=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
A Clinton/Obama, Obama/Clinton ticket?
Log In to post a reply
27 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
handofdave
handofdave
3515 posts

Re: A Clinton/Obama, Obama/Clinton ticket?
Feb 15, 2008, 16:25
The answer to why the DNC rejects Nader is very simple. The Democrats are left-LEANING, and they are better thought of as being a coalition of centrists, progressives, etc. They are in it to win on a national level. They need to appeal to a whole lot of people on the Democratic side that are NOT really very left except rhetorically, people with investments and big houses and lots to lose, and poor people who get a raw deal under either party but it's usually a little less abrasive under a dem.

Nader could possibly pull 10 percent of the US vote. Maybe even twenty, on a really fucking good day. But there really isn't much hope of putting him against a Republican and a Dem at the same time and getting a result that'd be any different than when Bush benefitted from the split vote on the left and center and started his ruinous double term.

McCain still actually could win this bloody election. Nader cannot win against McCain. Hillary or Obama might be able to. But with Nader pulling votes from them in the event of a three way race, only McCain benefits.

No more angry white men, please. We can talk all day about principles but there comes a time when you have to get tactical. There's graves all over the world full of of heroes and dreamers who let their duty to an ideal cloud their tactical judgement.

A vote for Nader is a protest vote. It's a subtractive vote for the left and center. I'd rather steer this country at least PARTWAY back in that direction than see the lever welded into a far-right position, because the Nader camp undermined the Democrats.

Once again, yes, we all know both are corrupt and have the hands of the corporations down their pants, but attempts to paint the Dems and the 'Publicans as equally odious are based on the idea that it's better to get none of what you want, than compromise and get some of what you want... a singleminded refusal to consider a partial retreat in order to effect a partial victory (and I'm talking very real terms here, not feel-good platitudes of superior principles).

In military terms, sometimes you have to ally yourself with sketchy forces in order to defeat a known threat (ala England/US + USSR vs. the Nazis) Might come back to bite you later but the alternative, allowing the enemy to win, isn't an option.
In reply to:
Re: A Clinton/Obama, Obama/Clinton ticket? (duckbreath)		 Replies:
Re: A Clinton/Obama, Obama/Clinton ticket? (duckbreath)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index