Thursday, January 03, 2008

Is John Edwards in 2008 that much different than Al Gore in 2000? Not much, right? Then why does Edwards deserve Ralph Nader's endorsement?

Apparently, eight years ago Nader couldn't get himself to endorse Gore and instead jumped into the race (and the rest is history). Then and since, Nader has repeatedly criticized both political parties, believing there was no difference between the two when it came to corruption and selling out.

That being the case doesn't Nader's endorsement of Democrat Edwards negate this longtime contention? If so, what is it about Edwards (and not Gore in 2000) that makes this so? Is Edwards that much of a revolutionary change and departure from the conventional Democrat to satisfy Nader's complaints? (Uh, no).

Nader made a dumb move. The right one was to endorse no one. By doing so, he just made his legacy for the last eight years look that much worse.

No comments: