feminist blogs

The dominant narratives of this election year have nothing to do with Ralph Nader — and most Democrats are pretty darn happy about that .  We’re more concerned about race/gender, Barack/Hillary and Bush/McCain stories.  The only time we’ll hear about radical leftist politicians will be when the Democrats are reminding us that Barack Obama isn’t one of [...]

[This is a content summary only. Click on the headline for full links and additional content. Thanks!]

Respondents to this week’s New York Times/ CBS Poll (pdf) were asked the question, “Who do you think has the best chance of beating John McCain in the general election in November - Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?” Here were their answers:

Clinton - 28%
Obama - 59%
Both equally - 6%
Neither - 1%
DK/NA - 5%

Whatever else one may think about the differences between the candidates, the question of electability matters. Unlike some people (full of bluster, I want to hope) vowing to vote for McCain if their candidate loses the nomination (I’ve read this from both Clinton and Obama supporters), I think that’s a reprehensible attitude, for any number of reasons - women’s reproductive freedom not least among them.

So I smiled when I read this, from my friend Paul Sampson (read some of his stuff here), who has already voted in the Texas primaries:

I voted for Obama in the early voting for the Texas primary. The main diffs between his and HC’s policies are the sort of wonkish flyshit that gets sorted out by conference committees in Congress. Obama is less attractive a target for the GOP wingnuts, so he has (it seems to me at this point) a better shot at beating McCain, who is a burnt-out case who needs to lapse into senescence quietly in his safe Senate seat.

–

* If his name sounds familiar, he’s had some colorful things to say about Ralph Nader in recent years. Most recently he offered, “I have previously supported the idea that Nader should be humanely live-trapped and released in the wilderness, far from human habitation, where he could do no further harm. Now I just say shoot the son of a bitch.”

High ambition calls for high rhetoric:

Ralph Nader is entering the presidential race as an independent, he announced Sunday, saying it is time for a "Jeffersonian revolution."

Ralph Nader is running for president as an independent.

"In the last few years, big money and the closing down of Washington against citizen groups prevent us from trying to improve our country. And I want everybody to have the right and opportunity to improve their country," he told reporters after an appearance announcing his candidacy on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Asked why he should be president, the longtime consumer advocate said, "Because I got things done."

--except, apparently, filing to run for President, which makes it apparent that he's not running to win, and perhaps not even running to try to make a point. No, he's running because that's what he does.

Nader's decision, which did not come as a surprise to political watchers, marks his fourth straight White House bid -- fifth if his 1992 write-in campaign is included.

Ralph Nader. Occupation: presidential candidate. Ralph Nader, part of the past.

Dear Ralph,

It's time for a change, Ralph. Let it go already. Why don't you run for Congress, where you might have a gnat's chance of, um, winning? After, that's what Lawrence Lessig seems to be doing.