Ralph Nader comments hit the mark.

Original story at Ralph Nader Partial Transcript from Rocky Mountain News

It was sad watching MSNBC trash Ralph Nader and his comments about Barack Obama's candidacy. MSNBC and its "pundits" called Ralph Nader "out of touch", "craving attention", "comments from an old guy" "out of it", and that the comments were racist.

What Ralph Nader said, in my opinion, was that Barack Obama has been bought by George Soros and Company. Barack will avoid confrontation with anybody that supports or is supported by Soros. Of course MSNBC will be all over Nader and trash him since they are part of the Soros led media takeover.

Rather than being a very popular, maverick candidate with a shining star future in the democratic party whose grass roots candidacy barely lost to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama chose to be owned by George Soros in exchange for the over the top help it gave him against Hillary Clinton. Ralph Nader saw exactly what has happened and how it has compromised Barack Obama and hit a bullseye with his comments.

I believe that the level of media collusion backing George Soros and subsequently supporting each other already exists. Ralph Nader's comments may have been attention getting, but they were right on the mark, Barack Obama is beholden to too many other interests.

George Soros, Huffington Post, MSNBC, MoveOn, Media Matters, Newsweek, and CNN have played favorites politically while claiming to be news oriented non biased media. This is the kind of fraud that needs to be investigated by the FBI.

Here is the transcript of what Nader said from the Rocky Mountain News.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: "Do you see Barack Obama as qualitatively different than Al Gore or any other Democrats. He talks about taking on lobbyists, not taking money directly from lobbyists ... People portray him as being different. Do you see him as being any better than Al Gore or any of the other Democrats that you've opposed over the years?"

Nader: "No. I mean, he's deceiving people. He takes, he takes ... In this very building he would take money from corporate lawyers who are not registered lobbyists but whose desks are across the aisle from corporate lawyers who are registered lobbyists in the same law firm. That has been reported more than once in the mainstream press ... Six out of seven industries, as of a month ago, have given more money to Obama than they have to McCain, only the transportation industry is more equal opportunity corruption.

"Look at the health care industry. It has poured money into his campaign. The securities industry, the defense industry. No.

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."

"I think his main problem is that he censors himself. He knows exactly who has power, who has too much, who has too little, what needs to be done right down to the community level. But he has bought the advice that if you want to win the election, you better take it easy on the corporate abuses and do X, Y, Z. When I hear that I say, 'Oh, I see. So he's doing all this to win the election, and then he'll be different.

"Well let's see if it worked. Did it work for Mondale? Did it work for Dukakis? Did it work for Clinton? Yes, but only because of Perot? Did it work for Gore? Did it work for Kerry ... ?"

Q: "Do you think he's trying to, what was your term, 'talk white?'"

NADER: "Of course. I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law. Haven't heard a thing.

"I mean, the amount of economic exploitation in the ghettos is shocking. You'd think he'd propose a task force to at least study it. I mean, these people are eroded every day. The kids, bodies are asbestos and lead, municipal services discriminate against them because it's the poor area, including fire and police protection and building code enforcement. And then the lenders, the loan sharks get at them, and the dirty food ends up in the ghettos, like the contaminated meat. It's a dumping ground for shoddy merchandise. You don't see many credit unions there. You don't see many libraries there. You don't see many health clinics there. This is, we're talking 40-50 million Americans who are predominantly African-Americans and Latinos. Anybody see that kind of campaigning? Have you seen him campaign in real poor areas of the city very frequently? No, he doesn't campaign there."

Q: "What do you think the purpose of that is?"

NADER: "He wants to show that he is not a threatening, a political threatening, another politically-threatening African-American politician.

"He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as a black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

The Hillary Effect.

The Hillary Effect

Hillary Clinton has a few things going for her that might make her a great president. For starters, Hillary has influenced at least one past presidential race. It was Hillary holding up a sign for Bill Clinton to read during a 1992 debate that said "It's the Economy, Stupid" that helped Bill Clinton gain traction in his first presidential campaign and subsequent presidency. The following eight years of being wife of a president also makes Hillary Clinton uniquely qualified since no other presidential candidate has ever had that viewpoint of the presidency.

Moving forward to the 2008 presidential campaign and situations have arisen that showcase why Hillary Clinton might make a great president. For starters, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign was originally funded in 2007 with serious, maximum donor amounts of $2,300. In 2008 Hillary's donations have now morphed into hundreds of thousands of smaller donations of anywhere from 10 dollars to a hundred dollars. Yes, Hillary Clinton's campaign lives on and is thriving at the hand of the true blue collar american citizen.

How many candidates from past elections started with one kind of very specific type of a funding constituency but then had to rely on another, completely different constituency to actually help propel them to victory. The wealthy, having reached their $2,300 donation cap, stood helplessly by as small donations poured in to reinvigorate Hillary Clinton's campaing. It is quite possible that this has never happened before and it speaks to a greater truth, Hillary has a huge coalition of support that has managed to survive the abandonment by black voters who had supported Bill Clinton in huge numbers in the 90's.

Although Hillary Clinton has literally had to rely on many different demographic categories to boost her recent campaign success, Hillary has not had to sell out her values even when appearing on conservative channel Fox Television opposite Bill O'Reilly! Never before has a democratic candidate been so mercilessly attacked by democratic "progressives" such as Huffington Post, Move On, Kos, Oprah Winfrey, Air America, the Kennedys, Emil Jones, James E. Clyburn, David Geffen, MIchael Moore, Bill Richardson, Larry David, Bill Mahrer, David Letterman, MSNBC television "pundits" including Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, plus various articles in several magazines that either lampooned Hillary Clinton and her "sinking ship campaign" OR vilified Hillary Clinton by accusing her of staying in the race for selfish reasons, even though Hillary Clinton STILL retained almost 50% of the popular vote.

For the first time ever in the democratic primary, a democratic candidate has received more public hostility from internal democratic and progressive pundet forces than from the opposing Republican party! If Hillary Clinton defeats John McCain this fall, Republicans may still feel an awkward kinship towards Hillary Clinton because they personally witnessed her barbaric treatment at the hands of the lunatic angry fringe part of her own democratic party that refused to be civil or respectful towards Hillary Clinton.

In the past the democratic progressive lunatic fringe was unleashed against the Republicans while the democratic leader could just stand by and benefit even though they did not actually initiate the attack. The democratic progressive lunatic fringe usually makes most Republicans do a slow burn and helps to create more hate for democratic values. But how can Republicans do a slow burn over Hillary Clinton when the democratic progressive lunatic fringe has spent a good deal of their time attacking, Hillary Clinton!

Rush Limbaugh ridiculed Hillary Clinton a week or two before the Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont primaries after Hillary said "She would work hard" to find solutions. But if Hillary Clinton combines "working hard", with intelligence, kinship and spreading success around she may be able to successfully guide several normally clashing factions. Hillary Clinton just may surprise many as those normally opposed to her may find her more acceptable after the hostility many in her own party have put her through. While the democratic progressive lunatic fringe insanely screams that Hillary is ruining the democratic party, HIllary Clinton has built a coalition that extends well beyond the rich, democratic progressive lunatic fringe.

Hillary Clinton has trumped Barrack Obama's attempt to build a coalition by actually building a real coalition that is comprised of true diversity, and that is change we can all learn to thrive from.

The Clintons have been hit hard from all sides, yet still remain Popular.

The Clintons have been hit hard from all sides, yet still remain Popular.

The Clintons appear to have a longer list of people criticizing them than has ever been witnessed in prior democratic races. These "progressives" are noxious and the media will take any sound bite that is exhaled by these blowhards and try to make it sound like breaking news when all it is is breaking wind. Huffington Post, KOS, Move On, plus an assorted list of television news "pundits" such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Andrea Mitchell to name just a few, use comments made by Emil Jones, Senator Clyburn, Michael Moore, The Kennedy's, Maria Shriver, Oprah Winfrey, as if their words are more than the biased opinion that it is.

I got involved in DEFENDING Hillary Clinton after I saw the lack of any investigative journalism over how the caucus state voting was being given way too much importance in trying to create consensus, false as it was, that Hillary could no longer win the nomination. If Hillary Clinton can get 50% of the popular vote with all of those factions working against her on a daily basis, plus Barrack Obama outspending her 3-1 while he still loses key states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, it becomes obvious to me that Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate.

If each of the groups mentioned above have influenced the race by an overall average of 1 percent each, that ends up equaling a 20% overall shift in vote. If these groups had not been so one sided in all of their efforts, Hillary could have had as much as 55% to 60% of the popular vote to Barrack Obama's 40-45% of the popular vote. It's taking too much money and effort to prop Barrack Obama towards the democratic nomination, by know that should becoming clear to the delegates and the super delegates.