In an interview given after the election, Nader expressed the following concern:

But his choice, basically, is whether he’s going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.

Now, I think I understand what he was getting at, but, Uncle Tom.  Seriously? For some of those who may not understand the cultural context, an Uncle Tom is a perjorative for African Americans who are subservient to white people.  It is sort of related to Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a popular 19th century novel, though the Uncle Tom in this book was not such a person.

I think Nader was concerned that Obama might be subservient to corporate interests, as so many politicians are accused of being.  There were other words and phrases he could have used, though.  “Corporate lackey” comes to my mind right away.

Now, I understand that some are shaking their heads and thinking, “the PC police is out again.”  Yet, I think it’s no secret that most corporate leaders in the U.S. are still pretty overwhelmingly white, which is why I can understand the reason many people would be making a fuss over this.  To be in the pocket of big business is to be in the pocket of who runs them.

Anyway, Nader went on Shepard Smith’s Fox News show and got taken to task:

I’m not sure why Smith cut him off.  I’d liked Nader to have gotten in that last point, which we’ll now probably never know.

I was interested in Nader’s accusation of Smith as a bully.  Perhaps, if you consider asking tough questions being a bully.  Twice now Smith has done just that; once for Joe the Plumber and now for Ralph Nader.

Oh well.  I’m guessing Nader won’t be running again, given that he’s 74 and all.  But maybe it won’t matter after this.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Joe Lieberman,

Lanny Davis,

Ralph Nader…

Go fuck yourself.

There, now I feel better. Back to being a family friendly blog.

In downtown Minneapolis I was curious to see a few Nader stickers on lampposts.  Then I walked round the corner and came across the main Minnesota Nader campaign office.  That kind of rare sighting is worth many bonus points in my book!  I couldn’t resist the temptation to go in, and also to chat the lonely-looking (but welcoming) solo volunteer in there.  So in I went, still wearing my Obama buttons. 

It was quite an insight into the world of small parties and no-hope candidates, who vainly struggle on; pushing some good ideas and values but virtually ignored by the mainstream media or political process.  To be fair, Nader does not help himself either.

One leaflet I was very pleased to see displayed with the Nader material, was information about Instant Run-off Voting and the benefits of electoral reform.

What Nader has consistently pointed out of course (and there are studies which back him up on this) is that his voters are not simply awkward and self-indulgent Dems - they are voters from all parties and none tired of the dominance corporations hold over the political process. With Republicans and Democrats in virtual agreement on all the main issues, he asks, why shouldn't he run? What right do Democrats have to his votes?

Ahead of his latest bid for the Whitehouse, this familiar theme is reprised by Nader in a CounterPunch article on the Presidential debates. It is an analysis which won't make it anywhere near the mainstream media of course (especially not with election day so close) but it is nevertheless a valuable reminder that amidst the feverish expectation of "hope" and "change" there are powerful and persisting institutional features that militate against any radical break in policy come January 2009.

Nader sees convergence across the board, but let's take one example: foreign policy. Nader writes:

If anyone can detect a difference between the two candidates regarding belligerence toward Iran and Russia, more U.S. soldiers into the quagmire of Afghanistan (next to Pakistan), kneejerk support of the Israeli military oppression, brutalization and colonization of the Palestinians and their shrinking lands, keeping soldiers and bases in Iraq, despite Obama's use of the word "withdrawal," and their desire to enlarge an already bloated, wasteful military budget which already consumes half of the federal government's operating expenses, please illuminate the crevices between them.

Is Nader being unfair on Obama? Obama's opposition to the Iraq war, which dates back to 2002, is frequently offered as an example of a genuinely different approach to international affairs than the belligerence of McCain - and there is certainly some truth in this. But note how Obama's critique of the Iraq war is not a principled critique, but one made on grounds of cost and efficiency. He does not deny that the US has the right to invade foreign countries in violation of the UN Charter based on some cooked-up pretext. Indeed, on both Pakistan and Iran he has declared himself willing to do much the same thing, risking even bloodier disasters than Iraq. On Afghanistan, all serious military analysts now agree that "victory" (whatever that means) is not possible, yet still Democrats in the US, like their liberal counterparts in the UK, continue to insist that this is the "good" war and demand an escalation in troop numbers. And when Obama goes out of his way to portray himself as a "friend" of Israel, the message is clear: don't expect the US to cut back on its military funding for Israel or embrace the international consensus on a two state settlement.

Take a look at the article for yourself and see if you agree with Nader about the narrowness of the political spectrum in the US. I would suggest that, even if you disagree with Nader's politics, it's difficult to dispute his claim that there is a high degree of convergence between the two main parties, and not just on foreign policy.

But, you might object, isn't this just democracy in action, with both candidates chasing the "median" voter? In a properly functioning democracy we would expect a range of views to be offered and debated. Certainly voters have a right to expect this when, contrary to popular belief and the efforts of the mainstream media, opinion polls consistently show that Americans favour a peaceful non-interventionist foreign policy, rejecting the role of the US as global hegemon in favour of multilateral engagement through international institutions like the UN. In this context, it is not difficult to understand why third party candidates like Nader can attract strong support on the rare occasions they're allowed in the media spotlight.

In today’s favorite round up, a German blogger writes about the irrelevance of Palin’s wardrobe, meanwhile an American in Palestine talks about her recent Obama-filled trip and an Obama supporter has sad news for Jews wanting to purchase an accessory.

1. Sarah Palin’s $150k wardrobe

While citizen media throughout the blogosphere are commenting on the importance of Palin’s pricey wardrobe, German blogger lists two points on why it’s an irrelevant piece of information. Claire writes about her “ ‘Come, on!’ moment”:

“Turns out that the RNC has paid a lot of money for Ms. Palin's clothes.

Let me tell you why this doesn't matter:

1. It's the RNC's money, not hers. If they want to make sure that their candidate looks good that is their prerogative. They have got plenty of money. Personally, I think it is money well spent as I have envied many of her coats.

2. No one talks about the costs of Obama's suits or McCain shirts. If you are going to talk about one you should talk about them all.”

Claire also adds a note for the Republican nominee:

“Oh, and one more thing, Sarah. Don't claim to be “just like me.” I don't tote around Louis-Vitton. Although I wish I did.”

2. Obama-mania trip home

American blogger living in Palestine, Marcy Newman writes about her recent trip home and her experience with “Obama-mania” at the American Studies Association conference.

“I’m still reeling from the experience of not only coming back to the U.S. in the midst of a racist, offensive presidential campaign, but also the ways in which this affected the American Studies Association (ASA) conference. Normally this is a conference I look forward to. Some of the smartest people–and some of the most politically radical people–are usually in attendance. This is a conference where Angela Davis and Ruth Gilmore–two of the most important voices on the prison abolition movement regularly discuss this subject, for instance. But this year even those voices that one might normally expect critical analysis from seem to be swept up in Obama-mania. Starbucks sipping, Obama button wearing colleagues abounded. Yes, it took some walking and seeking to find non-Starbucks coffee, but of course the local variety was far superior.”

Newman then speaks about her support for third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney and how progressives paved the way for people like Obama.

“It’s not so much that I expected everyone to embrace progressive or radical candidates like Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. But at ASA I did expect to hear critical analysis and discussion that brought them into the fold. By excluding other candidates these scholars participate in the same sort of exclusionary practices that the duopoly American government upholds by keeping third party candidates out of debates or off ballots. But it just seemed that everyone was so fixated on Obama and had such rose-colored glasses or people were just so mesmerized by this phenomenon that even McKinney’s name never came up. Even in a Stuart Hall panel where Hall’s important legacy in cultural studies came up the discussion related to the election centered on discussing whether or not “we should take credit for the emergence of Obama.” Mind you, they made it clear that taking credit is not the same as celebrating or endorsing, and certainly the work of radicals and progressives paved the way for a candidate like Obama. But this is precisely the point: all sorts of radical political movements made his candidacy possible but his candidacy speaks to none of the issues of any of those movements from anti-racism to labor.”

3. Obama yarmulkes out of stock

Newman can rest assure knowing that a little less “Obama-mania” will be found in some areas, as Jewish blogger Matt Walters reports that Obama yarmulkes are sold-out.

“We regret to inform you that we are now sold out of Obama-kah yarmulkes and due to the holidays of Sukkot and Simchat Torah, our manufacturer cannot provide a new shipment in time for us to re-distribute the yarmulkes to you before the election on Nov. 4.”

The race to the White House also includes Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party, Cynthia McKinney of the Green-Rainbow Party, and Ralph Nader of the Independent Party.

You can read more about the six men and women (and their running mates) at Project Vote Smart.

Because of little attention paid to the third-party candidates in the mainstream media (where most of the world's bloggers get their information), there is little discussion in the blogosphere. But some content is worth repeating here.

We begin with last month's article on Global Voices Online by Pakistani blogger Teeth Maestro about his peers' reactions to the first presidential debate. Buried in the responses was this comment:

To be an effective leader one must also display honesty, compassion, & guts. Stand with Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, & Cynthia McKinney.

Of course, Ron Paul is no longer running in the election; Wikipedia has the facts, namely that Paul withdrew from the Republican Party before announcing his support for Chuck Baldwin.

The essence of the anonymous commenter's words remain valuable; that independent candidates hold as much worth as the Democratic and Republican parties.

This is echoed by Marcy Newman, an American blogger known for her pro-Palestinian activism, who writes in the first sentence of a Sarah Palin commentary:

This rant on Palin does not mean I support Obama/Biden. I don’t because on foreign policy they are one in the same. I support Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney.

Unfortunately, as Michael Merritt of PoliGazette recently remarked in the wake of Bob Barr attempting to remove Obama and McCain from the Texas ballot for failing to submit their nomination sheets by the deadline…

Libertarians and other third parties have always typically found obstacles to ballot access, usually the ridiculous numbers of signatures needed to even get on the ballot. Even then, they are often challenged on the veracity of these signatures.

Coming full circle, we turn to the United Kingdom and former Liberal Democrat Councilor Nich Starling who blogged about Pravda on Democracy in America. He begins with the following:

The comedy news channel Russia Today is always worth watching for five minutes if you need to be reminded how good CNN, Sky News, BBC or even Fox News is.

The story Russia Today is running with today is how undemocratic the US is for not giving Ralph Nader equal coverage with Obama and McCain, with the under current of the story being that the US is not a good democracy because it does not allow candidates equal access to the news media.

It is fair to presume that none of the independent candidates will work in the corner office, so where's the harm in writing more stories on the voices who won't win the votes?

Newman’s entry titled, “on deleting palestine and other debate observations” first discusses the factual errors made by Biden, including his misuse of the word Arabic word “madrassa.”

Biden’s mistake #1: If you’re going to use an Arabic word, don’t you think you should learn what it means first?:

There have been 7,000 madrasses built along that border. We should be helping them build schools to compete for those hearts and minds of the people in the region so that we’re actually able to take on terrorism and by the way, that’s where bin Laden lives and we will go at him if we have actually intelligence.

المدرسة, or madrassa, literally means school in English. Religious school, private school, public school: it does not matter. Like the word school in English, madrassa applies to all sorts of schools including Islamic religious schools. Oh, and as Fisk, thankfully, makes it clear that there are not 7,000 schools on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Newman then points out that other problems arose during the debate including Palin’s “fabrication.” One fabrication included Palin stating she was middle-class; Newman cites a The Independent article stating that Palin and her husband Todd are worth “at least $1.2m, including a $500,000 lakefront home, a Piper float-plane and two holiday getaways.”

Newman also ties in her current home, Palestine, stating that both candidates failed to mention the country during the 90-minute-debate; however, both repeatedly pointed out their love for Israel.

Can you imagine any country with a leader whose brain is bigger than the size of a pea lending its support for any state without reservations? Without question? Moreover, not only did we never hear the word Palestine mention. By not mentioning Palestine, Palestinian people, a Palestinian context many other things were deleted as well. Occupation. Illegal settlements. The 60th anniversary of an nakba. Palestinian political prisoners. Palestinian refugees. The siege on Gaza. The hyperbole Palin invokes with her reference to a so-called second holocaust and Israel as a “peace-seeking nation” is preposterous and shows the level of myth making involved in their Israel love-fest. Israel is a war-seeking nation and has been so since before its creation.

Newman further addresses Palin’s stance on Israel and her continuous use of the word “energy.”

I take Palin at her word, unfortunately, when she expresses her affection for a nation-state that practices state terrorism on a daily basis. At the same time when she mentioned her love of Israel (about six or seven times) for her American Jewish voting audience (most of whom, by the way, do not support the state of Israel unconditionally), she made it clear that she doesn’t really know or understand the issues at stake. Likewise, there were many moments when she clearly did not understand the words, the language, the question, the concept and in turn either ignored it or injected the word “energy” into her response. It seems that this energy crutch of hers was the only subject she seemed to feel comfortable with (of course, only in the context of “drill, baby, drill”). She used the word “energy” 29 times.

The post is completed with Newman addressing other issues including: the Iraq War and the number of casualties, Henry Kissinger, Afghanistan and Pakistan and essentially, her disappointment in both candidates.

Just as Palin (and Biden) seems to be woefully clueless when it comes to historical matters affecting our current realities…

In a later entry titled, “why i love rosa clemente,” Newman posts what Independent Vice Presidential Candidate Matt Gonzalez and Green Party Vice Presidential Candidate Rosa Clemente (also the vice presidential candidates of Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, of whom she is supporting) stated in regards to Palestine.

just a taste of how that Israel love fest would have gone if vice presidential candidates rosa clemente and matt gonazalez had been included. here is what they have to say about palestine (yes! they actually are able to say that word and speak about it in an informed and moral way! imagine!). and there are many reasons why i love clemente: her position on the prison industrial complex, the military industrial complex, queer rights, the environment. you can watch the entire debate or read the transcript at democracy now!

MATT GONZALEZ: Well, I think, you know, both of these candidates pay lip service to the notion that we need a two-state solution. They don’t tell you any specifics around that. Do they support 1967 borders, for instance? Joe Biden did not repudiate Barack Obama’s earlier remark about Jerusalem belonging to Israel.

And I think their sort of over-the-top repeating of how much they love Israel—I think, in that, they lose an opportunity to support peace movements in and outside of Israel, joined by many Jews, both in this country and in Israel, that want to see an end to the violence in the region, that don’t believe, for instance, the way Palestinians are being treated is fair.

And I think when Joe Biden starts repudiating elections in the West Bank and elsewhere, you see that these guys are pretty much in step with the current administration. You know, they either—you either have to be a supporter of democracy and deal with the right of people to self-determine, or you repudiate that. And if you repudiate it, you’re going to go down a path that can be very dangerous.

AMY GOODMAN: Rosa Clemente?

ROSA CLEMENTE: Well, I mean, I think it’s not even a question of fairness. The Israeli government, every day, kills Palestinian people in their own homeland. I think it is about the right to self-determination, but it’s also—I think it’s more than a two-state solution.
Many Palestinian groups are calling for a one-state solution, and that’s how it should be.

And the United States, we need to stop sending any type of military aid to Israel. I think what’s going on in—what’s been happening in Palestine, you know, is an indication of forty years of complete terror amongst another group of people, aided by American tax dollars, you know.

And I think younger people, particularly through hip-hop, it’s been interesting that we can have cultural exchanges and actually have people in Palestine, like the hip-hop group DAM, that let us know what’s happening every day right there on the ground and that the issue for a lot of Palestinian people would be that they deserve their homeland back and that the right of return is fundamental to them as a people.