Should Hillary have the right to feel ill-will towards Ralph Nader as he prepares to run on the independent ticket again for the 2008 election? Obviously she can feel however she wants to feel, bu her comments were not without warrant. In the 2000 election, the controversial election between President George W. Bush and former Vice President Al Gore might have turned out differently had Ralph Nader not taken a percentage of the vote. People choosing to vote for Nader were predominately left wing voters who Gore expected when the election took place. Today,
Clinton responded to word that Nader was joining the election again with disappointment. She said, "His being on the Green Party prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we could have had, and I think that’s really unfortunate. I think we paid a big price for it. I’m pretty sad about that."
Hillary went on to say, "This time I hope it doesn’t hurt anybody. I hope it’s kind of a passing fancy that people don’t take too seriously.”
Her comments raise a very important question. I thought about Gore's loss in 2000, and although Nader took a portion of the popular vote from Gore, he can't be held responsible for the loss.
In 2000, no one knew just how pivotal the election would be. As a liberal, I supported Gore for the presidency but it's hard to fault others for their opinions. We are a democracy for a reason. We are a free country for a reason. I think that the Gore party was in part to blame for the loss. Gore came off as a very straight and narrow man lacking personality.
I wish Gore had produced his documentary before his election, as the Gore we know today is a lot more personable then the man we met in 2000.
The past is this past. We made mistakes in the past (most notably electing President Bush to a second term), but now we need to move forward. If Nader wants to run, that is his choice. It is the responsibility of the Democratic nominee (whoever that may be), to run a strong campaign, convincing voters that they are the better candidate. This means being a better candidate then Republicans and Independents alike. What do you guys think about Hillary's comments? What about Nader's announcement?
Information taken from: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8657.html
"Clinton Slams Nader Over Presidential Bid"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
While strategically Nader can only do more harm that good, as his ability to win the election is virtually non-existent, he still has the right to run as he wishes. I totally agree with this opinion. On the same note, Hillary has the ability to speak her thoughts on the matter. In fact, her reaction, as well as Obama's and the other candidates' reactions will go even further to show a truer nature of their character and their ability to roll with the punches. Nothing is going to run according to plan, as we have already discovered this year. It is important to be able to see which candidate(s) can handle upsetting news and which candidates cannot. After all, we will be stuck with the president we elect in November for four years, any and every chance to see people's true colors should be greatly appreciated by voters.
Ultimately, although many factors contributed to Gore's loss, there is no doubt that Nader's self-centered lack of foresight and common sense - i.e. making the case that Bush and Gore were no different - was a major contributing factor to Gore's defeat. Al Gore should have won anyway, yes, and his campaign should have been able to compensate for Nader, but Ralph Nader needs to disappear. He has long ago lost all credibility that he gained as a consumer advocate in days past.
Hillary has the right to let the public know her opinion. Whether or not she should have spoken up is the question. There are multiple people who are weary of the bipartisan system and want to see change. Hillary's comments may alienate people who feel as if we need to have more political parties.
Nader cannot be blamed for Gore's loss. In fact, most still blame the electoral college system for the loss. Hillary would not outwardly condemn the system and I do not think it is in her campaign's best interest to be criticizing Nader.
Do I think Nader should run? I like the idea of not having a bipartisan government, but the reality is that is not going to change right now. I understand what Nader is trying to do, but I think he has a better chance making a difference as a lobbyist or activist than as a presidential candidate.
Post a Comment