Ahh, I see. I didn't read it that way. I just read Raimondo as saying that Ralph criticizes corporate socialism, but his audience doesn't 'get it' when someone like Raimondo cheers. I didn't see a thing in that article that suggested that he's opposed to the DP b/c of he's opposed to socialism.
I dunno--and don't really care--but it does seem like <flush>Ralph</flush> has some sympathies that just seem counterproductive. I don't think he ought to appeal to anti-socialist sentiment by calling it corporate socialism. Calling things corporate welfare is similarly problematic. It plays on the widespread bias against welfare was legitimate in the first place. Why does <flush> Ralph </flush> do that? It's simply expedient? Doesn't make sense to me. If the guy really understands that he's never going to get significant votes, then he has nothing to lose by being honest. It just seems wrong to try to get people on board by using rhetoric that is contradictory. OT1H, he's a good socialist. OTOH, he's using rhetoric that plays on the popular u.s. sentiment against socialism. It doesn't make sense to encourage a popular sentiment that ultimately undermines your supposed program.
But again, not applying it to Kerry is not required of the critic. Your charge is that the person criticizing Nader is a hypocrite. Doesn't hold up as real argument in the first place. In the second place, Doug has said plenty of shity things about Kerry that I don't think he needs to reiterate for the 100 gazillionth time.
kelley
"We live under the Confederacy. We're a podunk bunch of swaggering pious hicks."
--Bruce Sterling