th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
cemmcs: Belafonte never said it; the quote you presented is the accurate one. The Wikipedia page on “Uncle Tom” was edited at some point to claim that he’d said “White House niggers”, but that’s a fabrication. It’s been fixed.
cemmcs Says:
November 7th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Someone may have confused what Belafonte said with this.
mat Says:
November 10th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
funny to see a bunch of libs eat up the fox news propaganda.. he never called obama an uncle tom but simply asked whether obama was going to be uncle sam for the american people or an uncle tom for the corporations. everyone who is jumping down nader’s throat is so far off base that you don’t even know it. that’s alright though your love for obama (a man that has to date made a bunch of pretty speeches and proven nothing) has led you straight into the waiting arms of a propaganda ploy by the ‘news’ organization that you’ve been decrying for the last 8 years.. get fucking real.
mat Says:
November 10th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
oh yeah yglesias… how about a headline that is truthful instead of disingenuous foxaganda. think progress my ass.
Mark Says:
November 17th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
“Nader isn’t merely “a” progressive. He practically wrote the book on modern American progressive politics.”

Are you out of your mind? Ralph Nader is a self-righteous egomaniac who was briefly useful to help kick off ONE PHASE of the consumer rights movement. At a practical level, that’s pretty much it — and I say that having read “Unsafe at Any Speed” when it came out, and having followed Nader’s activities (such as they were) and pronouncements ever since.

Anyone who really thinks Nader is that important (aside from having given us George W. Bush in 2000) needs to go break open a few history books — or even talk to someone outside your bubble of complacency — and see who has been doing the work and making the sacrifices that have brought the progressive movement forward over the decades. Here’s a clue: It hasn’t been Nader.

By the way, it’s impressive to see how parochial and, um, AMERICAN the supposedly revolutionary acolytes of Nader can be. Maurice Bishop, Patrice Lumumba, Nelson Mandela … there’s a long, long list of people, known and unknown, who have spoken up for freedom and progress and fought for the rights of working people in times and places where speaking up meant incarceration, torture and death. Yet to you, it’s all about Ralph … and, of course, Ralph will agree with you.

Now you’re making excuses for a racist insult that you’d be condemning unreservedly if it had come from Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin. Sheesh. Come back when you know something about something.
battery Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 2:43 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
laptop battery Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
laptop battery
viagra Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 10:55 am
viagra
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 9:49 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 10:07 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:41 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:40 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
viagra brand Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:06 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
cheap viagra Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:44 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!
viagra
Delores Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Good afternoon. The gem cannot be polished without friction, nor man perfected without trials.
I am from Guyana and , too, and now am writing in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Looking for cheap airfare? Save up to with our discount airfares! Wholesale, consolidator last minute specials for cheap airline tickets.”

Thank you so much for your future answers . Delores.

Matt Yglesias

Nader Calls Obama an Uncle Tom

141 Responses to “Nader Calls Obama an Uncle Tom”

Blogroll