Nader For President ???

Ralph Nader's announcement that he is running for president again in 2008 has provided us with perhaps the least surprising surprise of the campaign so far.

Mr Nader has played some sort of role in every race for the White House since 1992 although his record in public life stretches back further still.

As a writer and political activist, Mr Nader has been an influential figure in American public life for 40 years - the scourge of corporate greed and wasteful defence spending and champion of consumer rights and the need to protect the environment.

His public life as measured through the ballot box is not perhaps very successful - he achieved 2.74% of the popular vote in 2000 for example - but his supporters argue that he is a kind of grassroots visionary whose ideas start life on the fringes of political debate then move to the centre.

Consider how all serious politicians are now expected to talk about the environment, they say.

Mr Nader will be best-remembered for the central role he played in the dramas of the 2000 contest between George W Bush and Al Gore which still rankles with many Democrats to this day.

That contest hinged on a virtual dead-heat between the two main candidates in the state of Florida - which after a series of battles in the courts, eventually went the way of Mr Bush.
Democrats point out though that where only a few hundred votes separated Mr Bush from Al Gore, nearly 100,000 people voted for Mr Nader.

Those voters, say Democrats, would clearly have been likely to vote for Mr Gore had Mr Nader not been on the ballot - and so they blame Mr Nader for handing the presidency to George W Bush.

Third-party impact

Mr Nader and his supporters do not buy that argument - and of course America is a democracy where the voters are entitled to vote for the candidate of their choice - but there is no doubt that his candidacy in 2008 will once again raise the whole issue of how tight presidential races between Democrats and Republicans can be affected by third party candidates.

Now very few races will ever be as tight as Florida in 2000, but there is no doubt that a third candidacy can help to determine who wins the White House.

Would Bill Clinton ever have become president in 1992 for example if Ross Perot had not run and taken around 19% of the popular vote?

It is reasonable to assume that at least some of those voters would have plumped for the Republican candidate George Bush senior if Mr Perot had not been around.

There are two ways in which third-party candidates can have a real impact.

First, like Mr Perot they can simply attract a huge number of votes.

Second, like Mr Nader in Florida in 2000, they can attract votes in a finely balanced race and thus effectively hold a kind of balance of power.

It seems reasonable to assume - on the basis of his track record - that Mr Nader is not going to get anywhere near the 19% of the vote that Mr Perot once achieved, so any influence he may have in 2008 will depend on the race being a desperately tight one again.

If it is, then Mr Nader's presence on the ballot may once again be highly significant.

The first candidate to discuss the Nader candidacy, Barack Obama, did not appear troubled by the prospect, though, merely noting that it was the job of a Democratic contender to be so compelling that the prospect of a few per cent of the vote being diverted to another candidate would make no difference to the outcome.

But we should beware of treating the contest for the White House simply as a horse race - rather than as a battle for ideas.

Ralph Nader once characterised the Democrat and Republican contenders for the presidency as "Tweedledum and Tweedledee" - implying that there was very little to choose between them.
Mr Nader's consumer-focused, environment-driven brand of radicalism ensures that a whole other set of ideas will once again get an airing this time around.

Even if he does not affect the outcome, the candidate who now replaces John McCain as the oldest man in the race will at least make it more politically interesting.

Clinton, Obama Pitch to Va. Democrats

Relishing a clean sweep of elections held Saturday, Sen. Barack Obama appealed to Virginia Democrats to help him turn the page away from the "same old Washington games with the same old Washington players," an indictment meant for presidential rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Sen. John McCain.

Obama addressed about 4,000 Democratic officials and activists at the state party's annual Jefferson-Jackson fundraising dinner, taking the stage fresh from victories in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington state and the Virgin Islands.

Clinton addressed the crowd before he arrived. The gala served as a can't-miss stop in their short, intense campaign for contests Tuesday in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Obama exulted in his wins but mentioned them only briefly. He said his victories from the West Coast to the Gulf Coast and in the heartland were a rousing "yes we can" from voters fed up with divisive politics and failed policies. Like Clinton before him on the stage, he painted McCain, the likely Republican nominee, as more of the same from the party of President Bush.

"He has made the decision to embrace the failed policies of George Bush's Washington," Obama said of McCain. "He speaks of a hundred-year war in Iraq and sees another on the horizon with Iran."

The New York senator made no reference to her losses in the Washington and Nebraska caucuses or to the Louisiana primary, which was still unsettled when she spoke. She left the dinner immediately after her remarks, ensuring no overlap with Obama, who was on his way.

The crowd greeted Clinton enthusiastically but was largely supportive of her rival. Chants of "Obama" rang through the hall as she made her way offstage, and they grew much louder when the Illinois senator arrived.

The Clinton campaign said 100,000 donors had given $10 million since Super Tuesday, the money-sapping mega-contest that left Obama and Clinton close to a tie in delegates won. After Tuesday, Clinton acknowledged lending her campaign $5 million of her own money — a disclosure that seemed to help open the money taps from supporters to try to counter Obama's fundraising prowess.

Both candidates spent most of Saturday campaigning in Maine for the state's nominating caucuses Sunday.

Saturday's results were clearly disappointing for Clinton, although not entirely a surprise. Obama has generally done well in smaller states and those holding caucuses rather than primaries.

Clinton's prospects in Tuesday's Maryland, Virginia and D.C. primaries were uncertain, because of high numbers of black voters and highly educated voters — groups that have favored her rival. She planned to fly Tuesday night to Texas, where she hoped to perform well in the state's March 4 primary.

Before Clinton arrived at the spirited Richmond dinner, Obama supporters in the crowd waved placards and chanted the stump-speech line that has become a slogan — "Yes we can" — while Clinton supporters roared back "Hill-a-ry."

Clinton brought both camps to their feet when she blistered the Bush administration and, by inference, a likely Republican nominee she had no problem branding a conservative — even if he's struggling to sell that label to his party's right.

"We have tried it President Bush's way," she said, and now "the Republicans have chosen more of the same."

"President Bush has already put his stamp of approval on Senator McCain's conservative credentials," she said, adding wryly, "and I'm sure that will help." The line won cheers and laughs. Bush has nudged his party to unite but not explicitly endorsed McCain.

The Arizona senator lost the Kansas caucuses Saturday against long-shot rival Mike Huckabee, who draws support from conservatives.

Clinton described Bush 's way as "hoard power, disregard science, shred the Constitution, smear dissenters, impugn patriots, go it alone in the world wherever you can and cooperate only when you have to."

She told the audience: "You know, for me, politics isn't a game. It's not about who's up or who's down. It's about your lives, your families and your futures. And isn't it about time you had a president who brought your voice and your values to your White House?"

Former President Clinton campaigned vigorously for his wife in Virginia, but his rhetoric was restrained after the criticism he took earlier for remarks about Obama that raised racial sensitivities, including one suggesting Obama's opposition to the Iraq war was a fairy tale.

Former Virginia Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, the nation's first elected black governor, an Obama backer and Richmond's mayor, took a swipe at Bill Clinton during a news conference Saturday. "Barack Obama is not a fairy tale," Wilder said. "He is real."

Of Bill Clinton, Wilder said: "A time comes and a time goes. The president has had his time."

In Baghdad, Gates sees signs of progress

Iraq's political leaders are showing promising new signs of progress toward reconciliation, yet still face difficult decisions on how to stabilize the country, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday.

"They seem to have become energized over the last few weeks," Gates told reporters who traveled with him from an international security conference in Munich, Germany. The Pentagon chief added that he wants to "see what the prospects are for further success in the next couple of months."

Gates arrived after dark at Baghdad International Airport aboard an Air Force C-17 cargo plane. He flew by helicopter to a private dinner with Iraq's political leaders, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, as well as U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

In an interview on the trip to Iraq, Gates cited the recent passage of an amnesty law as an example of political progress. He said he would ask Iraqi leaders to assess the prospects for other important steps such as passing a law that would spell out power-sharing between the provinces and the national government.

He likened the challenge of passing an Iraqi provincial powers law to the U.S. founding fathers' struggle to find a constitutional compromise on how to share power in the Congress between big and small states.

Gates said he would make clear to al-Maliki and other political leaders that "our continued eagerness for them to proceed and successfully conclude some of this legislation" considered key to reconciling Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

It was Gates' first visit this year and possibly his last before Petraeus and Crocker return to Washington in April to recommend to President Bush whether to continue reducing U.S. troop levels after Petraeus' current drawdown plan is completed in July. By then, four brigades are to have gone home, leaving 15.

"I would be interested in how they are planning it — which units are coming out" between now and July, Gates said.

The trickier question is whether Petraeus will tell Bush that security conditions in Baghdad and elsewhere in the country have improved enough to permit even more troop cuts without risking a deterioration in security. Petraeus' strategy is based on an expectation that improved security over time will give Iraqi political leaders an impetus to make compromises on legislation and other moves toward reconciliation.

Asked whether he would question Petraeus about the possibility of recommending a pause in the troop drawdown this summer, Gates replied, "I think our conversation will cover the whole range of possibilities."

He said on the way to Baghdad that he planned to visit troops Monday at a U.S. base in the capital, as well as pin a medal on Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. commander. Odierno is departing after 15 months in charge of the headquarters that carries out Petraeus' strategy on a day-to-day basis.

Gates also was meeting with Odierno's successor, Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin. Odierno is returning to Washington and has been nominated by Bush for promotion to four-star rank and assignment as Army vice chief of staff.

In his talks with Iraqi political leaders Gates said he intended to make clear "our continued eagerness for them to proceed and successfully conclude some of this legislation," which has taken longer than many had hoped.

Before his latest visit to Iraq, Gates said in a speech in Munich that NATO's survival was at stake in the debate over how the United States and Europe should share the burden of fighting Islamic extremism in Afghanistan.

As Gates cited signs of political progress, the U.S. military said a car bomb exploded near an Iraqi checkpoint in an open-market area north of Baghdad, killing at least 23 civilians and wounding 25. Earlier, the military said a diary and another document seized during U.S. raids show some al-Qaida in Iraq leaders fear the terrorist group is crumbling, with many fighters defecting to American-backed neighborhood groups.

Bush, in an interview broadcast Sunday in the United States, discussed the long-term U.S. relationship with Iraq. "We will be there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. ... We won't have permanent bases. I do believe it is in our interests and the interests of the Iraqi people that we do enter into an agreement on how we are going to conduct ourselves over the next years."

Last year, Bush ordered five additional Army brigades to Iraq. One of those brigades left in December and the other four are due to come out by July, leaving 15 brigades, or about 130,000 to 135,000 troops — the same number as before Bush sent the reinforcements.

Petraeus recently said it would be prudent to "let things settle a bit" before embarking on a new round of cuts. Gates has not said whether he agreed with Petraeus, though the secretary noted other commanders and service chiefs would weigh in with their opinions.

Bush, who met with Petraeus during his recent trip to the Middle East, said in the broadcast interview, "My message to the general was success is paramount and therefore, whatever you recommend, make it based upon the need to succeed."

"So we said, `What is succeed? What does succeed mean? It means there's enough security and stability for this reconciliation to continue to take place and for democracy to take hold," Bush said.

The president said he did not know what Petraeus or the Pentagon would recommend later this year on troop levels. "I will listen — give them careful consideration and make up my mind. But it's going to be based upon whether or not we can succeed or not."

At the German conference, Gates acknowledged that the U.S. has had innumerable disputes with its NATO allies in the 59 years since the security alliance was founded as a bulwark against the former Soviet Union. But Gates portrayed today's debate over the importance of the mission in Afghanistan and how to accomplish as among the most difficult ever.

A central theme was that al-Qaida extremists, either in Afghanistan or elsewhere, pose a greater threat to Europe than many Europeans realize.

Gates said the Bush administration had learned from mistakes made in Iraq, including the need to more closely integrate the civilian-led stabilization efforts with the military efforts. He said the U.S. and NATO must apply that lesson in Afghanistan to assure success.

Why Blacks Should Consider McCain

Feb. 6, 2008 -- The old saying holds that in politics you don't have to win, you just have to not lose. But what the saying doesn't tell you is that sometimes what looks like victory is actually a step backward. And that will be the case for black folk should Hillary Clinton win the Democratic Party nomination and the presidency.


It was clear from the first vague rumblings of her presidential ambitions that H.C. would be the definitive establishment candidate. Her husband is likely the most powerful individual in the Democratic Party and his charisma, cache and connections are largely responsible for the aura of inevitability that surrounded her campaign early on.

Sen. Barack Obama's stunning Iowa and South Carolina victories, along with his strong showings during the other primaries, neutralized Clinton's argument that she was the most electable candidate. But, she has another unspoken advantage: The Democratic Party nominating system includes 800 "super-delegates" who can, theoretically, vote however they choose but are most likely to back the candidate most favored by the party establishment. If it comes down to the super-delegates deciding the nominee and Clinton emerges victorious, you can count on the 2008 Democratic Convention looking a whole lot like the one in 1968.
The Clintons have thus far run one of the most underhanded and bitter political campaigns in recent history. And while there is no reason to suspect that they are racist, they are clearly willing to play upon the sympathies of whites who are--which is probably worse. This was evident by the twin "accidents" in which Clinton staff member Billy Shaheen and that pillar of the booty-shake community BET founder Bob Johnson attacked Sen. Obama for his youthful dalliances with drugs. Any lingering doubt about who they were playing to was erased when Bill Clinton essentially dismissed Obama's South Carolina victory by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's wins there in 1984 and 1988.


Apparently none of the high-profile black leaders who are backing Hillary Clinton have been able to prohibit the kind of cynical race hustling that marked the South Carolina primary. (This recalls the old saying that the problem is not that black leaders so often sell out, but that their asking price is so pitifully low.)

But in the wake of the Sister Souljah episode (not to mention Bill Clinton's stiff-arming of his black nominee for the Justice Department (Lani Guinier) and his short-lived Surgeon General (Jocelyn Elders) it must appear that there is nothing the black community won't forgive you for provided you show up at one of our churches and hum a spiritual every so often. As a matter of principle, no candidate, no matter how deep their alleged ties to the black community, should be allowed to race-bait a black politician and still receive the majority of our vote.


All this points to one clear – if unlikely – conclusion: if Hillary Clinton receives the Democratic Party nomination, African Americans should consider voting for John McCain. But before you fix your lips to call me a sellout consider this: Carter G. Woodson once remarked that any race that consistently gives its vote to one political party is asking to be taken advantage of.

If politics is the art of advancing one's interests, the 2008 election, and the Clinton campaign in particular, indicate that the Democratic Party has become so cavalier with black folk that our interests are nearly invisible. In short, South Carolina (not to mention that LBJ did more than MLK comment) revealed that the Clintons operate on the presumption that they can alienate black voters and still rely upon our support in the general election.

At present no reasonable third party candidate has emerged (unless you count Cynthia McKinney, the fisticuff-prone Green Party candidate who might take "fighting for your rights" literally.) So a vote for McCain would be a short-term loss that would facilitate a long-term win.


With the congressional balance tilting in favor of Democrats, McCain would have a hard time getting reactionary legislation passed or right-wing Supreme Court nominees approved (not that he is a darling of the GOP right-wing anyway.) He has made a big show of his support for remaining in Iraq but truthfully no one will be able to guarantee a quick withdrawal from the region. And to his credit, McCain clearly opposed the Bush Administration's mad attempts to justify torture and broke with the right-wing on immigration reform.


More importantly, John McCain would be 72 by the time he took office, and 76 in 2012. Given the fact that he is a divisive figure in the GOP -- and that he would turn 76 during the 2012 campaign -- it is likely that he would face a strong challenge from within the party during the next election cycle. From the outset, McCain's candidacy has had the look of a one-termer.


I am a lifelong registered independent, operating on the belief that the Democratic Party should at least have to work for our support. If even 20 percent of the black vote went to McCain it would send a clear message to the Democrats that our days of being a cheap date are over.

Bill Clinton: Race, gender key in S.C.

DILLON, S.C. - He's not on the ballot but Bill Clinton seemed to dominate the South Carolina presidential campaign, disparaging Barack Obama and journalists and predicting that many voters will be guided mainly by gender and race loyalties.

The former president suggested that his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, may lose Saturday's Democratic primary because many black voters will side with Obama. The unusually direct comment on the possible role of race in the election was in keeping with the Clintons' bid to portray Obama as the clear favorite, thereby lessening the potential fallout if it proves true.

Voting for president along racial and gender lines "is understandable, because people are proud when someone who they identify with emerges for the first time," the former president told a Charleston audience Wednesday while campaigning for his wife, a role he has played all week.

His comments and a later outburst with a reporter came on a day when Obama continued to challenge Hillary Clinton's candor and trustworthiness. He said his chief rival has indulged in double-talk on bankruptcy laws, trade and other issues.

The atmosphere grew more charged after Clinton's campaign aired a radio ad in South Carolina suggesting Obama approved of Republican ideas. Obama responded with his own radio spot that says, "Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected."

Politicians "don't always say what they mean, or mean what they say," the Illinois senator told about 900 people at Winthrop University, in Rock Hill, Wednesday. "That is what this debate in this party is all about."

At each of three main stops Wednesday, Obama mocked Clinton for saying she voted for a 2001 bankruptcy bill but was happy it did not become law.

"Senator Clinton said, `Well, I voted for it, but I hoped the bill would die,'" he said, drawing hoots from the university crowd.

Bill Clinton, campaigning on the coast while Obama was inland, said Obama and the media had stirred up tensions over race in response to some Democrats' criticisms of the couple's strategies.

"I never heard a word of public complaint when Mr. Obama said Hillary was not truthful," and had "no character, was poll-driven. He had more pollsters than she did," the ex-president said in a heated exchange with a CNN reporter. "When he put out a hit job on me at the same time he called her the senator from Punjab, I never said a word."

It was not clear what he meant by "hit job."

The former president has accused Obama of exaggerating his anti-war record and handing out undeserved praise to Republicans. Clinton said he personally witnessed Obama's union forces intimidating Nevada caucus-goers and said an Obama radio ad suggested how Democrats could keep votes from his wife.

Last year, Obama's campaign circulated a memo describing Hillary Clinton as "D-Punjab," a reference to her Indian-American donors. Obama has said that was a mistake.

Bill Clinton said civil rights leaders Andrew Young and John Lewis have defended his wife. "They both said that Hillary was right and the people who attacked her were wrong and that she did not play the race card, but they did," he said.

Clinton said the news media is much tougher on his wife than on Obama. At the end of the exchange, he told the CNN reporter, "Shame on you."

Clinton also told about 100 people in Charleston that he was proud of the Democratic Party for having a woman and a black candidate and he understands why Obama is drawing support among blacks, who may comprise up to half of Saturday's turnout.

"As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender," he said. "They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here."