Skip to main content

View Diary: No Summers for the Fed? Sen. Warren, Brown and Merkley Are No Votes (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  re: Nader (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, tytalus, FiredUpInCA, earicicle

    Mr. SV is a photographer, and he covered Nader a few times.  He found him to be incredibly egotistical, tyrannical, self-absorbed and deeply strange.  I recoiled when he bragged about getting Republican money for his race, since he clearly knew that it was being spent not for him but only to weaken support for the Democratic candidate.  I still believe that he understood the differences between the candidates and the parties they represented, and he should have withdrawn at the end and thrown his support to Gore.  But his involvement in the race seemed to be more about him than about the country.  

    As for Hillary: When I joined DKos in 2007, there were terrible flame wars going on.  My very first diary was an attempt to cool down the viciousness of the anti-Hillary rhetoric.  Like some of the accusations we hear against Obama (he loves killing Muslim children, his goal is to be the wealthiest former President, his total devotion is to his banker BFFs, he wants to get rid of Social Security, etc.) the poison thrown at Hillary was ridiculous.  I have reservations about her, though I think she was an excellent SOS, and wish she were in that position now in place of a deeply disappointing, un-diplomatic Kerry.  And when you look at the terrifying array of GOP hopefuls, can there be any doubt that she should prevail should she run?

    "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

    by SottoVoce on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 09:28:56 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I met him a couple times. Drove him to a speech (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SottoVoce, tytalus, earicicle

      in sumemr 2000.  I had a nice conversation with him.   he understood there were differences in 2000, but that on corporate control, the differences were not major.  In retrospect, I think he was very wrong (Bush invaded Iraq and the Bush tax cuts, among other things).  

      But it also could be true that he was "incredibly egotistical, tyrannical, self-absorbed and deeply strange."  he is very docused on politics and appears to have little personal life (no family, etc.).

      I think he was wrong in 2000, and he may understand that in some ways, leading to "incredibly egotistical, tyrannical, self-absorbed and deeply strange."

      Hard to know.  A 15 minuted conversation about politics while driving a car gioves little real insight into the man.

      He did much good in the 1960s and 70s.  A lot of hios life work, however, was undermined in later years by the conservative reaction starting with Reagan (and even Carter to a degree).  Most folks have families and interests beyond the struggle for change, so in times of defeat they can fall back on them.  He seemed to only have politics and struggle, but I don't really know him at all.  

       

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 09:35:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nader is not alone in this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP

        Ross Perot made this whole discussion of Ralph Nader possible.  If incredibly egotistical, tyrannical, self-absorbed and deeply strange Ross Perot hadn't gone on a personal mission from God to deny George H. W. Bush a second term in 1992, Bush would have won.  Bill Clinton, and his wife, would have been a footnote in history, and Al Gore would still be the nobody Senator from Tennessee,... maybe.

        Of course, George W, Bush would never have been president, either.  And, without the backlash to the GW Bush presidency, we're still waiting for our first black president.

        Ralph Nader was just nature balancing itself out.    

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site