Liberal College Kid

On the eve of the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary, the media, the twenty-four hour news networks in particular, are putting on their thinking caps and really revving up the prediction game. With the help of copious amounts of polls and apparently knowledgeable pundits, they will spend most of today and likely all of tomorrow trying to determine who will win the majority of Keystone state votes among various demographics, geographic locations and age groups. In one breath, many of them will acknowledge the fact that they are very often wrong and that polls are notoriously inaccurate (not to mention the drastically different conclusions that each individual poll finds), while continuing to supply we humble citizens with their professional predictions anyway. God bless America.

Today MSNBC has been continuously referring to a poll that they conducted in an attempt to penetrate the minds of “blue collar” voters (a term which has been used so often in the last few months that it may soon lose its meaning). This enlightening poll breaks down Pennsylvania working class voters into four very insightful groups:

1. Hunters

2. Bowlers

3. Beer Drinkers

4. Gun Owners

Ignoring, for the moment, that many of these groups are not even close to being mutually exclusive (particularly groups 1 and 4, which, if we are to believe the ubiquitously referenced logic for pro-gun legislation, should be the same exact people), it is very interesting, in light of the recent charges of “elitism” being throw around so carelessly, that MSNBC would conduct and then relentlessly cite this poll. When Barack Obama remarked at a San Francisco fund raiser that rural Pennsylvanians have become bitter about the economic situation in the state and have been clinging to guns, religion and antipathy towards immigrants in response, there were loud cries accusing him of condescension and failure to understand the small town-mentality. These accusations were amplified and trumpeted gleefully by the media whose members are always happy to portray Democrats as Ivory Tower elitists.

But what was largely lost in the ensuing debate over Obama’s character was the truth that is inherent in his statement. There has been a great amount of speculation as to the true intentions behind it, but I believe that the generally accepted interpretation is wrong. Rather than insinuating that the only reason rural Pennsylvanians and other Americans like them are religious or live traditional lifestyles is because of their economic predicament (an assertion that I don’t totally disagree with), I believe that what the Senator meant, in this case at least, is that when a population is abandoned by their government on economic issues (as many Pennsylvanians have been over the last 30 years), their political involvement becomes focused on issues that they believe they can still have a significant effect on. Year after year, decade after decade, Pennsylvanians have become increasingly convinced that whether there is a Democrat, a Republican or an Independent in office, the economy in their state will still be left out to dry. They have learned that despite all their rhetoric on stimulating job growth and preventing the outsourcing that has devastated much of the state, politicians will never follow up on these promises and that the situation may continue to get worse. In order to prevent a feeling of complete political innocuousness, they turn their attention to issues relating to their religion, to gun control, and to immigration, realms of the political dialogue in which they see they can still be an important factor. Under this line of thinking, faith, gun ownership and similar characteristics of rural Pennsylvania are an integrated part of the culture, which do not exist simply because of economic situations but become amplified and prioritized when a sense of abandonment takes hold of a community.

Now, this is certainly a debatable idea. The argument over the direction of causation between economics and culture/social structure goes back at least to Marx (economics determines social structure) and Weber (social characteristics determine economic activity). My point here is that I do not see Senator Obama’s remarks as revealing his inner elitism and disdain for rural Americans. Rather, I think he is truly trying to view Pennsylvania’s political culture through the eyes of a social scientist, a method that more politicians should probably utilize, regardless of whether or not the particular assertion Obama was making is entirely correct or not.

On the other hand, what I do find insulting and condescending, as a Pennsylvanian who has spent the majority of his time in the less urbanized middle ground of the state, are polls like the one MSNBC is using today and comments that are endlessly made by pundits that reflect that poll’s thinking. Even if you assume the most socially unacceptable interpretation of Obama’s remarks is the correct one (that the only reason why rural Americans are religious and traditional is because they are in poor economic health), to me, assuming that voters in the state are so moronic, so nonintellectual that they are unable to differentiate their participation in a bowling league or their love for Yuengling Lager from their political ideology is far more insulting. At least, under the harshest interpretation of the “bitter” statement, Obama was mapping out a somewhat identifiable process by which the phenomena of religion and nativism occur. The MSNBC poll, however, insinuates to the entire nation and anyone in the rest of the world who is closely following this election, that somehow, there is a direct correlation between a Pennsylvanian’s choice in alcoholic beverage and who he or she will vote for in a presidential election. Interestingly, in the beer drinking category, Obama and Clinton were tied. But the offense I take lies not in the answer, but in the formulation of the question in the first place. Imagine the phone call that Pennsylvania residents must have been subjected to: “Hello ma’am, may I ask you a few questions? Do you drink beer? Do you ever go bowling? For whom are you planning on voting?”

The pundits that subsequently take the information derived from polls such as these and attempt to formulate conclusions about voters only increase the idiocy of this game of prediction that they so love to play. One frequent MSNBC guest, Jonathan Alter, when asked why hunting, bowling and beer are relevant characteristics of PA voters, he responded, “Because there are a lot of them! Have you ever seen the movie Deer Hunter?” If a movie made thirty years ago is the source from which our media establishment “experts” are drawing their demographic information, we are all in trouble. And within his response lies the condescension of which I am speaking. It’s true that a good amount of Pennsylvanians love beer (myself included) and go bowling (myself not included), but for the vast majority of them, these activities have absolutely nothing to do with the way they make voting decisions or how their political ideology is shaped, and to assume that they do is true condescension. If Alter and the long line of pundits that MSNBC has been interviewing all day long really believe that these are significant factors in this race, then it reveals a deeply ingrained misunderstanding of the average and “blue collar” Americans on the behalf of which these experts supposedly speak. Next time, before they begin with the tirades about Senator Obama’s elitism and his disconnect from rural America, they should stop to contemplate whether or not they are truly in a position to attach these monikers to politicians, when they so obviously deserve them themselves. Oh, and Contessa Brewer, if you are reading this, call me sometime.

• Leave a comment... (1)

I can’t stand it anymore. I started this blog with the idea that it would snowball and in some ways it actually did. At one point there were something like 8 people writing regularly for it, all from different parts of the country and all young and in college. I think that my feelings began to be echoed by others, however, and collectively the posts began shrinking. I am still reading blogs pretty regularly and the fact that very few of them have reached the conclusion I have almost makes me sad. My friends on the left, it is time to stop this spectacle of a campaign process.

I watched parts of the ABC debate this week and I was happy to see that the blogosphere and even some mainstream news agencies finally came around to critiquing these ridiculous pundits in the media for harping on issues that matter to absolutely no one.

In the era of 24 hour news networks we are experiencing a time when things that do not matter now matter because it is something for talking heads (and faceless heads in the blogosphere) to shout about. And so we get all excited about a pastor who says what he, and many people including me, in this country think about how racist and backwards we are. We get all worked up when Hillary says she landed amidst gun fire in Bosnia and then see a video of her landing there. Then when the candidates get on TV and have a chance to actually address some of the differences between them (of which I can find very few) we sit through pointless questions that do not matter to anyone, least of all the voter at home trying to find a difference between these candidates other than race and gender.

But perhaps that is the only difference we need. And perhaps this country is backwards enough to pick a President based on people they’ve met or spoken with, or how old they are, or if they can answer a phone call, or if they are a woman, or if they are black but not black enough… I’M SICK OF IT!!! Just stop it. We have made our democratic process into a spectacle where more money is made showing campaign coverage then the candidates themselves spend on the campaigns! Perhaps reading all of the celebrity gossip magazines has poisoned America’s brains to the point that we now want to know all of the same asinine bull shit about our politicians that we do about Brittney Spears.

Now I am willing to believe that I am in the minority. It is very likely that my friends and I are not representative of the American populace. However, I had thought that after the Decider we’d be past the “who I’d want to have a beer with” rational for picking a President. Hillary continuing in this race, even if I do prefer her to Obama, is sucking the life out of the Democratic party and out of this country. And you know what, she probably will win in Pennsylvania this week, but it won’t change a thing! However, it will give the folks at CNN, MSNBC, FAUX NEWS, and all the political junkies with blogs out there something to debate about, and get excited about, and get us even further from the issues of this race.

Frustrated?  Let’s hear about it.

• Leave a comment... (0)

It’s March 27. The Democratic race is still stretching on, and apparently, no end is in sight. Every day, at nearly any given moment, the twenty-four hour news networks are covering and recovering the election. They are analyzing every detail of the campaign, ripping through the obfuscation to shed light on the inner thoughts, motivations, intentions and personalities of the candidates. Pundits can tell you why this candidate wore a red tie instead of a blue one. Seconds after the Obama speech dealing with race in America, a Fox news pundit turned to the camera and explained that the candidate was using a teleprompter, “and not very well,” he added. Through this and other similar, penetrating commentary, we can expect to be enlightened; to suddenly, with the help of acute television personalities, see through the façade of campaign politics and focus on the heart of the matter.

We are familiar enough with the following scenario. Two candidates stand (or sit) on a stage. Behind them is a radiant, three storied backdrop emanating red, white and blue, and a three or five letter acronym (CNN, MSNBC). In the studio, the networks are tracking public response in real-time. One candidate punches out a particularly catchy phrase and their ratings begin a rapid ascent, only to level off and fall when his or her opponent responds with an even wittier remark. Pundits wait in the wing, taking notes on the candidates’ postures, the tone of their voice. Did he get a little too angry with that last comment? Why does he keep blinking so much? They are listening closely, predicting with complete certainty that this line will go great with the Latino community, while that last one is really going to appeal to white single mothers.

The debate ends and the candidates shower each other with warm praises and smile for their photo-op; best friends even after two hours of vicious assaults. Coverage moves to the so called ‘spin room’ where each campaign knows for sure that their candidate, in fact, won the debate. There is not so much certainty back in the studio. A fresh debate emerges between warring factions of well groomed pundits, each of whom has detailed, factual reasons why they know who the real winner is. Polls flash onto the screen, showing that voters in this state are leaning towards one candidate, although their African American support could be greater. The moments deemed most significant are replayed, and panels begin anew, dissecting each syllable, each ebb and flow of diction and whether or not the crowd applauded vigorously enough.

The next day the campaigns are back on the trail. The pledges they made the night before vowing to keep the politics clean have faded into history, and all for the better. A candidate tells a group of citizens at a town hall meeting that they have more foreign policy experience than their opponent does. Across the state or country, the other fires back within minutes, redefining experience and sending thousands of emails detailing their record. The blogosphere explodes in outrage when a pivotal word is misused, because behind it lie treacherous intentions. New polls are taken.

The constant buzz of non-stop opinion, ceaseless commentary and back-and-forth campaign slights has marked this election cycle like none before it. That is not to say that there are any fundamental differences between the way these campaigns have been functioning and the way all campaigns have operated for the last few decades. But the level of noise has risen to its all time high.

Rigorous debate is one of the hallmarks of a functioning democracy. Without it, the public becomes lulled into a catatonic state of thoughtlessness, and the official, state sponsored position becomes the only position. But there is a difference between debate and overwhelming cacophony.

When you go to the symphony, dressed in your best attire and excited for the incredible music you are about to hear, you will be angered if the musicians take their seats and play imaginary instruments, filling the concert hall with silence. But you will be as equally dissatisfied if three separate orchestras crowd the stage, one plays Beethoven, another plays Bach and the third opts for Tchaikovsky, all simultaneously.

So it is with political campaigning in modern America. Insight is discouragingly rare because in order to be heard, everyone has to shout. Even the short lived moments filled with genuine vision and maybe even a touch of beauty, as many of us saw in the Obama speech, are quickly turned into sound bites. Those parts of the speech that seemed the most controversial are played in isolation, made to represent its entirety. This site posted the speech in full, with no meaningless commentary, the way it should be. Let the words speak for themselves.

Who is to blame for this mess? Is it the all day media, who, in search for ratings, have turned politics into day-time soap opera? Maybe. Is it the blogosphere and the internet in general, this humble site included, that has flooded the public consciousness with so much information, so much opinion that all facts become confused, all simple actions complicated? Possibly. Could it be the candidates themselves, who have, instead of digging deeper, made themselves comfortable with superficial attacks and subsequent retorts that play easily to a busy and sometimes fickle public? Perhaps.

More likely, it is the combination of all these factors. Advances in technology like cell phones, blackberries, RSS feeds and Wikipedia have trained us all to expect instant information, all the time, with no barriers. My generation, more so than those before it, is often uncomfortable if we are even momentarily cut off from the outside world, whether from events in the middle east or the Facebook status of our friends.

For the next few days, I am engaging myself in an experiment. Although I cannot promise to stay away from Facebook or AIM, I am not going to watch any twenty-four hour news reporting. I will stay away from the blogs I typically read a few times a week or even daily. The emails I get every single day from the three remaining candidacies shall go unopened. My only source of political information will be newspapers or their online equivalents. It will be an experiment in pre-television, pre-internet political thought. Who knows what revelations will descend unto me once the volume has been turned down, the shouting quieted? I will stifle the cacophony, and let the orchestra play as it was meant to be.

• Leave a comment... (0)

• Leave a comment... (6)

On Republican Presidential nominee John McCain:

He’s the true neocon. He does believe, in a way that George W. Bush never really did, in the use of power, military power above all, to change the world in America’s image. If you thought George Bush was bad when it comes to the use of military force, wait till you see John McCain… He believes this. His advisers believe this. He’s surrounded himself with people who believe it. And I’ll take him at his word.

- Ivo Daadler, Brooking’s Institute  (quote found in “Hothead McCain,” by Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation, March 24, 2008 edition)

• Leave a comment... (1)

Ever since John Edwards dropped out of the nomination race, I have stayed basically undecided between the remaining Democratic candidates, Obama and Clinton. That is, until recently.

As I discussed yesterday, the mood of this campaign has taken a decidedly negative turn, driven almost entirely by the Clinton camp. She and her advisers have decided that resorting to fear-provoking tactics is the best way to blemish Obama’s image, scaring the public into voting for her and her long history of “experience.”

I noted yesterday that this strategy is myopic on all sides, that regardless of who becomes the Democratic nominee, whether it be Clinton or Obama, it will do no good in the long run. The logical outcome of this sort of campaign is one that bolsters McCain and harms his opponent.

Today, however, Clinton has taken it to a new level. Before, with the “three a.m.” ads and the general attacks on Obama, she and her campaign were unintentionally helping John McCain (at least I assumed it was unintentional). Perhaps just insinuating the she and Senator McCain were better suited than Obama to become president was not enough, because today she said it, flat out:

Look, I have said Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech he made in 2002.

And:

I think that since we now know Senator McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold.

I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Senator McCain has done that, and you’ll have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.

What, exactly, is she trying to do here? Am I the only one that thinks she sounds like McCain’s running mate? It was bad enough when she was satisfied just attempting to destroy Obama’s image. Now, she not only questions Obama’s ability to handle national security, but bewilderingly, unnecessarily, brings up John McCain and showers him with praise and attests to his preparedness. Please, someone explain to me how this strategy is supposed to pan out? How can it possibly benefit her OR Obama? All she is doing is taking on McCain’s work for him, taking cheap shots at her fellow party member and coming up with handy attacks for the McCain campaign to use in the general election.

Jonathan Alter at Newsweek.com showed, using a delegate calculator, that even in the very best of circumstances (Clinton winning every single state from here on out; some, like Pennsylvania, by staggering margins), she will still be behind Obama in the overall delegate count. If events pan out, even as positively for Clinton as they do in the Alter experiment, then the only way Clinton could clinch the nomination is through the influence of the superdelegates. Unless her advisers are completely inept, they must know this as well. Why, then, resort to this strategy of tearing apart the other Democratic candidate and boosting the image of the Republican? I cannot assume to know how the superdelegates will interpret her statements, but if any of them are concerned about the cohesion and strength of the party, they should be appalled. If I were a superdelegate, and a Democratic candidate were speaking like this, there would be absolutely no way I would support them.

The McCain praise is not the only shocking statement the Clinton campaign has made in the last 24 hours. Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for her campaign, today compared Barack Obama to Kenneth Starr (you all remember that name), because Obama continues to ask that Senator Clinton releases her tax returns to the public. (An interesting side note: while she was running for the Senate in 2000, Clinton made a lot of noise about her then-opponent, Rich Lazio, not releasing his tax returns… exactly what she now keeps putting off herself). Again, I cannot see how comparing Obama to Starr helps her chances in getting the nomination. Not only is the comparison a complete and idiotic misnomer with no basis in reality, it brings up an uncomfortable time for the Democratic Party. The public does not want to go through that again, and by calling attention to Starr in any way, Wolfson simply reminds voters how much of a lightning rod for right-wing criticism the Clintons are. When asked to comment on Wolfson’s statement, Senator Clinton, for some reason, refused to comment.

Finally, this news came out of the Canadian press today:

A storm of reports in the Canadian media say that the Nafta-gate flap last week involving Barack Obama was started by a key aide to Canada’s prime minister - who told journalists that Hillary Clinton’s campaign - not Obama’s - had contacted the Canadian government to play down its Nafta-bashing.

Apparently, the story about Obama giving the Canadians the “ole’ wink wink” (Clinton’s words), got mixed up at some point. It was, in fact, the Clinton campaign that reassured the Canadian government there would be no major changes to the the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement if she became president. And why not? It was her husband’s administration that pushed NAFTA into existence, and she has made plenty of statements applauding the agreement in the past. When Obama and his campaign denied ever reaching out to our northern neighbors on this subject, he wasn’t lying.

Woops. While this story was being published and reported incorrectly in the United States, Clinton was quick to criticize Obama over it, insinuating, most importantly to voters in Ohio, that he could not be trusted to stick to his word and reform or repeal the agreement if he becomes president. There is nothing more sickening then finding out that the entire time, it was really the work of her own campaign that she was rallying so strongly against. Even more disheartening is that the story and Clinton’s response to it almost certainly had a significant impact on the March 4 primaries, especially in Ohio.

All of these things ad up to make Senator Clinton and her campaign look pretty ugly. If she insists on lavishing John McCain with warm accolades and denigrating Obama (beyond what is necessary for a primary election season), then I do not see how Democrats, both within the upper echelons of the party and its every day members, can continue to support her. All of her recent actions and statements have seemed to suggest that she would rather see John McCain become president than see Barack Obama become the Democratic nominee.

Many of the political pundits and Democratic strategists are saying that this long and drawn out race for the nomination will be good for the party: it will further clarify the stances of each candidate; it will energize the party base; it will focus media attention on the Democrats while McCain’s coverage gets muted in the background. But none of that will matter if, after a nominee has emerged, Obama looks like a weakling on national security and a traitor to America, and Clinton looks like best friends with John McCain, and has isolated Obama’s enormous base. If she somehow becomes the nominee, how can she possibly expect the millions of young, dedicated Obama supporters to suddenly change heart and embrace her candidacy? If the Democratic candidates are really concerned about putting a member of their party in the White House next year, they both need to stay away from viscous personality-based attacks, and Hillary Clinton, if nothing else, needs to stop the love-fest with John McCain.

• Leave a comment... (3)

The race for the Democratic nomination will continue on. With her wins in Rhode Island, Ohio and Texas last night, Hillary Clinton has narrowed Obama’s lead in delegates to 96 (according to cnn.com). MSNBC cited a poll showing that most Democratic voters actually want the primary elections to continue between Clinton and Obama. It seems their wish has been granted.

However, as the candidates move forward they should tread carefully. Prior to the latest round of primaries and caucuses, Hillary Clinton’s campaign began running the now-notorious “three a.m. phone call” television commercials, which insinuated that Barack Obama would not be capable of handling emergency situations prudently if he were to become president. They play off the already-held belief among some voters that Obama does not have the experience, and therefore does not have the judgment, to take on the country’s highest office, especially during a crisis. This, as we all know, has been the crux of Clinton’s self-marketing over the last few months; namely, that she is “ready to be president on day one” and that Obama is not. The entire ploy seems to be working, and the notion that Clinton has vast, tested experience in executive positions has taken root in many voters’ minds, despite the lack of proof (recently when a handful of her top campaign staffers were asked to name a specific moment in which she was tested in the way she claims to have been, none of them could come up with an answer). But setting aside the question of whether or not Clinton really does possess the experience shes touts, its obvious that she and her campaign have become comfortable with employing a more hostile and fear-based strategy. Last night will likely serve to reinforce their belief in the efficacy of this sort of campaign, and they will continue on to Pennsylvania under the premise that in order to siphon votes away from Obama, they need to scare the general electorate.

Scare tactics and ads playing to the fears of the country are an insult to the intelligence of Democrats and the public in general. They assume that whenever we are given the choice between voting based on an instinctual need for safety and voting based on thoughtful, coherent decisions, our animalistic tendencies will always win. They are saying to us, “we know that you, the common people, are too stupid to understand the intricacies of what we do; so, just trust that if you vote for that other guy, you might have to die, but if you vote for me, you’ll always be able to sleep like a baby.”

In 2004, Bill Clinton, while campaigning for John Kerry, said:

If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is trying to get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.

Sadly, his wife and her campaign managers have begged to differ with the former president. In their desperation to retake the lead, they have subjected the voters to the same kind of fear-mongering that Bill denounced just four years ago. And, if they do not back off from these tactics, they run the risk of doing serious damage to the Democratic Party and its presidential hopes this November.

If the Clinton campaign continues to demonize Obama in this way, they run the risk of significantly tarnishing his image in the event he becomes the nominee. There are seven weeks until the Pennsylvania primary, more than enough time to cement the irrational belief that Obama is weak on national security into the minds of millions of voters; not just those in PA and the other upcoming states, but throughout the country. If she does not win the nomination, she will have created a perfect target for McCain to exploit against Obama in the general election. She endlessly informs us that her number one priority is that a Democrat (be it her or Obama) is sworn into the Oval Office next year, but her actions seem to betray those claims.

On the other hand, if these tactics do work, and Clinton does eventually clench the nomination, they will hurt her as well. We hoped that this year, the election could finally move past mindless rhetoric and visions of nuclear holocaust, and instead concentrate on real substance. Inevitably, McCain and others on the right will use fear to win votes - I don’t think anyone doubts that. But because Hillary has descended into this filthy world as well, she will not be able to call them out and show the public why it is irrational to vote out of fear, why they should resist those candidates who replace dreams with nightmares, and why she offers an alternative to this nonsense - because she no longer does.

• Leave a comment... (0)

William F. Buckley Jr. died this morning, hunched over his desk, still writing away at the age of 82. He was one of the greatest champions of conservatism that the movement has ever seen, one that’s had an immeasurable effect on the direction of political thought since the end of WWII.

He’ll be missed, not only by conservatives, for whom Buckley was a super-star, but for anyone that values thoughtful, intelligent discourse. His sesquipedalian tendencies will be deeply missed in a age when profound, penetrating debate has largely been replaced by moronic, hate-filled rhetoric. Even though many of us on the left deeply disagreed with Buckley’s ideas, he was the kind of man you could have a serious debate with, unlike many on both sides of the aisle today. The New York Times calls him “liberals’ favorite conservative” - a moniker that personally, I’ll be happy to confirm.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Ralph Nader is running for President again. As expected, the announcement of his candidacy has sparked a wave of angry criticism from the left. Those who are speaking out against Nader are concerned that, as it may have done in the 2000 election, his presence in the race will siphon votes away from the Democratic nominee and allow McCain (presumably) to narrowly pull out a win. They are calling for Nader to drop out of the election, accusing him of running more out of hubris than concern for the nation. But whatever fears Democrats may have about his influence this November, those demanding that he end his campaign should stop for a moment and think about the idea that they are subscribing to: namely, that because a third party candidate may prevent the outcome that they are hoping for, he has no right to run.

The danger in taking this position is obvious. If there is to be anything resembling a democracy in this country, any significant third party should have the right to enter a candidate into the presidential election, regardless of its effect on the outcome. As much as this pains Democrats, the alternative is far more dangerous. If you argue that Nader does not belong in this race, you are arguing that the only two positions that can ever be legitimately taken are those of the Democratic and Republican parties. The third parties, as seemingly irrelevant as they are now, are important to this country in their ability to highlight issues that are not even being discussed among the main party candidates. If we eliminate their capacity to do so, eventually ideas that huge numbers of Americans actually care about, ideas that are already in many cases largely ignored, will fade completely from the political discourse. Ralph Nader knows that he will not win this election, and that it’s very unlikely that he will win even one state. But he is talking about things that John McCain and Hillary Clinton wouldn’t dream of and Barack Obama seems increasingly hesitant to bring up. He deserves to be heard. And if he forces the Democratic nominee to be tougher and more articulate on certain issues, then we all benefit.

The videos below are from the Meet The Press interview during which Nader announced his candidacy. Speak up if you disagree, but I think its hard to argue with his logic.

• Leave a comment... (0)