Awake from your slumber: Patti Smith & Ralph Nader music video

Events are overtaking us. The moment for electing a nice safe Democrat who will maintain the status quo is quickly slipping away. Our environment stands on the brink of collapse. Only a radical change of our use of resources will save it. The economy is nearing meltdown. Bush is giving billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out white collar criminals while the rest of us are left to fend for ourselves. Iraq boils on as a festering reminder of how little control we have over our own government. The Democrats are offering healhcare reform that entails giving taxpayer dollars to the insurance industry.

Only a radical change is going to save us. By all means let's elect Obama, clearly our best hope. But that alone won't be enough.

Only radical change will save us.

Awake from your slumber is a small piece of what every citizen can do to change complacency in our hope for government reformation change with a grass roots candidate starting with Ralph Nader and his position placed for US citizen to vote up or down. I like what he embody's for all our people less corporate influence, more citizenry volunteer enlistment and activism for our own common good and reassessment and opening of our political system from where it is not open and participative without transparent integrity, e.g. superdelegate inconclusiveness is of apparent vote selection goes in bad and comes out worse.

Please reconsider open election and opening up new regulation of corporate lobbyist influence in our governing decisions.

Patti Smith! Yeah! She has conviction, same as Ralph. Go Patti, go Ralph!

The only thing Nadir brings to this contest is old man smell, a rumpled suit, and mush mouthed doublespeak.
He elected Bush. 1.3 million and counting have died in Iraq. He told his supporters that Al Gore and Bush were Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Great judgement Ralph!
May I suggest some time with a high priced hooker? I'd contribute to that!
And Patti, your politics suck! Why don't you make a decent album!

Zonix,

They need you badly over at the Hillary-Obama fight. One side isn't getting ripped enough. You seem like just the man for the job.

Remember Ross Perot.

Ralph Nader Ron Paul Dennis Kucinich Mike Gravel.

Cynthia McKinney.

United by truth elicit fear smear blacklist.
Wrenches in the gears lives not lived in vain.

Human League awakened sheep.
President Carter understands

Radical change. Obama?!? Anonymous get your head out of your ass. You must have gotten mesmerized by all those CHANGE signs. With Obama you get chump change. Nader "08"!!!

Zonix,

There is some flaw in your logic. Here are the facts: Nader did not elect Bush. Some DEMOCRATS voted for Bush...imagine that! Are they not to blame? There was also the Katherine Harris debacle in Florida (not Nader's doing either!) and if I recall correctly, Gore DID win the popular vote. Unfortunately, Bush had a friend in the Supreme Court (Scalia) who ruled that the counting of ballots had to stop and Bush would be declared the winner. Your bitterness should not be directed toward Nader. Ralph Nader graduated with honors from Harvard Law and could have worked for corporations making him an extremely wealthy man. However, he chose to use his personal resources to fight on behalf of the American people and he has been doing just that for nearly four decades. Action speaks louder than words. The fact is Nader has devoted his life to public service and really deserves gratitude and support now more than anything else.

Jim,

Please calm down. I am a Nader supporter who will vote for Ralph in November. Nontheless I don't think we just shut our eyes to what is going on with the Democrats. The difference between Hillary and Obama is slight but I think significant. The Clintons really do represent the entrenched power of the right wing Democrats. Obama isn't perfect but he represents a turning over of power in that institution. No politician is going to deliver radical change on a platter, even Ralph Nader. People have to demand it and make it happen. That's what Nader stands for. And we have to do it whoever is sworn in next year. My best scenario- Obama gets the nomination, he hears the movement on the left and responds to it, and we all win in a landslide in November. Then we get to work.

Also I got very depressed looking at an Obama-Clinton fight page last night. It would be kind of nice if those of us who are united by radical interests could be respectful and maybe even like each other. And not spit out things like "get your head out of your ass". Let me know what you think of my analysis, I'd be interested to hear.

To the mainstream boob who believes Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton and Fox News about Ralph Nader helping Bush get to power: you are so freaking wrong it hurts.

In the documentary "An Unreasonable Man" the director interviews social scientists who crunch the numbers and find that for the most part the people who voted for Nader in the first Bush W election were people who wouldn't have voted had there not been a Nader candidate.

So let's see, um, he actually inspired democratic participation - what a smelly old man thing to do.

Check the film out here for those interested:
http://www.anunreasonableman.com/

Not to mention Nader's own argument on behalf of his candidacy: the right of every American citizen to stand for public office pretty much runs to the core of the American project. To argue that there is something morally reprehensible about Ralph Nader (or any other significant third party contender) running in a presidential campaign is to argue that there is a class of citizen that has less right to run for public office than others. Imagine the implications if this were applied in other directions such as ethnic background, religious affiliation, and sexual orientation. If there are sub-groups of American citizens who have less of a right to run for public office than others, America is a failed (democratic) state.

If Nadir could not tell the difference betweet Al Gore and Bush in 2000, he is not smart enough to be President. When asked to pick between the Dems and Repugs in '08, he says he couldn't, because he's 'in the race.' Do Nadirites really believe he can win? They are not being honest. Like when they clain no guilt for Bush's election.
Do you think people want universal health care, and end to the war, or Darth Nadir's recycled confusion?
Does Nadir want to make it easier for David Duke, or The Beer Party, to be on ballots? Is this the fight you wanna pick, when IRAQ rages and kids die for lack of health care?
I believe Nadir is responsible for Bush's presidency, the Iraq war, and 1.3 million deaths. Also, for packing the Supreme Court with right wing morons. I believe he is a nasty tempered, ego-driven, publicity seeker.
Do a google search on his ex-staffers. It isn't pretty. They say he is a slave driver.
Nadir wants to control the dialogue, define the 'real' issues. And who knows, maybe elect another man to wage war for 100 more years.

Vote Nader, Elect McCain.

Ralph, More power to your ideas. Keep working to end this insane war and bring our people home. You've been out there making speeches, doing interviews and writing articles and have written at least three books in the last 6 years. And you've been writing weekly commentary on the things that really matter, at http://www.nader.org .The question is where has the Press been on these important matters you discuss? where have the "Talking Heads" been on corporate crime and the profiteers of this war? The population is too busy being entertained and watching Sporting events to get involved, they take the EASY route and don't bother to think, settling instead for snippets and quick slogans. Knowing what's going on in a Corporate controlled State takes WORK. Thank you Ralph, for all the good things you've done to protect the PEOPLE of this Country. Amazing how quickly they forget, or perhaps they just don't know. Almost everyone's lives, or that of friends and relatives of theirs, have been improved and made safer because of you, Some wouldn't be alive today, if not for Ralph Nader! Their minds have been intentionly bombarded with with Corporate propaganda and the Democrat Party scapegoating machine. Obama and Clinton, and that phoney Terry McAuliffe should be ashamed of their comments regarding you. They continue the DNC scapcoating myth. thank you for your great and continued service to your fellow countrymen. America will never ever be able to repay you. More power to your ideas. http://www.votenader.org....All the rest of you out there, buckle-up! ....

Zonix,

I write this alot. The Democrats lose when they don't stand for anything. In case you hadn't noticed, the Democrats were just kidding when they said during the 06 election that they would end the war. They're just kidding this time because they still rely on the same foreign policy establishment that keeps the empire going whether it's D or R. Their idea of universal healthcare is to give taxpayer money to the insurance industry. John Kerry wouldn't even agree to fight for labor rights to keep Nader out of the 04 election. We can't save the planet if short term business models always trump the long term good. R and D are both there to protect those business interests. Therefore it is the R and D system that keeps progress from happening. Who are we supposed to vote for if we're against the two-party corporate system? Republicans or Democrats?

In 2000 six million elibible voters in Florida didn't go to the polls. For six hundred lousy votes you couldn't blame those people? But if you talk to them, sure some of them are apathetic and ignorant, but alot of them are quite thoughtful and will tell you that all politicians are crooks and scoundrels who are going to screw you over. Are they wrong? All I can tell them is I think Ralph Nader at least is an honest man who wants to improve life in the United States.

Oh yeah, the ex-staffers? Nader used to work their asses off but he'd tell them, "You can bring your conscience to work with you." That's really rough.

If the Democratic Party is bad, why did Ralph endorse John Edwards last year?
And why are the Dems responsible for a war that would not have been fought under a President Al Gore? A war directly tied to 97,000 Florida Greens inability to compromise on their high ideals in 2000. By not siding with the Democrats, they handed Bush-Cheney the controls.
And, as Ralph's 2007 endorsement of Democrat Edwards shows, maybe he learned the lesson of the 2000 Florida election, even if his supporters haven't.

Zonix,

There's two things going on here. First you're angry because you think Ralph Nader was responsible for Bush. About a dozen or more different factors came together to put Bush in office. It was a horrible event and horribly ironic. Nader and his voters were one factor but much more important were the things Bush did and the things Gore didn't do. The people who didn't vote and the reasons for that seems like the biggest factor of all to me.

The second thing is, what is the point of supporting someone like Nader when they have little chance of winning. That has to do with how willing you are to critique the Democratic party. Since the early nineties after the Reagan years they adopted a strategy of pursuing the same corporate dollars that the Republicans were getting. Understandable because it's very hard to compete without money. But it was a deal with the devil because then they had to start doing what their paymasters wanted of them. These were pretty fundamental things like being anti-union and pro-free trade and supporting the imperial foreign policy that backs it up.

So if you believe in something basic like, government ought to serve the needs of the people, then you're an outsider in this system. They all but dare you to leave. What Nader is offering is a chance to organize into an identifiable voting bloc. Just like the Israeli lobby, or the Cubans in Miami, or the Christian right. All those groups have organized and they say, "hey, if you don't do what we say, then we're not going to help you win elections." And the campaigns know this and they make calculations accordingly.

Why shouldn't there be an organized bloc for single-payer healthcare or environmental action or ending the war in Iraq? Afterall, it's what we all believe in, right? So as painful as 2000 was, the political proffessionals now have to make the same calculations for the activist left as they do for the pro-Israel bloc or the gun lobby. How can we neutralize the Nader vote? What can we give them to keep them happy?

And if we all just say, "shame on Ralph, nobody vote for him", then they won't give us a thing. I say let's be hard bargainers. Let's get as much as we can, because it will only make the Democrats stronger. Let's stop enabling them to be wimps, because wimps don't win elections.

How are the Democrats to be blamed for the Iraq War? Well, obviously we need a little historical perspective.

1. Let's start with Clintonian foreign policy in Israel, a policy which consisted of constant partisan pandering to the Israeli right and its continued subversion of international law, law which mandates an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory (although as a Jew I must acknowledge that perhaps none of the land should be considered non-Palestinian territory). In 2000, The Guardian declared that Al Gore would likely be the most partisan supporter of Israel ever elected President, a fact that our pal Al confirmed with his selection of neoconservative hawk Joe Lieberman, a choice that sent a loud and clear message to Arabs/Muslims/progressives around the world.
2.Add to this the coddling of corrupt and oppressive oil-rich oligarchies, for the benefit of our transnational corporations, a fact decried by progressives the world over, loathed by the civilian victims of those regimes, and challenged by Ralph Nader, but not by Mr. Gore.
3. Stir in some Iraqi sanctions, which killed upwards of 600,000 children, depriving them of things like dialysis machines and catheters, and accomplished absolutely nothing, but declared to be "worth the cost" by the likes of Madeline Albright. But heck, how could anyone expect someone like Al Gore acknowledge that it had been a mistake all along, right? Especially since certain administration officials had resigned early on, claiming that the policy was genocidal. Al Gore couldn't be expected to admit that he personally had done absolutely nothing to stop the policy years earlier, when experts informed him of its implications. As evil and futile as it proved to be, this organized violence was destined to continue, because the alternative would have been to admit error with regard to matters of life and death. Sound familiar?
4. Season by ignoring protests by the Muslim world at the U.S. for continuing to force military bases down the throats of Saudi citizens. U.S. policy has been to destabilize regimes, orchestrate military coups, provide arms to evil dictators (like our former buddy Saddam), etc., for over half a century. These behaviors did not serve our relationships with the Arab/Islamic worlds well.
5. Allow Ralph Nader's warnings about these issues, which are not merely questions of basic morality, but of national security, to be completely ignored by the MSM and the Democratic Party. If Gore's supporters were concerned about Nader's popularity, wasn't the onus on THEM to pressure him to reform? Our support wasn't legally contracted; it was contingent. If Gore had spoken of a real change of course in the Middle East, he would have not only won enough of us over to his side to win the election; if he had immediately followed through, and promised restitution for past harm, he would have likely averted 9/11 altogether. Here's a thought: If I were a Democrat concerned about George Bush as warmonger (which incidentally, wasn't a concern of anyone at the time, as he was considered an isolationist; whiny Democrats were concerned about the domestic implications of a Bush presidency), but nevertheless, if I WERE concerned that Nader would siphon enough votes from Gore to elect Bush, perhaps the onus would have been on ME and my fellow Democrats to pressure Gore to debate these issues, as American progressives generally and Nader's supporters in particular were demanding. If I, as a Gore Democrat, didn't want to do this because these are issues of life and death and basic morality, maybe I would have done it because these issues are also inextricably linked to national security. Or because we know that many of Nader's supporters would have been perfectly happy to have their vote "stolen" by Gore, if only a few concessions to their very grave concerns were offered. Instead, Gore gave every indication that his behavior as President would be just as craven as his behavior as Vice President, and just as destructive as the behavior of his predecessor. And it was only allowed to be because so few demands were placed on him to the contrary.
6. Promise Gore that you will vote for him no matter what he does or says, because any Democrat can be expected to be slightly better than any Republican. Don't put any pressure on him at all to reverse course on foreign policy. Don't seek out non-corporate news like Democracy Now, don't read progressive criticisms of foreign policy. When 9/11 happens, be completely flabbergasted, but don't question whether the "they hate us for our freedoms" analysis sounds even remotely plausible. Be part of George W. Bush's unprecedented 92% approval rating, a rating that would not have existed without the bulk of Gore supporters, unlike Nader's supporters, whose approval of Bush never reached the double digits. Don't complain, question, stand up and fight the corporate media, the Bush administration, the non-intellectual Islamaphobes; don't call your Congressmen to express outrage over prospect of war, don't take to the streets, don't do anything that Nader's supporters did in droves.
I must ask anyone still whining about 2000: what exactly did you do to demand that the issues that Nader was raising were given a hearing? How many of you have noticed the connection between America's foreign policy and 9/11? There is no evidence that the 9/11 hijackers were either retarded or sociopaths. They were well educated and rightfully enraged men who were powerless to effect change, powerless to declare what would have been a just war against a military that is more powerful than the rest of the world's military combined, powerless against a superpower that ignores international treaties (UN charter), ignores findings by international courts, etc. What demands did you put on your Congressmen to vote "nay" to this monstrous war, a war that could have only been waged by a supine Congress. Have you noticed that the behaviors of our elected Congress exactly confirmed that Nader's allegations about the parties were right, that we need opposition parties, that we as citizens have to be active as well as informed if we are ever going to have a functioning Democracy, a Democracy that still exists in name only.
We, as relatively free citizens of this monstrosity, are not powerless. We progressives cannot yet see our candidate assume office, but we can use our vote as a veto, on all candidates who are simply completely unacceptable. Both George W. Bush and Al Gore fit that category in 2000. If we were electing a king, then perhaps we would indeed have felt compelled to vote for the "lesser of two evils." George W. Bush was not elected king, but you would never know that from the behavior of our both our Congress as a whole, and the cowardly and triangulating behavior of the major Democratic candidates for President in particular, who have refrained from even taking the mild step of censuring him for his illegal activity. None of the brutality and violence of the past 7 years would have been possible without the absolute complicity of the large majority of Democratic voters, Democratic voters who have completely abdicated their moral responsibility, denied their moral culpability, and forgetten the great moral and political dictum, "power concedes nothing without a demand."

Here is that no-compromise bs that makes some Nadirites so hard to take. You are so left you become Facistic. There is only one way to do things. Nadirs way. And, you can only get attention by butting into the Presidential election. You are telling 99% of us that we are wrong. You have all your eggs in the Ralph basket. His poop does not stink!
A code word for anti-Semitism: Israeli lobby. Ralph is an Arab-American. You do not have to hate Jews to be pro-Palistinian. Is this why the Republicans contribute so much to Nadir?
I will whine about the 2000 election until Greens accept some measure of responsibility for electing Bush. Otherwise, it is part of your house of cards logic. Confused and pathetic to avoid ANY blame.
1.3 million deaths. A trillion dollars and counting. Torture. Ralph Nadir elected the punk who did this. He told you Gore was Bush. He lied to you, and continues to lie to you. He tells you what you want to hear.
You don't take the story of a crime from the criminals, in this case The Greens of Florida. 97,000 of them.
Answer this: If the Dems are so bad, why did Nadir endorse John Edwards?
And why is Nadir celebate? Do all his cult members have to be?

Vote Nader- Elect McCain

Zonix,

I have to feel that you're not listening to what I'm saying. Above I just said that Nader's candidacy was one of many factors. I forgive Gore for his part. I will forgive all the Democrats if it will help them gain some courage to fight the battles that need to be fought. Maybe you should forgive Ralph and his supporters. Bush is the one who cannot be forgiven.

But I don't think anybody has to apologize for what they do in the voting booth. That's our right as Americans to vote for whoever we want. Even the Democrats who voted for Bush. And it's also our right to run for office if we so choose. Not just Democrats and Republicans. Anybody.

Nader supported Edwards because Edwards was vocal about breaking the corporate strangle hold on power. That's what this is all about. At least for us it is. If you are pro-corporate, fine, I respect that. But what corporate power brings with it are wars overseas, environmental degradation and lousy healthcare.

But if the Democrats go with a corporate candidate then they can't expect to get support from people who are anti-corporate. Hillary Clinton represents the health insurance industry, the arms industry and other bad actors. There's no way I'm going to pull the lever for her. I'd rather stay home.

For me this is about the issues and how do we effect them. Not about Ralph Nader as a personality, although I do find him inspiring. Frankly it's the Clinton and Obama supporters who are caught up in personality.

And the celebacy thing? Ah Zonix, if only you knew what my life is like.

Not only is She a lame has-been, but She's hideous to look at and teamed up with the American Commie.

As Reverend Wright said, "America's chickens are coming home to roost." Unless, that is, Ralph Nader is elected.

For if not Ralph, an affirmative action product of social engineering who wants to engineer our society of freedom to one of marxism by duping the undereducated products of our school systems into thinking that "change" without definition is the answer.

Or, if not Nader, a man so out of touch with America and Americans that he will take us to war with Iran and finally bankrupt the republic.