Nader strongly endorses Edwards

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7647.html

I am not sure this has ever happened.before.

Ralph Nader recognizes that Edwards is a glimmer of hope within the major parties who will stand up to the ruling corporations in the manner of Ted Roosevelt.

I hope he spends the next two days in Iowa working for Edwards.

MUSCATINE, Iowa — Ralph Nader unleashed on Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday - criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business - and expressed his strong support for John Edwards.

In an 11th hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to "recognize" Edwards by "giving him a victory," the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will "pander to corporate interest groups" if elected.

Nader specifically accused Clinton of failing to challenge military spending because "she is a woman who doesn't want to be labeled as soft on defense and she doesn't want to be shown as taking on big business."

As Clinton campaigned through a snowstorm in southeast Iowa, pledging to "bring about the changes we need," Nader accused the Democratic senator from New York of using empty rhetoric.

"[Clinton] has not led the way against the avalanche of military contracting, corporate crime, fraud and abuse," he said. "We want to inform the people of Iowa about Hillary Clinton because all the focus is on, do they have the experience and do they have the personal charisma, and can they cross the aisle" Nader said.

"The issue is corporate power and who controls our political system and it's not who has experience for six years or two years," he said, alluding to an ongoing debate over experience between Clinton and freshman Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

"She has experience in the Senate, and what that experience has meant is going soft on cracking down on corporate crime, fraud, and abuse, soft on cutting tens of millions in corporate subsidies," he continued.

The Clinton campaign declined to comment on Nader's criticism.

Nader, a four-time presidential candidate, called Edwards a Democratic "glimmer of hope." He has long criticized Democrats as indistinguishable from Republicans, chiding both parties as slaves to corporate financing and interests.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7647.html

The word in Green Party circles in Iowa is that Nader is hoping to give Edwards a boost in the Iowa caucuses. It's not likely coincidental, Ralph Nader is certainly not clueless.

Edwards has maintained a consistent level of support in Iowa throughout (interesting since he doesn't have the huge apparatus and crowd-drawing appeal of Obama or the Clintons). There is currently an unprecedented 3-way possible outcome for top place in Thursday's caucuses.

Hiya Zig,

Good to see you here on the new forums. Thanks to all who have made this possible.

I think people have written off Edwards to their own peril. I like his chances in Iowa. The Nader endorsement is a surprise to me. I would have liked Nader to back Kucinich. I wonder if Kucinich's support of Obama led to Nader's proclamation, or if I have my order reversed.

I would have liked Nader to back Kucinich.

Maybe Ralph wants to have a chance at winning for a change. Did your name get truncated, shiek?

Nader and Edwards have a great deal in common. Very few of their political stances have constitutional legs to stand on.

ohio county wrote:

I would have liked Nader to back Kucinich.

Maybe Ralph wants to have a chance at winning for a change. Did your name get truncated, shiek?

Hi there, Ohio Cty.

Well, ok, Edwards has a better chance at winning than Kucinich, but does that kind of pragmatism really pay off? In the end, Edwards is part of the establishment and I see no reason at all to believe that he will be more loyal to labor than to the Democrats. What did he accomplish as a Senator from North Carolina, and did he ever propose a repeal to NAFTA? If so, did he ever take Clinton to task for overseeing it?

Don't get me wrong, I have little use for either Nader or Edwards (although I much prefer Nader to Edwards). But I don't trust Edwards to do justice to Green party ideals, except perhaps to throw them a liberal bone through universal basic health care or tax increases.. Edwards talks about two Americas, and as far as I can tell by his palace, that's just the way he likes them.


As far as my name, it's been shortened due to pure laziness.

SheikBen wrote:

ohio county wrote:

I would have liked Nader to back Kucinich.

Maybe Ralph wants to have a chance at winning for a change. Did your name get truncated, shiek?

Hi there, Ohio Cty.

Well, ok, Edwards has a better chance at winning than Kucinich, but does that kind of pragmatism really pay off? In the end, Edwards is part of the establishment and I see no reason at all to believe that he will be more loyal to labor than to the Democrats. What did he accomplish as a Senator from North Carolina, and did he ever propose a repeal to NAFTA? If so, did he ever take Clinton to task for overseeing it?

Don't get me wrong, I have little use for either Nader or Edwards (although I much prefer Nader to Edwards). But I don't trust Edwards to do justice to Green party ideals, except perhaps to throw them a liberal bone through universal basic health care or tax increases.. Edwards talks about two Americas, and as far as I can tell by his palace, that's just the way he likes them.


As far as my name, it's been shortened due to pure laziness.

Welcome, Michael....so pleased you have joined us here.

It sounds like we pretty much share the same opinion of Edwards. It amazes me how the adamant, pro-union people I know just adore him. The older they are the greater the devotion. I think they just believe everything he says.

Of course, who am I to talk. I believe when Ron Paul says he will vote a certain way or do a particular thing that is precisely what he will do. That is exactly why I haven't brought this up before.

Well sure, no candidate is as good as he/she makes themselves out to be, but whoever won election on the "I am flawed" ticket?

I'm most impressed that Ron Paul is willing to say whatever he believes, however it might be received. The recent attention paid to his civil war thoughts are a good example. We need more "men" like him around.

Would he get corrupted if elected? Perhaps a little, but I trust him a heck of a lot more than others to handle it well.