Ralph Nader gives off the impression that if he were elected, he could have avoided being a lackey for the white special interest groups and if he couldn’t, he at least would have looked more appropriate in the White House.

What good does it do for a candidate who has lost an election to predict the failure of the person who won?

Remember this, Obama will not be the black president. He will be the caretaker of white power. All the caucuses in the world will not change that fact.

I agree with Max and his response to Joseph. Obama will not be the “black” president. Then again Obama didn’t campaign to be the “black” president.

Max is also right that leftists among the African American community understands where Ralph is coming from however if we use the election results as a guideline that represents 1% of the Black population. 95% of the African American community voted for Obama so I think that Ralph’s use of the phrase “Uncle Tom” to describe Obama, while having some truth to it, is not the best way to communicate with the broader African American community. Its use is more alienating then unifying.

Folks have to determine how they choose to communicate. Words do have meaning. For example I never heard Ralph describe for example Rahm Emmanuel as a “Zionist”. He uses the term “pro-Israel”. “Zionist” and “pro-Israel” conveys TWO very different political realities.

In other words, why did Ralph feel it OK to term Obama “Uncle Tom” which is derogatory yet has never used the term “Zionist” to describe Rahm Emmanuel. “Zionist” is not a derogatory term but and accurate description of Emmanuel’s politics. This is the kind of duplicity that many African Americans will question.

Right now I think empathy and nuance is a much better approach to take when confronting Obama and his supporters. There will be a time and place for antipathy and disdain.

Nader isn’t finished with the black community as you put it.

The progressive African American Community understands what Ralph is saying and don’t need Fox to interpret this truth.

Or are you arrogantly suggesting the contrary?

Those nasty little blogs you read and thousand of comments.

Remember Joseph one Newtonian physical laws – for every action there is a comparable re-action. The action is the election of Obama. He will have his apologists, but if we, as a progressive movement don’t keep our wits about us and stop it with the dumb talk about Nader’s perfectly accurate use of the word Uncle Tom – this could get very ugly.

Remember this, Obama will not be the black president. He will be the caretaker of white power. All the caucuses in the world will not change that fact.

The US of A is not past racism, not by a long shot. We live in the belly of the imperial racist empire regardless the color of our president.

RALPH NADER ‘CALLS’ OBAMA AN UNCLE TOM!!

From: [Joseph Anderson]
To: [deleted for privacy -- a good friend of mine and close political associate of Nader]
Subject: Nader: “or [whether Obama is going to be] Uncle Tom for the giant corporations” …?
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 22:15:18 -0800

Hi [deleted for privacy],

Nader: “or [whether Obama is going to be] Uncle Tom for the giant corporations” …?

Ralph Nader calls Obama a Uncle Tom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GirBGXVklzY&NR=1

(From *all* the different YouTube videos of this, there have literally been 100’s of 1,000’s of views.)

This is what happens when an arrogant ‘white’ guy can’t admit when he’s *wrong* (even when repeatedly given the chance [related to something else very important], as before with me). It finally caught up with him.

[Apparently, as in my case, when Nader (and, unless you're constantly worshipping them, many of those other starring progressive icons) thinks you're a nobody (even from the left) who's a nobody that nobody publicly/professionally important (even *very* important on the left) knows and cares a lot about, that's exactly how he treats you -- even if your from the left and originally supported him. But that's often so true with a lot of even those progressive star icons. Or, as Michael Eric Dyson wrote about many even progressive icons on p.54, par.2, of his book _Debating Race_: "...they go, 'Oh, hell, who is he? I'm not going to get the glory anymore because now this person is there.' Insecure, incapable of accepting intelligent, articulate (ordinary) people who just want to help."]

(And Nader’s whole sentence [racially insulting Obama] didn’t even make any real sense at that! — especially to most Black people: “…whether he’s [Obama's] going to be Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom”. What does even, “…whether he’s [Obama's] going to be Uncle Sam”, mean? — since neither figures, for most racial minorities, have a great reputation.)

Obviously Nader doesn’t have any authentic Black personal friends (if any Black personal friends at all) to advise/tell him. But, if he even had any, he probably wouldn’t even consult or listen to them either: hell, what do *we* know?

Even *if* the sentiment were politically right, the wording was *grossly insensitive* to the national Black community — and grossly *wrong* to say it that way — at least not unless/until Obama might *clearly* demonstrate that. And the reasons Nader itemizes aren’t even logically or politically sufficient reasons for saying that (unlike those one could give for someone directly like Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, John McWhorter, or even, effectively, Condoleeza Rice)! Rev. Wright didn’t even call Obama that: Wright said that, “Obama was just being a politician.” While Obama has arguably come close by rhetorical omission, or speeches about “Black male (ir)responsibilities”, he hasn’t yet *singled-out* and especially *targeted* Blacks for adverse political or economic policies. *I* wouldn’t even say what Nader said and I’ve been sociopolitically quite opposed to either Obama and McCain as would-be, white-supremacist, economically neo-liberal, imperialist, military-industrial complex, pro-corporate presidents, promoted from political parties that represent just that.

Nader’s emotionally losing it — and, while I know some very young and fit 70-something year-olds (especially in California!), I think he’s personally getting too old to stand up to the stresses of constant round-the-country barnstorming for either his book or running for president (that can take a toll on someone of any age), and constant personal-political attacks even from so-called “progressive/leftist” icons. Apparently, not even his political or personal (if he’s got any left with good judgement) friends can help him anymore.

And then Nader accuses the news anchor of being a *bully*??? — when that’s exactly how Nader was to me — *twice!* — when I gave him a chance to reconsider his words, say he was wrong, and apologize, not only to me, but to the *two* other Black people [women] there who were also *very* disappointed at his behavior.

*That’s* how Nader wants to go out… ? And now he’s *ffinished* in the national Black community — and he would have been finished in the Bay Area with Black people as far as my efforts would have been concerned. All that talk, before, of his about his emulating his father’s supposed great judgement, ethics and principles…; my brilliant lefty attorney housemate summed it all up in her usual succinct way when I told her what happened to me from Nader: “Goes to show it’s all just rhetoric.”

As Ice Cube would say, let a ffoolll be a ffoolll!

Take care,

Joseph

[Berkeley, CA]

-

I was actually very interested to see just plain and simple overall “election-08″ results. Surprisingly, by state counts Mr. Nader even not listed on dedicated CNN page under Independent category. Only two main characters are there with all the numbers and jazz.

I recall there was a list of candidates on state ballot. So how do I find plain and simple description of which candidate has how many votes without storming my state election office? Any idea?

Thank you all.

Thank you for your decades of courage. Your refusal to compromise your principles, even when facing maelstroms of opposition, is an inspiration to us all. The justice you pursue may be slow coming, but thanks to your efforts and other dedicated, self-sacrificing individuals the idea will not die.

Thank you.

Ralph Nader on the other hand, without serving in any office, has an incredible list of accomplishments. Centrists have a position from which they can win elections. But they don’t have a mandate to achieve very much. Leftists on the other hand are in a bad position to win elections, but by constantly pushing the terms of the debate have the more vital role in shaping policy.

By 2006, anti-war activists had effectively moved the terms of debate so that the Democrats could win. But being centrists they immediately found excuses not to end the war. The same thing is happening now. Since 2000 the activist left has spearheaded the critique of Bush making Obama’s victory possible. But again, because he’s a centrist we are now going to witness his capitulation on every issue on which his supporters are hoping for change.

It’s time for the left to declare once and for all that we are neither Democrats nor Centrists.

Though your criticisms of U.S. policy regarding Israeli-Palestinian relations are on the accurate side of the ledger, the fact is very clear that no previous U.S. president has even come close to defending a morally respectable set of policies where Israel is concerned. That is true no less of the Clinton administration.

In electoral political affairs, you have nothing to teach Barack Obama.

Over the next four years, every positive change in federal government policy from those of the previous disastrous eight years you shall owe to the effective insights and battling spirit of President-elect Obama.

I remind you of your respective electoral records of offices won:

Nader : Obama:

1992 : US presidential: loss n/a

1996: n/a Illinois senate: elected, Dist. 13

1998: n/a Illinois senate: RE- elected, Dist. 13

2000: US presidential: loss U.S. House (Democratic primary: loss

2002: n/a Illinois senate: RE- elected, Dist. 13

2004: US presidential: loss US Senate – Illinois: elected

2008: US presidential: loss US presidential: elected

Ah, but our economy is inextricably intertwined with foreign policy, and the (literally) insane amounts that are poured into fomenting war and terrorism throughout the world are one of the prime reasons (if not THE prime reason) we’re in the hole we’re in right now.

Billions for war against Afghanistan, for no justifiable purpose. Billions for war against Iraq, for no justifiable purpose. Billions for Israel’s govt, which will use it for bombing and starving civilians whose only crime is to want to live on their own land. No doubt there’ll be billions more for making war against Iran and Pakistan for no justifiable purpose. All while our infrastructure crumbles, our debt (national and individual) approaches critical mass, our unemployment soars and the number of uninsured skyrockets. Just think what a sane reapportionment of funds might do.

If you want to fix the economy (or ultimately anything else), the foreign policy needs to be fixed too.

Why did Rajendra Pachauri say this today because he has a mind and can use it for something other than profit or ratings. There will be a push by Hansen and Raiendra and many more to start and start now as time is short. If we don’t start now it is what it is.

Excuse me but he IS the money and the power. Still has bucket loads of the stuff from his Wall Street pals left over in his campaign funds. Perhaps he can start by distributing that out to the Amerikan poor.

PS Obama’d out here in the UK and they are replaying his speech endlessly with shots of his tearful audience. We shall see.