Nader: Obama trying to 'talk white'

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published June 25, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated June 25, 2008 at 7:01 p.m.

Text size

Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.

Photo by Judy DeHaas © The Rocky

Ralph Nader, who is running for president, talks about Barack Obama in his Washington, D.C., office Monday. Nader said Obama should "candidly describe the life of the poor."

More Barack Obama

Comments

June 25, 2008

2:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

jugdish writes:

Jugdish curious about "white guilt". What is this? Please explain.
Also, how does one "talk white"? Make no sense.
June 25, 2008

3:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

plotz writes:

This is very interesting. When others early on in the campaign made statements about race or the idea that Obama is popular and or left alone in the mainstream press for questionable things due to him being black...many cried racism including Obama's staff. But now, Nader says this...all anyone can is "disappointing"?! When Ken Hamblin was on the Radio, callers at times would comment that he(Hamblin) did not sound black. Hamblin of course told the caller this was a form of racism. So how come when Nader says something along the same lines it is not? Would Nader say the same thing of Frederick Douglass, WEB Dubois, and others. Would he prefer Obama sound and talk like a rap singer or Rev. Wright? Nader himself panders like a hooker to white liberals playing on their angst,fears,etc. So how is he any better.
June 25, 2008

4:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

STOPUSAGiveaway writes:

How about when a black man looks you in the face and proclaims "we all know who are black what it is like to be told we are inferior--then he looks at a white l2 year old and says "and you as a white boy know that you have been told you are superior"
How about that? This weekend--and the poor black man is an attorney....
Blame whitey!
Which planet have you been dropped from today?
What group do you have represent Y O U?
Who repeats S L A V E R Y in America--R E P A R A T I O N S?
IGNORANCE--and hate because SLAVERY did not begin in America~
Do you read: learn history..
Pay attention--perhaps you can learn something instead of keyboarding and hiding out...all day
rEV wRIGHT'd comments: you apparently didn't listen to his words. No wonder this nation has slide into pathetic ignorance....
E X T R E M I S T S
June 25, 2008

4:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

Yeah Ralph, you got a point in the basis of your arguement, you lose two in delivery. Obama better sell himself to ALL America.
June 25, 2008

4:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

plotz writes:

If what Nader says that Obama is pandering to "white guilt" how is electing the first Black president going to atone for it? How will it change things that have already happen? What if Obama turns out to be a very bad president...will that throw out the atonement factor? Lastly, if Obama was a woman as well as being black would this also atone for Susan B Athony and women sufferage too? How about a Latino, Native American, and many other groups,religions and the like?
June 25, 2008

4:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

plotz writes:

If what Nader says that Obama is pandering to "white guilt" how is electing the first Black president going to atone for it? How will it change things that have already happen? What if Obama turns out to be a very bad president...will that throw out the atonement factor? Lastly, if Obama was a woman as well as being black would this also atone for Susan B Athony and women sufferage too? How about a Latino, Native American, and many other groups,religions and the like?
June 25, 2008

4:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

This is at minimum a very historic event in America's history; a young, black man has a creditable chance in America, to hold the highest office in the freeworld. My white, brushcut, Patsy Cline lovin' , belt whippin', stepfather would have never believed it; my stepdad use to say,"I'll never live to see the day...". He was right, he didn't live to see this day. This young black man, has been kicked hard by everyone to include his own preacher; he's still standing in the fight. That says a lot about the kid, he's got the hide of an alligator necessary to lead. Bush had a thick hide too. Still, if he's an underdog, he has just bloodied the champs nose, it takes more to beat the champ's experence. I don't care for either canidate; I believe America is being served up a poor selection from both partys. When wiil America find a truly great leader? I'm a dog, I'll watch the ensuing fight, bored by the same old party lines. I will pray that before I die, a truly great man emerges to really lead America...been awhile!
June 25, 2008

6:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

What's wrong with "talking white"? Is Nadar a racist against whites? Or just stupid.
June 25, 2008

6:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

ghoax writes:

I just gotta say, Nader's comments are completely detached from any sense at all. I wouldn't vote for Obama period, because of his lack of experience and "ready fire aim" mentality. I believe he spends too much time trying to sound smart versus doing any real thinking. He's for higher gas prices, no drilling, a socialized government and his policies threaten our economic freedoms and ultimately our sovereignty. I don't believe he can be offensive on the war on terror, nor slow the flow of illegals dancing into our country, I don't think he has a grasp on how higher taxes flatten our economy, nor why socialism flattens the productivity and limits the American dream...but, it has nothing to do with white guilt or speaking white....Nader's off base.
June 25, 2008

6:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

If "talking white" means using correct pronunciation of the English language, knowing how to construct a complete sentence, to be able to form and convey cogent and logical thoughts using the English language, as well as using multi-syllabic words and NOT....repeat NOT using "AX" when you mean "ASK", then I stand guilty of "talking white" and I guess Obama does too - and good for him!!! I still won't vote for him, but at least he knows how to speak.
June 25, 2008

6:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

DeimosJB writes:

Breaking news! This just in!
The Green Party is going to take votes from the Democrats. The Libertarian party is going to take votes from Republicans. A couple independent candidates will come up to take votes from both parties.
This article could just as easily be written about the last election, and the one before, and the one before...
I love the remark about Nader costing Gore the election in 2000. Right, Gore was cheated because no one siphons votes from the Republican candidate, unless you count people like Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ross Perot...Of course, we conveniently forget people like that, because we must believe the Democratic party is the victim of the big bad Republican establishment
What pitiful journalism.
June 25, 2008

6:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

samsmargolis writes:

Oh, no. Comments that point out that Obama plays to white guilt make people like Littwin cower in the corner s*cking his thumb. Sorry. That's a normal posture. That should have read: "...cower in the corner s*cking his thumb more." Gee. Wonder if the next realization will be that Obama "chooses" to be black instead of white (the census choice he's allowed) because it plays better in the election? That would mean Geraldine was right all along, as well. Oh, oh.
June 25, 2008

7:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

ham writes:

Well, this comes from Ralph Nader, so it's acceptable. Heaven forbid a Republican would point the same thing out.
June 25, 2008

7:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Buckwheat writes:

Talk white?? LMAO. OK, I'll admit, the first thing that came to mind was Eddie Murphy, Beverly Hills Cop.. "I ain't going for no banana in my tailpipe".
June 25, 2008

7:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jim_C writes:

A) Obama cannot allow himself to be perceived as merely the Black Candidate because the racial divides are so powerful in this country, that he would instantly be pigeonholed as the voice of scary, violent, militant black America, real or perceived and scare off millions of voters.

He has to tread very, very, very carefully.

Like someone said, he is either not black enough or he is not white enough.

B) As far as him being all rhetoric, go to his website and show me where his policies are less thought out than McCain's. One example. Just because he speaks liek a leader and does not hash out specific policy details every speech (didn't Gore do that?) doesn't mean he has not thought things out.

Already--already--his rhetopric and tone is restoring faith in the U.S. around the world, and in the U.S., and our credibility is rising again. He has done more in that regard in a few months than W. did in eight years. Infinitely more, actually.

Interesting that Bush's incredibly weak speaking abilities foreshadowed his ineptitude so well, by the way.
June 25, 2008

8 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Ralph Nader terrifies Democraps. They are terrified of Nader's HONEST assessment of the corrupt Democrap party and their empty suit nominee. They retreat back into their closets and crevices like cockroaches, when Ralph Nader walks into the room.

GO NADER GO! GO GET 'EM!!!!!
June 25, 2008

8:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Soze writes:

If Obama's father is black and his mom is white, then how is it that he's always described as "black" or "African-American," but never as "white?" He is just as white as he is black. Probably more so considering he was raised by his white mother and white grandparents and went to elite "white" schools.

Just saying since I don't really get that and since being the first African-American candidate is such a cornerstone of his campaign and basically the main reason he is getting 90+% of black votes.

Isn't this just another election featuring two white men?
June 25, 2008

8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Trollstein writes:

Nader should be happy with Obama but is not. Normally one would attribute this to the fact that Nader is also a candidate. But in this case, Nader stands zero chance of winning, so that point does not apply here.
Not that many years ago, Nader was a liberal Democrat like Obama. Nader also used to be a supporter of Israel (in the 1960's). I can't help but believe that Nader (who is Lebanese) is now trying to punish Obama for supporting Israel--and is doing so secretly.
June 25, 2008

8:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

raequin writes:

It is hard to believe that nobody has corrected the consensus on these comments that what Nader meant by "talking white" was to use proper English. Check this quote from the article.

"I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law,"

That is what is meant by not talking white.
June 25, 2008

8:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

raequin writes:

@ Trollstein --- I think Nader has more on his mind than the nation of Israel.
June 25, 2008

8:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

I wish the Obama camp would come out with an actual program rather than empty statements like, "disappointing", "backward looking", etc... whenever someone calls him out.

C'mon Obama - let's hear your plan rather than how "disappointed" you are in the competition.
June 25, 2008

8:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

deerob7 writes:

Convicted felons can not vote. There goes the majority of votes for Obama. I don't trust a man with ties to the Muslims. Ever heard of a wolf in sheep's clothing?
June 25, 2008

8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

HolierThanThou writes:

I had ancestors who kept slaves. I also had ancestors who got in a rickety boat to flee the Irish potato famine. I do not feel guilty about what my ancestors did. So it's easy for me to face the history. Neither am I angry at the British navy for stopping my Irish ancestors from fishing during the Famine. My feelings towards the British are kindly.

What we did during the peculiar institution of slavery was a massive atrocity. Slavery does long term damage to a country, not only to the population enslaved but to those who enslave them and those who merely let it happen. Slavery kills the soul of the master, permits unspeakable outrages against people, and diminishes the value of honest labor.

When the Emancipation Proclamation finally went into full force something vital was missing. That was atonement. This will forever remain unfinished business until we make our nation one of peace and prosperity for everyone. Yet so far we have shirked our responsibility to create a better world for ourselves and posterity. We let ourselves be tricked by a culture that claims to be politically perfect and refuses to be improved. It applies every trick of spin, ideology, and theater to suspend our natural belief in reality.

Racism is a prime example of spin that hurts everyone. Biology proves that humanity has only one race, the human race. Racism is a gimmick used by oppressors to divide people with common interests. This lie was fabricated for the sole purpose of justifying the atrocities of slavery. So, long as that lie has any life in American culture, it does terrible harm to our unity and progress as a people.

So, the guilt about slavery is a great irony, one that encompasses a doom for us all. The truly guilty refuse to face history and want everyone else to do likewise. They are your guides to perdition.
June 25, 2008

8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

chicagoarea2 writes:

How can so many people interpret "talking white" literally with the vocabulary, artiiculation and enunciation or words??? Did you even read the article. Its about the content of his speeches. This is the same tunnel vision that Obama supporters apply when Obama drops the ball and opts out of public financing and supports the FISA bill with immunity for telecoms. Get a grip and reclaim your ability for objective thought! Thankfully there are still a couple of people like Nader and Alexander Cockburn who do!
June 25, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

lencho_elias writes:

OBAMA 08!!! Can't wait!!
June 25, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

lencho_elias writes:

OBAMA 08!!! Can't wait!!
June 25, 2008

8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

BillAdkins writes:

So - Nader is playing the race card!! The man has gone off the map into crazy land. If Obama is 'talking white,' is Nader now 'talking black?' Sheesh.
June 25, 2008

9 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

"seat belts by the way have only made me more dangerous to others."

Froward once again twists his logic into a pretzel in order to offer his blind support to the Democratic party and Obama. Froward, I honestly believe that the Dems would be better off without you.

HEY WAIT A MINUTE! Froward, are you really a conservative, trying to make the Democrats look bad with your naive and illogical arguments on their behalf? Part of the vast right wing conspiracy?!? Hmmmm...
June 25, 2008

9 a.m.

Suggest removal

studiomutmo writes:

I don't see how it behooves the 'black' candidate to address poverty because he is black. This seems racist to me, which is surprising coming from Nader, the last person I'd expect it from. Shouldn't it behoove any candidate, black or white, brown, anyone, to address poverty in America?
June 25, 2008

9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

lookout416 writes:

What does George W. Bush, John Kerry and Barack Obama have in common? All three pronounce the word "to" incorrectly. It's almost as though they learned to do it in HOW TO APPEAL TO THE COMMON FOLKS 101 while attending their ivy league colleges. The weird thing is that Obama sometimes slips and pronounces "to" correctly. Just remember, Omamba quickly climbed up through the oldest, and most corrupt, political machine in our country. We're simply in a pickle about many issues. It's hard TA figure.
June 25, 2008

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

vudumom writes:

Hyphenated - Americans don't have a stake in their country. Until they see themselves as Americans they are forever in a minority.
June 25, 2008

9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

T1anda writes:

It matters not what Obama talks!! Let's face it it still just ALL TALK!!! Talk is cheap!!
June 25, 2008

9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

SamGee writes:

So if a Black man doesn't talk like a ganster rapper, he is pandering to white people. Nader is pathetic,ignorant and pathetic.
June 25, 2008

9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

AbeMartin writes:

Mr. Nader speaks English well, as befits his Ivy League education, even though he is the child of Lebanese immigrants. But I don't hear anyone casting aspersions about his parentage or the fact that he is "talking like a WASP." Aside from his truly pathetic obsession to be a Presidential candidate, it is sad, sad, sad, to have witnessed this man (who used to be somebody and who affected positive changes in this country) having devolved into a buzzing, annoying insect good only for imparting negativity into the political debate.

Perhaps he can get a gig on a reality show in which he will share the $1.5 million dollar town house he owns with Karl Rove, Don Imus, Hulk Hogan, Bernard Keric, Jeff Skilling and the rest of the discarded and discredited political, entertainment and business trash.
June 25, 2008

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

HolierThanThou writes: "What we did during the peculiar institution of slavery was a massive atrocity."

Speak for yourself, HolierThanThou. "We" don't own anybody 'jack'.

Slavery ended in this country 150 years ago - get over it.
June 25, 2008

9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

T1anda writes:

BTW since the majority of blacks are going to vote for Obama just because he is supposedly "black" I guess I will just vote for the all white candidate because I am all white!! That makes sense now doesn't it??
June 25, 2008

9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

gomerspile writes:

Reading most of the comments here, and it amazes me that you need to have it explained to you. Nader(who is an idiot) was saying that O'Carter is not talking to the black community, he is using white guilt to appeal to the white people. The payday loans, lead paint, asbestos problems, Nader is linking them to the black community, right where you wont see O'Carter, use your heads, O'Carter is a liar, thief and politician, just like the rest....

Peace through superior firepower
June 25, 2008

9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

kevin3 writes:

I do not know much about Ralph Nader. What has Nader done during his career that has helped the poor, inner city kids, and protection of the poor through laws? Is Nader in a position to criticize Obama on these issues? What does Nader understand about advancing people of color above a white line? From what I understand, Obama helped to organize, and empower the less fortunate people of Chicago.
June 25, 2008

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

liberalfamily writes:

Re: Plotz
"But now, Nader says this...all anyone can is "disappointing"?!"

EXACTLY -- and you have Rev. Wright and the "transcendent" Obama response to thank for taking race relations down a notch. How can Obama say anything more than "disapointing" if he can't even condemn the racism of his Rev. Wright?
June 25, 2008

9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

OhBrother writes:

T1anda-"BTW since the majority of blacks are going to vote for Obama just because he is supposedly "black" I guess I will just vote for the all white candidate because I am all white!! That makes sense now doesn't it??"

40 plus presidents and how many have been black? OK, that's easy but how many have been anything other then middle aged white men? Sounds like your "plan" has been working for a while already
June 25, 2008

9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

PJ: Again with you disrespectin' the K car. My '88 Plymouth was a very nice Reliant automobile (to paraphrase the Bare Naked Ladies song). You are obviously an elitist, driving your Lincoln Navigator around and looking for people standing near mud puddles so you can splash them and drive off laughing. En garde!
June 25, 2008

9:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

djwerdna writes:

Let's not hide behind how things were said or Obama's dismissive answer. The question still is: Why hasn't Obama "have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead"?
June 25, 2008

9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

AirMax95 writes:

Imus AGAIN, and now Nader. Pretty offensive comments if I must say so myself coming from Nader, truly backwards thinking indeed. HOWEVER, the best line out of all of the comments that have been posted so far can be found below:

If the folks living in American ghettos and barrios were truly helped up out of their misery and taught to be self-sufficient, Democrats would never win another election, and they know it.

PajamaPulitzer you have hit the nail on the head!!!!!
June 25, 2008

9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

dakar01 writes:

i've been a fan of ralph nader for years and have voted for him twice. i have to say, i am a little disappointed in his comments. i understand what he was trying to convey, but people talk the way they talk be it white, black, latino, asian, native american--and though there is definitely afrocentrism dialect/accent in some portion of our vocabulary--we all strive in the professional realm to talk a certain lingo. he could have stated that obama speaks in a tone that is not upsetting to the corporate structure and therefore is not upsetting the status quo.
but 'talking white' should not be a crime. talking fraudulently should. and obama/mccain are definitely not completely straight talking in my opinion to the american public. but neither is this type of language.
nader, i love ya, but you know this isn't right. you got caught up in the moment. i can forgive, but let's not go there again. ok???
June 25, 2008

10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Highcountry writes:

I voted for Ralph my first two opportunities to vote for an American president. But the man has lost it. His ego has consumed him. The trash he's talking about Obama is wrong and disrespectful. I'll be voting for Obama. Thanks for your work Ralph but your time is up.
June 25, 2008

10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

OhBrother writes:

"white guilt"...i still don't get this one all the way? Is this when white people feel guilty about past history? I don't see this happening so I don't think that is right...is it when white people think black people are "playin the race card" to try and make them feel bad about stuff so the get all " don't try and white guilt me boy, I don't owe you nothin"

is this a racsist term? I seriously don't know if this means "I feel guilty" or "don't try and make me feel guilty". I don't get how this would work to Obama's advantage either way really...and the whole "talk white" thing really seems ignorant
June 25, 2008

10:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

rplevy writes:

Nader, I don't mean to be rude, but please STFU. Barack Obama is half white, and even if he was not white at all, he has every right to talk the way he naturally talks. As for you Ralph Nader, there is no reason we should not rule out understanding your comments as evidence of racism.

(Nader has never fought for civil rights, and most of his supporters have always been white.) Shame on you, Ralph Nader. Obama will be a better president than you could ever be.

So take your right-wing funded campaign and your .0001 percent of the vote and go back home to California. The more you open your mouth the more you sully your past acheivements. Sorry to have to say it, but the Nader of the 60s and 70s is long gone and has been replaced by a whining incapable irrelevant has-been.
June 25, 2008

10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mhreed writes:

Mr. Nader, you are all wrong you are thinking about different color of people. Senator Obama is concern about all people, all color, all races. He will serve and provides possibilities for all people. You Mr. Nader is living in dark ages.
June 25, 2008

10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

gneubeck writes:

Obama’s admitted heavy marijuana and cocaine use in high school and college may well have played a decisive role in the development of Obama’s inflated sense of his own importance; and, his pretentious demeanor. Heavy drug use can lead to hallucinations concerning ones status of grandiosity. Another clue is Obama’s frequent confused and unintelligible babblings whenever he is subjected to a public forum where he is devoid of a prepared text by his handlers to read from; which is the reason that Obama's controllers will resist any attempt to have their candidate exposed to town-hall style forums.
Considering the fact that, if elected, Obama would be in proximity to the Nuclear Football 24/7, the American electorate has the right to know if Obama has any residual defect from his admittedly heavy former drug use. Obama's inability to overcome his nicotine dependency suggests that he remains vunerable to such addictions. Obama has the responsibility to submit to an independent medical examination to ascertain the facts concerning his substance abuse.
Until such concerns are put to rest, this man, who has exhibited a profound lack of common-sense, should never be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. Greg Neubeck
June 25, 2008

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

JediMaster writes:

NoBama listened to rev. Wright for twenty years....How could any sane/reasonable person listen to Wright for even twenty seconds -- white, black, or whatever???
June 25, 2008

10:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

catzilla writes:

Is this country ready for a black president? Probably. Is Obama the right man, who knows? To be fair, none of the candidates have addressed the exploitation of the inner city residents. Why? Befcause they either aren't aware or don't care. Just get me into office and i will talk about it. Wrong answer!!!

As for "white guilt". That is and always has been a myth perpetuated by the media and certain candidates. Slavery happened and cannot be erased. That doesn't mean that all whites were slave owners. Get over it and address what is going on today instead of something that happened 150 years ago and cannot be undone.

Don't vote for a candidate because he is blanck or because he is white. Vote for the candidate that offers realistic solutions to this country's problems.
June 25, 2008

10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

I agree with Louie who pointed out that Nader has a good basis for his argument but that his delivery is a bit puzzling. I don't get the connection that Obama's *avoiding* talking about the plight of the poor is somehow an appeal to white guilt? Seems it would be the opposite.

That being said, this is the first time I have ever been confused about something Nader said, because he is usually crystal clear and I tend to agree with just about all of his positions.

Froward: "Ralph, just realize most of us are so very pissed off at you for injecting yourself where you clearly do not belong. (seat belts by the way have only made me more dangerous to others.) you have become a conservative stooge with your rhetoric. The sad part is you do not even realize it. that alone disqualifies you for the Job."

Actually, Froward, if you research all of Nader's positions, you'll find they are right in line with a lot of your own posts on this forum (and mine!)

In fact, if Obama does not fight tooth and nail to remove telecom immunity from the upcoming FISA bill in the Senate, he's probably going to lose my vote and Nader will get it instead.

I already have some misgivings about Obama, including the fact he basically sold out Reverend Wright and his church. Then he just changed his stance on campaign funding. And now he's putting out statements that he basically supports the new FISA bill.

I'm sorry, but I am tired of electing Democrats with the slim hope that maybe this time they'll stand up and fight for justice. I keep getting disappointed, and after a certain point, one has to recall the old adage, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on ME..."

Nader is one man who cannot be bought, despite your belief he's on the Republican payroll. I honestly believe such suspicions stem from the fact that there are so few public figures left that we can trust, anyone who actually stands firm these days is automatically questioned as having an ulterior motive. A sad state of affairs.
June 25, 2008

10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

RikeMiley writes:

I can't believe how delusion everyone's comments are. First of all, "talking white" is not about how he sounds, his grammar, etc. Obama made a conscious decision to dismiss all intelligent analysis of race relations in the US in favor of the don't rock the boat, everything is rosy, there is no racism, horse manuer that corporate interests and, yes, white Americans, want to hear. Nader is calling him to task for this.

As an aside, "gneubeck", where have you been? Obama's drug use pales in comparison to George W. Bush's drug use, which was actually heavy. While McCain and Kerry were off killing Vietnamese civilians, Bush was on a decade long cocaine and alcohol bender. It's well documented, but apparently when rich white people do drugs it doesn't have any effect on their qualifications.

I will be voting for Ralph Nader for a 3rd time and a major part of this is because Obama has stripped himself of all progressive thought. Nader is correct to say that Obama is deceiving people. He talks in abstractions about hope and change, yet his policies are far from hopeful or change worthy. If you are worried about Obama being a peacenik, you can take comfort in his recent remarks to AIPAC. If you don't think that every human being deserves decent health care, you can take comfort in the fact that Obama's health care plan is one of the most corporate dominated that any candidate - democrat or republican - has introduced in years.
June 25, 2008

10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

ChicagoRay writes:

Gomerspile writes "Reading most of the comments here, and it amazes me that you need to have it explained to you" Bravo....

At least someone here out of 50 comments understands and comprehends exactly what the author and Nader meant. I hate the guy but he meant that Obama "talks white" with his actions not his inflection and vernacular.

Talking White meaning he ignores the important black issues that need to be addressed by someone who purports to be an African American and kisses up to whitey and is only using his "blackness" as a tool.

The reason Obama does this is to ingratiate himself to white do gooder liberals on the left who have white guilt from America's past and think by electing this psuedo African American they can claim that were the "generation that enlightened and delivered America from it's racist past". And Nader's right when one understands what the f*** he was saying.
June 25, 2008

10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

blue92 writes:

It disgusts me to hear an old white man who claims to be a great "liberal" icon continue to place his own political interests ahead of the country's. In the latest episode, Nader accuses Obama of "talking white." Nader thinks he knows best what people of color should think and how they should speak in public. Obama is our only chance to get out of Iraq, to improve the economy, and to save the Supreme Court. Apparently, Nader prefers for people of color to "speak like minorities" and to be satisfied with being his vice presidential candidate. After all, he's an old white man and he knows what's best.
June 25, 2008

10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

aehtorod writes:

Nader's is the most racist comment to come out of Campaign 2008 yet! Imagine! Nader beating out the Clintons in racist slurs against Obama! The old man really is going downhill in a hurry.
June 25, 2008

10:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

trinidad writes:

obama IS shaming white people into voting for him because it would be the politically correct thing to do. looks like alot of you all are falling for it. the only thing democrats do to help poor people is keeping the welfare checks, foodstamps,medicaid and wic checks coming every month. they are buying the poor black and hispanic vote. i know this for a fact. i'm mexican(u.s. born). my mother was on welfare starting in the mid '80s('84 as i can remember). her social worker was always trying to get her off the system in the back to work program. she'd get a job. see her benefits decrease. quit, see her benefits increase. start a new job that her social worker got her and start all over again. she played this game until clinton was elected and didn't have to participate in the back to work program anymore thanks to the democrats telling her" we are here to help you". i was ashamed of her unwillingness to work to support her family and let the system take care of us. thank God when the youngest turned 18 she got kicked out of the system and had to earn a living by working. democrats keeps the poor where they want them-POOR AND IN NEED. the rich where they need them. a person who worked all their lives and suddenly finds themselves laid off doesn't qualify as easily due to their income from the previous year being too high. welfare should be for the working family needing help till they get back on their feet. not for people who don't want to work.
June 25, 2008

10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

I hope McCain doesn't try to start talking in Ebonics. That would be horrible ;-)
June 25, 2008

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

ATOM4OBAMA writes:

Many have posed the question as to why Obama is often refered to as Black when he is biracial. The answer is quite simple. The US has had a "one drop rule" with regards to who is Black. This "rule" posits that anyone with a drop of African ancestry is Black. It was established during the jim crow era of the US. As ridiculous as the rule is, it is still common place for both whites and Blacks to refer to people this way. No such rule was ever established for the mixing of any other ethnic group with whites. That is to say, there is no historical evidence that such a standard was applied to those who might be white and Native american, white and Latino, or white and Asian. Interestingly enough, the US government has gone through great lengths to make sure that only certain people can be classified as white (eg white non-hispanic or hispanic non white). Even more peculiar, the US govt considers Arabs to be white. During the 2000 census, the govt defined being Black as "A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro," or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian." Therefore according to the US govt, Barack Obama is white. Ironically, though many laypeople and political pundits ask the same question as to why Obama isn't considered white, they never seem to question why the government uses pre-and post antebellum reasoning in their racial designations.

see: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta...

MarineGrunt, rather than rely on third party information, perhaps you should go to BarackObama.com for further details into Obama's plans for our country. Otherwise, Kerry was right in his reference to some military personnel.
June 25, 2008

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Pillbug writes:

RikeMiley :

But by apealing to the phrase 'talking white' Nader is appealing to the worst instinct of human nature. Many us us are, or know, african american folks who have been demeaned publically, in school, or behind there back, for being 'too white.' Nader is calling him an Uncle Tom, and doing so in the most derogatory sense. He is using code words to appeal to racist instincts... and that, in itself is bigoted.
June 25, 2008

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

calv writes:

It's funny...Nader has ALWAYS been coo-koo and liberals have given him legitimacy. Now that he criticizes Obama, liberals say "Nader's crazy!"

riiiight....
June 25, 2008

10:44 a.m.

pwern writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
June 25, 2008

10:45 a.m.

pwern writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
June 25, 2008

10:45 a.m.

pwern writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
June 25, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Samba writes:

Nader ,living up to his name ,has sunk to a new low.
Why don't journalists ever ask what stocks he owns?
Nader's been levering liberal guilt for 40 years,and has contributed significntly to the Nanny state policies that the right attacks the Dems for. His unwillingness to make an effective coalition with Gore proved that he put his ego above his stated principles. If he'd made a deal to throw his support behind Gore,in exchange for policy concessions,he coulod have done some good for the causes he espouses. Instead he contributed to the election of Bush,and just about killed the Green party-who are mostly too politically naive to understand what happened.The argument that there's no difference between the Dems and Reps is totally disproven by comparing the last 8 years of Rs with the previous 8 years under the Ds. The so called Progressives who make this argument ,and continue to demand ideological purity just don't understand that they are a small minority and that they don't persuade the mainstream of the correctness of their views by blaming the mainstream. Rush Limbaugh's major tactic has been to work this division. If we are going to effectve a more just ,equitable environmentally healthy society we have to have overcome these divide and conquer tactics. nader,and manhy of his supporters play into the hands of the demagogues. I know Nader is intelligent enough to understand this,and has been in politics a long time. I question his integrity at this point- I suspect either his ego is out of control ,or he's been bought off
June 25, 2008

10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

trinidad, what you really should be ashamed of is that you just sold your own mother out on a public forum. I hope you're just a troll for the cons, because the thought that anyone would actually say such sneering things about their own mother is revolting.

If this is really true, it sounds like she did attempt to work for a living several times, and discovered that she could better support her family on welfare, as sad as that is.

And what does that say about the job situation in this country?? That's not the fault of liberals, my friend, especially the ones who support a decent minimum wage so people like your mother can actually put food on the table for her family through a job instead of welfare.
June 25, 2008

10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

dora.taylor writes:

I can't believe all of you are taking Nadar's statements seriously.
The man is completely out in left field, has been for years.

I take offense to Nadar's comments when he says that Obama is trying to "talk white". That is a phrase used by African Americans spoken to each other when the other person is perceived as trying to be better than others around them. "Talking white" means trying to sound educated when you are not. Just that remark in itself is either spoken out of ignorance by Nadar or it was used as a double entendre. Either way, Ralph needs to be put out to pasture.
June 25, 2008

10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

Raises an interesting question:

Can Nader "talk black?" I don't think the clown even knows what he means. He's just throwing out words.
June 25, 2008

10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

calv: Good point!
June 25, 2008

10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

RikeMiley: "I can't believe how delusion everyone's comments are. First of all, "talking white" is not about how he sounds, his grammar, etc. Obama made a conscious decision to dismiss all intelligent analysis of race relations in the US in favor of the don't rock the boat, everything is rosy, there is no racism, horse manuer that corporate interests and, yes, white Americans, want to hear. Nader is calling him to task for this."

Thanks, that clarifies things for me. I agree that Obama is sugarcoating the real state of affairs in this country. I guess his advisors are telling him this is the best way to secure the nomination - and I think they're dead wrong. John Kerry's campaign should be indisputable proof of that.
June 25, 2008

10:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Davies, calv doesn't have a good point and certainly not a valid one. Most liberals have demonized Nader for years now. Which is a shame, because he's one of the last well-known public figures who truly has the people's interest at heart. But libs don't understand how this can be, because they can't let go of their belief he "spoiled" the 2000 election...
June 25, 2008

11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

skullkrusher writes:

As always, Nader is a moron. "Economic exploitation" through "payday loans" in the ghetto? Hear that black people? Nader thinks you are too stupid to manage your own finances so he wants to do it for you.
Why is it that every time someone comes along with some decent ideas regarding breaking government free from corporate influence, holding companies responsible for their actions, etc, they have to couple it with tried and failed neo-marxist garbage?
June 25, 2008

11:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Pajama Pulitzer, thanks for calling out the unnecessarily abusive comments from pwern. Unfortunately, artstarzz response wasn't much better. I hit the "suggest removal" button for both.

Also, you stated: "I for one would get a huge kick out of hearing McCain use Ebonics. Where is Rich Little when you need him???"

Well, you could always check out Karl Rove's cringe-inducing attempt at rap in the meantime...http://youtube.com/watch?v...
June 25, 2008

11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

morkos writes:

This quotation is being blown out of proportion and being used against the only candidate who speaks on behalf of the people in this country. It is tragic that everything takes on a racist interpolation instead of an honest evaluation of the issues. If the liberal media is so concerned with political correctness, they ought to scrutinize themselves for choosing to blackout Nader. He is of Lebanese descent, you know.
June 25, 2008

11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ginsu writes:

I would have to agree with Nadar. His word choice was poor but his message was accurate. "talking white" was obviously describing the dynamic of appealing to the white power structure and not rocking the boat. "payday" loans are predatory - its the same type of exploitive loan practice that brough us the morgage collapse.

I would also agree that the democrats are making him a scapegoat. More Dems went republican than came over to Nadar. At least Nadar was representing issues that democrats should own themselves.
June 25, 2008

11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Samba writes:

PajamaPulitzer Your memory seems to be faulty The gaslines were in 74 ,when Republicans had the Whitehouse. Carter was elected in 76. His policy of progressive fuel economy standards would have eliminated the need for oil imports by 1990,but Reagan eliminated the standrds-as one of his very first acts of office. It was Reagan,you might recall who made deals with Iranian terrorists,trading them wepons,and who when the 240 marines were killed in Lebanon,withdrew ( after staging a phony invasion in the carribean to divert US public attention)This was the first retreat that emboldened the terrorists. Carter failed at playing the Washington game. But his policy objectives if acheived, would have avoided most of the mess we're in now ie Energy independence, tying US aid to American principles,not supporting oppresive regimes that don't afford basic Human rights to their citizens. Our support for the dictators of Saudi Arabia is a major cause of our being attacked by Saudi terrorists on 9-11 . If Carter's policies held sway,we would not be importing Saudi oil ,and they'd be on their own for military hardware to supress their people with.
June 25, 2008

11:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

dadpasadena writes:

Are we talking stereotype here? Why doesn't Nader talk about the inner-city and address those issues himself?! Wouldn't that be refreshing? Why do those issues have to be exclusively a black community issue? Maybe Nader needs to talk more "black"? Hey, white boy?
June 25, 2008

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

American100 writes:

Sheesh-Someone finally sees through Obama's race campaign?

His whole platform has been "I'm black, all minorities should vote for me".

Did he finally figure out that platform is talking down to minorites?

This "minority" will vote McCain only because it's voting against Obama.
June 25, 2008

11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

AirMax95 writes:

Any way you want to view the comment it is still out of line. If Michael Vick had two minutes to win a football game and passed on every down and even passed for the winning touchdown, instead of running for the winning touchdown, people would state, oh he just played "white". Same rules apply in basketball, if you don't drive or dunk, and have a great outside shot, oh, you are playing "white". Dress white? Eat white? Dance white?
June 25, 2008

11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

morkos writes:

Just because he criticizes Obama for not speaking doesn't mean that he should be held responsible in kind. The fact is that Obama's record in Ohio is not particularly good, and that individuals like Dennis Kucinich have a far better municipal and voting record.
June 25, 2008

11:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Does this mean you want a 2nd Carter term?"

i hear rush limbaugh saying this same debunked talking point.

obama represents a third clinton term as their platforms are nearly identical...just as mccain represents a third bush term...as THEIR platforms are nearly identical.

guess which one of those outcomes is more desirable to the american people?
June 25, 2008

11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

bugmenot writes:

It's no secret Obama is looking to play to white voters.

So what has Obama said about exploitation in the ghettos, payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, or lead?

When "nader s*cks" stops being an accepted as an intelligent rational response to such questions, give me a call.
June 25, 2008

11:52 a.m.

doctorfixit writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
June 25, 2008

11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

Racism will be the wedge issue this time around. And what better really than a thing virtually everyone is guilty of.

I challenge those who blindly support Obama to explain to me specifically, other than skin tone,...what is the "Change"?

I could care less what color Obama is ((heres where you start to categorize me as racist)) he is just more of the same, with updated packaging.

Why when asked by USA today about impeachment did Obama say, "Impeachment: not acceptable"?! Because he's part of the club. Why would he even consider exploring Nuclear power? Because some of his supporters know that they will get to sell you that power, you can't have a reactor on your roof. Why does Obama support the Israeli military machine? Why hasn't Obama promised to cut our bloated military budget? Currently it makes up 1/2 of the federal budget? Why is he selling health insurance under the guise of "universal health care"? Why....because he's MORE OF THE SAME.

And when your more of the same,...you do have a white voice, and you do have a black voice, you are a master of rhetoric. At best that's what Obama is...an updated, more politically correct master of rhetoric. Where is the change?

Am I lacking the psychic powers others have to hear the change? Do you think that once elected Obama will do lots of additional things he just can't mention right now? Why would you believe that!? Is there something inherent in his skin tone that tells you he will fight for these causes he has yet to mention? Frankly, thats pretty naive & racist.

White guilt is absolutely real. And undeniably it is one of Obama's greatest assets for this election. To deny that is hilarity. I understand what Nader is going for...he's perfectly legitimate. And if the media wants to make that a big issue then go ahead. Just back that story with how racism is the the most crucial problem we need to address today. That story would be ridiculous! Yeah its a problem, but racism is not one of the biggest problems we face globally today. Yes racism is familiar, and easier to digest, But...it's easy to use to kill basically any gainful conversation with when you have emotional retards publicly representing alleged opposing factions. Its perfect...divide and conquer! For one peak oil is a way bigger problem. And the corporate control of our governments. Talk on that. Na...lets drag that old dead horse racism back out again...works every time.

Are you voting for Obama for what he is not? Or are you voting for him for what he is? Then please tell me specifically what the "Change" is!?

Should be simple.

Maybe then I'll stop voting for Nader. That is if my white guilt doesn't do it first. While your at it tell me why Gore/Lieberman & Kerry/Edwards were or were not also great men. Good luck.

ps do you think "old white men" ruined the world? The Germans felt the same way about the Jews pre-WWII ... scapegoats are easy.
June 25, 2008

11:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

TERRAist writes:

Mike Riley is Correct. And sadly, he is the only one commenting on this article with facts, truths, and rationale. All of you boasting about your political beliefs based off of pure emotion...well, it frightens me to belong to such a country where emotions override reason. No one has presented an argument based off real evidence like Mike has and only acted spitefully because someone dared stand against them on their personl feelings.
If feelings is what prevokes you...please do America a favor and seek out spiritual guidance, because seductive phrases like "change" and "hope" and "peace" can be heard in fairytales or biblical text. A president should have nothing to do with seduction of his people, but honesty and loyalty to his country.
Go Nader! and btw...seatbelts save lives, whomever suggested otherwise, get off the road!
June 25, 2008

11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

obama is ahead by double digits in two major polls already this week, pjmama...what makes you think he's "going down in flames"?

his policy stances are horribly unpopular with the vast majority of americans who prefer that bush/mccain policies cease.

obama's policy stances on the other hand are supported by the majority of americans.

in a dream world that would be the end of it...but unfortunately this is politics and politicians will do anything and everything to make up deficiences created by weak policy stances...we'll see how that indisputable fact manifests itself within mccain's campaign in the coming months.

i'm guessing the attack dog-like behavior by dobson is only the beginning.
June 25, 2008

11:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Nothye writes:

Its funny, my daughter just finished Kindergarten in a very inclusive class. She has black,asian,hispanic and middle eastern friends and it does not ever occur to her that there are differences because of color. This is truly how the world should be but, the curriculum included a book that taught them all about racism. The book was about a poor black girl that got picked on because of her color. So you see, my daughter didn't know what racism was until it was taught to her by her fine Californian teacher. It is a shame!
June 25, 2008

11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

ElliotJar, thanks for your post. You ask: "Are you voting for Obama for what he is not? Or are you voting for him for what he is? Then please tell me specifically what the "Change" is!?"

Honestly, that's a question I'm asking myself over and over ever since I read his statement last week on FISA - a bill that effectively gives telecoms constitutional rights instead of US citizens.

If Obama, a former professor of Constitutional Law, cannot step up and sweep this abominable legislation out of the Senate, he has just proven to me exactly what he cannot or will not change.
June 25, 2008

12:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Samba writes:

3rd Carter term? nope. I want a first Obama term. I actually hope he can live up to his rhetoric and we can enter a new phase of politics. I realize this is likely too much to expect.If he just brings back the standard liberal policies ,the pendulum will swing back tyhe other way,after a while. The right doesn't seem to relize the hated Gov't control of liberal policy is a response ( not necessrily effective) to actual abuses of profiteers,just as the left doesn't recognize that the conservative policies are mirror reactions to out of balance ,innefficient liberal policy. It would be wonderful to get balance and end this bipolar stuff, We need some political lithium. Seems like we do best when one party has the whitehuse and the other congress.
But the postwar phase of US global economic dominance is over. The Neocons failed policies have assured that the New American Centruy won't happen. If you think Carter's legacy is failure,wait till you see what Bush II looks like 30 years down the road.
I wouldn't want to be the one waking up in the Whitehouse the day after Inauguration day,cause we're in a world of trouble now.
June 25, 2008

12:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

River70 writes:

This is over the top. Anything but discuss REAL issues that impact us all ( gas, health care ....)
If Ralph is so concerned about these issues he ought to spend some constructive time with real ideas.
Somehow over the years it appears that elevator does not go to the top ( of nadar's brain, that is)
One of the reasons John Edwards endorsed Barack was Barack's plans for poverty elimination.
June 25, 2008

12:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

Ralph Nader please go away. Your an idiot that can't possibly win.
June 25, 2008

12:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Dr_B writes:

Nader is OLDER THAN MCSAME!!

This ridiculous, vain old man is more of a pig than I ever thought. Thoroughly out of touch, thoroughly stuck in old fashioned thinking.

The Dems should not be fuming about his coming to Denver. We should be planning for how we are going to take advantage of the opportunity. We should shame and humiliate this old fashioned, anti-progressive liberal war horse.

Once upon a time, Ralph, you were worth something. Not any more!!

What are you doing in town, Ralph? Did you come to watch politics pass you by?

I never realized what an unforgivable pig he is. I knew he was vain. I knew he had an explosive ego. But I did not know he was bothered by bros who don't play their role to type. Obama is just too uppity for you, eh Ralph?

He must be scheming, he must be manipulating white folks, this skinny kid from Illinois.

Go back in the tank where they shrink hearts until they are small enough to care about you. You are a piece of the right wing machine, buddy. Nothing more.
June 25, 2008

12:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

robinegaura writes:

In order to fully appreciate Mr. Nader's comments, one would have to be familiar with Senator Obama's voting record and stands on the issues. While in the Senate, Obama could at any time have led a filibuster to block funding for the occupation of Iraq, which is illegal under the law. He could have supported impeachment of Bush and Cheney articles of which have been circulated and filed by members of Congress for years. In both of these instances he could have represented the majority of the people in this country who want these actions taken. Obama could stand for universal single payer health care, which 70% of the American people support. But he doesn't. He has spent tens of millions of dollars, much of it given by Wall Street lobbyists, to spot empty rhetoric. He's not talking issues, and when he does, he comes down on the side of big business and military empire. He's pro nuclear. In the face of the housing crisis which is in the process of effecting the largest transfer of capital in history from working class Americans to a few financial operatives, he just voted to make it harder for these citizens to mount and win a class action suit. Called 'tort' reform', barely mentioned in the media, it limits our rights to redress. Sen. Obama is a stealth candidate. His parentage or degree of melanin matters less to me than his record. His election will merely put a black face on the continuing criminal activities of the corporate classes, and the disgraceful foreign policies of the Bush/Clinton eras. People need to wake up to the fact that the Democratic and Republican parties have both been taken over by corporate masters, corporate money. Mr. Nader is one of the few people of integrity in Washington with a long record of public service. He deserves our support and our votes. Its time to re-establish the rule of law and basic accountability in government. He and his running mate Matt Gonzales have the experience necessary to establish public policy to restore dignity and functionality to our institutions.
June 25, 2008

12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

mytwo: I'll concede your point. Nader is generally liberal, but now I do remember that most of the Dems don't like him.

PJ: "All hail President McCain" You're just trying to rile everyone up, aren't you?

Why DON'T we just elect Obama this time? We survived Carter, and I really want to see Obama wave his magic wand. You know, make Iran negotiate, get rid of partisan politics in Congress, fight terror with his baritone voice from the podium, etc. etc. It'll work, just trust him.
June 25, 2008

12:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

robineguara: "People need to wake up to the fact that the Democratic and Republican parties have both been taken over by corporate masters, corporate money."

Sadly, this is correct. With a few notable exceptions, mostly on the Democrat aisle. People like Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Feingold. And I guess there's a handful of conservatives that haven't completely sold out. Arlen Specter voted against FISA, God bless him.
June 25, 2008

12:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

ladynite54 writes:

Barack Hussein Obama,

Is the man with a thousand faces, in every state, he's a different person. In the major black population states, he talks like MLK, or JFK, in the major white states, he talks, like Bush or Cheney.

Obama, is a FRAUD, and as soon as everybody see this, the better. Barack Hussein Obama, is our Selected Nominee, not Elected Nominee. The DNC, RBC Selected him, the voters did not. 18 Million voted for Hillary Clinton, and the DNC, stole the election from her. WE WILL REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER. P. U. M. A.
www.pumapac.org.
www.camille424.wordpress.com.
www.justsaynodeal.com.
June 25, 2008

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

Those people who believe that because your candidate can win makes them better...please explain George W. Bush.

He could win...and he did.

Did that make him the better candidate? Too many people make this into a trivial sports game with differing opinions as to who the front runner really is.

na, na,...my candidate is electable. Well Gore/Leiberman & Kerry/Edwards weren't?! Whats the deal? Do you think they were the lesser candidates? Based on this logic, why were they allowed to run/debate if they were predestined to lose!?

Who cares about who allegedly CAN win?! Why not think about what the candidate is promising or not promising to do if they do win. What conversation are they bringing to the table? Look at Truman's second term....looser?...I think not.

This should always be a discussion about... who is better to serve the people after the election. Why...How...When...etc.
Simpletons have made it a game of who can win the election.

P.S.
Again...where's the "Change"...oh and try not to keep making it racial. I think we should all agree ((to the corporate medias dismay)) the racial aspect is plainly boring. It goes nowhere fast. Yeah, yeah... race, race, race....big deal...show me the "change"?!
June 25, 2008

12:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

OIFVeteran writes:

Obama is a media creation and a socialist. His resume' is shallower than that of the average military 1st Lt. and he wants to run this nation???? Nader is on target (I am no fan of that man)in relation to "white-guilt". This construct is a wide ranging national ethos in many euro-Americans, suggesting that all the historical mishaps that this nation has suffered in the realm of race will be wiped clean by the election of an affirmative action created Ivy-League, mulatto attorney. Sadly, if elected, he will lead this nation down a path of ever encroaching federal influence in our everyday lives, a weak military and even more "vote buying" social welfare schemes to reward the miscreants and underachievers of America. Ah, if only voting was restricted to those that could produce a W-2 form in election day, the workers of America would be truly represented not the "parasitic" class.
June 25, 2008

12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Joannnoe writes:

Since when does Ralph Nader care about folks in the "ghetto"?
The problems that Mr. Nader listed exist throughout America. We are all subject to predatory lending, payday loans, gas price gouging, shortages of health care, environmental issues etc. Why does Mr. Nader think that Barack Obama as a candidate should only address people who are poor? I haven't heard McCain say anything specific to poor people, and why should he? Did any other candidate address only poor people?
The problems in this country stretch far and wide. We need solutions! We need change! We need Barack Obama!
June 25, 2008

12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

trinidad writes:

MTTWOSENSE
i am not ashamed of my mother. i was ashamed of that fact that she found it easier to not work. she always had a reason to quit the jobs she had. once clinton was in office she didn't have to work. the back to work program ended. since she was "forced" into the work place she been able to stay employeed for the past 14 years. my whole point is that democrats enable the poor to stay poor. buying votes is what the democrats are doing. i used my mothers story as an firsthand account of how the democrats keep voters on their side. if obama gets elected i hope he can change this country . Lord knows we need it but i'm not going to hold my breathe that he can or will do it.
June 25, 2008

12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

mytwo: What is so bloody sensitive about your overseas phone calls, that you are willing to sacrifice all our safety? Are you importing cocaine or something?

Do you really want the jihadist types to be able to just buy a prepaid cell phone and call their contact overseas with impunity? Are the feds supposed to somehow know who every potential terrorist is, and already have a warrant for the guy's phone?
June 25, 2008

12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

thanks for the daily dose of far right wing conspiracy theories, shaggy...but you just can't run away from the McSame Effect....

Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. June 12-16, 2008. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?"

Right Direction 17%
Wrong Track 76%
Unsure 7%

USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 18-20, 2008. N=1,016 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Since the start of 2001 when George W. Bush became president, in general, would you say his presidency has been a success or a failure?"

Success 27%
Failure 69%
Unsure 4%

"Next we have a few questions about former president, Bill Clinton. Overall, do you think Bill Clinton was a good president or a bad president?"

Good 71%
Bad 24%
Mixed/Unsure 5%

CBS News/New York Times Poll. March 28-April 2, 2008. N=1,368 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"I'd like you to compare the way things are going in the United States to the way they were going five years ago. Generally, would you say things are going better today, worse today, or about the same today as they were going five years ago?"

Better 4%
Worse 78%
Same 17%
Unsure 1%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...
June 25, 2008

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

Joannnoe- Can I ask you...what's the "Change"?
June 25, 2008

12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Retread writes:

Oh MY GOD, Obama is BLACK?
June 25, 2008

1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

kissyface writes:

He is half white, right? I get the same crap and I am native american, black and irish. When I apply for jobs over the phone and fax, I get hired until I get to the door and they see darker skin (I am still lighter than Obama). SUddenly, the job has been filled, or a "mistake was made." I do highly skilled work that is in demand, so I know they are lying. I was raised in Boston, so I sound like Maria Shriver, not as bad as Teddy. I can do a fair Edith Bunker on demand (GLORRRRIA). I hate it when White and Black people tell me I sound white. I sound educated and clear.
June 25, 2008

1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"It is so funny to see loons by into these plastic polls by the left wing web sites and think they are accurate"

shaggy, for the last time, please take a stats class. the validity of scientific polling is without question. please come to terms with it.

"What happen to their predictions that Obama would sprint out ahead of McCain once he was chosen as the nominee?"

please note the graph halfway down the page on the first link i posted above.

"What happened to the prediction that the DNC would have no problem with finances once Obama is the nominee?"

have you seen the mccain vs. obama funding numbers, shaggy? do you have any clue here or are you just flinging poo?

and we see you close with a myth, "Obama is against drilling.".

good work. rush would be proud.

marinegrunt...i think you should embrace all the education you can get from the candidates' themselves in regards to their policy stances. both mccain's and obama's websites provide some good factual data about their respective platforms.

i hope get around to it before the election or have a flat on the way...
June 25, 2008

1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

It should come as no surprise that "Rockey Mountain News" hailing from Denver, CO home of this cycles Democratic National Convention should move so quick to try and corner Ralph Nader a racist.

The democrats are so obvious and predictable. And that will always be their Achilles heel. Well...that and no backbone doesn't help either.

But from what I hear, they can be winners...so..well I guess thats good..good luck republicrats..

Democrats fear Ralph Nader and its hardly for any of his apparent "racist" comments. So why not end this and drag him out publicly to let him make a fool of himself? No body likes a racist!?

Why is this the only media coverage Nader gets Denver?

If the DNC is so confident that Ralph Nader is a dismiss able joke...then why not let him debate on national television?!

Why not? Your logic would tell me that if such a fool was to speak publicly, afterwards he would never again pose a threat as a "spoiler."

Fight for Naders right to debate Democrats. I'm sure It would be great for ratings. And Obamas chances of winning. Obama vs. an old racist! Isn't that what we've all been waiting for? Wow...what would they say? My fingers are crossed;)
June 25, 2008

1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

OIFVeteran writes:

HEY JAY,

You seem to forget that the majority of the respondents in those surveys that you so gleefully report are the products of STATE RUN schools. These numbers simply reinforce the opinion that Americans are on the whole are a group of whining, spoiled, children that want all their problems rectified by government...a thought (and I use the term loosely)reinforced by the socialist/Godless/progressives that run most of the classrooms in this country. Yes, it seems that many Americans wish to go to heaven but don't want to die. Oops, I also nearly forgot that all the teen prenancies at Worchestor H.S. were the President's fault, as announced by one of those morons yesterday..."if we were only allowed to hand out birth control in our school..."
June 25, 2008

1:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Vaszely writes:

Let us be clear on one thing, Obama is not "one-half African- American". He is one half African (father was a citizen of Kenya (Africa) and mother was a resident/citizen of Hawaii. I have seen no evidence that his father was a US citizen. He did attend school here on a student visa I believe and then returned to Kenya.
"He's half African-American, Nader said."
June 25, 2008

1:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

OhBrother writes:

Chicago ray-"by someone who purports to be an African American and kisses up to whitey and is only using his "blackness" as a tool."

Doctorfixit-"I don't know how Nader can say that this is not exactly what the Magic Half Negro will do if elected"

ElliotJar-"White guilt is absolutely real. And undeniably it is one of Obama's greatest assets for this election." then "oh and try not to keep making it racial. I think we should all agree ((to the corporate medias dismay)) the racial aspect is plainly boring."

Are we ready for any president that is not a middle aged white man? What does it sound like? Let's not make this about race or anything...
June 25, 2008

2:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

OIFVeteran writes:

SHAGGY wrote: Obama doesn't want to drill.
Obama doesn't want to produce more natural gas.
Obama is against Nuclear energy...oh wait, he said we should look into safe ways to have nuclear plants.

Your are right on!! Here is my hypothesis: Barrack Hussein Obama is a product of an elitist education (in spite of a mediocre academic performance at the University of Leningrad, er.. I mean Columbia, he magically gets into Harvard Law). Here he is completely indoctrinated by the thorough-breds of the Liberal intelligencia. When it comes to energy, the leftist cocktail crowd truly believes that Americans have no right to a higher standard of living than eastern Europeans and that we should all be happy peasants singing in the fields riding our Yugos or mass transit ( mass transit which they benefit from on the east cost as financed by our gasoline taxes in the mid-west). I work with several of these self-sanctifying, tree-hugging, volvo-driving, hurrah for homosexual marriage types. You know them...like Jay the poster, whose intelligence is greatly eclipsed by his arrogance. THEY REALLY BELIEVE WE OUGHT TO PAY THE PRICE FOR BEING AMERICANS. So all you guilt-ridden Barackomaniacs out there be careful what you wish for, you will not have a gov't aircraft to travel in.
June 25, 2008

2:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

Who cares what Obama's racial background is. It's insignificant.

I'm sure 99% of us here are muts & the other 1% is imbread so...
welcome latecomers; this is the melting pot...
again...dead issue....wedge pushers...

All I want to know is and maybe someone here can tell me...

What is the "Change" Obama is running on?!

Is he promising to change how the debate committee (surprise; a corporation) controls our presidential debates? That would be a plus for democracy.
June 25, 2008

2:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

OIFVeteran writes:

ELLIOTJAR, so no one cares about BO's racial background???

Apparently you missed the coverage at the BET music awards and the plethora of BO t-shirts. If a group of artists wore McCain attire at a CMT event the "racist" hue and cry would deafen the country.
June 25, 2008

2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

RBN writes:

Craptastic words Nader. If nader were relevant I would listen, but his ideas are smut and he is a clown. However, this country does need more then two parties to run for president. We need a collection of ideas to get things right. There are so many more sides to the argument of what would make America great again. Nader should keep on speaking his mind even if he is pretty much batshit crazy!
June 25, 2008

2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yuki writes:

Barack Ocommie will be what ever his present audience wants him to be. If he talks white he's talking to a predominately white group, if he talks black he's talking to a black room. This man is nothing more than Bill Clinton in black face. What ever way the wind blows is the way he goes. He needs white guilt' to help prop himself up otherwise he would fall on his left side. This man makes Vladimir Lenin look like a conservative. Ralph you are right at present he is 'talking white.' But never fear I'm sure he can also talk black, Asian, Latino or even bovine.
June 25, 2008

2:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"stats (data) is for losers"

why is it that the science/data/info/stats is always attacked by those who can't make their position with them?

shaggy, i agree that the election will be about the economy...always has...but it will also be about your policies in the middle east (yes including iraq/iran), healthcare and energy policies...as it has been for months now.

nothing has changed...including mcsame's policy stances that have kept him consistently behind in the polls.

the anti-drilling rhetoric might play well on newsmax and the drudge report, but they don't play here.

educate yourself on obama's policy stances and then make a decision instead of parroting rush.

he isn't raising more money because of his "billionare friends"...he's raising more money from everyday americans than any other candidate in history....not because he's a "far left liberal".

come on now...that's just silly talk.

oh...and i'm all for more drilling. we have 68 million acres of us land including offshore sites that have been given the okay and leased out to oil companies. let's drill now right there. i'm all for it.
June 25, 2008

2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

ObamaRama7 writes:

wow.. someone is desperate for publicity... they should feature this hilarity on DFT News at DigitalFunTown dot com
June 25, 2008

2:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

dirkle writes:

Ralph Nader, ... living proof that even crusading narcissists, starved for public attention, suffer from cranial hardening of the arteries as they get old(er).
June 25, 2008

2:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

RBN writes:

Forget guns. Not every one should have a computer.
June 25, 2008

2:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Trollstein writes:

raequin:
You wrote:
"I think Nader has more on his mind than the nation of Israel."
I would hope so but sadly, my suspicion varies. FYI: Obama has made statements condemning "Predatory Lending" practices. He stopped hitting that cord when some large commercial lenders contributed $$$. While Obama will not accept donations from lobbyists, his campaign still accepts a percentage of 'soft money', at least that is my cursory understanding.
So you might ask . . . am I not agreeing with Nader? No. I think Obama has gone as far as possible without forsaking the 'main stream'. I do not agree with all his positions but still support him. To me his is 'damn near nice'. I am not a perfectionist. I have learned not to expect too much from politicians and thereby I will not be too disappointed.
Both Nader and Obama totally miss the boat on the gross corruption in our legal system. On that very important issue, I would say to Nader exactly what he says to Obama. Namely, where's the outrage? The answer is the outrage is dampened by the fact that Nader is lawyer and has (at times) earned his living through the patent disfunctionality of the judicial system. In reality, they are both hores. I just think my hore (Obama) is 1000% more electible and he smells satisfactorily to me.
Nader is a whiner. Are you telling me that if Kucinich were the nominee, Nader would be complaining? The major practical difference between Kucinich and Obama are their positions on Israel.
June 25, 2008

2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Granny_Fite writes:

Nader is a distraction. It is fascinating that he gets to play the race card - maybe upside down and backwards - without anyone except us calling a foul. "Disappointing" is another word for "irrelevant."
The point of this election is to take the entire country in a different direction - entire meaning all of us: white, black, brown, green, yellow, red, orange, plaid, rich, poor, and Goldilocks - a new direction that will allow all of the people to thrive, restore our reputation in the world, put us on the green side of environmental issues, restore the presidency to a non-monarchy, keep us from slipping into 2nd world status because our education, health care,and economic systems are bankrupt, and establish sanity in our politics.
If Obama has to talk white to do that, I say lay it on me.
June 25, 2008

2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"How about letting the Oil Companies lease land that actually contain Oil."

they already have access to millions of acres of land with oil deposits underneath them.

" how about letting the Oil companies trade their existing leased land for the land in ANWAR?"

why?

"What is silly talk jay, that Obama is a flaming Liberal?"

You mean, like, flaming, or... i'm willing to give you an answer if you define what a "flaming liberal" is in the world of shaggy. my guess is if we broke you down to the particular policy stances of obama's that by your logic most of the country qualifies as a "flaming liberal"...which would give us some insight as to where you reside on the political spectrum.

"That he has the most far left voting record in the Senate?"

we've already debunked that one a number of times shaggy...at least come up with some new material...

(this from snopes)
http://voteview.com/sen110.htm

"That he voted twice against giving medical attention to babies that are still alive after a botched abortion."

you mean "schiavo alive", right shaggy? heard that one too...

"What part of those facts are silly?"

let me know when you come up with some
June 25, 2008

2:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

tiahalom writes:

although nader is offensive and simply mean, he has a point. obama has not proven that he will prioritize poor people over the wealthy. i support obama, especially after his speech on race. i am, however, wary of believing he will change anything concerning the wealth disparity in this country. as of today, the gap between the poor and wealthy was smallest during the 70s. i find it difficult to believe that obama will reverse the widening gap between the rich and the poor. although nader is simply an asshol dying for media coverage, the policy issues he brings to the table should be addressed.
June 25, 2008

3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

renderedtruth writes:

Ralph Nader has sounded the blat to have Senator Obama come out as an angry ghetto dweller speaking ebonics and prove he should be their candidate. What does that say about Ralph's mind? I think Ralph is the Special Ed. candidate.
June 25, 2008

3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

303blogger writes:

reply: jugdish white guilt is feeling guilty about what white people did in the past. Thats why white voters are all about Obama. And talking white, is no different then a fake black person. Get it!
June 25, 2008

3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ginsu writes:

I dont think many people posting have actually read the above article or they didnt understand it. But anything that gets people writing retarded things at each other is awesome!

Nadar many have some groovy ideas but he has no chance of beating back the scourge of mccain and his diabolical blind groupie henchmen.

I wouldn't vote for McCain period, because of his lack of sanity and "ready fire aim" mentality. I believe he spends too much time talking about gooks and bombing iran and taking kickbacks from defense contractors versus doing any real thinking. He's for higher gas prices, giving away money to the oil companies, a fascist totalitarian government, corporate feudalism, and his policies threaten our freedoms and ultimately our sovereignty. I believe he is a communist terrorist, and will increase the illegals dancing into our country, I don't think he has a grasp on how destroying the middle class flattens our economy, nor why exploitation flattens the productivity and limits the American dream. Plus Im concerned about McCains heavy marijuana and cocaine use in high school and college. And that he stopped taking his antipsychotic medications. Until such concerns are put to rest, this man, who has exhibited a profound lack of common-sense, should never be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. Instead he should retreat back into a closet or crevices like a cockroach.
June 25, 2008

3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

as i said, shaggy...is it "schaivo alive" or "alive"?

you guys had better come up with some better ammo against obama or he is going to walk away with this one.

who do you think mcsame is going to pick for vp, shag?
June 25, 2008

3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

MeAgainstMachine writes:

Artstarzz - you are racist towards white people. Why do you live in a prodominately white country rather than one that is pro Mexican't like yourself?
June 25, 2008

3:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

bksubbarao writes:

Dr.B.K.Subbarao writes:
Obama has been talking a lot on the need for 'Change'.
But he never spelt out clearly what exactly is the 'change' he wants to bring about.

The quetion is, whether the 'change' being contemplated by Obama would lead to economic uplift of the poor in USA. Ralph Nadar cautions that Obama is not genuine and he is the chip of the same block which perpetuated the economic disparities in USA.

A further question is, whether Obama as President would be able to contain and nullify the influence of the all powerful Corporate Sector. Ralph Nadar gives some examples to show that Obama is already in the grip of Corporate Sector and Defence Sector.

Yet another relevant question is whether the jails and prisons in USA would stop being filled with people from miscarriage of justice. Obama as a qualified lawyer so far said nothing on this.

Nadar's comments would deserve serious consideration of all the people of USA not necessarily of only the Democrats alone.
June 25, 2008

3:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

How many of you have actually watched the vid clip of Nader above?

I have a feeling not too many.

Watch it and tell me what you hear.

-Trollstein,

nah...their are alot of substantial differences:

Obama says;, "Impeachment: not acceptable"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washingt...

Nader totally disagrees.

Obama is selling health insurance...prove to me otherwise, he outlines it himself...it's insurance. I don't know maybe it works out for you, in your portfolio...whatever

Nader: Canadian/W. European style health care. Why not..they live longer?

If our health care insurance system(the one Obama supports, wants to modify..not change) is the best why is our life expectancy behind 30 other country's. Must be doing something right hun?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/06/11/...

Also:

Nader wants to cut our hugely bloated military budget and reallocate it into advancements in social programs, mass transportation, and security improvements. Our military budget currently makes up 1/2 of our federal budget.

Obama...silent. Wants spending to grow like a good little CEO would.

the list goes on...

Granny_Fite-

Gore and Kerry have been the distractions. They obviously will be viewed as "Disappointing" & "Irrelevant" historically. You look at what their(Democrats) platforms were in the last two elections.

Gore-lock box. No environment, no universal health care etc..(Gore is a much better back seat driver...these days)

Kerry-fighting the war better than Bush. "reporting for duty!"

they were sad.

The Republicrats have not served us dutifully what so ever. They are weak, predictable, and at best are only better actors at convincing the poor people to vote for them. You tell me what they have actually done. That is... other than assist the republicans and the corporate masters who pull their strings.

Now Nader on the other hand, Nader "the spoiler", Nader the "distraction" has consistently been campaigning since 2000 for the environment, truly universal health care, cutting the military budget, cracking down on corporate criminals & their tax loopholes and fighting our corporate masters.

So tell me please...What is the new direction Obama is taking us in? What are his changes in policy? I've looked at his site...I'm not seeing it. Maybe he has email the real changes directly to his base?

What is the "Change"? Can you be specific.
June 25, 2008

3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

shaggy...calm down, take a breath...you're back to blindly spouting rushisms.

no vp picks? how many seats do you think the republicans will gain in congress?
June 25, 2008

3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

madman writes:

Nader is trying to be a politician. He is way off course. He can't even create a negative ad for his opponents. Obama talking white makes for a good MADTV skit at best.
Im curious to know the demographics of his base supporters.
June 25, 2008

3:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"No doubt in my mind that Congress will become more Liberal than it is right now. What are their ratings as of now again? 12-13% ?
They make Bush look popular."

you mean the congressional republicans make bush look popular, right? because if the dems were causing the dismal numbers they're the ones that would lose seats, right?

you think romney can pull in the needed fundamentalist vote?
June 25, 2008

4:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

madman-

have you watched the video? Nader is absolutely right. He's right on course. I would say the other candidates are the ones trying to be "politicians" and Nader is being the watchdog.
June 25, 2008

4:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

It's not Ralph's fault that the Democrats consistently fail. They have been and continue to perform lackluster at best. How did Ralph Nader influence the Democrats away from stopping the War? How does Nader keep the Democrats from pursuing the Impeachment of the most impeachable president in history?

Weather or not Ralph Nader was to ever run for president, I still wouldn't have voted for those loser Democrats.

Why do you? Be specific.
June 25, 2008

4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

shaggy, you're not getting it. we already have okayed the oil companies to drill on 68 million acres of land that they have yet to develop. no one is stopping them from doing that. i'm in favor of allowing them to start drilling now, right there.

would prices be lower? don't know. as supply constrictions can't account for the trend in gas prices in the last 7 years...i doubt it would be a significant (5% or more) change.
June 25, 2008

4:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

Tell me how the Democrats have been significant?!

What have they done for you?

Is offering up some symbolic "change" good enough for you?

I guess that wouldn't surprise me if you voted for those losers Gore & Kerry. Boy...good thing they were "electable"! Come to think of it ...that's about all they had going for them. And that didn't mean anything either.

The excuse that Democrats couldn't do anything is totally ridiculous. They could have proceeded with impeachment for one. the most impeachable presidents in history! That would have swayed the numbers. They could have fought the Patriot Acts...They should have fought! Why didn't they fight? Thats their job. I wouldn't expect them to win...I know they can't do that...but fighting ....that's what their constituents elected them to do right?

Incompetence.
Or is it obedience? Hum...

Why?

Because the two party system is a two headed monster that likes to play make pretend we are different. Split the idiots/ flip the coin and see who's turn it is.

Conservatives don't conserve, and Democrats don't fight for democracy.
June 25, 2008

4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Trollstein writes:

ElliotJar:
With due respect, I have been following Nader since the late 1960s. At one point, he was a hero of mine. When he first ran for President in 2,000, Tim Rusert asked him why he is running--given that he has a very low chance of winning. He had no direct answer. He said:
"Well, first of all, I am going to get 15% of the votes . . . . " Essentially, that WAS his answer. He followed up that during the following election, this percentage would grow and eventually, diseffected voters would conclude that he (or someone like him) should replace the existing power structure.
He got 2.7% of the votes in 2,000 and 0.5% in 2004.
So that question still remains unanswered--perhaps now more then before.
As for Obama. He may seem like a lackey neocon to some but to most Americans (who either support him or not) he seems like a leftist Democrat. The more important question is how does the Obama of 2008 vary from the Nader of 1996 (when Clinton was President)? Answer: Not by much. I was there. I watched him speak at a Green Party meeting in New York City in 1996. At that time, he was as establishment as Obama is today and no more liberal.
Thanks
June 25, 2008

4:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

HSTOWEL writes:

Nader is right about the pandering to this so called "white guilt" that many liberals feel. I have no such guilt as I nor any other white person I know have participated in anything that would cause such guilt. Oblabba is totally unqualified to be President yet many Americans will vote for him simply because he is black as a way to attone for their feelings of "white guilt." Obama's lack of character, truthfulness, experience,and his questionable judgement and associations make no difference to this block of voters. Obama is dangerous for America.
June 25, 2008

4:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

Drilling Oil--

Wake up people,

they will never drill, why...? because it's much more beneficial to keep the debate going on here at the dead bottom. Keeps the common people arguing endlessly. Racism is another great issue..but I'm sure we'll be getting back to that later so...

Their is not enough oil left in the world to keep up with current demand. Nothing significant has been found in the last 3o years...As comforting an idea as that would be that the magic hidden oil pit is conveniently right next door...it's totally unrealistic...and completely unfounded!

You mean to tell me that in this one area the micro government has been standing up to the bigger corporations telling it , "NO". That's laughable! If there was real oil or gas to be had...some corporation would be in there right now sponging it out from under your feet from next door if they had to. And if our government was in the way, they would have bought those individuals out years ago.

Your argument is typical, divisive, and diversionary of the real problems we face.

dead issue

Why is it a "fossil" fuel? Because fossils are everywhere?! Not quite friends. If there is so much of it maybe you should go out right now and start digging in your own back yard. Prove to me it's here! Show me some evidence thats all? That is,.. if a international provider doesn't already own the future rights to your land.

If there is a chance you have anything...the power company probably owns the rights to it...Oh well

I wish they would just dig already..but they won't..because then you would see...there is nothing there! Keep arguing.
June 25, 2008

5:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Oil companies lease very large areas in hopes a fraction of it contain oil.
Would you be O.K. with letting the Oil companies swap the existing leased land for the land in ANWAR?"

you already asked me this. my answer is why would we allow oil companies to stockpile perfectly vialbe resources in order to make a case that they are justified in tapping contested lands like anwr?

i'm even for giving them tax breaks for encouragement to drill on these current resources immediately. i'd be all for allowing them the opportunity to readdress their needs for new leases should they hit certain production quotas using lands already at their disposal.

this would increase supply and forego the stalemate over places like anwar.
June 25, 2008

5:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

MajorTom writes:

I think Nader is right on, but could have said it in a better way.

Simply put, while Obama was being touted as the 1st black candidate by the media while Clinton was hailed as the 1st female candidate, we haven't heard from Obama speaking directly to the Black community. It does indeed come across as avoiding the discussion of issues which are very relavent to the Black community.

Furthermore, while there are still a lot of people in the US which may not feel comfortable with electing a Black President, Nader continues, "Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic."

A cutting commentary to a questionable circumstance.
June 25, 2008

5:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Caroline32201 writes:

I love that it's "talking white" when he speaks our language the way it was meant to be spoken. How about "talking American" or "talking English"? White people butcher our language just as much as blacks (our current president is a glowing example of that). Obama would be foolhardy to focus the entire breadth of his campaign on issues that for some reason mainstream America sees only in a "Black" and "White" context (payday loans, asbestos, lead, etc.) for one main reason: blacks are not going to be the singular race that ensures his presidency and even if they were, focusing on those supposedly "Black" issues would disenfranchise the black voters who do not share any of the hardships Mr. Nader seems to think all blacks endure. Obama should focus his efforts on appeasing the population that is largest and votes the most. And no, I'm not talking racially, I mean economically speaking, because as we all know, money is the new race. If poor people (poor blacks, poor whites, and any other "poor" color you'd like to throw out there) were the largest population that voted, he would focus on issues dear to them. Conversely, if rich people were the largest voting block, he would focus on issues dear to them. This is the problem every American candidate has had to, and will have to face: balancing the needs and wants of all of the diverse populations of America. And, yeah, he doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson; Jesse Jackson was never president. Why would you model your campaign after failed past campaigns? Nader: stop being a campaign spoiler. I'm all for three parties in America but only if that third party contributes to the experience. Nader is like that kid who reminds the teacher about homework.
June 25, 2008

5:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

lou writes:

When he attacks the white republican candidate, on the same topics, he'll have some credibility. Until then, his only legacy will be helping to get white republican men elected to the presidency. Why would anybody believe that his motives are otherwise, when being on the ticket only takes votes away from the only other person in a position to win. Nader, it's time to just shut up and fade into oblivion.
June 25, 2008

5:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

Trollstein-

Proportional representation was one of the Green Party's major goals in 1996. That might be what you remember in regards to the Tim Russert interview and something about getting a %. Check it out...it still makes the most sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proporti...

Here is another interview of Ralph Nader in 1996 which addresses directly why he was running. Here's your answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quSaeM...

Very Important
June 25, 2008

5:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

ok..I guess I'm not supposted to post links...
so... in you tube type Green Party 1996 Convention - Nader interviews (part 2)
June 25, 2008

5:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

End racism!! & ageism

VOTE NADER/GONZALES 2008!!

Peace
June 25, 2008

5:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

moneyrakerx writes:

The stupidity on this forum is unreal. If you idiots actually read the article, you'd realize Nader explained what he meant by 'talking white'. "I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law," Nader said. "Haven't heard a thing."

Now, I think Nader is a complete tool and I'm happy he'll take away votes from this Marxist fool Obama Bin Ly'n, but lets try not to place the race card whenever someone makes a comment about Obamination.
June 25, 2008

6:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

lou writes:

moneyrakerx,

Why is it the number one thing a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should do? Haven't heard a thing from McCain about this topic. I mean we are talking about Americans here, yes? All of these poor people Nader is talking about are American citizens. The President, is president of the whole country, which includes all Americans regardless of color, crede or religion, yes? Why would only an African American candidate be responsible for speaking up for them? Or, is this actually more telling. In omitting the Republican presumptive nominee, is he actually making the point that they don't care about the poor at all? But, then everybody already knows that, I guess.
June 25, 2008

6:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

tomas writes:

White guilt leads to an opening for reparations. Believe me if this dangerous man is elected with his party's control of both houses he will attempt to pass a bill authorizing all Americans to pay the Black race reparations. That should cause fear & trembling in addition to his other tax proposals. God help us!
June 25, 2008

7:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

$.02 writes: "... if I were retarded ..."

I laughed so hard I almost fell out of my chair ... you mean you aren't?

Just kidding, but you sure opened yourself up for that one.

The reality of this election (and every election before and after) is that all political candidates are pawns to corporate interests and no single candidate will ever be able to effect any change without the support of those corporate interests. The notion of "Talking white", as presented by Nader, will inevitably occur regardless of candidate.
June 25, 2008

7:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

wholy crap ... retraction ... it was not $.02 ... deepest apologies for my critical error ...

in fact it was sixtynine

Man, I wish I hadn't screwed that one up ... :)
June 25, 2008

7:44 p.m.

meathead writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
June 25, 2008

7:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

the answer is obviously no, shaggy....we shouldn't give oil companies more land until they've used the land given them already. i was trying to walk you through the steps to a logical position on the matter, but it apparently went way over your head.

"Do you think we should elect a person that has racial views against another group of people?"

did you mean "racist" views?

policy stances.

"Do you think a white person could be elected to the Senate or the Presidency if he/she said "this is typical of Black people"."

could care less. policy stances.

"Do you really think Obama is a Uniter when he has belonged to a Church that is dedicated to Africa and black people?"

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/...

is there anything else shaggy...i've answered your question about allowing oil companies to continue stockpiling leases....so please...tell me why we shouldn't take a path like the one i've laid out.
June 25, 2008

9:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

DavidBenAriel writes:

Hussein's own book confesses he learned how to talk to white people, proving he's a wolf in sheep's clothing, and a very dangerous deceiver. Regardless, this still rings true:

"I will say, then, that I AM NOT NOR HAVE EVER BEEN in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever FORBID the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."
- Abraham Lincoln

http://beyondbabylon.blogspot.com/200...
Abraham Lincoln Was A White Supremacist
June 25, 2008

10:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

cruz3d writes:

To vudomom:

Your post was right on. It really has bothered me over the years of the pc hyphenization of Americans. We are all Americans first. Unless you were born in another country and then came to the states, then you have that right. Native Americans are the only group from here that have the right as well; this was theirs.

The term African-American is a term I refuse to use. I'm not some old fuddy-duddy but it is out of respect that I refuse to use that term. There are three reasons as to why. One, I find it to be dehumanizing and degrading to hyphenate a human being. Second, half of blacks in this country do not like the term and third, Africans are offended by the term.

We will never be a country as one until we realize that we are all Americans first no matter what our heritage is.
June 25, 2008

10:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Edson writes:

Jay says follow his plan. Apparently he doesn't know where oil comes from. Probably never uses any.
June 26, 2008

2:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

xesenta writes:

well - AT LEAST nader is doing some critical path thinking. "white" america is pretty far gone. after the Reagan era, anyone darker than George Hamilton was S.O.L.! its "ok" to be racist now - and plus, whites have that nifty "race card" phrase from the OJ fiasco, to use as a ruse, and abrogate their BIAS.

this is a small sample of what is to come for Senator Barry!!

Hang in there, daddy o!
June 26, 2008

4 a.m.

Suggest removal

jonkolbe writes:

You see; Obama does not need to court the African American vote, he doesn't need to - he's in. He is targeting the demographics he needs. That's all.

Good luck Ralph! It isn't fun if it's easy!
June 26, 2008

6:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sankhara50 writes:

Obama is so racist, you're living a dream if you can't tell. He went to a a racist church for almost 20 years, where the Reverend foams at the mouth about Jews. He is now slanting toward Palestinians and Iranians being aggressors by nature. Of course, the small town white folk are clinging to guns. You know he meant white people. His campaign now doesn't want him around Muslims because he's trying to give a "tight message".
- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/us/...

He appologized personally for this one though, so maybe he didn't mean it...
- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/...

The problem with Obama racism is you can't tell who he's racist against. Is it everyone but modern mainstream business dressed blacks?

Was he lying in his Rev Wright days, just to get the political backing in Chicago? Is just lying now for the Jewish lobby support? Is really going to promote peace, and stick to fair principles, or just side with who will give him the most money and power at any given point.

Do we need even a minute to consider that? I think Nader is the only one with integrity and the fearlessness to say what we're thinking.

Black Guilt is when you think "It'd be nice if we had a black president", and it has nothing to do with the man's qualifications. What is underneath that thought is Black Guilt. Not wanting to dig deeper to see why you're thinking this is Black Guilt. Somehow, thinking a black president will make things better on that basis alone is Black Guilt. It means you know blacks have gotten the shaft, but you don't really want to deal with it, so this band aid makes it better. Not calling Obama on his racism, could possibly be black guilt.
June 26, 2008

7:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sankhara50 writes:

I meant to say "white guilt", but you get the idea, I hope. Either way, it's pointless. Blacks are suffering the same crisis. I guess you can call it "Minority Guilt". There's finally an option of a "Black President", but it's Obama, who's ashamed of and disowns his affiliations of the past 20 years. He has no qualifications except pandering for special interests. He has his "former" lobbyists bundling enormous amounts of "small donor" money, but right now our best reasoning is "don't ask don't tell". Wright is an angry racist, but, that was bred from some valid concerns of how our society is run, all of which Obama is now ignoring to pander to the next crowd.

Nader has been trying to get the same valid parts of Wright's issues, and those complained about by many AAs recognized for a long time, so I imagine he can only be disappointed that the first AA candidate ignores them as well, especially since Obama must have agreed with Wright on some thing in the past 20 years, I would hope. Nader is not just panderng double talk though, as he's been consistantly for the citizens for years.
June 26, 2008

7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

hemnebob writes:

ralph has become more than a thorn in today's political arena.
he not only tries to stop the process, he wants to change it to serve his own agenda...not that his ideas are bad, they aren't but it takes
much more than his frustration and dissatisfaction to make changes necessary to please him. i liked ralph...always did but today he
is more like a very unhappy child that just plain wants things his way and ignore anything else. what obama is striving for is change and this change might be more effective than what ralph has been fighting for as there is alot of strategy and strength that i feel obama possesses rather than what ralph tries to do.

ralph...you are over.
now it's time to utilize your energy into really helping mankind rather than just being radical and approaching things in the ways you are choosing today!!

get over yourself.
plus i think you are just getting old and angry.
June 26, 2008

8:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sankhara50 writes:

He is old and angry. He should be, he's been fighting to help the citizens get back their government for decades.
Just because you want to give up on an America that doesn't send people to die for oil and political purposes they can't bother the people with the truth about, doesn't mean we've all given up.
He does look a little goofy, I'll give you that.
He's done more to protect the poor and educate about discrimination than Obama has for sure.
So are you just against independent thought, or Nader's brand of lobbying, to get us the Freedom of Information Act, Wholesome Meat Act, Center for Study of Responsive Law and other things instead of trying to send us to war to make money for a select few?
June 26, 2008

8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Bradley_R_Cook writes:

Is that the best that Ralphie can do, for crying out loud? "Talk white?" Nader had better come up with something substantial if he wants to criticize Obama; right now his statements reflect more poorly on Nader than they do on Obama.
June 26, 2008

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sankhara50 writes:

Seriously, Nader has done way better. That was probably just to get your attention, since nothing else seems to. People seem willing to give their freedom away to somebody who will keep the patriot act, telecom wiretap immunity, money control of politics, seemingly just because he's black or people aren't aware there's another option. You don't believe all that
War:
Obama - Yes to bombing Iran, No to holding Israel to similar standards.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics...
Nader - Ummm... Maybe this biased, unilateral support is part of the problem.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/middl...

Discrimination:
Obama - Discriminating against Muslims, asking them not to sit in front of him with the camera, while acting like racism doesn't exist.
http://www.latimes.com/business/caree...
Nader - Giving talks to fellow Arab Americans on how to deal with it better.
http://www.washington-report.org/arch...

Come on, wake up people. Do you want more, or do we go back to pretending this isn't going on? Do we want somebody who is going to deal with the real issues, or do we just want a Black president that will make us feel better about them for a little while? Do we really want to even get into Obama being real about getting the power of money out of politics?
June 26, 2008

9:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

redwoodsforever writes:

As a young activist starting out in Chicago, Obama worked with Nader on the local level to improve his community. He obviously admires Ralph Nader's work. As far as Ralph Nader's comments about "talking white", it has nothing to do with the way he talks but more about more the content of his comments (or lack of content). Is Obama addressing the economic plight of the Black communities where asbestos and lead remain in rentals, where the unemployment rate among young Black males is much higher, about the high prevalence of liquor stores in Black communities and lack of grocery stores, usury rates on loans, extremely high rate of incarceration of black youth and high poverty levels (why aren't we having a discussion about poverty in the U.S. period?). It's as if the poor - white and black are invisible. Nader's views aren't popular and they are definitely difficult (there is no easy fix here - words of change are one thing but digging deep, looking in the mirror and making the necessary changes to get off of fossil fuels, get out of Iraq, provide single-payer healthcare for all, not taking money from corporate interests - period - that is what is required to make the necessary changes in America). With 50% of every tax dollar going to the military -industrial complex, there is obviously enough money to make these social improvements; the American people lack the will to make these changes. At least Nader has the courage to ask the questions.
June 26, 2008

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

redwoodsforever writes:

NADER RESPONDS TO OBAMA

Ralph Nader released the following statement in response to Senator
Obama:

Senator Obama said earlier today that I haven't been paying attention
to his campaign.

Actually, I have.

And it's clear from Senator Obama's campaign that he is not willing to
tackle the white power structure--whether in the form of the corporate
power structure or many of the super-rich--who are taking advantage of
100 million low income Americans who are suffering in poverty or near
poverty.

Senator Obama is opposed to single-payer national health insurance.

Why?

Because he favors the health insurance giants over the millions of
Americans in poverty or near poverty who are uninsured or
under-insured. Eighteen thousand Americans die every year because they
cannot afford health insurance, according to the Institute of Medicine.

Senator Obama wants to expand the military budget which is loaded with
waste, fraud and abuse--instead of cutting it and investing the
long-ignored peace dividend in the inner cities with good jobs and
public works--including schools, clinics, and libraries.

Why?

Because he fears and favors those thousands of lobbyists in charge of
enlarging the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower
warned us against.

Senator Obama says he favors a living wage. But he doesn't say he would
immediately increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour, which is the
equivalent of the 1968 minimum wage adjusted for inflation, because by
doing so he would offend the big corporations who exploit labor in
places like Wal-Mart and fast food chains. (The minimum wage needs to
be increased immediately, not phased in over a number of years, as
Senator Obama would have it.)

So Senator Obama, let's get specific.

We're looking for deeds, not, as Shakespeare put it, words, words, mere
words. Your public career, which I have also been paying attention to,
is long on words, and short on action when it comes to consumer
protection, cracking down on corporate crime, curbing the violence of
toxic environmental racism, and extending clean, affordable public
transit, among other issues.

For the purposes of the here and now, three things:

One, why don't you support single-payer national health insurance,
which is supported by a majority of doctors and the American people?

Two, why do you favor expanding the military budget which is replete
with waste, fraud and abuse?

And three, why don't you come out and support an immediate increase of
the minimum wage to $10 an hour? When can we expect the authenticity of
hope and change?
June 26, 2008

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

it's sad to see people blindly following the talking heads on this one and clinging to emotional conspiracies about racism.

all of these candidates are under a microscope in regards to race this election for the obvious reasons. let's all take a deep, collective breath and remember that none of this hoopla translates to an example of racism on a policy level.

be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
June 26, 2008

11:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sankhara50 writes:

Obama is kind of using racism though, so we should address the bigger picture. They don't want people to use black sock puppets because it's racism, even though characatures have existed for years. He gives speeches on how his unique half black half whiteness gives him extra understanding for change and hope. That means we should question what that really means.
http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Con...
I think it should somehow relate to the discrimination that even the Obama campaign is carrying out.
I think it should somehow relate to Obama's pandering to special interest groups, since someone should warn him of the environmental racism that went on during the Clinton Administration.
http://godlessliberalhomo.blogspot.co...

The Democrats have obstructed third party options for years, claiming they're the party for the people.
That's just not true. If they want the mantle though, somebody like Nader should at least remind them of some the deep issues going on, since it seems like few people are speaking out, or they are being drowned by out by the dollars.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/o...
June 26, 2008

noon

Suggest removal

Arnie writes:

Hey, Uncle Ralphie, here's the juice:

1. Strictly speaking Obama is not half African American. He is a full blooded African-American. His dad was African. His Mom was American. It does not take a geneticist to figure that out. So I am thinking you are just as daft as ever you were.

2. Stop shirking responsibility for W., for 43; hence, for global warming, Katrina, Iraq, Tax breaks for Billionaires, 9 Trillion in U.S. debt etc. etc. etc. W. is 100% Your fault, Mr. Nader. W. is 100% your monster. You enabled his presidency and the disasters that have followed are yours to share. Your legacy, if you will. Seriously.

3. All of your goody-two-shoes policies for the blackpoor, miss the point that one does not run on minority platforms, you dolt. Once you get in 1600 PA Ave. then you see what you can do. But going up against Rove's "Souther Strategy" which gave us Tricky, Ronnie, Bush's: 41 & 43, and all the mayhem that is fit to print, going up against said Southern Strategy on a platform of helping blacks is not even stupid, it shows that you are in a persistent vegetative state, and fairly histrionic, too.

What more can I say, except you are one self-indulgent, self-derivative man, whose greatest accomplishments are behind him, and who whilst in a febrile state, is attempting to Jesse-like get the spotlight directed upon himself one more time. You've become sad caricature of Ralph Nader, old timer.

Please stop making such an annoying fool of yourself.

Please, do everyone, including yourself, a big favor.

Please, just go away.

Sincerely,
Arnold Tracey
Ottawa,ON/Wash.D.C.
June 26, 2008

12:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

lspiller writes:

These comments Nader has made in reference to Obama and his supposed lack of attention to issues confronting the black community, poverty, and rural America lets me know that Nader has not done his homework and his comments really comes off as racist.

Nader and others who bemoan Obama's lack of details in the media over how he will manage the country need only read his "Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan for America" (http://www.barackobama.com/downloads/).

This document, along with a similar publication "Keeping America's Promise: Strengthening the Middle Class," has been on his website since he announced his campaign for any citizen to review. Many of the themes in each publication overlap, which shows the consistency in Obama's vision.

The problem is people, particularly pundits and politicos like Nader, don't want to take the time to read. They prefer to use the media as a soapbox for their own ambitions, feeding on the dissemination of manipulated sound bites designed to reach an electorate they have determined possesses a 4th grade voting literacy.

Regarding Obama's connection with the Black community, it is now common knowledge that Obama could have started his legal career with a comfortable 6-figure salary right out of law school. Instead of taking this track, Obama opted to work in Chicago as a community organizer on the Southside. People, it gets no blacker than that if you are trying to determine if Obama has any street creds with the black community.

I'll bet a nickel to a dime that Nader has never found himself in the black community working on behalf of the issues he claims Obama neglects, so his remarks are hypocritical. I used to respect Ralph Nader and his right to run for the presidency as an Independent in our two-party democracy but now I see him as no better than those who are only interested in their own good and not the common good of "We, The People."

And by the way, I am a black man with a white name (Linus), who grew up in a black community in a predominately black and violent Michigan city, attended a white university in Texas, and am often accused of talking white because I choose to speak correct grammar and exercise the command of the English language I possess.

I refuse to dumb down myself to fit a racial caricature that is comfortable for others. I applaud Obama for doing the same and staying in touch with the issues of black America. I support him and wish him well in his White House bid.
June 26, 2008

1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sankhara50 writes:

Nobody says Obama doesn't talk a good talk. You can't trust anything he says though, unless you just "want to believe", for no good reason.
His plans mean squat if he can't stand by anything. He talks about stopping special interest control, but his Chicago days show him a true player of the game. His chief strategists are K-Street thoroughbreds, through and through. He talks peace and pro Palestine one day, and the next commits to Israel to protect them from the Palestinian reign of destruction. I'm just saying, if talking the talk is the only thing that matters to you, how are any of them different from each other?
Obviously you didn't read the rest of what he said, if you think "talking white" has anything to do with grammar. It just means Obama pandered to Wright's group for 20 years, and now that he doesn't need them, he's going back on that and pandering to the next one. Which is the real Obama? The applauder of anti-Jew rhetoric, the proponent of the lobbyist driven anti-consumer CAFA bill because it "didn't protect consumers enough", the high dollar wheeler and dealer who is limiting the role of money in politics, the good time money friend of Tony Rezko's Iraq shenanigans, the mentor of notorious Emil Jones, the understanding Arab/African/White American, the guys who voted for Iraq funding, or the one who voted against it later, the guy who said he would talk to Iran unconditionally, or the guy who later said he wouldn't ? I guess with so many Obamas to pick from, no wonder he's so popular. Unfortunately, it means nobody can trust anything he says is real, if you want to go by his record. Didn’t he just promise in writing to do public financing? No, that was just a mistake, because it doesn’t really do enough to limit the role of money. ChaChing.

Nader on the other hand has lobbied for consumer protection and safety while Obama was learning how to give sermons and play dirty Chicago politics. If you want to blame somebody for Bush, what about the people who actually voted for him? Why'd they make that choice, if they had better options anyway? If you want to stop McCain, how about educating people that there are better options. You can't just force them to vote Obama by restricting other options and other ideas, as the DNC has been doing. Maybe that’s why they’re losing, playing this fake shadow boxing debate game.
June 26, 2008

1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sankhara50 writes:

Sorry. Obama seems the protege of Emil Jones and Reverend Wright, but I doubt he'll give these guys any credit now that he doesn't need them. All these Obamas get me confused. Good thing they're selective about what gets front page or America would probably be as confused and concerned as I am by now.
June 26, 2008

3:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

lol....we've had muslim, terrorist, satanist, communist, fascist, elitist, anti-american, terrorist appeaser, socialist, schizo (according to nankhara) and now...arrogant according to rush and the other puppet masters...coming to a blog near you...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/2...

whatever it takes to keep from talking about republican policy stances and the Track Record, right folks?
June 26, 2008

5:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sankhara50 writes:

Unfortunately he's all too easy to stereotype.
A politician that will say anything, who's word is no good. All the plans his big money boys can post mean nothing in that light.
June 26, 2008

8:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sankhara50 writes:

McCain's just as bad though. Nader has stood his ground for decades. At least you can trust that. In a way, he's what Democrats want to be, while Ron Paul was what Republicans liked. Can we change our options on our own?
June 26, 2008

10:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

neaguy writes:

It is telling that hardly anyone who commented responded to Ralph's correct charges about how Obama ignores the most important issues facing the black community.
June 26, 2008

11:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

chiy writes:

Sankhara50,

Nobody (including Obama) is disputing Nader's long a fruitful career as a consumer advocate. What people are saying now is that he should go back to what he know best: consumer advocacy.

I voted for Nader in 2000 in order to garner matching funds for the Greens. But Nader is now officially done. Enough. He tried. I salute him for his effort and his career, but he's not even a viable fringe presidential candidate who can earn enough votes for matching funds any more. I'd vote for Obama, I'd vote Green, but I'm done with Nader.

He's officially become crotchety. He doesn't come across as caring about black folks or the inner cities; he comes across as opportunistic... thinking that black people have a distinctive way of talking or campaigning or constructing political platforms.

Obama may be a racial sellout, as Nader says, but Nader obviously has no clue if or why this is true. Here's why: if Nader thinks that lead paint or asbestos are burning issues in the African American community that should be at the forefront of the Obama campaign, it shows how out of touch Nader is. Those two problems are important in all cities, but they aren't kitchen table issues in most black households any more than they are in white households. This is why Nader is a successful consumer advocate and Obama is a successful presidential candidate. Obama could yet be the former if he is elected. Nader will never the be latter since he'll never be elected. He just don't know.
June 27, 2008

12:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

ItsTimeForTheWholeTruth writes:

Mr. Nader had been a powerful force for good throughout almost all of my life. It is truly heartbreaking to realize that over roughly the last decade he has been losing his battle with increasingly frequent bouts of progressive dementia.

Because these sad episodes eventually come to pass to even the former best, brightest, and most productive, I think we should all take long and careful pause before we ever again consider casting a vote for the aged candidate.
June 27, 2008

6:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sankhara50 writes:

chiy,
True, Nader did a lot of good a as a consumer advocate during his many, many years fighting for things like the Freedom of Information act and better citizen control of government. However, he has said that culture is finally gone from Washington. The lobbyist have finally overrun Washington, to the point there's nothing the citizens can do to affect it but take it back, and as a lifelong "lobbyist" of American citizen rights, safety, peace and education, I do trust his word on this, because it matches the obvious. I'd be surprised if he hasn't been getting increasingly frustrated. I only look at it now and then and it makes me sad and hopeless sometimes.

Anybody who knows anything about Trinity and Wright knows they are very pro-black, anti-Jew, pro-Palestine, aware of issues like disproportionate poverty and racial profiling, and Obama's 20 years implied that he may say something. Certainly he gave no indication to many that the day after his nominee, he would begin changing his talk to give an APAIC speech blaming the Palestinians for the conflict, promise more unilateral aid to Israel, change his mind about meeting with Iran unconditionally, and start the buildup to war already. Add that to his connections to Rezko's Iraq ventures, Obama's big money campaign designed to look like a grassroots movement, his going back on his pledge to do public financing, etc., and there are just too many lies around the idea that he's trying to clean anything up. He's slicker than most, and a better talker than most, and those things don’t speak hope or change to me.

That's why we need people like Nader to challange the others to be better, or give us a better choice. Suppressing third parties allows the "democrats" and "republicans" to just get worse and worse. The league of women voters gave up 20 years ago on the debates, because they are now staged shams controlled by the two "parties". You do realize the Green party has been co-opted by the democrats and the libertarian by the republicans just in case this year, so tell me our better choice. McKinney goes on about how momentous Obama’s campaign is, while Barr is well, just Barr.
http://www.wisebread.com/why-league-o...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pre...
June 27, 2008

8:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

shakahislop writes:

Spot on analysis, Ralph. This country is so mind-numbingly immature and unsophisticated when it comes to politics and especially the politics of race.
June 27, 2008

11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

Fact is all you are in the U.S. is a consumer. Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate. Obama & McCain are corporate advocates.
Obama and Clinton during a debate last winter were asked if the presidency should be treated like a chief executive officer. Obama and Clinton both agreed that the position of president should be treated like that of a CEO. Are you serious? Didn't you watch that? Or did you not have too....did other factors make up your mind for you...outside of the stated positions?

Ralph Nader thinks the position of president should be like a shop steward representing the people against the corporate powers that control this and other governments.

Obama & McCain beleive that the position should be to quell the people..act as public relations for the corporations that control the people.

The people of this country need a consumer advocate as president...not a CEO.

Why isn't Obama supporting Canadian style single payer health care?

Why is he selling insurance?!

Obama has said he wants to see the military budget grow!!!
ARe you kidding!?

tell me...

If Nader is wrong about Obama....

you tell me what is the real "CHANGE"?! Get real...what are you seeing?

good luck....in the end, I'll bet your answer will be real close to Naders observation.

At best you can say he's more electable..
so were Gore and Kerry right..
June 27, 2008

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

user123 writes:

Ralph Nader,

Who are you do determine the plight of a black man? Your view of Barack Obama and the Black American is skewed. I would like to know if you could descried the difference between “white talk” or “talking white” and “black talk.” When did being educated and having the ability to use proper English become a “white thing”? Obama talks about Political issues and according to your statements African Americans are poor, abused by the police and live in ghetto housing. Political issues that affect America as a whole are to complex for the average African Americans to understand. I am offended at your outrageous accusations.

If Presidential candidates are expected to center there campaign solely on the struggles of their race then I am utterly disappointed in McCain, Bush, Clinton, and all other white Presidents or Presidential Nominees who have never campaigned in the trailer parks of America.

In case you missed the validity of the Civil Right Movement allow me to offer a brief recap. Black is a color. It can not be define by education, economic status, or “talk.” The color of a man’s skin has nothing to do with the content of his character. There is not a special code for being black. You have deeply insulted me, my heritage and all of those who have lived, fault, and died in the civil war and in the Civil Rights Movement for the rights of equality to all men. And I would advice that you, as an American Politician, think a little harder about the statements you choose to make the next time you open your mouth to speak.

Sincerely,
An Average Black American
June 27, 2008

1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sankhara50 writes:

Please don't try to make blacks look bad, by claiming you're an "Average Black American". You did not even read more than a sound bite if you think what Nader said had anything to do with Grammar. My guess is you are not an average black man, because many average Americans have been lied to enough to read the rest of the sentence first.
Also, black, white or red, Obama did a flip flop with his almost 20 years at Trinity, and then disowning them without even giving addressing what legitimate concerns they had. Now he's against Palestinian’s mistreatment of Jews and promoting war with Iran. Call it what you will, flip flop, double speak, pandering to the crowd, it doesn't matter.
June 27, 2008

8:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Kay, the courts probably won't hear your case because you don't learn enough about the rules and procedures to know how to present it. You have to know enough about the rules and procedures to present your case properly, or the other side will just be able to shoot you down on technicalities and procedural issues. Then you are wasting everyone's time. Obama's a lawyer; he's not too likely to empathize with people who just want to go to court and start talking. Even Nader, deluded as he is, isn't going to run on reforming the judiciary. Presidents run the Executive Branch, not the Judicial. Every president gets to appoint some federal judges, but I have no idea what types of judges may have an interest in opening up the courts to non-attorneys. None of them seem to like having their time wasted, so I wouldn't be too hopeful.
June 28, 2008

1:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

cakeckh writes:

Obama has an advantage over all of his opponents...he can be black when he needs the votes and can be white when he needs the cash.
June 28, 2008

7:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

user123 writes:

Dear Sankhara50,

My letter is not about grammar. My letter is about the implication Nader made saying that if Obama wanted to appeal to black Americans he should do more campaigning in the ghettos and should center his message around crime and poverty. That is a very raciest statement. I am an average black American and I don't appreciate anyone implying that because I am black my major issues and concerns are centered around the ghetto and poverty. It does not matter if I am black, white, read, blue, or yellow. My issues are no different then the rest of societies and to imply so is worng.

Did you read Nader's statement in its entirety?
June 28, 2008

8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

user123 writes:

Dear Sankhara50,

I thought about it and you are right about one thing. I am not an average black American. I am an Average American. But I am still deeply insulted by Nader's comments.

The good news for you is; you don't have to agree with me inorder for my points to be valid.
June 28, 2008

12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

OBAMA:
"The Great White Hope"

For folks who consider themselves firstly as"white"then human/American later they believe OBAMA is their chance to prove once and for all that they are simply not racist. They believe that this will prove to the "blacks" in the United States, and terrorists abroad, that they are good people who oversee an equal opportunity country. Ok, so now we can wrap up any uncomfortable discussions in regards to racism. Blindly optimistic, probably never considered themselves racist but now they are blinded by a skin tone. For these folks once they realize the mistake Obama is they'll just blame the "black" part of him.

For peeps who consider themselves firstly as"black"then human/American later they believe Obama is their chance to prove once and for all; they are equal. They believe that this will prove unequivocally to themselves, the "whites", and terrorists abroad, that they are working hard and making some changes that will make this a better world for everyone. They have disregarded any signals received from Obama's posturing & solid position statements thus far. Blindly optimistic, probably never considered themselves racist but now they are blinded by a skin tone. For these folks once they realize the mistake Obama is they'll just blame him for being part "white".

BOTH satisfied & self classified "whites and blacks" have subscribed to the OBAMA myth: Once elected he will do so much more than what he has promised thus far.

Right now its OK that Obama:
won't consider Impeachment
won't promise us superior health care( & not insurance!)
takes so much money from insurance/drug companies/defense contractors
has a more hawkish approach to IRAN & Isreal & Palestine than McCain
wants to expand the military budget
is just another Republicrat promising nothing but continued status quo under the insulting guise of "Change"?!

Foolish "whites & blacks" believe that because OBAMA's skin is dark, he is inherently not going to be like the "old white devil" that has ruined everything. Am I right all you non-racists?!
June 28, 2008

1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

What Nader effectively vocalized was how obviously unauthentic OBAMA is! And he's absolutely 100% correct in his assessment.

Ralph Nader's a racist...you know that almost got me there... Until I ACTUALLY READ WHAT HE SAID! Americans are almost that simplistic. It's just going to be that easy this round. Those democrats are soooo unpredictable.(-sarcasm for those of you who just don't get it) Just had to paint the noisemaker as a racist...well how convenient. That is some Bulletproof "change" I can believe in. Democrats can count on my vote....all ten of them... and that my fellow Americans I promise.

The DNC and republicratic sharp shooters beg you to have Ralph Nader dismissed as a "racist". Unfortunately they have failed and can’t manipulate history. Others have been watching. It's not just the American Idiots being molested here. It's the whole concept of democracy that is being tested.

Stop suppressing Nader. Let him debate! If he's a racist...then a good old fashion televised debate will steal all of his votes from him. The Democrats will get their landslide.

What is the "Change" you believe in Democrats? Why not share with me?

Some of us don't see it. So are we racist?! That's convenient.
The powers that be are perfectly aware that racism is a golden wedge issue. Wedge issues nullify the ability for some to maintain critical thinking abilities. Forces will use it and on some of us because it often works.
Others realize that in this context the accusation of racism will only be diversionary....kind of like uhhhh...gay marriage..

Nader is a greater American hero than all the other candidates that have run in the last three races combined. And this is not because he is light skinned, not because his parents were Lebanese working class immigrants, but because he has taken on the giants time and time again taking shots like a martyr. I and countless others admire Nader for his lifelong commitment and refusal to stand down while the opposition continues to grow stronger and change appearance.
I cannot admire anyone else currently in the political arena. They skillfully spin vague language, are masters of rhetoric & will make whatever alliances necessary to confirm personal victory. They will even capitalize on the idiocy of racism.

Peace & Let Ralph Debate!
June 29, 2008

1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sankhara50 writes:

123,
I know I didn't take the time to discuss everything you said, and I apologize for not admitting you had valid points. I took issue with you even throwing in the comment indicating Nader was telling Obama he needed to use Ebonics to be authentically "Black". Nader said no such thing and it seemed to be completely about the empty rhetoric and avoidance of central poor and undemocratic issues in the US that I've heard from many a poor Black, Hispanic and even White person. I completely acted like you said only that though. I can understand, aside from that, having issue with any "White" guy telling somebody how to be Black. Obama was in Trinity almost 20 years though, that does make it seem like he's now ignoring and even changing his position on a whole set of issues, that can possibly be described as changing his stance to appeal to the current status quo.

Nader gets hardly any media attention, except for the worst possible sound bite they can give him, even though he's fought more for the civic rights of poor and middle class Americans, Black, White, and what-not, than anybody I know. I kind of am starting to respect the green party again a little though. At first I was a little surprised that Cynthia McKinney seemed a little pro-Obama at first, but she was really just congratulating him for being the first Black nominee of a major party, and not mentioning any concerning aspects of his PR campaign and history. Congratulation’s probably not the place for those concerns though. I haven't heard her mention it, but I found out the Green Party is at least challenging Obama's pro-war flip-flop on Iran. It would be nice if we would let Nader, Barr, and McKinney join Obama and McCain in debate these coming months. The problem with 2 party debates is they're kind of fake these days. It would at least challange the 2 main candidates to answer real questions with real answers, instead of just getting spoon fed sound bites or ignoring what they want.

http://www.greenpartywatch.com/2008/0...
June 29, 2008

10:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

redwhiteandBLUE writes:

Ralph Nader has always been for the "consumer". That was his niche.
He may have been a good president back then, but didn't make it .
It's too late now..he's tired..like MCSame..tired.
June 29, 2008

10:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sankhara50 writes:

Nader's pretty spunky actually. I admit, dealing with Congress and trying to get things straightened out would probably be tiresome for anybody. He'd last 4 years and pass the torch quickly, is my guess. Obama's kind of like a new face on the same old same old. It makes him seem like a desperate face lift on an aging system. Nader's the future, eventually, even if it's not him. People taking back the government is inevitable, if we're all to survive.
June 30, 2008

11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

herbertlili writes:

As the democratic convention approaches, many potential out-of-town visitors are finding that housing is not as readily available as initially anticipated. We have found a source for both luxury and more affordable housing in downtown Denver and along the light rail corridor. If you have yet to find adequate lodging for the convention, I would try www.democraticconventionhousing.com , a company out of Denver and Vail that specializes in corporate and short term rentals. They put our group up in the Glasshouse condo building, a few blocks formt the Pepsi Center and we are stoked!!
June 30, 2008

1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

user123 writes:

Sankhara50,

I understand the validity in your arguments and you are right Nader's track record is a good one. Maybe Nader just caught a bad break. I can respect The Green Party.
June 30, 2008

7:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

ElliotJar writes:

Quick question for all of you die hard Obama / Democrat fans:

If we go to war with IRAN NOW...

Then how will you defend Obama & the democrats decision not to impeach the most impeachable presidents in history?
July 1, 2008

8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sankhara50 writes:

Hi user123,
The propaganda machine really pulled out all the stops here to pit whites against blacks. Obama did make a big deal of being half black and half white. I think he said it helped him understand better the problems facing on both sides better or something like that. So Nader mentions he didn't see the difference that was making, and mentioned what he thought were some issues facing much of Black America in particular, maybe some sort of disproportionate poverty and lack of proper legal protection and representation maybe.

Of course, he doesn't know anything. He's just some white guy who's been fighting for the poor and middle class forever.
July 1, 2008

8:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sankhara50 writes:

User123,
I respect the Green Party too. They're going through a strange time right now, trying to re-establish democracy in their own party too for the moment, but they're still better than any party I know currently. More voices and options can only help our democracy right now.

http://www.draftnader.org/
July 22, 2008

6:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

lionheart209 writes:

Nader is absolutely right! Obama is a lousy choice for a nominee.
He is unintelligent, insincere and panders to which ever crowd he's speaking to at the moment.

Let's just pray McCain wins! Check out my BLOG at http://Lous2cents.blogspot.com to read my views on other items.

Lou~
August 18, 2008

2:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

jeffreybaker89 writes:

Nader says that he wants to see Obama doing more things like Jesse Jackson: talking about economic exploitation and going in the ghettoes. Yet, he admits that this type of talk won't win. Then why accuse Obama for not doing it? Why don't YOU go talk about economic exploitation and slums, Ralph Nader, and stop trying to incite uproar in Blacks to do the dirty work you want to do... The ideas that you have, but won't carry out because you want to keep your own career. And stop pretending that it's Obama's obligation.

Criticizing educated Black persons as being "too white" or not "black enough" is un-American, and needs to end. I refuse, refuse, REFUSE to rationalize any such criticism, when we are the Blacks that speak out for the Black race, when necessary. The ones who create Black-owned businesses, the ones who mentor Black students at predominantly White, elitist universities. Lastly, the ones who affect policies and procedures that protect our rights and opportunities to succeed, and the ones who constantly toil to reshape the Black identity as confident, self-sufficient, and sustainable...
August 19, 2008

9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

powerob writes:

Nader is making the great point that Obama sealed the nomination and is sliding to the right. The GOP is about a colorless as it gets and that is who Obama is now pandering to. Corporate America = GOP America. Same crew.

You people ought to get off your high-horses and actually talk about the topic at hand rather than constantly pulling red-herrings because your emotions get in the way.

Nader is right... again.

Home › News › Politics

Nader: Obama trying to 'talk white'

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published June 25, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.Updated June 25, 2008 at 7:01 p.m.

Related Links

Related Stories

More Barack Obama

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs

DNC Calendar

FEATURED REPORT:

Delegate Portraits

MORE DNC SPECIAL REPORTS

FEATURED BLOG:

Rocky Truth Patrol

DNC BLOGS

News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Published June 25, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated June 25, 2008 at 7:01 p.m.