|
At about the 28 minute mark in the debate Nader was asked about his comment that Kerry is running to the right of Bush. His response went through a lot of topics, but one of his points had to do with Kerry's support of the war resolution. Dean asked him why, if he was so upset about Kerry and the war, did he recommend Edwards for the VP pick. Nader replied that every Democrat on the VP slate was pro-war except for Dean. He then said that Dean wasn't really being considered for obvious reasons.
When he did give his reasons for supporting Edwards, he mention that he was good on "tort, Civil Justice and the right of Americans to sue."
So to sum up, he did not support Dean because he did not have a chance of becoming the VP candidate and he did support Edwards because, even though he disagreed with him on an issue as big as the war resolution, he saw good in his record.
Isn't this the same thing that upsets Nader about Democrats. You know that they support candidates who they disagree with on some big issues but they still believe they will be better the Republicans overall.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this. Maybe Ralph did not mean for me to take his statement in this manor, but I do wonder how he can blast Kerry for supporting the war resolution yet support him picking a running mate that also supported the war resolution. It just seems to me, by his own statement and stated beliefs, that if he agrees with Dean on so many issues, that he would have put his neck out and suggested that Kerry pick Dean for his VP. He also had the choice of suggest that Kerry pick Kucinich, but instead he went with a person he disagreed with but who had a chance of actually getting the nod.
To me it seems like Nader made the decision so many others on the left are making, go with the person who most agrees with you and has a chance of actually winning the White House.
Nader did it with his VP recommendation and I plan on doing it with my vote.
|