[…] Last and least is a voice from the left, Norman Solomon, who comes forward in these last days to warn his progressive voter friends to stay away from Ralph Nader at the polls. No matter that national polls say consistently that Nader draws his votes from McCain’s side, Solomon is worried. Even as he acknowledges Obama’s progressive policy failings both domestic and foreign, he explicitly counsels voting for Obama with no expectation of change:
When I’ve spoken to dozens of audiences during the two months since the Democratic National Convention, where I was an elected Obama delegate, there’s been an overwhelmingly positive response when I make a simple statement about Obama and the prospects of an Obama presidency : the best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is to not have illusions in the first place. Looking past the election, progressives will need to mobilize for a comprehensive agenda, including economic justice, guaranteed healthcare for all, civil liberties, environmental protection and demilitarization.
I recalled (though many may not) his similar warning to the Greens in October 2003, to stay away from Nader, a decision which ultimately allowed Democratic operatives and Republican law firms to keep Independent Nader’s anti-war message off of state ballots and out of the 2004 campaign. Thousands more died while Progressives mobilized. […]
– from Steven Conn, CounterPunch (where else?)
Niqnaq 
2 Comments
Condemning Nader is all important to Democrats and anyone who might’ve paid lots of money to buy the Democratic party because any serious discussion leaves Democrats looking like utter criminals. Nader wasn’t a factor in 2000 — exposed vote fraud, admitted to under oath and in public by the agency contracted by the government of Florida to do the dirty work was and was in spades and threatened the future of all elections in America. Guess which of those two gets a response from Democrats.
Another thing that pisses them off about Nader, besides being an Arab and directly confronting the two-party one-platform state, is that he offers suggestions like he did to Kerry that are totally reasonable, not a radical departure, would give Democrats a huge genuine progressive edge they’re not interested in attracting, and this further illustrates how destroying the Democratic party would be a valuable starting point. We have been saying (not on Xymph, where some of the posters seem to be Duke voters) elect Obama but don’t elect Democrats. It would send a message to Rahm Emmanuel’s party to have Obama win in a landslide but lose the legislature or win by weak margins.