Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Giuliani not the only one considering a run for president
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Yes, the favorite of the extreme left may again toss his hat in the ring:
Ralph Nader, the consumer rights activist and two-time presidential candidate, sharply criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton Sunday and told CNN he is considering another run for the White House in 2008.

"I don't think she has the fortitude," Nader told CNN's Wolf Blitzer when asked if he would support Clinton's candidacy. "Actually, she's really a panderer and a flatterer as she goes around the country. You'll see more of that."

Saying he doesn't like "long campaigns," Nader said he would decide on a presidential run "later in the year."

When asked if he would be more likely to run if Clinton won the Democratic nomination, Nader said, "It would make it more important that that be the case."

Nader angered many Democrats in 2000 who felt he peeled enough votes away from Al Gore in Florida to hand George Bush the election victory.
Implications? See the last paragraph. And that is probably more of a threat/problem if Hillary Clinton is the candidate given her high negative rating. I've always said she was a '49% candidate', meaning she will never draw a majority in a national vote because of her negatives. Subtract 2 or 3% via a Nader candidacy and it becomes more likely we'll see the GOP in the White House in '08.

And if you recall, I cited DUers who claimed up front that if Clinton ran, they were voting Green. And despite Clinton's attempt to disavow her war vote, it isn't going to convince that group to vote for her when the time comes and a Nader candidacy will give them an option that my be fatal to her chances should she be the Democratic nominee.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Ah, nostalgia. Power to the people! Up against the wall m*! Make love, not war!

Where’s Harold Stassen now that we need him?
Written By: Dave Schuler
I’ve always said she was a ’49% candidate’, meaning she will never draw a majority in a national vote because of her negatives. Subtract 2 or 3% via a Nader candidacy and it becomes more likely we’ll see the GOP in the White House in ’08.
Sounds like whistling past the graveyard to me.....

Counting on Nader is not much of a of a business plan...
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
Run, Ralph, run!
Written By: John Norris Brown

Let me state clearly what McQ has stated clearly, but in a different way: there is no way that Hillary Clinton will find the votes to put her over the top to win the presidency. Someone in the blogosphere (whom I can’t recall at the moment) made the point that there are no more votes for her to find. She has the highest "known factor" of any candidate that will run this cycle - there are no unknowns to shift her direction.

And of those that "know" her (ie. most of the electorate), I would suggest that 40% loathe her. Not dislike, not hate, but loathe her, and everything that she stands for. I for one rank amongst that group. In my book, she is so awful as a candidate that I would hold my nose and vote for McCain (the presumptive Rep nominee that would oppose her for pres), because between him and her, he’s the second most anti-liberty. It would be a coinflip for me between her and Kofi Annan, were he eligible.

Now the above 40% probably represent the right side of the political sphere, but from some polls I’ve read, it doesn’t look much better for on the left side of the political sphere. Her poll numbers are unexceptional (although admittedly she leads in many states), and if you’ve read what democrats say about her, she has every reason to be worried. And if liberals are counting on her to win it all for them, then maybe they oughtta not whistle past that same graveyard.

She’s like a Texas hold ’em player sitting at the final table with a giant stack of chips, and everyone elses stack is much smaller. The problem she has is she’s not the best player at the table. So while she can money whip most of the players out of pots, the better players are going to chip away at her stack until she ends up in second or third with all her chips gone, when it started out as hers to lose.
Written By: Warrior Needs Food Badly
URL: http://
Counting on Nader is not much of a of a business plan...
I said she was a 49% candidate. In most places that means she won’t win. Nader simply makes the loosing percentage lower.
Written By: McQ
"And if you recall, I cited DUers who claimed up front that if Clinton ran, they were voting Green."

Is Kermit running?
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks