> To ask whether Obama will be be either Uncle Sam for the people
> or Uncle Tom to the corporations and then follow that up
> excoriating Obama for cozying up to corporations and calling
> him a corporate toady is to answer his own question.
I presume Obama is the only one who can answer the question; Nader, as a lawyer, seems comfortable to use past evidence to support his suspicions.
> I take you you did not believe the question was answered quite plainly
> in the rest of Naders diatribe?
I think Nader made a lot of good points and threw down a big challenge. It's unfortunate that so many people (you included: see "I think it's a mistake for any white person to use the term") think that _just the use of the term_ is enough to dismiss the rest of what he was saying. I'm surprised some of the people doing that are on this list; I expect it from Fox News, of course -- and so did Ralph Nader.
I mean, what a setup: would you apologize to Fox News under that kind of circumstance? I give Nader props for even agreeing to be interviewed by that scumbag.
> If I listen to it again (or read the transcript) what exactly would
> you have me look for that might convince me his question was a genuine
> inquiry?
Oh, the question is serious alright; so he thought he was being clever by using the Uncle Sam/Uncle Tom contrast ... and it falls a little flat.
So what?
-----
Although the term developed in the context of US slavery (which was largely but not exclusively Black), it's useful to remember that it's not a conecpt that only existed in US-thus-Black-slavery -- it's really a class reference, and I think Nader's point is poignant in that context.
If Obama does what Nader suggests he might, he deserves to be called names.
/jordan