Ralph Nader: Hillary Clinton is “Poster Child for the Military-Industrial-Complex”

October 6, 2013   |   admintam

“She hugs Kissinger. She hobnobs with Bob Rubin and the Wall Street crowd,” said Ralph Nader of Hillary Clinton. “I mean it’s almost a caricature.”

In an interview for MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown” on Monday, Ralph Nader urged progressive Democrats to break ranks and challenge Hillary Clinton in the upcoming presidential race of 2016—lamenting that the former Secretary of State is once again emerging as the “inevitable” candidate because the left in the country has lost its “movement sensibilities.”

“Somebody must challenge from the left, because, I mean, Hillary Clinton, who started out as a progressive out of Yale Law School and Wellesley, she’s become almost the poster child for the military-industrial complex,” Nader stated.

“She hugs Kissinger. She hobnobs with Bob Rubin and the Wall Street crowd,” Nader told host Chuck Todd. “I mean it’s almost a caricature. But you know on social issues, like pro-choice, children’s issues, you know she keeps that liberal sheen.”

Nader warned that elected officials on the left have lost their bargaining power because they have failed to challenge establishment Democrat practices.

“The problem with progressives in the Democratic Party is—they’re hanging on. There is Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders—but they’re fairly marginalized. They’re not in the center because they don’t threaten to break. The right wing does threaten to break sometimes,” Nader explained.

More progressive members of Congress and more liberally-minded Democrats, said Nader, “are very skittish about challenging the dominant players in their party.”

Nader was also critical of President Obama, who he says has done little to help average workers or lift up organized labor.

“[Obama] doesn’t like to associate with organized labor,” Nader said. “He walked across Lafayette Park over a year ago to pay homage to the Chamber of Commerce. He didn’t go around the corner to meet with representatives of 13 million workers. Isn’t that strange for a Democratic president?” Nader said.

With Obama leading and Clinton waiting in the wings, the Democratic party, says Nader, has failed to challenge the nature of the dangerous relationship between powerful military contractor and elected officials while forgoing its obligation to address the serious problems plaguing the country, including a devastated working class and an economy dominated by elite interests over the needs of the poor.

Watch the full interview here.

Source: https://www.commondreams.org/

Author: admintam

Follow us on Instagram @TheAntiMedia

Share This Post On


  1. He did not give us Bush.
    Jeb did by fudging the count and moving voting sitesand confusing black voters. Jeb's the guilty one.

    Post a Reply
  2. If you didn't vote for Nader you voted for the best of the worse. If people would just vote for the best candidate and not the establishments choice Bush would not have been president, thousands of people in the middle east wouldn't have died, and the Bushes and Chaneys of the world wouldn't be millions of dallors richer.

    Post a Reply
  3. Eugene Barufkin Ralph knew that his running third party was taking votes almost entirely from the Democrat. Then when the vote was so close, Jeb stepped in and did his part – then the Supreme Court with five conservatives did it final. ALL NINE of the justices voted dishonestly. All five conservatives voted for Federal Power – All four liberals voted for state's rights. It lost me my respect for the Supreme Court.

    Post a Reply
  4. Skittish is a cop out. They are cowards, why call it anything else? This guy below thinks Jeb Bush is single handedly guilty for rigging the 2000 Florida vote? Have you heard this dip shit speak? I wouldn't trust anyone in that family with a potato gun, or solving a crossword puzzle…..It's amazing people still think these actors on T.V. are the ones really making meaningful decisions in the world. March on sheeple.

    Post a Reply
  5. The truth is you can't get elected by promising to upset any apple carts. The many who would be helped a llittle will take you for granted, while those who would be hurt will combine and concentrate their forces against you.

    Post a Reply
  6. James Eagle Let me remind you that the people DID vote for the best candidate. Gore got more votes. The "establishment", however got its way. And, realistically, the outcome can't be blamed on Nader. What has me puzzled is why is he pissing in the water now? For me, I will vote for Bernie first, but if Hillary gets the nomination I won't hesitate to vote for her. Anybody think ANY of the Republican candidates to be remotely acceptable??

    Post a Reply
  7. I can understand those who blame Ralph Nader for allowing George W. Bush [with Jeb and the Supreme Court's help] to steal the 2000 election, however, I place the blame on Al Gore [besides the aforementioned individuals who conspired to steal the election]. If Al Gore had stood up for working people and ran as a liberal, rather than running to the corporatist center, far fewer Americans and Floridians in particular, would have sat out the election or voted for Ralph Nader rather than voting for Gore. I remember one debate between Bush and Gore being described as a "lovefest". Bush would make a conservative statement, and Gore's response seemed to often be "I agree" or "me too, but less". The last straw was picking Joe Liberman for his running mate. It got to the point where I felt that I should vote for Ralph Nader–not because Nader had a chance of winning, but to force the Democrats to do something for progressives. As long as the Democratic Party believes that it's a given that liberals and progressives will vote Democratic, they have no incentive to do anything for liberals. I think that they are finally starting to get the message that if they don't actually follow through on progressive ideas and promises, that "the base" will not come out and vote for them–especially on non-Presidential elections, like 2010 and 2014. With all that being said, I will vote for the Democratic candidate for president, even if it turns out to be Hillary Clinton, because all of the Republicans are scary and dangerous.

    Post a Reply
  8. David Valenta Thanks for the date info. That explains why in this, Ralph Nader is speaking as if it's a given that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. I still believe that Hillary Clinton is more likely to be the Democratic nominee than Bernie Sanders [or someone else], but it has become clear that there is a fair chance that Clinton will not win the Democratic Primary.

    Bernie Sanders relying on small donors can be looked at as a disadvantage, but it does have one advantage over relying on a handful of big donors: Sanders does not have to worry about big donors pulling the plug if he loses a few primaries.

    Just one of the disconcerting aspects of big money politics is that oftentimes, whether a candidate is in it for the long haul or not is dependent on whether big donors choose to keep bankrolling their campaign. Is the reason that Jeb Bush is still in the race and Scott Walker isn't that Walker had less popular support–or is it because Walker's big money donors pulled the plug, whereas Bush still has the funding to persist?

    Post a Reply
  9. if it wasn't for nader, your children's heads and your grandchildren's heads would be bouncing around the car like bowling pins being struck by a bowling ball. . . . . seat belts is just one of the things he brought to the country . . . .

    Post a Reply
  10. Nader hasn't been relevant since 1965. Were it not for his ego, we wouldn't have had the W disaster.

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *