PDA

View Full Version : An open letter to Obama from Ralph Nader



jay81
11-06-2008, 12:56 AM
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/11/an-open-letter-to-barack-obama/

An Open Letter to Barack Obama
Between Hope and Reality

by Ralph Nader / November 4th, 2008

Dear Senator Obama:

In your nearly two-year presidential campaign, the words ?hope and change,? ?change and hope? have been your trademark declarations. Yet there is an asymmetry between those objectives and your political character that succumbs to contrary centers of power that want not ?hope and change? but the continuation of the power-entrenched status quo.

Far more than Senator McCain, you have received enormous, unprecedented contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests and, most interestingly, big corporate law firm attorneys. Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart. Why, apart from your unconditional vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests investing so much in Senator Obama? Could it be that in your state Senate record, your U.S. Senate record and your presidential campaign record (favoring nuclear power, coal plants, offshore oil drilling, corporate subsidies including the 1872 Mining Act and avoiding any comprehensive program to crack down on the corporate crime wave and the bloated, wasteful military budget, for example) you have shown that you are their man?

To advance change and hope, the presidential persona requires character, courage, integrity ? not expediency, accommodation and short-range opportunism. Take, for example, your transformation from an articulate defender of Palestinian rights in Chicago before your run for the U.S. Senate to an acolyte, a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby, which bolsters the militaristic oppression, occupation, blockage, colonization and land-water seizures over the years of the Palestinian peoples and their shrunken territories in the West Bank and Gaza. Eric Alterman summarized numerous polls in a December 2007 issue of The Nation magazine showing that AIPAC policies are opposed by a majority of Jewish-Americans.

You know quite well that only when the U.S. Government supports the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, that years ago worked out a detailed two-state solution (which is supported by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians), will there be a chance for a peaceful resolution of this 60-year plus conflict. Yet you align yourself with the hard-liners, so much so that in your infamous, demeaning speech to the AIPAC convention right after you gained the nomination of the Democratic Party, you supported an ?undivided Jerusalem,? and opposed negotiations with Hamas ? the elected government in Gaza. Once again, you ignored the will of the Israeli people who, in a March 1, 2008 poll by the respected newspaper Haaretz, showed that 64% of Israelis favored ?direct negotiations with Hamas.? Siding with the AIPAC hard-liners is what one of the many leading Palestinians advocating dialogue and peace with the Israeli people was describing when he wrote, ?Anti-Semitism today is the persecution of Palestinian society by the Israeli state.?

During your visit to Israel this summer, you scheduled a mere 45 minutes of your time for Palestinians with no news conference, and no visit to Palestinian refugee camps that would have focused the media on the brutalization of the Palestinians. Your trip supported the illegal, cruel blockade of Gaza in defiance of international law and the United Nations charter. You focused on southern Israeli casualties, which during the past year have totaled one civilian casualty to every 400 Palestinian casualties on the Gaza side. Instead of a statesmanship that decried all violence and its replacement with acceptance of the Arab League?s 2002 proposal to permit a viable Palestinian state within the 1967 borders in return for full economic and diplomatic relations between Arab countries and Israel, you played the role of a cheap politician, leaving the area and Palestinians with the feeling of much shock and little awe.

David Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, described your trip succinctly: ?There was almost a willful display of indifference to the fact that there are two narratives here. This could serve him well as a candidate, but not as a President.?

Palestinian-American commentator Ali Abunimah noted that Obama did not utter a single criticism of Israel, ?of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians. . . . Even the Bush administration recently criticized Israeli?s use of cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians [see www.atfl.org for elaboration]. But Obama defended Israeli?s assault on Lebanon as an exercise of its ?legitimate right to defend itself.??

In numerous columns Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz, strongly criticized the Israeli government?s assault on civilians in Gaza, including attacks on ?the heart of a crowded refugee camp . . . with horrible bloodshed? in early 2008.

Israeli writer and peace advocate Uri Avnery described Obama?s appearance before AIPAC as one that, ?broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning, adding that Obama ?is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future ? if and when he is elected president,? he said, adding, ?Of one thing I am certain: Obama?s declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.?

A further illustration of your deficiency of character is the way you turned your back on the Muslim-Americans in this country. You refused to send surrogates to speak to voters at their events. Having visited numerous churches and synagogues, you refused to visit a single Mosque in America. Even George W. Bush visited the Grand Mosque in Washington D.C. after 9/11 to express proper sentiments of tolerance before a frightened major religious group of innocents.

Although the New York Times published a major article on June 24, 2008 titled ?Muslim Voters Detect a Snub from Obama? (by Andrea Elliott), citing examples of your aversion to these Americans who come from all walks of life, who serve in the armed forces and who work to live the American dream. Three days earlier the International Herald Tribune published an article by Roger Cohen titled ?Why Obama Should Visit a Mosque.? None of these comments and reports changes your political bigotry against Muslim-Americans? even though your father was a Muslim from Kenya.

Perhaps nothing illustrated your utter lack of political courage or even the mildest version of this trait than your surrendering to demands of the hardliners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention. This is a tradition for former presidents and one accorded in prime time to Bill Clinton this year.

Here was a President who negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, but his recent book pressing the dominant Israeli superpower to avoid Apartheid of the Palestinians and make peace was all that it took to sideline him. Instead of an important address to the nation by Jimmy Carter on this critical international problem, he was relegated to a stroll across the stage to ?tumultuous applause,? following a showing of a film about the Carter Center?s post-Katrina work. Shame on you, Barack Obama!

But then your shameful behavior has extended to many other areas of American life. (See the factual analysis by my running mate, Matt Gonzalez, on www.votenader.org). You have turned your back on the 100-million poor Americans composed of poor whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. You always mention helping the ?middle class? but you repeatedly omit mention of the ?poor? in America.

Should you be elected President, it must be more than an unprecedented upward career move following a brilliantly unprincipled campaign that spoke ?change? yet demonstrated actual obeisance to the concentration power of the ?corporate supremacists.? It must be about shifting the power from the few to the many. It must be a White House presided over by a black man who does not turn his back on the downtrodden here and abroad but challenges the forces of greed, dictatorial control of labor, consumers and taxpayers, and the militarization of foreign policy. It must be a White House that is transforming of American politics ? opening it up to the public funding of elections (through voluntary approaches) ? and allowing smaller candidates to have a chance to be heard on debates and in the fullness of their now restricted civil liberties. Call it a competitive democracy.

Your presidential campaign again and again has demonstrated cowardly stands. ?Hope? some say ?springs eternal.? But not when ?reality? consumes it daily.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
November 3, 2008

ElMariachi
11-06-2008, 01:02 AM
Damn........Nader speaks the truth. I'm glad someone else is pointing out that for all his rhetoric about "new politics" and "change", Obama is the most corporate sponsored president that this country has ever seen.

revkins
11-06-2008, 01:07 AM
Fox News was even condemning the comments Nader made after Obama became president elect.

FOX NEWS!

AWrJkcH97JY

Nadar is a Class 5 douchebag. What an attention seeking whore.

GXn0rU19Apk

jay81
11-06-2008, 01:35 AM
Fox News was even condemning the comments Nader made after Obama became president elect.

FOX NEWS!

AWrJkcH97JY

Nadar is a Class 5 douchebag. What an attention seeking whore.

GXn0rU19Apk

No offence, but IMHO, Obomba's just another warmonger, a corporate puppet, and a Zionist slave.

He even lives across the street from a huge temple:

http://usera.ImageCave.com/JasonsImageCavepics/Obamashouse.jpg

That isn't a coincidence.

It's wonderful there's a black president and all, but the guy's just bringing more of the same old ****. If you want real change, support Nader if you're Democrat, or Ron Paul if you're on the other side of things.

jay81
11-06-2008, 02:01 AM
Damn........Nader speaks the truth. I'm glad someone else is pointing out that for all his rhetoric about "new politics" and "change", Obama is the most corporate sponsored president that this country has ever seen.

He also groveled the lowest before AIPAC. These are very bad omens.

Mtguy8787
11-06-2008, 02:06 AM
Fox News was even condemning the comments Nader made after Obama became president elect.


Nadar is a Class 5 douchebag. What an attention seeking whore.



Doesnt change the facts, or any truth of what was said. Trying to discredit facts or truth presented on the basis of the character of the sayer..... thats the first trick in the book of How To Be A Great Personality Cult Member

Mtguy8787
11-06-2008, 02:09 AM
DIGG this thing.



http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ralph_Nader_s_open_letter_to_Barack_Obama

ElMariachi
11-06-2008, 08:54 AM
Bizzzzzzzzzzzzzzumped.

ElMariachi
11-06-2008, 08:56 AM
Whats funny is how people talk about Obama "fighting for the average guy versus the mean old corporations." What world are they living on? I don't think that there has been a more corporate endorsed campaign in history.



In your nearly two-year presidential campaign, the words ?hope and change,? ?change and hope? have been your trademark declarations. Yet there is an asymmetry between those objectives and your political character that succumbs to contrary centers of power that want not ?hope and change? but the continuation of the power-entrenched status quo.

Far more than Senator McCain, you have received enormous, unprecedented contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests and, most interestingly, big corporate law firm attorneys. Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart. Why, apart from your unconditional vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests investing so much in Senator Obama? Could it be that in your state Senate record, your U.S. Senate record and your presidential campaign record (favoring nuclear power, coal plants, offshore oil drilling, corporate subsidies including the 1872 Mining Act and avoiding any comprehensive program to crack down on the corporate crime wave and the bloated, wasteful military budget, for example) you have shown that you are their man?

Enso
11-06-2008, 09:01 AM
Damn........Nader speaks the truth. I'm glad someone else is pointing out that for all his rhetoric about "new politics" and "change", Obama is the most corporate sponsored president that this country has ever seen.

So, all of a sudden, Obama's no longer socialist, but the most capitalistic? I don't see how you can be the most corporate sponsored and socialist at the same time.

Make up your mind :D

leafs43
11-06-2008, 09:03 AM
I have been saying Obama's cabinet is going to be filled by these corporate interests that backed him.

This only solidifies my point.

ElMariachi
11-06-2008, 09:04 AM
So, all of a sudden, Obama's no longer socialist, but the most capitalistic? I don't see how you can be the most corporate sponsored and socialist at the same time.

Make up your mind :D



Not really capitalistic. Not sure if this guy will be more of a socialist or a fascist. He wants to spread money around to all sorts of people and obviously companies that backed him so strongly in financial terms, are going to want a slice of the pie.

JUSA
11-06-2008, 09:34 AM
So, all of a sudden, Obama's no longer socialist, but the most capitalistic? I don't see how you can be the most corporate sponsored and socialist at the same time.

Make up your mind :D People have been calling him a corporatist for some time now.

ripper6
11-06-2008, 10:35 AM
Obama is an opportunist. He will say/do what he thinks will work to get him where he wants to go - not where the country needs to go, but where he personally wants to go.

He pledged verbally, and in writing, that he would abide by the reformed gov campaign finance. He turned his back on that. He will turn his back on the lefties too.

The media had a Nader blackout all during this campaign. Nader was a legitimate candidate and on the ballot, and a long-time serious nationally-known political figure. The media knew he would expose Obama if he was given any press coverage. So, the press preferred to spend lots of time talking about Sarah Palin's clothes and what newspapers she did/didn't read.

The real isssues, that Nader raises, were ignored and Nader was treated as being non-existent by the media, deliberately, to protect Obama.

It is unlikely Obama will be a 2-term president. Just as he was able to use the primary system's peculiar shakeout to get the nomination, others are going to profit by the great dissaffection that the lefties are going to have when Obama is in office, and they will bring out candidates in the next primaries to oppose him. At the same time the right wing will be grooming excellent articulate young candidates like Bobby Jindal.

Macrobolic
11-06-2008, 10:42 AM
Nadar is a Class 5 douchebag. What an attention seeking whore.

Yep, an attention seeking whore who has always fought for the individual citizen, against the big corporations and for your safety and has done more for you than Obama or McCain combined.

Pull your head out of you a$$ please. Your ignorance is astounding.

Rune
11-06-2008, 10:49 AM
If your running for president as a major party candidate in the US these days you are bought and payed for, that's just how it works... it's fairly obvious too.

Macrobolic
11-06-2008, 10:55 AM
This is another reason that I voted for Nader.

BumP_Therapy
11-06-2008, 11:00 AM
sheppard smith was a douchebag in that interview.......................FUK political correctness! tell it how it is! my god!

jay81
11-06-2008, 11:12 AM
Nader's on the money with ''Uncle Tom''.

Uncle Barry!

Stizzel
11-06-2008, 11:39 AM
Fox News was even condemning the comments Nader made after Obama became president elect.

Nadar is a Class 5 douchebag. What an attention seeking whore.


You should unplug your keyboard rather than continue to embarass yourself.

:)

TE
11-06-2008, 11:42 AM
You should unplug your keyboard rather than continue to embarass yourself.

:)

But he lives in Canada so he MUST know more about the US than us citizens.

SilverSpork
11-06-2008, 11:44 AM
Obama is going to change jack****. His supporters are going to be dissapointed.

RIKTER
11-06-2008, 12:07 PM
If your running for president as a major party candidate in the US these days you are bought and payed for, that's just how it works... it's fairly obvious too.

^^^^^this.

jay81
11-06-2008, 09:44 PM
http://usera.ImageCave.com/JasonsImageCavepics/barky_dees.jpg

leafs43
11-07-2008, 12:31 AM
If your running for president as a major party candidate in the US these days you are bought and payed for, that's just how it works... it's fairly obvious too.

I agree.

But what I find disturbing is Obama said he was going to fight the regular D.C. interests early in his campaign and the cult lapped it up.

Lo and behold 8 months later he is bought and paid for.

ZDub212
11-07-2008, 01:01 AM
I get his point, but I think Nader is a fool regardless.

BearBearBear
08-02-2012, 02:07 PM
I get his point, but I think Nader is a fool regardless.

What the **** is wrong with you you stupid ass mother ****er bumping a 4 year old post like what the ****

Be smart be safe be happy

You're being stupid as ****. Your stupidity could endanger you. You don't deserve to be happy.

Stupid ass mother ****er.

danow
08-02-2012, 02:10 PM
Nader calling a spade a spade.(no racist pun intended)