Firing a direct political salvo at presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama... Ralph Nader 'outs' Obama""""hitting him right between the eyes.
Whether or not one agrees with the policies or political positions of Nader the 2008 independent presidential candidate, you have to give him credit for calling Obama out and not backing down on his 'call out'. And that boldness is the mark of a true leader!
Like it or not, Nader is one of the few""""if not the only"""" politician this entire 16-month election process who has had the guts to 'in-your-face' challenge the soon-to-be-Democratic candidate in the arena he [Obama] has dominated... and has rendered unspeakable by anyone else: RACE.
Now, what is unfortunate is that it took a white man [Nader] to actuate the conversation, and to place (front and center in the political debate) these core issues that plague African-Americans in rural and urban communities coast-to-coast. But more disturbing is 'why' Senator Obama fails to address those important issues, as raised here by Nader, i.e.:
"I haven't heard him [Senator Obama] have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that?" [And...
"...why don't you support single-payer national health insurance, which is supported by a majority of doctors and the American people? Why do you favor expanding the military budget which is replete with waste, fraud and abuse?" [And...
"...why don't you come out and support an immediate increase of the minimum wage to $10 an hour? [And ...
"...'cracking down on corporate crime, curbing the violence of toxic environmental racism, and extending clean, affordable public transit, among other issues'. When can we expect the authenticity of hope and change?"
Instead of responding to these legitimate questions from Nader, Obama chose to pooh-pooh his response by saying: "Ralph Nader is trying to get attention. ... It's a shame, because if you look at his legacy in terms of consumer protection, it's an extraordinary one. But at this point, he's somebody who's trying to get attention."
So, let's take the 'need-to-get-attention' aspect off the table. Now, Obama needs to answer Nader's questions"""" especially with over 95% of Obama's expected votes-to-victory in the Fall coming from African Americans. What is being demanded by Blacks from him for this support? What kinds of promises will he give to African Americans for this overwhelming backing?
Here of late, the junior Senator from Illinois has made his rounds"""" making promises to the Jewish community to lay U.S. lives on the line (if need be) for Israel's security. He continues to meet with, and make commitments to white women"""" assuring he will be sensitive to equal pay, abortion rights, and other white women issues if they will come back to the Democratic fold. And, what about Michelle Obama, who is on record pledging to the Gay and Lesbian voter base that Barack will unabashedly fight for equal rights for the Gay community.
Well and good, as nobody is 'hating' on what he has to say to other groups to get their votes! But, Nader's right... and his brazen comments should tweak interest in the Black community. Why has Obama been so silent on what Blacks can realistically expect to receive from an Obama presidency? Surely the reason for his silence is not""""as Nader has doggedly thrown onto the political landscape, and refuses to back-up-off-this statement:
"Obama is talking white. "He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician," Nader said. "He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."
Nader's challenge to Obama cannot, and should not, be dismissed as the debate which leads to the road to the White House transpires in coffee houses, living rooms and social gatherings across America.
Senator Obama... Black America needs your response.
www.vberryhill-soulvoice.blogspot.com
Vivian Berryhill, founder of a national service organization, is a renown speaker and travels extensively throughout the United States and abroad. She has addressed audiences in Thailand, Nigeria, Honduras, Peru, Chile, and has traveled to Kenya, Uganda, Camaroon, Zambia, Rawanda, France and the U.K.
She was selected as one of the premier partners for Walden Media's internationally acclaimed movie: Amazing Grace, http://amazinggracemovie.com/_pdf/ag_faithguide_uk.pdf and the worldwide movement Amazing Change, www.theamazingchange.com/music2.html, lending her voice and talent, along with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Right Reverend Patrick O'Donoghue, and other notable world leaders, to end modern day slavery.
Mrs. Berryhill, a 2007 Jefferson Public Service Award winner, also received the prestigious Presidential Service Award in 2006. She is married to Rev. C.L. Berryhill, Jr.
Obama currently appears to be in appeasing mode - appeasing all the different constituents as he goes along. Unfortunately as they say - you can please some of the people some of the time - it is impossible to please all the people all the time.
Let's see what an Obama presidency will ultimately look like and whether he will be able to bring any substantial change in policy.
It is up to us the electorate to hold him and Congress accountable - we the American people need to get off our collective butts and start calling, participating and visiting our elected officials. Stop taking our democracy for granted.
by
wendynyc (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments)
on Sunday, June 29, 2008 at 6:31:00 PM
I wrote that back in January '07 and since then I've decided not to vote. No point voting in rigged elections. So now I can just throw the campaign junk mail and voter guides in the trash, sit back and watch the sideshow.
Whoever is "elected" they'll have just as much legitimacy as Robert Mugabe has in Zimbabwe, and at least I'll be able to say that I didn't vote.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 28 quicklinks, 71 diaries, 895 comments)
on Sunday, June 29, 2008 at 6:51:23 PM
"I haven't heard him [Senator Obama] have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that?"[And...
"...why don't you support single-payer national health insurance, which is supported by a majority of doctors and the American people? Why do you favor expanding the military budget which is replete with waste, fraud and abuse?" [And...
"...why don't you come out and support an immediate increase of the minimum wage to $10 an hour? [And ...
"...'cracking down on corporate crime, curbing the violence of toxic environmental racism, and extending clean, affordable public transit, among other issues'. When can we expect the authenticity of hope and change?"
It is good that these issues are brought out, but why is it Obama's responsibility, exclusively, to address them? Doesn't the nation that McCain is trying to get elected in have those same issues? Can't HE come out with them?
No, Nader's role in this campaign is to attempt to place a wedge between Obama and minorities, to dissuade voters from voting for Obama. Early on, when it appeared she would be the one nominated, he made comments that he would consider running “if” Hillary won the nomination. She didn't, he is. Does this imply he is a McCain fan? Or is he merely attempting to gain attention?
It is true he did not pull enough votes to take the elections from either Gore or Kerry. In the 2000 election it may well have been the 3000+ votes Buchanan pulled in the heavily Jewish populated area in Florida where the “butterfly” ballot was used. In the 2004 election people are still going to prison in Ohio for illegal activities in the vote counting process in that state. In both cases Gore and Kerry gave little fight against the crime being committed in the election process. They caved....but that's another study.
Nader is correct, however, when he says Obama is bending to whomever in order to get elected. He knows to get elected he must bow to the wishes of AIPAC and the powers from Israel. He knows he must kiss the butt of the corporate media propagandists in order to gain “positive air time.” He is gradually being molded into the President by those who make Presidents. He lost me when he started wearing that neocon symbol, the flag pin (isn't it much like the armbands once worn in Germany? Think about it, who actually has been wearing them?). I still haven't seen one on McCain, yet nothing is said pertaining to his patriotism. Obama should have told them to send the pin back to China, from where it was made. He didn't, he cowered to the “framers.”
Nader knows that in order to gain that “positive air time” you must do something that will aid the propagandists in their quest. In this election their anointed one is John McCain, or whomever represents the corporatist (fascist) segment (I still have doubts of McCain being the candidate, if there is, in fact, an election). To comes out against Obama will get Nader that time on the air. Will it be enough for him to win the election? Of course not, but that is not his role, that of dissuading voters against Obama.
Until he comes out blasting McCain one can have no other conclusion, as McCain has not addressed those issue either. After all, those issues cited above are not “Black” issues, they are issues of our nation. Oh, I know the first one mention Ghetto, but middle America's middle class has been hit with those same problems. To place them on the shoulders of Obama is “playing the race card.”
by
Dennis Kaiser (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 198 comments)
on Monday, June 30, 2008 at 6:02:39 AM
of self-righteous suicide? I hear this applause for Nader with his insightful calling out of Obama for not narrowing his appeal to the "black candidate" that Clinton tried to rope him into being. What will this ploy do for Nader? Will it increase his share of the electorate from three to three and a quarter percent?
Open your eyes. Nader is a loser and a sideshow and as such is not promoting progressive aims, but rather devaluing them by adorning his fringe with them. These values should be pointed out as being the basis of centrist, yes centrist American values. When you persuade the American people that these values are their values, you win the battle. Until then you hold precinct meetings in a closet, bemoaning the latest in a long string of losses.
The truth is we don't have time to indulge ourselves in this counterproductive nonsense.
The American electorate is by and large centrist. That is to say, more than half of them are. Nobody wins an election without appealing to the center. Its the Willy Sutton theory. Sutton, a safe cracker, was asked why he robbed banks. His reply was,"Because that's where the money is." Promoting Nader is the analog of being a safecracker that tried to make a living breaking into gumball machines.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 981 comments)
on Monday, June 30, 2008 at 1:17:21 PM
If this was suicide then 2008 wouldn't be Nader's third large scale assault on the two party corporate duopoly that manipulates that United States. And he does it with basically no media coverage. "YES HE CAN!"
Nader wasn't calling out Obama for not narrowing his appeal to the "black candidate" he was pointing out how clearly insinsere Obama is.
If you think that 3 to 3 1/4% is no big deal...then why should it bother you? Hopefully over 10% won't bother you either.
In reality, the Republicrats have tried and tried to brand Nader insignificant since he started running years ago...He is the real threat to the establishment. And if you still don't see the threat of the establishment...you better start thinking more about it.
Republicrats I ask you...why are you trying to steal those same "insignificant" positions and make them your own? ( the environment, universal health care, peace in the middle east, alternative energys?)
More importantly...WHY CANT YOU PROPOSE THESE ISSUES CORRECTLY? The way Nader and others have fought for now for years? With the consumers interest in mind and not the corporate?
Obama is selling HEALTH INSURANCE under the suggestive tone of universal health care obama is and HAS TAKEN MONEY FROM Exelon Corp., a nuclear plant operator... Obama claims he wants to end the war,..but promises to expand the military budget...
Obama,the man,is not what he suggests he is. His message's are contradictory. Now Obama, the supervague hero, he is just everything to everybody.
But what significant "Change" is he offering?...(obviously other than what Nader pointed out that dam racist!)
OK...now open your eyes!
The Democrats are losers! Gore/Lieberman & Kerry/Edwards were wasted votes! They weren't "ELECTABLE"! But Bush II was so I guess a vote for Bush wasn't a wasted vote??!! Hun? Logic. THIS RACE IS NOT JUST ABOUT ....WINNING THE RACE. It's about What comes after? What's being promised now?
Face this... The CENTER WANTS TO SHIFT LEFT! And now The Democrats are trying to push it back to the right?!
And besides that...if the "center" is wrong...the "center" is wrong. I'm not following these proven failures off a bridge.
When Bush II said, "Your either with us, or against us," The Democrats chose to be with him.
Every election I hear "we don't have time," "just not now"...you know frankly; that's been counterproductive.
Your example of Sutton and the safe cracker is flawed,
Yes The two party's have been cracking the bank on corporate dollars for themselves.
But Nader sees that the true power is history and the people. And Naders been cracking that all along.
peace
by
elliot jar (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Monday, June 30, 2008 at 7:46:53 PM
