Reply With Quote
Message To Ralph Nader...
Message To Ralph Nader...
During the California Democratic debate, someone raised the point that a Bush or a Clinton has been on a general election ticket since 1980. People that are younger than 30 or 31 years old have had a Bush or a Clinton on every ticket during their lifetime.
Sometimes you get immature whiners in political campaigns, who pout and throw a fit when their candidate doesn't get the nomination, and vote third-party out of spite.
Is there anything Hillary Clinton's campaign has thrown at Obama that wouldn't give Republicans pause?
He ran as a Green 1996 and 2000, and as an idependent/reform party in 2004.
The Green Party (with Nader as candidate) and the Reform Party (with Perot) are the closest minor parties have every come to getting to the defined percentages to receive federal funding matching and being invited to the debates.
I guess Americans like the duopoly that owns their politics.
You're the one chastising SA210's idea of voting for nader.
but Clinton was actually a good president
for the Republican party who tookover both houses under his watch.
Aren't you missing quality public funded childrens entertainment like Lambchop.
Unfortunately for you, in this case, it's just the fact that the other candidates suck.
Actually, I'm not. I'm ridiculing his love of John Edwards. Figure it out.
Union spends heavily for Obama in primaries
Published: February 26, 2008
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/...ca/26union.php
The powerful Service Employees International Union — whose local chapters helped John Edwards in the Iowa caucus — is now pouring cash and manpower into helping Senator Barack Obama in the Texas and Ohio primaries.
The union reported in federal filings that it had spent $1.4 million in the two states on Obama's behalf, an effort that immediately came under sharp attack from the campaign of his rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The Clinton campaign accused Obama of hypocrisy, saying he had criticized Edwards in Iowa for receiving similar support. Obama called that support "underhanded" and deserving of "further scrutiny."
Obama has denounced special-interest money and the Democrats who have taken it, a point the Clinton campaign emphasized in a conference call with reporters.
"When it was in Obama's interest to criticize Edwards over outside spending, he did so," said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton campaign spokesman. "Now when it is in his interest to remain silent, he is."
In a statement, the Obama campaign said, "Senator Obama has long said that he would prefer those who want to support him to do it directly through the campaign." It did not say whether it would ask the union to halt its effort.
Obama received the union's backing earlier this month and has long maintained ties to the group. He sought its endorsement, and its main Web page is filled with photos of him and videos of his speeches.
Over the weekend, the union reported spending the money in Texas and Ohio to pay for door-to-door canvassers, a direct-mail campaign and a phone bank. The expenses are independent and not coordinated with the Obama campaign, which would be illegal.
"SEIU members are waging an unprecedented effort to mobilize their co-workers and communities to elect Barack Obama," said Anna Burger, the union's secretary-treasurer. "We are committed to bringing all of our resources to bear to ensure he is our next president."
Besides the $1.4 million, the union can spend additional money, which does not have to be publicly reported, on pro-Obama efforts that are directed solely at its own members. The union said it had 150,000 members in the states with primaries coming up, with 30,000 in Ohio alone.
In a news release last Friday, the union said it would wage "an extensive multimillion-dollar ground and air campaign" on behalf of Obama. Its members will appear in pro-Obama television advertisements in Texas and Ohio and "thousands" of members will take time off from work or volunteer on efforts to help Obama, the union said.
The 1.9 million-member union also spent $240,000 for phone banks and get-out-the-vote efforts among union members in the final days before the Wisconsin primary, just two days after it endorsed Obama.
The union's political action committee had $31 million in cash-on-hand at the end of 2007.
In the days before the Iowa caucuses, when Obama had no support from outside groups, he criticized Edwards and Clinton for the backing that they were getting from unions and other outside groups.
The sharpest attacks were aimed at Edwards after Alliance for a New America, a group financed in part by the service employees union and run by a former Edwards campaign aide, spent $1.5 million on television spots praising Edwards.
Besides the money spent by the service employees union, about $1 million will be spent by the United Food and Commercial Workers union for pro-Obama advertisements, according to the Clinton campaign. Obama has also received fresh support from PowerPac.org, a California group that has spent around $740,000 on a pro-Obama effort.
He was, when? I must have been out of the country that
week.
Yes, I agree that the Democrats suck. I'm just enjoying your getting your panties all in a wad because your pretty boy didn't win. Pretty much any of these Democrats that would get elected would follow pretty much the same misguided agenda, but you have this man-crush on the Breck Girl, so your world is broken now.
I do wonder... is your behavior all out of petty churlishness... or might you have some latent racial animus in there too? Your vitriol seems to be focused on the black man, rather than the white woman who still has a shot to win.
Conservatives have a thing for making sexual insults or calling men "girls". I think it shows exactly how they might actually feel inside about themselves, very insecure.. Yea, I'm sure that's what it is.
And the cheap racial question is just ridiculous. You have no basis to wonder that, but you already know that. However I do wonder how you feel about "mexicans".
You know the media purposely took Edwards out of the equation. That made it easier for you Republicans because John Edwards was the ONE candidate you really feared.
You can talk and talk and talk about haircuts and all the crap that doesn't matter, because the Repubs were scared of him, and if he had the same playing time as Obama and Hillary in the media, this would be a very different race. After the "haircut" and everything, he is the one who shaped the issues of this election. Calling him names doesn't change the fact that he woulda cleaned the conservatives clock 10 fold.
Not really. Hillary started out with much more name recognition and Obama created his own momentum with his public appearances.You know the media purposely took Edwards out of the equation.McCain would absolutely love to be running against Edwards instead of Obama.That made it easier for you Republicans because John Edwards was the ONE candidate you really feared.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention Oprah. Edwards should have worked on her.
With your powerless victim conspiracy mentality re: the media, you definitely fit in on the left. Edwards spent four years camped out in Iowa getting ready for that caucus, and still couldn't finish higher than second. The fact is, your boy just couldn't get enough people on the ground behind him, but rather than deal with that and move on, you throw a temper tantrum like a small child, and deal in conspiracy theories about the media, and whine about the unfairness of it all. You choose to live in a world where a guy who couldn't get any local traction in a state that was tailor-made to his alleged demographic wheelhouse somehow was going to clean the clock of the Republican candidate. I guess it's easier to live in the fabricated reality that fits your ideology than the inconvenient actual reality, huh? Maybe you and Dubya have more in common than you think? Or, more likely, you're a cousin to those insipid Paulbots, just further to the left. In any event, you're an easy target to mock. If only more Democrats actually were as stupid as you are, McCain would be the favorite against the Obamessiah.
You've totally missed my point on the Edwards situation. You are dead wrong, but I shouldn't explain something to you when you have a one track mind. This is no tantrum by the way. But it's easy for you to say that cuz you feel you prove something when you say it and it makes you feel you are on higher ground, (insecurity?).
You're lost on what I'm saying or you purposely don't want to see it. Yes indeed, he woulda cleaned their clock. I don't usually call people names on here, but i am convinced that you are Stupid.
That I seriously doubt. He's already shown he doesn't really connect with people as well as he theoretically should. I don't think he would have been much of a threat to the Republicans. Well, more of a threat than I think Hilary is just because not so many people hate him...
He did shape the issues for the Democrat primary. That about as big a contribution as you could have asked from him. It's not like his platform was HIS platform anyway. Like everyone else, he stole it from other people (some from Hilary when she was 1st Lady, some from Kucinich, etc), and then people stole it from him.
No way he would have clean the conservative's clock unless they put forth a horrid candidate. McCain would likely trounce him. It would have been interesting if it was Romney or Huckabee vs Edwards, and he'd probably beat any of the others by a fairly decent margin.
God Bless Nader, he saved us from the Corvair. And he may save
us from Braka.
Well, Nader needs about 18,000 signatures to get on the Oregon ballot. I will be one of those signing. He didn't get in last presidential election for Oregon and Kerry won Oregon. It would be nice to balance Oregon a bit for the republicans since Oregon almost always goes wacky liberal.
Split the democrat vote
Get Nader on your ballots.
Now consider the larger picture of this. Most of us are unhappy with election wins under 50%. In 1992, Perot took 18% of the vote, making Clinton president. Many believe that Nader took enough votes to make Bush president both in 2000 and 2004. If the democrats lose again because of a 'spoiler' candidate, then maybe we can get the elections changed to run-off elections where the winner must have at least 50%+1 votes.
Both parties must support the idea for it to work. Then, the larger picture I see is libertarians and other parties can become better contenders. When people vote for their candidate rather than the lesser of two evils, we get far better politicians in the long run.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-27-2008 at 05:55 PM.
^^Sounds like a good plan to me. I think maybe some of it
is already at work. I think in Texas many crossovers for Hussein
Obama that wont be there in November.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
