Home | About | Donate

Why Bernie Sanders was Right to Run as a Democrat



From the ever-sagacious Ralph Nader:

"As one of the more successful third-party presidential candidates in recent U.S. history, I know firsthand the obstacles Sanders might have faced if he had run as an independent. The reality is that Sanders is right, and the backlash against him reflects all too well what two-party tyranny can do to a more-than-nominal third-party challenger."

The above quote should be used ANY time a C.D. "Trojan horse" poster pushes the meme that Sanders is a sell-out for having opted to run under the Democratic Brand.

These same posters otherwise assert that Sanders is a sellout because he will support Hillary, regardless of the outcome of his own ever-attaining-momentum campaign.

Their third line of attack is that Sanders is not a real socialist (as if any other viable candidate gives a shit about the conditions of the Middle Class and/or working poor).

And the fourth is his purported enthusiasm for the MIC as if it comes anywhere near to the eager support for pointless aggression or endless war shown by the Republican clown team and/or Mrs. Clinton (who, like her husband, promotes ostensibly pro-business, pro-war formerly branded as obvious Republican Platforms and policies.)

The "purity" brigade has to know that there is ZERO chance of achieving their stated purist objectives in a nation where perhaps 33% gravitate to a Trump or a Cruz. Therefore, by arguing against the sanest and most humane candidate, they are really arguing for sustaining the pro-business/pro-war status quo.

But they blame Sanders for the ills of this nation.

If the stances I just delineated are not proof-positive of a disingenuous PRESENCE in these threads, what is?


This goes out to the purported Jill Stein dream team who argue, against all odds, for this individual as if the logistical FACTS on the ground are immaterial:

"Just appearing on the ballot is a challenge for independent candidates. While any Democrat or Republican who wins their party’s nomination is guaranteed a place on general-election ballots nationwide, smaller parties must, in many states, petition election officials to be listed. And that is a delicate process, easy for the major parties to disrupt. Their operatives have a number of tools at their disposal to knock third-party candidates off the ballot, render their campaigns broke, and harass and ostracize them."

More proof for just how difficult it is to mount any viable challenge to the established duopoly:

"In 2004, Democratic operatives were especially zealous in their efforts against my campaign. They hired private investigators to harass my campaign’s petition circulators in their homes in Ohio and Oregon and falsely threatened them with criminal prosecution for fake names that saboteurs had signed on their petitions, according to sworn affidavits from the workers and letters containing threats that were presented in court. Our petitions were also disqualified on arbitrary grounds: In Ohio, complaints submitted in court and to the office of the Secretary of State by groups of Democratic voters led officials there to invalidate our petitions. They disqualified hundreds of signatures on one list, for instance, because of a discrepancy involving the petition circulator’s signature."

Thank you, Mr. Nader, for going public with all these should be illegalities.

Of course, these types of maneuvers fall in line with denying voters the right to vote (Voter I.D. cards, wiping legitimate names from the lists on the allegation that such persons are former felons), tampering with computer-programmed voting machines, distorting votes through district gerrymandering, and inviting "The Supremes" to dictate the ultimate national election outcome.


This is precisely how the MACHINE works in order to sustain the ILLUSION of "free" elections and give citizens the ILLUSION of choice:

"Because if he had run as an independent, he would have faced only one question daily in the media, as I did: “Do you see yourself as a spoiler?” The implication being, of course, that he had no chance of winning. His popular agenda would have been totally ignored by a horse-race-obsessed mass media, which would have latched on instead to a narrative in which Sanders was unfairly hurting Hillary Clinton’s chances against whichever Republican wound up with the other major-party nomination, as if any Democrat is automatically entitled to the votes of progressives."

Recently I related that the Hillary team plays dirty. Did anyone on C.D. know how dirty they played with Mr. Nader, or about the following, in particular?

"Democrats falsely accused my campaign of fraud in state after state. In Pennsylvania, they forced us off the ballot after challenging more than 30,000 signatures on spurious technical grounds. My running mate, Peter Camejo, and I were ordered to pay more than $81,000 in litigation costs the plaintiffs, a group of Democratic voters, said they incurred. In an effort to collect, their law firm, Reed Smith ,which the DNC also hired in that cycle, froze my personal accounts at several banks for eight years."


If Sanders endorses neocon Hillary instead of running as an independent, is he a sell out?


It can be no coincidence that the majority of posters (most of whom enjoy a long list of ever-altering screen names) insist on this "blaming voters" meme.

Here, Mr. Nader carefully lays out the assaults, obstacles, and barriers placed in the way of any so bold as to challenge the duopoly's hold on power.

But posters like you appear to be TASKED with turning the problem of Power that is not answerable to The People into "the people's own fault."

When individuals are overpowered, they don't have agency.

It's been said that when women are raped, they are raped again when they seek justice through an obviously sexist, paternalistic, patriarchal system of rules and so-called law.

When the Black Community experiences violence at the hands of "officers of the peace," it must address the same racist system that produced the bad cop... for theoretical redress.

There is a TREMENDOUS amount of team conditioning that goes on in the U.S. It starts in homes that follow fundamentalist religious teachings (or are Conservative). There, the us versus them meme starts to hit hard.

Next, all throughout school years FOOT BALL is held up as a near religious spectacle. And the fighting between 2 teams becomes a powerful subliminal message.

This "team" thing also shows up in its next stage as nationalism, and inside the nation as 2 parties vying for power.

Most people recognize that they live in a TRAP. That these 2 parties control elections which forces them to choose between what to them appears as the lesser of evils.

MANY times I've pointed out that blaming the rats running the maze in lieu of those powers that have designed the maze is disingenuous, absolutely lacking in compassion, and shows deference to the establishment and its established powers.

It's on a par with blaming slaves for slavery, blaming workers for decimated wages and jobs shipped overseas, and blaming the Palestinians for living as virtual prisoners.

In each instance, the very real obstacles that result from asymmetric power, agency, tools, resources, and the force of law are ignored as if "both sides" are somehow equitable in all the items mentioned.


Why not run as a Democrat. Sanders caucases with the Democrats in the Senate and has been appointed to committees by the Democrats but more importantly his support largely comes from people who wanted Elizabeth Warren to run and of course she is a Democrat. He represents a major wing of the Democratic party, known as the progressive wing. I don't think Sanders cares about ending the so-called duopoly which is an obsession of Nader's and he certainly doesn't agree with Nader that there is little difference between the parties. Sanders and Nader are on different pages. It made sense for Nader to run as an independent just as it makes sense for Sanders to run as a Democrat.


Have you ever served Jury Duty?

Do you understand why lawyers get to conduct their voir dire? That is, query would-be members of the jury to learn--in advance--of individuals whose minds might ALREADY be made up before having heard the case's evidence?

There is a reason for that. It's called "the presumption of innocence."

Mr. Sanders is a principled man. He has had to make difficult compromises in his political career. That is the nature of "the beast." He is sincere and he didn't come by his current positions due to some audience-tested PR stunt. These positions were the ones he's worked for over the course of several decades.

When and IF the time comes for Mr. Sanders to be forced to take that position, I will listen to what he has to say and HOPE that he does not support Mrs. Clinton.

Nonetheless, there ARE great and GRAVE dangers when the Repugs. hold up climate-denying buffoons when climate-related disasters are escalating profoundly.

And there ARE great dangers to Muslims (inside the U.S and outside), Latinos, the Black Community, and women if an evangelical or Republican--pandering to those narrow minded, poorly educated voters manages to obtain the Oval Office... particularly when their idea of foreign relations is naked carpet bombing of nations they don't like, nations that are trying to retaliate for years of military bludgeoning by this nation's unhinged MIC (along with its NATO enablers),


As a previous Nader supporter, you just nailed it.

And the ignominy of the dems., blaming Nader for costing Gore the election!


Not only was I a Nader supporter (and I also voted for Jill Stein in a prior election), when this premise occurred to me: What would the world look like if a truly GREAT individual could be cloned-... I developed it into a full movie script and turned the clone into Ralph Nader. In other words, when pondering what individual alive at that time (2000) could make the greatest difference (if there was more than one of him!) I chose Nader.

Like ALL of my movie scripts (which number 8), Hollywood has rejected every one of them. And I've mentioned in the past that when I attended a script-writing seminar in Key West (many moons ago), then luminary script writer, William Goldman (he penned "All The President's Men" and other big titles) told the audience two memorable things:

A."You have better odds of being hit by lightning than having your script read in Hollywood."

B. "The average movie script is written for (at the level of) the teenage boy who wants to get laid on a Friday night."

I have found both to be true.

Not only are there major obstacles to being a successful 3rd party candidate, writers & visionaries who offer visions that fall outside of the Control Paradigm (i.e. existing establishment preferences) are completely ignored. Of course, in countries like Chile (under Pinochet) and Argentina (during its "civil" war) they were also rounded up, disappeared, and shot.

The rebel has NEVER had it easy.


One of the more intriguing characters inside the brilliant "Matrix" film Trilogy series is the entity tasked with "balancing the equation."

Magnetism is the result of the interplay between negative and positively charged atoms.

The human body is composed of precisely half its genetic composition taken from the father (yang) and half from the mother (yin).

Atomic mass is held together through the complementary interplay set between an atom's positively-charged nucleus and its negatively-charged electrons.

There are countless examples of how polarity works to "balance the equation."

Therefore, while the following paragraph is utterly true; it's important to also remind that the Republican party was already completely complicit in these same protocols for decades. This mention would balance the equation in that the Republicans, after all, are the party favored by the MIC, the Koch Brothers, Pete Petersen, and the various energy behemoths:

"The other is that Sanders has demonstrated the relative weakness of the corporate Democrats and their major loss of trust among the people, especially the young. “It’s sad and ironic how undemocratic the party has become,” says Bill Curry, a former White House counselor on domestic policy to President Bill Clinton and now a writer for Salon. He compares the party to “a closely held PAC used mostly to advance the careers of political insiders and the interests of corporate donors.”


Thank you Ralph Nader! Though I voted for Nader, he is right that it is naive to think Sanders can simply run as an independent of that if he had, we'd be seeing the results of his efforts.


Bernie! Take one from the "playbook". Walk softly when in office, and carry a big stick.

" Be without fear in the face of your enemies.
Be brave and upright that God may love thee.
Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death.
Safe guard the helpless and do no wrong.
That is your oath."


Glad for an opportunity here to thank Ralph Nader one of our greatest American heroes for all the work he has done and continues to do every day of his life on behalf of his country and its citizens. That anyone can blame Nader for Gore's loss in 2000 shows the ignorance of those who point a finger at Ralph instead of those truly to blame, the democrats who convinced Gore to give up the struggle in Florida. I was one of 25,000 citizens in the streets in Tallahassee demanding that the court in Florida permit the counting of every vote, along with Jessie Jackson, thousands of union folks from Florida, Georgia and elsewhere and various other local officials and residents. I am glad Bernie chose to run in a major party though I have little respect for it. Until we come together to build a true grassroots movement when this election season is over it will have been for naught. The political future of this nation is in the hands of its citizens. Are you ready to do your part? Now is the time. in the meantime GO BERNIE GO!


These powers are also global in scope and not shy about hiring a little thing called a private mercenary army.

If they manage to finagle TPP and TIPP into binding law, indeed... it will be harder; yet this fight IS global in scope primarily because the architects of financial deregulation rigged the markets (and the economy) on a global scale; they've unleashed the energy cartels who do worldwide harm; and they also grant power to odious companies like Monsanto which is rendering seed sterile wherever its craven machinations touch down.

This goes way beyond U.S. citizens. And remember, the arbitration court that TIPP and TPP will turn to when corporations claim threats against their all-mighty claims to profits will be composed of their OWN members: think U.S. Supreme Court governing on a global basis!


It's just as tunnel-visioned to blame the Dems who "convinced Gore" to give up his claim (to the Presidency) as it is to blame Nader.

There are at least 5 culpable agencies that ALL contributed to the debacle that manifested as the Bush Junta and its quest to ardently fulfill the agenda of already planned wars as related in: "The Project for a New American Century."

  1. Karen Harris and Jeb Bush who used TAINTED voting rolls to preclude many viable voters from being allowed to vote!
  2. The Supreme Court co-opting the will of The People
  3. The Congress persons and Senators who did not support the Black Caucus as it demanded honest vote recounts
  4. Whatever influences got to Gore to insist that he "stand down."
  5. The Bush family dynasty and its ties to the CIA and Deep State (not to mention the Carlyle Group, hungry for a war through which to beef up its international arms sales trade)


I too voted for Nader in 2000 and had many uncomfortable conversations w/friends who were pissed I was wasting my vote and essentially voting for Bush. Of course, neither accusation was correct. I was voting for Nader, not Bush, and if Gore was to lose it was his weakness as a candidate, not my misguided vote that was the cause. As it turned out, all that really mattered in that election was that that the Supreme Court was voting for Bush. In any event, what I really have here is a question: how the heck do you get a third party viable and competitive? I know there's no manual on this but is there a good book or a magazine article or web site? I'd like to consider myself a registered member of the Green Party but that doesn't seem possible... not here in NH anyway. There's no "Green" box to check on the voter registration form that I've ever seen.


This brings up the question: If Nader had run as a Democrat, could he have actually won? If he were to run again, would he run as a Democrat this time based on what he is saying here?

But as far as Sanders goes, we all know he has pledged to endorse Clinton if he doesn't get the nomination. And in regards to what he will do if he loses to Clinton, I believe he has said he would not run as an independent because he "didn't want to be a spoiler". But that was before he did what he has done, which has just blown away all predictions as to how well he could do. Does he still believe he would be a spoiler? What if he thought about it and decided he could actually WIN on a third party?! Then Hillary Clinton would be the spoiler. Is it possible he could change his mind on this? If he DID change his mind, and if he could actually win on a 3rd party, then I would actually HOPE that he does NOT get the nomination. If Sanders could actually move all his support over to a 3rd party and vie from there, and WIN, then THAT would be a REAL revolution!! No one could say you can't win as 3rd party anymore. It could really open up the whole election process. The Democrats and Republicans could become the weak outside-the-mainstream parties who are trying to stay relevant! Wouldn't THAT be something? Of course, it could never work because Americans are so party-oriented in their thinking about politics. Bernie Sanders could say he supports exactly what he is saying now as a Democrat, but all these people would go, oh my, but he CAN'T win on a 3rd party, that's just absurd. And so many would no longer vote for him for that reason alone and he WOULD lose. Oh well...


Your friends have it wrong. All the actual evidence makes clear Hillary is the larger war monger.


I have many relatives in L.A. and so true! One of my acquaintances showed me a script that I took a cursory look at and I thought it was great and when I asked him what Hollywood thought of it and he had the same answers, except he said this time he wrote if from a teenage level, but still to no avail.