John Edwards = Ralph Nader

[Milo_Bloom]

I have been making this comparison for a while and people claimed it was false because Edwards stood a real chance of winning, unlike Nader.

However, at this point, unless you are in complete denial, you realize his chance of victory is GONE and he likely won't even win a single primary or caucus.

So, now, I read posts saying, "I don't care if he will lose, I want his message heard" or "It doesn't matter if he is a spoiler, he should stay in until the end to influence the votes." or "There is no difference between the other 2 candidates, so he should stay in" Well, that is the exact same language used in 2000 regarding the Nader campaign.


So, if you hate Ralph Nader for what he did in 2000 and you think Edwards should continue to stay in, sorry, but you are a grade A hypocrite.

If you supported Nader and/or have no real problem with his running in 2000, 2004 or anytime thereafter continue on your merry way... this doesn't apply and we can argue about whether Edwards is genuine or a snake oil salesman in another place.


For the record, I didn't support Nader, didn't vote for him and think he stayed in the race out of pure ego; however, I don't blame him for what happened either, because I believe a vote doesn't BELONG to anyone and has to be earned.

Similarly, I don't support Edwards, wouldn't ever vote for him and think he is staying in the race out of pure ego; however, whatever the result of the primary, I won't "BLAME" him because I don't think and Edwards voter's vote BELONGS to anyone.

Finally, I quoted an capitalized blame because I want to draw a distinction between blame and an actual causal relationship. Do I think that Ralph Nader being in the 2000 race caused Gore more harm? Yes, I do. However, I hold no animosity toward him because I believe it was his right to stay in no matter the reason. Similarly, Do I think that Edwards being in this race is causing Obama more harm? Yes I do. However, it is his right to stay in if he wishes and I would not use that causal relationship against Edwards in the future.

[Beaverhausen]

1. psst- we are still in the primary season

Edwards has no intention of running in the general if he is not the nominee.

[struggle4progress]

128. The poster doesn't know the difference between a primary and a general election

as indicated clearly by post #25

[question everything]

130. Or between being a Democrat and a third party candidate (nt)

[JackRiddler]

133. Or between democracy and power politics...

or wait, maybe that's what the OP is: an adulation of power politics.

[roguevalley]

193. amazing. its just amazing isn't it?

[Captain Hilts]

2. No. Edwards won't run as an Indep. in the general election. BIG difference. nt

[kurth]

3. Nader was not a Democrat

and did not run as a Democrat.

[kath]

4. Jeebus H. Christ. To echo the above poster, we're still in the PRIMARIES.

Sheesh.

[GreenPartyVoter]

88. Exactly. It isn't like splitting the primary vote will saddle the Dems with a Repub nominee

:eyes:

[Milo_Bloom]

96. Some believe it might, no matter which candidate you choose.

Both viable candidates have been described as DINO's.

[sojourner]

5. dude...we are talking about the PRIMARY here, not the GE... Nader ran as a 3rd party candidate and

that's how he was a spoiler.

[Milo_Bloom]

9. So what if it is the primaries?

That is the silliest distinction I have ever seen.

He's not a real spoiler because it is the primaries?


A spoiler is a spoiler anytime they stay in despite no actual chance of winning, it doesn't matter what the specific contest is or what stage of the game.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

152. Gee, why even waste the money and effort on elections, anyway?

We'll just let Milo decide who's worthy to be president and swear the sucker in.

The primaries are more than the "horse race" the MSM wants us to believe. It also is the process by which we define ourselves as a party, and candidates like Edwards and Kucinich raise valid issues that the front-runners would just as soon ignore in their quest for power. Ralph Nader was/is an asshole whose sole purpose in 2000 was to drain off enough progressive votes to allow Bush to get close enough for the Supreme Court to award him the presidency. (Actually there was a second benefit to a Bush win, which had to do with Nader's considerable stock holdings, but that's another story.) What many Nader supporters conveniently forget is that he promised to pull out of any state where the race between Bush and Gore would be close. Then, despite evidence that Florida was going to be a major player in the election, Nader decided to keep his name on the ballot.

In 2004, Edwards demonstrated that he would fight to the bitter end for the principles of the Democratic Party. Until Kerry stabbed him in the back by suddenly conceding, Edwards was a vocal supporter of recounting the votes in Ohio. I sincerely doubt he'll abandon the party for some ego-driven third party run if Obama or Clinton gets the nomination. Until the convention, I want him on the debate floor raising the issues that truly matter to 98% of us.

[SammyWinstonJack]

188. ...

:thumbsup:

[The Traveler]

6. A specious argument

While it is doubtless the case that Edwards is extremely unlikely at this point to win the nomination, unlike Nader he has had a profound impact on the content of the primary debate. Even the MSM has had to acknowledge this fact .. noting that both Clinton and Obama have plagiarized Edwards' speeches and policy statements.

I call that a measure of success that Nader did not achieve.

For the record, I did not support Nader. But I do continue to support Edwards, who I expect will continue to inject necessary issues into this campaign season.

[Milo_Bloom]

19. He had no more impact than Nader did on Gore/Bush

That may be unfortunate, but it is true.

No one has taken his message or his speeches/policy statements, because Edwards had already poached all of this from populists of the past. (He is using themes that have been used over and over again.)

[The Traveler]

101. Well, of course

I shall take your word on it and ignore my own observations as well as those of Krugman, the editorial staff of the Nation, Howard Fineman, etc.

[Fresh_Start]

7. Primaries vs General Election

there is no comparison

[Milo_Bloom]

25. There is no difference.

[Fresh_Start]

30. thats BS, pulling votes in the GE strengthens the GOP

pulling votes in the primary does not strengthen the GOP
it gives more dems a chance to weigh in on who will be their candidate

[Milo_Bloom]

34. Sure it does.

It may pull votes from a candidate who has a better chance in the GE.

Thus, it can weaken the dems.

[Fresh_Start]

59. I don't believe in crystal balls

and the democratic party as a whole hasn't been very successful in nominating winning GE candidates
actually I believe any of the democratic candidates can win the GE this year
so I want one who is willing to fight for the most progressive platform

and that is neither Obama nor Clinton

[bigbrother05]

167. Any one of the 3 have an excellent chance in the GE

The only spoiler(s) will be the type of petty complainers who refuse to debate the issues instead of the personality/race/gender of their favorite. Any nominee will have strengths and weaknesses in the GE, none will be guaranteed a win regardless of the progress or outcome of the primary season.

To claim anyone is a spoiler in the primaries is only trying to start a pity party for their poor, mistreated favorite.

[unapatriciated]

194. but but if ......

"Both viable candidates have been described as DINO's." as you stated upthread (96) how does it "weaken the dems"? :shrug:

[dchill]

38. OK - Now you've jumped the shark.

Bye!

[last_texas_dem]

44. Hahahaha

Thanks for that comment. I needed a good laugh this afternoon.

[Marrah_G]

175. Are you really this ignorant of how the process works?

[BlackVelvet04]

8. I didn't hate Nader for running.......

let the voters decide.

Who do you support?

[Milo_Bloom]

24. I didn't hate Nader for running either.

However, there are plenty of people who did, who are now saying Edwards should stay in no matter what.


As for my vote, I did the mail in last week and I unethusiastically voted for Obama as the lesser of 2 evils.

[BlackVelvet04]

32. I figured you were an Obama

supporter by the OP.

You guys are really starting to sound desperate for Edwards voters. We've been called unrealist, spoilers, and now you try the old hypocrite tactic.

[Milo_Bloom]

35. Not an Obama supporter.

[BlackVelvet04]

42. LOL

As for my vote, I did the mail in last week and I unethusiastically voted for Obama as the lesser of 2 evils.

A vote is support.

[Milo_Bloom]

46. No, its not.

A vote is a vote.

[BlackVelvet04]

50. It is according to Webster....

Main Entry:
1sup·port Listen to the pronunciation of 1support
Pronunciation:
\sə-ˈpȯrt\

to argue or vote for

[Milo_Bloom]

66. So what?

[BlackVelvet04]

72. It depends on what the definition of IS is?

Words mean something. A vote means something. A vote IS support.

[Milo_Bloom]

74. Casting a vote does not make you a supporter, it makes you a voter.

[BlackVelvet04]

76. No, it means you supported him

with your vote.

[Milo_Bloom]

84. Exactly, past tense.

It does not mean you are a supporter (present tense)

[BringEmOn]

53. The real "Naders" are the people who dis the candidates (Kucinich, Edwards)

who represent their best interests (and the interests of the majority of Americans) by voting for one of the two cheeks of the same corporate ass because the MSM told you to.

[unapatriciated]

195. self delete

I need to follow the thread closer...sorry

[never_get_over_it]

10. How did you do on analogies on the SATs

I'm guessing not so good.....

[Milo_Bloom]

12. Quite good.

[redqueen]

189. That'd be "well". "Quite well." (nt)

[jazzjunkysue]

11. Wrong. Edwards knows what the moral move will be, and he'll make it when it's the right time.

Nader didn't know those things and didn't care. He was not ever a legitimate candidate, and John really is. John would make a fabulous president, if people would wake up from this horserace and catch on.

[LSdemocrat]

13. Well, I suppose if Edwards did drop out, I would switch to Hillary

And that's what you really want, right?

[Milo_Bloom]

16. I don't care what you do.

As long as you don't try and hold some hatred for Nader, while still supporting Edwards in his ego quest.

[Th1onein]

33. Ego quest?

Get real.

[Milo_Bloom]

37. Yes, ego quest.

I don't believe he believes in his own message (as proven by his voting record and programs).

[Th1onein]

125. There is no one who runs for POTUS that isn't big on ego.

But, it's interesting how you phrase things.

I think you're dead wrong about Edwards needing to drop out. And he's on no more of an "ego quest" than any other candidate.

[Milo_Bloom]

I never said he needed to drop out.

In fact, I said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

I am talking ONLY about the individuals who raked Nader over the coals and are now using the EXACT same arguments as the reasons Edwards should continue in the race.

[mrbluto]

185. Medication

You know JE's Healthcare plan might help you with your reality problems.

[Marrah_G]

177. You mean the same ego quest ALL the candidates are on?

Or is your candidate the only one who is pure of heart?

[laststeamtrain]

14. No. John Edwards = John Edwards; Ralph Nader = Ralph Nader.

Everything is itself & not some other thing.

[ShortnFiery]

15. If Edwards does not graciously swing his support for Obama (most like his populism) soon. YES!

He will be "a spoiler" not much unlike Nader or Ross Perot. :shrug:

[Milo_Bloom]

17. Why does he have to swing his support?

I don't think Edwards owes either candidate votes nor does he have to drop out.

This post really has nothing to do with Edwards, but instead the supporters who want to try and draw some nonsensical distinction between when someone is a spoiler and when they are not.

[redqueen]

190. Wow.

Thanks.

[cosmik debris]

18. Maybe a spoiler for HRC or Obama, but NOT a spoiler for Dems.

I can see why proponents of one candidate or another would object, but he is not a Nader.

[Milo_Bloom]

21. But a spoiler nonetheless.

And, if Edwards staying the race causes the dems to nominate a candidate who loses in the GE then the impact is the same.

[judaspriestess]

28. how would Edwards staying in the race cause the nominee

to lose in the GE? You want him to drop out which will leave only other two candidates vying for the nomination, the same two with John in the race now??? I don't quite understand the logic.

[Milo_Bloom]

39. Very simple.

One candidate may be stronger than another in the GE and Edwards staying in the race could cause the weaker one to get the nomination OR may cause additional animosity among his supporters towards a candidate who beat him and refuse to vote for the dem in the GE.

[last_texas_dem]

49. But what if Edwards staying in helps a stronger candidate for the general election to win?

The candidate who wins a primary isn't necessarily the strongest candidate for the general election, after all. What if Edwards being in the race alters the dynamics and causes the stronger candidate for the general election to win the primary who wouldn't have won the primary if he had dropped out. Pretty much throws your whole argument out the window, it seems.

[Milo_Bloom]

57. He still plays the roll of spoiler.

If you support spoilers in one capacity, but hate them in another... you are a hypocrite.

[last_texas_dem]

62. What is he "spoiling"?

If by staying in he is enabling a stronger candidate for the Democratic Party to win the nomination?

[Milo_Bloom]

67. Its about the hypocrisy.

One could argue that Perot enabled the stronger candidate to win and thus was a "good" spoiler.

One could argue that Nader enabled the weaker candidate to win and thus was a "bad" spoiler.


However, both were spoilers.


Allowing the result to dictate the support of the means is hypocrisy.

[judaspriestess]

52. Oh ok I see

but I am not sure who you feel is the weaker candidate out of the other two. Edwards stated on KO last week that Democrats should vote for the Dem nominee no matter who it is. As a die hard Edwards supporter, I will vote for whoever the nominee is, I full understand I need to do so. As much as it would really really bother me to vote for another candidate, I will do it.

I don't agree with what you believe but your point is taken.

[cosmik debris]

70. Bullshit!

You compared Edwards to Nader. Nader ran in the general election. Nader did not run as a Democrat. Edwards will not run in the General Election unless he gets the Democratic nomination. Your whole comparison of Edwards=Nader is BOGUS!

[lwcon]

20. I'm due back on planet Earth

Where Democratic challenges are settled at the convention, if not earlier.

In Planet Obama, I guess competing for the nomination is somehow a sin. Unless your name is... let me guess, "Obama"?

[Milo_Bloom]

23. On planet earth we read.

I am not assigning any SIN to any candidate... ONLY the supporters of Edwards who also blame Nader for being a spoiler.


There are people on this website who want Nader's head for doing exactly what Edwards is doing right now (I am not one of them), yet they continue to support Edwards and think he should stay in until the end no matter what the result because they believe there is no difference between the candidates.

That is the EXACT same argument used by many a Nader supporter in 2000.

[lwcon]

29. Milo, do you understand that the race between Hillary, Obama, and Edwards...

... ends with the convention.

If they show at least a little more class than this, heading into November, they will support whoever wins the nomination.

How on Earth does that compare with running a third-party challenge in the general election?

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[Milo_Bloom]

41. Because it is about playing spoiler.

People believe the message is so important, it should trump over realistic goals.


Edwards staying in the race could have a significant impact on who wins the GE, one way or the other, the same way Nader's being in the race or Perot's being in the race had an impact on who won the GE (one way or the other).

All serve the roll of spoiler and nothing more.

[Warren Stupidity]

146. A clue isn't helping.

You need the clue stick.

"the same way Nader's being in the race or Perot's "

Again: Nader and Perot ran on their own party line in the general election, not in the primaries. Perot arguably didn't spoil anything as his centrist campaign took approximately equal numbers of votes from both Clinton and Bush. Nader might have cost Gore the election, for which possibility he is routinely reviled here. However Edwards, like any primary candidate, is playing by the rules and doing exactly what he should be doing: running as a progressive populist Democrat in the Democratic primaries.

What exactly is Edwards supposedly spoiling?

Why am I even asking. You have demonstrated your inablility to think clearly throughout this thread.

[Milo_Bloom]

148. What is Edwards spoiling?

He is potentially taking votes away from one of the viable candidates.

He will likely cause a person to win the nomination without getting a majority of the votes.

For the 23rd time in this thread, I fully support his right to do this and think every candidate should EARN each and every vote.


However, I find it incredibly amusing that some of the Edwards supporters explaining why he should stay in the race are using the exact same arguments that people used to explain why Ralph Nader should stay in the presidential race.

[BlackVelvet04]

36. And who would those people be?

Maybe you could provide some evidence of Edwards supporters who hate Ralph Nader or should we just take your word for it?

[Milo_Bloom]

47. Take my word for it.

[BlackVelvet04]

51. Yeah, that'll happen...

NOT.

[Milo_Bloom]

55. Doesn't matter, does it?

Those who freak out, reveal themselves.

Those who aren't hypocrites, move on.

[BlackVelvet04]

75. Oh please....

you really are a manipulative little sucker.

You make an accusation with nothing to back it up, but somehow that reveals something about me??? I don't think so.

You claim a vote is not support.

Those who aren't manipulative don't start accusatory threads without evidence.

[Milo_Bloom]

85. Never said it reveals anything about you.

[never_get_over_it]

91. I'm sorry but your whole argument is IDIOTIC

Edwards staying in the race IS NOT DOING WHAT NADER DID - are you deliberately being STUPID - there is a HUGE difference in spoiling the general election and spoiling a primary

I don't actually believe you can spoil a primary - a primary is an intra-party campaign that should give all sides of the party choices - what difference does it make if this goes to the convention - or whenever he gets out - he has every right to stay in to represent those who support him.....and by the way - John Edwards getting out and even his endorsement - will have NO IMPACT on my vote.

Saying Edwards is being a spoiler is just a ploy by either Clinton or Obama supporters to help their candidate. Let one of them win the nomination on their own....

[Milo_Bloom]

95. No difference at all.

And as I said, he has every right to stay in and I take no issue with his staying in.

The issue I take is with people who are angry at Nader, but apply the exact same arguments to Edwards and think it is just dandy.

[never_get_over_it]

99. Well I am one of those folks who took issue with Nader

and just because you say there is no difference does not make it so

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE between Nader running as a third party candidate in the GENERAL ELECTION - making the race close enough in Florida and most likely NM for it to be stolen and John Edwards staying in a primary race

Edwards staying in the race until the convention will not make the repunk President - as with Nader

Frankly one of the main reasons I support Edwards is because I truthfully don't think either Obama or Clinton can win the general election.

When Edwards stays in the race after the convention get back to me - and I'll be kicking his sorry ass too - just like I did Nader....but Edwards won't do that so its going to be moot.

Your comparison just does not work...PERIOD

[Milo_Bloom]

100. You just don't WANT it to.

Unless you actually believe Edwards still has a chance... if you do.. this doesn't apply to you at all.

[never_get_over_it]

118. Well actually I have not given up hope

that Edwards could still get the nomination. Although I know it is a long shot. However, I do think he can make a VERY VALUABLE contribution to the party platform and keep both Obama and Clinton a bit more progressive. See I'm one of those folks who think that the Dems for the most part have taken progressives for granted - I do believe Edwards is the MOST progressive of the three of them and I WANT OUR VOICE HEARD in this process.

BUT even if I thought John Edwards had no chance to win - a "spoiler" in a primary IS NOT THE SAME as a SPOILER in a general election - I just don't even think there is such a thing as a "spoiler" in a primary. The ONLY "spoiling" might be taking votes from Obama - but I'm not even sure of that - do we know - where Edwards votes would go if he dropped out - I don't. I would not vote in the primary if Edwards was not in it - PERIOD - because to me there is little to NO difference between Clinton and Obama - so where is the spoiling. I will, however, despite my feelings for Clinton and Obama, vote for them in the general election.

Nader for the most part took votes AWAY from Gore - which helped the thief in chief steal the election. If I am remembering correctly Nader got close to 100K votes in Florida - if the vast majority of those votes went to Gore, and I think they would have been....stealing would have been MUCH HARDER.....and I do blame Nader for that, but I don't just blame him, I blame the EXTREME Court too - and all the friggin criminals in Florida such as Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush - did you know it is/was the law in Florida to count ALL votes if you can tell the intent of the voters - there were 10,000s of votes that had Al Gore's little circle filled in AND his name written in - there were also a lot of these for the thief in chief but not nearly as many as for Al Gore - THOSE VOTES BY LAW were suppose to be counted and they were not - if I remember correctly Al Gore would have won by those votes alone by over 40K votes - so there is a lot of blame to go around.

I just don't see after reading this entire post why you don't get that....there really is no comparison of a "spoiler" in a primary and a SPOILER in the general election

[Milo_Bloom]

119. Of course there is a comparison.

It is about leadership. The democratic primary chooses who is going to leader the democratic party. The general election determines who is going to lead the country. Some may feel that one is more important than another, but it is about leadership.


Now to respond to some things directly...

"because to me there is little to NO difference between Clinton and Obama " A LOT of people said that about Bush and Gore. A lot of people were very very wrong.

"Nader for the most part took votes AWAY from Gore "

This has never actually been proven. Just like Perot in 1992, the exit polling I saw showed that it might not have made much difference, because most of the people indicated they wouldn't have voted at all and those left were split fairly evenly.


The one point I must conceed is that some people believe Edwards will have a voice at the convention. I personally do not think that is going to be the case, but there is evidence both ways, so it is certainly debatable and THAT detracts from my point and I made the point based on my belief that this nomination will be wrapped up one way or the other before June and Edwards will have only played the roll of spoiler (one way or the other).

I don't KNOW which way Edwards voters would go if forced into a choice and it may make no difference in the outcome.

[never_get_over_it]

122. This is my last reply to you

Hmmm wonder why you brought this whole thing up - you voted for Obama by mail in a primary and then state:

"I don't care who people vote for. I am undecided in the GE at this point no matter who the candidate is (well, that is untrue, I know I wouldn't vote for Clinton or Edwards)"

So I guess that means you might vote for a rupunk, not vote at all or maybe your hero Ralph Nader will run...

unless you are mentally challenged - or a liar - you know there is indeed a huge difference between the primary and the general election.

You have lost all credibility and are COMPLETELY disingenuous and FULL OF SHIT not unlike Ralph Nader actually.....

bye bye

[Milo_Bloom]

123. Thanks for revealing yourself.

My vote in the democratic primary was for the lesser of 3 evils.

If CLinton or Edwards are the candidate, I would likely vote 3rd party in the general.

If Obama is the candidate, it will depend on what is said and what happens.

I brought this whole thing up, because I see the incredibly hypocrisy of some Edwards' supporters who blame Nader for Gore not being in the white house, but want Edwards to stay in the race despite no chance of him winning or having a voice at the convention.

You have revealed yourself quite well.

[CorpGovActivist]

22. Hillary Clinton = Adlai Stevenson

[mtnsnake]

26. So you're mostly concerned that Edwards staying in it is going to swing the primaries for Hillary?

I think that's what I'm reading into your post, but let me know if that's not it.

[Milo_Bloom]

43. Not at all.

Again, this is not about the CANDIDATE to the actual EFFECT, it is about the HYPOCRISY of the supporters who hate Nader and want his head for being a spoiler, but think Edwards' being a spoiler is fine.

[mtnsnake]

81. OK, thanks for the clarification.

:thumbsup:

[Th1onein]

27. Gives us all a break!

Don't even go there.

THIS IS STILL THE PRIMARY SEASON, or don't you get that?

Edwards needs to stay in UNTIL the primary season is OVER and then he can do one of two things:

A. Get out of the race altogether

B. Serve as either Hillary's or Obama's running mate.

In the meantime, he still might have a chance of winning and MAINLY: he pushes both of them to the left. His message is heard and regarded as an important one to many of the American people; just because mainstream media isn't broadcasting it doesn't mean that many people don't hear it. They do. And it is important to get it out there.

Don't even insult our intelligence by comparing him to Nader at this point.

[Milo_Bloom]

45. Primary, General election.. a spoiler is a spoiler.

When a candidate stays in despite no actual chance of winning, they are a spoiler whether it is a primary, general election, etc.

[LSdemocrat]

58. Primaries are not winner take all, unlike state electoral college votes

Edwards is still winning delegates, unlike Nader who wasn't winning anything. The delegates that Edwards does win can potentially be used to significantly affect the outcome of the Democratic ticket depending on the total number of Edwards delegates accumulated and the margin between the other candidates.

[Milo_Bloom]

104. Its a very similar goal.

Nader stayed in to force the democrats to adopt his agenda, if not in the 2000 election, then in the 2004 election.

He stayed in beyond his point of viability to make a point and to wield power.

What you are saying is that Edwards is staying in because he wants to wield more power, not because he can win.

[last_texas_dem]

60. How far are you willing to take this analogy?

When Dennis Kucinich stayed in the Democratic primaries in 2004 for several months beyond when he could have actually had a shot at getting the nomination, was he acting as a spoiler and enabling the Republicans?

It never looked like Walter Mondale had a chance at winning the Presidency in 1984. Should he have (and all of those third-party candidates who had no chance at winning, as well) just withdrawn from the race so that everyone could vote for Reagan, the candidate with the only chance of winning?

[Milo_Bloom]

109. Please read the whole post.

I am not suggesting a course of action for any candidate and I actually say I SUPPORT HIS RIGHT TO STAY IN.


My beef is with the hypocrites. The people who FREAKED OUT about Nader. Who want Nader's head. Who think what Nader did was wrong because they believe he siphoned votes away from one particular candidate, thus influencing the outcome of an election. (I am not one of those people).

However, some of those people are now openly using the exact same arguments used by Nader supporters... freakin identical arguments down to the words, to express the reasons they don't want John Edwards to drop out.


I think each candidate has to EARN their votes and I don't think anyone should have to drop out at anytime. However to label one spoiler a villain and one spoiler a hero speaks to the very heart of a bigger problem with Edwards and lots of candidates and that is the pure, obvious, hypocrisy.

[Th1onein]

126. You are obviously very confused, Milo.

Get a book. Read it. It will explain to you how our elections are done in this country.

[Milo_Bloom]

143. Not confused at all... you failed to read the actual post.

[lwcon]

31. A time to worry

Someone actually recommended this post.

[Snotcicles]

40. This is one of those rare posts, where I wish my printer could print using tissue paper. nt

[Mendocino]

48. I don't believe that Nader cost the left...

the 2000 election. The right would have stolen it with or without him. Their coup is that they managed to pin Nader and the Greens with the blame, splitting the left ever so more.

[last_texas_dem]

54. Primaries are not general elections.

That fact is really all that needs to be understood to toss out your entire argument. If John Edwards goes third-party and runs in the general election in an effort to siphon off votes from the Democratic nominee, while arguing that there is no real difference between the Democratic and Repug nominees, you might actually have a point.

[sendero]

56. You are kidding right..

.. Edwards is not taking one Dem vote away from anyone. Your entire point is a non-sequitor.

[Milo_Bloom]

63. Not at all.. a spoiler is a spoiler.

There are plenty of people who have voted that they will refuse to vote for either Clinton or Obama if they are the nominee.

We don't know which group has more people. By staying in the race at this point, the weaker candidate may be chosen (whichever one that may be). That is a spoiler in the same way that Nader was a spoiler, in the same was Perot was a spoiler.


I supported Perot being in the race, Nader being in the race and Edwards being in the race, but in all cases, I believe it was EGO that kept them in.

[sendero]

73. If they wouldn't vote..

.. for HRC or Obama, they wouldn't. His being in the race is hardly a factor at all. Your argument is simply hogwash.

[Milo_Bloom]

78. So for you it is degree?

The fact that you believe he isn't that much of a factor makes his being a spoiler okay?

Perot was arguably a bigger factor than Nader, so does that make Perot a worse spoiler than Nader?

[mrbluto]

186. What's your problem with EGO?

Ego is a sense of self and one's place - if you don't have one you're a child.

What really worries me is when Republican Id runs amok.

Or TheoCon Superego.

Why don't you spend your time usefully and worry about those two things rather that acting like an idiot shill at a three card monty game?

[cd3dem]

61. Edwards wants to hold the deciding vote... whoever offers him a job will get his delegates

so instead of the Supreme Court deciding the outcome of the election, it will be Edwards

[helderheid]

108. kingmaker

[Milo_Bloom]

110. And that isn't an ego trip?

[mondo joe]

161. No - it's a way to influence the Dem ticket.

[Beaverhausen]

115. that's a bunch of bullshit and you know it

[cd3dem]

197. actually it is bullshit! and I know it when i see it!

[DrFunkenstein]

64. As an Obama Supporter, I Think That's Rubbish

Even if Edwards were to stand little or no chance of winning, it is right to champion the causes he believes in and hold the other candidates' feet to the fire on corporate influence.

[Snotcicles]

68. One of many good reasons. nt

[Milo_Bloom]

69. Again, I SUPPORT his RIGHT to run.

And don't BLAME him for the result.


HOWEVER, it is about the HYPOCRISY of those who love spoilers at one time (Perot) and hate them at another (NADER).


Edwards IS a spoiler right now

[Political Heretic]

65. You just don't get it do you. John Edwards HAS DELEGATES:

Which means, he has power to influence the PARTY PLATFORM AT THE CONVENTION. He has the ability to influence the message of the primary candidates both now and through the nomination. This is important.

And finally, ITS THE PRIMARIES.

[New Dawn]

71. More votes for Edwards = more delegates at the convention

[onehandle]

77. This is a PRIMARY. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Nice try.

[Milo_Bloom]

80. Yeah, primaries are kinda meaningless.

It's not like they choose the candidate or anything or influence the way the GE will go.

[no name no slogan]

79. George W. Bush == Jesus H. Christ

since we're making idiotic comparisons, I thought I'd make one, too!

Here's more:

Ronald Reagan == Mother Theresa
Richard Nixon == John The Baptist
A Flock of Seaguls == The Beatles

Yay, this is FUN!

[BooScout]

82. You're comparing apples to beans....

Nader screwed up the results of the GE. Edwards campaign won't go past the convention unless he is the nominee. So essentially you are blowing smoke. Give it up.

BTW, I'm a Clinton supporter....but I don't like seeing total BS posted about any Democratic Candidate.

[Milo_Bloom]

93. So it is what you screw up that matters?

[BooScout]

114. If we use your reasoning......

No one should run in the primaries.

The primaries decide the candidate to be nominated. To a large extent they also help to underwrite exactly what the party platform will be for the GE. The Delegates that each candidate takes to the convention are bargaining chips to a certain extent on issues to be placed on the platform.

Edwards hasn't lost out right yet. I see nothing wrong with him remaining in the fray. Especially if he has something to add to the party platform regarding lobbying....which I think he does.

[Milo_Bloom]

117. Read the post.

If you use my reasoning, anyone can run in the primaries and anyone can run in the general election.

[mondo joe]

164. But Edwards isn't "screwing up" anything. NT

[Cleita]

83. Taking Edwards out of the race because of three states is

taking the choice out of the primaries for many of us. The reason Obama and Clinton have to attack each other on a personal basis is because they agree too much on the issues. Edwards represents a different voice on the issues. If either Obama or Clinton dropped out and faced Edwards one on one then you would see a real debate on issues not personal attacks. Edwards needs to stay in.

[stimbox]

86. Dooga, dooga, dooga? n/t

[QC]

87. OP = Clueless Dolt n/t

[Hieronymus]

89. Funny, I compare those who insist on Hillary, to those who supported ..

Nader in 2000.

[EFerrari]

90. Beth = Queen of England!

[Blue_In_AK]

92. Not this shit again.

John Edwards is a Democrat. Hello???

[ClericJohnPreston]

94. Well

you will probably be vilified, and correctly so. This isn't a GE, where every Nader vote siphoned off a Democratic vote. This is a Primary and only Edwards, ONLY Edwards, is a candidate for the true base of the Democratic Party, it's LEFT WING.

Hillary and Obama are corporate shills, with Obama being both an unknown and to the right of Hillary, based on speechifying and his minimalistic Senate career.

With Edwards in, the others are forced to take up and COPY, Edwards original ideas and add it to their stump speeches. Edwards drives the Progressive aganda.

Sorry, nice try though. There is no way we would ever surrender this field of quislings and shills to them, without a fight. That fight is too important a battle. Besides, should scandal overtake either of the front-runners, a REAL possibility, then Edwards is there to lead and WIN a GE.

Hope you got what you wanted.....:sarcasm:

[Milo_Bloom]

98. Don't really care.

About being vilified.

And when I see people saying that he should stay in despite having no chance for the nomination simply because the other two candidates are the same or because the message is all that matters or that Clinton or Obama don't have votes coming to them and they have to earn them... I remember the same things being said by people about Nader and by Nader supporters.

What I find even funnier is that I recognize some of the names of people saying these things about Edwards as the same people who flip out at any mention of Nader and talk about how horrible it was of him to be a spoiler when he had no chance of winning.

If you still believe Edwards could win the nomination, that is fine... I think you are living in a fantasy land, but then you don't fall into the category of this post, which is about the people who know he is done, but still thik he should stay in AND think that Nader was wrong for doing the same.

[CalebHayes]

97. Endorsed by him....

[unapatriciated]

102. Appearantly this does not apply to me

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vZxOYF9ZAe0

[FlyingSquirrel]

103. Unkick & NegativeRec n/t

[krabigirl]

105. Sorry, this is the primary season.

[helderheid]

106. Bullshit. This is not the general election and Edwards is not running outside the Democratic party.

[Tatiana]

107. Oh come on! Primaries are for voting your heart, general elections for voting with your head.

If this thing goes to the convention, so be it. The other front-runners will be forced to move left on economic policy and health care reform, which is a good thing.

[surfermaw]

111. Nadar, wasn't in a Primary

however you Obama suupporters , since Obma wife made sure the Black people voted for Obama, with her words, might find out Edwards supporters that I have communicated with are voting Hillary at about 95%

[Milo_Bloom]

113. Primary, General election.. a spoiler is a spoiler.

I don't care who people vote for. I am undecided in the GE at this point no matter who the candidate is (well, that is untrue, I know I wouldn't vote for Clinton or Edwards).

[mondo joe]

160. But you're wrong. The primary will yield a Dem candidate no matter what, and Edwards'

participation does not split votes in such a way as to give the Republican a greater percentage.

[Two Americas]

112. finally, the truth comes out

No intelligent observer could possibly think that the effect of the Edwards candidacy on the party is in any way analogous to the effect of the Nader candidacy. It is a lie to make that comparison.

So what is the truth? It is the positions of Edwards (and Nader) that people oppose, and all of the reasons given for suppressing them are lies.

This is the battle for the heart and soul of the party, disguised as something else in many clever ways by those siding with and defending the powerful few who control the party. They won't be honest and say that they are opposed to anything and everything on the left, and are desperately trying to move the party to the right., so they throw a bunch of red herrings at us.

Has everyone forgotten all of the anti-Nader people saying “it would be different if he would run in the Democratic primaries. Then I would have no complaint.”

Lies, lies, lies..

[robbedvoter]

116. That's disgusting! Democratic primaries ongoing! Way to turn people off!

[depakid]

120. "a grade A hypocrite."

Sometimes, it's a good idea to look in the mirror....

and look back and see whether one actually believes in and supports traditional Democratic values.

[fishwax]

121. it's absurd to compare Nader in the General Election to Edwards in the Primaries

It's not the same at all.

[mac56]

124. Congratulations, I've seen some inane posts here in the past few days,

and this one takes the prize.

[JI7]

127. because Obama and Hillary are not George W Bush

assuming Edwards will help or hurt anyone by staying in or dropping out. in the end the winner will be Obama or Hillary. and people don't view that as being horrible as Bush.

[AllyCat]

129. So after 4 primaries/caucuses in 4 puny states, anyone not one of the 2

frontrunners is a spoiler? Please. This is the primaries. I wish they were all still in it! It's frustrating for those of us who don't vote until Feb 19th that when we vote, it will be a huge rubber stamp of the supposed "nominee". If that's all we get, why don't we just stop running these contests once IA and NH have run, huh?

Jeez. I'd like to hear what they ALL have to say, but according to you, I should only get to hear what the top 2 have to say. And then when it's just the top 2, I should probably only get to hear what the top one has to say because the second placer will be a spoiler, is that right?

[Control-Z]

131. Hello?

This is the primary.

Edwards, if he continues in the primaries, will not take a single vote away from either Hillary or Obama, if one of them wins. And, if he is chosen as the presidential nominee, he will probably bring in a substantial amount of votes that we would otherwise never see.

I think you're a little confused about the election process.

Edit: typo

[madmunchie]

132. I said this exact same thing more than a month ago and I was viciously attacked

[Milo_Bloom]

134. I have been saying it for a while now...

but the Edwards apologists refuse to accept what is obvious at this point.

[JackRiddler]

135. A month ago! And then he had the temerity to actually run in the first race! nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

191. LOL! He was a "spoiler" before the first vote was cast? How does that work, exactly?

:wow: :crazy: :silly: :banghead: :argh:

[mondo joe]

162. It's stupid no matter who says it.

Nader split votes from the Dem giving the Repub an advantage.

That isn't the case in the primary.

But please note I don't hate Nader - I just scorn the idiots who voted for him because they thought there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

[Stinky The Clown]

136. Your post is pure bullshit

Let me start that I am not an Edwards supporter and never have been. He is low on list, but your posit is waaaaaaaay off the mark.

He's a DEMOCRAT in the primary against other DEMOCRATS and has said he will support the winner.

Ralph was NOT a Democrat, fucked us over, and put George Bush in the White House.

John Edwards is a good guy.

Ralph Nader is a self-absorbed asshole.

[Jim Sagle]

137. You're a wretched, disrupting liar.

EVERY word you say is a lie, including "and" and "the."

[Milo_Bloom]

139. Too bad you can't dispute anything that is said with actual facts.

[Jim Sagle]

142. NOBODY's on your side. How does it feel?

[Milo_Bloom]

144. Lie much?

[Jim Sagle]

150. No. And in this thread the truth of what I wrote is painfully self-evident.

[Milo_Bloom]

151. Too bad you don't have facts to back it up.

But that is a theme with you.

[Jim Sagle]

155. Every statement in this thread but yours basically says you're all wet.

[Milo_Bloom]

156. Another lie.

Please try again, this time with proof.

[Jim Sagle]

157. Open your fucking eyes, the proof is all around you.

[Milo_Bloom]

163. SInce you don't offer facts.... here.

You said, "Every statement in this thread but yours basically says you're all wet."


Which means ONE single statement that doesn't say that, proves you a liar.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4232236&mesg_id=4241216

Consider yourself done.... again.


This time I am putting you out of your misery quickly. I wont bother responding to you in this thread anymore. You have already been proven a liar here and that is all that matters.

[Jim Sagle]

173. Doesn't prove a fuckin' thing except that I didn't have the patience to wade through all the

condemnations to find the one bozo who agreed with you.

[Warren Stupidity]

138. What a steaming pile of crap.

Thanks for sharing.

Here is a clue: Nader ran on the Green Party ticket.

[Zorra]

140. Totally faulty equation. n/t

[Malikshah]

141. What a remarkably ignorant statement.

I will chalk it up to primary fever.

Walk away from the keyboard. Reflect. Repent.

Years from now, the embarrassment and self-loathing from this statement may abate.

[Milo_Bloom]

145. What statement do you think I made?

[Warren Stupidity]

147. John Edwards = Ralph Nader

That statement, plus all the subsequent preposterous inane bullshit that followed it.

[Milo_Bloom]

149. Ahh, I see, you didn't read the post.

Next time, try reading it for context, instead of just jumping at the headline.

It really helps.

[Malikshah]

182. I know I read the OP and reread it again

It is clear you are making the connection.

The first step to recovery is to admit the problem.

[OwnedByFerrets]

153. Thats just fucking STUPID!!

[femrap]

154. For God and Goddess'

sake, Edwards is not running as a third party candidate. Geez. You are comparing oranges to apples.

We are in a Primary...this is what happens in primaries.

OMG, if this is what we have in the Democratic Party, no wonder we fucking lose all the time. Milo, you must have inherited wealth and the apple fell far from the tree. There are some of us out there who have waited for decades to hear the Anti-Corporate Greed message...DECADES! And now I'm to listen to vagueness concerning Change, Hope, Future, Unity, etc. Do you have any idea that we are practically a FASCIST STATE??? Our Constitution is hanging by a thread...

If Americans keep ignoring Edwards' message of Anti-Corporate Greed, our nation will CHANGE into one with no HOPE and our FUTURE will be one of mass poverty and the Extremely Wealthy will have complete UNITY.

[Milo_Bloom]

169. He's being ignored because the messenger is insincere...

... and the message is not well thought out.

The anticorporate message is the same one Nader was pitching back in 2000 and that Kucinich has pitched in every campaign.


So if you have "waiting decades" to hear this message, you haven't been listening or you have been supporting the wrong candidates.

I am all for the anti-corporate greed message, but from the right messenger... not one as knee deep in corporate money as the others. Not one who made his money by trasfering wealth from one corporation to another.

I would want a candidate who understands the underlying PROBLEM and not just using the buzz-words. Edwards, if he does understand the problem, isn't addressing it.

[femrap]

172. If you don't see that Corporate Greed

is the ROOT CAUSE of our declining Democracy, you need to go to the library and read some books. Why do you think we go to war all the time??? CORPORATE PROFITS. Why do just 5 rich, ugly white boys control 80% of the Media? So they can control what the population hears and sees...PROPAGANDA. See why Edwards' message doesn't get any coverage?

Do I have to connect all the dots for you? When you see a problem....just go backward and you'll see that Corporate Greed has caused that problem.

And now I have to ignore you or otherwise I will have to go start another party because I can no longer stand being in one that is full of young stupid people.

ETA: Darwin is not happy with your progress.

[Milo_Bloom]

179. Its amazing how people read what they want to read...

Where did I say it wasn't problem?

Why can't people learn to read what is written befor they respond?

[femrap]

184. So you simply believe that Edwards is

a liar? You don't think he would try to regulate their greed, overturn NAFTA/CAFTA, bring back jobs to the US, or help rebuild the middle class? He's just lying? And all of his work as a trial lawyer fighting for the regular folks who have been injured by the Corporate Greed was an illusion???

For years people have complained about Corporations buying our politicians at election time and how Corporations now show nothing but resentment toward their employees...and now finally we have a candidate that speaks to that and everyone is gaga over Unity, Change and Future???

I believe that the many young people who are supporting Obama have no idea of what the Corporation has done to us (fascism).

[Milo_Bloom]

187. Yes, absolutely 100%.

I think he is a liar and all I have to do is look at his record and his plans to feel confident that he is a liar, simply using "corporatism" to try and trick people into voting for him.

[femrap]

199. And his life work as

a trial lawyer working for Joe and Jane America means nothing? And realize when he was in the Senate...the beginning of the war...lots of Dems made BIG mistakes. He apologized.


Say hello to Prez McCain...Obama can't beat him. This country doesn't like change...never votes for it. They're racists, they're Evangelical who believe he is a Muslim and nothing he or you say will change that belief (they are in my family, I know), and they're old...old people vote and they don't like to hear that their lives are over and have meant nothing....'get out of the way, us smart ass young 'uns are here to fix what you did wrong.' Middle of the road Dems will stay home.

You're selfish. Ask yourself which Dem candidate has the best chance of beating the Republican? Are you will to throw the dice on that one? If so, you don't care about this country and the working people in it.

Now...grow up and leave me alone. If the repugnant is elected prez, you will be hunted down....and the Democratic party will be OVER.

Obama HAS NO RECORD. HE NEVER VOTED ON THE WAR. BUT HE SURE IS CLEVER and SLY.

[Milo_Bloom]

200. He was paid quite well for his work.

His work was not altuistic and he certainly didn't do it out of the goodness of his heart. I don't begrudge him the money he earned. He worked hard for it, but please, sell the "poor country lawyer" talk for someone who doesn't know better.

As for which dem candidate has the best chance of beating the republican? Clinton is too devisive and Edwards has flip-flopped on too many issues. He is, by far, the easiest one to run against, because all they need to do is run an ad showing him debating himself. I am not sure about Obama... He has a better than than either of the others, but he is far from perfect.

If Clinton or Edwards are the nominee... you can say hello to president Bloomberg.

It doesn't matter, though... Edwards is done. He is not going to get the nomination and I thank god every day, because I couldn't imagine a worse candidate than Edwards.

[femrap]

201. buh bye.

[Milo_Bloom]

205. I guess the turth hurts.

[sjdnb]

158. Watch this and get back to us on your anti-Nader rant

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/unreasonableman/nader.html

I bit*ched my kid out six ways from Sunday for voting for Nader after the 2000 election. I had worked my tail off for Gore. Then, I watched this. And, I realized, it's not about who I want to win or who I think is the best candidate. Every American is born with the right to vote their own conscience.

And, shame on me for coming down on my son. Heck, looking back at it Gore picked Lieberman as his VP. Now, while I prefer to consider that a momentary lapse of judgment ... others might not.

So, positioning be damned -- Nader didn't lose 2000 for Gore - Kathryn Harris, the GOP machine,and the Supreme Court did - and, Nader had nothing to do with Kerry's 2004 loss.

Get over it, already. The Dems just aren't standing up/willing to lay it on the line for what they believe in, right now. Until the leadership gets an injection of courage, none of us (or Dem candidates) stand a chance.

[Milo_Bloom]

165. Umm, please read the original post.

I specifically said that I support both Edwards' AND Nader's right to run and have no issue with them at all.

My problem is with the hypocrisy of Edwards' supporters who are saying that even though he can't win, he should stay in, but some of these same people viciously attack Nader as a scumbag for "stealing votes" from a different candidate.

[mondo joe]

166. Please. It was so lame to read the first time.

Nader and Edwards both have the right to run.

But only one's run was helpful to George Bush.

[Milo_Bloom]

170. So the opponent is what matters?

Some people believe that Edwards is taking votes from Obama and that Clinton is a DINO who will wind up continuing the shift to the right by not addressing any of the issues progressives care about.


Others believe that Edwards may be taking votes away from Clinton and that Obama is a Reagan Democrat who is going to cuddle up to republicans in an effort to form bipartisan politics and as a result, continue the shift to the right.


Some believe that one of the two candidates (one of whom will be the nominee) don't stand a chance in the GE (pick your candidate here).

Edwards will, in fact, be in a large way responsible for one of these people winning and one losing.

[mondo joe]

183. I'm a Democrat. I'm opposed to Bush. Al Gore was called a DINO too - it was dumb then

and it's dumb now when used against Clinton.

I believe any of the 3 Dems could beat the Republican candidate - so I'm happy for Democrats to sort of who we want.

[sjdnb]

171. The tone of your post was not as 'clean' as you represent here

You basically called Edwards a 'snake oil salesman' who was running to pad his ego and, rather transparently, attempted to use anti-Nader sentiment to support your underlying premise which was, IMO, to discredit Edwards.

[mondo joe]

159. Nonsense. This is the primary to choose the Dem candidate. It's completely different

than running in the GE and splitting the left/progressive/democratic vote, giving the Republican an advantage.

[MrSlayer]

168. Ridiculous notion.

If Edwards were to join the Green party after this and syphon votes away from the Democrats that would cause a Republican victory then you would have a leg to stand on in this argument. But he is not going to do that and we are still in a primary so it holds no water.

[Marrah_G]

174. Perhaps you don't realize it is a primary...not the General Election

There is zero comparison. You are just upset the Edwards supporters aren't voting for YOUR candidate.

We will be voting for the Dem in the General Election which is what counts.

Frankly if I were not voting for Edwards I would be voting for Clinton anyway.....so chill the fuck out.

[minnesota_liberal]

176. a neo-maxi zoom dweebie comparison

Nader
- Independent candidate
- Never stood a chance as anything except a spoiler
- Stayed in race through the (2004) general election

Edwards
- Democratic party candidate
- Remains a viable candidate
- Better positioned to influence Dem platform or be VP candidate the longer he keeps fighting
- Still in the race after five (or so) primaries/caucuses, roughly half a year until the convention

[lutefisk]

178. I have to say, Milo is a uniter, not a divider.

I haven't seen so much agreement about something since the primaries began.

[deacon]

180. Obama and Hillary = Bush lite. n/t

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

181. So what you are essentially saying

Is that staying in a primary after only a few states have voted or caucused makes the potential nominee a spoiler. Look, I'm not from Iowa, New Hampshire, or NC, so forgive me if I think I should have a right as a member of the democratic party to have a voice in the matter of who the nominee will ultimately be. It is pretty horrifying to suggest that 3 or 4 states should determine the nominee. It's a big country. There's 50 states. To say the decision is already made is a bit premature.

Once the democratic nominee is determined, I'm behind him or her. But please do not try to guilt me into taking away my voice in the nomination process.

[LSK]

192. Edwards staying in the primary causes a GOP win in the general HOW EXACTLY???

[burythehatchet]

196. Go Back to Third Grade, Do Not Pass GO.

[Yanez Houston Jordan]

198. That's ain't too bright. First, there isn't a nickel's worth of difference between Obama and Hillary

so it would hardly matter if Edwards' supporters would gravitate more to one than the other and, Second, there's scant evidence that Edwards' supporters would gravitate more to Obama than Hillary.

By staying in the race, Edwards is pulling these two centrist Milquetoast candidates back to the left where they belong, and if Edwards is a king-maker at the convention, he will extract at least some benefit for the working people. That's reason enough for Edwards to remain in the race.

[readmoreoften]

202. This is the kind of total idiocy that makes me fear for our country.

It is one thing to criticize those who abandoned the Democratic party which still had the potential to be "the party of resistance" for a more seemingly more progressive candidate in 2000. It is one thing to criticize a third party candidate for taking money from Republicans in 2004.

It is complete, utter, and total brain-scraped, "moranic", freeper-level totalitarian thinking to believe that the more progressive candidate during the party primary is an "impure infiltrator" or "agent provocateur" because he provides a return to the party's traditional platform of support for the working class.

Dangerously stupid thinking.

[Lilith Velkor]

204. Attack the left, pander to the right, whine like titty-babies when you lose

That's been SOP for Democrats, except for the '06 midterms. Apparently, victory scares the crap out of them, so it's back to the same ol' with all due haste.

The OP just takes it one step further.

[PVnRT]

203. Another proud addition to my ignore list