Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Nader Declares

February 24, 2008 11:39 AM

Says Obama, Clinton, McCain all part of the problem.

More HERE.

- jpt

February 24, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (13)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nader stats:

2000 -- 2.4%
2004 -- 4/10's of 1%
2008 -- who?

Posted by: SE Croft | Feb 26, 2008 8:15:07 AM

He has my vote, but I hope he will run under Green Party.

Posted by: Mark | Feb 25, 2008 3:17:12 PM

I offer one important political equation with Mr. Nader's "entry" into the race:

Ralph Nader = King Lear

Posted by: chuck | Feb 25, 2008 12:16:23 PM

Nader will most likely pull the independent voters and first time voters who feel disenfranchised from mainstream, two-party politics or those who are not satisfied with major party candidates.

Some would tell you that, in reality, we have a one party corporate system disguised as a two party system, but such is a matter of individual perception.

Whatever you choose to believe, Nader will probably pull the majority of his support from independents and the more liberal wing of the Democrat party.

If you don't agree, just consider the last two elections.

Posted by: Ken | Feb 25, 2008 10:36:35 AM

My view

When Bill Clinton was in office, he inherited a big deficit. Two terms later, he turn that deficit to a big surplus. Let's say if my father borrow a lot of money to do business and did not make it. Living in debt is not pleasant especially you have trouble to keep up with the payment. My mom inherited the debt and she managed to pay off the debt 4 years later and have big savings after another 4 years. Can you complain your mom not doing a good job? Mr. Obama accuse that NAFTA is bad and cost people's jobs. If our economy was not in good shape we won't have surplus. That's our nations treasure, not in Bill Clinton's pocket. NAFTA may have played its role back then. If it loss its purpose, the president/Congress can always change it. Mr. Bush can certainly do something but he didn't. If you want to blame, Mr. Bush is the one, because the economy turn sour and he didn't take action. Let's just be fair. The Senate has its share to blame too. Not Bill Clinton, just because he put money into out nation's pocket. I have lost job several times during Clinton's term. But I can quickly get other job. I lost job during Bush's terms, it took almost two years to find another.

REMEMBER, 4 year ago, we could have elect John Kelly. Because of Carl Rove's tactics, they turn this war hero into something opposite. Majority of people still blindly support Mr. Bush. That's why we are suffer more now. In fact, we should not blame Mr. Bush either, we should blame ourself not looking clearly. Now Mr. Obama is trying to play Carl Rove's trick by attacking Bill Clinton's NAFTA is bad and turn white to black. Policy can always be changed and that's why we have Congress. Like Social Security, it was created long time ago for good. And it could not serve the need right now and nobody blame that? Have we ask ourself, “Am I a fair person?”. Please follow your heart. A president does not need to be like a talk show talker. He need to be sincere, wise and consistent. Let's be real, politics is part of democracy. Democracy give everybody the opportunity to serve in every level of the government. When there is a conflict of interest, the politics plays its role. Campaign itself is a politics. I don't know why a candidate say he won't play politics and yet started to accuse Bill Clinton and sounded like that's Hillary's fault. Remember, it's Hillary Clinton for President, not Bill Clinton for President. They are different individual. Can we trust someone who keep doing things against his own words? This reminds me about the communist in Russia, China. The Nazi in Germany. These leaders are great speakers and attracted a great number of followers mostly young people. They eventually revolutionize their own desperate country. Are we in a desperate situation? Maybe close. But, we don't need to go to the other extreme. That won't do us any good either.

The democrats is trying so hard to put the War in Iraq to the end. 4 years ago, all Democrat candidates are doing that. Even in Congress, they are doing that. Mr. Obama makes it sound like he is the only person doing that and claiming the credits his colleagues created. In fact, he is probably the last one to say that publicly. Let get real, presidency is not entertainment. We make mistake, it takes at least four years. Mr. Bush has 8 years.

Posted by: Vincent | Feb 24, 2008 11:26:07 PM

Do people actually know exactly who Nader will pull from Obama or McCain?

All the ones who are against Obama, should then vote for McCain if we are not clear on who exactly Nader will pull from.

For I can not stand looking or hearing about Obama for the next 8 months, it will be even more excruciating to have to hear about him for another 4 more years.

Posted by: No More | Feb 24, 2008 7:35:07 PM

What's the point of voting someone like Nadar? He'll never win in the general election, it'll just be like flushing ballot papers down the toilet. Wake up people.

Posted by: owenhir2000 | Feb 24, 2008 3:48:02 PM

I never thought I'd see the day that I would be happy about Nader running for President! IF Mr. Hope wins the Dem nomination, this Hillary supporter is voting for Ralph. I REFUSE to vote for Mr.Hope...in the pocket of Exelon Nuclear. FORGET IT. Nader, here I come!

Posted by: Tom | Feb 24, 2008 2:40:03 PM

Brooke---I feel the same way, and that is a good idea....I think we should encourage other Hillary supporters to do the same, IF obama wins the nomination-----

....and, IT"S NOT OVER, BY A LOOOOONG SHOT, folks!!!! Despite the stories in the Manistream Media, these 2 candidates could not be closer......EITHER OF THEM COULD WIN. The rest of the American states' voices need to be heard----they have not had their primaries yet. Anyone who SUGGESTS that either candidate "has won" Texas and Ohio is DISRESPECTING the voters in those states. Everybody SHUT UP and let the voters of those states vote and BE HEARD.

Posted by: Is it Jan. 9, 2009 YET???? | Feb 24, 2008 2:29:00 PM

If Hillary doesn't win the nomination, I'm voting for Nader. Thank god he's running. I never thought I'd ever hear myself say that.

Posted by: Brooke | Feb 24, 2008 2:21:47 PM

.....and entering the middle part of the ring is the Independant candidate Ralph Nader.....this IS going to get interesting......the one that will be hurt the most is obama, who previously has claimed to be "getting the Independant voters and unhappy Republican voters"-----*** oh, what was THAT? I think it was a gasp from the obama campaign after the Nader entering the election announcement.....stay tuned, political fans......

Posted by: Is it Jan. 9, 2009 YET???? | Feb 24, 2008 2:13:50 PM

awesome

Posted by: cordelia525 | Feb 24, 2008 1:42:09 PM

This is the most important question for Sen. Obama that still needs to be asked in my opinion:

Does he still stand by his position not to wear the American flag because of the Iraq war?

Will he not pin the flag on as President?

As Commander and Chief, will he wear the Stars and Stripes, that so many, even those who disagreed with their country, fought and died for? Brave men and women in uniform like, my dad, wore the flag on their uniform even though there were issues at times they disagreed with.

IF YOU WON'T WEAR THE FLAG, YOU CAN'T DEFEND IT AND YOU CERTAINLY CAN'T GET ELECTED PRESIDENT OR PICK UP RED STATES.

Obama may face grilling on patriotism
Sen. Barack Obama's refusal to wear an American flag.

Posted by: RICHARD | Feb 24, 2008 11:46:45 AM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS