TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM
July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
28.03.2008
Harmonic Convergence of Spoilers

 

Yesterday, Nick Kristof wrote a New York Times column comparing Hillary Clinton's hopeless, fratricidal campaign to Ralph Nader's similar third-party effort in 2000. There is indeed something to the parallel. Clinton's chances of winning the presidency, while not zero, are much closer to Nader's than to Obama or McCain's. (You can find one breakdown of the impossible Clinton math here.) Her rationales for continuing have the same flavor, all full of grandiose rhetoric about the rights of the voters combined with a stubborn refusal to examine the practical consequences in any realistic way.

So, you'll never guess who thinks Clinton should ignore the consequences and stay in the race.

--Jonathan Chait

Posted: Friday, March 28, 2008 5:22 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

miceelf said:

AND stay in the race!!!! Grammar, Mr. Chait. You're almost photogenic enough to ignore it. But not quite.

March 28, 2008 5:58 PM

psantillana said:

This fills my heart with black comedy joy. The way he spaces out the sentences, and the picture, it's like "Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handey. You know how sometimes when someone's admiration of another is a credit to both people? Like with Squirrel Bait and Leonard Cohen? This is the opposite of that.

March 28, 2008 6:12 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Hillary/Lieberman 2008: The Independent Democratic Ticket.

You know Lieberman would go for it, since it would all but guarantee his pal McCain's victory.

March 28, 2008 6:12 PM

WoodyBombay said:

Maybe Hillary really CAN bring this damaged, divided nation together. Who else can sit down with both Richard Mellon Scaife AND Ralph Nader ?

March 28, 2008 6:37 PM

sabatia said:

Nader/Clinton or Clinton/Nader: No matter how you arrange it, it's a dream ticket. Not even the fringy Greens want to touch Ralph anymore. But if they run together, they will have my vote. Not. Two peas in a pod: self-righteous, pedantic, entitled, and I won't even mention, boring. Seriously though, don't they make a great political couple, cause Bill is going to dump Hill or Hill is going to dump Bill when it no longer suits either of their political ambitions. That day is coming soon. Hillary, make your move to a real man while you've still got your looks.

March 28, 2008 6:42 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

Never saw the Nader site before.

I checked his issues page.

I agree with about a third of those: single payor; cut the military budget; aggressive crackdown on corporate crime (the welfare bit is a dangerous fantasy); open up the debates (good); reverse US policy in the ME (great); impeach Bush/Cheney (there is a case, and not a blowjob in sight) and there is scope for a change in the tax laws.

I suppose that makes me a third Naderite.

Scary.

March 28, 2008 8:31 PM

rozenson said:

"I suppose that makes me a third Naderite."

I suspect most people on this site -- much more so in domestic politics -- share much of Ralph's views, if maybe with more moderate approaches. He's not out of the mainstream of American politics, he just doesn't understand when he's hurting the cause he should be helping.

March 29, 2008 1:32 AM

yerubal said:

With due respect (to Rozenson), Nader does understand whom he's hurting.

When Nader graced us with Bush in place of Gore, he had specifically promised

to avoid campaigning in states where he could make a difference --- and then he invested

his main efforts in those very states. So, if you ask, what kind of man would do that,

and what would he be doing by it, you come to answers such as ego,

narcissistic blindness, and it's hard to say what he knows and what he doesn't, except ...

except that he's not doing what he says he's doing. Rather, he's doing something

egoistical enough to subordinate other considerations.

I don't know what would compare to that, in Hillary's case.

March 30, 2008 6:55 PM