By Manila Ryce
Published Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 3:42 pm
Filed under: Videos: Political, Videos, US Politics

4 Responses to “The Hermit Interviews Ralph Nader”

1. Wow. So, Mr. Nader uses the we can’t loose our “moral compass” point too now. In a world of such complexity and political dissatisfaction, Mr. Nader still thinks the argument that his “moral compass” is more correct than the other individual’s “moral compass” stands to be compelling and relevant?… The man of great past and present ideas has become a stubborn old fool–unable to truly critically think and try better to negotiation with the rest of the world, that is, actually politically confront those he disagrees with around him (those in power). I do not mean this to be flippant. Mr. Nader seems to have lost the thoughtfulness it takes to turn great ideas and personal opinion into public policy and actual political legislation. Bush is also very good at telling americans why his “moral compass” is right and good. I really wish Mr. Nader would be brave enough to descend his perch of Puritanism and contribute to influencing a negotiating political cause and hard earned platform. Obama is not perfect, no individual who speaks on behalf of so (too) many is. When Mr. Nader truly speaks to all americans, including those who disagree with him on fundamental points, he will also not be perfect. If he ever makes the decision to speak to, and actually confront americans (actual adversaries), he will recognize the very difficult process of negotiation. Perhaps, at this point Mr. Nader will find the “moral compass” to be more difficult to read than he projects in this interview conducted by a reasonable and clearly supportive interviewer.

   erik
   09/18/08 at 2:56 am
   

2. This is the kind of substantive work

   How exactly is this work “substantive”? I couldn’t watch more than 30 seconds of it… not what I would call a substantive interview by any means.

   Phillip.

   Phillip Smith
   09/18/08 at 7:43 am
   
3. 

   The mere fact that Americans have been dumbed down to think that having the limited choice between two wings of the same party, the ‘Property Party [according to Gore Vidal] the Dems and Repubs to represent them, have much to learn about ‘democracy.’ Never really existed in your vast land.

   Vote Nader/Gonzales and discover what a true democracy is all about. They represent ‘we the people’ not the ‘corporate’ agendas submitted by the two ‘property parties’ on the ballot. Wake up America!

   vidaloon
   09/18/08 at 9:13 am
   
4. 

   I watched and enjoyed this - good interview. I believe in many of Nader’s ideas, and would never turn on him in the way that so many of his past supporters have. It’s disingenuous and short-sighted to blame him for Bush’s 2000 victory, or to suggest that third-party and independent candidates shouldn’t have a place in the national debate.

   That being said, here’s my question/suggestion: Obama is not John Kerry in ‘04 or Al Gore in ‘00, and it doesn’t help to frame him as such. There is something fundamentally different, surely in his public profile and what he inspires in people here and around the world, but also in his worldview and his approach to governing. In his greatest moments, Obama has shown that he is acutely aware of his and our place in history, and he clearly has aspirations beyond just being a good president. He wants to be a transcendent leader in the mold of Lincoln or FDR. Aspirations and reality are of course two different things, and Obama has been prone to much pandering in the campaign season. This trend may continue into his time in the White House, and that should be a serious concern. At the same time, it’s worth pointing out that even the few truly great American presidents have succumbed to similar political pitfalls for the sake of getting elected.

   So anyway, using the exact same rhetoric that was used in ‘00 and ‘04 about the lesser of two evils is not going to work for Nader this time around. If he wants to inspire people to vote for him, he must first acknowledge the uniqueness of Obama’s candidacy, and perhaps even the positive potential of an Obama presidency, and then make the case for Nader/Gonzalez in spite of what is special about Obama. I saw him do just this on Meet the Press early this year, and it was convincing. Why isn’t he doing it anymore?

   evmonk
   09/18/08 at 11:28 am
   

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>